Monday, September 2, 2013

Swine research confirms flu shots can increase risk of flu and cause more severe illness/ CIDRAP


Meantime, new research by US government scientists confirms what Canadian (and some other) researchers have been saying for years:  flu shots can actually increase your risk of developing influenza.  In a piece titled Swine study suggests flu vaccination may sometimes backfire, researchers found that vaccinating pigs for flu could also give them a more severe disease:
During the 2009 H1N1 pandemic, Canadian researchers identified a greater risk of infection in those who had been vaccinated against seasonal flu, a puzzling finding that researchers are still unraveling, including a group yesterday that revealed more about a mechanism for the process through experiments on pigs.
The heightened risk identified during the 2009 pandemic threatened to disrupt vaccination efforts in Canada, and the findings raised tough issues for policymakers, especially when studies in the United States and other countries contradicted the Canadian findings. However, in 2010 a large study by a Canadian team put an exclamation point on the earlier findings, reporting that the risk of needing treatment for pandemic flu was 1.4 to 2.4 times greater in those who had been vaccinated against seasonal flu in the previous year...

The researchers vaccinated piglets that were younger than 6 months old and hadn't been exposed to flu before against H1N2 to explore whether vaccine-induced antibodies might play a role in exacerbating respiratory symptoms. They found some of the piglets got sick with severe pneumonia and had severe lung damage after they were infected with the 2009 H1N1 virus, suggesting that cross-reactive antibodies triggered by the flu vaccine made symptoms worse after infection with a different flu strain...
In an editorial on the new findings, published in the same issue, James Crowe Jr, MD, wrote that the new findings show why health leaders should consider the principle "First, do no harm" when pursuing new ways to battle flu epidemics and pandemics. Crowe is a microbiologist and professor of pediatrics at Vanderbilt University and is director of the Vanderbilt Vaccine Center.
He noted that achieving a flu vaccine that would provoke lasting protection across a range of virus subtypes would be a major medical achievement, but eagerness to move forward with next-generation flu vaccines should be tempered with a focus on safety and minimizing risk.
The need to understand the molecular forces that direct antibody-enhanced virus replication or altered immune response isn't limited to vaccine effects, given that antibody-enhanced disease can occur in nature, Crowe wrote. He added that studies during the 2009 H1N1 pandemic suggested that cross-reactive antibodies may have played a role in severe disease seen in otherwise healthy young adults...
Here is the link to the original paper.

Nonsense: 1. Vaccinate for flu now 2. Protection starts decreasing about two weeks after a shot 3. Flu almost never appears before December / NBC News

Vaccinate your children for flu asap, say the experts.  From NBC News:
"Get your kids their flu vaccines now, pediatricians advise."
“With the exception of children less than 6 months of age, everybody should go out and get their influenza vaccine as soon as the influenza vaccines are available,” Dr. Michael Brady of Nationwide Children's Hospital and chairman of the Committee on Infectious Diseases for the Academy told NBC News...
It also takes a week or so for the flu vaccine to take effect and provide full protection.
“Most time, flu in the U.S. peaks in January, February, sometimes into March,” Brady said.  “If people go get their vaccines as soon as their provider has them available, they should feel comfortable that they'll have protection for the whole flu season.” 

There are two potential problems with getting flu shots early.  First, vaccine protection decreases rapidly and those who are older or have less robust immune systems may have lost protection before the flu appears.  

Second, frequently the vaccine does not protect against the strains that cause disease each season.  But until flu appears, we don't know if the vaccine will protect.  By waiting to vaccinate until late fall, you will know whether the flu shot is likely to provide any benefit at all against that year's flu strains.


Saturday, August 31, 2013

Back from the Brink, Finally / AP

Obama finally "got it" that his red line and his hawkish posturing left him standing on the brink, alone.  Hollande might jump off the cliff with him, but then again, he might not.  US Ambassadors had fanned out to foreign capitals, but were being rebuffed -- no one wanted to join a coalition of hubris.  After all, convincing evidence of exactly what happened on August 21, and who is truly responsible, has yet to surface. From the Globe and AP:
WASHINGTON (AP) — Short on support at home and allies abroad, President Barack Obama unexpectedly stepped back from a missile attack against Syria on Saturday and instead asked Congress to support a strike punishing Bashar Assad’s regime for the alleged use of chemical weapons...
Administration officials said Obama appeared set on ordering a strike until Friday evening. After a long walk in near 90-degree temperatures around the White House grounds with Chief of Staff Denis McDonough, the president told his aide he had changed his mind.
These officials said Obama initially drew pushback in a two-hour session attended by Vice President Joe Biden, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, Director of National Intelligence James Klapper, CIA Director John Brennan, national security adviser Susan Rice and homeland security adviser Lisa Monaco. They declined to say which of the participants had argued against Obama’s proposal.
Whatever Congress ultimately decides, the developments marked a stunning turn.
France is Obama’s only major foreign ally to date for a strike, public polling shows support is lukewarm in the United States, and dozens of lawmakers in both parties have signed a letter urging Obama not to act without their backing. Outside the gates of the White House, the chants of protesters could be heard as the president stepped to a podium set up in the Rose Garden.
Had he gone ahead with a military strike, Obama would have become the first U.S. leader in three decades to attack a foreign nation without mustering broad international support or acting in direct defense of Americans. Not since 1983, when President Ronald Reagan ordered an invasion of the Caribbean island of Grenada, has the U.S. been so alone in pursuing major lethal military action beyond a few attacks responding to strikes or threats against its citizens.

Friday, August 30, 2013

Thin: The US Gov't Intelligence Report on Syria's CW / NY Times

Here is the report and it says very little.

