Rabies Prevalence and the Milwaukee Protocol - Don't need answer fast

A friend of mine had his puppy vaccinated a few weeks ago. Now, since I live in one of the few countries that is rabies-free in large part thanks to vaccination, I have never seen or heard of anyone catching it and I decided to read a bit about it. I had no idea that it was such a nasty disease. Almost 100% lethal once the symptoms appear.

One thing that struck me is how many people die of it in Africa and Asia, while it’s almost unheard of in Europe and North America. As mentioned in this article: “I was skeptical it was really rabies,” he says. “That never happens!”. I understand that access to good health care is probably a big factor (the vaccine is extremely effective if delivered quickly), but still I’m not sure it explains the disparity: tens of thousands of cases a year in the developing world and fewer than five in the US. Could it be that rabies is simply more prevalent in certain places ?

The other question I have is about the only treatment that has shown some moderate success, the so-called Milwaukee Protocol, which I find kind of fascinating. From what I understand, it’s also very controversial. Critics point out that it’s not scientifically sound and that its success, real but very limited, is probably due to other factors. Proponents’ answer is simple: the survival rate with the Milwaukee Protocol is about 12%. That’s bleak but before that, it was 0%. Given that the articles that I’ve read are already over 4-year-old, what is the state of the question nowadays ? Have other people been saved thanks to the protocol ? Is there new data available ?

Rabies free or terrestrial rabies free? (do you have rabid bats?)

Good question. I’ve found this which says (bolding mine):

A domestic cat once came out of the woods and bit me. I got the rabies shot–this was in the 80s. Anyway, they don’t give it in the stomach any more, and haven’t for decades. The give it at the site of the wound and one in the hip once a week for about a month or so. I’m now protected against rabies for life, except for monkeys in Thailand. And when I was in Thailand, I made sure I didn’t go near any monkeys. Since then I’ve been told if I get bitten again, I still have to get the shots again…oh, well.

My insurance paid every cent. Not even a co-pay, and since I had to go the the emergency room for every shot (they were the only place in the county that gave the shots) they paid through the nose.

The interesting thing, was that the rabies vaccine was tested in Iraq. The US doesn’t have enough cases.

Whoever these proponents are, their figures are incorrect.

Survival with the Milwaukee Protocol is not that good, with only one survivor confirmed (which is why the treatments have largely been abandoned). And this article mentions 8-10 survivors of rabies infection, so it is certainly possible (though extremely rare) to live without undergoing the Milwaukee Protocol.

The article I linked to in the OP mentions:

The sentence is a bit ambiguous but I read it as “6 persons who had undergone the Milwaukee Protocol survived”.

The article you provided casts a very different, much less optimistic light and is more recent. However, several people in the comment section point out that it’s based on just one paper which Chris Healey, the author, brings up almost like a robot everytime someone tries to defend the treatment.

It’s still not very clear to me.