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)

Beachcomber

"we know that there is viral synergy in combined vaccines" - You may know this, but Offit and the CDC clearly don't. Evidence please? This is clearly a major and significant point and I would genuinely appreciate pointers to research indicating Offit and the CDC are mistaken in whole or part.

"Do you think that stating children could easily receive 10,000 vaccines is..." - I will go for (d) a misreading of Offit's argument that indicates a crippling degree of confirmation bias on the part of the reader, to the point where they are only making sense to people sharing a very particular set of beliefs (and perhaps not even to all of them)

So no guarantees on further responses from me unless you can come up with evidence or reasonable constructions on text. I can only repeat that I really don't think you are doing your arguments any favours.

I'm very happy to engage if you can sort this out. Everyone else on this thread has proved themselves capable thus far - you are something of an outlier.

Gosh CatherinaJTV - how unreassuring.

arkestra - why are you getting so rude and personal with me? Your posts seem to be increasing filled with content that reads like a pompous teacher's report with Beachcomber being given jolly poor marks by arkestra. I'm not interested in what you think of me - I'm interested in what you think of Offit.

I'm interested in why you think people should read a book on vaccines written by a man who has made a fortune from working with both a large pharmaceutical company and being on a government committee which makes important decisions with regards to public health policy on vaccination. I'm interested in why you think we should read a book by a man who is on the board of a pharma funded lobby.

I'm interested in why you think we should listen to and trust a doctor who published the following;

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),39 2) generation of 10 ng/mL requires approximately 103 B-cells per mL,39 3) a single B-cell clone takes about 1 week to reach the 103 progeny B-cells required to secrete 10 ng/mL of antibody39 (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,39 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).

The above is not science. It is nonsense. It is made up.

And yet it was published in Paediatrics under the title of "Addressing Parents? Concerns: Do Multiple Vaccines Overwhelm or Weaken the Infant?s Immune System?".

Not only has the above got more in common with smoke and mirrors that actual science, it also is designed to influence how parents think about vaccine safety. Which comes under propaganda in my book.

So do you agree with Offit - do you agree with his theory that children can respond to 10,000 vaccines at one time? Do you think his theory would stand up to any actual physical tests? If not, then let's agree that a 'theory' that would maim and or kill anyone it was actually tested on, is not a very scientific theory. It is a bullshit theory.

Now, remind me, why should I read Offit's book? So that he can tell me that my children could in theory (but not in practice) be given thousands of vaccinations? That's a useful piece of information. NOT.

For those who are interested in Offit talking about his own quote, see here www.wired.com/magazine/2009/10/ff_waronscience/all/.

The relevant text is at the end of this message

For BC, this

But I repeat that I am happy to engage if we can find a common language.

I am sorry that you are finding this discussion so upsetting: "rude", "personal", "pompous", "propaganda", "main", "kill", "bullshit", etc.

I am not attacking you as a person, just pointing out that your arguments are not bourne out by either a sensible construction of the texts to refer to, or by any research that verifies your points.

I've had others blow up at me on this thread but then later we seem to manage to talk. Hopefully that will happen with us too.

All I can say is it will help if you assume good faith on the part of the people you are talking to. I do believe you are sincere. I don't think you reckon I am, and maybe that's the problem at this stage. But I don't think that's a problem I can do anything about.

Text below:

A while back, Offit was asked to help put together a reference text on vaccines. Specifically, his colleagues wanted him to write a chapter that assessed the capacity of the human immune system. It was a hypothetical exercise: What was the maximum number of vaccines that a person could handle? The point was to arm doctors with information that could reassure parents. Offit set out to determine two factors: how many B cells, which make antibodies, a person has in a milliliter of blood and how many different epitopes, the part of a bacterium or virus that is recognized by the immune system, there are in a vaccine. Then, he came up with a rough estimate: a person could handle 100,000 vaccines ? or up to 10,000 vaccines at once. Currently the most vaccines children receive at any one time is five.