The report makes the case that a CW attack occurred.  I think by now everyone agrees it occurred.  The issue of import, however, is who did it, not whether it happened.

The report also tells us, as if we didn't already know, that Assad has chemical weapons and delivery systems that could have been used.  And, he has done it before!  Well, okay, but did he do it THIS time?  That is the real question.

The intelligence dances around the issues.  For example, the report language seems more lawyerly than anything else:
"We assess that the scenario in which the opposition executed the attack on August 21 is highly unlikely," and "We have seen no indication that the opposition has carried out a large-scale, coordinated rocket and artillery attack like the one that occurred on August 21."  And another one:  "We continue to judge that the Syrian regime views chemical weapons as one of many tools in its arsenal..."
The report says it has satellite images of rockets being launched from regime-controlled sites--but fails to produce any images.  It claims to have intercepted communications confirming use by the regime, but releases no transcript.  Revealing satellite images and communications intercepts would not expose any hidden sources or methods, although this was the reason given by Secretary of State Kerry (and by this report) for hiding intelligence details.

Being familiar with the quality of evidence brought forward in other CW and BW investigations, I can only say that the quality of what was revealed today is pathetic.  How to describe it?

It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury
Signifying nothing.


AP UPDATE:  

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama is poised to become the first U.S. leader in three decades to attack a foreign nation without mustering broad international support or acting in direct defense of Americans.
Not since 1983, when President Ronald Reagan ordered an invasion of the Caribbean island of Grenada, has the U.S. been so alone in pursing major lethal military action beyond a few attacks responding to strikes or threats against its citizens...
CBS News:
WASHINGTON - The White House has provided a series of briefings for key lawmakers over the past 24 hours, trying to combat complaints that Congress is not being consulted on a potential U.S. strike in Syria. Still, many members want more: They want any military action to be put to a vote first.But their own schedule makes that unlikely. Congress has been gone for a month and doesn't return to Washington for a week and a half.
That didn't stop more than 160 House members - Democrats and Republicans - from signing letters this week urging the president to "receive authorization from Congress" before striking Syria... 

I JUST MOVED--New email address, phone, and other contact info

Meryl Nass, MD
45 Beals Ave.
Ellsworth, Maine 04605

(H) 207 412-0004
(C) 207 522-5229

EMAIL:  merylnass@gmail.com

Who Used and Controls Chemical Weapons? Not a Slam Dunk / AP and Toronto Star


From the Associated Press/ Toronto Star:
WASHINGTON— The intelligence linking Syrian President Bashar Assad or his inner circle to an alleged chemical weapons attack is no “slam dunk,” with questions remaining about who actually controls some of Syria’s chemical weapons stores and doubts about whether Assad himself ordered the strike, U.S. intelligence officials say...
Administration officials said Wednesday that neither the UN Security Council, which is deciding whether to weigh in, nor allies’ concerns would affect their plans. But the complicated intelligence picture raises questions about the White House’s full-steam-ahead approach to the Aug. 21 attack on a rebel-held Damascus suburb, with worries that the attack could be tied to Al-Qaeda-backed rebels later.
Intelligence officials say they could not pinpoint the exact locations of Assad’s supplies of chemical weapons, and Assad could have moved them in recent days as the U.S. rhetoric increased. But that lack of certainty means a possible series of U.S. cruise missile strikes aimed at crippling Assad’s military infrastructure could hit newly hidden supplies of chemical weapons, accidentally triggering a deadly chemical attack.
Over the past six months, with shifting front lines in the 2½-year-old civil war and sketchy satellite and human intelligence coming out of Syria, U.S. and allied spies have lost track of who controls some of the country’s chemical weapons supplies, according to the two intelligence officials and two other U.S. officials.
U.S. satellites have captured images of Syrian troops moving trucks into weapons storage areas and removing materials, but U.S. analysts have not been able to track what was moved or, in some cases, where it was relocated. They are also not certain that when they saw what looked like Assad’s forces moving chemical supplies, those forces were able to remove everything before rebels took over an area where weapons had been stored.
In addition, an intercept of Syrian military officials discussing the strike was among low-level staff, with no direct evidence tying the attack back to an Assad insider or even a senior Syrian commander, the officials said.
So while Secretary of State John Kerry said Monday that it was “undeniable,” a chemical weapons attack had occurred, and that it was carried out by the Syrian military, U.S. intelligence officials are not so certain that the suspected chemical attack was carried out on Assad’s orders. Some have even talked about the possibility that rebels could have carried out the attack in a callous and calculated attempt to draw the West into the war. That suspicion was not included in the official intelligence report, according to the official who described the report.

Shouldn't Congress be Consulted?/ Military Officers/ Francoise Hollande/ Angela Merkel

NBC News queried 700 adults on Aug 28-29, 2013.   The most interesting answer I found to be the following:

Q12  Do you think that President Obama should or should not be required to receive approval from Congress before taking military action in Syria?


Should be required to receive approval ................... 79

Should not be required to receive approval ............. 16
Depends (VOL) ........................................................ 1
Not sure .................................................................... 4

A WaPo editorial agreed, titled:  

The Post’s View:  President Obama should consult Congress before striking Syria

The media have been finding quotes from Senator and Candidate Obama, and Senator Biden, in which both contradicted the current Presidential stance: 

