New Malaria Vaccine Is Shown to Work in Infants Under 1 Year Old, a Study Finds By DONALD G. McNEIL Jr. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/18/health/18vaccine.html?pagewanted=print The world’s most promising malaria vaccine has been shown to work in infants less than a year old, the most vulnerable group, according to a study being published today. The study, being published in The Lancet, a British medical journal, was small, comprising only 214 babies in Mozambique, and intended to show only that the vaccine was safe at such young ages. But it also indicated that the risk of catching malaria was reduced by 65 percent after the full course of three shots. “We’re now a step closer to the realization of a vaccine that can protect African infants,” said Dr. Pedro Alonso, the University of Barcelona professor who leads clinical trials of the GlaxoSmithKline vaccine. If it passes much larger clinical trials set to start in seven countries next year, and if it is accepted by national regulatory agencies, it could be ready for distribution by 2012, said Dr. W. Ripley Ballou, Glaxo’s vice president for international clinical trials. In 2004, Dr. Alonso showed for the first time that the vaccine could protect children against infection or death. That study of 2,022 children aged 1 to 4 showed protection from infection about 45 percent of the time. Such a relatively low level of protection would not be acceptable in a vaccine in the West, but malaria is a leading killer of African children, so even imperfect coverage is a major public health victory. The vaccine, presently known as RTS,S and tentatively brand-named Mosquirix, is made by fusing a bit of outer protein of the deadly falciparum strain of the malaria parasite with a bit of hepatitis B virus and a chemical booster — the latter two added to provoke a stronger immune reaction. At least nine malaria vaccine candidates are in development, but Mosquirix is the furthest along. Glaxo has been refining it for 20 years and expects to have spent up to $600 million on it by the time it comes to market. About $100 million has been paid by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation through the PATH Malaria Vaccine Initiative. No decision has been made about the price to be offered to poor countries and international health agencies. But “if a child will benefit, price will not stand in the way,” said Dr. Christian Loucq, director of the vaccine initiative. The vaccine is given in three injected doses. That is an obstacle in poor countries, which have difficulties immunizing even against polio — done with oral drops requiring no medical skill. But even one dose has some protective effect, the Lancet study found. It is unknown how long protection lasts. But because the youngest children are the most vulnerable, Dr. Alonso said, vaccination buys them time to build up natural immunity, which is acquired by surviving multiple mosquito bites.
One thing the doctor told me that once my baby is vaccinated, he'll be immune from disease. Was my doctor lying?
My wife and I have done considerable research on the subject, and what we came away with was the feeling that most people who are gung-ho pro vaccine are probably a little naive in glossing over the dangers associated with them. But on the other side of the coin, most people who are anti-vaccine are a little on the extremist paranoid side. We opted for a delayed schedule, and we'll never do things like flu vaccines, etc. But definitely do the research yourself before you jump to any "people who don't take vaccines are buck toothed idiots", and vice versa.
Well, you could start with 8. [rquoter] Efficacy data regarding TIVs are available almost exclusively from industrialized countries. The figures vary considerably according to the exactness of the antigenic match, age and health status of the vaccinees, choice of clinical end-point criteria and the accuracy of diagnosis. However, their respective protective efficacies are believed to be similar and, provided there is a good antigenic match, they will prevent laboratory-confirmed illness in approximately 70–90% of healthy adults. Among elderly people not living in nursing homes, vaccination may reduce the number of hospitalization by 25–39% and overall mortality by 39–75% during influenza seasons. Among nursing home residents, influenza vaccination can reduce hospitalizations (all causes) by about 50%, the risk of pneumonia by about 60% and the risk of death (all causes) by 68%. TIVs show high efficacy in children >6 years of age, but are poorly protective in children aged <2 years. Some TIV studies have shown up to 30% protective efficacy against influenza-associated acute otitis media in young children. The average duration of protection is estimated at 4–6 months. Several analyses have demonstrated the cost–effectiveness of inactivated influenza vaccines in adults as well as in children. [/rquoter]
I'm sorry to tell you that just because you have been vaccinated or immunized against a particular disease, that does not guarantee the prevention of the disease. That's absolutely a fact.
