Public Officials Push a Third Jab

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-21-2010
Public Officials Push a Third Jab
Tue, 03-02-2010 - 2:39pm

Two Mumps Vaccines Don't Work, So Public Officials Push a Third Jab
by Heidi Stevenson

1 March 2010

Orange County, New York, public health officials are pushing a third MMR vaccination, since the recommended two don't seem to be working against mumps. The outbreak of mumps has been seen mostly in people who've been vaccinated—not just the majority of cases, but the vast majority. The CDC (Centers for Disease Control) is reporting that 93% who've come down with mumps have had one dose and 85% have had two doses of the MMR vaccine.

Though some areas are offering it, the CDC reports that a second dose of MMR for children age 1-4 is not advised because so few of that age are coming down with mumps. Only 4.9% of the new mumps cases are occurring in ages 1-4. Even the CDC doesn't recommend a third dose of the MMR vaccine in children so young, though not for safety's sake. Their concern is that nearly all the people coming down with mumps are older than that. So, the CDC would rather see the vaccination focus be on children over the age of 4.

The CDC's primary focus has been to get people to believe that lack of vaccination is the reason for the outbreak. Even though most people coming down with mumps have been vaccinated, people are being told that their best defense is to get vaccinated. Should these people be sent back to school for training in basic logic?

But it gets worse. The one thing that seems to be consistent is that people who live in large family households are more likely to get mumps. In one of the areas with the most cases, the average number of people in a household is 5.7, as opposed to a national average of 2.6. The CDC suggests that more intense contact with people who've come down with mumps is the likliest reason for their being infected so much more than others.

The CDC then goes on to say, "In addition, high vaccination coverage in surrounding communities is the most plausible reason that the few cases outside of the affected community have not caused other outbreaks." Ummm...whatever happened to the fact that larger family sizes are the likely reason for the bulk of the outbreak?

Nothing will get in the way of an opportunity to push vaccinations.

The more you know of this story, the more absurd the CDC's scare tactics look. Yet, the one thing that might actually be scary about this outbreak is getting no comment. Before vaccinations came along, people tended to get mumps fairly young, well before their teens. In this current outbreak, the average age is 15, past puberty in most children. Though rare, the primary risks of mumps are orchitis, inflammation of the testes, and oophoritis, inflammation of the ovaries. The concern is that these conditions can lead to sterility—but the risk is less significant in young children.

This was the CDC's total breakdown as of 12 February, the last date they've provided such information:

* Of 1,518 patients whose ages are known:
o 1,385 (91%) are older than 6 years.
o Median age is 15 years.
o Age range 3 months - 90 years.
* Of 1,489 patients whose sex is known:
o 1,136 (76%) are male.
o 353 (24%) are female.
* 65 reports of complications have been received:
o Orchitis: 55 cases.
o Pancreatitis: 5 cases.
o Aseptic meningitis: 2 cases.
o Transient deafness: 1 case.
o Bell's palsy: 1 case.
o Oophoritis: 1 case.
o 19 hospitalizations reported.
o No deaths have occurred.

Interestingly, the ages of patients with complications isn't reported. If history is any indication, though, it's reasonable to assume that most cases of orchitis and oophoritis are occurring among people who have passed puberty, and are, therefore, at greater risk of becoming sterile.

Perhaps scariest of all, though, is that absolutely no consideration is being given to potential risks from the MMR vaccination. There's isn't one iota of risk-benefit assessment being done. There isn't even any thought of separating the mumps vaccine from the MMR and offering only that, rather than increasing the risk by also giving extra doses of measles and rubella (German measles) vaccines.

The CDC is pushing people into getting yet another vaccination to prevent a disease that is usually quite mild, carries its greatest risk after the more natural early childhood time of infection—which provides a lifetime of immunity and protection for babies through their mothers—and all without considering the risks inherent in the vaccine itself.


iVillage Member
Registered: 04-09-2008
Wed, 03-03-2010 - 7:39am

This would be a good thing to know. My hypothesis is that 98% will be over the age of 12.


Interestingly, the ages of patients with complications isn't reported.



iVillage Member
Registered: 10-03-2009
Tue, 03-09-2010 - 9:37am

So out of 1500 cases there have been zero fatalities.

What, exactly then, is the mumps vaccine protecting against?

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-21-2010
Tue, 03-09-2010 - 9:46am

Low bank account balances?


iVillage Member
Registered: 10-03-2009
Tue, 03-09-2010 - 9:59am
iVillage Member
Registered: 10-18-2007
Tue, 03-09-2010 - 10:46am

Did you read Inside Vaccines write-up?

“Just because you need a third dose doesn’t mean the two dose schedule is having issues or anything”
February 16, 2010 by generic
Filed under: CDC Watch, News, Opinion, Parents' Pages, Vaccine/Disease Analysis

Mumps story:

Because of continued spread, health authorities working with communities in Orange County are giving schoolchildren a third dose of the MMR vaccine. Gallagher says it will be two or three months before it’s known whether the effort succeeded.