As a senator and presidential candidate in 2007, Mr. Obama said, "The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation. In instances of self-defense, the president would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent."
Biden, also a senator and presidential candidate in 2007, said he would move to impeach President Bush if he unilaterally attacked Iran because of its nuclear programs.In 1998, Biden said on the Senate floor, "To be sure, the commander in chief ensures that the president has the sole power to direct U.S. military forces in combat. But that power - except in very few limited instances - derives totally from congressional authority."
From the WaPo comes a piece quoting former military officers and current anonymous officers who question the wisdom of a proposed attack:
... The potential consequences of a U.S. strike include a retaliatory attack by the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah — which supports Assad — on Israel, as well as cyberattacks on U.S. targets and infrastructure, U.S. military officials said.
“What is the political end state we’re trying to achieve?” said a retired senior officer involved in Middle East operational planning who said his concerns are widely shared by active-duty military leaders. “I don’t know what it is. We say it’s not regime change. If it’s punishment, there are other ways to punish.” The former senior officer said that those who are expressing alarm at the risks inherent in the plan “are not being heard other than in a pro-forma manner.”
Francoise Hollande says France is ready, whatever that might mean:  “There are few countries that have the capacity to inflict a sanction by the appropriate means. France is one of them,” Hollande said, according to Reuters. “We are ready. We will decide our position in close liaison with our allies.”

UPDATE Sept 7:  After the G-20 summit in St. Petersburg, French President Francois Hollande contradicted his foreign minister, saying France too would wait to hear from the UN analysts.

Germany, on the other hand, is facing national elections soon.  German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle told the Neue Osnabrücker newspaper that Berlin’s participation in a U.S.-led coalition has “neither been asked nor is it being considered by us.”  Guess Angela Merkel isn't ready to put German participation to a vote.

Thursday, August 29, 2013

France too puts on the brakes / WaPo

Finally, those who first jumped on the bandwagon start asking for proof.  From the WaPo:
French officials also are calling for a delay in action until U.N. inspectors conclude their report. “Before acting, we need proof,” said Najat Vallaud-Belkacem, a minister and government spokeswoman, according to Bloomberg News.
The latest developments suggest that Washington’s allies will insist on waiting at least until next week before launching what initially appeared to be an imminent strike on Syria...
British officials on Thursday released an intelligence assessment on the alleged chemical attack and a document outlining the legal justification for a robust response.
The three-page intelligence report offered various degrees of certainty about the Assad government’s culpability for the Aug. 21 attack. It said “there are no plausible alternative scenarios to regime responsibility.” But it also categorized the government’s involvement in the alleged attacks as “highly likely,” rather than definite, adding that it is not clear what would have motivated Assad and his deputies to carry out “an attack of this scale at this time.”
Skepticism in Britain and elsewhere is dashing U.S. hopes of quickly securing a broad international coalition.
UPDATE from Agence France Presse:
While other US allies, including France, have called for action on Syria, it appears unlikely they would join US military action absent a UN Security Council mandate, which has no chance of evading a Russian veto. 
Meanwhile, Mint Press News presents interviews suggesting chemical weapons were transferred by Saudi officials to rebels in Ghouta.  This is by no means smoking gun evidence, but is another possible scenario:
However, from numerous interviews with doctors, Ghouta residents, rebel fighters and their families, a different picture emerges. Many believe that certain rebels received chemical weapons via the Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, and were responsible for carrying out the dealing gas attack.
“My son came to me two weeks ago asking what I thought the weapons were that he had been asked to carry,” said Abu Abdel-Moneim, the father of a rebel fighting to unseat Assad, who lives in Ghouta.
Abdel-Moneim said his son and 12 other rebels were killed inside of a tunnel used to store weapons provided by a Saudi militant, known as Abu Ayesha, who was leading a fighting battalion. The father described the weapons as having a “tube-like structure” while others were like a “huge gas bottle.”
Ghouta townspeople said the rebels were using mosques and private houses to sleep while storing their weapons in tunnels.
Abdel-Moneim said his son and the others died during the chemical weapons attack. That same day, the militant group Jabhat al-Nusra, which is linked to al-Qaida, announced that it would similarly attack civilians in the Assad regime’s heartland of Latakia on Syria’s western coast, in purported retaliation.
“They didn’t tell us what these arms were or how to use them,” complained a female fighter named ‘K.’ “We didn’t know they were chemical weapons. We never imagined they were chemical weapons.”
“When Saudi Prince Bandar gives such weapons to people, he must give them to those who know how to handle and use them,” she warned. She, like other Syrians, do not want to use their full names for fear of retribution.
A well-known rebel leader in Ghouta named ‘J’ agreed. “Jabhat al-Nusra militants do not cooperate with other rebels, except with fighting on the ground. They do not share secret information. They merely used some ordinary rebels to carry and operate this material,” he said.
“We were very curious about these arms. And unfortunately, some of the fighters handled the weapons improperly and set off the explosions,” ‘J’ said...

Cameron: "I get that and the government will act accordingly" (No UK intervention) / Guardian

Yesterday's top fun quote, from Conservative Member of Parliament Adam Holloway:
Friends stop their friends getting into their cars at the end of an evening and driving away drunk:  I think it is one job of a British Prime Minister to stop American Presidents driving drunk, as George W Bush did (in my opinion) with Iraq and Afghanistan.
Unless I am missing something, I think David Cameron should be doing the same with President Obama now. The fact that we hear that Tony Blair thinks intervening in Syria a good idea ought to mean that all sensible people run in the opposite direction.  
The Express says that 80% of the UK public is against armed intervention; 12% are undecided and only 8% agreed with the Prime Minister.  

