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?

The children were all school age. No idea if they were breastfed or not (I'm guessing yes, Brighton muesli belt 2006-2009). No they were not immunized. As I said this was 4 years ago but no they weren't given vitamin A. Have you any idea how long vitamin A levels take to come back from the lab ? They all made a full recovery thankfully. No reason at all to suppose they were vitamin A deficient.

At the current time I think there are massive logistical difficulties in offering a monovalent vaccine for measles. Only a fraction of the children seen were admitted and only a fraction of them ended up on intensive care. But every single family expressed shock at how ill their dcs were. Measles is not nice that's all I'm saying. I don't think anyone shakes it off. FWIW I nearly died from measles aged 1 (my parents were advised not to immunise). With my dsis they insisted upon it.

"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?" I thought I had. But are you saying that children are only at risk from measles if they are vitamin a deficient? Because the WHO don't say that.

Yes, tabitha8 - there has been a studious ignoring of the fact that measles depletes vitamin A stores from some posters on this thread.

Whatever. I just don't understand why people who bang on about herd immunity and the dangers of measles don't campaign for single measles vaccines to be available and welcome the idea of a potential therapy for a disease they scaremonger so much about.

If measles is so deadly, dangerous and terrifying, surely the only honest, consistent and ethical position is to do the utmost to fight it.

And I say that as someone who takes measles very seriously. Just as I take chicken pox and many other infectious diseases seriously.

Wishihadabs - I'm appalled.

Really appalled that children in intensive care in the UK with measles were not given short term high dosage vitamin A.

Wow, just wow. That is horrifying.

As you say, thankfully they all made a full recovery.

That is a very disingenuous post. Measles is only scary and dangerous for the tiny number of children who suffer horrendous complications- and for immuno compromised children. Nobody thinks that the complications are common. And I understand that measles depletes the body's stocks of vitamin A- presumably because the body is using its stocks to fight the infection? Where is the evidence that vitamin a therapy has any effect at all on children who are not deficient?

As I said it was 2006-2009 (2007-8 mostly) the Cochrane'review was published in 2011 another big paper in 2010, so they might well be now (although recommendation seems to be for under 2's only). Luckily I haven't seen a case of measles in the last 3 years. I work in an area with higher vaccine uptake now.

No reason at all to suppose they were vitamin A deficient.

I would have thought that the fact that they were in intensive care with measles might have rung a slight alarm bell as to their vitamin A status (whether or not there was reason to think they were deficient before contracting measles - I repeat depletion )

Sorry for multiple posts but I can't quite express how shocked I am by this.

Yes Beachcomber I meant before. I am not trying to scaremonger and obviously vitamin A is a good thing as it may help some children (I think that's all the evidence really says TBH). But I think to talk about healthy dcs shAking it off is misleading.

Well I pretty much agree with you.

Which is why I find the government's decision to withhold single measles vaccines highly irresponsible and a decision which places politics and or pharma marketing above public health and medical ethics.

Which is why I generally don't post on vax threads. But I did feel moved to comment here as people are talking about measles not being a big deal for healthy dcs. ...Off to namechange as may have outed myself....

Thank you Wishi - I totally appreciate your input on this thread

The problem is that if the health authorities offered single vaccines, there would be an outcry of "See? We told you that the MMR was dangerous! They've finally acknowledged it. Why would they be offering th single vaccines otherwise?"

It would cost a fortune, uptake would be variable and a lot of people would choose not to take the rubella vaccine, with potential disastrous consequences.

I think most women would take up the rubella vaccine - they did before MMR became available. I think the current policy is potentially more dangerous because if the immunity possibly only lasts 30 years it could wear off slap bang in the middle of your childbearing years, rather than towards the later part of them, lulling you into a false sense of security that you are immune when you are not. Becauses it is a mild disease, it's very easy not to know you have caught it.

Does anyone know if they still test teenage girls is school for rubella immunity?

