Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
General health

Mumsnet doesn't verify the qualifications of users. If you have medical concerns, please consult a healthcare professional.

Original poster

Unsure about vaccinations? Try reading "Deadly Choices"

449 replies

arkestra · 31/08/2013 12:41

I got Whooping Cough recently at age 43, what fun. Apparently vaccine immunity for WC wears off after a few decades. It was as ill as I have ever been and I was pretty much out of action for 3 months. There has been an increase of WC cases recently in the SW of England, where I live. I could rant at anti -vaccine campaigners, but what would be the point? I am more concerned that the people who are unsure have access to a clear statement of the pro-vaccine position.

So can I suggest that anyone who is unsure about vaccination reads "Deadly Choices" on the pro-vaccine front even if they read nothing else?

I just had my early summer ruined. But babies get killed by this kind of thing. I totally get why people find vaccines icky and unsettling, there are hard wired ways we intuitively think about our bodies that foster that kind of reaction. So just read this book if you're on the fence OK? It would be nice if lots of other 40-somethings don't irritate everyone else with their wheezing and self-pity Grin

(Gets back off soapbox)

OP posts:
Crumbledwalnuts · 02/09/2013 18:34

It's really strange that someone will risk lifetime disability or death for their child but not go for a blood test for the same perceived benefit.

Beachcomber · 02/09/2013 18:43

Hah!

Your book recommendation is for a book by Paul Offit.

Honestly. Apart from it being really immature and highly unprofessional for a medical doctor to talk about an "Anti-Vaccine Movement" and have any hope of being taken seriously, I hope Offit clearly declares somewhere in his book that he has made a ton of money from developing a rotavirus vaccine.

Maybe his subtitle should be "How the Anti-Vaccine Movement Threatens Us All And My Profit and Status".

This author is the spokesperson on vaccines for pharmaceutical lobbies. His book is therefore absolutely not impartial.

Great for you if Offit and his book correspond to your world view, but I think you will find that many MNers are a little more sceptical of pharma lobbying (which is what this book is) than you are.

(Does saying the above make me an antivaxxxxxer and therefore a "threat" according to the gospel of Paul Offit? Probably Hmm )

CatherinaJTV · 02/09/2013 18:43

nope, you don't - it is just an argument that you made up to put vaccinating mothers on the spot (just my humble opinion of course) - you remind me of my aunt, who would not stop using CFC-powered hair spray "as long as there still was industrial use of it".

Crumbledwalnuts · 02/09/2013 18:45

Made it up? What are you talking about?

If you lecture others about immunity, and you don't know if you're immune, you're a hypocrite.

Which part of this can you disagree with? I'm agog.

CatherinaJTV · 02/09/2013 18:46

Paul Offit is a hero - his vaccine has saved thousands of lives. If you had read "Autism's False Prophets" you would have read his heart breaking account of how he lost a little patient to rotavirus - a powerful motivation. Offit has sold his patent and no longer stands to profit from any vaccine sales. As a pediatrician, he is interested in the health of children, hence his engagement for vaccines. It is as simple as that.

CatherinaJTV · 02/09/2013 18:47

first of all, I know I am immune. Second of all, anyone who has been vaccinated has a higher chance of being immune that those kids who are left defenseless against infectious disease.

Crumbledwalnuts · 02/09/2013 18:53

I know you're immune, you told me. It doesn't mean you win the argument. It means that on the immunity front at least, you aren't a hypocrite. Did you find anything wrong with my statement?

Second Beachcomber's view on Paul Offit. Bring on the day when we inject him with 10,000 vaccines.

Crumbledwalnuts · 02/09/2013 18:57

I don't get the thing about your aunt by the way.

Beachcomber · 02/09/2013 18:57

Oh and does he make his hilarious (or would be if it weren't downright dangerous and quite mad) recommendation that children could 'in theory' receive 10,000 if not 100,000 vaccines in one day, in this book?

I hope he does. So that people are able to see what bullshit he comes out with. And how callous he is with regards to the issue of vaccine safety, rigorous science and, well, the truth.

Original poster
arkestra · 02/09/2013 19:01

Crumbled: so we differ on risk perception rather than some extreme ethics thing. That's not so bad.

I don't think Offit is a bad person. Do you really wish him physical harm? 10,000 vaccines sounds a bit excessive, I am sure he would be fine with 5 if someone else held the needle Grin

OP posts:
Crumbledwalnuts · 02/09/2013 19:02

Arkestra:) yes perhaps you're right on risk perception.

FYI Paul Offit says a baby could have 10,000 vaccines in a day. What a goon.