The House of Commons (unexpectedly) had its way with David Cameron today. From tonight's Guardian:
David Cameron indicated on Thursday evening that Britain would not take part in military action against Syria after the British government lost a crucial vote on an already watered-down amendment that was designed to pave the way to intervention in the war-torn country.
In a devastating blow to his authority, the prime minister lost a government motion by 272 votes to 285 – an opposition majority of 13 – after scores of Tory MPs voted with Labour...
Furthermore, as the BBC explains:
in an unexpected turn of events - MPs also rejected the government's motion in support of military action in Syria [even] if it was supported by evidence from United Nations weapons inspectors, who are investigating claims President Bashar al-Assad's regime had used chemical weapons against civilians.
By rejecting a UK strike whether or not better evidence of Assad's role emerged, Parliament seems to be expressing its distrust of government claims and doctored evidence.  No doubt Colin Powell's 2003 claims of WMD evidence cast a long shadow.  Heaping salt on the wound, Cameron was then asked to guarantee to Parliament he would abide by the vote of Parliament and not take things into his own hands:
Asked by Labour leader Ed Miliband for an assurance that he would not use the royal prerogative to sanction British involvement in the military action, the prime minister told MPs: "I can give that assurance. Let me say, the House has not voted for either motion tonight. I strongly believe in the need for a tough response to the use of chemical weapons, but I also believe in respecting the will of this House of Commons.
"It is very clear tonight that, while the House has not passed a motion, it is clear to me that the British parliament, reflecting the views of the British people, does not want to see British military action.
"I get that and the government will act accordingly."
The article goes on:
The shock result means that Cameron becomes the first British prime minister in decades unable to deliver British troops to a joint military operation with the US. Whitehall sources had said Barack Obama was willing to show some patience for Britain but he would need to launch strikes against Syria before he leaves for the G20 summit in Russia next Tuesday. The New York Times reported on Thursday night that Obama is preparing to act alone at the weekend.
Britain failed to present persuasive evidence that the Assad regime was the perpetrator of the attack:
Opening the debate in a packed Commons, the prime minister ...acknowledged that the intelligence agencies had not delivered a definitive verdict.
Philippe Sands, a leading expert in international law, said the document failed to provide a "sound or persuasive legal argument" in favour of military action...
Miliband said the prime minister had failed to prove definitively that the Assad regime was responsible for the attack as he intensified the pressure on Cameron by pressing an alternative Labour amendment to a vote...
UPDATE:  NY Times emphasizes British scepticism toward American moralism:
In the British Parliament on Thursday, the theme of doubt was foremost.
Paul Flynn, of Labour, said that prior uses of chemical weapons, as against the Kurds, had not drawn such a response.
“Is not the real reason we are here today not the horror at these weapons — if that horror exists — but as a result of the American president having foolishly drawn a red line, so that he is now in the position of either having to attack or face humiliation?” he asked...

Wednesday, August 28, 2013

CBW attacks in Syria and elsewhere: Proving Who Did It Is the Hardest Part

Identifying an attack with a nerve agent (organophosphate) is not at all difficult.  The symptoms are characteristic:  pinpoint pupils, increased secretions from all orifices, suffocation.  They are the same symptoms experienced by agricultural workers accidentally sprayed with organophosphate insecticides. (I treated one such case 30 years ago.)

This is said to be the poison in the school lunch that killed children in India last month. Blood levels of cholinesterase are markedly reduced, and increase as those affected recover.  Dead bodies have no signs of physical trauma. Autopsies of dead bodies or blood tests from the living provide the answer.


Recovery is often incomplete, however.


There are several reasons a perpetrator may choose to use chemical or biological weapons, not least of which is the difficulty identifying who used it.  Unlike a bullet, it does not come from the direction of the enemy.  The cost is relatively low, there are many methods for dissemination, and use of a weapon of mass destruction gets peoples' attention.  These features can make it an ideal weapon to use when your goal is to implicate--loudly--an innocent party.


Nerve agents were first developed by Germany before and during World War II.  They are in the same chemical class as organophosphate pesticides, so their method of manufacture is well known, and they can be produced or purchased by nations or by subnational groups.


Examples of use of organophosphate nerve agents include the sarin attack on Tokyo's subways in 1995 by the Aum Shinrikyo cult; attacks on Iran during the Iran-Iraq war and on Iraqi Kurdistan in 1988; and contamination of clothing worn by black rebels during the Rhodesian civil war in the late 1970s. Frank Chikane, general secretary of the South African Council of Churches, experienced a failed assassination attempt by organophosphates in 1989, while visiting the US.


In none of these cases was there initial clarity about who perpetrated the attacks.


How does one get clarity regarding the source of the attack, especially in a situation (like Syria) where more than one actor may have reasons to use the agent or to cast blame on an enemy?

  1. The agents should be identified, and evidence that the putative perpetrator had access to this agent should be sought.
  2. The delivery system (probably missiles in the case of Syria) is more likely to be identifiable in terms of its source than the agent itself.  What type of missile, where built, what markings does it contain? News reports suggest missiles have been identified.
  3. Communications are being monitored by NSA and others.  What is known about orders to use the agent(s)? Noah Shachtman, writing in Foreign Policy, suggests this evidence may be contradictory in the case of Syria.
  4. Syria is not a member of the Chemical Weapons Convention and is known to have stockpiles of chemical agents at various sites.  Satellite photos and other intelligence may provide information regarding movement and launching of these weapons.
  5. Whoever the perpetrator, they always have a logical motive for using chemical weapons.  In the case of the Assad government, it is difficult to see any rationale for a chemical weapons attack on civilians, given the anticipated US response.  
According to today's NY Times:
...American officials said Wednesday there was no “smoking gun” that directly links President Bashar al-Assad to the attack, and they tried to lower expectations about the public intelligence presentation. They said it will not contain specific electronic intercepts of communications between Syrian commanders or detailed reporting from spies and sources on the ground...
Administration officials said that communications between military commanders intercepted after Wednesday’s attack provided proof that the assault was not the result of a rogue unit acting against orders. It is unclear how much detail about these communications, if any, will be made public...
There is also the issue of international law.  The US has not been attacked.  It has no legal right to unilaterally decide to "punish" Syria for using chemical weapons on its people.  The Chemical Weapons Convention and other United Nations precedents provide the current legally approved regime for dealing with allegations of chemical weapons use.