He also published his findings in Pediatrics. Soon, the number was attached to Offit like a scarlet letter. ?The 100,000 number makes me sound like a madman. Because that?s the image: 100,000 shots sticking out of you. It?s an awful image,? Offit says. ?Many people ? including people who are on my side ? have criticized me for that. But I was naive. In that article, I was being asked the question and that is the answer to the question.?

I had whooping cough as an adult, it wasn't great but not bad enough to stop me going to work after I wasn't contagious. Tough...I should have paid to have a booster but I didn't bother to look into the possibility. That's life.

Nickel

Nope. It's always the dtp.
Even if thy tell you it's just a tetanus (as they told DH when he asked) it is the dtp.

arkestra - why are you not answering the direct questions I have asked you?

Do you agree with Offit's theory?

If Offit is so 'naive' a scientist and doctor as to publish such a silly made up piece of nonsense and use it to influence parental decisions on vaccine safety, do you think he is also too 'naive' to be trusted with serious medical issues which happen in real life to real people?

The article I link to from him was designed to address parental fears about the increasingly heavy vaccine schedule in the US. This vaccine schedule has never been tested for safety. And parents are, rightly, concerned about that. They have a right to proper answers to their concerns - not smoke and mirrors nonsense about 'theoretical' vaccines.

The fact is that Offit has no idea how many vaccines any individual child may or may not be given. His 'theory' is dangerous nonsense. Yes, it does make him sound like a madman - or like a pharma lobbyist who is comparing apples with oranges and thinking that parents are too stupid to notice. Neither of which make me want to read his book or trust his views on the lucrative (for him anyway) business of vaccines.

If he didn't spout stupid 'theoretical' nonsense, wasn't on the board of a pharma lobby and hadn't made a fortune from inventing a vaccine I might be more inclined to read his advice on vaccine safety. As it is he has too many conflicts of interest to be considered anything close to impartial.

'if thy' ?

Verily, I meant 'if they'

I would probably prefer DD to have tetanus but no, only available as a combined vaccine. Another pain in the ass.

Why not just answer the questions I have asked you about Offit, his declarations (or lack of) his conflicts of interests, and his theory about paediatric response to multiple vaccination rather than post silly links to Humpty Dumpty and post faux concern about me being 'upset'.

You are the one recommending his book after all.

shit, that's bad.

i would class tetanus as an important one, if you were to choose any at all.

BC - I can only point you to my previous answers.

If you feel I am not addressing a specific one of your questions it's because I think you are (to quote Paul Dirac) "not even wrong".

I am confident that someone without your burden of cognitive dissonance will conclude I've given your questions a fair hearing. I am either answering them directly where I can, or explaining where why I think the question is nonsensical or irrelevant. I can't do more. Sorry.

arkestra your above posts breaks MN Talk Guidelines as you are engaging in personal attack.

I'm in two minds whether to report you or to leave it to stand.

I have asked you a straightforward direct question "Do you agree with Offit's theory?" more than once. You have posted quite a lot of text but I cannot see a clear direct answer to this question. (You know, along the lines of 'yes I do' or 'no I don't' )

I have asked you other straightforward direct questions such as whether you think his theory would stand up to physical testing and whether ethical clearance would be awarded for such a study. I cannot see a clear direct answer to these questions either.

I have asked you if you think his theory is scientific, whether it is propaganda, etc. The only answers I can see are your personal opinion of me (irrelevant and against MN Guidelines) and a quote from Offit himself who winningly describes himself as 'naive'.

Oh well, I'm losing interest in your opinion of Offit (subject of this thread which you started) what with having to wade through snarky personal attacks and follow rude and immature links (that are personal attacks).

BC - Absolutely, please do report me if you feel I am breaking MN guidelines. I can only repeat that I have already addressed all your questions elsewhere in this thread in direct responses to you.

