Vaccinations.

[clarlce]

Some interesting info about vaccinations

? The first ever case of autism was in 1943. In 1960 the incidence of autism was 1 child out of every 2000. In the year 2000 it was 1 in 200 and in some areas (America) is has been reported to be as common as 1 in 132.
? By the end of the 1990s the average American child was receiving a total of 33 doses of 10 different vaccines by the time he or she was 6 years old. Between 1992 and 1997 the incidence of reported cases increased by 300% in a total of twenty four states.
? As the number of vaccines given increased, so did the incidence of autism.
? Cases of autism were primarily confined to upper-and upper-middle-class families in the 40?s and 50?s, as these individuals were the ones who could afford to pay for health care. When the government made vaccines free to all who could not afford them, autism crossed class lines.
? Howard Urnovitz, Ph.D., a microbiologist and founder of the Chronic Illness Research Foundation in Berkeley, California, argues that the federal government keeps insisting that ?There?s no scientific evidence to prove that vaccines cause chronic diseases, but they won?t fund any research in that area either. If you don?t look for something you wont find it??.

? Despite the advances in medicine and medical technology ? or perhaps because of them ? we are seeing record numbers of cases of autoimmune disorders. This is especially true among children, where there are a rising numbers of juvenile rheumatoid arthiritis, juvenile diabetes, pediatric asthma, pediatric Crohn?s disease, and Guillain-Barre syndrome.
? There is no convincing scientific evidence that mass inoculations can be credited with eliminating ANY childhood disease. IF immunisations were responsible for the disappearance of these diseases in the U.S, one must ask why they disappeared simultaneously in Europe, where mass immunization did not take place ? Robert S. Mendelsohn M.D. How To Raise a Healthy Child In Spite of Your Doctor.

The weight of statistical and anecdotal evidence debunking the great medical saviour of modern times - mass immunization ? is enormous.

All parents must look into these issues personally. To not read the literature weighing up the debate or to hold strong opinions in support of vaccination, without having read about these issues, is deeply irresponsible.

The information here was taken from What Your Doctor May Not Tell You About Children?s Vaccinations by Stephanie Cave, M.D. It is a fair, balanced view showing the argument without any mindless, anti-vaccination rants.

@bumblymummy (is that a namechange or have I been misreading your name in the past?)

I think that statement over simplifies matters.

The UK has never had, as a whole, met the WHO target of 95% immunisation rates.
However, herd immunity is a slightly different matter.

Herd immunity thresholds for different diseases vary. If we just consider Measles, Mumps and Rubella then we [http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/smallpox/training/overview/pdf/eradicationhistory.pdf[ get]]:
Measles: 83-94%
Mumps: 75-86%
Rubella: 83-85%

So, in the UK we have enjoyed herd immunity for all these diseases in both the past and present.

Your statement also ignores the fact that the concept of herd immunity applies to communities not countries.
It's who you meet, not the colour of the bank notes.

So although the overall rates may be 92.8% for UK so far this yr, it's worth noting that 19 Primary Care Trusts met the WHO 95% target.

Perhaps the most relevant unit is percentage in a school or nursery.
I'm not aware of good data from the UK but in California the rates range from high 20% to nearly 100%.
We probably don't have that spread but there will be some variation.

Sorry, hyperlink fail for herd immunity rates.
I'm sure people can cut and paste though.

I think mumps are vaccinated against because of the effects on older children, I have a dear friend, now in his eighties infertile due to mumps as an older teenager.

violetwellies, that raises another issue with vaccination. Alot of disease that were once common in early childhood are now popping up older age groups and as a result are proving to be more dangerous. Some doctors argue that all vaccination does is send the immune system into a kind of hyperactive state for a duration of a few years to then be fatigued and open to more serious problems in adolescents.

DB - slight name change :)

There have been outbreaks in schools in the US with high vaccination rates too. Above 95%. If the targets required for herd immunity are actually lower (although the 95% figure is the one you hear most often) then that means that there are still outbreaks in even more countries/communities that have reached that threshold.