As today's NY Times also notes,
... Yet with the botched intelligence about Iraq still casting a long shadow over decisions about waging war in the Middle East, the White House faces an American public deeply skeptical about being drawn into the Syrian conflict and a growing chorus of lawmakers from both parties angry about the prospect of an American president once again going to war without Congressional consultation or approval...
Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies said that whatever evidence the administration put forward would be the American intelligence community’s “most important single document in a decade.”
The Obama administration, Mr. Cordesman said, needs to use intelligence about the attack “as a key way of informing the world, of building up trust in U.S. policy and intelligence statements, and in moving U.S strategic communications from spin to convincing truth.”
The Washington Post says,
...But the Obama administration’s efforts to build a legal case are encountering skepticism from U.N. officials and other experts, including former Republican and Democratic State Department lawyers, who argue that the use of force against the Syrian regime, absent a U.N. Security Council resolution, would be illegal...
And then the final question:  how would US military action actually advance US objectives in the area? Again today's NY Times and (surprisingly) Rep. Boehner cut to the chase:
As the White House now considers direct military action in Syria, something it has resisted for two years, Speaker John A. Boehner wrote a letter on Wednesday to Mr. Obama asking the president to provide a “clear, unambiguous explanation of how military action — which is a means, not a policy — will secure U.S. objectives and how it fits into your overall policy.” 
The WSJ noted: 
Separately, 116 House lawmakers—98 Republicans and 18 Democrats—signed a letter to Mr. Obama, demanding he seek congressional authorization for a military strike.
The markets knew at 9 am Wednesday EDT that the rush to war had run up against roadblocks.  Silver dropped by 2% before 10 am and gold also fell sharply.  It took the newspapers a few hours longer to figure out that the imminent US offensive strike had been halted.

Wednesday, July 31, 2013

Bangor Daily News Vote on mandatory vaccinations for kids: Results 50:50

Fewer Maine children getting fully vaccinated; new program hopes to reverse trend

Sitting in her home in Ashland, Ore., on Nov. 14, 2011, Jennifer Margulis shows off empty vials of vaccine that she saves in case one of her children has a bad reaction. An author of books on parenting who has written about childhood vaccines, Margulis is one of a growing number of parents questioning the government's schedule of mandatory vaccinations for children.
Jeff Barnard | AP
Sitting in her home in Ashland, Ore., on Nov. 14, 2011, Jennifer Margulis shows off empty vials of vaccine that she saves in case one of her children has a bad reaction. An author of books on parenting who has written about childhood vaccines, Margulis is one of a growing number of parents questioning the government's schedule of mandatory vaccinations for children.
Posted Nov. 29, 2011, at 4:59 p.m.
More parents are opting out of school shots for their kids. In eight states now, more than 1 in 20 public school kindergartners aren’t getting all the vaccines required for attendance, an Associated Press analysis found.
That growing trend among parents seeking vaccine exemptions has health officials worried about outbreaks of diseases that once were all but stamped out.
The AP analysis found more than half of states have seen at least a slight rise in the rate of exemptions over the past five years. In Maine, the rate is gradually climbing, and a new program seeks to boost children’s access to vaccinations.
“It is a concern here,” said Peter Smith, director of the state’s Division of Infectious Disease. “We have concerns both about parents choosing not to vaccinate and other barriers to vaccinations, such as cost.”
States with the highest exemption rates are in the West and Upper Midwest.
It’s “really gotten much worse,” said Mary Selecky, secretary of health for Washington state, where 6 percent of public school parents have opted out.
Rules for exemptions vary by state and can include medical, religious or — in some states, including Maine — philosophical reasons.
Worries about the cost of immunizations prompted Maine lawmakers in 2010 to pursue free vaccines for children.
“The full series of vaccinations from birth to 18 years of age runs over $2,000 now,” Smith said, not including the cost for office visits. (In India the cost until recently was $2.00, reflecting more reasonable pricing and fewer newer vaccines whose effects on disease ecology are uncertain:  they may be net bad or good, like Prevnar, which contributed to increased multidrug resistance in some areas... see my earlier blog post)
Set to take effect Jan. 1, 2012, the program will purchase vaccines at a lower bulk rate with funds collected through an assessment on health insurers and other entities, according to Peter Gore, chairman of the Maine Vaccine Board. The vaccines will be distributed to health care providers at no cost, but parents may have to pay an administrative fee, he said.
“The program’s goal is to promote better access to vaccines for all Maine children,” Gore said. “It does not mandate vaccines for children.”
The budget for the program will total roughly $10 million in its first year, according to Smith.
The number of shots is also giving some parents pause. By the time most children are 6, they will have been stuck with a needle about two dozen times, with many of those shots given in infancy. The cumulative effect of all those shots has not been studied enough, some parents say.
But few serious problems have turned up over years of vaccinations and several studies have shown no link with autism, a theory from the 1990s that has been widely discredited. (And equally credited by others--Nass)
To be sure, childhood vaccination rates remain high overall, at 90 percent or better for several vaccines, including those for polio, measles, hepatitis B and even chickenpox. In many states, exemptions are filed for fewer than 1 percent of children entering school for the first time.
Health officials have not identified an exemption threshold that would likely lead to outbreaks. But as they push for 100 percent immunization, they worry when some states have exemption rates climbing over 5 percent. The average state exemption rate has been estimated at less than half that. (Plenty high enough to prevent diseases spreading through our population--unless the vaccines fail, which they do in at least 3 cases.--Nass)
Maine’s exemption rate for the 2009-10 academic year was 3.56 percent, with the majority of parents citing religious and philosophical objections to vaccinations. The rate inched up from 3.33 percent the previous year but remained lower than a peak rate of more than 4 percent in 2007-08.
Even more troubling are pockets in some states where exemption rates much higher. In some rural counties in northeast Washington, for example, vaccination exemption rates in recent years have been above 20 percent and even as high as 50 percent.
“Vaccine refusers tend to cluster,” said Saad Omer, an Emory University epidemiologist who has done extensive research on the issue.
While parents may think it does no harm to others if their kids skip some vaccines, they are in fact putting others at risk, health officials say. No vaccine is completely effective. If an outbreak begins in an unvaccinated group of children, a vaccinated child may still be at some risk of getting sick.
Studies have found communities with higher exemption rates sometimes are places where measles have suddenly re-emerged in outbreaks. Vaccinated kids are sometimes among the cases, or children too young to be vaccinated. Last year, California had more than 2,100 whooping cough cases, and 10 infants died. Only one had received a first dose of vaccine.
Earlier this month, the Maine CDC issued an advisory about a rising rate of pertussis, or whooping cough, centered in Penobscot County. As of Nov. 10, the state had recorded 163 cases of the disease, which primarily affects school-age children, compared to 53 in all of 2010.
“Your child’s risk of getting disease depends on what your neighbors do,” said Omer.  (That's right: scare those parents and set neighbor against neighbor.--Nass)
And while it seems unlikely that diseases like polio and diphtheria could ever make a comeback to the U.S., immunization expert Dr. Lance Rodewald with the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says it could happen.
“Polio can come back. China was polio free for two decades, and just this year, they were infected from Pakistan, and there is a big outbreak of polio in China now. The same could happen here,” Rodewald said in an email.  (In the US, all recent cases of polio were vaccine strain, vaccine-induced.  That is why the live oral polio vaccine was stopped here in 2000.--Nass.
According to CDC:
From 1980 through 1999, a total of 152 confirmed cases
of paralytic poliomyelitis were reported, an average of 8
cases per year. Six cases were acquired outside the United
States and imported. The last imported case was reported
in 1993. Two cases were classified as indeterminant (no
poliovirus isolated from samples obtained from the patients,
and patients had no history of recent vaccination or direct
contact with a vaccine recipient). The remaining 144 (95%)
cases were vaccine-associated paralytic polio (VAPP) caused
by live oral polio vaccine. 
He cited outbreaks of Hib, a disease that can lead to meningitis, among the Amish who don’t consistently vaccinate their children. Russia had a huge diphtheria outbreak in the early- to mid-1990s, he said, because vaccine coverage declined.
“Measles is just visible, but it isn’t the only concern,” Rodewald said.
For its review, the AP asked state health departments for kindergarten exemption rates for 2006-07 and 2010-11. The AP also looked at data states had previously reported to the federal government. (Most states don’t have data for the current 2011-12 school year.)
Alaska had the highest exemption rate in 2010-11, at nearly 9 percent. Colorado’s rate was 7 percent, Minnesota 6.5 percent, Vermont and Washington 6 percent, and Oregon, Michigan and Illinois were close behind.

