All of you who CHOOSE not to vaccinate your children

[UniqueAndAmazing]

Do you realise that's the reason why there's now an epidemic of measles in Wales?

You know children with auto-immune problems, children with cancers, children with allergies that mean they can't be medicated, children who react badly to drugs?
You know them? They're suffering because of you not wanting to vaccinate your child.

You have no medical reason for not vaccinating, but plenty of reasons TO vaccinate.

You are causing a whole generation of children to be endangered from a preventable disease.

Measles can be fatal
(that means it can kill )

I had measles when I was under a year old. My mum swears that having measles caused my bad eye sight. She swears every inch of me was covered in spots including eye lids.

I have two children who are both up to date with injections.

My youngest is nearly two and is under various assessments as to whether he is on the autistic spectrum or how to manage his behaviours (such as head banging walls and radiators in frustration). I'm not convinced that he is autistic, I think he's frustrated at not being able to communicate (not able to say many words yet, but understands everything we say to him).

I don't feel guilty about giving him his MMR.

I DO feel guilty about being convinced to have the swine flu jab when I was pregnant with him. I cant say for definite whether the jab had any affect on him whatsoever, but I can't prove that it didn't, and I do feel guilty for being persuaded (bullied) into having it from the midwife and doctor and family.

I don't think people are necessarily buying in to a shadowy conspiracy if they choose to vaccinate, John. No-one should be stigmatising anyone else - that is my point. However, as I have demonstrated quite clearly, and with references, there are known and 'recognised unknown' risks associated with vaccination. What is more, well-nourished kids can avoid complications from measles but do get lifetime immunity - a more reliable result than vaccination can provide.

I selected a section from the WHO website relevant to Ragusa's question, rather than quoting the whole webpage. But there's no duplicity here. It's clear to anyone I didn't select it in a way which misrepresents the meaning. Read it again, it's unequivocal, and quite important:

Severe complications from measles can be avoided though supportive care that ensures good nutrition, adequate fluid intake and treatment of dehydration with WHO-recommended oral rehydration solution.

Now, the fact that there are awful statistics relating to measles in countries where children are not well nourished, or in cases where adults unfortunately have not built immunity in childhood, does not alter my position re the OP and what I think it's appropriate to do in the UK. Note, the WHO website does not say 'complications can be avoided with good nourishment but if you are well-nourished, remember kids in other countries are not, so do get your vaccine'. This would be ludicrous as I'm sure you agree.

Poverty, disease and the relationship between them are awful. I wish Bill Gates and co could focus on improving nutrition and sanitation. Vaccines 'may' have provided some temporary respite (although correlation is not causation - plus remember the false figures Merck and others have previously provided about efficacy, and bear in mind how they influence the objectivity of 'research'). However, even if vaccines have provided some temporary respite for some kids, they are not without known and unknown risk, and they do not provide watertight immunity forever. The manufacturers recognise this.

Elf, there is no way you should ever feel guilty IMO. Each of us must weigh up the risks and make our own decisions on this very uncertain and emotive issue. Plus different families have different histories of adverse reactions, whether to measles or to vaccinations. So my point is we must be free to make our own choices about each vaccine without fear of being stigmatised.

complications cannot be prevented by good nourishment, although they may be reduced.

However complications can be avoided by not catching the disease.

Vaccination can prevent you catching it.

Good nourishment can't.

PigletJohn
complications cannot be prevented by good nourishment.

Nonsense. From the NHS website:

Complications resulting from measles are more likely to develop in certain children, including:

    <span class="italic">children with a poor diet</span>

www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Measles/Pages/Complications.aspx

What do you think the word "prevented" means?

Prevented = averted; blocked; deterred etc.

What do you think it means?

So in your opinion children with good nutrition do not get complications.

What do you think prevented means, PigletJohn?

complications cannot be prevented by good nourishment, although they may be reduced.

So in your opinion children with good nutrition do not get complications.

