Vaccine Vindication

Mr. Murse · Jan 21, 2014

I am not "anti-vaccine", but I do have some reservations about certain specific ones and about them being mandatory (particularly the flu vaccine). Honestly, I kind of sit on the fence on this issue because the fact is that there is conflicting evidence about the efficacy and side effects of many vaccines, and you can find valid evidence to support whichever point of view you choose to hold.

I do have a big problem with broad sweeping statistics like the one you posted though because statistics always leave many unanswered questions. They take one perspective and ignore all others. What I mean is, in the example here, they don't take into consideration the plethora of other factors that may have contributed to the decline of those diseases during that time period......like advances in waste disposal, sewage systems, and sanitation in general, then there's healthcare education and a positive shift in personal hygiene habits, among many other changes in social thinking and behavior that happened in the last century. No doubt certain vaccines played a part in the eradication or decline of certain diseases, but are they really to be given all the credit they're given?

fetch, BSN, RN · Jan 21, 2014

If you had actually looked at the article, Mr Murse, you would see that this data is for Measles, Mumps, Rubella, and Polio. I would LOVE to see any research you can provide suggesting that hand washing will prevent the spread of any of those.

That said, this slideshow does not show any of the data except in graph form, which leaves me wondering how they determined "prevented cases". Here is the article they cite, but it's by subscription only. Does anyone have access to it? MMS: Error (WG van Panhuis et al, NEJM 2013)

allnurses Guide · Jan 21, 2014

I am not "anti-vaccine", but I do have some reservations about certain specific ones and about them being mandatory (particularly the flu vaccine). Honestly, I kind of sit on the fence on this issue because the fact is that there is conflicting evidence about the efficacy and side effects of many vaccines, and you can find valid evidence to support whichever point of view you choose to hold.
I do have a big problem with broad sweeping statistics like the one you posted though because statistics always leave many unanswered questions. They take one perspective and ignore all others. What I mean is, in the example here, they don't take into consideration the plethora of other factors that may have contributed to the decline of those diseases during that time period……like advances in waste disposal, sewage systems, and sanitation in general, then there's healthcare education and a positive shift in personal hygiene habits, among many other changes in social thinking and behavior that happened in the last century. No doubt certain vaccines played a part in the eradication or decline of certain diseases, but are they really to be given all the credit they're given?

Actually, they do take other factors in consideration when compiling these statistics, but unless you pull the research articles behind the post and look at the methodology you wouldn't know that.

Those statements about this or that hygiene measure has to do with the declines of vaccine preventable diseases has been debunked many times. There are pseudo-science commentary from anti-vaccine people and websites that would have people believe this, but using peer reviewed scientific literature you can see these sentiments are false. You can look through this forum on my other posts where I have provided scientific evidence on this over and over.

Mr. Murse · Jan 21, 2014

Hm. I figured I'd get a bit of backlash for even implying that wasn't gung ho for every vaccine I'm asked to pump into my body, but please take note that I said I was NOT anti-vaccine and I do believe they have benefited us in many ways, but I do believe the information is often weighted and skewed for a number of reasons. I've been reading articles on all sides of the issues for years and I don't have a lot of time to try to pull everything up again right now, but my only point was that there are many sides to the issue and many different valid studies.

In response to "fetch", my point wasn't that hand washing alone was going to save the world, but that there were other factors (including but not limited to the ones I mentioned) that played a part in the eradication and/or control of certain diseases. And of the the 4 you mentioned, polio is fecal-oral……..so hand washing and sanitation practices could greatly influence its spread. As for the other 3, well there are plenty of other habits and education available to help limit the spread of them. Again, not that these alone would solve the problem, but would affect the patterns.

wtbcrna, could you give me some links providing information that it was purely the vaccines alone that caused the trends shown in the graphs, with no other contributing factors? And why do we even encourage sanitary practices at all proper hygiene as preventative measures have been proven many times to be ineffective? Where is the evidence that it played no part? I admit that I did not take the time to pull the research articles behind these graphs, but these kinds of statistics rarely take the bigger picture into consideration, but rather focus specifically on what they're designed to research.

Anyway, again, I'm not bashing on vaccines. I just believe that many people are too sold on their efficacy, to the point that they tend to ignore other points of view. Especially now that it's become such an impassioned debate in the healthcare world, you get your head bit off for practically any stance you take.

