Arguing with DH over whether to vaccinate or not

[LetsGoToTheHills]

This is causing a lot of conflict and we are both really upset about it. He is for, I am against (never had them myself). Both equally passionate. This is my first time on MN and I have found a lot of useful information and interesting viewpoints, but was wondering if anyone has been in a similar situation? How did you manage to resolve it?

Bruffin,

here you go - bottom of page 2.

"In the 1930s and 1940s, the widespread use of tonsillectomy and adenoidectomy (T&A) became controversial because (1) antimicrobial agents were developed to help treat tonsillitis and adenoiditis, (2) the fact that a natural decline in the incidence of upper respiratory infections in older school-aged children became evident, (3) some studies were published showing that tonsillectomy and adenoidectomy (T&A) was ineffective, and (4) an increased risk of developing poliomyelitis following tonsillectomy and adenoidectomy (prior to the vaccine) was recognized. "

It's mentioned quite a lot as a reason for why the number of tonsillectomies started to decrease in the 1950s/60s after it being such a common surgery to have since the 1920s/30s.

CDC "Risk factors for paralytic disease include larger inocula of poliovirus, increasing age, pregnancy, strenuous exercise, tonsillectomy, and intramuscular injections administered while the patient is infected with poliovirus (22--24)." (my emphasis)

Even the good old DM mentions it here "However, the practice became less common in the early Fifties because it was noted that those who had undergone the operation were at increased risk of contracting polio."

Agree wholeheartedly with silver and beech

With links:

Bruffin,

here you go - bottom of page 2.

"In the 1930s and 1940s, the widespread use of tonsillectomy and adenoidectomy (T&A) became controversial because (1) antimicrobial agents were developed to help treat tonsillitis and adenoiditis, (2) the fact that a natural decline in the incidence of upper respiratory infections in older school-aged children became evident, (3) some studies were published showing that tonsillectomy and adenoidectomy (T&A) was ineffective, and (4) an increased risk of developing poliomyelitis following tonsillectomy and adenoidectomy (prior to the vaccine) was recognized. "

It's mentioned quite a lot as a reason for why the number of tonsillectomies started to decrease in the 1950s/60s after it being such a common surgery to have since the 1920s/30s.

CDC "Risk factors for paralytic disease include larger inocula of poliovirus, increasing age, pregnancy, strenuous exercise, tonsillectomy, and intramuscular injections administered while the patient is infected with poliovirus (22--24)." (my emphasis)

Even the good old DM mentions it here "However, the practice became less common in the early Fifties because it was noted that those who had undergone the operation were at increased risk of contracting polio."

Yes I have read the conclusion (in the report brief and in the summary not in the 800 page report!) and I do remember the sentence you bold, but as I recall it was from the press release here, but perhaps it was in the conclusion. Could you link to where you read it please? I prefer to read things in their context.

I thought that sentence was a bit at odds with the following from the report brief;

Evidence Inadequate to Accept or Reject a Causal Relationship

For the vast majority, (135 vaccine-adverse event pairs), the evidence is inadequate to accept or reject a causal relationship. In many cases, the adverse event being examined is an extremely rare condition, making it hard to study. In these cases, there was not adequate evidence to determine if the vaccine was or was not causally associated.

Susceptibility

As some of the conclusions suggest, individuals with certain characteristics are more likely to suffer certain adverse effects from particular immunizations. Individuals who have serious immunodeficiencies are clearly at increased risk for specific adverse reactions to live viral vaccines, such as MMR and varicella vaccines. Thus, the committee was able at times to reach more limited conclusions for subgroups of the population.

Especially considering what I mentioned earlier about numbers;

The report considered 158 potential adverse outcomes from vaccines.

Of these, 135 or 85% were found to have inadequate research to accept or reject a causal association.

Of the 23 outcomes where the research was deemed adequate, 18 or 78% were found supportive of harm.

There were large epidemics long before the 1920s particularly 1916 also I very much doubt that there are high levels of
Tonsillectomies in the places that still have problems with polio

Beach again most of the affects are minor or very rare. They also looked to see if there was a mechanical way the vaccine could do the suspected damage, so even if there was inadequate research to make a Yeh or nay ie because there was not epidemiology data to make.a decision they could still look at whether it wad biologically possible, in most cases it was not.

back to polio -tonsils
the rates of tonsillectomies were about 1,400, 000 at its height in the US, which were still 1,000,000 a year in the early 1970s to 500,000 a year in 1980s

However there were more than 20,000 paralytic polio cases in 1952 to less than a 100 a year in the mid sixties. There is no correlation with the reduction intonsillectomies and the reduction in the numbers of paralytic polio.

Polio cases in England and Wales since 1912 here

I'm not seeing any huge epidemics around 1916.

Also, I'm not saying tonsillectomies were the sole risk factor for polio so I'm not sure why you asays ring to link them to the remaining areas of the world where there are still outbreaks.The main issue in the countries where it is still endemic is poor sanitation particularly with the use of the live OPV.

Beachcomber

You did not mention the ages of your children and you did not say they have already been exposed to the virus. They could have been 30 and trying for a baby. They may never want their own children.

Have they had a serological test? Are you 100% sure they had rubella? Were they tested at the time?

You do realise that your dc could have a second incidence of rubella don't you?

