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

katie: the risk/benefit to society is not what parents need to weigh up.

I cannot possibly put my dd2 forward for vaccines because it is better for society tht she is vaccinated, as the risk to her is greater than the benefits.

I told the nurse who rfused to let me read the information leaflet that I could not sign the consent form without it, and she still argued

it was farcical, tbh. we had a stand up row over it, she eventually flung it in my direction with a muttered "I don't have time for questions now" and I duly took my time, read it and asked the questions I had...

we really need to get away from this idea, in the UK, that all medical professionals always know everything and that laymen (and indeed parents) do not.

sorry, just to be clear, Katie, when you say "I am not saying they are adverse effect free, just that these are outweighed by the gains to society." - are you saying that all children shoudl be vaccinated, because it is better for some children to suffer adverse reactions than be unvaccinated? for the good of society? in effect, that some children shoudl be collateral damage for the vaccination programme?

I wondered that silverfrog!

Yeap that is what I am saying - that is how all medicines are licenced.

Positive benefit risk. Its impossible to make a 100% safe medicine or vaccine, if they do something positive it is very likely there are negative effects too.

This gets in to 2 different types of ethics - some loose to benefit the masses and this is OK or no damage to any individual is acceptable.

Please don't misunderstand me, I cannot say I am at all comfortable with the fact any child at all suffers. I have a fully working heart, I was just pointing out the basis on which medicines, and vaccines, are approved means there should be a massive balance towards the positive but there is a possibility for damage.

Oh and if no child was ever to vaccinated ever again against any disease worldwide - what would happen then? I struggle to obliterate the overwhelming data that infant mortality from many diseases has reduced significantly in the past 80 or so years from my head.

I am not however one of those people who blindly believe no vaccine has ever done any individual any harm. I do believe that do much more good than harm though.

Although I would struggle if my daughter ever had the misfortune to be seen by a Dr as disgusting as Wakefield... forget the iffy data and his links to single vaccine manufacturers - his grip on basic ethics forged from the fires of WWII was zero and sickens me.

so you are saying it is a good thing that my dd1 is in constant pain, has severe learning difficulties, is unable to eat a normal diet, to name just a few?

because, thanks to her vaccinations, at least she is not "a danger" to others (which, actually, no one knows for sure - I have not had her immunity checked).

what an extraordinary attitude.

I have never for a single moment suggested that no one worldwide shoudl vaccinate - another inflammatory statement from the pro-vaxxers - instead only that decisions shoudl be made for the good of each individual not the good of society.

my daughters are as important as the next person (and obviously, more so to me!). there is absolutely no reason why I shoudl line dd2 up to suffer the same consequences as dd1, just so that "society" benefits.

and Wakefield is the one accused of callous disregard?! the mind boggles, quite frankly.

I think the awful thing is that "collateral damage" (excuse the phrase) is slid out without questioning - with no acceptance of the understanding that there is a group of children who will suffer and that more research ought to be carried out to identify that group and prevent their suffering.

That's it. End of argument. To ask people to take this risk means taking on responsibility to ensure it is minimised - by looking at the claims of various scientists and taking them seriously.

Not associating them with moonlanders, or end of the worlders - taking them seriously.

This is why I am bored by people like Caterina.

Silverfrog- firstly I didn't ever mean you had said stop vaccinating, I didn't write and I didn't mean it so please don't put words down I didn't say.

Secondly I am struggling to convey that I can't see another way of address how to approve a medicine or vaccine, not that I see your daughter any kind
of danger (again I never said this at all).

Gooseberrybushes - I wholeheartedly agree there should be research into IDing vunerable children so they can safely be excluded from problem vaccinations for them.

It seems whatever I write will inflame those in anyone struggling with the negative effects of vaccines. I tried simply to address the current ethics of drug approval - I never once wrote that any child was worth less than another I take massive offence at this been thrown at me. I tried very hard to balance my entry but it seem I don't write "I totally agree with you Silverfrog" you will have me condemned as a heartless bitch.

Also just to say - I've noticed there are people on the thread who are pro-vaccine but don't have this problem, this arrogance and complacency, and understand the concerns that others have. It's called mutual respect I think.

"forget the iffy data and his links to single vaccine manufacturers - his grip on basic ethics forged from the fires of WWII was zero and sickens me."

You lost me here, to be honest. He's a good man. Why don't you try looking at the ethics of the pharmaceutical industry. How about "we will destroy them where they live" - Merck on doctors who question vaccine safety.

I understand what you are saying katiebeau.
Medical student make mistakes while they are learning. The damage that they do is regrettable but the process creates the doctors who help society at large.

