Bio Job Blog : Bio Jobs : Biotechnology Jobs : Biopharmaceutical Jobs : Bioscience, Biotech Jobs : Bio Job Blog : Biocareer : Bio-Business Training, Biotechnology Training : Jobs in Biology : Internships in Biology : Internships in Biotechnology

As I scientist, I find it offensive that Republican Presidential candidates like Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry are allowed to spew false claims and scientifically-wrong information to the public without a peep from the scientific community. Perhaps many scientists choose to not publicly speak out--even though they know that the information is wrong or unsubstantiated--because they don't want to attract attention to their often arcane research for fear that their funding may be cut.  Or, maybe,scientists too often believe that the public won't understand what they say anyway. Whatever the reason, I applaud two bioethicists, Art Caplan at the University of Pennsylvania and Steve Miles at the University of Minnesota, for standing up to Michele Bachmann, a tea party Republican presidential hopeful, assertions that  human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines--that protect against cervical cancer --cause mental retardation in those girls who are vaccinated with them.

Caplan accomplished this by publicly offering $10,000 to charity if  Bachmann can prove her claim that she mad during a GOP debate on Monday night that HPV vaccination causes mental retardation. Similarly, Steve Miles offered $1,000 to Bachmann if she could substantiate her claims.

At present, HPV vaccination is voluntary. Further, there is absolutely no clinical data that links HPV vaccination to the onset of autism or for that matter mental retardation. As many of you know by now, the research that was used to show a link between childhood vaccinations and autism was fabricated and the scientist who performed the work was found to be a fraud.

Unfortunately, many politicians feel compelled to share their scientific views-- and make claims to support those views--without being qualified or trained to analyze whether or not the claims they make are scientifically accurate or valid.  Anecdotal, scientifically-unproven rhetoric is unacceptable when making scientific claims for or against a specific product.  To that end, I suspect that if Merck and GSK, the manufacturers of two FDA-approved HPV vaccines, were so inclined they could possibly file defamation lawsuits against Bachmann. This is because I believe that she intentionally made comments that are known not to be true with malicious intent. Interestingly, sales one of the HPV products, Merck's Gardasil, have recently hit an all time low!

I think it is time for the scientific community to publicly debunk many of the scientific myths e.g., vaccination and autism, creative design and that global warning is not real,  perpetrated upon the public by bat-shit crazy members of the tea party, right wing conservative republicans  and religious zealots.  Failure to do so will lead to the ongoing decline in STEM preparedness and competitiveness in the US.

Hat tip to Drs. Caplan and Miles for publicly challenging one of the many scientifically-illiterate candidates running for president.

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Christopher Rutty, a science writer and historian and member of a LinkedIn Group that I belong to, posted a link to a Penn and Teller  YouTube video on childhood vaccinations.  I had no idea what to expect, but after viewing the video all I could say was "Wow, how brilliant."  I don't think that I have ever seen a more elegant and easy-to-understand piece on the science and ultimate benefits of childhood vaccinations! 

Hat tip to Penn and Teller and the creative folks behind the video!

Until next time,

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As an American I enjoy the freedom of expression guaranteed to me by the first amendment of the Constitution. Likewise, others who may disagree with the things I say can choose to let their feelings be known to me by commenting on my blog posts. 

While I am willing to engage others who may disagree with me, some of the comments (see below) that I  received from anti-vaccine advocates reveal how misinformed and extremist many of them are.

Name: JOHN

Email: KLEINC@JUNO.COM

Phone: 555.555.1555

Comments: YOU PEOPLE SUCK!!!  One word...... DIE 

 

Name: Cynthia

Email:  helenh@aol.com

Phone: 908 343 6778

Comments: your company sucks. Your killing people all over the place.
you don'nt think we know this! All your vaccines are lined with
squalene.you thrive on people staying sick. your workers are all
branewashed. Little do they know u are killing them off too.yu know
what you guys are?  HITLER yes thats right, HITLER. You know where all
you guys are going! 

 

A good friend of mine told me once that “engaging fanatics in discourse is a waste of time; all they want to do is kill you.” I think he may have been right! Nevertheless, I am and will continue to be a staunch support of childhood and other vaccinations. And ironically, the anti-vaccine people who left me those comments (and likely refused to be vaccinated) are probably at greater risk of dying than me! 