You don't like the answers. I think this is because I am refusing to accept some of your preconceptions and as a result causing you a great deal of frustration. But I still think you are sincere and there is the possibility for dialogue. Probably not on this thread.

A viewer of this dialogue who has no axe to grind will not get a positive impression of either of us, perhaps, but I'm doing my best to stay polite. It would not cross my mind to report you and attempt to censor you however many names you call me. I think it's better if the statements remain on view for all to see.

I am happy for what I have written and for what you have written to remain on view. You can ask for my comments to be removed if you want but I don't think it will make you come across any better.

I think I am done talking with you on this thread though. If you are angry / upset enough to try and get my comments banned then there's clearly no way we'll get any dialogue going.

BeachComber - i don't see how her reply was a personal attack.

I am confident that someone without your burden of cognitive dissonance will conclude I've given your questions a fair hearing.

This is a personal attack. Referring to someone has having a 'burden of cognitive dissonance' is a personal comment on the poster's character and mental state.

The OP has twice now made comments about me being 'upset' - which is also a personal comment (although I don't consider it an attack) and can be a sneaky way of implying that a person is overly emotional/not rational (which is a borderline personal attack).

I've been on contentious MN threads long enough to have seen this sort of thing many a time.

The MN Talk Guidelines exist for a reason - mainly so that the board can function relatively smoothly and that discussions remain interesting rather than descending into rudeness and insult.

MNHQ ask us to report posts which break the Guidelines as they cannot be everywhere and they depend on forum users to use the report facility.

The OP's comment that I must be angry/upset if I am considering adhering to forum rules on personal attacks and reports thereof, misses the point and is yet another personal comment (as is the statement that were I to follow rules and report personal attacks "it will not make me come across any better").

Don't worry OP - I'm no delicate flower, I just agree with MNHQ that discussions are generally more interesting and fruitful when they stay on topic rather than posters commenting on each other. Having said that I don't see why I should have to put up with you breaking forum rules and making comments on my mental and emotional state - this is not the ethos of MN nor is it robust and fruitful discourse.

Anyway. Moving on to more interesting and on topic subjects than what Arkestra Thinks Of Beachcomber - here is a link to an interesting timeline, commentary and overview of DTP vaccination's links to neurological damage set within the historical context of vaccine manufacturing and licensing. Not only that but it is also a rebuttal of a piece written by our pal Offit.

"Paul Offit attempts to rewrite history when he argues that the DPT vaccine does not cause brain inflammation and permanent brain injury in some children. Two large studies conducted in the United States and Britain, in which the children studied were enrolled prior to vaccination, demonstrated otherwise. The 1981 UCLA/FDA study published in Pediatrics compared DPT to DT vaccine and found that 1 in 875 DPT shots is followed within 48 hours by either a convulsion or collapse/shock episode. The case- controlled 1981 British National Childhood Encephalopathy Study found that the risk of brain inflammation within seven days of DPT vaccination is 1 in 110,000 DPT shots, with permanent brain damage occurring in 1 in 310,000 DPT shots. A re-analysis of the British study was validated in 1994 by the Institute of Medicine. Offit is entitled to his own opinion but not to his own facts. We have only ourselves to blame when we believe everything he says." - Barbara Loe Fisher, Boston Globe

Nicklebabe, Pagwatch

Agreed that not having a contingency plan to allow for single-dose Tetanus seems very odd to me.

Surely there will be some people for which the combined vaccination is contra-indicated?

What do they do?

I totally get why combined vaccinations are great but forcing absolutely everything down that line seems overly-prescriptive.

It's not like everyone wanting a single dose is being a numpty. A close family member having a severe reaction to DTP would give me the willies even if the Green Book says such things should be disregarded.

Obviously I'm pretty pro-orthodoxy on medicine but this just doesn't give me a good feeling.

I wonder if single-shot tetanus is available but just not publically acknowledged in the formal strategy. But that would be really weird too.

Unless there is some reason why you never ever ever get what orthodox medicine would regard as a contra-indication on the combined vaccine.

