November 1, 2010 1 comment


Joseph Mercola, along with Rosemary Fischer, are promoting vaccine awareness week this week, Nov 1-7. David Gorski, who edits Science-Based Medicine with me, thought it would be a good idea to go along with this and participate fully in vaccine awareness week. So all week we will be focusing on vaccine issues, and doing our best to counter any misinformation.

Mercola, who runs a highly commercialized website, chock full of  health misinformation and anti-SBM propaganda, has started off the week with a broadside against the flu vaccine in an article titled: “New Proof that This Common Medical Treatment is Unnecessary and Ineffective”. He gives a Gish Gallop of error and misdirection – far more bits of falsehood than I have time to counter here. That’s the point of the Gish Gallop, it is far easier to create a misconception than it is to correct it. So if you throw enough mud at a topic you can overwhelm any attempt to defend accurate information, and leave your audience with the uneasy feeling that something must be wrong. In the case of Duane Gish his target was the science of evolution. With Mercola it is accurate health information.

Ironically, he starts off:

Armed with the facts, less than one-third of the US population fell for fear mongering. And together, we can do it again.

He accuses health officials of “fear mongering”  – his word for warning people about the risks of the flu and recommending the flu vaccine. Of course, if you are interested in propaganda you can use this term to refer to any and every public health campaign. He picks on the H1N1 Pandemic of 2009 – an easy target. He plays Monday morning quarterback, pointing out that the pandemic was not as bad as projected. Again, it is easy to criticize officials for caution when the worst-case scenario does not unfold. When faced with a possible pandemic officials need to prepare for a plausible worst-case scenario, and then hope it doesn’t happen. What happened in 2009/2010 flu season is that the H1N1 flu showed up, but the regular seasonal flu didn’t, and so the total number of total flu cases was less than a typical year. We still don’t have an explanation for this, but it was completely unexpected. No one predicted this – not even the Mercola’s of the world.

After accusing health officials of fear mongering, Mercola then goes onto to relentlessly fear monger about an effective public health intervention – the flu vaccine. Remember his fear mongering from last year? Wasn’t the H1N1 vaccine supposed to cause an epidemic of Guillaine Barre Syndrome (GBS)? Well – it didn’t, and there was a careful surveillance program in place in the UK and US to monitor for any increase in GBS and it never occurred.

Now Mercola is at it again, and his stated goal is to scare people off the flu vaccine. He doesn’t expect to be held accountable for his dire predictions and misinformation – he just dumps as many bits of scary misinformation as he can and then moves on. Again – I can’t get to them all, but here are a few:

“Health officials have leapt ahead with recommendations of “flu shots for allwithout safety studies—so by getting a flu shot, you are effectively offering yourself up as a laboratory rat. In other words, YOU are the safety study!”

This is a transparent falsehood. Simply put “flu vaccine safety” into and see how many studies come up. There are many studies looking at the safety and side-effect profile of various flu vaccines in the general and in specific medical populations, including the effects of adjuvants, and simultaneous vs serial vaccination. There is a serious attempt by medical scientists to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of flu vaccines. But Mercola needs you to believe that there is a dark conspiracy and you need him to open your eyes and give you the real information – all you have to do is subscribe to his site.

Australia’s flu season precedes ours, so we can look to them for a preview of vaccine issues. By June of 2010, more than 1,000 adverse reactions in children under the age of 5 resulted in the Australian government’s banning of flu vaccines for that age group. High fevers, vomiting and convulsions were the most widely reported reactions, which are also associated with long-term adverse health outcomes.

CSL’s Fluvax appears to be the main troublemaker. However, CSL has objected to being singled out, claiming any of the other three vaccines on the Australian market could be to blame.

Notice the spin Mercola puts on this news item – he implies that any trivalent flu vaccine can be to blame, CSL says so (since when does he listen to a vaccine manufacturer?). The real story is that there was an increase in fever and other complications from one brand of flu vaccine in Australia – Fluvax. The increase occurred in that brand only. It was not a single-batch problem, and so this was likely a manufacturing

. For this reason the vaccine was temporarily suspended until the facts could be sorted out.