Re. Mumps from the HPA website:

"Despite common belief there is no firm evidence that orchitis causes sterility."

Violet, did your friend have proof of his fertility prior to him getting mumps? Not trying to be mean but some men do have fertility issues with or without contracting mumps. Orchitis rarely affects both testicles and usually any reduced sperm count is temporary. Given that complications are more common in adulthood wouldn't it make more sense to only vaccinate men/boys if they haven't contracted it before they hit puberty?

@bumbleymummy

You're talking like the term herd immunity refers to a situation where no-one gets a disease, that no outbreaks (as you term it occurs).

That's not what it means.

Herd immunity is normally defined as an effect where un-vaccinated individuals have some protection from the disease in question by sufficient vaccinated people being around them.

The number of people, the Herd Immunity threshold, is the proportion of the population needed to keep outbreaks as just that, outbreaks.
The disease can not circulate/persist in a population because you interrupt the chain of infection.

So breakouts are to be expected in a real population, even one with high enough vaccination rates (they are, of course dramatically more likely the lower those rates).
But that's all they will be.

Now if you want to eradicate a disease from nature (a laudable goal that humankind has managed just twice) vaccination rates need to be higher.
They also need to be universal.

can someone explain to me how, back when I was first at university - oooooh, 17 or so years ago - there were no widespread outbreaks of mumps amongst students.

my cohort was not routinely vaccinated against, so it was down to standard childhood infection rates for us to have gained immunity form.

fast forward a bit, to the students now going - who have received (for a number of years now) mmr. and all of a sudden there are widespread outbreaks of mumps at universities, amongst people who have largely been vaccinated against it?

is this not a sign that the mumps vaccination programme is not working, but is instead pushing the disease into the older population (late teens/early adults - only going ot get worse, probably) where it is a more serious disease?

amI missing somehting?

The increase in the incidence of mumps in students during the early to mid 2000s was most likely due to these individuals being in the gap between those who had protection from the MMR as children and those who had built up protection from "wild" exposure when mumps was endemic.

In short, this is a natural consequence of introducing a vaccine for children without ensuring older people get it as well.

Does that make sense?

riven inside - mumps can be really serious. It is in boys it can leave them deaf and if caught later on can leave a man sterile. Maybe not life threatening no, but to be marked for life with a permanent disability which could be easily avoided is a no brainer.

clarice - I agree with you that people should be informed but in the interest of public health please could you vaccinate your child in the meantime? My demographic knowledge is not based on thin air. I live in Wandsworth - it has the highest rates of measles in the country (there was an epidemic last year) and also the lowest rate of vaccination. There were some playgroups that did not run for half the summer because some parents were bringing along infected children.

If you read any decent science book immunology and vaccinations will be discussed.

Ali - please have a look at the facts. Mumps is usually a mild disease. A list of complications can be found here:

www.hpa.org.uk/Topics/InfectiousDiseases/InfectionsAZ/Mumps/GeneralInformation/mumpsGeneralInfo/

Please note:

Orchitis (usually unilateral) in up to 25% of post-pubertal males. Sterility seldom occurs.
Profound deafness occurring in one ear in 4% if cases (usually transient).
Encephalitis: Rates reported for encephalitis range from 0.02-0.3% of cases.

It's NOT a no brainer. Are we to vaccinate against everything that could possibly in a tiny number of cases cause us some harm? Are we to stay indoors all day sealed in bubbles?

No thank you, not for my child.

Ali, in healthy kids mumps if often so mild you dont you have had it. But when it happens to teenagers or adults as the vaccine does not offer lifelong immunity, thats where scary statistics start.
Mine are unvaccinated, all are immune to mumps now. Clearly they had it and I didnt notice.

@illuminasam

No-one here is talking about vaccinating for everything.
No-one here is talking about adding Tick-Born Encephalitis, Typhoid or any other vaccine to the UK schedule.

No-one is here is talking quarantining people away from environmental pathogens.

