Dear parents, you are being lied to...

[Rosewind]

Hi all,
I very much enjoyed this piece by Jennifer Raff over at Violent Metaphors:
violentmetaphors.com/2014/03/25/parents-you-are-being-lied-to/

It's very clearly written with lots and lots of links to back up the points she makes. It has sparked quite a bit of discussion in the comments section, and her follow up piece is mainly comments based.

Anyone here got any thoughts?
Cheers,
Rosewind

Bumbleymummy,
"1) I haven't heard anyone say that measles isn't a deadly disease. Most people recognise that it can be deadly but that death is more likely in certain circumstances. "More than 95%) of measles deaths occur in countries with low per capita incomes and weak health infrastructures." (WHO) One of the main risk factors for complications of measles is Vitamin A deficiency."

I think you clearly read different anti-vaccination webpages than I do, for example:
"Measles outbreaks in unimmunised people tend to be mild in those who do not have underlying medical conditions"
Your quote from the WHO demonstrates one thing for certain; a surefire way to increase your chances of catching and dying from this potentially deadly and often very serious disease is to not be vaccinated. If you get a lot of unvaccinated individuals for reasons other than weak health infrastructure, let's say due to an unfounded health-scare you will still get outbreaks where people end up hospitalized and dying. And I know several people with underlying medical conditions, some of whom cannot be vaccinated. I personally regard their lives as valuable, not as somehow unimportant just because they have "underlying medical conditions".
Cheers,
Rosewind

Bumbleymummy,
"2) Chickenpox isn't usually 'that big of deal'. Yes, there is a risk of serious complications but for the vast majority of children, it is a self-limiting illness. We do not vaccinate against it in the UK (US article?) and there are issues to consider with the vaccination as well eg. waning immunity that can potentially leave adults vulnerable when they are at a greater risk of complications."
We don't vaccinate against chicken pox here in the UK, no. The JCVI has considered the vaccine and currently it isn't included in our schedule. One major reason for this is the economic argument for the vaccine isn't strong, it isn't "cost effective". Which somewhat contradicts the good old anti-vaccine meme about it all being about the pharmaceutical companies and doctors making money. The experience in countries such as the US seem to indicate that the concerns about the vaccine, such as rates of shingles rising due to vaccination, seem unfounded.
When considering the vaccine I was concerned about rates of shingles increasing in adults, due to lack of re-exposure. Getting rid of chicken pox, but at the cost of increased shingles doesnt seem like a good deal. Here are a couple of papers, showing the rates of shingles in the US appear unrelated to vaccination (though they have undeniably increased):
annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=1784289
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21217180
This increase obviously makes any reasonable person wonder whether or not vaccination is responsible (even if the studies didn't find any link), but studies of countries without a chicken pox vaccination programme show a similar pattern:
jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/197/Supplement_2/S224.long
So it looks like something is causing shingles rates to go up, but its not vaccination.

So we appear to be back to the mainly economic argument. The vaccine isn't going show "cost effectiveness" for a long time. However the most recent minutes from the JCVI (Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation) indicate to me that they've been doing quite a lot of thinking about what, exactly, makes a vaccine worthwhile. And have considered that the costs associated with disease aren't perhaps always the immediately obvious ones.
The latest minutes are here, and well worth a read:
www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/294834/JCVI.zip

We have now introduced the shingles vaccine here in the UK:
www.nhs.uk/Conditions/vaccinations/Pages/shingles-vaccination.aspx

This may, or may not, have a bearing on future decisions about the chickenpox vaccine here in the UK. I know of a couple of children who have died from complications following chickenpox. It is often very unpleasant and leaves permanent scars. Both my children have had it, if they hadn't I would consider vaccinating.
Cheers,
Rosewind

Bumbleymummy,

“3) Yes, flu can be dangerous. I think everyone is aware of that. We do not all get vaccinated against it though because for the vast majority of people it is not dangerous. It is why the the vaccine is usually only offered to at risk groups and quite a large proportion of them don't take up the offer of it. In any case, the flu vaccination isn't that effective. 61% for this year's vaccine in the US and 51%/49% in the UK.”