What are the implications for the US? The CDC has recommended that the Afluria vaccine – CSL’s vaccine for the North American market, not be used in children 6 months to 4 years old. That seems like a reasonable precautionary measure. And here we can see the difference between reasonable caution and hysterical fear mongering.



Vaccine Awareness Week – Science Based Medicine: What does “anti-vaccine” really mean?

November 1, 2010 Leave a comment


We write a lot about vaccines here at Science-Based Medicine. Indeed, as I write this, I note that there are 155 posts under the Vaccines category, with this post to make it 156. This is third only to Science and Medicine(which is such a vague, generic category that I’ve been seriously tempted to get rid of it, anyway) and Science and the Media. There is no doubt that vaccines represent one of the most common topics that we cover here on SBM, and with good reason. That good reason is that, compared to virtually any other modality used in the world of SBM, vaccines are under the most persistent attack from a vocal group of people, who, either because they mistakenly believe that vaccines caused their children’s autism, because they don’t like being told what to do by The Man, because they think that “natural” is always better to the point of thinking that it’s better to get a vaccine-preventable disease in order to achieve immunity than to vaccinate against it, or because a combination of some or all of the above plus other reasons, are anti-vaccine.

“Anti-vaccine.” We regularly throw that word around here at SBM — and, most of the time, with good reason. Many skeptics and defenders of SBM also throw that word around, again with good reason most of the time. There really is a shocking amount of anti-vaccine sentiment out there. But what does “anti-vaccine” really mean? What is “anti-vaccine”? Who is “anti-vaccine”?

Given that this is my first post for SBM’s self-declared Vaccine Awareness Week, proposed to counter Barbara Loe Fisher’s National Vaccine Information Center’s and Joe Mercola’s proposal that November 1-6 be designated “Vaccine Awareness Week” for the purpose of posting all sorts of pseudoscience and misinformation about “vaccine injury” and how dangerous vaccines supposedly are, we decided to try to coopt the concept for the purpose of countering the pseudoscience promoted by the anti-vaccine movement. To kick things off, I thought it would be a good idea to pontificate a bit on the topic of how to identify an anti-vaxer. What makes an anti-vaxer different from people who are simply skeptical of vaccines or skeptical of specific vaccines (for instance, the HPV vaccine)? I don’t pretend to have the complete answer, which is why I hope we’ll have a vigorous discussion in the comments.

Believe it or not, I’m actually a relative newcomer to the task of taking on the anti-vaccine movement. Ten years ago, I was blissfully unaware that such a movement even existed; indeed, I doubt the concept would even have entered my brain that anyone would seriously question the safety and efficacy of vaccines, which are one of the safest and most efficacious preventative medical interventions humans have ever devised, arguably having saved more lives than any other medical intervention ever conceived. Even six years ago, although I had become aware of the existence of the anti-vaccine movement, I considered them a small bunch of cranks so far into the woo that they weren’t really worth bothering with. Yes, I was a shruggie.

All of that changed not long after I started my first blog in December 2004. Approximately six months later, to be precise. That was when someone as famous as Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. published an infamous screed simultaneously in Rolling Stone and entitled Deadly Immunity that was so full of misinformation, pseudoscience, and conspiracy mongering that it altered the course of my blogging forever. Although I had already been becoming less and less of a “shruggie” about the anti-vaccine movement before RFK’s propaganda piece, “Deadly Immunity” resulted in a significant percentage of my blogging turning to discussions of the anti-vaccine movement and the scientifically-discredited myth that vaccines cause autism.

