Apparently children who have had good nutrition would just 'shrug it off' if they contracted measles. Why don't they say that in the UK?

[bumbleymummy]

Article is here discussing the impact that poor nutrition has on children in developing countries.

Considering that the majority of children in the UK have no problem with good nutrition (fruit shoots and Greggs aside ) why aren't parents being reassured rather than terrified into having their children vaccinated with images of coffins plastered over the promotional material?

we also did not see measles reports on the same scale as Swansea anywhere else AND the whole country is now doing an MMR catch up campaign.

But that was all I was asking about. Why not?

Well, in Swansea a young man died, who had been in hospital, hadn't been treated for measles whilst he was there, whose death was subsequently not found to be caused by measles, and was probably vaccinated against it, but had caught it; that seems to be the reason. But we haven't had a campaign addressed to young adults who were vaccinated in the 70s and 80s telling them that their measles immunity might have worn off.

Their measels immunity might have worn off, but it very likely hasn't. You can't run campaigns for everything.

I don't know whether we can say whether someone's immunity has or hasn't worn off just by looking at a vaccination record. No one ever checks. On the face of it, it appeared to have worn off with the young man in Swansea. But telling people that immunity doesn't last, wasn't part of the agenda.

I went to the surgery for travel injections. Based on my records they decided that since I had had the full course of polio immunisations, I was immune. But there was no objective test. It might have mattered - I was going to India where they still have polio.

"Their measels immunity might have worn off, but it very likely hasn't."

In the case of 30-year-olds (and everyone over 30 including parents) that's not true.

Curlew: they do use high dose vitamin A supplements to treat severe complications sometimes. In terms of maintaining levels as a preventative measure - ie treating a deficiency rather than severe complications - then a Vit A supplement should manage it, otherwise they should change the RDA. If measles is around, advice would be useful on whether you could, say, double a daily multi-vit dose, but I assume (on the evidence that over the counter packs don't carry coffin-type warnings) that two a day for a few weeks won't kill you. RDAs are usually pretty minimal. Why is everyone worried about Big Pharma over vits but not pharmaceutical drugs? Don't get it.

'that's not true.'
Do you have a reference?

From the NHS.

Is MMR protection lifelong?

The immunity that MMR gives is probably lifelong. We know that people remain immune for at least 30 years against measles, 23 years against rubella and 19 years against mumps. If in the future evidence shows that immunity is fading, it will be decided whether to offer a further dose of MMR to adults, for example.

I thought everyone knew this. So to say as a fact that their measles immunity hasn't worn off is a bit misleading. It would be better to say, I think this, or I assume this. I don't think there's anything wrong with encouraging people to share your assumptions, but to state it as a fact isn't true.

Also the 23 years against rubella is a bit I found something (which I'm not going to link now) suggesting something quite different but that's not for here. Jo if you want to start another thread about the effectiveness of MMR please do so. I don't think this thread is about that (despite the best efforts of a few pro-vaccinators!)

How can they possibly call that lifelong? Lasts throughout childhood would be accurate. 19 years for one of the components? I think they could get away with it if the immunity lasted for 70 years but not until you are about 20!

Well obviously taking a multi vitamin isn't 't going to do you any harm. What I want to know is whether it will do you any good. Which nobody seems able to tell me.

And of course people are worried about pharmaceutical drugs. What makes you think they aren't?

Curlew: did you miss my post from earlier.

Things we do know.

Deficiency of Vitamin A can lead to severe measles complications.
Measles depletes Vitamin A in well-nourished children.
A well-nourished child can suffer Vitamin A depletion during measles infection.
Depletion means using up the Vitamin A leading to a possible deficiency.
There are well-nourished and malnourished children in the UK.
Well-nourished and malnourished children in the UK can get measles.
Well-nourished and malnourished children in the UK can suffer Vitamin A depletion during measles infection.

A normal (and logical) inference from all these statements would be:
Well-nourished and malnourished children in the UK are at risk of severe complications from measles caused by Vitamin A depletion and deficiency.

There is a strong and clear inference that it would be beneficial. Given the low risk, compared with the ALL risk NO benefit for 90 pc of children of the MMR X2 which is recommended, don't you think it would be irresponsible not to act on that strong and clear inference of benefit? I do.

So, you aren't going to get a study but you do have a strong and clear inference, which you can argue against if you like.

By the way, earlier you implied no one ever said measles complications weren't rare. Yes, people do say that, the second post on this thread says that, and I've seen it before too.

"However, the complications rate of 30%, 1/3 of whom will require hospitalisation, and death rate of 1:1000 is based on developed western countries. That it is even worse in less developed nations doesn't make the risks in Us/Europe any less." From Aunt Stella. Fine, you disagree with her, but it's not true that no one says it.