These exemption rates are double that of Maine, yet we are trying to spread fear about the consequences here--Nass
Mississippi was lowest, at essentially 0 percent.
The AP found that vaccine exemptions rose in more than half of states, and 10 had increases over the five years of about 1.5 percent or more, a range health officials say is troubling.
Those states, too, were in the West and Midwest — Alaska, Kansas, Hawaii, Illinois, Michigan, Montana, Oregon, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin. Arizona saw an increase that put that state in the same ballpark.
Exemption seekers are often middle-class, college-educated white people, but there are often a mix of views and philosophies. Exemption hot spots like Sedona, Ariz., and rural northeast Washington have concentrations of both alternative medicine-preferring as well as government-fearing libertarians.
Opposition to vaccines “is putting people together that normally would not be together,” observed Elizabeth Jacobs, a University of Arizona epidemiologist looking at that state’s rising exemption rates.
What many of exemption-seeking parents share, however, is a mental calculation that the dangers to their children of vaccine-preventable diseases are less important than the possible harms from vaccine. Or they just don’t believe health officials, putting more stock in alternative sources — often discovered through Internet searches.
“We are being told this by every government official, teacher, doctor that we need vaccines to keep us safe from these diseases. I simply don’t believe that to be true. I believe all the diseases in question were up to 90 percent in decline before mass vaccines ever were given. I don’t think vaccines are what saved the world from disease. I think effective sewer systems, nutrition, and hand-washing (are the reasons),” said Sabrina Paulick, of Ashland, Ore. She works part-time as a caregiver for elderly people in their homes and is a mother of a 4-year-old daughter.
Parents say they’d like to reserve the right to decide what vaccinations their children should get and when. Health officials reply that vaccinations are recommended at an early age to protect children before they encounter a dangerous infection. “If you delay, you’re putting a child at risk,” said Gerri Yett, a nurse who manages Alaska’s immunization program.
Analyzing vaccination exemptions is difficult. States collect data differently; some base their exemption rates on just a small sample of schools — Alaska, for example — while others rely on more comprehensive numbers. So the AP worked with researchers at CDC, which statistically adjusted some states’ 2010-11 data for a better comparison.
It’s also not clear when an exemption was invoked against all vaccines and when it was used to excuse just one or two shots. CDC officials think the second scenario is more common.
Also, states differ on some of the vaccines required and what’s needed to get an exemption: Sometimes only a box on a form needs to be checked, while some states want letters or even signed statements from doctors.
Meanwhile, some parent groups and others have pushed legislators to make exemptions easier or do away with vaccination requirements altogether. The number of states allowing philosophical exemptions grew from 15 to 20 in the last decade.
Some in public health are exasperated by the trend.
“Every time we give them evidence (that vaccines are safe), they come back with a new hypothesis” for why vaccines could be dangerous, said Kacey Ernst, another University of Arizona researcher.
The exemption increases have come during a time when the government has been raising its estimates of how many children have autism and related disorders. Some experts suggest that parents have listened intently to that message, with some believing the growing roster of recommended shots must somehow be related.
“I don’t understand how other people don’t see that these two things are related,” said Stacy Allan, a Summit, N.J., mother who filed religious exemptions and stopped vaccinating her three children.
Several parents said that while they believe many health officials mean well, their distrust of the vaccine-making pharmaceutical industry only continues to grow.
“I wouldn’t be one to say I am absolutely certain these things are hurting our children,” said Michele Pereira, an Ashland mother of two young girls. She is a registered nurse and married to an anesthesiologist. While her daughters have had some vaccinations, they have not had the full recommended schedule.
“I feel like there are enough questions out there that I don’t want to take the chance,” she said.
BDN health editor Jackie Farwell and Associated Press writer Jeff Barnard in Grants Pass, Ore., contributed to this report.

