Measles Outbreak?

[MoaningLisa]

I am sure you have all heard on the news that there has been an outbreak of measles.

Papers, Schools, Hv, Drs are saying if you or your child haven't had the vaccine(s) now would be a good time to get it done.

I cant help but think though that the parents who haven't and wont get their child vaccinated are putting their children at risk.

Aibu to think that its just bloody selfish and very daring to play with their own childs life?

and, by the way - don't try to tell me what the medical community do or don't do wrt my situation, and my dd.

certainly my last gp woudl not hear of it (even though it was written in her notes). and i have come across many others the same.

that is fine, I do not listen.

I have had a paed tell me I "do not need ot know" what test results mean - wrt dd2. and that I should go ahead and carry on with hr vaccines as usual. he wouldn't answer my queries for a long while - until it became apparent i was not leaving his office until he did.

when he did tell me what the test results meant (he didn't want to worry me, aparently - like that is a good reason to withhold information about my daughter's medical condition!) it turns out that it would be a very, very bad idea to vaccinate her. by his own admission.

but if I hadn't pushed of rthat informaiton, if I had been content ot listen to his first line (wtf he ever thought it was ok to say it is beyond me!), then maybe I would have gone ahead - and now had 2 children with severe disabilities.

curly, how would you feel about risking penicillin for a condition that he potentially didn't need it for. Eg. An ear infection. If you were told it wasn't likely to be serious and that he would probably make a full recovery without antibs would you give them to him anyway, just in case?

That's the way some people feel about vaccinating against mumps and rubella. They are not usually serious in childhood and in many cases people don't even realise that their child has had them (37% of mumps cases are completely asymptomatic.) Many people who choose not to have the mmr are not influenced by Wakefield and are not anti vax they would rather have a single measles vaccine and consider the other vaccinations, if necessary, at a later date. Some people here will now mentionthe herd immunity argument again but we don't have herd immunity and we won't get it from vaccines because they don't provide lifelong immunity. In fact, they are waning at a time when people are more vulnerable and at risk of complications in adulthood. Eg. Rubella immunity waning when a woman is more likely to be pregnant.

Silverfrog, I don't deny your dd medical situation, any doctor knows there are risks to immunisation. You are testament to those risks, and you most certainly will not be alone in having a child with an adverse reaction to a vaccination as it is a known but rare side effect.

However, let us also take a moment to consider all those who do not have a voice on this thread. All the many many children who died or were left with permanent disabilities as a result of childhood diseases in the 19th and early 20th centuries. And these were an unimaginable number of children- parents living in these times expected to lose at least one child. Some lost many - childhood mortality was devastating. Not many of their parents are around to tell their stories anymore, but the historical child mortality statistics tell it for them, lest we forget.

There are plenty of anecdotal stories on this thread about the damage measles can do. And that's in living memory and with antibiotic treatment. Longer ago the prognosis was much worse.

Sanitation, nutrition and antibiotics have played a huge part in the control and survival rates of these diseases - but the WHO attributes the greatest protection against them to vaccination.

I put my faith in that.

Bubbly, you are talking to the wrong person here if you are implying mumps is not a serious illness! My own brother had severe convulsions at 18 mths from mumps, and it is a horrible disease that can render healthy men infertile!

If my son had a serious ear infection, yes I would risk the antibiotics, especially if he was in pain. However I wouldnt rush out for any antibiotics willy nilly - would anyone?

Curly, I'm not sure why you believe that when if you looked at the figures yourself on the hpa website you would see that the death rate had decreased the most before the vaccine was available. The decrease from the turn of the century until 1968 was huge. The vaccine most definitely did not have the same impact. Why don't you read things for yourself?

curly, I did clarify that the antibs weren't necessary in my description. Not sure why you would give antibs for pain though - surely painkillers would be more appropriate.

Re mumps - are you talking about febrile convulsions? Scary to watch but completely harmless and can occur with any quick rise in temperature due to illness.

Re sterility. No it doesn't - another myth! Again, if you look at mumps info on the hpa website you will see that 'despite popular belief there is no evidence that mumps causes sterilty'. It may cause orcitis in males post puberty and other complications which are more likely to occur in adulthood. With that in mind would you explain why you would like to risk your son catching mumps as an adult when his vaccine immunity wanes?

CurlyGirly2

Let's take your allergy to penicillin. I'm going to suggest that we make its use compulsory because it only harms a very small number of people. Okay so far?

