Dengue Vaccine approved in Mexico

[cumgranosalum]

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/12/dengue-vaccine-cleared-mexico-151210042152679.html

It seems that Mexico is to be the first to allow the vaccine for use on certain age groups.

It is also expected that other countries may follow.

It is claimed to be aimed at the 4 main dengue strains.

Let's hope it proves effective. Dengue is particularly prevalent in urban areas around the world, so those mainly at risk include more wealthy or middle class people.

the disease and vector has now turned up in places in Europe and N. America.

Edited December 11, 2015 by cumgranosalum

[AyG]

Not just claimed to be aimed at the 4 main dengue strains - designed to be so. It's a tetravalent vaccine (live attenuated). A study by Mahidol University on 4,002 children showed efficacy to be 61.2% against dengue virus type 1, 81.9% against type 3 and 90% against type 4. (Not sure why type 2 isn't included in these stats.)

Not perfect, but better than nothing.

http://www.ukmi.nhs.uk/applications/ndo/record_view_open.asp?newDrugID=5814

[cumgranosalum]

Not just claimed to be aimed at the 4 main dengue strains - designed to be so. It's a tetravalent vaccine (live attenuated). A study by Mahidol University on 4,002 children showed efficacy to be 61.2% against dengue virus type 1, 81.9% against type 3 and 90% against type 4. (Not sure why type 2 isn't included in these stats.)

Not perfect, but better than nothing.

http://www.ukmi.nhs.uk/applications/ndo/record_view_open.asp?newDrugID=5814

No vaccine is "perfect" - and one set of figures are not the final say...there are several other reviews of the various tests that have been caried out. With a "piublic" release the vaccine will be further researched and the increased numbers will help to get an even better picture of how effective it really is.

I suspect that the reasons for its release in Mexico are partly political... and based on a "what have we got to lose" approach by the authorities. it seems any side effects are minimal.

There is alSO A TYPE 5 Dengue, my guess is that it is rare enough to be discounted in most regions the vaccine will be released.

THis is a new drug and only tried in tests so far.......it remains to be seen how effective it will be......... Saofi are of course going to be upmarket about it, but there are others in the pipe line.

the key being for any new drug - is it an improvement on the old situation.....so far this looks good, but we need to wait for the hype-dust to settle

[h90]

would be interesting if it is not efficient if there are not enough anti-bodies? So it can be checked and boosted.

Or if it is not efficient even there are anti-bodies....Than it would be interesting if the disease is maybe more mild or more rough (a bit complicate on Dengue, that is one nasty virus)

[AyG]

would be interesting if it is not efficient if there are not enough anti-bodies? So it can be checked and boosted.

Or if it is not efficient even there are anti-bodies....Than it would be interesting if the disease is maybe more mild or more rough (a bit complicate on Dengue, that is one nasty virus)

The initial vaccination "primes" the body's immune system. It simply makes it able rapidly to produce more antibodies, so it isn't a question of "not enough antibodies".

"That's one nasty virus" - not really, it's a whole family of them. That makes it harder to develop a vaccine which is effective against all family members.

[h90]

would be interesting if it is not efficient if there are not enough anti-bodies? So it can be checked and boosted.

Or if it is not efficient even there are anti-bodies....Than it would be interesting if the disease is maybe more mild or more rough (a bit complicate on Dengue, that is one nasty virus)

The initial vaccination "primes" the body's immune system. It simply makes it able rapidly to produce more antibodies, so it isn't a question of "not enough antibodies".

"That's one nasty virus" - not really, it's a whole family of them. That makes it harder to develop a vaccine which is effective against all family members.

Normally you have several vaccinations, to boost the antibody count, as one is just not enough. And the amount differs from person to person. Some don't develop any.

For example my antibody count on FSME which should be refreshed every couple of years is out of the scale, most probably I never need any refresh. Reasons: Either I reacted very strong (got it as kid and did react strong) or I got an infection just at the same time that worked as mega-booster. (That is what the head of the University lab told me, they put on my test a "please call").

