A vaccine for superbugs because it isn't profitable enough to make antibiotics.

[bubbleymummy]

Story here

Not exactly ethical really is it? Not that the pharmaceutical companies are that well known for their ethics... :)

The Pharmaceutical companies are in the right here.

Some people don't seem to realise that in a capitalist society companies are not supposed to do things out of charity Our system depends on them doing what makes a profit. It's the way we have chosen as a society.

If you want research done for altruistic reasons then email your MP and ask for your taxes to be increased to pay for it.

What's that? you don't want to pay more tax? You just think somebody else should pay for it?

Or fund-raise for charities doing medical research (not sure there is one focussed on fighting bacterial infection... perhaps there should be)

www.meningitisuk.org/

While it's true that these companies are funding research, it's also true that they are making money out of others' pain, illness and disease. The less we are ill, the less money they make.

It's in their interests for the entire population to have multiple vaccines throughout their lifetime. It's in their interests for there to be drugs for every complaint under the sun, large or small. Is it really in our interests to be injecting and pill popping at every opportunity?

We can argue that we are alleviating suffering and in a lot of cases, we are. However, the emphasis and the public perception is shifted from the prevention of illness and disease to the treatment of the same.

There are many, many conditions, bugs, illnesses and complaints that can be prevented, relieved or cured with a little more knowledge and a bit more responsibility for one's own health.

It's always going to be the harder path though and lazy joe public, seeking instant gratification and results is never going to go for it in a big way.

I worry about multiple vaccinations and what they will do to our overall health as a species. We may end up with immune systems that have never responded to a full on attack and we may end up weaker as a result.

What happens then, when something really vicious appears?

vaccines train the immune system - and measles are "really vicious". Other "really vicious" bugs, like EHEC recently in Germany, will kill people, period. That is independent of vaccinations. I resent the "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger" attitude behind the vaccine refusal.

DP had meningitis as a child, scary but he's alive. The positive side is that he's very up on the disease and how to recognise it.

I'm not sure about the vaccines train the immune system arguement. Being injected with a weak form is inherently different from responding to the real thing entering via the respiratory system or otherwise. I'm not sure the training provided is necessarily that good.

why?

I've had multiple evil tummy bugs in far flung places and as a result, suffer much more lightly from anything like that than DP, who has never had giardia or anything else.

What if it does make not only you as an individual but us as a species stronger. I'm not denying that diseases such as measles can be vicious for some people. But others, myself included, had it as a child with no problems and as a result passed natural immunity on to the next generation.

The fact of the matter is that bugs such as MRSA have developed as a direct result of our attitudes to treating disease. Much like any war, I think we've just upped the stakes and changed the game. Gained on one hand, lost on others.

As I said though in a previous post, it's a difficult topic and very polarised. I don't think there is a right answer. And I suspect both "sides" here are unlikely to change their pov.

The less we are ill, the less money they make

No. My DH has a small sackful of tablets each month. With them, he's a healthy functioning productive person. Without them ...well, he's got several different conditions (thyroid, BP, atrial fibrillation). He'd probably be dead by now without the meds (his uncle with same BP cause was by this age, before effective treatment), if not he'd be very ill by now.

They make money by making us less ill. (or in the case of vaccines, not ill at all.)

Being injected with a weak form is inherently different from responding to the real thing entering via the respiratory system or otherwise

Er yes. It causes sufficient immune response to protect you, without killing you.

Humankind didn't seem to be developing much by way of natural resistance to smalpox. Vaccinations have eradicated it.

Grimma for your DH, of course it's not the case. But not everyone is like your DH.

I'm ducking out of this now, it's degenerating into the old arguements that have been said a million times before. I suspect here, like then, there will be little understanding and even less resolution.

Re the statement: "I'm not denying that diseases such as measles can be vicious for some people. But others, myself included, had it as a child with no problems and as a result passed natural immunity on to the next generation."

You cannot pass immunity to specific illnesses on to the next generation. This is not how the immune system works. We are born with millions of different types of un-active lymphocytes and they remain in this state until activated by a particular disease. This can be by a vaccine or by the disease itself.
Yes the disease itself can cause a more powerful immune reaction. But the child mortality rate is rather high if you adopt this philosophy.
Children in the past may have had lots of fresh air and good food but they still died off in large numbers, until vaccinations were introduced. Then the death rates started to fall.

Vast numbers are like my DH, to some extent, at some stage of their lives. Often at a stage they'd never have even got to in the pre-pharmaceutical era.

Catharina, I really don't understand your logic. Clearly having high vaccination coverage does NOT prevent outbreaks. If you can't prevent outbreaks you are not going to eliminate the disease.

Imadgeine, maternal antibodies are passed on to the baby. It's called passive immunity. It doesn't last a lifetime but it protects our young when they are most vulnerable. One of the reasons the MMR vaccine is given at 13 months is because maternal antibodies interfere with the immune response to the vaccine. Maternal antibodies from a mother who has actually had measles last longer than those from a mother who has been vaccinated against it. It is why more young children are contracting measles (when they are most vulnerable) they no longer have adequate protection from their mother's antibodies.

