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)

LaVolcan: happy to try and stay focused on pertussis although its hard to stay on it as people will tend to broaden out to vaccines in general.

Think Pertussis is actually a v good example of vaccine scares, etc. It is used as a canonical example in med school. Would be very interesting if that teaching is based on a lie.

Bath and bedtime for kids soon so won't be able to come straight back on points. Does not mean I am hiding! Very interested in anything you have demonstrating UK Pertussis damage in 80's because I totally have it filed under "baseless scare" in my head at the mo...

Would be very interesting if that teaching is based on a lie.

It would not necessarily be a lie: scientific knowledge is advancing all the time, it could just be an understanding which has subsequently been disproved or found incomplete.

Your post raises some interesting points and goes to reinforce the fact that more study is required which hopefully in the future will lead to more answers.

Immunity from vaccination wanes, not decades after vaccination but some studies estimate this to be between 4 and 12 years after vaccination so a huge proportion of the population may well have diminished or non existent immunity not just those who have chosen not to vaccinate. In unvaccinated populations, naturally acquired immunity in chokdhood boosted by circulating pertussis affords protection to the elderly at risk groups and to newborns as passed on by their mothers.

The current vaccination and booster schedule does not as yet provide this protection.

actually, the overall pertussis situation is still WAY better than without pertussis vaccination (although a better vaccine would be desirable)...

UK source for groundlessness of Pertussis vaccine scare: www.dur.ac.uk/anthropology.journal/vol13/iss1/casiday/casiday.html

Section 4

Arkestra - I suspect you aren't responding because the answer is not a good one for you. Anyone who lectures others about herd immunity without getting themselves regularly tested is a hypocrite. Anyone who is abusive and accuses others of the same, well, likewise.

Catherina: Was Andrew Wakefield wrong when he said more research was needed into a possible link between MMR and autistic disorders? THe medical authorities didn't, for an enormous amount of such research was carried out. Unfortunately the wrong kind, and they didn't bother looking at the children, but they did think it was research worth doing. Do you think he and his team were wrong in identifying a new disorder, autistic enterocolitis? The FDA doesn't, for it's given the go ahead to a drug to tackle this new phenomenon. So I guess someone, at least, is "profiteering".

This thread has broadened because the OP chose to direct it to "people unsure about vaccination".

Wakefield's research was unethical though. He broke many, many rules to get the result he wanted. Many shady things went on. Hence him being struck off!

Englishteacher: I'm afraid the reinstatement of Prof Walker-Smith undermines much of the evidence against Andrew Wakefield (who was not wrong about the new disorder, and was not wrong in suggesting more research would be a good idea).

Ok dead thread I guess. But the point re that reference I linked to re the UK Pertussis vaccine scare is that people in academic mainstream don't ask "was the scare well-founded?" in articles nowadays.

They are so far beyond thinking that, that they instead ask "why on Earth did anyone think the scare was well-founded?".

That's why that article is in an anthropology journal and not The Lancet.

That's what I thought was the case. But if there is new evidence to the contrary then many people would be very interested in it!

Crumbled: I am responding to all others on this thread with perfect civility, because they are capable of dialogue. For you, alas, only doughnuts. C'est la vie. Eat well.

arkestra, if it helps at least your thread served to recommend a book that looks both informative and interesting - will definitely read, so thanks for that.

Thanks Poppy!

I will honour my promise & get & read the Wakefield book - second-hand so he gets no royalties

:-)
I'm sure it will be very well written. He has a very convincing manner.

Ok time to get dinner - 'night all

I'll read that too arkestra, thanks. Looks v interesting.

I'll pass on Wakefield, though. Disinclined to put more money in that charlatan's pocket.

x-posted! Actually 2nd hand is a v good idea if you're committed to reading it.

Arkestra - you were responding until I asked you a difficult question, which someone else has also asked, and which you haven't answered still.

Crumbled: I regret to say that I have not been very responsive to you - have in fact been pretty dismissive of you - all the way through this thread and it is unlikely I will change my attitude now.

I should at least try to explain why I am treating you like this.

All I can offer really is the advice that kicking off your interaction with someone by taking the mickey out of their having Pertussis will rarely form the basis for a civilised subsequent discussion.

