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.

Nobody thinks they're a soap opera and I don't see how anyone could take anything negative from what has been said on this thread. We've all pretty much agreed with what they were saying about the need for better awareness in parents and HCPs, faster diagnosis and treatment. They did an amazing job and have obviously raised a great deal of awareness.

You are the negative on this thread.
Prevention is better than a cure and but you constantly drip drip of vaccines dont work very well, you can take antibiotics, herd immunity doesnt work, the ingredients arent safe (im not just talking about this thread) need for single vaccines, etc etc etc Its all very negative. Children still die with faster diagnosis and better awareness etc, surely it is better not to get the disease in the first place.

We're all on the same side here. We all want to see fewer, or ideally no people affected by Meningitis. The only debate is how best to do it. There are question marks over the Bexsero vaccine which is inevitable because we are the only country in the world to be using it routinely, and no-one knows how well it will work. The manufacturers themselves admit that not all strains are covered and that antibody responses to some antigens wane very quickly. It is only sensible, to save lives and minimize damage, that people are aware of the limitations of the vaccine. If people assume that they can't get Men B because they are vaccinated they might wait longer to get help and outcomes could be worse. The vaccine is not a full solution to the problem, which I think even the families interviewed yesterday accepted. Earlier diagnosis, and blood tests in any case where there is doubt, could well have a bigger impact. All possibilities should be explored, and I hope will be next week when the experts give their evidence.

so true Betrand
YOucannotbesrious
That is still a far small risk than if the meningitis was circulating.

My DS had his MenW last summer, he had a headache for the night. A young lad in our office had a headache went to bed in the evening, next morning his mum couldnt wake him, he was taken to hospital and then lost 3 days of his life to a coma, then was in hospital for another week and was off work for 3 weeks and p/t for many more weeks and still not well due to meningitis.
Now which is better to be cured and left with long term affects or vastly reduce your chances of getting it in the first place, and even if you do get the disease after vaccination the chances are you will get it mildly.

Another perspective
My children had nearly 30 febrile convulsions between them, my sister and my mum had febrile convulsions until the age of 10, ds stopped at 13 and dd 4.
Is it better for them to have the vaccine and risking a febrile convulsion and knowing the risk can keep a closer eye on them for a few days or let them get the diseases that might bring on the febrile convulsion when i dont know it is going to happen. Its ok when then they are small children as they are always with an adult. DS had febrile convulsions every 2 years or so after the age of 6 so never sure if he had actually grown out of them. He had one in the toilet of mcdonalds and banged his head badly, he had another at school and again managed to bang the front and back of his head (cuts and blood on both sides) He could easily have been at the station on the way to school and fallen on the track (i did see it happen once and it was one of my worst nightmares it happening to ds) My dsis had one in the middle of the road in front of a lorry.
Why would you want diseases circulating that can maim and kill even if not directly ie the deathrate for 3 years after measles was far higher than those that didnt get it.

bruffin, I agree that in principle prevention is better than cure, but you seem to be assuming that Bexsero will prevent Men B. That is far from certain, and as mentioned above it is likely a reasonable proportion of Men B strains won't be covered anyway. It really is important that parents realize this and don't ignore warning signs. You are also assuming that Bexsero won't do any significant harm to anyone taking it, which is also unknown. Due to the rarity of Men B to start with, the number needed to treat to prevent a single case runs into the tens (or possibly hundreds) of thousands, so even relatively rare vaccine reactions could outweigh benefits. We just don't know at this point. The risk/benefits at the population level are still being assessed, and carefully monitored by agencies around the world to see if the vaccine is worth it. As unsavory as it may seem, we do also have to consider what will have the greatest impact in terms of the pot of money available, and whether other aspects of this like earlier screening could do more to minimize the impact on lives.

I'm sorry that the lad you know was affected by Meningitis W - that is a strain that scares me more than Men B because of it's rapidly increased prevalence and aggressiveness. I hope he continues to recover.

I think removing the disease from circulation is a slightly different issue. As far as I understand, the current push is for individual protection. I'm not convinced that you could achieve herd immunity with a vaccine that only gives a few years protection if you're only vaccinating a small proportion of the population. As I understand it not a lot is known about carriage and where best to target to reduce this - I think that teenagers are thought to be a good bet, and it would be good to see this studied further as was recommended by the JCVI. Perhaps the coverage can provide a push for this study.

bruffin, I don't see the value in not discussing the shortcomings of the vaccine as well. I believe in making informed decisions and this includes looking at the disadvantages as well as the advantages. In most cases people will come down on the side of the vaccine but you can't pretend that it's 100% effective or that it never has any side effects. It's dangerous to assume that your child will not contract a disease because they have been vaccinated against it - particularly in the case of meningitis where it acts so quickly and you miss valuable time getting treatment - as Faye's parents pointed out.

I'm not sure what you've got against single vaccines tbh. If parents are not going to give the MMR then singles are better than nothing surely? It's still a vaccine.

Yes, YouCannot, one of the parents asked that the JCVI be given a 'push' in the discussion next week about investigating the effect of the vaccine on carriage in teenagers. It may turn out that they end up vaccinating that group next because it will reduce the circulation of MenB - they're the main carriers.

Informed decision lol
You forget Bubbleymummy
The likes of Bertrand and I and many other have been reading your posts for years

Respect and empathy for our children outweighs everything else.
How the hell do we feel? Well it doesn't seem to matter

sugar, I've just read your posts on your other threads. If you have a problem with anything being written on this thread, you should really say it here - not write about it elsewhere. You could also link to this thread so that other people can read it for themselves. I don't think any of us who have been discussing that interview yesterday would mind others reading what we've written. No one is saying anything negative about the parents and we've all expressed sympathy for them and admiration for what they have done.