Anti-vaccine, not pro-safe vaccine

Before I try to define “anti-vaccine” in more detail, I should take a moment to point out that, if there’s one thing I’ve learned in nearly six years blogging about vaccines and the pseudoscience used to attack them, it’s that no one — well, almost no one — considers himself “anti-vaccine.” This is very easily verifiable in the outraged reaction elicited from people like J.B. Handley (who simultaneously gloats about the decline in confidence in vaccines among parents), Jenny McCarthy, and Dr. Jay Gordon when they are described as “anti-vaccine. Jenny McCarthy, for instance, will reliably retort, “I’m not ‘anti-vaccine.’ I’m pro-safe vaccine.” An alternative response is, “What I really am is ‘anti-toxins’ in the vaccines.” Meanwhile, Dr. Gordon will say the same thing while simultaneously saying that he doesn’t give a lot of vaccines and foolishly admitting in the comments of a blog post that some parents have actually had to persuade him to vaccinate “reluctantly.”

The rule that those holding anti-vaccine views will rarely admit that they are anti-vaccine is a good one, although there are exceptions. It is not uncommon to find in the comments of anti-vaccine propaganda blogs likeAge of Autism and anti-vaccine mailing lists comments proclaiming explicit anti-vaccine views loud and proud, with declarations that “I am anti-vaccine.” This dichotomy has at times caused problems for the more P.R.-savvy members of the anti-vaccine movement, as demonstrated two years ago at Jenny McCarthy’s “Green Our Vaccines” rally, where images of vaccines as toxic waste and weapons of mass destruction were commonplace. Even so, the “Green Our Vaccines” slogan and coopting the “vaccine safety” mantle have been very effective for the anti-vaccine movement. In particular, Barbara Loe Fisher has successfully portrayed her National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) as being a “vaccine safety watchdog” group looking out for parents’ rights, this despite hosting an online memorial for vaccine victims and a deceptive and disingenuous vaccine ingredient calculator.

“I know it when I see it”

In a concurring opinion in Jacobellis v. Ohio, regarding possible obscenity in a movie, Justice Potter Stewart once famously wrote:

I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description [“hard-core pornography”]; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that.

From my perspective, defining what is “anti-vaccine” is a lot like defining obscenity: I know it when I see it. However, as in the case of pornography, even though it’s quite true that what is anti-vaccine is in general easily identifiable to those of us who pay attention to such matters, it’s much more difficult to define in a way that those who don’t pay attention to the issue can recognize. This difficulty is complicated by the fact that there are a number of different flavors of anti-vaccine views ranging from (I kid you not) the view that vaccines are a tool of Satan todepopulate the earth to much milder views. It’s also important to realize that most parents who buy into anti-vaccine views do so out of ignorance, because they have been misled, rather than due to stupidity. When I “go medieval” on anti-vaccine activists, my ire is almost always reserved for the leaders of the anti-vaccine movement, who spread misinformation.

When I’m actually in an exchange with someone whom I suspect of having anti-vaccine views, one rather reliable way of differentiating fear from real anti-vaccine views is to ask a simple question: Which vaccines do you think that, barring medical contraindications, children should receive? If the answer is “none,” then I’m pretty much done. I know I’m almost certainly dealing with an anti-vaccinationist. Be aware that this question may require some pushing to get an answer. Rarely am I able to get a definitive answer on the first try, because most anti-vaccine advocates are cleverer than that. They realize that I’m trying to get them to admit that they are anti-vaccine. Even so, if I ask something like, “If you had it to do all over again, would you vaccinate your child?” or “If you have another child, will you vaccinate that child?” I will usually get the candid response I’m looking for.

“Vaccines don’t work”? “Vaccines are dangerous”? They’re both!

If you look at the types of arguments used to oppose vaccination, they will almost always boil down to two different flavors, either that vaccines don’t work or that vaccines are somehow dangerous. Of course, we discuss the latter argument here all the time when we point out studies that refute the alleged link between vaccines and autism. Like the slogan “Tastes great, less filling,” both of these claims often co-exist to differing degrees, with some anti-vaccinationists arguing that both are true: Vaccines don’t work and they are dangerous.

