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?

I don't think the MMR vaccine and vitamin A therapy need particularly to be talked about together. Especially considering that vitamin A is not particularly relevant to two thirds of the MMR vaccine (other than a general boosting of the immune system). I do think measles and vitamin A should be talked about together however. Talk of vitamin A would be much more useful than pictures of coffins.

My issue is that the government is emphasising the dangers of measles whilst neglecting to mention that children who are in good health, with a balanced diet and adequate vitamin A are extremely unlikely to face those dangers.

It is dishonest.

Either the government thinks that there really is a danger to the average child, in which case they must think that UK children may have inadequate vitamin A stores (this is perfectly possible as shown by studies done in the US) - in which case it is extremely negligent of them not to have a clear well communicated public health policy on vit A therapy.

Or, the fact that they don't have this policy makes me think that they don't really believe that UK children are at risk of measles induced vitamin A depletion - in which case why are they scaring the life out of parents with all this talk of complications and death??

They want it both ways.

They wish to claim that there is a very serious threat.

They neglect to have a policy that is the most effective safeguard from this supposed serious threat.

Vitamin A stimulates antibody production against measles and improves immune function as well as protecting against eye problems, respiratory distress, ear problems and diarrhoea. If measles is such a threat then it is unethical of the DoH to neglect vitamin A therapy.

My conclusion is that either the threat is not actually that serious or the DoH is being wilfully negligent. Either they are lying to the public or they are guilty of medical misconduct. Neither of which are excusable simply because they have a triple vaccine, with a bad safety record, that people are nervous of, to sell.

(Thanks to posters who commented positively on my above post.)

"My issue is that the government is emphasising the dangers of measles whilst neglecting to mention that children who are in good health, with a balanced diet and adequate vitamin A are extremely unlikely to face those dangers."

But is this true? Having adequate vitamin A does not mean you won't get complications, surely. Just that you are far more likely to if you don't.

And I think that the literature does make it clear that the complications are not common. Although being pretty miserably ill is.

Applaud Beachcomber

I wish I could be as elocant as you are.

I do have a concern when vitamin A and vaccination are talked about together. It seems to me that, if a parent was wavering about vaccination, and got the idea that taking extra vitamin A is an effective treatment for measles they might decide not to vaccinate, thereby leaving their own children vulnerable, and also reducing the level of herd immunity necessary to protect those people who can't be vaccinated.

I suspect that this potential problem could be much reduced by offering single measles vaccines.

I don't think there are a lot of people who don't wish their child to have a measles vaccine. I just think there are a lot who don't want their child to have the combined MMR.

And anyway what you say above poses an ethical problem of informed consent. If people have to be manipulated into accepting a vaccine through withholding important information about one of the diseases the vaccine protects against, then we are on very shaky ethical ground with regards to the right to informed consent. Especially if withholding that information is done with the intention of marketing two other vaccine components on the back of fear of one disease.

The entire concept of herd immunity itself, when applied to vaccines, is ethically dodgy. It is a form of coercion.

It's not an ethical concern because as far as I know, and as far as i can find out, taking extra vitamin A does not have any effect on a well nourished child's reaction to the measles virus. If it did, then obviously it would be ethically dodgy.

I understand the concerns about the herd immunity concept. My personal view is that we live in a community, and I have a responsibility to do everything I can to stop my child giving an immunocompromised child a disease that might kill her. That child's career has a responsibility to protect her, but it is not her responsibility alone. I am aware that others think differently. But for the sake of full disclosure, that is my position.

Forgot to say - if people are coerced into an invasive medical procedure which involves injecting a substance into their body, this flouts the right to bodily integrity .

This is a human rights issue.

It is my opinion that the UK government is currently playing fast and loose with our children's human rights.

And I include their incomprehensible decision to withhold single measles vaccines as a form of coercion in manipulating people into accepting the MMR.

coerced?

Ok. So what is this thread about?

Curlew people don't consent to vaccinate their children because they think that they will sail through measles as they are healthy and well nourished.

People vaccinate against measles because they are afraid of complications and death.

Withholding potentially life saving information about a treatment for those complications, is coercion, manipulation and undue influence . All of which invalidate consent.

Withholding potentially life saving information about a treatment for the complications of one disease in order to get people to consent to being given three drugs at once is gross misconduct and would have any doctor who wasn't in the DoH hauled up before the GMC and struck off.

This is straightforward medical ethics. But it would seem that the DoH is not held to this standard - no doubt their excuse would be 'for the greater good'.

But it isn't life saving treatment in the developed world.

It is only life saving treatment for children who are vitamin A deficient. Which children in the developed world aren't.

"People vaccinate against measles because they are afraid of complications and death."

Not always. They also vaccinate because they don't want their child to get a disease which can be very unpleasant, as many people on this thread can attest.

They also vaccinate because they have a sense of social responsibility.

It is only life saving treatment for children who are vitamin A deficient. Which children in the developed world aren't.

Right. So you seem to be saying that children in the developed world are not at risk from measles then? So why all the song and dance that they are

Anyway, studies in the US have shown that children who do not go hungry can be vitamin A deficient.

And what about that poor man who died in Wales. AFAIA there hasn't been a conclusive statement made, but considering that he weighed 8 stone at 6 foot 1 tall , his nutritional status was unlikely to have been irrelevant.

"Right. So you seem to be saying that children in the developed world are not at risk from measles then? So why all the song and dance that they are "

No. I'm saying that you can still be at risk from measles even if you are not vitamin A deficient. It's not a panacea.