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Despite a court ruling last week that dismissed the bogus link between vaccination and autism, I continue to receive comments from so-called “non-vaccinators” about a post that I published last week about New Jersey’s dismal vaccinations rates. Most of the comments are anecdotal and suggest that childhood vaccination was the likely culprit for their children’s autism, brain damage or other ailments. While I feel their pain, the notion that children should not continue to be vaccinated is misguided and has serious negative public health implications.

There is ample public health and scientific information that suggests that childhood vaccination has worked well to reduce the incidence of morbidity and mortality in Western nations. Ironically, if it wasn’t for mandatory childhood vaccinations, the death and lasting physical or neurological damage caused by many preventable diseases like smallpox, measles, mumps, diphtheria and whooping cough would be much higher. Unfortunately, we Americans have been lead to believe —intentionally or not—that there should be no side effects associated with drugs, vaccines and other medicines. The bottom line is that all drugs, vaccines and medicines have side effects; some more serious or noticeable than others! Further, the decision to develop new drugs and vaccines is always based on a risk to benefit ratio. Pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies will only develop products to address unmet medical needs when the benefits of these products clearly outweigh the potential risks. However, in some cases, most notably cancer drugs, the risk to benefit ratio becomes less obvious. There is no question that most cancer drugs have serious and potential life threatening side effects. Nevertheless, the benefit—survival and not death—far outweighs potential downstream risks!

Like it or not, the medical benefits of vaccination far outweigh the risks associated with them. As many of you may know, there is currently a whooping cough epidemic in California. California health officials assert that the epidemic likely started among unvaccinated individuals and then spread to the larger population. The observation that many of the patients with whooping cough were previously vaccinated against the disease in childhood suggests that either their immunity to whooping has declined over the years or that the causative bacterium, Bordetella pertussis has become more virulent. 

The former hypothesis is more likely than the later mainly because Bordetella infections were almost non-existent until increased immigration and the non-vaccination movement began in earnest about 15 years ago! Students of infectious diseases will tell you that virulence of infectious agents tends to increase as they are passed from one infected individual to the next. Consequently, the lack of any significant B pertussis outbreaks (until very recently) suggests that changes in the underlying virulence mechanism of the bacterium are not responsible for the current outbreaks.

Again, as a parent, I understand the pain and suffering of those whose children may have experienced debilitating effects coincident with childhood vaccination regimens. However, as more parents continue to eschew vaccination against childhood disease, the incidence of death and children with serious life long debilitating effects associated with many common childhood diseases is certain to rise. With this in mind, I will continue to write and post articles that support childhood vaccinations. I will gladly stop posting these articles when someone can provide me with scientifically accurate and valid data that suggest that vaccination does more harm than good!

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

There was an extremely troubling article in today’s New Jersey Trenton Times that indicated that a New Jersey’s childhood vaccination rates ranked 42nd in 2009—45^th in 2008—in the nation. The ranking were based on annual vaccination statistic compiled by the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta, GA.

The lead-in paragraph to the article elegantly captured the irony of the dubious statistic:

“One of the most affluent (and most populous states) states in the country, home to more than a few giants in the pharmaceutical industry also has one of the lowest rates of immunizing babies and toddlers in the nation.”

New Jersey’s vaccination rates among infants and toddlers for childhood diseases— mumps, measles, diphtheria, Pertussis (whooping cough), hepatitis B and rubella—was roughly 64 percent in 2009. This was significantly lower than the national average of 71 percent and the lowest in the Northeast. For example, in Pennsylvania and New York, two of the states bordering New Jersey, the vaccination rates in 2009 were 72 and 71 present respectively.

The reasons given for the low rate are plausible but, in most cases, incomprehensible from an infectious diseases and public health perspectives. It has been postulated that low-income and immigrant communities lack health insurance and access to medical information about mandatory childhood vaccination regimens. While it is facile to blame low income and immigrant populations for New Jersey's  egregiously low vaccination rate, the problem may actually lie with more affluent and educated NJ citizens who have medical insurance (help to pay the salaries of medical billing workers) and understand the public health implications of mandatory childhood immunizations. 