This being the real world, one has to remember that vaccines are not perfect. They are not 100% effective, and there can be rare serious side effects. What differentiates anti-vaccine cranks from, for example, scientists who deal with issues of efficacy versus side effects and potential complications all the time, is exaggeration far beyond what the scientific data will support. For example, if the influenza vaccine is less efficacious than perhaps we would like (which is true), then it must be useless. This is, in essence, the Nirvana fallacy, wherein if something is not perfect it is claimed to be utterly worthless. Part and parcel of this approach involves the complement, namely vastly exaggerating the potential side effects and complications due to vaccines to paint them as being far more dangerous than the diseases they prevent. In addition, anti-vaccine activists frequently attribute harms to vaccines that the existing scientific data definitely don’t support as being reasonable or legitimate. The claim that vaccines cause autism is the most famous, but far from the only one of these sorts of claims. It’s not uncommon to hear fallacious claims that vaccines cause autoimmune diseases, asthma, and a general “weakening” of the immune system, among others.

One of the most famous examples of exaggerated harm or nonexistent risks is the infamous “toxin” gambit. This fallacious argument claims that there are all sorts of scary chemicals in vaccines. Of course, there are all sorts of chemicals with scary names in vaccines, just as there are all sorts of chemicals with scary names in almost everything, from food to clothing to household cleaners, among others. The dose makes the poison, and the amounts of these chemicals, such as formaldehyde, are tiny. As we’ve pointed out time and time again, for instance, the amount of formaldehyde in vaccines is so tiny that it’s overwhelmed by the amount of formaldehyde made as a byproduct of normal metabolism. Then, of course, there are the chemicals claimed to be in vaccines that are, in fact, not in vaccines. The most famous of these is undoubtedly the infamous “antifreeze in vaccines” gambit. Finally, there is the claim that there are “aborted fetal parts” in vaccines. This particular claim comes from the fact that, for some vaccines, the viruses used to make the vaccines are grown in a human cell line derived from an aborted fetus.

Overall, the “tastes great, less filling”-type anti-vaccine claims that vaccines are dangerous and don’t work, can be differentiated from scientifically valid concerns about the efficacy and safety of vaccines on the basis of how evidence is treated and the types of arguments that are used. Scientists, of course, tend to be a lot more measured and express the level of uncertainty in their claims; anti-vaccine activists are under no such constraints. When, for example, scientists debated how to respond to the H1N1 pandemic last year, there was considerable uncertainty about how to do it, when to do it, and how to formulate the vaccines. Which adjuvants? Should we use squalene in order to decrease the amount of antigen used? Contrast this to the anti-vaccine arguments, which tended to argue that H1N1 wasn’t harmful, that the vaccine was toxic and wouldn’t work, and even that it was a New World Order plot.




Vaccine Times July-Sept 2010 Issue redesigned

November 1, 2010 Leave a comment

Dear Friends,

I am happy to share with you the newly redesigned first issue of The Vaccine Times. As you will see, this version has been completely revamped, thanks to the tireless work of @GeekyJules, a.k.a Julia Sherred, who has done a fantastic job  with the design and layout of the paper.

Please help

Helping with the project couldn’t be any easier.

Step 1 – Click the red “Subscribe” link on the right and add your e-mail to The Times mailing list. We need numbers; with large numbers comes leverage with prospective customers who may be interested in purchasing ad space.

Step 2 – Spread the word. Nov. 01, through Nov. 06 has been declared Vaccine Awareness Week by the anti-vaccine crowd. We are releasing the redesigned Vaccine Times as our contribution to the effort by those of us in the reality-based side to counter what is sure to be a torrent of misinformation from the anti-vaccine advocates.You can do your part to help with this. And I’ve made doing your part as easy as CTRL-C and CTRL-V.  Tweet the following message once a day, every day, during Vaccine Awareness Week:

I just received my free copy of The @VaccineTimes. Sign up by sending a blank e-mail with the title “Subscribe” to

Easy, right? Also use this message as a status update on your Facebook account, but please only do that once; you don’t want to be unfriended for bothering your friends every day.

Step 3 – Print copies of  The Times (in color to get the full visual effect) and leave them hanging out on your office’s copy room; hand them out at your next local skeptical event, and bring one over to your pediatrician on your next visit and tell him you’re interested in seeing their office making this available as reading material.

If they get confused over the word “pandemic” how much can you really trust their advice?