OK, so what are the risks to children who maintain a healthy and performant vitamin A status throughout measles infection? I would be really interested in a study which examined western non immune compromised children suffering serious typical measles complications who were found to have excellent non depleted bodily vitamin A.

I ask because the complications that are generally cited for measles are linked to vitamin A depletion and or deficiency. (you seem to ignore the depletion aspect in order to concentrate on the concept of a pre-existing deficiency)

The group of retinoids that we refer to as vitamin A help the body to inhibit measles virus replication - we even understand the mechanism through which this is achieved. www.fasebj.org/content/23/9/3203

Curlew - what this thread is actually about is that a number of posters while not overtly "anti vaccine" are very much against the MMR on the grounds that they support Andrew Wakefield et al. You only have to look at the historic threads on the matter.

Vitamin A is simply their latest attempt to derail community immunity attained through MMR.

Coorong do you think that when the World Health Organisation endorse vitamin A therapy they are 'attempting to derail community immunity attained through MMR'.

How silly.

Why would anyone want to 'derail community immunity'

Many of us who have safety and ethics issues with the MMR are supporters of the single measles vaccine. There is more than one way to skin the measles cat, MMR is not the only option.

Posts like yours are really illuminating and to my mind demonstrate how well the DoH has been able to install MMR in the minds of much of the population as 'the measles vaccine'. It is quite an extraordinary achievement really. An impressive manipulation of public opinion.

Do you folks really never notice that all the marketing talk around MMR is measles talk?

What do you think about this from the NHS's own website;

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.

23 years against rubella. 19 years against mumps. Yikes!

I find it odd that they say 'probably lifelong' and then follow up with figures that are anything but lifelong.

I strongly suspect that in a few years there will be a teenage MMR booster in addition to the two that children already get. Otherwise we may see a renewed emergence of CRS. Thanks Merck!! Our kids don't get rubella or mumps anymore but they are dependant on your vaccine at least until they have finished having children. Good job!!

This thread is an extended exercise in the pot calling the kettle black. Government publications may be less than perfect, but in comparison to the crazed, data-free scare-mongering accusations made by the anti-vaccine lobby, they pale into insignificance.

If crumble et al. want to cry propaganda, they'd be well advised to put their own house in order first.

Beachcomber you're ever-so-eloquent and internally consistent posts all start from the starting assertion that people are nervous about MMR, without properly exploring why. They're a splendid house built on sand. It's not because MMR's a triple, because other combined vaccines don't cause the same problems.

MMR is the safest and simplest way to eradicate 3 unpleasant diseases. If it weren't for Wakefield and his credulous flock, vitamin A's importance would be wholly moot.

I have seen perfectly well nourished children end up intensive care with measles .At best it's 2 weeks in bed feeling like s $@t. I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy.

No, coorong, that's not what it's about. How ridiculous.

I have seen perfectly well nourished children end up intensive care with measles .At best it's 2 weeks in bed feeling like s $@t. I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy.

But if Vitamin A therapy was effective would you say, 'no thanks, I'll stick with feeling s%$t?' Or want to listen to a lecture about how irresponsible you were for not going for the MMR? Oh, sorry, you did, so you're feeling rubbish because you have a measles like virus. (Which Vitamin A might also help with.)

I take it you are a health care professional? In which case do you know if these well nourished children who had to be admitted to intensive care with measles were given vitamin A? Did they have their vitamin A status assessed? How old were the children? What was their vaccination status? Had they been breastfed (this is relevant to vitamin A stores in children under 2)?

Do you think that it is a common occurrence for a healthy well nourished child to be admitted to intensive care with measles? If so do you think the government's decision to withhold single measles vaccine is ethical?

JoTheHot - how do you reconcile what you say in your above post with the fact that two out of the three brands of MMR vaccine that were originally marketed had to be withdrawn from distribution because they were unsafe? How do you reconcile what you say with the various safety issues (and thankfully changes) that we have seen with the DTP vaccine (another triple)?

Why do you think people pay for single vaccines if they are not actually worried about the triple?

Why do you think the government has to work so hard at selling the triple vaccine to us if people are so accepting of it?

But where do we have evidence that vitamin A is effective in treating measles in children without a deficiency? Or that it does anything for measles where you just feel awful for 2 weeks without having complications?

The WHO is talking about children with significant vitamin A deficiency, not about well nourished developed world children.

Vit A isn't about treating the measles virus. Measles depletes our stores of vit A.

From the WHO website:

" This treatment restores low vitamin A levels during measles that occur even in well-nourished children and can help prevent eye damage and blindness."

If a child lies in bed for two weeks feeling awful but has no complications, is it not possible to argue that they have "shaken if off" as a well nourished child is likely to do? Hence the thread title....... No one is suggesting that measles is a walk in the park.

Spidermama (rabidly antijabs) went into a lot of detail about her DC took measles. 2 weeks in bed feeling like scat was just about exactly what she described. Did she give them big doses of VitA? No idea. Presumably, since she seemed to think she was very informed about her choices.

Curlew I posted a link earlier demonstrating how vitamin A inhibits measles virus replication. Do you understand the significance of that?

I'm not really very sure what you want.

Children who struggle with measles are helped by vitamin A therapy. Children who don't struggle with measles don't need help.

I'm not suggesting vitamin A instead of measles vaccination. I'm saying that it is dishonest of the UK government and media to frighten people terribly about the risks of measles (in order to push a combined vaccine) and to neglect to mention the relevance and importance of vitamin A.

I have already asked you what you think the mechanisms are that put; healthy, non immune compromised, well nourished children, who retain excellent vitamin A status throughout measles infection, at risk from the disease? Are you going to answer me?