Now if you complain that it would be dangerous and ask if you can have another safer drug (like some people asked for the 3 single vaccines - just to be on the safe side) you will be told that you may not have another type and that you are trouble making "because everyone knows that it's safer to take an antibiotic than not". That is true isn't it. It is safer on average to take an antibiotic than not so why would you be refusing it? Do you take a selfish delight in damaging confidence in antibiotics?

Presumably some researcher discovered that some people were allergic to penicillin. Did you hate them for it? Did you and others scream and rant that the researcher was trying to undermine the use of antibiotics? Of course not. Because that would be really stupid.

I'm not anti-vaccine. I'm anti being told that any children who might suffer don't actually matter as long as the majority are okay. That we won't even be allowed to look for a safer form of vaccine. That merely considering the possibility is evil somehow.

It's also a bit depressing hearing people repeat things that never happened. Like the claims that Wakefield was scaremongering at that press conference. See Brufin's transcript further back for proof that he was not.

I did look at the hpa figures for measles - exotic lumped them into decades which I thought put the picture very clearly - decline prior to vaccination due to many factors such as improving sanitation and antibiotics, and a further decline following introduction of the vaccine. What's the contentious point?
The WHO and the HPA both advise vaccination and they are the ones who publish this data!

I don't have time to analyse all the data myself! I don't really have time to sit here answering all these questions - my family thinks I've gone mad!

I put my faith and trust in the medical powers-that-be to analyse it and come up with the best plans for the population. On the basis of that the WHO and the HPA both advise parents to vaccinate.

What on earth do you expect? All parents to become experts in medical studies and statistical analysts? No, as a society we put our trust in the hands of the experts.

Why do you keep quoting agencies that advise vaccination in an anti-vax argument?

As far as I can tell the measles outbreaks started up again as a direct result of the Andrew Wakefield controversy and parents having neither Mmr or single measles jabs. But no doubt you'll tell me I am wrong, ignorant or both! Well,me and most of the medical establishment eh?

Good grief curly, Look at the fatality figures! Don't bother with adding them up 10 years at a time either. Just look at how much they decreased before vaccination. Then skip ahead a few years and see that no, there were not huge outbreaks of measles after Wakefield. I'm not sure I believe you looked at them tbh. here they are again for anyone who is interested it is one page so it won't take you long to get the general idea!

Bubbly, you admit that they fell further with the effects of vaccination though?

Onegar, I used the penicillin comparison to highlight the fact that every drug and medical intervention has a certain amount of risk attached to it, and the fact that I was in the minority group showing an adverse reaction, wouldn't make me question the overall safety of it.

I can't entertain wildly hypothetical situations as you describe- and as at present this country is not a fascist state forcing me to take penicillin (or mmr!) I think its irrelevant. In fact, since I don't entertain the conspiracy theories surrounding Mmr I don't really believe the single vaccines are safer. I do remember reading that some parents paid to get single vaccines in unsterile environments like Portocabins because of the panic - lots of whom ended up unprotected because of the vaccines not being stored/transported properly! Or is that all part of the conspiracy as well? I have no objection to singles at all - vaccines are vaccines! But imagine the panic that makes parents pay up for something free on nhs.

The simple premise I present is that penicillin - amazingly useful drug saved untold lives, but with a small risk of adverse reaction.

Vaccinations, including Mmr - ditto.

Not at any dramatically increased rate, no. Is that not obvious to you?

Wow bubbly I just did look at those figures - I can see a huge reduction in measles cases since the introduction of MMR! No wonder the HPA recommends the mmr!

Deaths from measles would be reduced anyway - what with modern medicine, intensive care etc. However, things like deafness and blindness are not accounted for by those figures and are a side effect of measles. (many cases previously quoted on this thread!).

I don't think the HPA or the WHO are giving out incorrect vaccinations advice based on those figures.

Overall the figures have declined at a faster rate since 1968 anyway. Bubbly are you suggesting that these figures are proof of the vaccine not working? Or of a conspiracy theory involving the HPA?

I have chosen NOT to immunize. Both my boys have had measles and I can tell you that it was by no means a terrible ordeal! They got a high temp (much like chicken pox) and were treated accordingly, rash appeared , etc Nothing to get excited, terrified or panicked over I assure you. They have had Rubella, Measles, chicken pox and gotten over them with very little fuss.

They have however, NEVER had so much as a cough, cold, flu, ear infection, etc so their immune systems are working brilliantly (they are 15 and 10). Is this BECAUSE they are not given vaccines and medicines like they are sweets and have built up immunity naturally - we will never know but are we to believe this is coincidence?

