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?

In any case, the thread isn't about the vaccines themselves - it's about how they are being promoted.

Perhaps because in 1000's of posts neither you nor crum nor any of your hangers on have ever once said anything positive about vaccines.
Just a guess.

Well, I have been labelled as one who would come into the 'hangars' on category by Coorong. I said earlier:

So if you want to try to avoid measles, go for the vaccine. If you do get it, Vitamin A has been shown to be beneficial in helping to prevent secondary infections. But we aren't getting this second strand.

So is telling someone to go and get a vaccine being negative? Or was it negative because I didn't say, go and get the vaccine, and then you can be 100% sure that you won't get measles, so you needn't pay the slightest heed to how best you might treat it. I couldn't say that because it isn't true - to my knowledge no vaccine is 100% effective.

I actually find the DoH's lack of logic quite concerning.

They say that they are concerned about serious complications resulting from measles infection.

Scientific literature demonstrates a clear link between measles induced vitamin A depletion and complications of measles infection.

The DoH is silent on the matter of vitamin A.

Additionally the DoH is very concerned about the UK population catching measles and very keen to prevent this by vaccinating. And yet they refuse to provide the single measles vaccine (for which there is quite clearly a demand) simply because they don't want to .

What sort of crappy public health policy is that? Debates about the safety and efficacy of triple vaccines aside. If the DoH followed their own logic and believed their own hype and coffin imagery, they would run a public information campaign on vitamin A (including the risks of hypervitaminosis) and offer flexible vaccination solutions.

Grimma, only because you want them to read that way
what an odd thing to say. why would I 'want' to do that?

Chicken pox vaccination - not sure about the whys and wherefores of that. There is a CP vaccine but I think its not yet available on the NHS. My DH recently brought up the fact that DD has never had CP and perhaps we should look into getting her vaccinated - she's 14 and getting that in the middle of GCSEs would be bad news even if it was 'mild'. He gathers that the reasoning behind not vaccinating children at the moment is that there is some downside for adults - for some reason it would increase the chances of them getting shingles. Well, personally I'd rather have shingles myself than DD having even 'mild' CP but maybe looking over the risks/ benefits of the whole population - which the NHS has to do before embarking on any vaccination program - the balance is against its widespread use.

How can someone say that the second vaccine is unnecessary for 90/95% of people without acknowledging that the first one must have worked for 90/95% of people?

Is the point that we don't know which 90-95% it has worked for? Is there a reliable test to check this? Even if there is, taking blood sample can be more traumatic for a child than getting a jab (can give them needle phobia) ... so it may be that if you're tasked with ensuring public health, the most reliable way to get coverage is simply to give everyone two jabs. In which case going on about the second vaccine being unnecessary for 90-95% of people isn't really useful.

Additionally the DoH is very concerned about the UK population catching measles and very keen to prevent this by vaccinating. And yet they refuse to provide the single measles vaccine (for which there is quite clearly a demand) simply because they don't want to .

I thought it was simply because as well as being keen to prevent people catching measles, they are also concerned to stop them catching the other diseases. They want to do the job properly.

Nothing to add other than ds1 had measles at 13 months-before mmr, he had a rash but other than that he was perfectly fine, no other symptoms. (and yes it was def measles, confimed by dr)

Because you seem to want to label the thread as 'anti-vax' and be dismissive of it. You aren't the only one.

No, you're right, there is currently no way of knowing unless you get a blood test (which some people do pay for privately). I already said that earlier and said that there it's a shame there isn't an easier alternative. This doesn't negate the fact that for 90/95% of people the second vaccine is unnecessary. Walnut has already reiterated that she is not saying not to have the second vaccine. She was just comparing the promotion of second vaccine that may be unnecessary while keeping quiet about vit A supplements which may actually make a difference to more people.

givemeaboost - how did the doctor confirm it for you? Did he have to send off a swab or anything?

Bumbley, the number of children who have been seriously ill is a tiny fraction of the number of cases that there actually are (essentially zero in the case of ASD and MMR) but of course those will be the ones that are focussed on when people are trying to discourage the idea of using a vaccine. that's how propaganda works!

Focusing on the fact a glass is 5% empty does not constitute saying something positive. Incidentally, a naive calcultion would indicate that if vaccine efficiency is 0.95, then the proportion of children benefiting from the MMR booster is 1-(0.95^3)=0.85.

No one is discouraging the vaccine on this thread Jo and again, why are you bringing up ASD?

Walnut wasn't focussing on the glass being 5% empty. The fact that the first vaccine worked for the majority of people is a good thing. It seems a bit silly that, instead of making the most of that fact, the immune people are all vaccinated again anyway to catch the few that it didn't work for the first time. It would make more sense to find a better way to identify those who are immune. That would also help identify adults who may no longer be immune after being vaccinated as children.

I don't think anyone has discussed potential side effects of vaccines at all - except you. Why are you bringing it up?

If you're not concerned about potential side effects from the second vaccination, why are you looking for ways to avoid it? I do think it would be so much easier if people put their cards on the table on threads like this.

What's wrong with looking for ways to avoid unnecessary vaccination? why would you want to have two vaccines when one is enough? It would also be useful to be able to test for immunity in older children/adults.

Where have I said I'm not concerned about side effects? Why wouldn't you be? The point I was making is that no one has been discussing them on this thread and trying to use them to discourage people from vaccinating as Jo is suggesting.

I don't wish to speak for anyone else but surely it is sensible to avoid taking drugs unnecessarily? Particularly for children.

Vaccines are drugs, they are pharmaceutical products, and they are administered by injection.

I think it is worrying that we have reached a level of complacency towards these drugs that we are willing to give them to healthy children when they potentially do not offer benefit to those children.

