news-record.com

LIFE

Immunization is key to avoiding epidemic

Saturday, September 10, 2011
(Updated 3:00 am)

— When Jennifer and Moira Tanner left a Friday afternoon matinee of the new disease thriller “Contagion,” each said they had just one thought.

“I really, really need to wash my hands,” Jennifer Tanner said.

Moviegoers might have that feeling this weekend with the release of the disaster flick that pits Matt Damon, Gwyneth Paltrow, Jude Law and Laurence Fishburne against a deadly, quickly-spreading virus.

But Dr. Ward Robinson, medical director of the Guilford County Department of Public Health, said he’d like viewers to take more away from the movie than the desire to buy a trunk full of hand sanitizer.

“I’m not convinced all those human efforts from hand hygiene to human distancing make much difference,” Robinson said. “If anything makes a difference, it’s immunity. You have to get that flu shot.”

The Centers for Disease Control worked with director Steven Soderbergh to make the movie as realistic a depiction of a worldwide epidemic as possible. The CDC and health departments across the nation want the fictional epidemic to educate people about preventing the spread of real world illnesses — especially seasonal influenza.

Robinson said people don’t pay enough attention to how they can avoid the disease until there is a panic on the order of the H1N1 “swine flu” scare of two years ago.

“Movies like this do get us talking,” he said. “It gets the brain cells working and gives us the opportunity to talk about things that are real and people do need to take responsibility for.”

According to Robinson, worrying about the outbreak of a mysterious super-bug is a losing game. The best thing worriers can do is to get immunized for the diseases we know are threats. Robinson said people resist vaccination for a number of reasons — none of them good.

“Some people just think they’re too healthy, they don’t have to be immunized,” he said.

Robinson said in studies of communities where younger, more healthy people were immunized, more vulnerable populations — especially the elderly — survived in greater numbers.

The reason? Grandparents weren’t passed illnesses by children and grandchildren whose stronger immune systems hold up well to something like influenza but then pass it to those who don’t hold up as well.

“We shouldn’t be thinking about the vaccines as a protection for ourselves,” he said. “We should be thinking of this as a selfless act to help our families, our loved ones and our communities.”

He said a misunderstanding of the science behind immunization also keeps some people away. It’s not possible to get the flu from a vaccine, he said — but some people get a low-grade fever or the sniffles as their body is tricked into thinking it is protecting itself from the flu.

That will pass quickly, Robinson said, and it’s a feeling that’s much better and safer than the flu.

“There are times when it’s too late to get the vaccine,” he said. “But it’s never too early.”

Contact Joe Killian at 373-7023 or joe.killian@news-record.com
 

Accompanying Photos

Comments

This article has been closed to new comments. Comments are generally closed after 14 days. However, comments may be closed earlier at the discretion of the News & Record.

Inappropriate content? Please report abuse.

newkid

September 10, 2011 - 10:23 am EDT

er, no....getting a seasonal influenza immunization will NOT protect you against a "lethal airborne virus" (as in the movie) or an outbreak of avian flu, or any virus for which you have not been immunized. This is like saying "to prevent a broken toe, wear a helmet"

ENRobinsonJr.

September 10, 2011 - 1:02 pm EDT

You are absolutely right! So wearing a helmet won't protect you from a broken leg. It will protect you from a head injury. The seasonal influenza vaccine will not protect you against H5N1 or a virus that is not represented as a component of the immunization. The point however is that it is not rational to spend energy worrying about a hypothetical epidemic, such as that depicted in the movie, and not take advantage of an available modality that protects one from an actual epidemic.

newkid

September 11, 2011 - 11:12 am EDT

Personally, I get an annual flu shot *and* I wear a helmet when biking...I just don't appreciate public officials and media who use the fear and ignorance of the masses in order to get people to do the right thing.

Brutarius

September 10, 2011 - 3:22 pm EDT

A shocking new study published in a prestigious medical journal has found a direct statistical link between higher vaccine doses and infant mortality rates in the developed world, suggesting that the increasing number of inoculations being forced upon children by medical authorities, particularly in the United States which administers the highest number of vaccines and also has the highest number of infant deaths, is in fact having a detrimental impact on health.

The study, entitled Infant mortality rates regressed against number of vaccine doses routinely given: Is there a biochemical or synergistic toxicity?, was conducted by Neil Z. Miller and Gary S. Goldman. It was published in the reputable Human and Experimental Toxicology journal, which is indexed by the National Library of Medicine.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/54772978/Infant-Mortality-Rates-Regress-w-High...

Panacea

September 10, 2011 - 6:42 pm EDT

The study you refer to was JUST published. There has been no opportunity for the scientific community to review its methodology and reliability.

The study found a correlation between infant mortality rates and the number of vaccinations in the first year of life. The authors looked specifically at the US and 33 nations with lower infant mortality rates and compared their immunization schedules. They found a correlation between the number of vaccinations in the first year and infant mortality rates.

The methodological questions will need to look at the choices of nations chosen to compare the US to, and the statistical test used to evaluate the results, among other issues.

Remember, correlation is not causation. The authors call for further studies to investigate the correlation, confirm their findings, and THEN study whether or not there is a causative factor.

Brutarius's conclusion is NOT what the authors concluded. His assumptions as to the meaning of the study are way premature, and clearly twisted to mean what he wants it to mean.

Vaccinations are still the best way to control infectious diseases, and beyond well known adverse effects that occur rarely, there is NO evidence that vaccines are dangerous.

However, the study does sound interesting from the abstract. Brutarius's link is broken; the document was removed. Here is a link to the abstract through PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21543527

ENRobinsonJr.

September 12, 2011 - 2:56 pm EDT

The article is not in a "prestigious" journal. The article would not likely be found by any method other than computer search of literature.
The lead author is a journalist with a background of debating the cons of vaccination. (A google search will find his credentials... Unlike most "prestigious" journals, his affiliations are not mentioned in the article and his contact address is a gmail account.)
The source of data for the linear regression is the CIA factbook...this is not recognized as a valid source of medical data.
AND most importantly, since infant mortality occurs predominantly in the brief period around birth, in the US is predominantly due to prematurity AND occurs before vaccines are administered, any connection between number of infant deaths and vaccines is as valid as the connection between number of infant deaths and high school attendance.

eMail Updates

Advertisement | Advertise with Us

Local Tickets

View All

Featured Ads

Search

Advertisement | Advertise with Us
Advertisement | Advertise with Us
Advertisement | Advertise with Us

News & Record Network Sites

User Tools

  • Mobile
  • Social
  • RSS
  • Share
  • Sign in to MyNR

Search