We can argue this till we are blue in the face but this thread begs the question: Do you all just believe whatever pharmaceutical companies and their paid employees tell you? Even though they are companies who stand to make trillions of pounds? Do you believe every word McDonalds says?

CurlyGirly2 you say "I do remember reading that some parents paid to get single vaccines in unsterile environments like Portocabins because of the panic

Not sure about the actual portocabins. Do you mean like the dangerous unsterile environments where people donate blood?. Like the room at school where I had injections or like all the living rooms where diabetics inject themselves.

Think about what you did there. You described a perfectly normal act and tried to make it sound dangerous and irresponsible. Ask yourself why you needed to twist it if you were in the right.

But yes I remember when the government said that they would stop people having single vaccines and would rather that did not have anything at all. I never understood that. Since you just said "I have no objection to singles at all - vaccines are vaccines!" maybe you can explain it to me.

I'm not talking about secret conspiracies. Everything I refer to happened out in the open in front of you. I don't claim to know people's motives. I don't know yours.

Getting back to your claims about penicillin. I'm sorry, but any discomfort you have suffered doesn't justify you spreading rumours that penicillin is completely ineffective as an antibiotic. I don't know where you got that from but it is very irresponsible.

any doctor knows there are risks to immunisation this is quite a statement, because if any doctor knows this, why don't aren't they willing to discuss the risks with those parents who are concerned? My GP told me my daughter "would die" if she wasn't vaccinated. This is the sort of emotional gumpf you are fed if you question the mainstream medical establishment. I have been quite shocked at the level of ignorance and mis-information given out by my (usually quite good) GP practice and nurses.

Spreading rumours about antibiotics not working?? I said last night I believe penicillin to be one of the most important discoveries of
modern medicine! Despite my allergic reaction to it I still believe in it! This forms the whole basis of my argument! The huge benefits of penicillin outweigh the small risk of adverse reaction. Likewise vaccines.

I believe the research of the WHO who are pro-vacination. I have no idea why the gov withdrew the singles, I have nothing against them as I said. I am just pro vaccination and pro antibiotics.

For obvious reasons haven't read the whole thread... and am not sure if this is the right place to ask my questions ... but hey worst can happen is you all tell me to f.. off. So here goes.

I do not have blind faith in the official recommendations. In fact, I am pretty certain that whilst the official recommendations probably make sense on a population/society level, they are not particularly meaningful on an individual level. As an example, the official recommendation for zero alcohol during pregnancy. Why is that the recommendation? Because it would be expensive, and ambiguous, to recommend 'some alcohol is ok but don't overdo it'. People judge what is 'some alcohol' differently, and it would be very hard and expensive to create individual recommendations to different people. As a result, there might be more cases of fetal alcohol syndrom. It is thus more efficient to just recommend zero alcohol. The point is, NOT because any alcohol causes harm, but because on a society level, costs/benefits work out that way. Similarly regarding Group B Strep. About a third of pregnant women carry GBS, which can be transmitted to their baby at birth, and this is the number one cause of neonatal death in the UK. And yet it is not recommended to test women for it. Because over all, from a society perpective, it works out better/cheaper to try and catch the illness when it IS transmitted to the baby (one in 10 die despite optimal treatment), than to use preventative stuff that would not be necessary in many many cases but in some would save a baby's life.
What I'm saying is that the official recommendations make sense from a society perspective. I feel however that they rely on individuals taking responsibility for their own choices, as they are often not the optimal recommendation on an individual level.
With DS now 9months, I am considering MMR vax, from this perspective that for an optimum individual outcome I need to be informed and make my own decisions.

So what I am thinking at the moment is:

• Yes probably he should have the measles vax. Reasons being measles is a nasty disease, and I do not like the idea of my child putting people at risk who can't have the vax.
• Yes probably he should have the mumps and rubella vax. Rubella out of solidarity, mumps to avoid own fertility issues.

However, I am also thinking:

• From a society perspective it does not make sense to test every child for 'vax risk factors' before vaxxing, but from an individual level it does make sense. What factors should we be looking out for? Any links? Any tests that can be done privately?
• From a society perspective it makes perfect sense to promote the combined vaxs, as the uptake particularly of mumps and rubella vaxx which are mostly done in solidarity rather than from egoistic reasons, would be lower otherwise. But from an individual perspective, surely it's just as good for everyone if we have the vax seperately. So can anyone point me towards info that explains the possible risks of joint vaxs? Can we get the individual vaxs privately? Are there suggestions as to the timing of the individual vaxs?