October 30, 2010 4 comments

As we all know, when the 2009 H1N1 (swine flu) influenza started spreading across the globe,  a lot of preparation took place to stop it from spreading, yet it still did. The World Health Organization declared it a pandemic in June 11, 2009. Luckily, the toll in human lives of this pandemic was quite mild, given our worst expectations. That is a good thing, especially for the anti-vaccine advocates who have jumped at the opportunity to blame anyone and everyone involved in the preparation and prevention efforts of fear mongering. “You told us a lot of people could get sick and die; that didn’t happen therefore you lied to us, to fill your pockets with cash”  is how the general argument goes. The words may not be the exact ones you’ll hear, but that is the sentiment in a nut shell.

Here is what Meryl Dorey, head of the no-longer-a-charity Australian Vaccination Network tweeted recently:

The link she provides takes you to this web page. Clearly, Dorey agrees with the article, otherwise she wouldn’t have linked to it as she did. Thus, she must agree with the following from the article:

Our health officials still insist on describing the swine flu (H1N1) as a pandemic – even though the UK’s health supremo admitted this week that just 70 people died from the infection, forgetting that he had predicted 750,000 deaths.

Of course, swine flu was never a pandemic even though the World Health Organization (WHO) classified it as such in 2009, and regulators and researchers the world over have perpetuated the myth.

Before the pandemic classification, drug companies had got purchase agreements out of governments around the world that were triggered the moment a pandemic was announced.  GlaxoSmithKline made $698m in extra sales from its Pandemrix swine-flu shot alone.

Let us distill the above “argument” so we can analyze it and see if it is a good argument or nonsense. Basically they, and Dorey by endorsement, are saying that because number of deaths from swine flu was low, this was not a pandemic, and also throw in the “Big Pharma made money” line to imply that the reason the WHO declared the 2009 H1N1 as a pandemic was to increase profits for Big Pharma. That money argument is so baseless in and of itself that doesn’t deserve to be addressed. Anyone willing to start and end the conversation at “someone made money therefore we were lied to” is immune (pun intended) to reason and logic.

In order to see through the incredibly ridiculous argument that Dorey & Friends are making, we need to understand what a pandemic is. What does it mean for a disease to “go pandemic”? The answer is simple: pandemic refers to an infectious disease that has spread a lot, geographically. So you need two components to have a pandemic: 1) an infectious disease, which swine flu is, that 2) has spread to a lot of countries/continents, which swine flu did.

Pandemic does not refer to numbers of people infected, number of deaths, or the rate at which the disease kills. It refers to how widespread geographically the disease becomes. That’s it. You don’t have to believe me. Here (page 11) is the table of the six phases of a pandemic, as defined by the WHO.


It is clear to anyone who can, and is willing, to read and comprehend the English language that pandemic refers to geographical spread of the disease and has nothing to do with mortality. Nowhere in that table is mortality mentioned. It simply is not part of the equation, so far as the definition of the word pandemic is concerned.

Which brings us to the question: Why then are the anti-vaccine advocates pretending that there was no pandemic? There are only a few reasons this would happen that I can think of:

  1. They are ignorant of the meaning of the word “pandemic”
  2. They have no research skills, and are unable to do a Google search to find out the meaning of the word “pandemic”
  3. They are fully aware of the meaning of the word “pandemic” but still make the bad argument, while knowing it to be without merit, which is a questionable practice to say the least
  4. They could care less about the facts and will say anything their agenda demands
  5. A combination of the above

Regardless of the reason why they got it so wrong, how much trust can we have in them if they cannot even get these simple things right? How can we rely on them to provide us with real, true information for more complex issues, if they screw up so bad with simple ones? The only way, the anti-vaccine front can say that the 2009 H1N1 pandemic was not a pandemic is by showing evidence that it didn’t spread worldwide and was contained within two countries in one WHO region. They cannot do that; the facts are not on their side. As of the last count, the 2009 H1N1 had spread to more than 214 countries worldwide.