Of course where one stands on this comes down to how you feel about drug/medicine/vaccine safety. If you think the safety, testing, surveillance and quality of pharmaceutical development and production is beyond reproach then an unnecessary vaccine won't worry you.

For the more cautious amongst us, we prefer not to expose our children to substances that will not do them any good (in the case of immunity already being present) and which have the potential to do harm.

And I think the thing with vaccine safety is that while most children seem to react ok, when a child does suffer a bad reaction, the consequences can be devastating. So IMO it just seems humane, sensible, responsible and common sense to avoid unnecessary vaccines.

" So IMO it just seems humane, sensible, responsible and common sense to avoid unnecessary vaccines."

Of course. How will vitamin A help avoid unnecessary vaccines?

curlew, I posted that concerning why lots of people object to the second MMR. It wasn't anything to do with vitamin A.

Although it could also be applied to the MMR in general I suppose.

The MMR is not one vaccine, it is three vaccines given in a single injection.

My daughter has had rubella and has good immunity - why would I give her a rubella vaccine she doesn't need in order to protect her from measles? (Answer because if I lived in the UK I would have to because the government refuses to offer singles. So I would have to give my DD an unnecessary rubella vaccine in order to protect her against measles.)

I am not at all comfortable with the ethics of giving any unnecessary vaccines - but the current public health policy in the UK forces parents to do just that and nobody seems to blink an eye.

Seems a bit gung ho to me and it makes me question how seriously the government take vaccine safety at individual level . (I'm not suggesting they don't take it seriously at population level.)

30 odd years ago you if you didn't want the whooping cough vaccine you could opt out of that and just have the diphtheria and tetanus element. So they needed to keep two lots of vaccine on hand at the vaccination clinics. It didn't seem to be a big problem. Now apparently it's somehow not possible to follow this policy as far as MMR is concerned and have MMR vaccine and measles only vaccine on hand. It's all or nothing. Some parents will opt for nothing.

Beachcomber - the same of course applies to women without rubella immunity. They have to get a dose of measles/mumps vaccine at the same time. Even if they have already have the other diseases.

Yes, very true LaVolcan about women and rubella. I was quite shocked when I first realised women were being given MMR in maternity wards if they weren't immune to rubella.

I can't think of any other type of drug where the population would accept this.

"Here take this drug for your blood pressure, it comes packaged with a drug for your thyroid and one for your heart too because it is more convenient that way."

I don't think so...

Very shaky ethical ground.

And after all heart disease is a killer so it would make sense.

There is now a growing problem of mumps outbreaks with young men in their first year at university. I haven't heard of any campaigns yet to give all first year undergraduates MMR. In that case, given that they are probably sexually active, it could save a non-immune woman from contracting rubella in the early stages of pregnancy in addition to protecting the men from mumps, so it would make a bit more sense.

I can't think of any other type of drug where the population would accept this.

Come to think though, I can - well another vaccine. I went for a tetanus injection 8 years ago, and had to have it combined with diptheria because they didn't make a single vaccine. I think it's now a four in one vaccine. The only information I have is the name of the vaccine and the date given. No batch number or other information. I have more information about my cats' vaccinations - vaccine, lot no., expiry date, who administered the vaccine. Now I love my cats dearly but I think my health is of greater importance in the grand scheme of things. If they think that this information is important for an animal, why isn't it important for a human?

Curlew It is openly acknowledged that vaccination carries risks, but generally accepted that the benefits of vaccination outweigh these risks.

Suggesting having a vaccination you don't need changes the balance of risk/benefit.

Let me put my cards on the table:

If there was a cheap, effective test for immunity I'd take that over a second vaccination and I would only have the vaccination I needed.

Anyone remember the 'heaf test'? What was that all about? Your reaction to it decided if you were going to get BCG or not.

Anyone remember the 'heaf test'?

Yes, indeed. I had that, and had enough of a reaction not to need the BCG. We were absolutely mystified as to how I could have acquired the immunity. Two others had a more severe reaction. One had a close relative who had had TB, so that explained hers. The other girl and her family went for follow up tests to see if any of them had TB, which as far as I know, they didn't.

People have consistently sough to derail this thread and turn it into exactly what it isn't. People are pretending it's about something that it specifically is not about. Nobody has said - don't vaccinate. Nobody has said Vit A or sound nourishment makes vaccination unnecessary. Nobody has brought up a link with ASD - or any other side effects - except people who seem to oppose talk of sound nourishment and Vit A.

All you people who think it's OK to put a coffin on a measles leaflet even though it's a rare cause of death - just because measles can in certain extreme circumstances be fatal. How about we put a coffin on an MMR leaflet because that too is an extreme adverse reaction? How about we put a picture of someone with www.google.co.uk/search?q=pancreatitis&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=tK7IUdeuL6G50QXFsID4Bw&ved=0CAkQ_AUoAQ&biw=2560&bih=1339#facrc=&imgdii=&imgrc=qMy-DB9qq0Kj6M%3A%3B-hKcUFyVUgdp0M%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252F1.bp.blogspot.com%252F_poTKC38if4o%252FTBQb8ON6g9I%252FAAAAAAAAPRU%252FBO10vJlTdTg%252Fs1600%252Fcomplicaciones-de-la-pancreatitis-5.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fimagina65.blogspot.com%252F2010%252F06%252Fla-zona-roja-pancreatitis-aguda.html%3B800%3B600pancreatitis diarrhea; vomiting; parotitis; nausea, diabetes, Thrombocytopenia lymphadenopathy, leukocytosis, chronic Arthritis,

arthralgia, myalgia, encephalitis ?

You want some pictures of those on MMR leaflets or do you prefer a nice big green tick? For all the people who brought up side effects on this thread - ENJOY.

And I don't even know what half of those are. Thanks for making me google - it's confirmed me in my highly selective vaccination decisions.