To eradicate measles, you need 92-95% immunity. This target has been eroded so yes, there are outbreaks.

To be blunt, you get outbreaks because some people who should be getting their children properly vaccinated aren't; there will always be a small number for whom vaccination is not appropriate e.g. those with compromised immune systems (for whom obviously, contracting the disease itself is even more serious than normal).

Maternal antibodies from a mother who has actually had measles last longer than those from a mother who has been vaccinated against it.
if that's the case, presumably vaccination schedules should be adjusted accordingly.

Sorry, have only skimmed thread and know it has moved on somewhat but my understanding (from some time working in health protection) was that vaccines were not very profitable for pharma companies. Hence not many suppliers / limited choice when it comes to singles vs. combined vaccs and so on. So I'm going to start skeptical on this because, in my experience, vaccs are not a money spinner for pharma cos.

I'm with Catharina on this. It is clearly preferable to gain immunity from a vaccination as opposed to having to get a serious disease. This is why the very first vaccination using cowpox was such a better idea than the only previous options which were either catch smallpox naturally or deliberately inoculate with smallpox (variolation) which did give you smallpox, but often not such a bad dose. But people still died of variolation.
The general rule is that the higher the immunity in the population the more limited scope there is for outbreaks to get going and spread. The data on measles are clear. Granted with some vaccines the immunity conferred is not 100% so even with 100% vaccination you would still get outbreaks. However the fewer vaccinated people, the worse the outbreaks.
Regarding the point about the mother's antibodies, yes this passive immunity does give some protection, but only if the mother is immune. And it is only a temporary effect and it is limited. A dose of someone else's antibodies is not the same as being able to make your own.
It has long been said that the group that benefit most from high levels of vaccination against whooping cough are newborns as they are the victims most likely to die of it. For two heartbreaking examples of this see the YouTube above. High levels of all-natural whooping cough in the population would not protect them, would it?

Yes. The best way to protect infants is for all those who can to be vaccinated so that the chance of an outbreak is minimized.

Clearly having high vaccination coverage does NOT prevent outbreaks.

Clearly outbreaks happen (I am tempted to say "only", let's settle on "mostly") in pockets of inadequate vaccine coverage (like the infamous Steiner kindi or schools). Herd immunity totally works, otherwise we would be seeing HUGE case numbers when measles get imported into all areas. We don't. As I said, case numbers in highly vaccinated areas consistently stay under 20, which, even if the Americans like to declare a "health emergency" when they see the second case, is really few, compared to the wildfire in un- or undervaccinated communities.

Babies are best protected when measles don't circulate. There are fewer total annual cases in the US than there were annual infant deaths in the prevaccine years. The maternal immunity is a non-argument.

I can see that herd immunity would work if enough people were immune. I am so far unconvinced that it has or does work with measles and the like.

It seems to me that if you count up those who are not immunised because they are too young, too old, too sick or pregnant. Those who have been immunised, but whose protection 'didn't take' or which has worn off, then you have so many anyway that it would be of marginal effectiveness. I think that while immunisation is a good thing it's effectiveness is somewhat exaggerated (possibly by those same companies)

"To eradicate measles, you need 92-95% immunity."

Again, countries with over 95% vaccination coverage still have outbreaks of measles. Saudi Arabia had an outbreak in 2007 that affected 20% of the population despite 96%% of the population being vaccinated. If your statement is correct then that outbreak should not have happened and Catherina, they were not all in Steiner schools.

Imadgeine 'this passive immunity does give some protection, but only if the mother is immune. '

Well that's kind of a given isn't it?

"A dose of someone else's antibodies is not the same as being able to make your own. "

Not sure what your point is really. Are you saying maternal antibodies don't provide protection? I did say that they were temporary. The point of them us to protect the baby while its immune system is still maturing. In any case, other people's antibodies are used in the treatment of tetanus so obviously they're considered good for something.

Re. Whooping cough. You clearly still don't get it. It doesn't matter if you vaccinate everyone. It only provides protection for 4-8 years. Do you think everyone is going to get a booster every 4 years? There are always going to be children and adults with waning immunity that can infect newborns just as easily as someone who hasn't been vaccinated yet so it's ridiculous to blame it solely on the unvaccinated.

Trying to find the Saudi data, I could only find references such as this which says 230 cases were reported.

??

Bubbley, please provide a link to the Saudi outbreak, I am not aware of that and I also don't think that Saudi-Arabia is in any way shape or form representative of the UK - let me make some predictions before looking at any of the data:

Saudi-Arabia will not have 95% vaccination coverage with 2xMCV
That outbreak will not have hit 20% of the population.

Awaiting your link

Here

Not sure what you mean by not being representative of the UK. They actually have better vaccine coverage than we ever have. The UK has never had higher than 92%.

Thanks. Yes, there was an outbreak. 4,648 cases. In a population of 24,680,000 ... thats 0.018%

Apologies Grimma. I read the number of cases as given in thousands as well. My mistake.