Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

General health

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

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:
BeCool · 03/09/2013 16:37

HRWT - bu wanted to say my RUBELLA vaccination wore off. I was immune for PG1, but when I was tested during PG2 I was no longer immune to rubella.

There were outbreaks of rubella local to me at the time, due to so many children not being vaccinated.

My beautiful 2nd DD could have been born with congenital defects had I contracted rubella too.

It was a horrible time.

I could have been privately tested prior to getting PG, but really I wasn't even aware I could lose the immunity.

StarlightMcKenzie · 03/09/2013 16:37

See, I want DS to be protected from mumps when he is going through puberty.

The current MMR schedule doesn't guarantee immunity then for either rubella or mumps, so we are postponing it until he is around 9yrs.

In the meantime he is at risk of measles because if I were to give him the measles single, he'd have to take the risk a-bloody-gain and have over her lifetime more than the recommended dose as you can't get the mumps without it.

It is measles I am worried about. But I cannot jab him, even with a paid for single because I want him to be protected from mumps when it matters.

Similar-ish story for my dd.

Beachcomber · 03/09/2013 16:39

I'm perfectly aware of what cognitive dissonance is. To post that someone has a 'burden of cognitive dissonance' that affects how they draw conclusions about an MN discussion (and finds those conclusions wanting) is absolutely a personal attack as it is a comment on a person's mental state.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

"Cognitive dissonance is the distressing mental state that people feel when they "find themselves doing things that don't fit with what they know, or having opinions that do not fit with other opinions they hold."

"cognitive dissonance is the discomfort experienced when simultaneously holding two or more conflicting cognitions: ideas, beliefs, values or emotional reactions. In a state of dissonance, people may sometimes feel "disequilibrium": frustration, hunger, dread, guilt, anger, embarrassment, anxiety, etc"

"cog·ni·tive dis·so·nance

/ˈkägnətiv/
Noun
The state of having inconsistent thoughts, beliefs, or attitudes, esp. as relating to behavioural decisions and attitude change."

nickelbabe · 03/09/2013 16:44

please report the posts then , BC rather than clogging up a really interesting discussion with your complaint.
that's what MN guidelines ask you to do.

Crumbledwalnuts · 03/09/2013 17:25

I support Beachcomber in this. Arkestra, you didn't answer her questions; I'm interested in the answers too.

CatherinaJTV · 03/09/2013 17:41

surely the mention of Barbara Loe Fisher as a relevant source must also invoke Scopie's law? She sued Offit and her law suit was dismissed. I am not surprised she doesn't like him, but her personal pride really doesn't constitute evidence. Are you not embarrassed by the "quality" of people on "your" side?

Crumbledwalnuts · 03/09/2013 17:43

Perhaps Arkestra disagrees with you: she relies only on the cogency of an argument and nothing else.

Crumbledwalnuts · 03/09/2013 17:46

It might actually be quite hard for some people to rely on the cogency of an argument, when the normal mode of operation is defamation and insults. But it's nice to try.

Beachcomber · 03/09/2013 17:54

CatherinaJTV - do you disagree with Barbara Loe Fisher's timeline?

Do you disagree with her statement on DTP vaccines?

Do you contest that the IOM published a report stating "the balance of evidence is consistent with a causal relation between DPT and the forms of chronic nervous system dysfunction in the NCES in those children who experience a serious acute neurological illness within 7 days after receiving DPT vaccine" ?

Do you think Offit is right that there is no issue with DTP and neurological damage and that the IOM is wrong?

Of all the vaccines which have been routinely used by children in the past century, the brain damaging effects of the pertussis (whooping cough) portion of DPT vaccine is among the most well documented in the scientific literature. Created in 1912, the crude pertussis vaccine basically consisted of B. pertussis bacteria killed with heat, preserved with formaldehyde, and injected into children. In the early 1940's, aluminum was added as an adjuvant and later the mercury preservative, thimerosal, was added when pertussis was combined with diphtheria and tetanus vaccines to create DPT. Pertussis vaccine was never studied in large clinical trials before being given to children in the first half of the 20th century or after it was combined into DPT and recommended for mass use by the American Academy of Pediatrics in 1947.