Monday, July 29, 2013

5th Anniversary of Bruce Ivins' Death is Today, July 29/ Frederick News-Post

The paper representing Maryland's second largest city is featuring two articles (here and here) skeptical of Ivins' role in the anthrax letters.

It also created a site for readers to vote whether they believe Ivins was responsible for the anthrax attacks, or not.  Right now, only 27% think Ivins was the perpetrator.

And now that we know a lot more about the extent of government surveillance on "ordinary American citizens", it seems we can safely assume Ivins was under pretty complete 24/7 surveillance.  And that his phone calls and emails were probably all scooped up from even before 9/11/01.

The fact that after the FBI's most expensive and detailed investigation in history, burnished by all the intel the NSA could provide, there was still no real evidence linking Ivins to the crime -- well, that is probably a very good reason to exonerate him.


Friday, July 19, 2013

FBI bars Fla. from releasing Todashev autopsy/ Boston Globe

The Boston bombing case was horrific and unexplainable, unpardonable.  Yet the public lacks much evidence about it and no trial has taken place.

Where is the evidence the brothers made the bombs?  What is Dzhokhar's side of the story?  Have you heard it?  One brother is dead and the other has been under wraps since he was captured... with or without a weapon? After how many shots were fired at the boat he was in?  Was Tamerlan alive when captured?  I have no opinion about these matters, but the press has presented multiple contradictory stories at different times.

Then there is Todashev.  The Globe tells us that this young man, here on asylum, had generally cooperated with the FBI, but was fatally shot in his apartment by FBI agents.  His apartment mate, who may have witnessed the events, was arrested and remains in prison, unable to speak with reporters about what she saw.  And now, with an autopsy completed, the FBI has ordered the medical examiner's office not to release the report, "because of the federal agency's active internal investigation into his death."  This explanation makes no sense.

Meanwhile, a Rolling Stone magazine cover of accused Boston bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev has led chain stores like CVS to pull the magazine off its shelves.  (Also Stop and Shop, Tedeschi's, 7-11, Walgreens and Rite-Aid refuse to carry the magazine.) Why?  No one is forcing anyone to buy it.  Why is a cover story-- of an alleged bomber who has pleaded not guilty and has yet to have his day in court--being censored?  Is this the Soviet Gulag or the USA?

I am glad the NY Times took up this latest example of perverted patriotism, pointing out that Hitler's face peppered many magazine covers, as did Charles Manson's and Osama Bin Laden's.  Censorship benefits no one.

Wednesday, July 17, 2013

David Kelly, ten years on: A spectacular failure of accountability / New Statesman