On my Hepatitis B, I got the vaccination twice and have zero antibody count. Doc told me, it is either just not working for me, which happens or I am naturally immune against it.

So things can be tricky....

That family of virus is nasty because a second and third infection can be worse than the first as the antibodies against the first family member is disturbing the defense of the second infection. So the question is if a vaccination of one strain makes the infection with another one worse, or not?

And well they are nasty....I tried them already.

[cumgranosalum]

would be interesting if it is not efficient if there are not enough anti-bodies? So it can be checked and boosted.

Or if it is not efficient even there are anti-bodies....Than it would be interesting if the disease is maybe more mild or more rough (a bit complicate on Dengue, that is one nasty virus)

The initial vaccination "primes" the body's immune system. It simply makes it able rapidly to produce more antibodies, so it isn't a question of "not enough antibodies".

"That's one nasty virus" - not really, it's a whole family of them. That makes it harder to develop a vaccine which is effective against all family members.

Normally you have several vaccinations, to boost the antibody count, as one is just not enough. And the amount differs from person to person. Some don't develop any.

For example my antibody count on FSME which should be refreshed every couple of years is out of the scale, most probably I never need any refresh. Reasons: Either I reacted very strong (got it as kid and did react strong) or I got an infection just at the same time that worked as mega-booster. (That is what the head of the University lab told me, they put on my test a "please call").

On my Hepatitis B, I got the vaccination twice and have zero antibody count. Doc told me, it is either just not working for me, which happens or I am naturally immune against it.

So things can be tricky....

That family of virus is nasty because a second and third infection can be worse than the first as the antibodies against the first family member is disturbing the defense of the second infection. So the question is if a vaccination of one strain makes the infection with another one worse, or not?

And well they are nasty....I tried them already.

H90 - read up on vaccines to find out how they are administered and work.

It isn't a simple mechanical exercise. Vaccines aren't 100% effective they also work in less obvious ways than you think 0 for instance depending on the number of people vaccinated.....

[h90]

would be interesting if it is not efficient if there are not enough anti-bodies? So it can be checked and boosted.

Or if it is not efficient even there are anti-bodies....Than it would be interesting if the disease is maybe more mild or more rough (a bit complicate on Dengue, that is one nasty virus)

The initial vaccination "primes" the body's immune system. It simply makes it able rapidly to produce more antibodies, so it isn't a question of "not enough antibodies".

"That's one nasty virus" - not really, it's a whole family of them. That makes it harder to develop a vaccine which is effective against all family members.

Normally you have several vaccinations, to boost the antibody count, as one is just not enough. And the amount differs from person to person. Some don't develop any.

For example my antibody count on FSME which should be refreshed every couple of years is out of the scale, most probably I never need any refresh. Reasons: Either I reacted very strong (got it as kid and did react strong) or I got an infection just at the same time that worked as mega-booster. (That is what the head of the University lab told me, they put on my test a "please call").

On my Hepatitis B, I got the vaccination twice and have zero antibody count. Doc told me, it is either just not working for me, which happens or I am naturally immune against it.

So things can be tricky....

That family of virus is nasty because a second and third infection can be worse than the first as the antibodies against the first family member is disturbing the defense of the second infection. So the question is if a vaccination of one strain makes the infection with another one worse, or not?

And well they are nasty....I tried them already.

H90 - read up on vaccines to find out how they are administered and work.

It isn't a simple mechanical exercise. Vaccines aren't 100% effective they also work in less obvious ways than you think 0 for instance depending on the number of people vaccinated.....

I have a Masterdegree in Biotechnology......

And some vaccines are almost 100% effective.....it is a very logic very well known mechanism....how many are vaccinated might be interesting for the complete population but not for the single person. Specially on diseases that animals can get as well it is total irrelevant.

[cumgranosalum]

So it looks as if you missed the modules on English comprehension and vaccines.