Why do they need a third dose?

The infections happened despite high coverage with the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine. Among patients ages 7 to 18 — the age group that had the most cases — 85% of patients had received the two recommended MMR vaccine doses.

This doesn’t mean the MMR vaccine isn’t working, says epidemiologist Kathleen Gallagher, DSc, MPH, the CDC’s team leader for measles, mumps, and rubella.

“Two doses of mumps vaccine is believed to be 90% to 95% effective,” Gallagher tells WebMD. “But that means people can still get mumps. If the vaccine is 90% effective and 100 people are exposed to mumps, 10 will get the disease.”

If we imagine that mumps is being sprinkled from the sky and spread evenly throughout the population, then yes, one out of ten vaccinated people would catch mumps if the vaccine was, indeed, 90% effective, or one out of twenty if it were 95% effective. But if the vaccine creates “herd immunity” then the disease shouldn’t be able to jump from vaccinated person to vaccinated person to vaccinated person.

In related news the former Deputy Secretary of Health and Human Services said yesterday:

When I served at the Department of Health and Human Services, we found that the anti-vaccine forces had so demonized the Centers for Disease Control that CDC messages on vaccines had been significantly devalued. As a result, senior officials up to and including the Secretary of HHS had to spend precious time better directed elsewhere fighting back against anti-vaccine messages because of the skepticism with which CDC messages were received.

My goodness! Skepticism? Frankly, the problem seems to be a lack of accuracy in the messages, not skepticism amongst the public. For example during the 2006 epidemic, the CDC said:

During the outbreak in 2006, when many mumps cases occurred in those who had been vaccinated, two doses of the vaccine were estimated to be 79% – 88% effective in preventing mumps.

At that rate, 12 to 21 people out of every 100 vaccinated with two doses would be coming down with the mumps.

Today, in 2010, the CDC spokesperson is saying that the mumps vaccine is 90 to 95% effective. If doubly mumps-vaccinated people are transmitting mumps from vaccinated person to vaccinated person to vaccinated person, how is the mumps vaccine considered to be 90-95% effective? How is herd immunity functioning here?

Why, in 2006, was the CDC saying that two doses of the the mumps vaccine was 79 – 88% effective?

The CDC wants to be trusted, yet flip-flops on the effectiveness of the mumps vaccine depending on which story they spin. How does the CDC expect to inspire public confidence in anything of real significance when their messages are not in line with the science? Why is the CDC surprised that the public doesn’t believe that CDC’s other science is anything more than selective publication of research to suit their changing stories?

If CDC wants to be thought to be reliable, scientific and accurate, perhaps they might want to decide which “fact” is science, and which “fact” is marketing, and whether they want to deal in fact or marketing.

Perhaps they might want to consider that there might come a day when they suggest a fourth MMR, and the public rebels against anything they have to say.

Perhaps members of the American public who believe that CDC is dishonest, incompetent, or worse, deserve an evidence based explanation as to why a third MMR doesn’t mean two MMRs aren’t doing their job.

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-21-2010
Tue, 03-09-2010 - 10:56am

"“Two doses of mumps vaccine is believed to be 90% to 95% effective,”"

I would like to see where she gets this from. Does anyone have the study easily at hand? I'm guessing the 90% to 95% effective stuff was derived at by looking at vaccinees two weeks after the vaccine. Has anyone looked after two years? Does anyone know?

"This doesn’t mean the MMR vaccine isn’t working,"

'Course not...

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-18-2007
Tue, 03-09-2010 - 11:08am

Efficacy is always measured in terms of serological immunity. The problem, is that just because you are serologically immune, it doesn't mean you will actually be able to resist infection / disease.

This is why disease outbreaks occur in fully vaccinated populations.

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-21-2010
Tue, 03-09-2010 - 11:08am

"Secretary of HHS had to spend precious time better directed elsewhere fighting back against anti-vaccine messages because of the skepticism with which CDC messages were received."

Well that landed soup all over my monitor! Yes, I'm having lunch at 11:00. Sometimes I have the need to separate myself from my kids...this is one of those days! But the above was just hysterical!

Maybe telling the truth would keep all us anti-vaccine folks away from the CDC's "messages". I don't know about the rest of you but if what I read on the CDC's site was honest and that honesty was seen on TV (or other media outlets) then I wouldn't waste my time correcting the lies and half-truths. Why would I? If there were no lies then I would not need to. It's funny how people with power assume that everyone else is stupid... or maybe its not assumption, but more like *need*. They need us to all be stupid enough to fall for the BS. Because if we fall for it, we'll also spread it. And that we do.

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-21-2010
Tue, 03-09-2010 - 11:09am
Oh yes --- how did I forget that one???
iVillage Member
Registered: 10-18-2007
Tue, 03-09-2010 - 11:12am
Reminds me of the Sandman post below..... The man is obviously provaccine, but is smart enough to realize that the public is catching on and that there is a better way to address this controversy. Skeptics can say it's manufactured all they want to, not everyone is gullible enough to believe it.