According to the article, parents and even some health care professionals are backing away from mandatory vaccination because they “don’t like seeing kids cry” after sometimes receiving up to four vaccinations during a single office visit! Say what????? I accompanied my three children for most of their childhood immunizations, and while some tears may have been shed, they recovered quickly and are now protected against a variety of potentially life-threatening diseases.  Apparently, some parents and health care professionals are willing to jeopardize the public health of a nation because the “shots hurt.” To that I say; get over it—like it or not, life can be painful and no matter how hard you may try you cannot shield your kids from it!

The fallacious and recently publicly discredited link between childhood vaccination and autism, coupled with the growing public distrust of the pharmaceutical companies that manufacture the vaccines may be more plausible explanations for New Jersey’s declining immunization rates in NJ. This suggests that vaccine manufacturers and public health officials ought to work closely together to be educate the American public about the benefits and potential risks associated with childhood vaccination.

Finally, as some of you may know, many states like New Jersey have religious exemptions that allow children to skip mandatory childhood immunizations. Interestingly and troublingly these children are allowed to attend public schools despite the fact that they haven’t been vaccinated. Again, I say what??? Increasingly, these unvaccinated students have been implicated as the reservoirs for the pertussis outbreaks that are currently ravaging school aged children and older adults throughout the US. It is my belief that children who fail to receive the appropriate immunizations because of religious reason should not be allowed to attend public school. This is because, unlike many of the low income and immigrant families who may be unaware or cannot afford to immunize their children because they lack health insurance, many of the folks claiming religious exemptions have health insurance and are living above the poverty level. Consequently, if these parents choose to not immunize their children (and fail to meet mandated public health requirements for entry into public schools), then they ought to be financially responsible for their child’s education.

Paradoxically, the plummeting vaccination rates in New Jersey and elsewhere are being driven by a small but extremely vocal segment of the American public. Unfortunately, this anti-vaccine sentiment in America is unlikely to abate until an increasing number of children begin to die from easily preventable childhood diseases. As far as I am concerned, the benefits of childhood vaccines far outweigh their risks and help to maintain the public health of all Americans.

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Late last week, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved GlaxoSmithKline’s cervical cancer vaccine Cervarix for use in girls and women ages 10 to 25 and also approved Gardasil —Merck’s cervical cancer vaccine previously approved in 2006 for use in girls and women—for boys and men ages 9 to 26. For those of you who may not know, over 99% of human cervical cancers are caused by infections with cancer-causing strains of the human papilloma virus (HPV) which also causes venereal warts. Vaccination with Cervarix protects against cervical cancer by inducing immunity against HPV 16 and 18 (which cause most cervical cancers in developed nations) whereas Gardasil affords protection against HPV 16 and 18 as well as HPV 6 and 11, strains that cause venereal warts (which don’t lead to cancer).

Despite FDA’s approval to vaccinate boys with Gardasil to prevent HPV infections, the Centers for Disease Control’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP)— which guides national policy on use of vaccines—decided yesterday to recommend the use of the vaccine in girls and women but didn’t fully endorse its use in males. Typically, ACIP recommendations are adopted by professional medical associations and set the standards of practice for physicians. Also, its recommendations play a major role in determining whether or not insurers and third party payors will reimburse patients who are vaccinated. The new recommendations mean, in effect, that physicians and clinics may now administer the vaccine at their discretion to boys and men ages 9 to 26, but they are not expected to offer it. In contrast, vaccination of girls and women ages 10 to 25 will be strongly recommended, readily available and reimbursable. This means that parents may consider the vaccine as an option for their sons, but some health insurers may choose not to cover the shots—an option which is sure to severely limit the numbers of boys and men who are vaccinated with Gardasil.

The ACIP committee decided not to include Gardasil immunization for boys and men on its recommended list because several members, most notably a medical economist, questioned whether vaccinating boys would be cost effective in the long run. At the heart of the debate was whether or not it was appropriate and cost-effective to vaccinate boys for a problem (venereal warts) that can be embarrassing and uncomfortable but is not life-threatening. For those of you who may not know, Gardasil immunization is expensive and requires a series of three injections that cost $130 each ($390 total).  Cervarix, which also requires a series of three injections, is planned to be offered for $385.