But I am not inflamed easily and not all of us with children affected by vaccine are the same.

fwiw I agree with gooseberry. The situation would change massively if the blaming and the labels and the hostility stopped.
The 'anti-vac, fruit loop, anti pharma, flat earth, baby killers' just makes matters worse.
I wish that it was possible for some to understand that layering patronising, sarcastic stuff on to the discussion is pretty unpleasant given the subject matter.

Hear hear!

I am usually so rude to people who appear with all the answers and a virtual pat on the head. Now it just seems tedious.

Merck Dr who said that should be struck off and hopefully receive some help to gain some context in the world. The safety of all medicines is constantly monitored and challenged (ibuprofen?).

Wakefield broke significant ethical rules put in place to protect everyone, not just children. Taking bowel samples without prior ethics approvals nor informed consent from parents is a disgraceful abuse of his power as a Dr. Industry people should be prosecuted for such breeches and so should independent researchers.

It is sad so many awful flaws were so easily uncovered about the research as now it will never be properly followed up.

I would be most happy with mutual respect but it seems by writing down the basis for medicines assessment I was accussed of really horrible things. Mutual respect doesn't mean I have to agree with everyones view, nor them mine, but please don't accuse me of writing stuff I haven't.

I challenge my DD vaccine schedule all the time. Last time I refused to allow her have MMR with yet another vaccine just because a government quango says so based on cost with no safety data.

As for anyone refused a leaflet - go to the electronic medicines compendia - you should find most of them (and the more informative summary of product characteristics) on there.

gooseberry perhaps I misread but do you mean me as arrogant, I have really tried to be balanced here, I do not dismiss issues with vaccines or the Pharma Industry away with a swat of my hand at all.

Nor have I ever said anywhere that an individual should not have the right to choose what treatments/medicines they/their children should have. I may not agree with the eventual choice but I do believe we all have a right to choose. With vaccines the concept of herd immunity mean it may mean the benefit is reduced but it doesn't mean I support compulsary vaccination (and I didn't ever write that anywhere).

AFAIK it's not you Katiebeau. You've been very balanced imho fwiw.

katie - I have not condemned you as a heartless bitch - please don't put words into my mouth ( - ironic).

you did ask, in your post, what woudl happen if everyone stopped vaccinating - a suggestion that rarely comes from the so-called anti-vax side of the argument. why ask this? other than to get people thinking and agreeing with you that of course vaccines are good, and people should queue up and have them.

the "danger" comment of mine was not specifically aimed at you - it was just a general counter to all the "omg! how can you walk around in public with your ticking timebomb of a child who has not been vaccinated" posts.

non-vaccination is rarely taken lightly, ime. it isn't somethig that the majority of reasonable parents drift into. it is a decision agonised over - and revisited time and again.

accepting that collateral damage is "for the good of society" os not somehting I can do. I could take just as much offence at your opinion that it is (especially since I am living that life and you, I suspect, are not)

I agree with you that it is a difficult area. more choice for parents, and availability of singles (for all vaccines, not just MMR) woudl help a little. as would not being dismissed as a loon, or patronised (talking in general). and es research to identify what is going on - proper research, which actually looks at the issues, not touchy-feely research which champions all big pharma as the saviours of public health.

and an acceptance that sometimes people have perfectly good resons not to vaccinate, along with looking at the actual figures, and accepting that it is as likely that the person spreading mumps around is a mid-20 something mother whose MMR has worn off as it is the unvaccinated child a the toddler group.

knowledge of all the facts woudl be good, not just scaremongeing about unvaccinated children (again, talking in general)

Katie - can you link to anywhere that proves he took bowel samples without parental informed consent? afaik, no parent has complained about the treatment given to their children by Wakefield et al.

the ethics thing is interesting, but I do not have time to go into it again. research that properly - don't just take Deer's and Goldacre's words for it. the ethical clearances were there (there was a lot of muddying of the waters at the gmc trial)

hang on, lots of x-posts, I think.

originally, katie, I asked you, as part of my post - do you think all children shoudl be vaccinated, and is it ok for them to be collateral damage? and you answered yes.

that is why I have said some of the things in reply that I have said.

your later posts do not seem to be saying the same thing.

I fully understand that vaccines shoudl be available for those who want them - in whatever combination those hwo want them are happy with. I fully understand that they cannot be 100% risk free for everyone.