Yes, flu can be very dangerous. Sadly the greatest danger can be to those for whom vaccination is less effective. One of the recent additions to the UK schedule is the nasal vaccination for small children (aged two and three), who act as brilliant vectors for this potentially serious illness. Again, the JCVI discussion around the rationale for introducing this vaccination, and possibly extending the programme to include older children, is an interesting read:
www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/224775/JCVI-statement-on-the-annual-influenza-vaccination-programme-25-July-2012.pdf
this summary is good:
www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/225360/Children_s_flu_letter_2013.pdf

Flu, as you say, can be dangerous. It can kill vulnerable people. One way to prevent such deaths is to vaccinate healthy individuals to protect the vulnerable. This is always going to involve a lot of balancing risks and benefits and (since we don’t live in an ideal world) cost-benefit calculations. The JCVI works this sort of cost benefit thing out on a large scale, my personal calculation involves the time, and hassle of booking a jab at Boots and the minimal monetary cost versus the possible two weeks plus I “lost” last time I had flu (obviously factoring in the probable effectiveness of the vaccine and possible side effects etc.). I’ll be getting the jab.
Cheers,
Rosewind?

Bumbleymummy,
Whooping cough is not as bad for kids/adults to get in comparison to babies. Babies under the age of 6 months old are at greatest risk. People can not use the 'herd immunity' argument for this one either because immunity from the pertussis vaccine wanes. “
Well, yes. Whooping cough is much, much worse for the very young. For newborn babies, for instance. Like the 14 babies under the age of three months who died of whooping cough, here in the UK in 2012:
www.hpa.org.uk/NewsCentre/NationalPressReleases/2013PressReleases/130201Casesofwhoopingcoughdeclineafterrecordnumbers/

Which is one of the reasons the whooping cough vaccine was introduced for pregnant women. Thus providing the new born babies with passive immunity against this potentially fatal disease. The results so far indicate this has been very successful, as is being discussed on another thread.
Cheers,
Rosewind?

Bumbleymummy,
"5) From the link 'Tetanus, measles and pertussis are the main vaccine-preventable killers in the first years of life.' As I pointed out earlier, 95% of measles deaths occur in countries with low per capita incomes and weak health infrastructures.”
And as I will point out a major issue with countries with low per capita incomes and weak health infrastructures is that they lack vaccination schedules like the ones we are fortunate enough to have in the UK. If you stop vaccinating against diseases like measles outbreaks will and do occur. The outbreaks happen where vaccination levels fall, the recent one in Wales appears to be have been caused by a health scare involving the MMR. People developed measles and were very, very ill. This is a serious disease, even in our high per capita society with its strong health infrastructure. And there is no false dilemma here, between providing clean water OR vaccination. In the best possible world we would ensure that every individual has access to both clean water and vaccination. Vaccination being second only to provision of clean water in reducing the burden of infectious disease. As the WHO says:
“Vaccination has greatly reduced the burden of infectious diseases. Only clean water, also considered to be a basic human right, performs better.1 Paradoxically, a vociferous antivaccine lobby thrives today in spite of the undeniable success of vaccination programmes against formerly fearsome diseases that are now rare in developed countries...”
It’s not "either or", we should work to ensure everyone has both.
Cheers,
Rosewind

Very interesting post Bumbley.

I know a child who was developing normally, saying "Juice" "Ball" and a few other words. She had a reaction to the MMR vaccine, lost her speech and is now severely autistic. I know the parents of two other children with similar stories (one is a friend of my sister, and I haven't met her myself). It is hard to disregard something like this even when you are aware of all the evidence.

Our children are all immunised, but we delayed the younger ones until they were well over 2.