Last year in the United States, about 37 percent of girls ages 13 to 17 started the Gardasil vaccine series, a national immunization survey showed, and about half of them completed it. Not a great track record for a vaccine demonstrated to prevent cervical cancer and dramatically reduce the transmission of venereal warts. Nevertheless, yesterday’s decision to recommend vaccination for girls and women but not boys and men makes no sense to me from a public health perspective and it almost smacks of gender bias. Let me explain.

Like all other sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), HPV is transmitted from men to women and visa versa. Based on years of epidemiological studies, the only effective way to reduce the overall incidence of STDs is to implement strategies that prevent infections in both females and males. While boys and men can’t develop cervical cancer, they do contract venereal warts and perhaps, more importantly, can serve as carriers or reservoirs of HPV infection in the population. In other words, infected males (who may or may not show symptoms of HPV infection) still possess the potential to transmit it to sexually-active, unvaccinated girls and women. Consequently, while the incidence of HPV infections may begin to decrease among women after immunization, it will never be completely eliminated and the possibility of developing cervical cancer will continue to be a public health concern.

While the ACIP’s understanding of the transmission of STDs is tragically flawed, its willingness to publicly disclose cost effectiveness as a reason to not endorse HPV vaccination for males is even more egregious! The agency’s decision begs the question: Which is more costly; 10,000 American women developing cervical cancer each year (and countless others going for unnecessary cervical biopsies because of “bad” Pap smears) or a heads up to insurance companies that they ought to cover the costs of male HPV immunizations? 

The ACIP’s reluctance to recommend male HPV vaccination based on economic and health care cost concerns rather than on public health implications is yet another example of how broken the US healthcare system is and how drastically it needs to be reformed. Allowing 3,700 women to die each year in the US from cervical cancer when there is a safe and effective way to prevent these deaths is, in my opinion, unconscionable!

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Without fanfare, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) quietly announced today that the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted approval for CERVARIX® [Human papillomavirus bivalent (types 16 and 18) vaccine, recombinant] for the prevention of cervical pre-cancers and cervical cancer associated with oncogenic human papillomavirus (HPV) types 16 and 18 for use in girls and young women (aged 10-25).

It has taken GSK over three years to garner US regulatory approval for CERVARIX® which has been approved and used in over 100 other countries in the world. Early "unspecified concerns" delayed approval and, as recently as two weeks, FDA delayed a decision despite recommendations from an advisory panel to approve the vaccine. Coincidentally, a week before the agency was expected to announce approval for the vaccine, a British girl died after she was vaccinated with Cervarix. While FDA spokespersons claimed that the girl’s death following vaccination had nothing to do with the delaying a decision on Cervarix, many industry pundits believe that the FDA was reluctant to approve the vaccine in light of the sensational media coverage in the UK surrounding the incident. After an autopsy was performed on the girl, British authorities announced that a massive cardiac tumor that had infiltrated one of her lungs, not Cervarix was responsible for her death.

Today’s approval of Cervarix provides American consumers with an alterative to Gardasil, Merck’s cervical cancer vaccine that was approved about two years ago. That said, the ability to protect girls and young women from the possibility of developing cervical cancer is more important than which of the two vaccines is used to induce immunity. I plan on immunizing my daughter when she is old enough!

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

My son, who is a 9^th grader, was recently asked to write an essay for his social studies class about the application of Machiavellian principles to modern day rulers and governments. One of Machiavelli’s ideas that he chose to write about was the notion that a good ruler or government must do it’s very best to insure the safety and health of its subjects or constituents. While this may seem altruistic or philanthropic don’t be fooled—workers who are afraid, unhealthy or regularly ill aren’t productive and can threaten the economic well-being and stability of a society. In any event, he asked me to help with a modern day example of how safety can be reconciled with the Machiavellian principle; “the end justifies the means.” As an infectious disease professional, I quickly realized that mandatory vaccination of newborns and school-aged children against viral and bacterial diseases is a great example.