[h90]

So it looks as if you missed the modules on English comprehension and vaccines.

Thanks

[BKKdreaming]

if you could go down to the Hospital and get the vaccine would you ?

i heard one report its 3 shots ,

I wonder what happens when the poor people never come back for shot 2 and 3 ?

[h90]

if you could go down to the Hospital and get the vaccine would you ?

i heard one report its 3 shots ,

I wonder what happens when the poor people never come back for shot 2 and 3 ?

You have just a weak immunity against it. It may help a bit on infection. Some with luck may have enough immunity to prevent infection some almost nothing.

Nothing that is worse than no shots at all. (Usually unless Dengue is different...as Dengue is a bit strange)

[cumgranosalum]

Depends on the kind of vaccine - some require several shots to build up immunity. many vaccines can require a booster years later too.

[Chuckles78]

Perhaps if you notice a lot of dengue infections in your area its wise to get the shot. I certainly never want to get it again.

[cumgranosalum]

In about half the world, dengue is endemic....so waiting for it to appear in your neighbourhood is probably too late.

If a large percentage of people get vaccinated with some vaccine a "herd immunity" kicks in and the disease is unable to spread......one wonders if this could be the caae with Dengue in the long run.

but as they have for reasons I don't know decided to administer only to a certain age range I doubt this is possible

[cumgranosalum]

Some people who have a really bad time on Dengue have in fct had it before......but in a milder form when it may not have been diagnosed.

it seems that it is highly likely that second or third infections can be much more serious than a first time.....therefore if I"d had Dengue before, I'd seriously check outthe possibility of a shot.

I'd also make sure I took all the appropriate preventative measures that are still the most effective protection.

[AyG]

I'd seriously check outthe possibility of a shot.

Not possible at the moment.

(1) The vaccine is only currently approved in two countries: Mexico and Phillipines.

(2) It is not available for purchase by the general public. In fact, the manufacturer hasn't even decided on a retail price for it yet - though all the indications are that it's going to be very expensive.

[cumgranosalum]

no-one has suggested it's available to the general public yet....but it is likely that countries like Thailand will follow soon....so it may well be available here.

As for pricing...... these will be negotiated between governments and the company.

Sanofi regard this as their new flagship drug as their last - a diabetes pill is dwindling so they want ot regain their costs ASAP. However they have to sell it to governments, so "the success of the new vaccine will depend mostly on the ability and willingness of governments across Latin America and Asia, where the disease is most widespread, to launch mass vaccination campaigns" - [WSJ]

By the end of 2015 Sanofi have applied and are hoping to have the vaccine approved in 20 countries. Applications in Europe will follow in 2016 and USA is hoped for 2017.

Dengue costs countries and economies 15 billion dollars to treat and prevent every year....so the potential money involved in reducing this cost is big. THe potential market is said to include up to 4 billion people and Sanofi claim they are aiming for mass sales to make a profit rather than a high price. THis is out of character for Big Pharma but the vaccine does rely on mass vaccinations to have any noticeable benefits.

Edited December 25, 2015 by cumgranosalum

[Chuckles78]

Some people who have a really bad time on Dengue have in fct had it before......but in a milder form when it may not have been diagnosed.

it seems that it is highly likely that second or third infections can be much more serious than a first time.....therefore if I"d had Dengue before, I'd seriously check outthe possibility of a shot.

I'd also make sure I took all the appropriate preventative measures that are still the most effective protection.

You are right.

People who have been affected from dengue gain life long immunity to that one strain and short term immunity to the others. But should the same person contract a different strain later severe complications can occur.

[Lumbini]

Hopefully they left out the mercury like most vaccines have [emoji87]

[AyG]

Hopefully they left out the mercury like most vaccines have [emoji87]

You clearly don't have a clue what you're writing about.

Thimerosal (the mercury-based preservative) (1) is completely safe, (2) was only ever used in tiny quantity and (3) is rarely used these days. It most certainly was never used in "most vaccines".

http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/SafetyAvailability/VaccineSafety/UCM096228#t2

[AyG]

no-one has suggested it's available to the general public yet....

