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.

I actually think it is quite hard to summarise as the different panels were coming at it from slightly different perspectives and didn't always completely agree with each other. My take might be different from someone else's.

I think a theme that came up a lot was how cost effectiveness is calculated and whether the costs are weighted appropriately in light of the longer term effects on survivors. The charities clearly think that this isn't given enough consideration but the vaccine experts in the last panel said that they had given it as much weight as they were allowed to within the NICE framework that they're bound by. They have set up a committee to examine whether this goes far enough, and that will report soon, but the hints were that while there are a few extra factors that could be considered, largely the framework as it stands was appropriate, and so there wouldn't be major change (that was my take on it anyway).

The medics talked at length about the difficulties of diagnosis as well as the pros and cons of a vaccine programme along side other measures. The importance of remaining vigilant even with a vaccine programme was discussed. An expected strain coverage of about 3/4 (73% iirc) of Men B variants was mentioned.

As a scientist the last panel was of most interest to me personally as they were discussing where the various studies are: Mary Ramsay from PHE was describing the follow up to the current infant programme, and how they are investigating every Men B case in terms of whether the child was vaccinated, precisely which sub type was the cause (i.e. was it a 'true' vaccine failure or a strain not covered), and longer term whether there will be any strain switching (i.e. will another strain 'fill the gap'). She estimated that by the end of this year there will be early indications of how well/whether the infant programme is doing anything above the existing decline in cases. They are also doing preliminary work into which strains are most prevalent in teenagers in order to properly plan the carriage study, which will take place in next few years. The importance of doing the right study was emphasized several times, although the chair did seemed quite shocked that these studies take years to complete! I'm guessing she wasn't a scientist.

The fact that other countries had on the whole decided not to vaccinate was discussed, and the fact that it was only just worth it for infants here was brought up many times. The possibility of extending to under 2s as a one off catch up campaign is to be investigated by the JCVI though, as there are perhaps enough cases in this age group to make it worthwhile.

The chair of the JCVI pointed out that if antibiotics were given in every suspected case we would have a resistance nightmare on our hands, and he clearly thought that a lot of care was needed with this suggestion.

Was new Zealand's men b programme discussed? I might be wrong as I was told this by someone very anti-all vaccinations but nz used to have a men b vaccine that they withdrew, according to said person it was because it was a dangerous vaccine that had too many deaths related to it. I personally think that would have been bigger news if so, and wondered what the real reason it was pulled was

Sorry I should have said thank you for that detailed answer YouCannot! Very rude of me

No, the New Zealand vaccine wasn't discussed. I've heard of that one, but I think it has a different formulation to Bexsero (perhaps with some antigens in common?). From what I recall, New Zealand introduced the vaccine to deal with an epidemic, but once that was under control they decided that it was no longer worth giving the vaccine (perhaps side effects were a factor - I don't exactly remember) and withdrew it.

I think that sounds like a good summary YouCannot. :)

The charities wanted to target the under 5s as a priority and then the teenagers. The JCVI gave the number of cases in each of the year groups - 101 for under 1s and 78 for 1 year olds iirc - there was then quite a drop for cases in 2 - 5 yr olds. They said that they have asked the Department of Health if they would like them to look at the figures for the age 1-2 group and they have been told to go ahead with that. It seems the group that would most likely to come up as cost effective given the number of cases.

They also mentioned that the vaccine is to be introduced in under 1s in Ireland.

They didn't mention the NZ vaccine. It was a different vaccine against one particular B strain that was circulating at the time. It was eventually withdrawn because when the cases went down, the risks didn't outweigh the gains.

Yes it definitely wasn't bexsero they had and I think it was thought we couldn't use what they did because it was for strains of men b that are far rarer here? Possibly, I'm recalling a conversation I had 2 years ago so very hazy

But being the same illness I thought they might have had something to offer in terms of why a vaccine programme was either successful or failed

pigeonpoo, much as you suspected, the information you were given was incorrect about why the New Zealand vaccination programme was withdrawn after their epidemic.

The vaccination used in New Zealand is only useful in epidemics as it works against a particular prevalent strain and then the bacteria can become resistant to it.

It is very technical but there is an excellent article about the development of a Men B vaccine and why it was so difficult here:

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4306095/

That's a really interesting article Countess, thanks!

Thank you, Iv got caught up but will look later and try to watch the evidence sessions too

JuxtapositionRecords you said
"Because people are ignorant and selfish. They spout this shit and rely on everyone around them to get it done and keep their kids safe. One anti vaxxer I know uses the argument against MMR jabs that she doesn't see they are needed anymore because these diseases are so rare nowadays - err why do you think that is??

Fact of the matter is if they or one of their kids got sick with meningitis or similar I guarantee they wouldn't turn down the lifesaving treatment they were offered because 'it's full of nasties'.

Twats."

JuxtapositionRecords Meningitis is not prevented by the MMR vaccine so making a comparison of someone making a choice not to give child MMR, and them then contracting Meningitis makes it sound as if you are ignorant as to what is contained in the MMR vaccine and what it claims to protect from.

'Anti-vaxxers' all have different reasons and opinions as to why they are making certain decisions. Many people are being classed as anti-vaxxers for thinking for themselves. Many are choosing to look in depth at various research and using the information to make informed decisions, and then from this research choosing to vaccinate at different stages of development (rather than when the government say as they know their child best), choosing single vaccines, deciding to give some vaccines but not others yet they are classed as anti-vaxxers rather than those who care enough to be informed and make decisions they feel are best for their family.

I myself am sick of being labelled a wacko for informed choice. I'm often labelled as 'anti-vaxxer' for not being a sheep and adhering to government timetables for jabs and making changes to how their vaccines are given and what they are given. My boys didn't have their vaccines as babies according to government schedule. They were both prem yet were still supposed to have the jabs as of the standard timetable. Those jabs were also originally made to be given to babies starting at 6 months and the composition hasn't been adjusted as such. All babies are born different weights and grow at different rates yet this isn't taken into consideration when it comes to dosage. I paid privately for single jabs rather than MMR (as did the then Prime Minister at the time Tony Blair that my eldests MMR was due) And just to add My youngest son was given MMR and boosters as he wasnt living with me at the time and only a few weeks ago got over Mumps! It obviously really did it's job!

People who consider their own child's needs individually and research to make an informed decision shouldn't be considered ignorant and selfish as this is often the furthest from the truth especially when many of those calling 'anti vaxxers' wackos are just accepting of when and what jabs they put in their child's body to a government timetable are often unaware of the composition ,effectiveness, contraindications and even what the vaccine is for! Now IMO that couldn't be any more ignorant, uninformed, lazy, selfish behaviour and even negligence for not questioning and doing research to come to their own conclusion they have to live with.

Roonerspism

"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."

I've only just seen your comment on this thread. For me you have hit the nail on the head. I feel exactly the same. I choose to make informed decisions and not just do as I am told yet Im an ignorant selfish wacko. I'd love to see the back of these diseases and a 100% effective and safe way that prevention could be administered. Till then I'd feel neglectful as a parent to not question, research and make informed decisions I'm comfortable with and have to live with any potential consequence of.