Which seems unlikely on the face of it to me?

BC - please report me if that is what you want to do.

Cognitive dissonance is nothing to do with character or mental stability or anything of that sort.

It refers to the discomfort felt by people trying to integrate conflicting ideas into a strongly-held existing belief system. It can make people very uneasy.

It's a necessary part of changing your mind in any non-trivial manner and so it's not actually a mental state to avoid.

As I have repeatedly said on this thread I think your motives are sincere but that your beliefs are incorrect.

I don't want you going around saying that I am making personal attacks on you without following through with consistent actions.

So please either ask for the comment pulled if it is bothering you, or let it go and talk about the issues instead.

I don't think saying that someone has congnitive dissonance is in any way a personal attack.

But if MN disagree then it's their call at the end of the day.

I know. I probably would want DD to have tetanus but I can't get it on its own and i can't risk the dp. So the alternative for us is she doesn't have it.
Stupid eh.

"I am confident that someone without your burden of cognitive dissonance will conclude I've given your questions a fair hearing.

This is a personal attack. Referring to someone has having a 'burden of cognitive dissonance' is a personal comment on the poster's character and mental state. "

but she's implied by her wording that you have the burden, and that someone who doesn't have that burden would struggle to understand.

But as front Pointed out, often the decision not to vaccinate is made by the parent rather than the medical professional, on the basis of their knowledge about their individual circumstances.

When I told my GP why I could not give my baby the DTP, she looked very confused. Not only had she not heard that the DTP could cause my DB's terminal illness, she'd never even HEARD of my DB's illness.

She certainly was in no place to advise that my baby shouldn't have the DTP, nor have it. The best she could do was say 'It's probably alright'. She wasn't prepared to refer us to any experts to clarify that this was or wasn't the case, though she accepts why we might want to refuse it and respects that.

So I refrained from giving my baby the DTP. And it wasn't on medical advice. I had the DTP after all and I'm okay right? NO. I didn't want to risk it.

So, those who are choosing not to vaccinate, have reasons, and they are nowhere near as simply as being scared by irresponsible journalism.

Should the GP have referred my baby for extensive testing, and a meeting with the expert in my DB's rare disease? Should they spend more money generally, identifying those children for whom a particular vaccination is likely to cause issues?

Well, yes, they probably should. But there is very little of this research being done, because firstly who will fund it?, and secondly any agreement to funding would raise doubts about the efficacy or safety of those vaccinations and undermine the vaccination programme.

Incidently, my baby has now had his DTP, because he has just turned one and taking his first steps and we do an awful lot of camping which is a risk for him not being protected by the tetanus. He has also slightly reduced his manic breastfeeding (which can interfere with some vaccinations from 'taking' properly coz of the mothers anti-bodies).

It 'felt' like the right thing to do at that time, and that was a scientific as it got, though I like to think there was some thought and consideration gone into it. After my encounter with my GP I had realised that she'd be no wiser than me about whether I was making the right decision.

and i think you're being obtuse just for the sake of argument

not you Starlight

I think the tetanus single-jab thing is worth a thread all to itself. Best if I don't start it though

Why just the tetanus though. Why not mumps? Why not all jabs offered as singles?

Starlight: sure, why not? Sounds fair enough to me. Even if we started with tetanus it would broaden out straight away anyway.

I don't think they should be offered as a single jab.

Because I would be worried that a lot of people would choose the single jabs, thus resulting in the poor child having to be stuck 13 times for the first course and then repeated for all the boosters.
That's the joy of combination.

But I do think they should be there as an option once a parent states "no, I do not want that one"

say: dialogue goes:
GP: here's the list of all the vaccines in this jab
Parent: I don't want my child to have pertussis because of family history
GP: right, well, then we will give mumps and tetanus, but not the combination one
parent: lovely , thank you , it's good to know that she will have at least the jabs she needs

but it won't be advertised as being available - only on a case by case basis.