The conspiracy article Dorey gladly and mindlessly linked to ends up with this:

Pandemic – or egg on face?

Pandemic; and egg on the anti-vaxxers face.

California whooping cough outbreak update 10-26-10

October 28, 2010 1 comment

The California Department of Public Health has released the latest numbers, as of 10/26/10. Unfortunately, a new death has been recorded since I last reported on this outbreak.

  • 6,257 confirmed, probable and suspect cases of pertussis reported in 2010, for a staterate of 16 cases/100,000.
    • Case Classification:
      -Confirmed: ~67%  (4,192)
      -Probable: ~16%     (1,001)
      -Suspect: ~17%       (1,064)
  • This is the most cases reported in 60 years when 6,613 cases were reported in 1950, and the highest incidence in 51 years when a rate of 16.1 cases/100,000 was reported in 1959.
  • 154 (58%) of hospitalized cases were infants ❤ months of age, and 201 (75%) were infants <6 months of age.
  • 153 (76%) of the hospitalized infants <6 months of age with known race and ethnicity were Hispanic.
  • 10 deaths have been reported; 9 (90%) were Hispanic infants. Nine fatalities were infants <2 months of age at time of disease onset and had not received any doses of pertussis-containing vaccine;the 10th victim was an ex-28 week preemie that was 2 months of age and had received the first dose of DTaP only 15 days prior to disease
  • Rates are highest in infants <6 months of age (317.2 cases/100,000), in children aged 7-9 years (46.8 cases/100,000) and children aged 6 months-6 years (38.4 cases/100,000)

New bivalent polio vaccine performs better than trivalent and just as well as monovalent vaccines

October 28, 2010 Leave a comment

A new study, published online at The Lancet shows that the bivalent polio vaccine, which is currently in use in India and Nigeria and offers protection against two of the polio virus strains, type 1 & 3, triggers a stronger immune response than the existing trivalent vaccine and similar immune response to the monovalent vaccines.

Immunogenicity of bivalent types 1 and 3 oral poliovirus vaccine: a randomised, double-blind, controlled trial

Dr Roland W Sutter MD a , Prof T Jacob John FRCP[E] b, Prof Hemant Jain MD c, Prof Sharad Agarkhedkar MD d, Prof Padmasini Venkat Ramanan MD e, Harish Verma MB f, Jagadish Deshpande PhD g, Ajit Pal Singh MB h, Meghana Sreevatsava MPH a, Pradeep Malankar MD a, Anthony Burton a, Arani Chatterjee MB h, Hamid Jafari MD f, R Bruce Aylward MD a

Study Summary – This was a double-blind, randomized,  controlled study which enrolled 830 babies in India, between August and December 2008. The researchers compared various oral polio vaccines’ efficacy in inducing an immune response, measured by the number of antibodies created after the doses were received (seroconversion). The total amount of antibodies was measured and compared after the first dose, and also after a second dose.

The babies were set up in 5 groups; it is not clear from the summary but it appears that each group would have received one of the following vaccines:

  • monovalent type 1
  • monovalent type 2
  • monovalent type 3
  • bivalent 1 & 3
  • trivalent.

Although it is possible that some group may have been given a combination of monovalent vaccines; I am not sure. What does mono, bi, trivalent mean? It means this: the monovalent vaccines protect against one type only of the virus that causes polio. For example, monovalent type 1 protects against the Type 1 of the polio virus. Bivalent vaccines protect against two types at the same time, and trivalent vaccine protects against 3 types at the same time.

Immune response, or seroconversion, was measured after the first dose, and after the second dose of the vaccines. The responses were compared for the various vaccines.

Results – The results were as such:

Seroconversion after Dose 1

Type 1 Virus

  • Monovalent  – 20%
  • Bivalent – 20%
  • Trivalent – 15%

Type 2 Virus

  • Monovalent – 21%
  • Bivalent – N/A
  • Trivalent – 25%

Type 3 Virus

  • Monovalent – 12%
  • Bivalent – 7%
  • Trivalent – 4%

Seroconversion after Dose 2 (cumulative)

Type 1 Virus

  • Monovalent – 90%
  • Bivalent – 86%
  • Trivalent – 63%

Type 2 Virus

  • Monovalent – 90%
  • Bivalent – N/A
  • Trivalent – 91%

Type 3 Virus

  • Monovalent – 84%
  • Bivalent – 74%
  • Trivalent – 52%

The vaccines were well tolerated. 19 serious adverse events occurred, including one death; however, these events were not attributed to the trial interventions.