I hope you never get a solid dose yourself. I actually got my dose a while ago, early 2012. Full recovery took a while. I pulled a lot of rib muscles, had a lot of unplanned windpipe closures, couldn't walk more than a couple of blocks for months and thought I might not be able to sing again ever (I enjoy singing in choirs but couldn't sing without coughing for a year afterwards - a permanently screwed singing voice is one of the nice occasional side effects of Pertussis).

This is all a bit "First World Problem" and nothing compared to many other far more unpleasant things one might get, but it is the only time I have ever been really ill as an adult - and frankly it sucked.

Now even to this post you may come back with a mocking reply - but I am sure that if you saw someone in real life have a crap time like that you would be supportive and helpful. You strike me as someone who is passionate about what is right.

I think you're wrong but I don't think you're bad. Given the way this thread has gone you're not likely to listen to any advice from me but here goes anyway - you're more likely to win converts if you accord those you argue with the same courtesy as to their moral quality. Assume good faith. If the only reason you can think of as to why people disagree with you is that they are morally deficient, this should be a warning sign that you're missing something.

Happy to engage on other threads without bearing any grudges but you really have not put your best foot forward with me on this occasion.

Do you get your immunity checked regularly to MMR now that you know it can wane? Will you get it checked now?

As soon as the people charged with spending public money on herd immunity - people whose entire working lives revolve around making the right trade-offs in this respect - recommend booster shots or immunity checking, I'll be in there like a shot.

But they currently recommend neither so I am stuck with hoping that people at least immunise their children in line with current guidelines.

Or was there some announcement I missed?

Do you think that we should all be getting our immunity checked regularly? Sounds kind of sub-optimal as a health policy. If the point you are trying to make is that immunity is not an all-or-nothing affair, I think we are on the same page in that respect at least.

But you know that immunity wanes. You are taking a chance with the herd. Why should children be immunised for your sake when you can't be bothered to get your immunity checked?

Do I think we should all be getting our immunity checked regularly? No, but I don't lecture people about herd immunity.

A sub-optimal health policy is one which damages children unnecessarily That sounds very sub optimal to me.

No, that is not the point I am making.

You are aware of how cost benefit analysis works, crumbledwalnuts?

Immunisation of children is effective in creating herd immunity. Routinely checking the immunity status of vaccinated adults, not so much. It'd probably be cheaper, rather than bothering with testing immunity, just to re-jab us all every 10 years to be on the safe side, but still wasteful.

You could make a case for some adults, eg HCPs, teachers of young children, to have their immunity checked every few years, but it's not a sensible priority for finite resources to be expended on routinely checking the immunity of adults in the general population.

But of course you know that. Straw man argument.

I'm afraid if the cost is not to you then you probably find it easier to dismiss, Ravenak.

If you want to lecture people about herd immunity, make sure you are immune. It doesn't have to be a policy. It can be something an individual does who feels strongly about herd immunity. If you don't, fine. If you feel strongly enough to lecture people about it, and describe those who don't vaccinate as irresponsible, you'd better make sure you're up to date, checked, and immune, along with your children.

You are aware of what a straw man is, aren't you?

I think you're wrong, crumbledwalnuts. I don't have to have my immunity checked to argue for herd immunity.

I do believe strongly that herd immunity is a good thing. It is relatively cheap, efficient & protects those who cannot be vaccinated or for whom vaccination has not been effective.

Routine checking of immunity in low-risk adults would be profligate IMO.

I'm not lecturing you on herd immunity - I'd agree with previous posters that you are probably a lost cause.

I'm pointing out that you can't argue coherently from 'some people say that herd immunity is a good thing' to 'therefore, all vaccinated persons who argue this should be routinely checked for continued immunity' without looking at a few variables.

Things like: what would it cost to regularly test most of the population? what percentage of immunised people lose their immunity? is it cheaper just to get everyone to have boosters every few years, then? would that be harmful to them? given lifestyle changes from toddler to adult, are the people we're checking actually at the same risk of contracting these illnesses as they were as infants? are they still as likely to transmit them widely?

Yes, I do know a straw man when I see one. Short of a you trying a NC to crumbledworzel, I don't think I'm likely to see such a clear example again in a hurry.