I have reprinted in full a piece from today's New Statesman about the death of David Kelly and the surprising calls from prominent liberal members of the media to "let it be"--denying the many questions regarding cause of death and how Kelly's death related to the (false) justification for the Iraq war.  The ten year anniversary of Kelly's death is today.
Ironically, those calling for an inquest into David Kelly’s death - ten years on today – base their arguments on precisely the values held so dear by professional journalists: the need for a full, impartial appraisal of the facts without fear or favour.By Justin Schlosberg  
Ironically, those calling for an inquest into David Kelly’s death - ten years on today – base their arguments on precisely the values held so dear by professional journalists: the need for a full, impartial appraisal of the facts without fear or favour. 
Dr David Kelly arriving at the House of Commons on 15 July 2003. Photograph: Getty
Ten years after the death of intelligence analyst David Kelly, the campaign for a formal inquest wages on. Shortly before his unnatural death in 2003, Kelly was outed as the BBC news source for a controversial report suggesting the government had lied in building its case for war with Iraq earlier that year. The fact that key questions remain unasked about an official investigation into a controversial death is nothing unheard of in British politics. But the Kelly case is unique because the most vociferous opponents of due process are not officials or politicians, but journalists. 
This is even more odd because the journalists who are most outspoken against campaigners hail not from the predominantly conservative red tops, but from the so-called "liberal" media comprised of the broadsheets and broadcast newsrooms. It is respected columnists and opinion editorialists – not government spokespeople – who are routinely called on to make the case against campaigners. These are not journalists who tend to shy away from attacking the government or challenging established viewpoints. Indeed, they are journalists who predicate their life’s work on the unfettered scrutiny of power; who place the utmost professional value on evidence, impartiality and accuracy. 
Yet in relation to the cause of Kelly’s death, even the evidence presented at the widely discredited Hutton Inquiry was, by the most conservative measure, conflicting. According to the official verdict, Kelly bled to death after cutting the ulnar artery in his left wrist. Yet paramedic Vanessa Hunt, the first medically trained professional to examine his body, told [2] Hutton that: 
the amount of blood that was around the scene seemed relatively minimal and there was a small patch on his right knee, but no obvious arterial bleeding. There was no spraying of blood or huge blood loss or any obvious loss on the clothing [...] His jacket was pulled to sort of mid forearm area and from that area down towards the hand there was dried blood, but no obvious sign of a wound or anything, it was just dried blood. 
A secondary cause of death, according to the official verdict, was that Kelly had died from a lethal overdose of painkillers. But the toxicology report showed that the level of coproximal in Kelly’s blood was less than a third of what would normally be considered fatal and less than one pill was actually found in his stomach contents. Yet this kind of evidence remains elusive to journalists who continue to circulate assumptions disguised as facts [3]: namely that Kelly swallowed 29 tablets based solely on a blister pack of 30 found on his person with only one tablet left (and incidentally, none of Kelly’s fingerprints). 
What about Kelly’s state of mind? At the Hutton Inquiry, we heard expert witness testimony that he was acutely depressed over a supposed life’s work in ruins and ravaged by the shame of having breached the civil service code. But that testimony was provided by a consultant psychiatrist who had never actually met Kelly, let alone interacted with him during his final days and hours. It was based in large part on that of other witnesses, including Kelly’s close family. While they had spoken of him as "withdrawn" and "subdued", this was primarily in the context of the period leading up to his appearance before the Foreign Affairs Select Committee on 14 July 2003. Following that, Kelly’s daughter and son-in-law, with whom he was staying at the time, described his demeanour repeatedly as "normal", "calm", "relaxed", "relieved", and eating and sleeping "very well" right up to the day of his disappearance. According to his sister [4] (pdf), Sarah Pape, who spoke to Kelly by telephone two days before his death: 
In my line of work I do deal with people who may have suicidal thoughts and I ought to be able to spot those, even on a telephone conversation. But I have gone over and over in my mind the two conversations we had and he certainly did not betray to me any impression that he was anything other than tired. He certainly did not convey to me that he was feeling depressed; and absolutely nothing that would have alerted me to the fact that he might have been considering suicide. 
Of course, such testimony does not prove that Kelly did not commit suicide, any more than conflicting testimony proves that he did. But in the week following Hutton’s report, BBC and ITN journalists cited evidence [5] that Kelly was suicidal no less than seven times in news reports without any qualification or caveat and without once mentioning evidence to the contrary. 
For any journalist genuinely concerned with ‘the facts’, it would have been clear from the outset that the only thing we know in relation to this case is that we don’t know how Kelly died. It is possible that he did die in the way Hutton said he died (albeit extremely unlikely according to mainstream medical opinion), and that conflicting evidence was the result of random anomalies; just as it is possible that Kelly was murdered, with or without the connivance of elements within the British state. The point is that no cause of death has been established on the basis of likely probability, let alone beyond reasonable doubt. 
But there is something else we know which is that there has been unprecedented misinformation, obstruction of justice and on-going suppression of information in relation to this case. Only around a quarter of the police documents submitted to Hutton have been published and much of the remaining evidence has been sealed under an extraordinarily high level of classification for 70 years. It includes medical reports, photographs of the body and supplementary witness statements. The justification for this enduring secrecy is to prevent undue distress to the bereaved. But David Kelly was a public servant who suffered an unnatural death in extremely controversial circumstances. In far less controversial cases, the interests of the bereaved never outweigh that of the public interest in having a formal coroner’s inquest into an unnatural death. 
With occasional and notable exceptions, journalists’ persistent refusal to engage with the substance of this controversy reveals a blind spot in our system of democratic accountability, encapsulated by the label of "conspiracy theory". This taboo, which operates within journalist and academic circles alike, has some sound basis. It discriminates against conjecture often associated with tabloid sensationalism or internet subcultures that respond to secrecy or uncertainty with unfounded reasoning. This kind of theorising has also provided the foundation for racist and extremist ideology upon which acts of terror, genocide and ethnic cleansing have been predicated. 
Such a cautionary approach, however, has led to an outright rejection of the idea that particular groups of powerful people might make, in the words of terrorism expert Jeffrey Bale, “a concerted effort to keep an illegal or unethical act or situation from being made public”. [6] Yet both historical precedent and contemporary events suggest that such instances are a regular feature of real-world politics. The Chilcott Inquiry into the Iraq War, for instance, has surfaced considerable evidence that the decision to invade Iraq was taken in secret and long before it was publicly announced and justified on what turned out to be false intelligence. The problem amounts to an “intellectual resistance” with the result that “an entire dimension of political history and contemporary politics has been consistently neglected” (Bale 1995).
 
Ironically, those calling for an inquest into David Kelly’s death - ten years on today – base their arguments on precisely the values held so dear by professional journalists: the need for a full, impartial appraisal of the facts without fear or favour. The baseless conjecture associated with conspiracy theory, on the other hand, characterises precisely the way in which most journalists have approached this case. Above all, it is the enduring silence of newsrooms which has shielded successive governments from pressure for an inquest or from challenge to their persistent refusals to hold one. 
The fires of injustice rage unabated. It took a lot longer than ten years for the relatives of Stephen Lawrence, Bloody Sunday and Hillsborough victims to get some semblance of accountability from the state. For the relatives of Daniel Morgan, the victims of the Iraq War, Lockerbie, secret rendition and torture, the struggle continues. If nothing else, campaigners for an inquest into David Kelly’s death have succeeded in drawing some attention to yet another spectacular failure of British justice.  
Justin Schlosberg is a media activist, researcher and lecturer at Birkbeck, University of London. He is the author of Power Beyond Scrutiny: Media, Justice and Accountability [7]