I really don't understand it. I have read, re-read, and re-read last nights discussion and though I can work out sugar is upset, and hence I tried to say sorry for participating in something that upset her further yesterday. I'm still confused as to why it upset her. I'd assumed she just found it too hard and wanted discussion to stop due to also being the day it was televised when I saw her comment elsewhere. I wanted to say that if that was the case I was sorry for missing that.

Iv been contacted by someone who said relatives were on the programme and they took no offence at what was on the thread but I feel awful that there may be others who have been hurt. I just can't work out how by what was said last night. The person who contacted me couldn't find anything to be offended by...

I don't see anything but a common desire to see the effects of diseases eradicated/reduced for our children and society in last nights discussion

"Prevention is better than a cure and but you constantly drip drip of vaccines dont work very well, you can take antibiotics, herd immunity doesnt work, the ingredients arent safe (im not just talking about this thread) need for single vaccines, etc etc etc Its all very negative. Children still die with faster diagnosis and better awareness etc, surely it is better not to get the disease in the first place."

YES. (I too have been on several threads with bumbley's "innocent" "who, me?" questioning on several topics)

Obviously nobody thinks we shouldn't be looking into better diagnosis and treatments for those who do get ill, and shoudn't assume that everyone who's vaccinated won't get the disease. But really, surely we all agree that it's enormously, massively better not to get sick in the first place? I actually recently nearly had sepsis myself, though not from something vaccinatable, I got to hospital on time, I got prompt treatment with shitloads of IV antibiotics, and I still have never been/felt so ill in my life, it was hideous and took me over a month to recover as a fit, otherwise healthy adult (and I still need to have further tests to ensure I don't have any longer-lasting effects from it). The idea that we can downplay or not focus on vaccination because "here's all the drawbacks/limitations of vaccination - let's focus on better diagnosis and treatments!" is pretty wrong-headed, IMO.

(and yes, obviously we need to ensure that the vaccines we provide are effective - again, though, I'm not sure that bumbley's line of questioning is heading towards "let's pour loads of money into vaccine research to make new and even better/safer vaccines")

leedy, I think we are all agreed that prevention would be better than cure, and yes I'd love to see better and more effective vaccines in development, as well as research into who to target to limit prevalence in the community as a whole. If we had a vaccine that worked well I'd be first in line. (I would also like to see research into who reacts badly and why rather than the dismissive attitude that seems to prevail currently, so that vaccines can be made safer for all.)

However, I still think it's extremely important that people don't become complacent to the possibility that it could be Meningitis because they've been vaccinated. That was what worried me most about the suggestion that vaccination would remove the uncertainty in diagnosis - the belief he clearly had that a vaccine can essentially completely protect you from disease. This works to oppose all the gains made in awareness about Meningitis that this campaign has achieved if people don't get help promptly when needed because they think it can't be Meningitis.

FWIW I haven't read any of Bumbley's posts that way.

Yes, of course it's better not to get meningitis in the first place. I've said on other threads that I would support the vaccine being rolled out to other age groups if it is found to be effective. If pointing out that we don't yet know how effective this vaccine is going to be makes people 'anti-vaxx' then the JCVI and several other experts are 'anti-vax' as well seeing as they're the ones recommending the 'wait and see' approach.

It makes sense to look at things like increasing awareness in parents/schools/HCPs, improving diagnosis and treatment because those approaches might actually be more cost effective and save more lives than introducing the vaccine. They have to figure out where the best place is to spend the money in order to make the biggest impact - save the most lives/prevent the most complications. That's the ultimate goal and we're all in favour of that. No one is 'downplaying' or 'not focussing on vaccination' by considering those things as well.

Oops x-post. Leedy, I was talking upthread about recent research into determining genetic susceptibility to meningitis and how this could potentially lead to us being able to identify the most vulnerable and selectively vaccinate. I would put that in the category of 'better/safer vaccines'.

FWIW I haven't read any of Bumbley's posts that way.

Nor me. Or on other threads. I think she's getting an unfair slating actually

We are ALL pro-preventing the awful tragedies caused by disease

I honestly feel the whole topic has to considered with a cool head. There are risks either way.

On MN this is a taboo topic and I think that is completely wrong.

Being cautious about vaccines doesn't mean we are against vaccination in principle. Or think they cause autism.

It means we accept there is risk in either choice and weigh them up. It also means we MUST consider reports of adverse reactions without hysteria.

As a cautious vaxxer, I want to be able to discuss this without being told I'm a cretin.

If anyone is following, the second meeting of the petitions committee is today. You can watch it here at 2.15:

parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/421b1069-7f2e-49b8-a07f-c52d37f838a1

A lot of info there, but good to hear the expert take on things, and on the work that's being done to investigate the vaccine. It will be interesting to see over the next year or so whether there are any reduction in Men B cases because of the vaccine. It was good to hear that the ground work has begun for a carriage study in teenagers, and interesting that a catch up program in under 2s may been deemed worthwhile.

I am surprised that this week's evidence doesn't seem to be as widely reported as last week's as I would have thought a lot of people would be interested.

Yes, it does look like a catch up program for under 2s is the most likely next move.

Also good to see that about the carriage study in teenagers although the panel were a bit shocked at the 5 year timeline.

Yes, I'm surprised more people aren't talking about it too. It was quite a bit longer though so perhaps people haven't had a chance to watch it yet.

I haven't had a chance to watch yet. Intended to catch it yesterday night and got caught up with the news in Brussels and later the A word and Louis Theroux documentary mentioned on that thread afterwards.

Is anyone able to summarise?

(Or was it far too long for that?!)