John, the World Health Organisation says:

Severe complications from measles can be avoided though supportive care that ensures good nutrition, adequate fluid intake and treatment of dehydration with WHO-recommended oral rehydration solution

John, it seems that what you have done in your debate with fascicle is to remove the word 'severe' from your sentences, which I think may muddy the waters, somewhat. It might be useful if you defined 'complications'. If you mean can well-nourished kids avoid feeling ill and having unpleasant symptoms when they have measles, I am sure the answer is 'no'. But can they avoid severe complications - the ones the OP is rightly scared of? I refer you again to the WHO statement above.

Then we come to this equation:

When you vaccinate, you take known and 'recognised unknown' risks in order for an unguaranteed immediate level of protection which will last an unguaranteed number of years

The people at risk of getting severe complications, as I understand it, are:

1. Babies who are not breastfeeding or who are breastfeeding but their mother has not have measles
2. Children who are not well-nourished
3. Adults who have not had measles as a child - whether or not they have been vaccinated. (Note: the manufacturers recognise that vaccines do not provide 100% immunity even immediately afterwards, and the x% they do provide is not provided forever. Note also: some manufacturers (eg Merck) have been caught lying about the efficacy and safety of their products before. They also have ample incentive and opportunity to abuse the peer review system. Whether or not you trust them is up to you - but it's certainly not black and white.)

For these groups of people, the risk of vaccination or booster may seem worthwhile. But they should still remember that our best scientists do not know much about the human brain or about cancer - and there are very large gaps in our collective knowledge about the short or long term effects of all vaccine ingredients on these and other areas of our health. So it's a personal judgement call.

Personally, I prefer to do what my family has always done. Namely, have my kids get measles as young children, so they can avoid severe complications, get guaranteed immunity for life, and, in the case of my daughter, pass the antibodies to their breastfeeding babies. If others don't take this view - that's fine by me.

But we should all be nervous when people or organisations with obvious conflict of interest and proven dishonesty are allowed to stifle objective debate and stigmatise people who question them. Or when, as in Australia at the moment, vested interests are trying to make it so that the government can force ever increasing combinations of profit making ingredients into your child's arm, without your consent - and when the risk vs benefit equation is far from 100% understood. In America, where this has been the case longer than anywhere else, the questioning and resistance is getting stronger as the number of mandated vaccines, and the margins of their manufacturers, increase. The stigmatising of parents as anti scientific, anti-social, anti-vax 'nutjobs' is also getting more aggressive. I am so proud that in the UK we have a long tradition of questioning and we have maintained the freedom of parents to choose. Long may this continue, and long may people like us be able to agree to disagree :)

I disagree with your opinion that The people at risk of getting severe complications, as I understand it, are: (list)

In fact, these are the people at greater risk

I also note you are using words such as
conflict of interest
vested interests
profit making
margins
stigmatising

Now I'm not saying you're doing this, but there are some who try to portray those who promote disease-prevention using vaccines as somehow not concerned about health, but playing into the hands of some shadowy conspiracy, and suggesting it is not a method of improving public health, but a ploy to put huge quantities of money into the pockets of ther rich. That is a lazy attempt at stigmatising people and it's not the case at all.

This, incidentally, is the position of the World Health Organisation

(as shown in the link, though avoided in your posts)

"Who is at risk?
Unvaccinated young children are at highest risk of measles and its complications, including death. Unvaccinated pregnant women are also at risk. Any non-immune person (who has not been vaccinated or was vaccinated but did not develop immunity) can become infected"

Yes that's right John, and the WHO isn't contradicting itself, if you think about it carefully. It's saying that unvaccinated children are at the highest risk of measles and its complications including death, but severe complications can be avoided through supportive care that includes good nutrition, etc. More on that below.

They are also correct to say that any non immune person can become infected, and to point out that this may include people who have been vaccinated (taking all the risks previously mentioned). Of course, well-nourished children who get measles and who can avoid serious complications as stated, will be immune for life - so they won't be at risk as an adult, pregnant or not. That's what I want for my kids. Unfortunately though, under-nourished children who have been vaccinated may still catch the disease - you can work this out from the words you've quoted. So all in all, we should be focusing on nourishment and sanitation, then natural immunity. This is what I've been saying all along.

