Now that antivaxxer hysteria has permeated the culture in America and abroad, the inevitable effects are being felt.
Phil Plait has a post on an Australian child that contracted whooping cough in a region of the country with lower than average vaccination rates. The child in this case has died.
Australia where vaccination rates have dropped considerably. The child in this case has died. The end result? Kids, including infants, are getting sick, and some of them are dying. Never, ever forget that, no matter how loudly these people yell, and no matter what garbage they spout (including, inevitably, in the comments that will follow this very post). Babies are dying.
In Australia, this movement is taking root as well. Calling the alarm to this, a TV program in Oz called “Sunday Night” aired an excellent exposé of what happens when parents don’t vaccinate their kids: they risk their children’s lives, and those of others. In the case shown on the TV show, a four-week-old baby, Dana McCaffery, died of whooping cough. This innocent infant wasn’t eligible for vaccination yet, but the lack of herd immunity — that region has lower-than-average vaccination rates — sealed her fate. The fact that other parents didn’t vaccinate their kids gave that little girl a death sentence.
Warning — the video in Plait’s post is very tough to stomach.
I am convinced that anti-vaccine activists really believe that they operate in a consequence free environment.
They are free to make baseless arguments and push discredited “evidence” to create a climate of confusion and ignorance, but will assume none of the responsibility when, remarkably, the rates of whooping cough increase tenfold in the region where this baby contracted the virus.
As the entire world has learned over the last few days, we are at risk of epidemics that we could not have foreseen and are scrambling to combat.
But the whooping cough vaccine has been in existence and widely available for decades. It is beyond disheartening to observe humanity attempting a global response to a dangerous new epidemic, while at the same time millions of people are consciously choosing to reenergize another virus that science and education have allowed us to contain.
Crossposted at Conservatives for Science

Why then does the CDC
Uma Richie Monday, April 27th at 12:12PM EDT (link)recommend Gardasil for girls only? Wouldn’t it make sense to vaccinate everyone for HPV? Or would that spoil the myth that Gardasil is a cervical cancer vaccine?
……………………………………………………………………………..
“We hold our heads high, despite the price we have paid, because freedom is priceless.” -Lech Walesa
can you elaborate?
settingsun Monday, April 27th at 4:41PM EDT (link)I’m not sure what you mean by “the myth that Gardasil is a cervical cancer vaccine”?
Gardasil is a vaccine for HPV — not cancer. HPV is responsible for most of the cervical cancer cases. I wasn’t aware that any of that was in dispute.
As for males, Gardasil is actually licensed for males 9 to 15 in the UK. I believe the drugmaker has recently asked for permission to market to males in the U.S. I don’t know when FDA approval is expected.
settingsun, still out there?
Uma Richie Thursday, April 30th at 11:20AM EDT (link)I just got back from the pediatrician’s office. Sure enough, on the info sheets there, Gardasil is touted as a “cervical cancer vaccine”.
……………………………………………………………………………..
“We hold our heads high, despite the price we have paid, because freedom is priceless.” -Lech Walesa
I think you might not be seeing the forest for the trees
settingsun Thursday, April 30th at 1:38PM EDT (link)By helping prevent HPV, Gardisal helps prevent the majority of cervical cancer cases. I confess, I still don’t understand your hang up.
The CDC is clear on what causes HPV. And while I’m no Planned Parenthood apologist, I believe one of the PP pamphlets that you link to says on its first page that the best prevention against HPV (as with all STDs) is abstinence.
Do you believe that any person/group that promotes education beyond advising abstinence is promoting promiscuity? I know that there are many who do believe that, but that should still be irrelevant to the use of Gardisal.
It is within our power to reduce cervical cancer deaths just like we have the ability to prevent the virus that killed the child in my original post. If there is a reasonable rationale for not doing this, I have not been made aware of it.
My hang-up is that men are not being vaccinated.
Uma Richie Thursday, April 30th at 2:36PM EDT (link)As you pointed out in your diary above, it is important to get the whole herd immune to any disease we are trying to eradicate. By calling Gardasil a “cervical cancer” vaccine, the CDC and PP make HPV seem to be a women’s disease. If they would stop spinning the cancer angle, perhaps men would also be vaccinated, thereby protecting the women that they have sex with.
……………………………………………………………………………..
“We hold our heads high, despite the price we have paid, because freedom is priceless.” -Lech Walesa
Gardisal is a totally different issue
civil_truth Thursday, April 30th at 3:02PM EDT (link)My blog site partner followed this a while back, but as I recall, the vaccine was rushed to approval without adquate studies on safety (especially longer-term); its effectiveness is dubious since it is effective only against same straings of HPV. As I recall, the cancer statistics were somewhat marginal in terms of statistical significane. The last thing we need is another DES horror.
