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?

Curlew, I don't think you understand. They have been vaccinated - they are immune. The booster is given to catch the 5-10% of people who do not gain immunity from the first vaccine - for the 90/95% who are already immune it is unnecessary.

Please link to evidence from medical professionals backing up your claim that falls in death from measles are not linked to increased vaccination.

And also, agree with curlew's last post. Even if you are sure that your child would shrug off measles,
why not get a harmless jab to protect those who can't be vaccinated and wouldn't shrug it off?

I do understand. I am saying that if you thing the vaccine is as safe as it is possible for something that works to be, why would you not want to be sure that your child is immune, and therefore won't potentially infect a child who can't be immunised? The choice is either getting immunity tested, or the second vaccination. One or the other.

I think also, from the point of view of the government, if we agree the booster is completely safe it is cheaper and quicker (therefore more efficient and effective) to give the booster than carry out blood tests.

Merry, HPA figures here. Notice the drop in deaths from the early 1940s despite there still being several hundred thousand cases a year. The measles vaccine was introduced in the UK in 1968. The NHS was founded in 1948 and antibiotics became available to treat complications such as pneumonia. (Also worth noting that the death rate was not 1 in 1,000 back then - closer to the 1 in 5-10,000 that used to be quoted until recently)

You also seem to have missed the point that they did get the jab and that they are already immune - walnut was talking about not needing the second booster jab.

No vaccine (or medication) is 'completely safe' and as I pointed out before, it really depends in how you feel about having unnecessary vaccines 'just in case'. I know some people are happy to give Calpol 'just in case' the baby needs it for teeth or because s/he's had a long day and others who are happy to give/take antibiotics 'just in case' (although look where that's got us! )

I agree that those figures show a drop from hundreds to around a hundred deaths following introduction of NHS and increased use of antibiotics.

The figures then drop to around 10-30 deaths a year following introduction of single jabs and 0-1 deaths a year from 1990 onwards following MMR in 1988.

I do understand your point about most children being immune after first jab. I discussed the reason for the booster from a public health point of view in my last post.

The biggest drop occured pre-vaccine. One of your earlier posts seemed to attribute the fall entirely to vaccines.

I addressed your 'completely safe' post in my last post.

Also, just to point out, the number of deaths were frequently well under a hundred pre 1968. 1954-45, 1956-28, 1958-49, 1960-31, 1962-39 so not just to 'around 100'

All other measles deaths, since 1992, shown above are in older individuals and were caused by the late effects of measles. These infections were acquired during the 1980s or earlier, when epidemics of measles occurred.

From the information you provided.

Having read this thread it really becomes very clear why public health officials might see the need to make the clear link between MMR and people no longer dying from measles.

I sometimes wonder whether is would be a good idea if people had little tags next to their posting names declaring their position on topics like these. It's worth knowing whether the person you are talking to has wholly entrenched beliefs or is open to considering evidence and changing their position accordingly. It would save a lot of time and

Sorry, time and keystrokes!

Did you miss all the info about NHS/antibiotics/dramatic reduction in deaths prior to vaccines being introduced? Seriously, you look at all that and come back with - "the clear link betwen MMR and people no longer dying from measles" ?

Catherina why did you change the word "unnecessary" to useless? I didn't say useless, I said unnecessary. Everybody knows the 2nd MMR is unnecessary for 90 or 95 pc of children. Various different figures are given by the health authorities - 95 pc first dose, 99 pc by second dose: or 90 pc first dose, and 95 pc by second dose. Usually those two sets of figures are given.

That means it's unnecessary for 90/95 per cent of children (and by the way ineffective for 50pc/20pc respectively for the remainder). It's not something to argue about. It's just the way things are (or so we are told by the health authorities).

Merrymouse: -you didn't answer my questions - you would need to show that vitamin supplements were so effective that they made vaccination unnecessary Why on earthwould you need to do that?

2. people find it difficult to take pills on a daily basis, whether that is for contraception, long term illness, vitamins or finishing a course of antibiotics. so do you think that makes it untenable, and insurmountable problems? You didn't answer my question.

And my 3rd question you ignored completely.