I do not accept that I should vaccinate my dd2, who has a high risk of reaction for a number of reasons, for the good of society. in that scenario, society is not my problem - my daughter is my problem, and her health is my concern. currently it is in her best interests to not be vaccinated, and so that is the way she is. that may change, who knows?

but I would like some clarification, katie, as your posts have been a little contradictory

Silverfrog - I saw this sometime ago in the reports from the GMC which you indicate you find muddy. Me too to be honest, Perhaps it is in there, the reports must still be available. I'll see if i can locate a decent reference (not a newspaper report). Perhaps there is too little balanced factual information out there on this particular topic. What I saw, and was reacting to, were transcripts of "horrified parents" etc when they realised how far from ethical protocol he had strayed.

It seems odd to me that he is either descibed as a pantomine evil person or a saint. I assume he lies somewhere inbetween like most of us.

I don't live with the negative consequences of vaccination in my child - no and I won't even try to say I understand how this impacts you life, nor blindly dismiss you. To do this (and some do) is to ignore a fact which is all medicines could have terrible side effects.

Indeed I did read it as if your entire message was aimed at me personally which if it wasn't then I apologise. I do live with the consequences of measles though. Not much eyesight etc so I can never think of it as a trivial disease. And no, I wasn't vaccinated back in the '70s.

I also think a lot more research needs to be conducted into what levels of coverage convey herd immunity. That would then allow researchers to know how wide a net they have when seeking to eliminate the need to vaccination in any child who might be vunerable to the possible negative effects. The wider the window - the more agressive they can be in minimising the risk. How they identify such children is a holy grail of course.

I stuggle with the whole "collatoral damage" issue also. I also struggle to come up with another model for approving medicines that was all I was saying. No person would be comfortable with anyone (least of all a small child) been hurt. I agree that just because "herd immunity" is achieved doesn't mean they should stop seeking answers to how to reduce/prevent any child suffering.

Katie: I was thinking of you with what I saw as a blase acceptance of vaccine damage. Originally (and mainly) I was responding to Caterina's attitude.

I don't accept that there is constant surveillance and challenge.

Far from it: when a parent reports a possible vaccine reaction they are brushed away, fobbed off: that's why the yellow card system had to be set up: and it's an optimistic person who imagines that all possible vaccine damage is reported through that. When a product is questioned the big guns come out of the pharmaceutical turrets: look at Vioxx. In fact there are people in the UK who will never receive Vioxx compensation because of a legal technicality taken full advantage of by the manufacturers.

can't write more damn

I should have said - I see now that it is not as blase as first appeared.

I asked to file a yellow card reaction and my gp refused.
I didn't know enough back then to challenge that.
So yes I would say there is under reporting

I hope I clarified what I said now - yeap etc was agreeing with what I wrote about the basis/model for approval, I didn't mean it doesn't churn most people, me included, up inside. It is a very difficult ethical issue. I certainly don't have the answer to see another way forward.

And I totally agree that with any history of adverse reaction you wouldn't want to risk it happening again. I'm not sure any parent could act differently, I know I wouldn't. I can't even risk NHS midwifery services again after last time due to unnecessary harm to DD!

I challenge the vaccine schedule all the time. Safety wise I personally haven't read or seen anything to have a major issue with the individual vaccines. But some combinations are only have safety data as they are established for years or have no data at all. I was really shocked they wanted to include another vaccine with MMR with no co-admin data in either licence. They just make matters worse for patient/parent and the manufacturers who might not know the UK is doing this. Especially with MMR and the need to so closely monitor it's outcomes. Putting it with another vaccine will just muddy the waters more.

That said I also object to single vaccine clinics not been transparent about the unlicenced status of the vaccines, any reasons for this and also the % immunogenicity rates. Parents should expect to be equally informed from both sides.

Oh the Dr's trying not to have report - that is the real issue I totally agree. I too was fobbed off (GP even represcribed the same drug by the generic name trying to fool me). The side effect in question can lead to rapid and total kidney failure and was in the process to be added to the label as I was having it. The manufacturers were totally open when I called them. The GP a bloody idiot. The manufacturers also followed up the event and reported it to the regulators.

There are new laws coming in due to Vioxx and also issues with Drs not reporting. Patients can now report themselves in some countries and in the EU in all countries in the next 18 months, taking out the middleman. The lack of reporting by GPs severely limited the ability of any process to pick up on new information.

The monitoring system in the EU was rocked by Vioxx, not least as Merck didn't have to withdraw (thus looking cleaner than they were). They could have had a much reduced label for people unable to take other painkillers. They also didn't inform a single medicines authority in Europe of their intention to withdraw. REally crappy behaviour.

Hopefully I have cleared up any misunderstanding of what I was meaning to say and I'll shut up before I cause anymore problems!