Prior to the development and subsequent worldwide use of childhood vaccines, epidemics and pandemics of smallpox, measles, polio, diphtheria and other serious diseases routinely ravaged the planet with impunity. During the recurring outbreaks, large numbers of people became ill, and while some sustained life-long debilitating injuries, many others suffered long, painful and excruciating deaths. The recognition that often devastating and regularly occurring outbreaks and epidemics could threaten the well being— and possibly destabilize monarchies and democratically elected governments—  led to the development of  20^th century vaccines against many bacterial and viral childhood diseases. However, it is important to note, while most vaccines are safe and offer protection for many individuals (typically 90% or higher), a small percentage (usually 1% to 5%) of those vaccinated, may experience side effects ranging from mild to severe and possibly life threatening. I believe that vaccination is a polemic for the “ends justify the means” principle because while some vaccinated individual may suffer serious side effects or death greater numbers will benefit from the protection and safety afforded by most vaccines. In other words, governments must be willing to risk harm and possibly death to some of its citizens to insure the productivity, well being and ultimately the safety of the majority.

Despite the medical and health benefits of vaccines, the anti-vaccine movement in the US has steadily been gaining strength of late. Vaccine opponents’ fears have been stoked and promulgated by bogus clinical data offered by fraudulent scientists (which have subsequently been discredited and refuted) and media outlets seeking sensational stories to sell magazines and newspapers. Last week, a 14 year old British girl died shortly after being vaccinated with Cervarix, GlaxoSmithKline’s (GSK) cervical cancer vaccine. This story was quickly pounced upon by the British tabloids and widely circulated.  In the end, the safety of the Cervarix—a vaccine administered to 1.8 million girls without a single death similar to the one that had occurred—became suspect. Almost immediately, anti-vaccine advocates publicized this unfortunate incident as another other reason why parents shouldn’t vaccinate their children. The girl’s death prompted UK officials to immediately suspend all nationwide Cervarix vaccinations; even though an autopsy hadn’t been performed to determine the actual cause of the girl’s death. After an autopsy was finally performed, British health officials announced that the girl had a large cardiac tumor that had infiltrated one of her lungs and that it was likely cancer not Cervarix that caused her death. Unfortunately, the media’s feeding frenzy fanned by the anti-vaccine lobby’s loud voice may have cost GSK US FDA approval of  Cervarix—a product approved and safely used in over 100 countries! 

About three weeks prior to the British girl’s death, an FDA advisory committee unanimously recommended approval of Cervarix. Generally, the agency follows recommendations of its advisory committees. Ironically, the girl’s death occurred several day’s prior to an FDA decision on whether or not to approve Cervarix. Much to the surprise of many industry experts, this past Tuesday, FDA delayed its decision on Cervarix’s approval. FDA spokespeople claimed that the girl’s death had no bearing on its decision to delay Cervarix’s approval (if you believe that, would any of you be interested in some land in Florida?).

It is no secret that GSK has struggled to get Cervarix approved in the US —a decision on its approval has been delayed three times over the past several years. In the interim, the company has managed to successfully address all of the agency’s concerns over Cervarix’s safety and efficacy.

FDA’s decision to delay Cervarix’s approval is great news and something of a victory for Merck, the manufacturer of Gardasil— the ONLY cervical cancer vaccine approved in the US and Cervarix’s main competitor. Failure of Cervarix to win FDA approval will undoubtedly help Merck to bolster Gardasil sales and help it maintain its stranglehold on the US anti-cervical cancer market for the foreseeable future!

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As an iPhone user, I am constantly amazed at the applications that are developed for it. I recently downloaded a flashlight app that converts my iPhone into a flash light in case of a power outage or finding myself in the dark like I did two summers ago at Moosehead Lake in Maine. Just when I thought iphone apps couldn’t get cooler, I learned about a new app called “Outbreaks By Me.” It was developed by researchers at Children's Hospital Boston in collaboration with the MIT Media Lab, enables users to track and report outbreaks of infectious diseases, such as H1N1 (swine flu), on the ground in real time. The application can be downloaded from iTunes.

According to a press release “the application builds upon the mission and proven capability of HealthMap, an online resource that collects, filters, maps and disseminates information about emerging infectious diseases, and provides a new, contextualized view of a user's specific location – pinpointing outbreaks that have been reported in the vicinity of the user and offering the opportunity to search for additional outbreak information by location or disease.” An additional feature of Outbreaks Near Me is the ability to set alerts that will notify users via text or by e-mail when new outbreaks are reported in their proximity, or if users enter a new area of activity. It also offers an option for users to submit an outbreak report which will allow people in cities and countries around the world to interact with the HealthMap team and participate in the public health surveillance process.