JotheHot - it's ok to say I don't know what I think about this it really is. It's quite surprising that you don't know whether you think there are any vulnerable groups are in the UK, given that they are listed on the thread, but possible excusable that you didn't read the link and the quotes from the WHO and CDC about measles depletion in well-nourished children. If you can point me to a book in the library which tells me whether you think everyone consumes the RDA of vitamins, that would be helpful. And if you don't know that none of the serious complications and hospitalisations which we were warned about during the Swansea outbreak were caused or exacerbated by depletion or deficiency of Vitamin A - well that's not surprising either. But it's surprising that you have such strong opinions about Vitamin A not helping, when you don't know the answer to that question - and yet you DO know there's plenty of evidence about the role of Vit A in serious complications of measles.

So let's just say your answers to the questions are - I don't know, or I don't know what I think, because I'm not an expert. That's fair, don't you think?

And no, who said having enough Vit A stops you getting measles? You can argue that it doesn't if you like, but why would you? It's supposed to help reduce morbidity and mortality, not stop you getting the disease.

Bumbley - there was that super quote from the doctor in 1964 saying measles had ceased to be a public health problem - four years before the vaccine was introduced. Actually not a doctor -
Dr David Miller, Deputy Director of the Epidemiological Research Laboratory in Colindale, Middlesex,

?In this country at least, measles is now usually regarded as a minor childhood illness through which we all must pass rather than as a public health problem.?4
\Also bumbley - sorry if you feel I've hijacked this thread with talk of Vitamin A - I thought it linked in with the whole nourishment thing.

f you believe that the vaccine is as safe as any active medicine can be, why would you not have your child vaccinated to help protect those children who cannot be?

Curlew, for 90/95 per cent of children, it is an ALL risk NO benefit medication. My point is not, do you want that, my point is - I'm contrasting the massive spend and propaganda push on a medical intervention with NO benefit and ALL risk for 90-95 per cent of children, compared with silence on Vit A (and nourishment) which is of negligible risk and, the evidence shows, potential benefit.

Don't think you hijacked at all crumbled :)

Yes, it's a great quote. Shows how things were changing.

"My point is not, do you want that, my point is - I'm contrasting the massive spend and propaganda push on a medical intervention with NO benefit and ALL risk for 90-95 per cent of children, compared with silence on Vit A (and nourishment) which is of negligible risk and, the evidence shows, potential benefit."

But vaccination and vitamin A therapy at completely different things.

And can somebody who knows about Vitamin A please comment on this?

""I don't think anyone has, but they have been questioning why taking a supplement isn't promoted for those who do get measles."

I wonder why too. I suspect it's because the dose necessary to be effective is also big enough to be potentially dangerous to the "worried well" and to children who do not have a vitamin A deficiency ( that is, practically every child in the developed world.) Somebody on the thread said that vitamin a is given to people with measles in hospital.

walnuts

I think the point is that if the general population are vaccinated and have immunity to measles they don't need to take vitamin A to prevent measles complications.

I would agree that there seems to be evidence that those people who can't be vaccinated or already have measles should take vitamin A, but for all I (and presumably you) know they are.

bumbley

No vaccine (or medication) is 'completely safe' and as I pointed out before, it really depends in how you feel about having unnecessary vaccines 'just in case'. I know some people are happy to give Calpol 'just in case' the baby needs it for teeth or because s/he's had a long day and others who are happy to give/take antibiotics 'just in case' (although look where that's got us! )

Except for Vitamin A - apparently its perfectly fine to take that just in case.

Anyway, thank you for the polite manner in which you have continued this discussion, but I think I will carry on getting advice from medical professionals.

I know curlew! Amazing that people keep talking about it and about autism and so on. All I'm doing is contrasting the information campaigns about them. It doesn't have to be MMR - if the DoH was pushing ANY treatment at great expense during an outbreak which was of NO benefit to 90-95 pc of people they fear might be vulnerable - well they really ought to be considering advice or intervention which is cheap, low risk and, the evidence shows, of potential benefit.

I think the point is that if the general population are vaccinated and have immunity to measles they don't need to take vitamin A to prevent measles complications.

Not everyone is vaccinated, not every vaccinated person has immunity, not everyone can be vaccinated and not everyone wants their children vaccinated.

Apparently its perfectly fine to take Vit A just in case."

In an outbreak I'd say it's more than just fine - it's a jolly good idea :) bye merry. have a nice week.

Right.i've had my Sherlock hat on. The little index number 4 next to the David Miller quotation shows that it was cut and pasted from a paper by Jayne Donegan, a well known anti vaccination campaigner. However, the quotation was not taken from the paper she cites, but from this article If you rad the first paragraph (where th quotation appears, and the last, you will see that in context, its meaning is very different from its it's interpretation on this thread.

Jayne Donegan's paper

Merry, I haven't given you any medical advice