Sorry I think you are rather silly, rubella is contageous for about a week before the rash starts, how many people would your two children come into contact with in an average week? Teachers? Other mums at the school gates? Dinner ladies?

Unless you have had your children tested you do not know if they are imune and if they are not then there is a chance that if and when - at some stage in the distant future - if one of them becomes pregnant she may be exposed to rubella.

As for 'wild vaccine', I actually meant a wild strain of rubella that you are using as a vaccine rather than a modified, weakened form of the virus.

I already said that we had their immunity tested .

I do not 'use a wild strain as rubella as a vaccine' - my children have natural immunity they do not need a vaccine. Wild infection is totally different to the vaccination process.

I think it is a very odd way of looking at things to think that becoming naturally immune to a disease is just a different sort of vaccine!! Rather upside down thinking that is!

You could have asked the ages of my children rather than thinking you know enough about me to make silly adversarial judgemental knee-jerk responses.

For your information my DD1 caught rubella from a vaccinated child (and yes he was tested too). I was pregnant at the time (first trimester) and his mother thought it couldn't be rubella because he was vaccinated. He went to the same child-minder as my DD. I am very lucky - I had rubella as a child and was still immune (had already done a blood test as is standard where I live in France).

Sashh, it sounds like you think that a child who has rubella naturally could catch it a second time but a vaccinated child couldn't catch it. Any particular reason why you think the body's response to a vaccine is better/ more effective than its response to the disease itself?

Bruffin the rubella vaccine was introduced to the UK in 1970. It was given to teenage girls and women of childbearing age with no natural immunity.

Why are you talking about epidemics in the 60s to justify vaccinating infants in 2012?

The Health Protection Agency say that there were about 10 cases of CRS in an epidemic year before the introduction of the vaccine. They estimate about 700 therapeutic abortions. These figures are of course terrible and we know that the introduction of the rubella vaccine in 1970 had a very positive impact on them.

I'm not seeing figures in the 10s of thousands though for CRS, which is generally considered to be the reason why we vaccinate against rubella at all. Do you have a link? Or do you mean that 10s of thousands of children would catch German measles?

Now I understand that the point of vaccinating all infants for rubella was an attempt to stop the circulation of the disease and thereby eliminate CRS altogether. Now that policy may well be working - I don't have current figures for CRS and related terminations.

But I feel concern for the cohorts of infants who have been vaccinated. The way current rubella vaccination policy works is that you vaccinate one generation in order to protect the previous generation (of women). Remembering that up until recently, the previous generation (of women) had high rates of rubella immunity, either because they had had the disease as children, or because they had received a rubella vaccine as a teenager.

So what happens now that the upcoming generations of women of childbearing age will have had the MMR as infants and possibly a booster at school age? (MMR introduced in 1988). If the vaccine has worked as it is meant to, most of those women will not have had rubella and do not have natural immunity. They have vaccine induced immunity.

And there is evidence to suggest that antibody levels are too low in some of these children by the time they reach childbearing age to offer them protection.

This is very concerning. And it is why I wanted my female children to be exposed to rubella rather than have the vaccine as infants.

As I said we will have their immunity tested again at puberty.

OK I have found some info on the tens of thousands comment.

It seems you mean the 1964-65 rubella epidemic in the US which resulted in 20,000 cases of CRS. How terrible.

That epidemic and resulting number of CRS cases happened in the US before the introduction of any rubella vaccine at all, right?

I imagine that epidemic was the reason for the introduction of rubella vaccination in the first place.

Interestingly it seems that epidemics of rubella occured in the US every 6-9 years and every 3-5 years in Europe.

Beachcomber, it's not answering my question, that's true! However, I am reading all posts with interest, and am impressed with those of you who are arguing in a rational, measured and intelligent fashion...I am taking notes!

I had one thought about rubella. When I was planning to start a family, I asked to be tested for immunity, and found I was immune confirming that I had had it as a child. Had I not been, I would have asked for a vaccine. Isn't asking everyone to take responsibility in this way preferable to vaccinating all children to protect pregnant women?

I had rubella aged 2, and I have life-long immunity with no worries when I am pregnant.

The rubella vaccine is culterd on the dead body of an aborted fetus, as is chicken pox vaccine. Thats me out on that one.

Oh I'm glad if it is interesting, didn't want to take your thread off topic!

Beach I am referring to the 60s because that was the last big epidemic before vaccination. It illustrates that it was not easy to catch as a child as so many pregnant women were affected. They would have a been a small percentage of the adults affected. I was one of those teenage girls in the 70s who was supposed to have the jab, but I caught rubella from my mother 2weeks before , my mother was 38 at the time.
I had no problem with my son being vaccinated to protect others as well as himself, the old saying prevention is better than a cure. The risk of the disease is far worse than the vaccine.
It came home to me a few years later when he was we bumped into a small friend who had leukemia the day before his chicken pox spots came out. Chicken pox could've killed her. It children like her that also need protecting by herd immumity which is best created by vaccines.

"vaccine damage can and does occur, but it is rare. long lasting effects from illness can and does occur, and again it is rare. There is no right answer for everyone - jsut answers that each family are comfortable with, for them, at that point in time."

Isn't the argument the medical profession use for vaccines is that the side effects/damage is much less rare if the child contracts the disease in question as opposed to side effects from the vaccine itself?