1.So what dosage do you need? 2.Given that vitamin A deficiency is very rare in well nourished children, does measles deplete the stocks of vitamin A in a well nourished child enough to make them more likely to suffer complications? 3.If so is there enough vitamin A in a multi vitamin pill to make any difference?

Why is it, crumb, that your unsubstantiated and untrue comments about MMR are relevant to the thread, but when I ask you to put up or shut up this is derailing the thread?

Thanks for the ref supporting my assertion that 30 - 40 year olds are likely to still have immunity to measels. What I was actually asking for was a reference to support your assertion that this was untrue. Do you not have one?

I think that if you are eating a varied, healthy and balanced diet you shouldn't need supplements.

your unsubstantiated and untrue comments about MMR

Eh what? Caterina made an assertion, she introduced the MMR, I responded. She hasn't come back to me. You seem to be lashing out a little Jo. Re your: lasting immunity - it's 30, not 40, and that's just an assumption (or pls link the studies of MMR from the last five yrs showing continued immunity in 95 pc of the population.) Maybe you could start another thread about that? (shrug)

Jo, don't you think it's irresponsible for the health authorities not to recommend Vitamin A when there are measles outbreaks?

Exotic: a lot of people might think they're getting a healthy and well balanced diet when they aren't.

Crumbled- while you're here, could you address my 22.14 post?

Curlew: excuse me. Those are good questions. We should know the answer, shouldn't we? This is exactly the sort of thing the health authorities should be talking about when there are outbreaks. The NGOs give mega doses in the developing world - 200,000 iu from what I gather, because it's a one off - you only get one go at getting it into the child and you may not see them again. RDA here about 1500 iu?

Just found something which suggests that in France, every child is assessed for Vit A deficiency if they have measles.

We conclude that all adults who have measles should be assessed for vitamin A and retinol-binding protein levels and should be considered for vitamin A supplementation, as are children (8).

Clea Melenotte, Philippe Brouqui, and Elisabeth Botelho-Nevers
Author affiliations: Aix Marseille Université, Faculté de Médecine, Marseille, France
That's from a study about measles in Roma people but is a general conclusion referring to the population as a whole.

We xposted curlew: I came here to respond to your late night post and got distracted (curses I fell in the trap!)

Right. So we're talking about giving assessing the vitamin A status of people who actually have measles. And potentially then giving them very large doses. Doses which, I would imagine, would need to be medically supervised, what with Vitamin A being one of the vitamins where overdosing is a real possibility.

Your point about giving kids a multi vitamin tablet is a red herring, then.

No, that was just something I found as I was looking around. I think people should be advised to have daily Vitamin A supplementation during measles outbreaks to maintain their stores.

Are you ok? This feels a bit argumentative.

I thought you were genuinely interested. What a shame.

I just popped the France thing in there as it came up when I was drifting around.

So the toxicity level (at its very lowest) is about 20,000 iu. Most multivits won't be a problem. The RDA is a little higher than I said by the way, ranging from about 1500 to 3000.

What makes you think I'm not genuinely interested?

I just want to understand. If taking a daily multivitamin would have any impact on the severity of the disease if a child were to catch measles, then it is outrageous that the medical establishment doesn't recommend it. And people need to be shouting about it. But I can't find any evidence that it does. I though, as you are suggesting it's a good idea that you might have? The only evidence seems to be for mega doses for people who are seriously deficient. And vitamin A deficiency is very rare in the developed world. Unlike some other vitamins, where deficiency is a real possibility.

A slight argumentative tone made me think that.

But I can't find any evidence that it does. But we had that conversation about studies not being carried out. I'm fed up of the idea that when studies aren't carried out, people can then say - Oh there's no evidence - and dismiss the idea. There is very clear evidence that measles can deplete A in well-nourished children, there is very clear evidence that measles supplementation can dramatically reduce morbidity and mortality, there is very clear evidence that children who do suffer complications often have a deficiency, previously unrecognised, and there is clear evidence that children without a deficiency can acquire one through measles infection. There is also, though I haven't linked it, evidence that Vitamin D is also implicated with A to increase vulnerability to complications. The role of Vitamin A in measles is key. The potential for benefit is significant and the risk tiny (*especially when you compare it to a no-benefit-all-risk treatment for 90 pc of recipients - 2 MMR). It's hugely irresponsible to ignore the role of Vitamin A and recommend a daily supplement during an outbreak.

"there is very clear evidence that children who do suffer complications often have a deficiency, previously unrecognised,"

Aha- a key point, this one. Do you mean in the developed world? Am I wrong in my belief that vitamin A deficiency is incredibly rare in the developed world?