Gosh though, the WHO have made it a bit complicated, I agree. They are not wrong to say 'unvaccinated children are at the highest risk...' but what they should emphasise is that by their own logic, it is a subset of unvaccinated children that is most at risk-i.e. those who are not breastfeeding from mothers who've had the disease, and who are undernourished. The next group after that will be undernourished children, or any adult, who have/has been vaccinated but the vaccine hasn't worked. This is all apparent from reading the page you mention but it does take a bit of working out.
xx

Interesting article for you in the news today, John

www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-22614522

First bit here:

^Vitamin C can kill multidrug-resistant TB in the lab, scientists have found.

The surprise discovery may point to a new way of tackling this increasingly hard-to-treat infection, the US study authors from Yeshiva University say in Nature Communications.

An estimated 650,000 people worldwide have multidrug-resistant TB.

Studies are now needed to see if a treatment that works using the same action as vitamin C would be useful as a TB drug in humans.^

How can people who have been vaccinated but who are undernourished be more at risk than people who are unvaccinated, regardless of their nutritional status? I just don't buy it and I don't think the WHO is saying that at all.

bobbyperu This Cochrane Review summary of the use of vitamin A megadoses (note the word megadoses, not daily supplementation) suggests that Vitamin A megadose supplementation was only associated with improved outcomes in a small subset of hospitalised infants under two years of age. However, "No overall significant reduction in mortality with vitamin A therapy for children with measles was found.".

PigletJohn, your quote from the WHO is in keeping with a global perspective on measles, where the risks are much higher in developing countries, and lower in countries where there is better access to good nutrition, sanitation, healthcare etc.

Indeed, in the paragraph before the one you quoted, the WHO page says:

As high as 10% of measles cases result in death among populations with high levels of malnutrition and a lack of adequate health care.

Again, a reference to nutrition, which you seem to have discounted as an important factor in measles severity.

To address your earlier comment:

So in your opinion children with good nutrition do not get complications.

No, that's too simplistic and inaccurate (e.g. you could eat well but have a compromised immune system, which is a risk factor for complications).

I notice that you haven't clarified your position on your previous statement about nutrition and prevention...

"I notice that you haven't clarified your position on your previous statement about nutrition and prevention..."

I have no doubt whatsoever that the best way to prevent suffering from measles and its complications, is to be vaccinated against the disease.

PigletJohn, that isn't a proper response! You said:

complications cannot be prevented by good nourishment, although they may be reduced.

When I responded to your comment, you asked me what I thought 'prevented' meant.

Why are you unwilling to make clear your own opinion?

Do you think that good nutrition is irrelevant to the measles debate?

you can prevent measles complications 100% by not catching it.

The best way to not catch it is to be vaccinated.

That is perfectly clear.

It is also what I said before.

Typed a long response which I then lost.

Fascicle, Bobby, can you please point to the research or other evidence which shows that good nutrition will stop people getting measles complications? I still don't see any here. I looked at the wikipedia entry you posted, bobby, and followed the links there, but I couldn't see any links to research claiming any such thing.

PigletJohn, I salute your persistence.

John I don't think we're going to get anywhere in our discussion. We are talking from different angles. I maintain that it is the severe complications of measles or any other disease that we wish to avoid. Conversely, to have an unpleasant illness in childhood but which you recover from without serious complications can be beneficial. For, the best way to avoid severe complications of measles at any time in life is to get it as a well-nourished child and then have lifetime guaranteed immunity and, what is more, pass it to your breast feeding child if you become a mother

This is because, taking a UK, well-nourished perspective:

1. Well nourished children avoid severe complications (see WHO). NB: Ragusa, building up your immune system through good nourishment is clearly not the same as retrospectively bombarding an undernourished child with Vitamin A injections once they already have the disease)
2. Well nourished children who have had the disease are then immune for life
3. Adolescents or adults who are well-nourished but who have been vaccinated instead of catching the disease in childhood are still at risk of catching the disease and, once they are adults, and especially if they are pregnant, the risks of the disease are now much more serious