What will iPhone app developers think of next— an app for swine flu vaccination?   Now that would be way cool!

Until next time....

Good Luck and Good Swine Flu Hunting!!!!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Professor Vincent Racaniello, a BioCrowd co-founder and virologist who studies the pathogenesis of polio and influenza viruses commented that there will likely be two influenza vaccines offered this fall: a trivalent vaccine consisting of seasonal H3N2 and H1N1 strains and an influenza B strain; and a monovalent one consisting of the 2009 pandemic H1N1 strain.

He posited an interesting question to BioCrowd members earlier today: "Will you be receiving a flu vaccine this fall, and if so, which one?"

To weigh in on the topic and find out which vaccines makes sense for you, check out Professor Racaniello’s influenza vaccine survey and discussion at BioCrowd!

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Networking @ BioCrowd!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The appearance of the Swine Flu aka H1N1 last spring not only created a worldwide panic, it demonstrated to Albert Osterhaus, head of virology at the Erasmus Medical Center in the Netherlands how uninformed the lay public was about viral outbreaks, epidemiology and public health. This prompted Dr. Osterhaus and his colleagues to create a free, online video game called the “The Great Flu” which challenges players to control a new viral pandemic.

As the virus has spread worldwide, countries have tried different methods to slow it down and pharmaceutical companies are now racing to produce a swine flu vaccine (sound familiar?). To fight the emerging outbreak, players use public health measures including setting up surveillance systems, stockpiling antivirals and vaccines, and closing schools and airports. Players also have a limited budget and are warned that "your actions to control the virus cost money, so keep an eye on it." In other words, while the goal is to control the pandemic, there may not be sufficient funds and resources to accomplish those goals!

A running tally of the numbers of people infected and those who have died are displayed above the budget. Newspaper stories about the deadly virus and the global response to it — like riots breaking out worldwide — pop up to help players monitor the outbreak and plan their next moves. Messages from governments mirror the difficulties faced by international agencies like WHO that are responsible for containing worldwide epidemics. For example, when players set up costly surveillance systems, sometimes participating governments will send a message "we will comply with your directions...but we must inform you that the political support for this action is low in this region. Therefore, the effectiveness of the system to control the outbreak may differ from your expectations."

The goal of the game is make the lay public aware of the difficulties that public health officials encounter during pandemics and the tight rope they sometimes must walk to insure that the virus is contained and doesn’t continue to spread. To test your skill level at controlling pandemics, you can choose different viruses (which range from easy to difficult to manage) at the beginning of the game.

I think “The Great Flu” is a great way to educate the public about infectious diseases and epidemiology and have fun at the same time. If you are interested in more sinister online swine flu games check this out.  Who said learning science has to be tedious and dull?

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Virus Hunting!!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Do you lie awake a night overwhelmed by the possibility of another infectious disease outbreak? Well, if you want to get a good night’s sleep, I highly recommend that you take a look at a brief history of American epidemics that was published in this past Sunday’s New York Times. According to the article, history shows that the number of American epidemics has been relatively small. In fact, the author suggests that there were only nine major epidemics in the US since 1892. 

While there were several major outbreaks in the early to mid 1900s (Spanish flu, 1918; smallpox, 1947 and polio, 1952), the US has been relatively unscathed in recent years—with the possible exception of the HIV/AIDS epidemic and possibly the herpes and HPV epidemics. This is because of America’s outstanding infectious diseases surveillance networks, its comprehensive vaccination programs and modern medical and hospital infrastructures.

However, no matter how vigilant we are, there is no way to prevent infectious disease outbreaks unless the pathogens that cause the diseases are eradicated from the planet as was the case for the smallpox virus. That said, the best way to manage infectious disease epidemics is to be prepared for all contingencies.  In my opinion, the recent swine flu outbreak—this was its second appearance, the first taking place in 1976—was a practice run. And I think the world did “pretty, pretty good” as Larry David, my former NYC softball teammate and co-creator of Seinfeld would say!

Until next time...

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

If you are not convinced that vaccines are safe, please listen to a conversation between Dr. Ginger Campbell of the Brain Science Podcast and Dr. Paul Offit.