Crumbledwalnuts · 02/09/2013 19:03

Actually I think someone offered him a million pounds if he'd have them himself. He's declined, to date.

nickelbabe · 02/09/2013 19:07

crumbled in her case, if I were her, I would orobably not vaccinate. byt it would be a really hard decision, and I would probably look into if there was a chance of some vaccines.
as I'm sure it was a tough decision for her to make.

Original poster
arkestra · 02/09/2013 19:07

Do you think Offit believes the 10,000 vaccines quote? Eg do you view him as deluded but sincere, or more like a liar for commercial gain?

OP posts:
Crumbledwalnuts · 02/09/2013 19:09

I don't know, I think he must be a little bit crazy to be honest. Certainly not to be trust on an issue of public health, with a view like that.

Crumbledwalnuts · 02/09/2013 19:10

tks for response nickel babe

Original poster
arkestra · 02/09/2013 19:12

Quote below. I would personally gloss that as his asserting the immune system has 10,000 times the capacity required to process one vaccine - rather than suggesting its a good idea to give a baby 10,000 vaccines?

“A more practical way to determine the diversity of the immune response would be to estimate the number of vaccines to which a child could respond at one time. If we assume that 1) approximately 10 ng/mL of antibody is likely to be an effective concentration of antibody per epitope (an immunologically distinct region of a protein or polysaccharide) 2) generation of 10 ng/mL requires approximately 103 B-cells per mL, 3) a single B-cell clone takes about 1 week to reach the 103 progeny B-cells required to secrete 10 ng/mL of antibody (therefore, vaccine-epitope specific immune responses found about 1 week after immunization can be generated initially from a single B-cell clone per mL), 4) each vaccine contains approximately 100 antigens and 10 epitopes per antigen (ie, 103 epitopes), and 5) approximately 107 B cells are present per mL of circulating blood, then
each infant would have the theoretical capacity to respond to about 10 000 vaccines at any one time (obtained by dividing 107 B cells per mL by 103 epitopes per vaccine).”

OP posts:
Original poster
arkestra · 02/09/2013 19:13

(I really don't think he's suggesting 10,000 vaccines at once is a good idea. How would you get the needle in? Grin)

OP posts:
Beachcomber · 02/09/2013 19:25

"each infant would have the theoretical capacity to respond to about 10 000 vaccines at any one time"

Mmm. Yes Paul. Whatever you say Paul.

NOT.

Call me an antivaxxxxer scardy cat tinhatfoiler but I think I'll take old Paulie's advice with a pinch of salt. On everything. Thank you very much.

Anyway he doesn't need my endorsement. He's making plenty of cash.

JakeBullet · 02/09/2013 19:29

No need for 10.000 vaccines a day.....the number of antigens we expose babies to has dropped by two thirds since the 1950s....they used to be exposed to much much more.

As to the spacing of this I cant comment as I don't know, I just know the number of antigens is massively reduced from what babies used to receive...goodness only knows how many I received (born mid 1960s), then again it might explain some things!

Crumbledwalnuts · 02/09/2013 19:32

The problem is Arkestra that he was using that statement to reassure parents and minimise the dangers of vaccines. The use of the word "theoretical" is just a cover. The whole point of it is to reassure parents, so he IS saying a baby can have 10,000 vaccines in one day, but with the technical get out clause, oh I only meant theoretically. But there's no reason for him to say it except to reassure parents about combined vaccines.

He's a weasel and a very bad person and this statement is a moral swamp.

Crumbledwalnuts · 02/09/2013 19:33

I'd like to be there when they do it to him. Except they probably don't allow visitors in the intensive care unit. And I've never been to a morgue.

Original poster
arkestra · 02/09/2013 19:37

From my current view on Wakefield he doesn't sound too great. But I don't wish him harm.

Is Offit really such a villain in you eyes? If you see him as an arrogant liar who is helping harm children's health and profiting thereby then I guess that's pretty bad stuff.

Is that how you see him?

OP posts:
Crumbledwalnuts · 02/09/2013 19:39

Offit doesn't think it IS harm, but he won't test it on himself. How do I see him? I don't think about him very much, I just dismiss him as someone not to be trusted but in the bigger picutre - yes, I see him as someone who cares more about profit and power than parents and children.

No, Wakefield is not as bad as Offit. You'll see when you read his book. The parents of children he cared for absolutely adore him.

LaVolcan · 02/09/2013 19:41

Surely Offit could just volunteer to have all the baby jabs again in the one day? After all, they cannot possibly do him any harm and his immunity to half the diseases would have waned and it would be a 'good thing'.

Of course, he might get a swollen arm for a day or two, which he would be told he was imagining, and may be a bit off colour which could be because he'd hit the booze. And anyway, what would he be making a fuss about, because he would have got those reactions when he caught the diseases anyway?

Cynical, moi?