PDA

View Full Version : How times have changed!



MinorityView
27-12-08, 10:19 AM
This thread is for older articles about vaccination--

This one is from Time Magazine, 1970, on the smallpox vax. I'm going to cut and paste the entire thing because it might disappear. You'll see why when you read it.:giggle:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,943146,00.html



The Dangers of Vaccination

Monday, Jan. 05, 1970



Vaccination against smallpox is almost 200 years old, yet it is still far from being an invariably safe procedure. Although production methods have become more sanitary, the vaccine itself has changed little since Edward Jenner scraped it from sores on the hand of a cowpox-infected dairymaid. It causes severe and even fatal reactions in a small but appreciable number of people, with an average of seven deaths reported annually in the U.S. since 1950. Also, it probably leaves a greater number of victims with permanent mental damage from spread of the cowpox virus to the brain. Yet the U.S. has had no death from smallpox itself since 1949 and not one case of the disease since 1954. What the country now needs, argues the University of Colorado's Dr. C. Henry Kempe, is protection not against smallpox but against vaccination.



Routine vaccination has become an American fetish. There is no doubt that in its first 150 years vaccination was enormously effective in virtually eliminating smallpox from the developed countries of Europe and much of the Americas. But it is deceptively easy to assume that the current U.S. immunity to the disease is the result of continuing mass vaccinations. Probably far more significant is effective border control, which keeps out infected travelers. Changes in vaccination policy are resisted, says Tulane University's Dr. Margaret H.D. Smith, because of "an emotional investment in the traditional role of smallpox vaccination."


First Year Worst. Nor is this cautious attitude limited to oldtimers. Dr. Samuel L. Katz, 42, Duke University's brilliant pediatrician who worked with Harvard's great virologist John F. Enders, is chairman of the American Academy of Pediatrics committee that is drawing up vaccination schedules for children. In its next revision, Katz insists, there will be "no recommendation banning mass vaccination programs for smallpox." That means no widespread change in the current practice of vaccinating infants between six and nine months of age. However, vaccination is three times as likely to cause severe illness in the first year of life as it is in the second. So, says Tulane's Dr. Smith, vaccinators should at least postpone their needling until the second year.


Colorado's Kempe would go much farther. He would totally abolish routine vaccination of children, and of all stay-at-home Americans except those engaged in health services that might bring them into contact with an accidentally imported case of the disease. He would, however, continue to vaccinate young men entering the armed forces and maintain the presently required vaccination for any traveler to areas where smallpox is still rife.



I'll paste the second half into another post.

MinorityView
27-12-08, 10:22 AM
Here is the second half of the article.


The government-appointed vaccination authorities at the National Communicable Disease Center in Atlanta (a branch of the U.S. Public Health Service) are divided. The current official recommendation is for vaccination between the first and second birthdays. Some N.C.D.C. experts favor abandoning the routine vaccination of children at any age. On the liberalizing side, Dr. J. Michael Lane and three N.C.D.C. colleagues have analyzed 572 vaccine reactions reported in 1968. Their study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, says that 68% of the patients had serious complications after being vaccinated for the first time (only 7% after repeat vaccinations). No fewer than 20% of the patients had never been directly vaccinated at all: they were mostly children with eczema who picked up the vaccinia (cowpox) infection accidentally from contact with somebody else's sore arm. In the entire group surveyed there were nine deaths, while three survivors appear to have suffered brain damage and a fourth is paralyzed in both arms and legs. In all likelihood, say the N.C.D.C. investigators, complications are many times as numerous as the reports indicate.


Give with VIG. While health authorities are unlikely soon to adopt Kempe's proposal for a near-total halt to mass vaccination, potent agents for reducing its ravages are already available. One is a safer vaccine that Kempe has devised. Before that, or something like it, comes into general use, doctors can still use a VIG gamma globulin extract, vaccinia immune globulin (VIG), which contains antibodies from recently vaccinated blood donors, to protect the very young and those in poor health who have to be vaccinated. The value of VIG is well established; it has been stocked for years in 15 Red Cross regional blood banks for distribution to doctors in emergencies after a severe reaction to vaccination has developed.
One point on which all the warring factions agree is that doctors should be far more careful before giving the present vaccine. Children with leukemia, or on steroid drugs that depress the immune reaction, obviously should not be vaccinated. Nor should a child with eczema or a history of recent eczema be vaccinated—certainly not without VIG —because cowpox may cause a fulminating and occasionally fatal exacerbation of eczema. But doctors and nurses often do not take the time to ask the right questions.


While vaccinators insist that with more care the number of bad reactions could be sharply reduced, this is a counsel of perfection never yet and unlikely ever to be fully observed. Clearly, new and safer vaccines and revised vaccination schedules are needed.

Momtezuma Tuatara
27-12-08, 12:09 PM
perhaps we can reword this sentence:
Routine vaccination has become an American fetish. to


Routine vaccination has become a Universal fetish.

To make sure it doesn't disappear I've made and attached a pdf of it below.

Janet
27-12-08, 12:41 PM
Wow! How very interesting indeed.

MinorityView
27-12-08, 12:59 PM
Thank you MT! It must be some sort of fluke it was put up on the web at all.

Admitting that vaccines can hurt people. Couldn't happen.

MinorityView
27-12-08, 01:27 PM
Just remembered that a good friend discovered this wonderful archive of old public health articles:

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/tocrender.fcgi?iid=124219

browse on through, lots of good stuff.

MinorityView
27-12-08, 01:30 PM
Unfortunately we can't cut and paste from these documents in their current form. Darn!

Momtezuma Tuatara
27-12-08, 04:39 PM
Thank you MT! It must be some sort of fluke it was put up on the web at all.

Admitting that vaccines can hurt people. Couldn't happen.

Only happens decades after the vaccine is pulled from the schedule.

You know, like the attached acellular whooping cough vaccine article in The Australian Age, in 1995 with the heading, "Whooping cough vaccine cuts side effects" yet prior to that, any Australian mother who said that the whole cell vaccine affected their child was :LMAO:out the surgery.

Oh, and note the lie. Equivalent if not better protection. So good, that Australia now has now many shots?

MinorityView
27-12-08, 11:38 PM
Good item.

The Time article on the smallpox vaccine was published in 1970, when the vaccine was still in use in the U.S. which is why the info on the nasty side effects is so startling.

Momtezuma Tuatara
28-12-08, 06:29 AM
It was still in use, but a move to remove it had started in the 60's. I'll try to find another article I have, earlier than 1970, which was a medical article talking about over 200+ serious reactions, and how the balance of risk/benefit had shifted.

So the Time article could well have been part of a plan to force it's removal, because a lot of doctors were very unhappy about it, and not just Robert Mendelsohn.

MinorityView
28-12-08, 07:30 AM
I was thinking that, too, seeing an attempt to move public opinion against that particular vaccine. But nowadays the process would be less open--and they wouldn't talk that much publicly about vaccine injuries.