So with the vaccine you have no guarantee that it will work. And you have all the known risks (see US government HRSA vaccine injury site),and all the recognised unknown risks (see the same site and consider our lack of knowledge of the brain or cancer, see our lack of appetite for research in this area, etc)

But in any case, if you disagree, fine. My objective is only to show that there is reasonable doubt. That is to say, those who doubt have rational reasons for doing so. And since there is reasonable doubt, one should not stigmatise those who make choices for their own children - as the OP has. If you see a parent giving a newborn or a toddler a cigarette, that is when you can stigmatise. I put it to you that deciding not to inject your healthy child with vaccine ingredients does not provide this kind of basis. (Neither does injecting them - there are too many unknowns for either side to be sure that they are correct)

Fascicle, Bobby, can you please point to the research or other evidence which shows that good nutrition will stop people getting measles complications?

Hi Ragusa, as noted to John, we seem to have shifted from discussing severe complications to complications in this discussion. I define severe complications as those which are dangerous. Any other symptoms I define as unpleasant but not dangerous. I think this is consistent with the WHO statement, below:

Severe complications from measles can be avoided though supportive care that ensures good nutrition, adequate fluid intake and treatment of dehydration with WHO-recommended oral rehydration solution (WHO)

I am still not seeing any evidence that severe measles complications can be avoided by good nutrition, aside from what I think is a poorly-worded statement from the WHO website. I thought you didn't trust WHO, anyway?

You were quite clear that you thought parents who loved their children would have done the research on this themselves - but have you?

I don't think there's much more I can say here on this particular issue, because I just do not agree that measles complications - severe or otherwise - can always be avoided by ensuring good nutrition. I have seen no evidence - anecdote, family experience, scientific, or otherwise - to suggest this is the case.

While it is technically true that there is no guarantee that MMR will work and confer immunity, it is ridiculous to imply that there is no evidence on its efficacy. A Cochrane summary of February 2012 clearly found that one dose of MMR gives immunity to 90% of individuals, and 2 doses gives at least 95% of people immunity.

The Cochrane summary does note that "design and reporting of safety outcomes in MMR vaccine studies, both pre- and post-marketing, are largely inadequate. The evidence of adverse events following immunisation with the MMR vaccine cannot be separated from its role in preventing the target diseases."

Vaccine immunity can wane, and I would agree that this probably needs further research but to imply that vaccines often 'don't take' is just absolute nonsense - sorry.

you can prevent measles complications 100% by not catching it.
this includes severe complications and minor complications

The best way to not catch it is to be vaccinated.

That is perfectly clear.

It is also what I said before.

Ragusa
Fascicle, Bobby, can you please point to the research or other evidence which shows that good nutrition will stop people getting measles complications?

I'm struggling to find source evidence to support this, although this doesn't surprise me (I'd expect most relevant research for 'developed' countries advocating MMR vaccination/herd immunity targets to pre-date the introduction of the MMR).

That said, we know that malnutrition/poor diet is cited as a risk factor for severe measles/complications by orthodox sites, supporting vaccination, such as the previously quoted WHO and NHS:

WHO:
Severe measles is more likely among poorly nourished young children, especially those with insufficient vitamin A, or whose immune systems have been weakened by HIV/AIDS or other diseases.
www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs286/en/

NHS:
Complications resulting from measles are more likely to develop in certain children, including:

children with a poor diet
www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Measles/Pages/Complications.aspx

I wouldn't expect these organisations to make such claims without foundation.

Ragusa
I just do not agree that measles complications - severe or otherwise - can always be avoided by ensuring good nutrition.

Of course not, because there are other risk factors at play e.g immune system status; access to healthcare. Do you believe that measles complications can sometimes be avoided by good nutrition? What do you make of the vastly different mortality rates in developing and wealthier countries, and the decreasing mortality rate in England and Wales (as evidenced by the HPA figures below)? I appreciate there could be a number of contributary factors (e.g. sanitation, healthcare, severity of measles strains), but do you think nutritional status is irrelevant?

www.hpa.org.uk/web/HPAweb&HPAwebStandard/HPAweb_C/1195733835814