Why would someone say this about vaccines? Is it odd?

[PuzzlingPanda]

Was in a health food shop today and mentioned an ongoing issue I'm having with one of my do.

The man mentioned he thought the biggest thing going wrong with our children was all the vaccines they receive. He said they full of nasties, designed to make people ill.

It could be put down to a man having a pointless rant but why would he say this? Is there any sort of truth in it?

Not the first time I've heard negative things about vaccines.

Now I'm worried about it.

"So a doctor who questions vaccines is a quack? Why? Because you don't agree? "

No, because he's widely considered to be unscientific and to play kind of fast and loose with the facts. AFAIK the link he touts between the DTP and SIDS has been widely disproven. Eg (from that well-known source of dodgy info, the World Health Organization):

"One myth that won't seem to go away is that DTP vaccine causes sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). This belief came about because a moderate proportion of children who die of SIDS have recently been vaccinated with DTP; on the surface, this seems to point toward a causal connection. This logic is faulty however; you might as well say that eating bread causes car crashes, since most drivers who crash their cars could probably be shown to have eaten bread within the past 24 hours.

If you consider that most SIDS deaths occur during the age range when three shots of DTP are given, you would expect DTP shots to precede a fair number of SIDS deaths simply by chance. In fact, when a number of well-controlled studies were conducted during the 1980s, the investigators found, nearly unanimously, that the number of SIDS deaths temporally associated with DTP vaccination was within the range expected to occur by chance. In other words, the SIDS deaths would have occurred even if no vaccinations had been given.

In fact, in several of the studies, children who had recently received a DTP shot were less likely to get SIDS. The Institute of Medicine reported that "all controlled studies that have compared immunized versus non-immunized children have found either no association . . . or a decreased risk . . . of SIDS among immunized children" and concluded that "the evidence does not indicate a causal relation between [DTP] vaccine and SIDS.""

"I don't understand why so many pro vaxxers (hate this term) out there think that it's a magic injection which means you have zero chance of getting that disease?????? Wake up!!!"

Er, nobody thinks that.

Also I think you left out "sheeple".

". Japan stopped vaccinating under 2's...and their SID rate dropped to zero. Yes. Zero. No doubt another coincidence though eh? "

No it didn't. This was a false statement made (and then widely repeated) in a book by Vera Schneiber which is completely refuted by the register of deaths in Japan- a record which can hardly be disputed.

sky I too saw that one doing the rounds.

Sad as it is, I don't really see what that has to do with 'anti vaxxers' as such.

The measles could have been passed on by you. Yes you. An unvaccinated adult. People who have been vaccinated but haven't had the disease naturally are far far more likely to catch it later on and therefore be the carrier.

Where/how does she know that it was a 'deliberately unvaccinated child' (because that's what she, and you, imply) who had obviously given her baby measles?

Did we hear how he got on? No. Because probably he was fine. Poorly, but fine. Measles can be life threatening. So can chickenpox (incidentally, my son was also hospitalised with that, but hey, cp is ok because we don't routinely vaccinate here, so it's dismissed as a 'normal' rite of passage). Measles can be life threatening - to children who are already sick. Third world children who are living in poverty/dirt/unhygenic conditions, no clean water etc etc. More than likely I would bet money that her child, whilst poorly for a while, was absolutely fine.

What a scaremongering post!

I think that's why people hate 'non vaxxers' far more calm and rational in my experience.

I really really hope I'm wrong. I'll cut and paste and repeat again

There is growing suspicion that immunization against relatively harm-less childhood diseases may be responsible for the dramatic increase in auto-immune diseases since mass inoculations were introduced. These are fearful diseases such as cancer, leukemia. rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, Lou Gehrig's disease, lupus erythematosus, and the Guillain-Barre syndrome. An autoimmune disease can be explained simply as one in which the body's defense mechanisms cannot distinguish between foreign invaders and ordinary body tissues, with the consequence that the body begins to destroy itself. Have we traded mumps and measles for cancer and leukemia?

Indeed.

Japan stopped vaccinating under 2's...and their SID rate dropped to zero. Yes. Zero.

Vaccination scedule as recommended by Japanese Pediatric Society:
www.jpeds.or.jp/modules/en/index.php?content_id=7

Elements of truth in those excerpts, but I disagree with the overall theme, that all vaccines are dangerous and unnecessary and no-one should use them. I think my biggest problem is the assumption that all vaccines are the same in terms of necessity, safety and effectiveness which this clearly isn't the case. (This failing is also common on the 'pro-vaccine' side ime, and is equally irritating then.)

Some vaccines DO work very well, and the data are quite clear that they have eliminated some very serious diseases - the Men C vaccine is a good recent example of this. Others are probably less effective (like Mumps). Some diseases are definitely worth trying to eliminate, like Polio, whereas others less so. Some vaccines have good safety profiles, others have quite a high chance of severe side effects. I would say that the risks and benefits need to be weighed up for each individual vaccine considering individual risk factors.

Where there are elements of truth would include the section describing autoimmune disease, although this is probably more complex than 'any vaccine causes autoimmune disease'. I've described this upthread, but there could be a link between the schedule (specifically multiple adjuvants simultaneously) and the rise in immune disorders, but I would say the answer to this is to spread out the schedule rather than eliminate the vaccines. I don't think this is given enough consideration right now. It is also true that the longer term effects are not well studied in a lot of cases, and it can be hard to 'prove' a link to a vaccine because controls are virtually impossible to get hold of.