People are talking about the current vaccine schedule.
Some are critical of "it".
Some are defending "it".

But lets keep "it" the topic.

As to the rest of your post, if a vaccine was risk free and cost no money and was reduced the burden of disease, why not have it.

The common cold almost never has any lasting effects.
Yet is unpleasant for anyone who gets it and costs a lot of people (both individually and as a society) money.

If we had a risk free and cheap (in comparison to the cost of disease) vaccine why not use.

Of course this is hypothetical.
There is not (and almost certainly never be) a vaccine for the common cold.
There is no such thing as a risk free vaccine.

But all vaccines (like all healthcare) are a balancing act between benefit and costs/risks.

If you think a vaccine, any vaccine, causes more harm than the disease it prevents, say so and provide a reference.

I think the current vaccine schedule in the UK is safer than not vaccinating.

I think you disagree.
Help me understand your opinion.

@Riveninside

It is more complicated than a dichotomy of immunity from exposure lifelong and perfect vs vaccine temporary and incomplete.

Exposure to the disease does not, in itself, give lifelong and unfailing immunity.
There have been many cases of serological proven mumps reinfections.

It is true that there are very few adult mumps reinfections in countries that don't vaccinate.
But this is due less to the single infection (normally in childhood) but more to constant exposure which "tops" up immunity.

Think of it as an anarchic form of booster shot.

I also think that adult mumps outbreaks cannot be so easily blamed entirely on failure of a given vaccine.

As I explained previously, there was a gap when moving between wild immunity and vaccine which peaked in the early to mid 2000s.
There has also been fewer people vaccinated than ideal.

The mumps vaccine is only 80% or so effective.
But there are a lot of other factors which are more likely to have caused these recent events.

For your own peace of mind it is. For mine, not so much.

It may be "safer" when viewed through the lens of epidemiological research statistics but it may not suit a particular person's constitution as much as it would suit another's. We must all make our own decisions.

Bet you woildnt say that to the parents of kids in our brain damage group. Several of whom were brain damaged by vaccines and face years trying to get the paltry £120k vaccine damage compensation issued by the Govt.
I wish vaccines were 100% safe but they are not.

Have just read Janine Roberts Fear of the Invisible and The Vaccine Papers and have had my faith in vaccinations really shaken. I have read Richard Halvorosan's book and others which all made me question the efficacy and safety of vaccines but I thought what Janine Roberts has reported on is shocking.

@illuminsam

I'm fairly sure that using epidemiological methodology is the correct way to look at vaccines and other public health interventions.

Am I missing a better way?

@Riveninside

I think there are lots of reasons why I might not start this conversation with people who believe their children have been damaged by vaccines.

But, if past experience is anything to go by, I think that if such a conversation was started, I'd prefer to be involved than walk away.

On the issue of the 1979 Vaccine Damage Payments Act, if think that further change is absolutely warranted.
The process is too long and some of the conditions are archaic.

However, I do have reservations about treating vaccinations differently from other pharmaceutical products/public health interventions.
It does not sit well with me.

I think everyone wishes that vaccines were 100% safe.
In fact, I think everyone wishes everything was 100% safe.

And given that no-one here is saying that they are, I'm not sure what more to say on that matter.

@nicky 1968

I think you might be better served with books on viruses and vaccines written by experts in viruses and vaccines.
Janine Roberts, in particular, seems to have a concerning affinity for those who think HIV & AIDS have only the smallest of connections.
This puts her a long way from the scientific consensus.

DB - again, it's the correct way for you to base your decisions on epidemiological studies. It's not for me. One size does not fit all. I know this is hard for some people to grasp. What's correct for you may not be correct for me. I have not been able and still cannot bring myself to take my DC for an MMR, despite scientific evidence, despite testimonies from friend's kids, despite everything. It doesn't feel right and no epidemiological study is ever going to change that. Hence I will continue to read and listen and consider until I feel right and comfortable about a choice. Until then, no mmr.