Conclusion – This study shows statistically significant differences between the bivalent and the trivalent vaccine, differences that become clearer after the second dose, at which point the bivalent vaccine outscored the trivalent one by more than 20% points for both polio viruses Type 1 and 2. There are no statistically significant differences between the bivalent and monovalent vaccines.

The conclusion following the results of this study is that, in this study the bivalent vaccine worked better than the trivalent vaccine in inducing an immune response, in infants. Further, the bivalent vaccine rates of seroconversion was just as good as the monovalent vaccines ones.

It is important to keep in mind though, that this study was only measuring the immune response, and does not draw any conclusions about the reduction of polio infections, hospitalizations or death rates. If that was the goal of the study, a proper placebo control would be absolutely necessary, but given that the purpose of the study was to compare efficacy of seroconversion rates as compared to the trivalent/monovalent vaccines, the use of a placebo is not necessary, since it is logical to assume that any placebo effects would similarly affect all groups of participants.

As such this study, in and off itself, does not lead to any conclusions about the bivalent vaccine’s efficacy in preventing polio infections, hospitalizations and deaths. We may extrapolate given it’s seroconversion rates, and what it is known about the monovalent/trivalent vaccines effects on polio infections/hospitalizations/death rates, but that would be just that, an extrapolation. The only question this study directly answers is: How does the bivalent polio vaccine compare to the monovalent and trivalent polio vaccines in inducing an immune response?

The authors concluded as such:

The findings show the superiority of bOPV compared with tOPV, and the non-inferiority of bOPV compared with mOPV1 and mOPV3.

Categories: Efficacy, Polio Tags: ,

Vaccine Preventable Death – Raymond Plotkin

October 26, 2010 2 comments

Age at death – 18 years

Cause of death –H1N1 (Swine Flu)

Vaccination Status – Unvaccinated

What happened – Raymond Plotkin, was a freshman at the University of New Mexico. He was studying to become an engineer. He started class in August 2009 as a freshman interested in Chemical and Nuclear Engineering. He enjoyed his roommates and living in a dorm as part of the Engineering Living Learning Community. In 2009 he had the regular flu shot, but due to shortages of  the vaccine, he wasn’t able to get the H1N1 vaccine.

While Raymond had health issues growing up, he had no problems in the last couple of years, according to family members. Doctors told the family they do not believe underlying health problems contributed to his death

He died on Wednesday evening of  November 11, 2009, four days after being admitted in the hospital. Said Raymond’s mother:

“It was a terrible tragedy. It could have been prevented had there been vaccine,”

“We are strongly recommending that because Raymond couldn’t take his shot last year, that this year everyone, that whether you’re a child, adult, parent, grandparent, we all take one for Raymond,”

People are getting complacent about H1N1. Please remember what happened to Raymond and get both the seasonal flu and H1N1 vaccines as soon as you can.

Raymond’s family has set up a scholarship fund in honor of Raymond’s memory. The first scholarship was awarded to Sean Chavez, a 2010 graduate of Albuquerque High School and computer engineering student at UNM.

For more information about the fund, please contact Susan Georgia, UNM School of Engineering Development Office at 505 – 277-0664; sgeorgia@​unm.​edu.

Contributions can be sent to:

UNM Foundation/Raymond Plotkin Fund

ATTN: Susan Georgia, Development Office

UNM School of Engineering

Centennial Engineering Center

MSCO1 1140

1 University of New Mexico

Albuquerque, New Mexico 87131 – 0001

My deepest condolences go to Raymond’s family. I am very sorry for your loss.


New Mexico Daily Lobo

The University of New Mexico