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?

You don't need your Sherlock hat Curlew - I would have told you! He said it, so what's the problem? By the way she's a well known medically qualified campaigner on vaccines. The GMC tried to shut her up too, but failed.

How is its meaning different? You're going to have to explain that to me. Because it's really quite clear.

Curlew, what do you think the different meaning is? I'm reading it the same way - yes, there were still epidemics but the deaths had dropped dramatically.

X-post

Interesting that you put your Sherlock hat on to try to undermine this little quote. I don't think you need a little tag by your name Curley! we've got the message.

By the way Curlew you didn't respond to the evidence which you were very interested in, which I posted it for you to have a look at. Your only response was to say people ought to have tags by their names to explain their vaccination standpoints. Was this because it's easier to respond to a sort of "straw man" idea of a made up "anti-vaxxxxxer" - rather than the evidence and the arguments, which really stand alone? There wasn't a lot of evidence, but you did say you were interested, so I wondered if you had had a look. Given the time you've got to put a Sherlock hat on, is all.

I was interested in finding out where the quotation came from-I wanted to read the rest of the article. I like to know contexts- it's the ex civil servant in me- always check your sources. The article is very interesting, it talks about antibiotics making some complications negligible, and about how measles epidemics go in waves. This is the conclusion. I hope I've got it all- it wasn't easy for a technological ignoramus to c and p it.h

"1938 Wright wrote 'Unthinking parents often
say of their children "Let them have measles and
get it over with." Unfortunately, "getting it over
with" is not so simple, for many are permanently
injured by this disease and some die.' The findings
summarized in the present paper are a reminder
that this still applies. The risks of dying are much
less, but measles cannot be regarded as a mere in-
convenience or of little public health importance.
Comparison of the death rates since the last
war for three important epidemic diseases of
childhood - measles, poliomyelitis and whooping
cough - shows that all three have been greatly
reduced (Fig 3). This improvement is probably
mostly due to better treatment, including anti-
biotics, and to preventive inoculation for whoop-
ing cough and, latterly, poliomyelitis. Death
rates from measles have not decreased appreciably
in the last ten years, however, and since 1957 have
exceeded those for both poliomyelitis and whoop-
ing cough."

What point are you making curlew?

Miller's paper contains some very interesting stats about hospital admissions there. They seem remarkably low compared to today. But also it's notable that more than half the complications were respiratory - one of the key areas where Vitamin A is thought to help.

Curlew - did you not realise that claims have been made on this thread that vaccination is responsible for the reduction in measles deaths? Did you not realise that Bumbley gave figures to refute this, and that the quote from Dr Miller supports that refutation?

Did you look at the papers I posted, with your Sherlock hat on?

Sorry, crumbledwalnuts- I did read your links. As you said, there's not a lot there- but I have asked loads of times since if anyone knows why vitamin A is not recommended for people with measles in the developed world. However, as I said, I assume it's because the doses used as treatment are too big to be safely taken by children who are unlikely to be deficient?

Oh, and if you use quotations to support your argument, don't you expect people to want to read the original source? Or am I supposed just to take it at face value?

Are you going to tell me what point you are making by working from the article?

Quoting*

What is your assumption based on? There simply isn't enough evidence out there. I would assume it's because a vaccine became available and interest simply dropped away - and no possibility of any approach other than vaccine based is allowed or acceptable (you can see that is the general view on this thread for a start). That is completely unreasonable IF a health authority still fears severe complications.

I used quotations because he said it and that's what I was taught to do with quotations. The perils of a traditional education.

My point is that people have used a quotation from the article to say that measles was not thought of as a serious public health issue in 1964, but if you read the whole piece, it is actually saying that while some people did think that way, they were wrong and it was. Read the paragraph I cut and pasted.

It sounds like he was saying that Wright was wrong to say that in 1938 (ie. before NHS,antibiotics etc)

"I used quotations because he said it and that's what I was taught to do with quotations. The perils of a traditional education."

If you read the article, the quotation you use does appear in th first paragraph. However, what he is saying is something along the lines of "because measles deaths are lower than they were, people are starting to think that measles is a trivial illness. This article is going to set out the evidence to show whether that is true." And the conclusion clearly says "even thought measles deaths are down, it is still can be a nastily illness, a small number of people are suffering long term complications, so don't be fooled"

Incidentally, it is the height of intellectual dishonesty to use quotations like this. Shame on you, Jayne Docherty - you should know better.

Curlew, why did you not quote the next line after the paragraph you copied?

"The incidence of serious complications of measles is not high it may vary in different epidemics and be reduced by the use of antibiotics."

I thought I had. I intended to c and p the entire closing paragraph. I'll go and do it now.