Bumbleymummy,
“6) IME, when people talk about natural infection being 'better' they are usually talking about the fact that it typically confers lifelong immunity rather than having to rely on boosters...”
In my experience when people talk about natural infection being “better” they are generally talking out of their bottoms and conveniently forgetting the downsides of “natural infection” like serious illness, potential disability and even death.
Cheers,
Rosewind

Bumbleymummy,
"7) Some vaccines are tested more than others. Some vaccines are withdrawn due to safety concerns despite all that 'safety testing' eg MMRI. Vaccines are not safe for everyone and unfortunately we do not currently have a way of finding out who will react badly and who will not. With the move towards companion diagnostics for drug development, I would like to think that in the future we will move towards identifying potentially susceptible children prior to vaccination as well.”
Yes vaccines are tested. There will sometimes be safety concerns which are not flagged up during testing. This isn’t surprising, if a side-effect is only encountered very rarely it will be much more likely it is picked up by the systems we have in place to monitor vaccine safety. And if a concern is flagged then it is dealt with. I think this is great. Vaccines are of huge benefit to health, by preventing serious diseases. All effective medicines will come with an associated risk. With vaccines these risks are transparent, they are readily available. Where factors which were unknown later become known they are dealt with appropriately. Without the ability to see into the future it’s hard to see what else an be done? Developing tests for susceptibility to vaccine reaction? That’s great! Roll on the day when any child who might react to a vaccine can be identified, and given either an alternative vaccine or thus identified as unable to be vaccinated. In those latter cases they’ll need to rely on the protection of the individuals around them who can safely be vaccinated. Currently we don’t know why some children do react badly to vaccines (no one is denying that vaccine damage can and does occur), and the over all risk/benefit calculation has to be done on the evidence available. Which is that, in the absence genuine reasons (www.nhs.uk/Conditions/vaccinations/Pages/myths-truths-kids-vaccines.aspx), the benefits of vaccinations vastly outweigh the risks.
Cheers,
Rosewind

Same as you claraschu, and although we did decide to vaccinate our DC, after much soul searching, its not a decision we undertook lightly, and I would never be critical about parents who chose not to.

Rosewind, ""Measles outbreaks in unimmunised people tend to be mild in those who do not have underlying medical conditions"

RW, measles is typically uncomplicated in otherwise healthy people. The majority of people who contract measles survive with no ill effects. This does not mean that measles can't have complications or be deadly for some people. Your quote from an 'anti-vaccination' website does not say otherwise either.

My quote from the WHO points out that if you live in a developing country with low incomes and poor healthcare infrastructure then you are more likely to die from measles. Poor healthcare infrastructure does not just mean unavailability of vaccines, it also means less access to treatment in cases where complications occur. Complications which are more likely in those countries due to things like Vitamin A deficiency. No one has suggested that a life is less valuable because they are immune-compromised.

RE chickenpox, yes, there is an economic argument to consider. There is also the fact that the CP vaccine will require boosters to continue immunity throughout adulthood. People frequently use Japan as an example of a country where the vaccine protects for 20+ years. However, the vaccine coverage in Japan is low and circulating "wild" CP acts a booster. In countries with widespread coverage (such as the US), 'wild' CP is not circulating as well to boost immunity so they have had to introduce a booster. The CP vaccine is less effective in adults so you could be left vulnerable to the disease as an adult, when you are more likely to suffer complications.

Yes, I'm aware that the flu vaccine is being offered to children in the UK now to 'protect' the elderly (who already have a flu vaccine offered to them and who frequently don't take it up) As I pointed out, the flu vaccine is not particularly effective (

Bumbleymummy,
There is under reporting of vaccine reactions and those 'very rare cases' of severe reactions can still result in death or disability. It's not much fun if you or your child is one of those 'very rare cases'.”
I think you’ve mentioned this “under reporting of vaccine reactions” before. Do you have some statistics to back this up, so we can get an idea of how much of a problem this actually is? Do you have suggestions about how the situation can be improved? Obviously here in the UK we have the Yellow Card Scheme, which anyone can use to report a suspected side-effect.
A recent FOI request elected this information regarding vaccine damage compensation in the UK:
www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/37247/response/95692/attach/2/DE512527%20final%20reply.pdf