Dr. Offit is a pediatrician who is also Chief of Infectious Diseases and Director of Vaccine Education at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine. He is co-developer of the rotavirus vaccine and author of the book Autism’s False Prophets: Bad Science, Risky Medicine, and the Search for a Cure. This book should be read to obtain a complete appreciation of the vaccine-autism controversy. However, I found the podcast also highly compelling, because Dr. Offit is extremely knowledgeable and an excellent speaker.

The furor surrounding childhood vaccines began when Wakefield, a British gastroenterologist, published a Lancet article in 1998 claiming to show a link between the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine (MMR) and development of autism in children. Although the study was flawed, it established a clear question: does MMR cause autism? This question has been addressed in 12 different epidemiological studies involving millions of children who either did or did not receive the vaccine. The answer is quite clear: that vaccine never caused autism. Here are Dr. Offit’s thoughts on this:

…science is enormously self-correcting. Andrew Wakefield stands up in 1998 and says, ‘I believe MMR causes autism.’ Well, he raises a hypothesis. It’s a testable hypothesis. It’s been tested. He was wrong. And that’s what I love about science. It’s just enormously self-correcting, and I just think people don’t see it that way¹

The original Wakefield paper has been retracted by 10 of the 13 authors. However, the damage has been done: immunization rates with MMR have dropped in the UK, Europe, and the US. The incidence of measles is increasing and there have been deaths of children from the disease. Deaths that could have been prevented had parents chosen to have their children immunized with MMR. The controversy over MMR has lead the public to distrust all viral and bacterial vaccines, and consequently the incidence of other preventable diseases is rising.

The notion that MMR causes autism was accompanied by safety concerns about thimerosal - a mercury-containing preservative used in some vaccines to prevent microbial contamination. The results of several large epidemiological studies found no connection between autism and thimerosal. Nevertheless, the preservative was removed from most childhood vaccines - probably an error, according to Dr. Offit, which simply made parents more suspicious. Autism rates have not dropped since the use of thimerosal was discontinued.

Many parents still do not believe the conclusion that vaccines do not cause autism. Part of the problem is that the etiology of autism is not understood. To a parent, the temporal association of immunization with onset of autism is difficult to ignore. Dr. Offit recalls a story which addresses this issue:

…it’s hard to make a statistical argument, or an epidemiological argument, to a parent who’s seen something that’s very emotional. There’s a story that I tell, because I think it’s a powerful one. My wife is a privately practicing pediatrician in the suburbs. And she was in the office one day and there was a four-month-old sitting on her mother’s lap. And my wife was drawing a vaccine into a syringe that she was about to give this child. Well, while she was drawing the vaccine into a syringe the child had a seizure, and actually went on to have a permanent seizure disorder—epilepsy. And there had been a family history of epilepsy, so she was certainly at risk for that. If my wife had given that vaccine five minutes earlier, I think there’s no amount of statistical data in the world that would have convinced that mother that anything other than the vaccine caused the seizure, because I think those sort of emotional events are very hard to argue against.

Some have accused Dr. Offit of pandering to the pharmaceutical establishment and enriching himself by publishing Autism’s False Prophets. I don’t think these arguments contain a shred of truth. Dr. Offit is donating all the royalties from the boook to autism research. More compelling are his words from the interview:

I worked on that (rotavirus) vaccine because I thought that it could do a tremendous amount of good for children. It’s the same reason that I stand up for the science of vaccines and the science of vaccine safety. I care about children. That’s my motivation.

¹Quotations by Dr. Offit are taken from a transcript of his conversation with Dr. Ginger Campbell.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said about 25% of teenage girls received at least one dose of Merck & Co.'s Gardasil vaccine in 2007, providing the first national estimate of usage of the company’s controversial anti- HPV (cervical cancer) vaccine.

A 25% usage rate for a a new vaccine during its first year on the market is outstanding. That said, Merck’s Gardasil is the only approved anti-HPV vaccine in the US. Approval of GlaxoSmithKline’s competing product, Cervarix, by FDA has been delayed for so-called “regulatory issues.” Also, Merck has been heavily promoting Gardasil use via well-crafted DTC ads and a variety of clever promotional campaigns aimed at adolescent girls and their mothers.

Despite all the negative press and Merck’s questionable marketing practices, Gardasil appears to be doing very well—something that Merck desperately needs.

Until next time…

Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!!!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link