Really? I thought that's exactly what you did when you wrote:

I'd seriously check outthe possibility of a shot.

[cumgranosalum]

no-one has suggested it's available to the general public yet....

Really? I thought that's exactly what you did when you wrote:

I'd seriously check outthe possibility of a shot.

then you thought wrong, didn't you?

[cumgranosalum]

Hopefully they left out the mercury like most vaccines have [emoji87]

Nonsense - go check up the truth about that before you spout such rubbish.

[AyG]

no-one has suggested it's available to the general public yet....

Really? I thought that's exactly what you did when you wrote:

I'd seriously check outthe possibility of a shot.

then you thought wrong, didn't you?

So, you didn't write "I'd seriously check outthe possibility of a shot"?

I'm not sure what your problem is, but detachment from the truth appears to be a major issue.

[Lumbini]

Lie # 1 “Thimerosal, 49.55% mercury by weight, is safe when used as a preservative in vaccines and other drugs.”

The Facts: The Eli Lilly Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) for Thimerosal acknowledges that exposure to Thimerosal in utero and in children can cause “mild to severe mental retardation and mild to severe gross motor impairment.” The Sigma Aldrich MSDS lists abortion and fetal death as possible outcomes of in utero exposure.

Nonetheless, most seasonal and H1N1 flu shots for pregnant women and young children contain 25 micrograms of mercury in the form of Thimerosal. For this exposure to be safe, a child would need to weigh more than 550 pounds.

Thimerosal is a poison, neurotoxin, cancer-causer, and can interrupt the immune system and the normal development of an unborn baby or a child. Thimerosal is so toxic that putting it on your skin is illegal. However, the government not only allows but also defends its injection into the population, especially pregnant women and newborn children, as part of influenza vaccines currently recommended by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Edited December 25, 2015 by Lumbini

[AyG]

The Facts: The Eli Lilly Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) for Thimerosal acknowledges that exposure to Thimerosal in utero and in children can cause mild to severe mental retardation and mild to severe g

Perhaps you'd care to provide a link to a source substantiating that ludicrous claim. I rather doubt you can, though.

[Lumbini]

One link of many ... Follow the $

Maybe this new vaccine will be different like I originally posted in this thread , one can always hope then investigate .

http://traceamounts.com/ten-lies-told-about-mercury-in-vaccines/

[cumgranosalum]

Lie # 1 “Thimerosal, 49.55% mercury by weight, is safe when used as a preservative in vaccines and other drugs.”

The Facts: The Eli Lilly Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) for Thimerosal acknowledges that exposure to Thimerosal in utero and in children can cause “mild to severe mental retardation and mild to severe gross motor impairment.” The Sigma Aldrich MSDS lists abortion and fetal death as possible outcomes of in utero exposure.

ImageUploadedByThaivisa Connect1451045926.712142.jpg

Nonetheless, most seasonal and H1N1 flu shots for pregnant women and young children contain 25 micrograms of mercury in the form of Thimerosal. For this exposure to be safe, a child would need to weigh more than 550 pounds.

Thimerosal is a poison, neurotoxin, cancer-causer, and can interrupt the immune system and the normal development of an unborn baby or a child. Thimerosal is so toxic that putting it on your skin is illegal. However, the government not only allows but also defends its injection into the population, especially pregnant women and newborn children, as part of influenza vaccines currently recommended by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Take a break for a bit of tripe.....

"Thimerosal is a poison, neurotoxin, cancer-causer, and can interrupt the immune system and the normal development of an unborn baby or a child. Thimerosal is so toxic that putting it on your skin is illegal."

[Sheryl]

There is no evidence whatsoever that the trace amounts of thimerosal contained in the influenza vaccine are harmful.

And, in the absence of any information regarding whether there is any thimerosal in the new dengue vaccine, this is off topic.