I've also described the consequences of trying to eliminate childhood diseases upthread (pushing up the average age of disease contraction), but I would say the evidence shows that for Rubella the gamble has paid off in that women mostly get through their childbearing years without contracting Rubella. With Mumps I think this has sadly (probably) done more harm than good as the vaccine doesn't seem to work well and wears off when the consequences of Mumps are more severe. A classic example of unintended consequences, and a lesson to take more care when vaccines are considered for 'mild' diseases in the future.

The last small pox and polio cases recorded in this country were indeed vaccine induced, but this is a consequence of the effectiveness of the vaccine programme which had essentially eradicated wild virus. You could argue that the OPV used in the last remaining countries with endemic polio should be replaced by the inactive version to remove this issue there, but there are questions about whether the IPV would give enough protection to eradicate the last cases.

He's probably right that the risk of Measles encephalopathy is overestimated in the west, but I still consider the vaccine worth it.

bertrand Lots of people think that. I wish I'd got the vaccination. I couldn't live with myself if my child got a disease I could have vaccinated against etc etc. If I had time, I 'd go through the thread and copy and paste the comments!

SIDS - 'within the range expected by chance'? Jesus. Who makes up that statistic then??

"bertrand Lots of people think that. I wish I'd got the vaccination. I couldn't live with myself if my child got a disease I could have vaccinated against etc etc. If I had time, I 'd go through the thread and copy and paste the comments! "

That doesn't mean they think it's 100% effective.

"SIDS - 'within the range expected by chance'? Jesus. Who makes up that statistic then??"

Don't understand.

youcannot

What do you think about rubella being given at 12months old now though instead of at age 12/13?

Surely it makes more sense for young girls to have the vaccine, so babies, for whom it will have worn off for by the time they get to their baby rearing years (or may have worn off)

Star the Rubella vaccine used to be given to teenage girls for exactly that reason - to cover them through their childbearing years. There were always a couple of % who didn't take to it though, and so a few CRS cases slipped through.

The main reason it's given to babies now (as well as for the convenience of fitting into the schedule) is because they are considered most likely to pass on the disease and so by eliminating Rubella in that age group there was the best chance of eliminating Rubella completely. To date it seems to be working and Rubella immunity seems to last through the child bearing years long enough to make CRS extremely rare now. I guess it's possible that as this generation ages, and vaccine-mediated immunity wears off (which it's likely to because vaccine mediated immunity is usually of shorter duration, and people don't now have the benefit of 'natural boosters'), we could see mini outbreaks of Rubella in older age groups, but as Rubella isn't really circulating now, hopefully that won't happen!

There's the moral aspect of giving a vaccine to a baby boy who will never directly benefit, but that's a whole other argument!

Here is a brief article that takes a look at some of the cherry picking and scare tactics anti-vax sites use. Quite interesting what you can do with presenting information selectively.
www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/vaccines-didnt-save-us-intellectual-dishonesty-at-its-most-naked/

"There's the moral aspect of giving a vaccine to a baby boy who will never directly benefit"

Really? Surely men benefit from their unborn babies being protected from rubella?

katharina Can't just be me that thinks that article is appallingly badly written? Did he actually get to the point?

youcannot I wondered about that too. Why does my son need rubella? I will give it to my daughter, but when she's older.

"Really? Surely men benefit from their unborn babies being protected from rubella?"

Hence the word 'directly'. Fwiw we decided to give our son the MMR after discussing it. My DH and I felt it was important to try to reduce Rubella, and we figured the side effects were low enough to be acceptable (from Rubella anyway - I think it's Measles that accounts for the more severe ones).

DS did have a fairly severe reaction to the MMR (we yellow carded it), and had singles been available we would have chosen those, but given the options available to us I'm satisfied that it was the right choice.

katharina Can't just be me that thinks that article is appallingly badly written? Did he actually get to the point?"

If Griffin was only 15 days old he would have been protected by maternal antibodies.

should have been. It also doesn't say whether the person who contracted measles was actually unvaccinated and why.

You've entirely missed the point bumbley but that is hardly surprising. Griffin is mercifully ok which is also besides the point... Your pseudo-science articles and their ridiculous, unfoundes theories are the only scaremongering I can see.

I wish you all the best and hope you never have to go through what Jennifer, sugar, or myself have had to deal with. Enjoy your ignorance.

Excuse me? Which my links are pseudoscience? Public Health England? Gov.uk? WHO? I think you may be confusing me with someone else. Perhaps you should read people's posts more carefully before you accuse them of being ignorant.

To be fair, bumbleymummy hasn't said anything that isn't true/backed up by science.

Bumbleymummy doesn't have to do the links and the pseudoscience. Other people do that for her.

I also find the insinuation that if I knew what it was like to lose a child id stop my non-vaccinating nonsense. The woman who wrote that article doesn't know me, she doesnt know my life, or my experiences. Presuming to know someone else's mind pisses me off.

I hate it when people say 'enjoy your ignorance'

Step too far for me when people are trying to just offer both viewpoints. I don't , and have never, said that anyone is an idiot (or similar) for vaccinating.

That article was just pure scaremongering though. And as I thought, child was fine.