Debate on Vaccines

[Emsyboo]

I have seen a few threads where mums have an opinion pro or con vaccine and asking for more information I would like to know your reasons for being one or the other.
My MIL is very anti vaccine and told me 4 out of 30 children die from vaccinations - I don't believe this to be true think their may be a decimal point missing although I have seen some posts from people who seem to have backed up information about vaccines.

I am pro vaccine but like to see both sides before I make a decision so if anyone has any information pro or con and more importantly has info to back up I would be really interested.

Thanks

look not lol

No not really, because we all know about these things, along with poverty, education and contraception (also the work of the devil in some people's books).
And are you seriously suggesting that these factors account for 100% of the improvements? Or that immunisation is not one of the main factors in the reduction in child deaths?
As I have pointed out before, smallpox was eliminated in all countries, even the ones without these advantages. Even countries like Chad - top of the childhood mortality league - where about a fifth of children still don't make it to the age of 5. (almost as high as London 200 years ago). So what accounted for that mysterious disappearance of smallpox, if it was not vaccination?

I'm saying that they count for a large majority of the improvements so it's an unfair comparison between health 200 years ago and now unless you somehow control for those variables. You only have to look at the decrease in in the fatality rates in diseases such as measles and scarlet fever at the start of the last century to see what a difference they made without any vaccine being available. You can't attribute our improvement in health entirely to vaccines. Take away clean water, sanitation, food and medical care and see how far vaccines get you. You're even contradicting yourself when you talk about countries like Chad that have vaccination but still have high mortality rates. Clearly it is the things that they don't have that makes the difference between them and the UK.

You made a couple of very thin arguments when i mentioned smallpox above
One was the suggestion that it declined in NZ etc (but there was quarantine)
the other that the virus changed.
These do not refute the point that it was totally eliminated in both rich countries and poor by immunisation. So lets deal with this single disease which was killing huge numbers in 1800 and no longer exists. Would you not admit that vaccination is the reason we no longer have it?

I would say clean water, sanitation and improved nutrition account for the bulk of the reductions in mortality. Absolutely. Particularly since the benefit-risk ratio of vaccination is unknown so the number of deaths from vaccination is an unknown. It's astounding that anyone thinks otherwise

In fact my pharma friend who is totally on message with you imagein even says that now, clean water alone in developing countries would result in a drop in death rates of at least 60 per cent. Add in improvements in nutrition, living environment, working conditions and you've got immunisation way down the list of contributors.

In Oz and New Zealand - I found a conventional scientist who thinks smallpox either made it there through discarded vaccine or was deliberately introduced. Tbh figures on smallpox are quite interesting - definitely there are indications that only 10-20pc of population were vaccinated and that large outbreaks followed immunisation programmes. Not tremendously thin arguments - rather good ones for fans of epidemiology.

Also very interesting that smallpox becomes the focus. I think it's a bit of a barrel-scrape tbh.

Imagine for argument's sake that we all agreed that smallpox vaccination was a success.

How do you leap from that to the belief that every single parent who claims their child regressed into autism after vaccination is a liar?

Here's how that conversation goes:

"My son regressed into austism after vaccination. It was very marked, he became very ill immediately and when he recovered he had lost all his milestones. He'd been progressing normally before that. He was diagnosed as autistic a year later. Look, I can show you before and after videos. I can show you his medical records. He also developed persistent gut issues at the same time."

"Never mind all that. You're wrong because vaccination wiped out smallpox."

"
Imagine for argument's sake that we all agreed that smallpox vaccination was a success.

How do you leap from that to the belief that every single parent who claims their child regressed into autism after vaccination is a liar?"

It's impossible to make that leap. Who did?

that's how these conversations always slide

somehow from current day vaccinations someone always brings up small pox as if that proved every pro-vaccine point ever

I have no idea who did it on this thread

I don;t think anyone did. the conversation broadened out briefly. I suspect the presence of men of straw.

well somebody did - somebody got tired of difficult current vaccination issues and said SMALLPOX!!!!

That's not what they said at all. It's impossible to discuss anything with people who think that anyone who disagrees with them is stupid enough to think something like that.

Of course they didn't say it exactly like that. But people get desperate when they're on the back foot and they need to talk about something they feel secure with.

I can't see the relevance of smallpox to a conversation on current day vaccination safety. Can you? But questions about whether it did or didn't - well they do distract from the essential questions over MMR, the vaccination schedule, thiomeral and so on.

Have it your own way. But there was an interesting bit of conversation going on about vaccination in general which you obviously didn't read because you know what people are thinking and posting without the need to read it.

oh it was imageien after bubblymummy said measles declined before vax

she actually says : "and then there's smallpox"

if you're a kerching kind of person, there's your moment

and she's brought it back to smallpox now, just when things are getting a little awkwerd over current vaccine safety testing

well you see what people write and then you kind of know what they think

that's how it works generally

how did you think it worked?