From British Medical Journal 1959;1:351.2 (Published 07 February 1959)

It is interesting to note, first, that the distribution of the disease is rather patchy at present. It has not yet reached the areas where two of these doctors practise (in South Scotland and Cornwall), and other areas are known to be free of the disease so far. On the other hand, in Kent it is reported to have arrived in time to put the children to bed over Christmas. These writers agree that measles is nowadays normally a mild infection, and they rarely have occasion to give prophylactic gamma globulin. As to the treatment of the disease and its complications, the emphasis naturally varies from one practice to another. Amount of bed-rest, when to administer a sulphonamide or antibiotic, the use of analgesics and linctuses ? all these may still be debatable problems in the treatment of what is said to be the commonest disease in the world. But there is probably much in the opinion which one of the writers expresses: ?It is the frequent visiting by the interested clinician and not the therapy which produces the good results.?

Not exactly an anti - vaccination journal, I would have thought. Of course, that is only the opinion of two GPs.

Meh. Makees no difference at all. In fact the stats in those papers confirm me in my view about Vit A. By the way, what were you basing your assumption on - the assumption about Vit A use and recommendation?

Andquite right, Bumbley and LaVolcan, about the reductions before vaccination. Why is this even controversial? People want to credit vaccination with everything. If the problem is continuing complications, makes treatment rather than prevention even more important.

Of course, what really counts is the real figures from Swansea right now, where we were shown coffins to represent measles and three big green ticks to represent vaccination. When we will ever find out what the real incidence rate was, or what the real complication rate was, or how those people were treated or whether there was a deficiency which could have been treated with an intervention which could have alleviated or remedied the complications?

By the way Bumbley you are interested in the 1 in 1000 figure. This is from public health wales -

"Death occurs in 1 in 2500 to 1 in 5000 cases of measles."

And this:
Complications are more common among children under 5 years of age, those with weakened immune systems, children with a poor diet and adults.

www.wales.nhs.uk/sites3/page.cfm?orgId=457&pid=25444

And this www.fph.org.uk/uploads/bs_food_poverty.pdf

"In the UK, the poorer people are, the worse their diet, and the more
diet-related diseases they suffer from. This is food poverty. Poor diet
is a risk factor for the UK?s major killers of cancer, coronary heart
disease (CHD) and diabetes. Yet it is only in the past few years that the
immense contribution it makes to poor health has been quantified:
poor diet is related to 30% of life years lost in early death and
disability. Inequalities in people?s diets can result in inequalities in people?s
health. Those on low incomes suffer from poor diets, as evidenced by
lower fruit and vegetable intakes..It is estimated that as many as 10 million people in the UK live in poverty, including nearly three million children. The Department of Health (England) recognises food poverty as ?the inability to afford, or to have access to, food to make up a healthy
diet.? ..A poor diet is characterised by excessive intakes of saturated fat, salt or sugar, and an insufficient consumption of fruit and vegetable, and dietary fibre....A poor diet which results in overweight/obesity is known as ?modern malnutrition?. A significant proportion of the population is failing to meet current recommended dietary requirements. For example, in England:1
■ children and adults eat 50% more saturated fat than the recommended level
■ children eat only one quarter, and adults onlyhalf the recommended levels of fruit and vegetables
■ children eat 50% more sugar than the recommended level.

Modern malnutrition is more common in people from lower socioeconomic groups.

Just think we could have saved ourselves this whole thread and said : Bumbley you are right.

If the problem is continuing complications, makes treatment rather than prevention even more important.

What? Have I misunderstood, or are you saying it's more important to treat a disease than prevent it?

the real figures from Swansea right now ... When we will ever find out

At the turn of this year, probably, since they are published annually for the preceding year.

From LaVolcan's quote, something else I might be misunderstanding: there is probably much in the opinion which one of the writers expresses: ?It is the frequent visiting by the interested clinician and not the therapy which produces the good results.?

Is this author actually saying the doctor's visits cure the patient? Is this a review of faith healing??

Garlic: Have I misunderstood, or are you saying it's more important to treat a disease than prevent it?

Yes you've misunderstood I'm sure by accident.

Really - you think we'll get figures about why certain children suffered complications and others didn't? I wish I shared your optimism.

I love LaVolcan's excerpt. Of course there's no reason why it shouldn't be true, that doctor's visits alone have a positive impact. Our immune systems respond well to feelings of well being and positivity.

"a sense of relaxation and well-being ..can help you de-stress and sleep better, which in turn improve immunity...people with close friendships and strong support systems tend to be healthier than those who lack such supports.

(From a regular, conventional health site - webmd - for example it says MMR is a very important vaccination etc etc. )