Unsure about vaccinations? Try reading "Deadly Choices"

[arkestra]

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

(Gets back off soapbox)

Don't want to labour the point too much, but do we say antibiotics are dangerous because of MRSA? MRSA emerged from selection pressure from antibiotics.

Or is the point around the emergence of MRSA rather that we should be very mindful of the presence of selection pressure and take it into account when we deploy agents that will change it?

(for instance not spray antibiotics everywhere without a second thought)

And arkestra did you seriously just ask me if I can provide "statistically valid" evidence that giving a child 10,000 vaccines is risky?

Surely we can all agree that Offit was talking absolute bollocks with that particular piece of 'theory'? Indeed that it wasn't theory (in the scientific sense of the word), but propaganda (in the political sense of the word). And propaganda has no place in public health.

If the intended point is that in some way the selection pressures induced by vaccines will leave us with MRSA-like incurable diseases that cut a swathe through the population, then I can understand if the prospect doesn't fill people with joy.

But again one needs research that points to this happening. I don't think any of those papers do this.

Beachcomber - I am asking you to provide any statistically valid evidence that any vaccine combination is a problem.

If you can't do this in any respect then I think Offit's rhetorical point is justified.

Can you not point to any research, indicating that this is a problem in some combinations, for some people, in a way that makes vaccine combination a justifiable concern?

The point is arkestra that blaming the re-emergence of pertussis on people who don't vaccinate or fail to boost their vaccination (as you appear to in your OP) is to have a limited grasp of the facts.

"Beachcomber - I am asking you to provide any statistically valid evidence that any vaccine combination is a problem.

If you can't do this in any respect then I think Offit's rhetorical point is justified."

Don't want to labour the point too much, but do we say antibiotics are dangerous because of MRSA? MRSA emerged from selection pressure from antibiotics.

I don't think we say that they are dangerous, but increasingly ineffective yes, and so the old diseases are becoming more and more of a problem.

I think there was someone way back in the sixties, who predicted the effect that overuse would cause. (South, Southgate? Some connection to Sussex University? Can't remember exactly.)

I am bending over backwards here to try and give you a valid point against Offit. His point is that vaccine combination is not a practical concern. If you can't understand this then you will find it very hard to address the argument in a way that will appeal to someone who is not already firmly in your camp.

As to your "the point is" comment, all I can say is "read the thread". I have already conceded earlier in this thread that it's not clearly practical to eliminate Pertussis given current vaccine technology. That doesn't mean pertussis vaccines are useless or dangerous, it doesn't make Offit a bad person, and it doesn't help you with any of the arguments you are trying to advance.

LaVolcan - I agree on MRSA, it is a very sad story. We could have done so much better.

Vaccine combination is a problem if you need TEtenus but have a close family member made terminally ill from the the DTP.

Or if you've had singles Measles and Rubella and want the Mumps.

CatherinaJTV - I have just taken the time to read your link.

PMSL at Offit being a man of 'tremendous integrity' because he didn't think the following was a good idea;

a trial like this one is almost without precedent in modern medical research: It involves giving children a vaccine that is almost certain not to benefit them, and that might harm them, all to protect other children from an unlikely scenario?a large-scale anthrax attack.

What a prince, eh?

Is this the standard then nowadays in the drug industry? You show tremendous integrity if you think experimenting on children with anthrax vaccines isn't cricket?

Jeez.

Vaccine combination is a problem if you need Tetenus but have a close family member made terminally ill from the the DTP.

Yes, I agree. Can't you get a single shot in that case? I would certainly want one in that situation.

I have to do some more work now but that's a very good point on practical problems with vaccine combination.

Re the thrust of Offit's "10,000" quote - any research on more general "synergistic" effects (eg A+B is worse than A and then B) would be very handy. Whether from Beachcomber or anyone else.

You can't get tetanus without it being part of the dtp.

arkestra - I understand Offit's 10,000 article perfectly well, thank you.

It is propaganda passing itself off as science.

And people defending Offit on the issue generally appear to me as having suspended critical thinking in order to avoid being honest about the above. And to avoid being honest about Offit.

is that really true, pag ?
But they tell you to have a tetanus booster every 10 years, surely you don't have to have the DTP every 10 years too?

or is it just the initial tetanus that's DTP and the boosters are separate?

it doesn't even mention the old rule of every 10 years - you would think that they would say "you used to be recommended to have it every 10 years, but as long as you've had 5 in total, you don't need to" or whatever is actually the case.

"it" being the NHS website

Tetanus - UK Green Book on Tetanus: www.gov.uk/government/publications/tetanus-the-green-book-chapter-30

Indeed it says Tetanus is only as part of a combined vaccine.

I do find that hard to understand. It seems very plausible to me that people may have reactions against other elements of the combined vaccine - or family members with such reactions - what are they supposed to do?

Anyone have any ideas?

Beachcomber - I have done my best to give you a chance to engage with the underlying point that Offit is making - that there are no synergistic negative effects from combining vaccines.

The CDC is very clear on this point also: www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/vaccines/multiplevaccines.html

They may be wrong. It would clearly be of fundamental importance if they were, attacking the very basic assumption behind current policy on vaccine grouping - that the advantage from reducing the number of injections does not have a corresponding disadvantage from synergistic issues.

But you will not convince me that Offit and the CDC are wrong on this point without evidence. That is just the way I go.

I repeat that somply stating arguments are "propaganda", placing constructions on text that do not actually make sense, and casting aspersions on people's motives, do not present a strong case. If anything you may be weakening a perfectly genuine case by presenting your arguments in such a fashion.

You may think that it is a fruitful argumentative technique to state that those who disagree with you suspend critical thinking, but I think you would be better advised to try and agree a substantive point at issue that can actually be proved one way or another.

I am more than happy to do that with you if you fancy giving it a go at some point in the future, but I think I will have to leave things there unless you can manage to orient yourself more towards rational argument. Sorry.

In the meantime, I am sure you will garner your own share of doughnuts, so have a glass of wine to wash them all down

arkestra - we know that there is viral synergy in combined vaccines. Which is why the viral dose in combined vaccines is not always the same as that of single vaccines for the same disease and with the same viral strain.

Do you think that stating that children could easily receive 10,000 vaccines is;

a) science

b) propaganda

c) not propaganda but certainly not science

see, combined vaccines are great in that they save time and number of needle pricks, but they do mean that if someone cannot have one of the component parts for whatever reason, then they can't have the vaccine at all.

they should have a contingency plan, even if it means having to order it in especially or send you to a hospital for it.

You may think that it is a fruitful argumentative technique to state that those who disagree with you suspend critical thinking

It seems you have misread my post.

I don't think those who disagree with me suspend critical thinking.

I clearly stated that I think agreeing with Offit's 10,000 vaccines statement shows a suspension of critical thinking.

Do you think children could realistically be given 10,000 vaccines? Or do you think that is non-scientific nonsense?

Perhaps there should be a clinical trial - do you think it would be accepted by any ethics committee in the land?

i don't like needles.

(ignoring the fact that I give blood 3 times a year...)

when I was pg, they had to take bloods, and they couldn't find a vein, so they sent me off to this jab nurse (that's what they called her!) and she used a junior sized needle to take my bloods.

they didn't seem to hear me when i said that as i gave blood, i was pretty sure that i had veins and that they never had a problem.
junior needles are definitely more stingy than the mahoosive funnel needles they use at blood donating.

BC - the vote was 12 agains 1 (Offit), so yes.