Have you actually looked at the measles figures, bubbleymummy got her facts wrong as usual. Measles was not declining in the UK. The worst year since 1940 was 1961. Decade on decade do not show a decline of measles. There is a huge step down in the early 1970s just after the introduction of the single vaccine and then again in late 80s just after the introduction of the MMR.
page 2 shows a clear graph These are using the same statistics as bubbleymummy claims she is using to show a downward trend. There are no official figures before 1940. The current epidemic in europe has already shown at least 6 deaths.

Getting back to small pox as I said earlier there is no point in quoting statistics if you don't understand the reason behind them. NZ and Australia had low vaccination rates because the only vaccinated those that came in contact with smallpox. Smallpox was always imported into the country it was not indiginous. Smallpox is only contagious once the spots showed. The health authorities quarantined everyone and vaccinated everyone within the surrounding area. They didn't need to vaccinate the entire population to irradicate smallpox from the country, only those that were close to the epicentre of the outbreak.
There may have been outbreaks despite vaccinations in the early days, but they were still learning and hadn't realised that boosters may be needed. Vaccine effectiveness is hardly the same nowadays as in 1851.

Sorry i have slightly contracticted myself. Clarification they vaccinated those that had come in contact with smallpox and those in the surrounding area.

measles fatalities bruffin.

I just think it is interesting that you guys leap from "there may be occasional problems with some vaccines" to

1. Well they don't work anyway
2. And the diseases weren't that bad or that prevalent anyway

and onwards to a/ vaccines more dangerous than the diseases b/ Everyone is better off avoiding all vaccines

In order to support this belief system you deny even facts like the one that smallpox was eradicated by vaccination in all countries, rich and poor and that hygiene etc etc not the reason that smallpox is no longer with us. It was a good experiment and it had good results.
You really detract from your original concerns by these lines of argument.

imadgeine - widespread vaccine was not used in all countries to eradicate smallpox. In the eradication campaign selective vaccination was used in countries where there were still outbreaks (interesting to note which countries these were btw) alongside isolating victims etc. This was not a case of vaccinating the entire population to create 'herd immunity'. A very small percentage of people were actually vaccinated against smallpox.

Can I just point out that you are the one leaping from one vaccine to another here....

I don't jump to anything except for three things I've put below. All the rest - evidence-based and am more interested in current problems - for obvious reasons.

Well they don't work anyway strong evidence of waning immunity - not least the from the Dept Health which accordingly increases the vaccine schedule

*the diseases weren't that bad" strong evidence that improved nutrition helps fight infection: absolute evidence that millions of people survive unharmed

"or prevalent" strong evidence of a decline in incidence, morbidity and mortality before vaccine

vaccines more dangerous than the diseases self evidently true if you accept the concept of vaccine damage at all

everyone is better off avoiding all vaccines well that's up to you, one can hardly tell when the risk-benefit ratio is so muddy

personally the only jump I make is -

a. let's have more honest information
b. let's have more independent research
c. let's admit that some children are more at risk and we can do more to identify them
d. leave my decision alone - make your own choice

The claim that vaccination was responsible for eliminating smallpox sounds rather unrealistic to me if you consider that in the early 1970s the WHO realized that 160 years of mass vaccination against smallpox did not show the desired effect. They then stopped mass vaccination and used vaccination only for people being in direct contact with a smallpox case. Only after having introduced that change smallpox disappeard. To me that rather sounds like mass vaccination was responsible for not getting rid of smallpox earlier.

At the stage when it was nearly eliminated you would expect a change of strategy wouldn't you. How ever vaccination was deployed at various stages it was vaccination what done it wasn't it folks. It's ok, you can admit it can't you, without undermining the foundations of your belief systems?
You don't have to keep nitpicking and distracting from the fact that this vaccine eliminated one of the most deadly diseases of all time. (possibly the most deadly)
Why do you feel the need to dispute this fact?
Goosberrybushes those points really don't make logical sense.
millions survived unharmed and a significant proportion didn't . Polio for instance had very nasty effects in the unlucky ones. Paralysed breathing muscles for instance.
Your point about vaccine damage is not self evident. You would have to believe that the risks of vaccine damage were significantly higher than the risk of catching a disease and being damaged by the disease. It is a case of assessing what you believe to be the relative risks.
I respect your decision but not impressed with the logic of your arguments.

To go from your belief that some vaccines cause occasional damage to all your other assertions involves the deployment of some spectacular non sequiturs.