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?

So why did you bother asking curlew? Were you just trying to derail the thread into an 'anti-vax' flaming?

I think one area where it is important for there to be a policy on vitamin A is for children too young to have been vaccinated. This age group is both vulnerable to low vitamin A stocks, and measles complications. It seems that this age group is also increasingly vulnerable to catching measles due to a lowering of passive immunity through a combination of mothers themselves having been vaccinated and or lack of breastfeeding.

One obvious concern about this is that as measles circulates less in the general population, mothers are not having their natural immunity 'boosted' by coming into contact with the wild disease and that this goes some way to explaining why passive immunity is of relatively short duration even in infants born to mothers who had measles.

This is exactly the sort of thing I mean when I talk about vaccination being complex. A great idea on paper but the physical reality is full of unforeseen pitfalls.

Measles is very dangerous in populations with no pre-exposure to it. It is entirely possible that with each generation that we vaccinate, we are in fact creating a population which is increasingly vulnerable to measles, should they catch it.

Curlew, vitamin A began to be discussed as a treatment for measles in the 1930s IIRC. Doctors and parents routinely used cod liver oil for all children who caught the disease and there are a number of papers on the subject from that time.

Then once measles vaccines started to be developed less interest was taken in vitamin A therapy. So I don't think that there have been comprehensive studies done simply to see if vitamin A therapy reduces the duration of infection or helps with symptoms in a child who has excellent vitamin A status throughout the infection. I suspect not because this aspect of measles has been neglected in western populations. Which is a shame.

Apparently vitamin drops are already advised for under 5's and some people are entitled to free vit drops. All under 5's are under the care of a health visitor. Vitamin a is also added to formula milk. However I get the impression that most people can still get enough vitamins through balanced diet - these policies are designed to catch those who aren't.

I think every one agrees that under 5's are at greatest risk from measles, although different people would highlight different reasons for this.

Do remember saying these things, Curlew?

Vitamin A does not treat measles.
Giving Vitamin A to a child with measles who doesn't have a deficiency has no effect (that's a paraphrase)

I gave you these quotes and references AGES ago. How can you say no one knows anything?

"Measles virus grows in the cells that line the back of the throat and lungs. Vitamin A is essential for the maintenance of this lining and others throughout the body. Vitamin A deficiency is a recognised risk factor for severe measles and since 1987 the WHO and UNICEF have recommended vitamin A treatment of children with measles; two doses of 200 000 IU for children over one year and 100 000 IU for infants, was found to reduce measles mortality by 62% (14) in poorer countries. Measles can also lower serum concentrations of vitamin A in well nourished children to less than those observed in non-infected malnourished children. When a child with marginal vitamin A stores gets measles, available vitamin A is quickly used up ? reducing the ability to resist secondary infections or their consequences, or both. (15)

These are the references

14 Sudfeld CR, Navar AM, Halsey NA.Effectiveness of measles vaccination and vitamin A treatment.
Int J Epidemiol. 2010 Apr;39 Suppl 1:i48-55. Review. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2845860/pdf/dyq021.pdf
15 Barclay AJ, Foster A, Sommer A. Vitamin A supplements and mortality related to measles: a randomised clinical trial. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed). 1987 Jan 31;294(6567):294-6. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1245303/pdf/bmjcred00005-0036.pdf

This is just a tiny fraction of the MASSES of evidence you have been shown. And you have gone on and on about how helpful it would be to know "starting positions", and you were among the first to start talking about the "anti-vaccination brigade". So you were presented with evidence, which you ignored, then you demanded to know starting positions, after assuming anti-vax this and that,, and now you've been told "starting positions" you're ignoring that and now you have gone back to pretending there's no evidence.

"So why did you bother asking curlew? Were you just trying to derail the thread into an 'anti-vax' flaming?"

No. But this is a subject on which many people have entrenched views. Vitamin A has been used (not on this thread, obviously) by anti-vaxxers as a smokescreen. One of their characteristics is the moving of goal posts- once one of their claims is conclusively disproved, they move on quickly to another one. And Vitamin A is a current hot topic in that world.
I like to know who I am debating with. And there have been links to anti vaxx websites on this thread, whether the linker realised it or not.

It just annoys me really.

Moving of goalposts!!??!! Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. How does it help you to know that I have immunised my children with around 50 doses? You said it would be helpful.

And there has been ONE link to a GP who doesn't like vaccinations - that link was by me, a multiple vaccinator. How does this information help you? It's utterly ridiculous.

You don't like to know who you're debating with - you like to assume, then you like to agree with them if they're "on your side" (no matter how rubbish their argument) or disagree with them if they're not "on your side" no matter how weighty the evidence.

Moving of goalposts. That's like so hypocritical.

You say you need to know people's starting positions to know whether they would ignore evidence. But I don't see LaVolcan and Bumbley and others ignoring evidence. Evidence of the benefits of Vitamin A in measles even for non-deficient children has been posted, evidence of depletion has been posted, evidence of the measles fighting mechanism inside the body has been posted, WHO protocols have been posted, and God knows what else. And still YOU say people don't know anything? Who's ignoring evidence now because of an "entrenched" (your word) starting position?

And there have been links to anti vaxx websites on this thread, whether the linker realised it or not.

Indeed, but the reference to whale and the 'crankosphere' came from a 'pro-vaxxer'. Perhaps in all innocence, although personally I thought not, but in an attempt to flush out 'ant-vaxxers'. Which failed, because they don't seem to be around.

No- I didn't ask whether you has vaccinated your children( you must have a lot of them, by the way!) I asked a specific question about people's views on polio vaccination. Because in my experience, people who are opposed to vaccination in general are very clear that the eradication of polio is nothing to do with vaccination. In my experience also, it is no use trying to debate with anti vaxxers because for them it is an article of faith rather than a reasoned position. But there aren't any on this thread so that's fine.

But there aren't any on this thread so that's fine.

So why are you going on about it? You seem determined to get some of us to say we are anti-vaccine when we have told you that we are not. Saying that your own children have been vaccinated is proof enough, isn't it? Apparently not.

It's been suggested before you start a thread about polio, so why not do so?

"In my experience also, it is no use trying to debate with anti vaxxers because for them it is an article of faith rather than a reasoned position. "

But no one on this thread is trying to debate vaccines. It's a discussion about how they are being promoted (and now it's moved on a bit to Vit A and why it's not being promoted.) A few posters on the thread just seem determined to take it down the 'anti-vax' route.

No I don't have a lot of children, I have an average number. Now you want something else, because you are trying to fit me in a little box and I won't be fitted. Plainly I've got a very broad view about "vaccinations" and take the evidence as it comes. Which you don't seem able to do despite your protestations otherwise.

And by the way I told you - start a thread about polio and I'll happily contribute. But you ignored that too.

Curlew, it's you with the article of faith. You are steadfastly ignoring the evidence presented to you on the thread - all you want to know is what people think about polio, and then apparently you will decide whether the evidence they present about Vitamin A (from the WHO etc!) is worth bothering with. That position is completely unsustainable.

And it shows what you know about the vaccine schedule - I have indeed selectively vaccinated - by my children's ages between them they should have had between 70 and 80 doses by now. Guess what? I looked at the evidence and decided that way. You should try it.

Curlew you really should start that polio thread. Like I say, I'm interested in your opinion on Non Polio Acute Flaccid Paralysis. It adds an interesting dimension to the 'polio litmus test'.

I really dislike it when people start talking about vaccination in terms of 'pro' and 'anti'. Very tedious because it shuts down debate as it promotes polarization of discussion and, like I said earlier, treats all aspects of all vaccines as though they are the same thing when they quite clearly aren't.

Curlew, why are you so resistant to the idea of vitamin A? Have you even properly read the numerous links which have been provided here for you? Did you notice the one I posted which observed that;

Among these children with measles in an urban United States community, retinol concentrations were depressed, and the degree of depression was associated with illness severity .

If you are insisting that vitamin A must behave as a magic wand and protect all children from every single possible measles symptom, serious or otherwise, I doubt we can help you.

I think your resistance to this is because you are hearing it from people you label as 'antivaxxxxers'. (Despite plenty of us saying that we do not wish to see vitamin A therapy promoted in place of measles vaccines.)

LaVolcan How exactly does your failure to criticise anti-vax propaganda prove you're not anti-vax? To me, it all but proves the exact opposite.

Someone who is neutral, would criticise propaganda from both sides. None of the people slating the NHS on this thread currently meet that criterion.

If you all think the NHS is so shite why don't you try boycotting it?

JoTheHot I take it you are directing criticism at me, because it was your post which mentioned whale and I stated that I thought it was a 'pro-vaxer' trying to flush out 'anti-vaxers'. Note the inverted commas. I think your posting rather proves that this was your intention. I said it because the 'anti-vaxers' were taken to task for not criticising these sites, but since we weren't talking about the pros and cons of vaccination what either a pro or an anti site says isn't particularly relevant. I haven't read whether they have said anything about Vitamin A and I don't intend to read them either.

Who is slating the NHS? Who thinks it's shite? Asking questions is a crime - just do as your told and be a good girl - is that the standard you want? Fine if you do, but not what I like for my health care. I do feel it's in order to say, why do you recommend this? What happens if I do that?

Crumbled -I' ve counted up and I only get to 37 before the age of 18 even if you have everything and you are a girl. 36 if you are a boy.......!

See the thing is Jo - what happens when people can't challenge the arguments is they resort to smear. That's what is being attempted. There is a madly pro pro pro vaccine script. It says we live in a world of raging uncontrollable disease and vaccines are the only thing that can save our children from dying. To challenge that script, in their eyes, you don't even have to criticise vaccines. You could say, the disease aren't raging or uncontrollable, or you can suggest another intervention like vitamin A, or even suggest something as mild as being well nourished helps you fight off disease. But it's enough to challenge the script and that CAN'T BE ALLOWED. So you have to smear the people doing it because you can't challenge the evidence right before your eyes. In my view, that's hardly scientific. Seems really irrational and somewhat hysterical.

How depressing - 37. And you say it as if it's nothing. Thank goodness I've been selective. More than 50 is between all my children, and I have an average number. Any response to ANYTHING anyone has written about why this is a pointless pursuit? What rubbish to say if you don't criticise anti-vaccine websites you're anti-vaccine. Some people haven't even looked at them, or have any intention of doing so.

Of course being well nourished helps you fight off disease. And vitamin A is vital if you are deficient. And most children at the very worst will have a miserable 2 weeks if they get measles. I don't think anyone is denying any of those statements are they?

So why are you arguing? Why didn't you just say a week ago, do you know what Bumbley, you're quite right.

" vitamin A is vital if you are deficient"

you've been shown evidence that measles leads to depletion in well nourished children, that children in developed nations have Vit deficiencies, that Vit A levels are associated with disease severity, and the mechanism by which Vit A helps fight measles replication. Are you ignoring it?

I neither slate the NHS nor think they are 'shite'.

My critical comments have been about the DoH and their negligence with regards to vitamin A therapy as a policy for measles.

My, god, we have had a poster on here saying that she has seen numerous children in intensive care in the UK with measles who were not given short term high dosage vitamin A.

WTF?!