There’s been a lot of coziness between the company and certain state legislators to force mandatory vaccination, which is very good for the company’s sales.
Hadn’t encountered before any mention of it being used in males - but the same questions remain.
And Rightly So!
The FDA seems to conclude otherwise
settingsun Thursday, April 30th at 3:46PM EDT (link)I’d welcome reviewing any links that you have, but in the interim I’m going off what the FDA and CDC conclude.
http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/2008/NEW01885.html
FDA Approves Expanded Uses for Gardasil to Include Preventing Certain Vulvar and Vaginal Cancers
September 12, 2008
“There is now strong evidence showing that this vaccine can help prevent vulvar and vaginal cancers due to the same viruses for which it also helps protect against cervical cancer,” said Jesse L. Goodman, M.D., M.P.H., director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research. “While vulvar and vaginal cancers are rare, the opportunity to help prevent them is potentially an important additional benefit from immunization against HPV.”…
…Among females who tested negative for HPV types 16 or 18 at the start of the study, Gardasil was highly effective in preventing these types of HPV-related precancerous vulvar and vaginal lesions, which are considered to be the precursors for cancer. In the control group that did not receive the vaccine, 10 individuals developed precancerous vulvar lesions and nine developed precancerous vaginal lesions, all related to HPV types 16 or 18. No one in the Gardasil group developed either kind of precancerous lesion due to HPV types 16 or 18.
Looks like there are two more years of follow-up
civil_truth Thursday, April 30th at 3:56PM EDT (link)The press release certainly seems to indicate a favorable trendline from the 2006 data. At that time, some key researchers protested that the benefits were being oversold and the risks not adequately assessed. Not sure where they stand two years later. However, I’m not sure I really want to pursue this further today.
But please don’t put this in the same class as early childhood vaccines against measles, mumps, etc, This is a vaccine against a sexually transmitted disease.
And Rightly So!
I'm the one that made the leap
Uma Richie Thursday, April 30th at 4:06PM EDT (link)from a diary on childhood diseases to a comment about STDs. It was the herd immunity aspect of the diary that led me to think that there is something nefarious about Gardasil being administered to only half the population.
……………………………………………………………………………..
“We hold our heads high, despite the price we have paid, because freedom is priceless.” -Lech Walesa
That's an interesting aspect I hadn't heard discussed
civil_truth Thursday, April 30th at 4:14PM EDT (link)Data would be useful to determine if this was a political decision or if there are medical reasons to only vaccinate women.
Evidently, the company initially selected women because of the proven link between HPV and cancer - and if you want to get approval, this was probably the strongest benefit that they could do a study on.
I don’t know if HPV has an association with any male cancers. In any case, the company would need to perform clinical studies in men. How easy it would be to get an approval in males past the FDA I couldn’t say.
And Rightly So!
I get what you're saying
settingsun Thursday, April 30th at 4:09PM EDT (link)But there are serious restrictions on how a drug maker can market something like Gardisal when the drug hasn’t been approved for a class of user — in this case males in the U.S.
I don’t know how the drug is marketed in other countries where it is approved for males.
Since the drug is only approved for females in the U.S., I’m reasonably certain the drug maker can only tout its benefits for females — at least in advertising and marketing promotion in the U.S.
Thanks for getting back to me.
Uma Richie Monday, April 27th at 5:39PM EDT (link)Look at the headlines on these Planned Parenthood links:
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/nyc/files/NYC/PPNYC_HPVflyer.pdf
http://www.ppgmv.org/newsroom/press-releases/cancer-vaccine-approved-5818.htm
http://www.weny.com/News-Local.asp?ARTICLE3864=8138670
It appears to me that they wish to obfuscate the fact that sex causes HPV transmission and HPV causes cervical cancer.
Condoms are not a highly-effective barrier to HPV transmission.
Because girls are the only ones currently being given HPV vaccination in the US, I suspect that vaccinating cervix-less males would call this to light and make Planned Parenthood’s promotion of high risk sexual behavior look bad.
Source: http://www.cdc.gov/condomeffectiveness/latex.htm
……………………………………………………………………………..
“We hold our heads high, despite the price we have paid, because freedom is priceless.” -Lech Walesa
Reply to this is my friend. Sorry! nt
Uma Richie Monday, April 27th at 5:39PM EDT (link)……………………………………………………………………………..
“We hold our heads high, despite the price we have paid, because freedom is priceless.” -Lech Walesa