allnurses Guide · Jan 22, 2014

Hm. I figured I'd get a bit of backlash for even implying that wasn't gung ho for every vaccine I'm asked to pump into my body, but please take note that I said I was NOT anti-vaccine and I do believe they have benefited us in many ways, but I do believe the information is often weighted and skewed for a number of reasons. I've been reading articles on all sides of the issues for years and I don't have a lot of time to try to pull everything up again right now, but my only point was that there are many sides to the issue and many different valid studies.
In response to "fetch", my point wasn't that hand washing alone was going to save the world, but that there were other factors (including but not limited to the ones I mentioned) that played a part in the eradication and/or control of certain diseases. And of the the 4 you mentioned, polio is fecal-oral……..so hand washing and sanitation practices could greatly influence its spread. As for the other 3, well there are plenty of other habits and education available to help limit the spread of them. Again, not that these alone would solve the problem, but would affect the patterns.
wtbcrna, could you give me some links providing information that it was purely the vaccines alone that caused the trends shown in the graphs, with no other contributing factors? And why do we even encourage sanitary practices at all proper hygiene as preventative measures have been proven many times to be ineffective? Where is the evidence that it played no part? I admit that I did not take the time to pull the research articles behind these graphs, but these kinds of statistics rarely take the bigger picture into consideration, but rather focus specifically on what they're designed to research.
Anyway, again, I'm not bashing on vaccines. I just believe that many people are too sold on their efficacy, to the point that they tend to ignore other points of view. Especially now that it's become such an impassioned debate in the healthcare world, you get your head bit off for practically any stance you take.

1. Polio is fecal-oral and droplet not fecal-oral alone. Droplets are what made polio so prevalent before the advent of the polio vaccines.

2. Vaccine-Preventable Diseases, Immunizations, and MMWR --- 1961--2011 Vaccines: Vac-Gen/Some Misconceptions [h=4]"MISCONCEPTION #1 - Diseases had already begun to disappear before vaccines were introduced, because of better hygiene and sanitation.[/h]Statements like this are very common in anti-vaccine literature, the intent apparently being to suggest that vaccines are not needed. Improved socioeconomic conditions have undoubtedly had an indirect impact on disease. Better nutrition, not to mention the development of antibiotics and other treatments, have increased survival rates among the sick; less crowded living conditions have reduced disease transmission; and lower birth rates have decreased the number of susceptible household contacts. But looking at the actual incidence of disease over the years can leave little doubt of the significant direct impact vaccines have had, even in modern times. Here, for example, is a graph showing the reported incidence of measles from 1950 to the present.

There were periodic peaks and valleys throughout the years, but the real, permanent drop in case of measles in the U.S. coincided with the licensure and wide use of measles vaccine beginning in 1963. Graphs for most other vaccine-preventable diseases show a similar pattern. Are we expected to believe that better sanitation caused incidence of each disease to drop, just at the time a vaccine for that disease was introduced?

*The incidence rate of hepatitis B has not dropped so dramatically yet because the infants we began vaccinating in 1991 will not be at high risk for the disease until they are at least teenagers. We therefore expect about a 15 year lag between the start of universal infant vaccination and a significant drop in disease incidence.

Hib vaccine is another good example, because Hib disease was prevalent until just a few years ago, when conjugate vaccines that can be used for infants were finally developed. (The polysaccharide vaccine previously available could not be used for infants, in whom most cases of the disease were occurring.) Since sanitation is not better now than it was in 1990, it is hard to attribute the virtual disappearance of Haemophilus influenzae disease in children in recent years (from an estimated 20,000 cases a year to 1,419 cases in 1993, and dropping) to anything other than the vaccine.

Varicella can also be used to illustrate the point, since modern sanitation has obviously not prevented nearly 4 million cases each year in the United States. If diseases were disappearing, we should expect varicella to be disappearing along with the rest of them. But nearly all children in the United States get the disease today, just as they did 20 years ago or 80 years ago. Based on experience with the varicella vaccine in studies before licensure, we can expect the incidence of varicella to drop significantly now that a vaccine has been licensed for the United States. Active surveillance in a number of countries and cities demonstrate a 76-86% decrease in varicella cases from 1995-2001.

Finally, we can look at the experiences of several developed countries after they let their immunization levels drop. Three countries - Great Britain, Sweden, and Japan - cut back the use of pertussis vaccine because of fear about the vaccine. The effect was dramatic and immediate. In Great Britain, a drop in pertussis vaccination in 1974 was followed by an epidemic of more than 100,000 cases of pertussis and 36 deaths by 1978. In Japan, around the same time, a drop in vaccination rates from 70% to 20%-40% led to a jump in pertussis from 393 cases and no deaths in 1974 to 13,000 cases and 41 deaths in 1979. In Sweden, the annual incidence rate of pertussis per 100,000 children 0-6 years of age increased from 700 cases in 1981 to 3,200 in 1985. It seems clear from these experiences that not only would diseases not be disappearing without vaccines, but if we were to stop vaccinating, they would come back.

Of more immediate interest is the major epidemic of diphtheria which occurred in the former Soviet Union from 1989 to 1994, where low primary immunization rates for children and the lack of booster vaccinations for adults have resulted in an increase from 839 cases in 1989 to nearly 50,000 cases and 1,700 deaths in 1994. There have already been at least 20 imported cases in Europe and two cases in U.S. citizens working in the former Soviet Union."

3. You can find all your arguments/misconceptions discussed on the CDC, WHO, and various other websites using peer-reviewed scientific literature.

4. When you offer a debatable point on such a well documented subject you should provide some sort of proof/reliable scientific literature.