From: dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer)
Subject: Re: Vaccinations?
Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting, Cambridge MA
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 19:46:30 GMT

In article <1993Jan4.075919.16904@rtf.bt.co.uk> traub@rtf.bt.co.uk (Michael Traub) writes:
>(1) Measles and mumps have always been innocuous diseases in the pre-pubescent.

I don't think you'd call them innocuous.  Most cases of measles are
uncomplicated, but there are those which are not (on the order of
1/500-1/1000).

>(2) My father could hardly have been guilty of malpractice when the vaccines
>    for measles and mumps were ***not even available*** in the 1950's.

That's true.

>(3) The measles complications you refer to are most prevalent in teenage
>    children who have previously been immunized and have reached puberty. (*)

I wasn't addressing these in my article.  The measles complications
you are alluding to occur most frequently after the use of the original
killed measles vaccine, which is no longer available.

>>>Proper nutrition is far more important than any immunization.
>Please explain the Los Angeles Health Dept reports linking measles
>complications to socio-economic indicators among Mexican immigrants.

Easy.  Malnutrition increases your risk of problems.  Adequate nutrition
doesn't protect individuals against infection.  One should strive for both
proper nutrition and proper immunization.  The first is no substitute for
the second.

>>Traub is forgetting that the reason your child is unlikely to be infected
>>is a direct result of widespread immunization.  Epidemics do not spread in
>>populations where there is "herd immunity", as a result of vaccination.
>
>I'm not forgetting anything.

From what you say below, you don't seem to understand what herd immunity is.

>>Once the incidence of vaccination falls below a threshold, the incidence
>>of the disease increases, sometimes to the level of an epidemic.  This has
>>been happening in the past 10 years due to such failures on the part of
>>parents who have been deluded into thinking they're acting responsibly in
>>their failure to immunize their children.
>
>Dyer again displays his ignorance. The whole reason for the acceptance of
>the Live Polio Vaccine was to increase the immunity among *unvaccinated*
>members fo the population.

First of all, we're talking about immunization in general, yet your argument
slides around from the general to the specific, such that someone who didn't
notice this might think that what you're saying makes sense.  It doesn't.

Live polio vaccine doesn't so much increase the immunity among *unvaccinated*
individuals, as much as it *vaccinates* people who haven't presented themselves
for vaccination.  That is, this attenuated virus can be spread from the person
receiving the vaccination to non-vaccinated individuals, thereby also
conferring immunity.  This has absolutely nothing to do with herd immunity,
except that it tends to promote it.  It makes the public health effort to
achieve widespread vaccination somewhat easier.  Giving more of the population
the killed Salk polio vaccine would achieve the same thing.  This spread
to unvaccinated individuals is also a phenomenon peculiar to the polio
vaccine--it's not generally exploited as a public health tool, and doesn't
apply to other immunizations.

Herd immunity is a phrase which reflects the phenomenon by which viruses
don't spread in a population which is largely resistant to them already.
This doesn't rely on a vaccine with the properties of the oral polio vaccine,
it simply depends on the number of individuals in a population who
are already immune, whether from prior infection or vaccination--it makes
no difference.  However, when a large number of individuals end up not
being vaccinated, they can act as foci for localized outbreaks.  If the
level of immunity in a population grows low enough, it can lead to
epidemics.

>Anyone  reading  closely will also notice that the disingenious Mr Dyer has
>edited  out  sections  of  my  original  reply, specifically those sections
>concerned  with  the  simple  fact  that in many cases the immunizations do
>not  work,  and  that  in  some  cases the immunization can give people the
>disease (or worse still parents can catch polio from their child).

That some immunizations don't take in any individual is not an argument
against widespread immunization; it's an argument for better quality
control in the preparation's manufacture and delivery.  The oral polio
vaccine is indeed associated with some cases of adult polio.  The incidence
of this is very low, but that's not too comforting to someone who is
paralyzed.  Still, no one is claiming that the vaccines are perfect,
merely that not administering them to your children has more drawbacks
(individually and collectively) than going ahead with them.

-- 
Steve Dyer
dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer
Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative