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?

From the WFP's website - not a medical or scientific qualification in sight.

Jane Howard works for the Division of Communications at WFP?s Rome headquarters. A former BBC correspondent, she has lived and worked in Iran, Turkey, Syria and the former Yugoslavia.

Really Grimma. Have you heard one word about Vitamin A in relation to this recent measles outbreak on the news? In the papers, on the TV, on the radio? Let's not forget the authorities are sufficiently in a two-and-eight about measles to put coffins on info graphics and spend 20 million on a fresh MMR campaign. This is a deliberately induced panic. And let's not forget that measles mortality and long term morbidity is dramatically affected by Vitamin A levels. Now which health minister, pray, talked about this on the news, on the radio, which doctors, which public health spokesmen or women, which mainstream correspondents? Hands up anyone from Swansea who went to their GP and heard the words Vitamin A from their GP?

Do not mislead us all Grimma: if you google "measles Vitamin A" not one of the sources on the first page is the NHS. When you do eventually find the NHS resource, it's also misleading. "Vitamin A supplements have been shown in some studies to help prevent some of the serious complications arising from a measles infection, although it is not clear how they help." Deliberately intended to make it look like a sort of maverick, untested idea. Not well-tested and recommended by the WHO.

"Giving vitamin A to children with a deficiency is very effective"

As it is a deficiency which can lead to death and damage, and as we are being warned about death and damage, it is not a great leap to estimate that some of the death and damage we are being deliberately terrified by, could be caused by Vitamin A deficiency and prevented by a supplement. Yes, even in this country, where malnutrition affects millions - even obese people.

Most people know about "overdosing" on Vitamin A - and if not they can be told about it. Advising people to take a multivitamin containing Vitamin A during a measles outbreak is hardly going to kill them Curlew. Please don't engage in even more scare-mongering.

I'm not scaremongering. However suggesting that a vitamin A supplement will protect a child without a deficiency from the rare but serious complications of measles is inaccurate. Children in the developed world can obviously be deficient in some vitamins, but it it incredibly rare to be deficient in vitamin A. And giving vitamin A to a child with measles who is not deficient has no effect at all.

Slight change of tune to say these complications are now rare. All the pro-vaccinators talk about is how common they are, how many people go to hospital, how many people die, measles is deadly, get vaccinated or you'll die (coffin images etc etc.)

But now that's rare? - so rare it's not worth advising people to take a
multivitamin containing Vitamin A during a measles outbreak? But not so rare it's worth spending 20m on a vaccination campaign? and terrifying parents into having a vaccine, possibly extra doses of a vaccine, which does indeed have serious effects if it goes wrong?

Tell me Curlew, what would be wrong with advising people during a measles outbreak to take a multivit containing Vitamin A - since some of the damage and death were are told about could be prevented by sufficient Vitamin A. What, exactly, would be wrong with that?

When I say slight, I mean to say, of course, massive, unreasonable and a complete about face.

Rare because less children get the illness in the first place. Hmm now why would that be?!

Technically, the number of people dying from measles reduced dramatically when the NHS became available and people had better access to healthcare and antibiotics for secondary infections.

Breatheslowly, being ff does not make you at higher risk of contracting measles or suffering greater consequences from the illness if you do contract it .

Nothing would be wrong with suggesting taking vitamin A- except that it would have no impact on the level of complications in the developed world and would give people a false sense of security. And nobody has ever said that the risk of complications from measles is anything but rare.

if you google "measles Vitamin A" not one of the sources on the first page is the NHS.

Of course not. Because the net isn't that parochial and the benefit of vitamin A in countries where there is (a) widespread vitamin A deficiency and (b) less vaccination (and probably (c) malnutrition as well) is massively more important than it is here. If you do the most obvious search for how to treat measles, you get the information, which seemed perfectly straightforward and neutral to me.

As to what the media does and doesn't report - that's another matter entirely. I don't doubt there's been plenty of the normal woeful mix of alarmism and pseudoscience as ever in some quarters.

Plenty of people had excellent nutrition and extended breast feeding in my father's childhood and infancy, and died of measles, polio, diphtheria, TB.

The belief that good nutrition is a shield against dying or becoming seriously ill or disabled from communicable disease is the most ignorant thing I've read.

I don't think anyone has suggested that it offers any guarantees but people who are malnourished are more likely to suffer complications from illnesses.

I don't think anyone has suggested that it offers any guarantees but people who are malnourished are more likely to suffer complications from illnesses.

Absolutely. That was the point of the original article.

'It' being nutrition in the above post.

Yes, Grimma. Have I said anywhere that it wasn't?

Well, duh, bumble' that's so self-evident a person would have to be thick as two planks if unable to puzzle that out.

Do why did you say this then?

"The belief that good nutrition is a shield against dying or becoming seriously ill or disabled from communicable disease is the most ignorant thing I've read."

Where did you read it?

'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? ... Considering that the majority of children in the UK have no problem with good nutrition ... why aren't parents being reassured ...'

The implication of your OP was that because we have good nutrition in the UK we can be laissez faire about vaccination.

I use my brain, bumble, to make rational and logical connections between cause and effect in the universe. I can even come to conclusions without having to use someone else's words published online to back them up. Magical, isn't it? It's called critical thinking.

No Grimma, that wasnt my point. I was wondering why they push the idea of death being a consequence of not vaccinating in a country where death is unlikely due to our access to good nutrition (and healthcare) in comparison to developing countries.

Expat, what do you think I'm asking you? You stated that it was ignorant to believe that good nutrition was a shield for diseases and when I pointed out that it doesn't provide any guarantees but it does make a big difference you've started going on about that being self evident, using your brain etc. Where did you get the impression that anyone was saying it guarantees protection?

And also, Grimma, why it is acceptable to take that approach for vaccines but not for others.

No Grimma, that wasnt my point.

It appeared to be in the OP - that's what the title and the first part were about.

why it is acceptable to take that approach for vaccines but not for others
As someone has pointed out, there were images of death in AIDs publicity - for which (unfortunately) there is no vaccination. There are plenty of death-related images for other things which can cause death - drink-driving and anti-speeding campaigns.

You're making a lot of fuss about one image among many in one leaflet and making arguments which don't really stand up to scrutiny.

They don't "push the idea of death"

They point out that there are possible complications of, for example, measles, and that children have died.

The anti vaccination brigade are always saying that people are not told enough about the possible complications of vaccination. However they are now complaining about people being told about the possible consequences of the disease. They can't have it both ways!