The pertussis vaccine's ability to kill was first signaled in 1933 when T. Madsen reported two babies died within minutes of vaccination. In 1947, Matthew Brody gave detailed descriptions of two cases involving brain damage and death after pertussis vaccination. But, it was the 1948 published case study by Byers and Moll that gave the strongest warning that children were suffering brain inflammation within 72 hours of pertussis vaccination and being left with various kinds of brain damage. Forty years later, the prospective UCLA/FDA study published in Pediatrics in 1981 comparing DT and DPT vaccines would find that 1 in 875 DPT shots is followed by either a convulsion or collapse shock episode within 48 hours of vaccination.

Biological mechanisms for pertussis vaccine induced brain damage center on pertussis toxin (PT), one of the most lethal toxins in nature. Pertussis toxin is a known neurotoxin, a reliable inducer of brain inflammation and brain damage, which is why it is used in lab animals to deliberately induce EAE (experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis). Pertussis toxin is implicated in brain inflammation caused by pertussis (whooping cough) complications as well as pertussis vaccine complications. Unfortunately, pertussis toxin is also thought to be responsible for stimulating immunity which is why it remains in DPT, DTaP and Tdap vaccines.. Other ingredients in DPT vaccine, which have been associated with neuroimmune dysfunction and may interact synergistically with pertussis toxin to cause shock, brain damage or death are: endotoxin, aluminum, and mercury.

After decades of reports in the medical literature that the pertussis portion of DPT vaccine was causing brain damage in some children, the large, case controlled National Childhood Encephalopathy Study was conducted in Britain and published in 1981. It confirmed a statistically significant association between pertussis vaccine or pertussis-containing vaccines (DPT) and acute brain inflammation leading to permanent brain damage. An NCES reanalysis 10 years later re-confirmed the finding. In 1994, the Institute of Medicine, National Academy of Sciences, published a report validating the conclusions of NCES, stating that " "the balance of evidence is consistent with a causal relation between DPT and the forms of chronic nervous system dysfunction in the NCES in those children who experience a serious acute neurological illness within 7 days after receiving DPT vaccine."

Beachcomber · 03/09/2013 17:58

I support Beachcomber in this. Arkestra, you didn't answer her questions; I'm interested in the answers too.

Cheers Crumbledwalnuts!

Arkestra perhaps you would also be good enough to tell me clearly why you posted this link and said it was 'for Beachcomber' .....

Crumbledwalnuts · 03/09/2013 18:09

Now that's a forceful argument and deserves more than hidden digs in response.

Crumbledwalnuts · 03/09/2013 18:10

Sorry I seem to have turned into a sort of football commentator on the thread! Must try harder.

arkestra · 03/09/2013 18:27

Crumbled: given the turn things have taken, I need to step back from dealing with BC on this thread. If you have a question re Offit or anything else I am happy to tackle it since we seem to be OK.

I genuinely feel BC is asking me the same questions again and again, and I can't seem to give them a response they find satisfactory, and don't know how to take it any further. It could be a personality clash, it could be all my fault, it hardly matters.

If I can't take things forward on my part after this go I will just quit the thread and stop wasting people's time - we already seem to be on orher topics now anyway - but I am willing to give it a go if you can face it. May be a while before I get back since kids evening shift starting but I will try.

OP posts:
Crumbledwalnuts · 03/09/2013 18:34

I'm sure Beachcomber won't mind engaging if you stop implying things about her mental condition. It's extremely unfair. She's asking you good questions, and it's open to you to say - I don't know, until two days ago I didn't even know there was another side to this, I need to get my head round all this new information. But instead of answering to imply she's got mental problems is terrible

I do have a question about Offit.

Do you agree with Offit's theory?

Beachcomber · 03/09/2013 18:37

Are you not embarrassed by the "quality" of people on "your" side?

Nope.

Fisher's work in 'A Shot In The Dark' has been used by the Institute of Medicine. If they are not 'embarrassed' to use her as a source, I don't see why I should be....

The book DPT: A Shot in the Dark by Coulter & Fisher was published by Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, documenting scientific evidence for DPT vaccine-induced brain and immune system dysfunction and included more than 100 new original case histories. The book would eventually be used by the Institute of Medicine as a reference for its 1991 report "Adverse Effects of Pertussis and Rubella Vaccines," which confirmed a causal relationship between DPT vaccine and acute encephalopathy.

[[http://books.google.fr/books?id=6v9qAAAAMAAJ&q=Fisher#search_anchor Adverse effects of pertussis and rubella vaccines:
a report of the Committee to Review the Adverse Consequences of Pertussis and Rubella Vaccines]]

StarlightMcKenzie · 03/09/2013 18:38

Erm, I didn't know I was on a 'side' (am I? Confused) and I'm pretty sure I'm not poor quality.

