Hosts: Vincent Racaniello, Alan Dove, and Rich Condit
Vincent, Alan, and Rich review recent outbreaks of mumps in the UK, US, and Israel, protection of mice against 2009 H1N1 influenza A virus by 1918-like and classical swine H1N1 vaccines, and a virus-like particle vaccine for chikungunya virus.
This episode is sponsored by Data Robotics Inc. Use the promotion code VINCENT to receive $50 off a Drobo or $100 off a Drobo S.
Win a free Drobo S! Contest rules here.
[powerpress url=”http://traffic.libsyn.com/twiv/TWiV069.mp3″]
Click the arrow above to play, or right-click to download TWiV #69 (59 MB .mp3, 82 minutes)
Subscribe to TWiV (free) in iTunes , at the Zune Marketplace, by the RSS feed, or by email.
Links for this episode:
- Mumps outbreak in Israel (ProMedMail and Eurosurveillance; thanks Lenn!) and Iowa
- Retraction of Wakefield vaccines- autism study
- Immunization with 1918-like and classical swine H1N1 influenza viruses protects against 2009 H1N1 strain
- Virus-like particle vaccine for chikungunya virus
- Image: antigenic differences in HA structures of 1918, Cal/09 and Bris/59/07 viruses
- Paul Ewald articles (thanks Atila!): one, two, and three, and a recent review of the hypothesis
Weekly Science Picks
Rich John Moran Florida Nature Photography
Alan Periodic Table of Videos
Vincent The Protein Databank Educational Resources
Send your virology questions and comments (email or mp3 file) to twiv@microbe.tv or leave voicemail at Skype: twivpodcast. You can also post articles that you would like us to discuss at microbeworld.org and tag them with twiv.
> Immunization with 1918-like and classical swine H1N1 influenza viruses
> protects against 2009 H1N1 strain
that were mice. And they got whole virus vaccine with booster.
1976 was split vaccine, HA only, I think.
Core of a letter to Caplan, Rosling and a few others about Wakefield.
“I feel that I must point out that the data I looked at today does not support the contention Wakefield did a lot of damage relative to measles mortality. In fact, this paradoxical data I find interesting enough to suggest that a deeper study of Wakefield's impact on child mortality is in order.
From 1998-2008 (the year of the study, to last year of easily available stats) there have been 11 deaths from measles in the UK, which is one of the higher vaccine-refusal nations. In the 10 years prior to the publication by Wakefield, (1987-1997) there were 37 deaths from measles in the UK. (Best estimates for 2009 are 1 death. Adding 1 more year to the pre-Wakefield stats would raise the total to 47 deaths in the UK prior to Wakefield's study.) A factor of 3 reduction in the decade following his publication versus the decade prior does not suggest causality. Source: http://www.hpa.org.uk/web/HPAweb&HPAwebStandard…
Wakefield paper ^ 1998
That does not square with the idea that Dr. Wakefield's study created measles deaths. I think he is quite wrong, but it appears it may be more wrong to blame him for excess deaths in children from measles. These data suggest to me that there may have been no significant impact at all, and perhaps an effect inverse to the one Dr. Wakefield espoused.
I question the idea that Dr. Wakefield kicked off the anti-vaccine movement which was well established circa 1985. I am well aware of this because my sister was a believer, and refused to vaccinate her children who were born in that time period. We did not agree on this question.
This data, while admittedly partial, does suggest the possibility that in practice, the opposite net effect from that of Dr. Wakefield's intent may have been true.
(Can't post the graph unfortunately.)
Core of a letter to Caplan, Rosling and a few others about Wakefield.
“I feel that I must point out that the data I looked at today does not support the contention Wakefield did a lot of damage relative to measles mortality. In fact, this paradoxical data I find interesting enough to suggest that a deeper study of Wakefield's impact on child mortality is in order.
From 1998-2008 (the year of the study, to last year of easily available stats) there have been 11 deaths from measles in the UK, which is one of the higher vaccine-refusal nations. In the 10 years prior to the publication by Wakefield, (1987-1997) there were 37 deaths from measles in the UK. (Best estimates for 2009 are 1 death. Adding 1 more year to the pre-Wakefield stats would raise the total to 47 deaths in the UK prior to Wakefield's study.) A factor of 3 reduction in the decade following his publication versus the decade prior does not suggest causality. Source: http://www.hpa.org.uk/web/HPAweb&HPAwebStandard…
Wakefield paper ^ 1998
That does not square with the idea that Dr. Wakefield's study created measles deaths. I think he is quite wrong, but it appears it may be more wrong to blame him for excess deaths in children from measles. These data suggest to me that there may have been no significant impact at all, and perhaps an effect inverse to the one Dr. Wakefield espoused.
I question the idea that Dr. Wakefield kicked off the anti-vaccine movement which was well established circa 1985. I am well aware of this because my sister was a believer, and refused to vaccinate her children who were born in that time period. We did not agree on this question.
This data, while admittedly partial, does suggest the possibility that in practice, the opposite net effect from that of Dr. Wakefield's intent may have been true.
(Can't post the graph unfortunately.)
Pingback: TWiV 69: They’re all safecrackers | H1N1INFLUENZAVIRUS.US
amyinohio
Hi There, Just Was Alert To Your Blog Thru Google, And Located That It’s Truly
Informative. I Am Going To Be Careful For Brussels. I Will Be Grateful When You
Proceed This In Future. A Lot Of Other Folks Shall Be Benefited From Your
Writing. Cheers!