The above indicates that the numbers are not high, though clearly each case is a unique tragedy. But this must be balanced against the literally hundreds of thousands of individuals who were (during the same period) protected from the many diseases we vaccinate against. In the US they have VAERS, where any suspected side-effect can be reported (even if it involves turning green and going on the rampage). Again, no one denies that there are cases where children have adverse reactions to vaccines. But these are very, very rare. This fact is taken into account when the safety and effectiveness of vaccines is considered, and when the WHO says:
“Vaccination has greatly reduced the burden of infectious diseases. Only clean water, also considered to be a basic human right, performs better. Paradoxically, a vociferous antivaccine lobby thrives today in spite of the undeniable success of vaccination programmes against formerly fearsome diseases that are now rare in developed countries...”
Cheers,
Rosewind

RW, As I pointed out earlier, weak healthcare infrastructures do not just mean lack of vaccines. It means of lack of antibiotics in case of serious complications (Which are more likely in these countries anyway). Even things that would be considered 'less serious' complications such as dehydration are a much greater risk due to the lack of clean water/non availability of healthcare. Diarrhoea frequently kills in these countries yet it is no more than a minor inconvenience to most of us in the UK. I'm sorry but they just aren't comparable.

re the Wales epidemic. Some people were very ill, some people were not. The vast majority made a full recovery with no long term effects. There is no way that the outcome would have been the same in a developing country.

There are 'downsides' to vaccination too. Risk of reactions, waning immunity, relying on boosters which are less effective in adults etc. Plenty of people are capable of 'talking out of their bottoms' when it comes to vaccines too.

As mentioned on the other thread, RW, many people are not aware of the yellow card scheme and their first point of call is their doctor/other HCP who will frequently dismiss vaccine reactions as 'coincidences' and they will take it no further.

Do you realise how hard it is to get a Vaccine Damage Payment? For a start, if your child is under 2 years of age when they are 'damaged' you are not eligible. How convenient that the bulk of childhood vaccinations are carried out under 2 years of age.

Bumbleymummy,
Regarding measles:
“Between November 2012 and July 2013, a total of 1,202 cases of measles were reported in the outbreak, the largest seen in Wales since the introduction of the MMR (measles, mumps and rubella) vaccine. Of these, 88 people were admitted to hospital and one 25 year old man died.”

That’s 88 people admitted to hospital, in an outbreak which was due to a failure to vaccinate.
Yes, these diseases are more likely to have serious sequelae and to kill in poorer countries with poor healthcare. That’s pretty obvious. But they are still dangerous, even in countries with excellent healthcare. That’s why we vaccinate. There are risks associated with vaccination. No one here is saying that there aren’t. Those risks are, however, well researched and understood. They are studied, vaccine safety is monitored. And those risks are vastly outweighed by the benefits. Vaccines save millions of lives, and prevent serious illness and disability.
Cheers,
Rosewind

Bumbleymummy,
You keep saying how under-reported vaccine damage is, and how immediate doctors are to dismiss any reports or concerns. Do you have any evidence to support this claim, which I think is rather rude to doctors and certainly doesn't reflect the attitudes of the ones that I know, or is it merely a tenet of faith?
Cheers,
Rosewind

RW, some of the people who contracted measles had been vaccinated. Swine flu had a high hospitalisation rate but people recognised that for the majority it was uncomplicated (or completely asymptomatic in some cases).

As said before, it's difficult to accurately monitor safety when reactions are dismissed as 'coincidence' and not reported. Risks at an individual level are not particularly well researched although we seem to be moving in that direction with companion diagnostics for new drug development so perhaps we will make some progress in that area irt vaccination as well.

RW, yes, there is evidence of under reporting. I will have a look for an article for you shortly. Sadly, there are plenty of people on MN who are only too familiar with doctors being dismissive of vaccine reactions.

Just to say, under reporting of adverse reactions isn't exclusively a problem for vaccinations.