Crumbledwalnuts · 03/09/2013 18:39

Stellar quality actually (see what I did there?)

Crumbledwalnuts · 03/09/2013 18:40

In fact who does agree with Offit's theory? Catherina? JotheHot? Nickelbabe? Do you all agree or not agree. Interesting to see how much of a foothold this kind of thing has.

arkestra · 03/09/2013 19:03

Hi crumbled. Total crossed wires. I refer to myself as experiencing cognitive dissonance on a regular occasion. It slows you down while it us happening but it's a necessary part of forming new ideas. In an ideal world my preference would be to have something like that going on all the time. I absolutely did not mean to imply that BC has a mental condition Shock seriously I am actually quite taken aback at that inference. I think BC is as sane and mentally stable as I am and I truly apologise that I came across any differently. I just meant they seemed to be having trouble processing what I was saying because it didn't fit their mental categories. Lazy shorthand on my part.

In short, just because BC's beliefs seem seriously far away from mine does not mean I think they are bonkers.

Re the Offit theory are we talking about "10,000 vaccines", the DTP stuff, or something else? Happy to try and give my honest take on things and avoid snark.

OP posts:
Beachcomber · 03/09/2013 19:07

Although I don't really consider things in terms of 'sides'.

Fisher is an advocate for informed consent and speaks out a lot on safety - apparently the IOM don't see things in terms of 'sides' either as they (and Congress) listen to her. Which is good Smile

I think Offit's 10,000 vaccines paper is embarrassing - however I don't think it embarrasses anyone other than himself (other than perhaps whoever from Paediatrics thought it was a good idea to publish it!)

arkestra · 03/09/2013 19:32

Crumbled; I'll assume it's DTP. Claim being that Offit is denying well-attested negative vaccine reactions? I will have to read the original research but promise that I will do so. For something like this you won't get an immediate response but it sounds interesting.

OP posts:
Crumbledwalnuts · 03/09/2013 19:36

Actually first and foremost, it was the claim of ten thousand vaccines in one go. Denial of vaccine reactions is, sadly, par for the course it seems.

CatherinaJTV · 03/09/2013 20:14

BC - an NVIC quote? You are really reaching here...

I am going with Offit and I do agree with his statement about what the infant immune system can theoretically handle.

arkestra · 03/09/2013 20:17

I have tackled this in dribs and drabs but will do my best to put everything together in one go. You will I am sure disagree with some aspects but it is my honest opinion.

The meaning behind the quote is that the body has a theoretical (in a very back-of-the-envelope fashion) capacity to handle up to 100,000 antigens at once. This is the equivalent of 10,000 vaccines.

The intention is to make it clear just how much headroom there is when you administer 5 vaccines at once (the max under the US schedule), each with 10 antigen = 50 antigens in all.

Two comments from me:

  1. The original quote is a complete hostage to fortune. If Offit had said something more along the lines of "the body can handle hundreds more antigens than even 5 vaccines together" this would have been far better. I think Offit is of the same mind (see his quote below).

  2. The back-of-the-envelope assumption relies on vaccines not interacting. CDC position (and Offit) are very firm that this interaction is not a practical issue. Obviously if interaction was a practical issue the assumptions on headroom would completely fall apart. I did ask BC and general people for any evidence on vaccine interaction but no response so far. Interested to read any if people have it.

Need to split again now - anyway I honestly hope this helps.

Here is Offit talkng about the quote:

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.?

OP posts:
Beachcomber · 03/09/2013 20:46

I am going with Offit and I do agree with his statement about what the infant immune system can theoretically handle.

CatherinaJTV - do you think that Offit's theory can be tested? I mean physically, clinically tested with actual vaccines on actual children? If it cannot (and I don't believe it would get ethical clearance) then what is the point of such a theory? It is purely hypothetical and has no bearing on real live vaccine safety and science in real live children. It is therefore empty rhetoric, unscientific and utterly irrelevant to the current vaccine schedule and or the safety of combined vaccines and the safety of administering several vaccines in one visit.

So what exactly is there to agree with? Confused

I'm really interested in your response to the direct straightforward questions I asked you upthread about Barbara Loe Fisher (and the IOM) Do you think the Institute of Medicine is wrong for referencing her book, etc?