As a followup to my previous post, this is directly from the Merck website in regards to the MMR vaccine. (measels, mumps, and reubella, which is one of the primary vaccines given to children) http://www.merck.com/mmpe/sec14/ch169/ch169b.html#sec14-ch169-ch169b-189 "Measles, mumps, and rubella: This vaccine combines live attenuated viruses into one vaccine that produces protective antibodies and probably lifelong immunity to each virus in 95% of recipients. The vaccine should be given to all children in their 2nd yr of life. Adults at risk include those who have never received the vaccine and have never become naturally infected." I'm not saying that "probably 95%" immunity is an ineffective treatment, but it does mean that 5% of vaccinated children are, in fact, NOT immune.
Darkhorse has answered some of your questions admirably and thoughtfully. I believe you have already drawn your conclusions regarding the efficacy of vaccinations prior to posting the article and may be seeking to use the disingenuous religious avenue for exempting your children from the required vaccinations. Good luck with that... I leave the discussion with relevant paragraphs from the article you posted: "...Even though government-funded studies have found no link between vaccines and autism, loosely organized groups of parents and even popular cultural figures such as radio host Don Imus have voiced concerns. ... Unvaccinated children can spread diseases to others who have not gotten their shots or those for whom vaccinations provided less-than-complete protection. In 1991, a religious group in Philadelphia that chose not to immunize its children touched off an outbreak of measles that claimed at least eight lives and sickened more than 700 people, mostly children. ... an Indiana girl who had not been immunized picked up the measles virus ... Within a month, the number of people infected had grown to 31" Sometimes it is the duty of government to protect it's citizens from their own ignorance .
I cannot find any published studies that directly support this claim. However, such a study seems to be impossible because you cannot find an individual who is exposed to both a specific vaccine and a targeted live virus at the same time. However, this claim makes sense in theory. Your immune system responds to a vaccine the same way as it responds to its targeted pathogen. The difference is that a vaccine cannot amplify itself once entering your body while the pathogen will proliferate into a much greater number before subdued by your immune system. If your immune system is responding strongly to even limited number of the pathogen, or vaccine in this case, it most likely will respond even strongerly in the presence of a larger number of the real pathogen. Yes, the symptoms that we experienced during an infection are often manifested by our own immune responses. If too strong, some of the responses may be lethal.
Must people concerned about the link of Autism and vaccines would not argue about the value of the vaccine. The concern is mainly with Thimerosal and mercury poisoning. Something is causing the increase in autism and every avenue should be explored. More, objective research is needed. I know this is just one persons experience but I have been a special needs camp counselor for a long time (this summer will be my 20th year http://www.geocities.com/rothdaniel_2000 ). When we first started the camp we had one child with autistic like symptoms (put whatever label was used at the time on it) now easily 25-30% of the camp are children with autistic like symptoms. While this may be anecdotal evidence the change I see is extreme.
Many vaccines on the market are free of Thimerosal. A table can be found on the FDA page below: http://www.fda.gov/cber/vaccine/thimerosal.htm#t1
I definitely agree that there needs to be more objective studies done on the subject. One of the things that definitely doesn't sit well with me is that the vast majority of the literature and studies we have on the subject come directly from the pharmaceutical companies themselves. Conflict of interest maybe? Even a lot of the "government" studies on the subject are conducted by committees with representatives of the pharmaceutical companies sitting on the board, or providing funding for the study. Several "private" attempts to conduct studies regarding the dangers of vaccines have been written off as "unscientific" results of paranoid wackos. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle. That's why I say that most people should probably be a little more skeptical than they are about vaccines, but others should also be a little less paranoid.
Actually the main study quoted by many anti-vaccine opponents (the original one that found an increased amount of measles antigen in the gut of autistic kids who received the vaccines) was only done on I believe 12 kids, has never been able to be reproduced, and more importantly: SPONSORED BY A BRITISH LAW FIRM WHO WAS IN THE PROCESS OF SUING THE VACCINE COMPANIES. talk about conflict of interest. As a pediatrician when asked by parents if vaccines are safe - I always say "absolutely not - everything in life is a risk. however the risk your child will have a significant problem from any of the shots today, is much lower than the risk of your child being in your car on your way home".
Interesting read. I was wondering why vaccines are singled out to bear the blame for the increases in diagnosed autism. There are so many other things that have changed since the invention and application of vaccines.
Isn't the correlation between autism and vaccination flimsy anyway, considering that vaccination programs have been around long before the increase in autism diagnoses?
Never had a flu shot, never been sick from the flu. My wife, took the flu shot every year and got the flu every year. Two years ago she didn't and hasn't had it since. The shot does help some people so to me it's a good thing. I've heard that some employers may require it which I think is nuts.