I thought that was a very sensible policy.

Or is the assumption that they are all immune, and will continue to be throughout their childbearing years, because they had MMR as infants?

the rubella only for girls is what is just royally failing (yet again) in Japan at the expense of babies' lives/health. This approach does not work. 2x MMR does.

Beachcomber - they didn't test DD in Scotland. We did not get a reminder about MMR either for her, just for the dT/IPV.

OK so you could offer rubella vaccine to boys at puberty also.

Now that they have HPV vaccine - why not find a way to bundle the two together and offer at puberty?

There are two distinct attitudes about vaccination, aren't they? It's either about individual benefits or about societal ones. Personally I don't want my son to pass rubella on to a non immune pregnant woman. Yes, maybe she shoud have taken responsibility for her own immuno status, but if she didn't, then it's up to society to do it's best to protect her baby.

Could those of you critising the NHS, and claiming to be in favour of balanced evidence-based information, explain why you have nothing to say about whale.to and the rest of the crankospere?

Or are you all cool with scare-mongering, but only if it serves to promote unpleasant diseases?

Why is beachcomber so reluctant to mention the over-riding reason people are nervous about MMR? We all know it after all. It's starting to look like there's an elephant in the room.

A third approach curlew could be for the government to start offering rubella testing again to girls at puberty, or at least to women in their late teens and offer vaccine if the immunity has worn off.

It's OK saying MMR x 2 stops rubella outbreaks as we are seen in Japan. Somewhere upthread someone quoted the NHS as saying that the rubella part of the jab conferred immunity for 23 years, (which it described as lifelong.) In this country we only started offering MMR in 1988, so it's only had 25 years use. We could start to see congential rubella syndrome again, as people's immunity starts to wane.

Like there being no advice about Vitamin A usage if you catch measles, why is there no warning about this potential waning immunity? (There isn't, my daughter is an adult, I asked her if anyone had every said anything about it to her. No was the answer.) Testing women for their rubella status at their first ante-natal booking clinic is a bit late!

Pregnant women are tested for rubella immunity at booking and offered vaccination if not immune I believe.

A 4th approach- routine childhood immunisation and testing girls at puberty- as somebody suggested, tying in with the HPV vaccine.

CatherinaJTV, the situation in Japan is rather complex though isn't it?

Japan did use MMR vaccines but withdrew them due to a pattern of serious adverse events

According to this news report from The Japanese Times , the country began using MMR vaccines in 1989. They stopped using them in 1993. In 1995 they began offering rubella vaccines to all children from 1 to 7½ years old.

And;

In 1989, the government began touting a combined ?MMR? vaccine to protect against measles, mumps and rubella. But after reports of severe side effects proliferated ? including some boys who died within a few weeks of getting the shots ? much of the public shunned the vaccine, creating an entire generation of uninoculated people in the ?90s.

Wishihadabs - but booking in ante-natally might already be too late for that pregnancy. OK for a future pregnancey.

JoTheHot - my above post wasn't intended to answer your question about why people are nervous of MMR vaccines but I hope it does shed some light.

People are nervous of MMR vaccines for a variety of reasons.

The first being that two out of the three original brands are no longer used in the west due to them being unsafe.

The second is the high number of reports and court cases involving children reacting badly to the third brand which is now the only one remaining on the western market.

A third is that many people remain unconvinced over the safety of administering 3 live viral vaccines in one injection.

A fourth is that many of the studies designed to testify to the safety of MMR vaccines are fatally flawed and conflicted.

A fifth is the lack of alternative explanation for what has happened to children thought to have reacted badly to their MMR vaccine.

A sixth is that some people question the wisdom of vaccinating children for mumps and rubella when we are unsure of the longevity of the protection provided by the vaccine.

A seventh is that originally the MMR was touted as being a one off shot - now children are expected to get two and there has been talk of a third in the pipeline.

I could probably think of some more, but I'm sure you get the picture!