Any pointers much appreciated...

Curly, I don't think I've mentioned any conspiracy theory. All I was trying to show you was that by the time the vaccine cane along measles was not as deadly a disease. I'm glad that you have recognised that and have recognised that it would have continued. As I mentioned earlier, the WHO have highlighted the increased risk of complications due to malnutrition and by simply administering vitamin a to measles sufferers in developing countries they have been able to half the risk of complications. This includes the blindness etc that you mentioned earlier.

CurlyGirly2 isn't it annoying when people put words in your mouth.

I am pro vaccine too. The main difference between us seems to be that I think autistic kids matter too and you are talking as though we shouldn't try to protect them.

That's all I want. To find out everything we can about those at risk and protect them too. For whatever reason the government feels strongly that this would be a bad thing to do. Apparently you do too. As I can't ask the government I'm asking you. What is wrong with us ALSO trying to protect the minority who might get damaged by vaccines? what is wrong with doing research into it?

Meita: all I would say is, do the research. there is a lot of info on threads such as this, and on others in the vaccination section. the threads are long, but the info is there.

there are no tests, at the moment, to tell whether you are in an at risk group or not. some research suggests that if you/close family:

have allergies
have auto-immune conditions
history of vaccine reaction
history of autism
gastro-intestinal issues

then you might be wise to proceed with caution.

there is little doubt that the mmr is safe for the majority. no one has ever said it isn't.

but, on the other hand, it is not a vaccine with a good track record, imo (aside form vaccine damage). it was hastily introduced, and has been relentlessly pushed ever since - it has one of the worst safety records, overall, and has been through several different incarnations. the "recipe" if you like, is regularly tinkered with, and has been changed beyond all recognition form the early days - this without full trials etc.

the fertility issue wrt mumps is, as I understand it, a myth. there is a possibility of orchitis (rare) but to have double orchitis (I understand) would be astonishingly rare.

yes, you can get single jabs privately, althoguh no mumps anymore.

there is a book - by richard Halvorsen, the only nhs gp to offer both mmr and singles (and he has all the way along), called "the truth about vaccines". I found it an interesting read - it weighs up the risks, loks at the safety records etc, and lets you come to your own conclusion as to whether it is of benefit for you/your family. Richard Halvorsen also provides consultations via Babyjabs. afaik, he looks at each family on a case by case basis, takes history etc, and then advises accordingly.

onager - it isn't worht it. some people think collateral damage is ok. after all - it's all for the Greater Good.
too much thinking obviously hurts some people.

onager - it isn't worht it. some people think collateral damage is ok. after all - it's all for the Greater Good.
too much thinking obviously hurts some people.

Hear hear :)

Thanks silverfrog. Good pointers there. I have indeed read lots of the threads but it is hard to pick out the relevant stuff amid all the 'you said - I said' and accusations and insults. Tbh people get so emotional about it (understandably!) that even though I am a researcher by vocation and am schooled in determining if something is good science or not, I get overwhelmed - it's tempting to just go with the official recommendations, at least then you have someone to blame. Am considering getting that book you mentioned.

Plenty of talk about conspiracies throughout this thread though, Bubbly. Nothing i've read here gives me the slightest suspicion that vaccination isn't worth the small risk though - I suppose life is one big weighing up of risk. What about the children killed in car accidents? Are they collateral damage to us all using our cars? We must think so as a society, or we would ban cars. Cars constitute a huge risk to children.

I don't believe a word of anything mcdonalds says, and would be dubious about a lot of claims from pharmaceuticals, but that is why there are rigorous testing and controls in place. I wouldn't necessarily believe something just because the government said it was true either. But I do put my faith in the WHO, HPA and the rigorous testing any new drug has to pass. Otherwise I wouldn't trust any medicine.

Vaccinations have saved countless lives, and it is because of the success of them that we no longer have children dying of measles (certainly is a killer), diptheria, polio, smallpox, and many others.

at rigorous testig for new drugs/vaccines.

that'd be why the UK chose to introduce the Urabe strain mmr - afte rit was well known that it caused problems and had been withdrawn in other countries - woudl it?

and why, each time the mumps dose, (for eg) is altered within the mmr, it goes through rigorous testing (not)?

or the Hib/MenC combination - when that was introduced, there was no published safety record or effectiveness. yet it reportedly causes side effects in 10% of children. the nation's children were efectively used as the largest clinical trial - marvellous. glad you are happy with that appraoch.