Bumbleymummy,
I’ve never applied for a vaccine damage payment, no. I’ve had a quick look at the form and eligibility bits:
www.gov.uk/vaccine-damage-payment/eligibility
www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/258896/VAD1A_1013.pdf
The bit about it not applying to under twos doesn’t immediately jump out at me, do you have a link?
Or are you thinking about this bit?
“Time limits on making a claim
You can only claim for a child once they are two years old.”
This is not the same as: “For a start, if your child is under 2 years of age when they are 'damaged' you are not eligible. “, is it now?
Cheers,
Rosewind
PS Is that a "no" then on the evidence relating to under-reporting? And yes I realise some people getting measles in Wales were vaccinated. We know vaccines are not 100% effective, which is one reason herd immunity is so important. The outbreak was caused by a failure to vaccinate.

Some publications for under reporting of adverse drug reactions:

Reasons for under reporting

"Medical specialty was the professional characteristic most closely associated with under-reporting in 76% of studies involving physicians. Other factors associated with under-reporting were ignorance (only severe ADRs need to be reported) in 95%; diffidence (fear of appearing ridiculous for reporting merely suspected ADRs) in 72%; lethargy (an amalgam of procrastination, lack of interest or time to find a report card, and other excuses) in 77%; indifference (the one case that an individual doctor might see could not contribute to medical knowledge) and insecurity (it is nearly impossible to determine whether or not a drug is responsible for a particular adverse reaction) in 67%; and complacency (only safe drugs are allowed on the market) in 47% of studies. While personal and professional factors display a weak influence, the knowledge and attitudes of health professionals appear to be strongly related with reporting in a high proportion of studies. "

The median under-reporting rate across the 37 studies was 94% (interquartile range 82–98%). Quite shocking really.

Apologies RW, it was worded badly,

"Age limits: The claimant must be at least two years old. If the person is now dead they must have lived to be at least two."

So you can't try to claim until your child is 2 years old. Most vaccines are given within the first few months of life. If your child is killed by a vaccine when they were under the age of 2 then you are not eligible.

"Is that a "no" then on the evidence relating to under-reporting?"

No, see above.

"The outbreak was caused by a failure to vaccinate." And/Or failure of the vaccine to protect those who had been vaccinated.

Bumbleymummy,
I don't think anyone has said that 'MMR causes Autism' - not even Andrew Wakefield said that. I think the current belief is that it may trigger autism in some genetically susceptible children. It would be nice if we could move towards trying to find a way to identify those genetically susceptible children rather than sweeping them under the carpet and pretending that they don't exist.’
Do you occupy the same internet as me? No one says MMR causes autism? If you head over to Natural News, or Age of Autism (just for examples, and I’m not supplying linkbait to them) you’ll find people more than happy to say MMR causes autism. Babyjabs have actually been legally told to STOP saying it:
www.telegraph.co.uk/health/children_shealth/9460914/MMR-vaccine-causes-autism-claim-banned.html
What about that Mr Wakefield, then?
Well I think LBRB did quite a decent summary:
leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2012/05/08/andrew-wakefields-many-statements-that-mmr-causes-autism/
Though as they say: “This is not to be considered an exhaustive list. I won’t be surprised if more quotes from Mr. Wakefield are in the media. But these should suffice: Mr. Wakefield has, repeatedly, stated that MMR causes autism.”

Again you refer to all these children who you claim are being swept under the carpet, who “we” are claiming don’t exist. Where is this sweeping, who is this “we”?
Cheers,
Rosewind

Bumbleymummy,
Well, yes there is under-reporting of adverse effects of all drugs. I thought you were trying to make out that vaccines were in some way a special case. I apologise. So, what so we do? I think it's great to try and improve public understanding of how to report any suspected effects, and to publicise things like the Yellow Card Scheme.
yellowcard.mhra.gov.uk/

I see that often the fear of being disbelieved etc. by the medical community is an issue. Do you think that posts like yours which claim doctors will ignore and dismiss valid concerns are going to improve the situation, or make it worse? Do you think that spreading knowledge and understanding of the very real ways in which adverse reactions to drugs, such as vaccines, are taken very seriously by the medical community and dealt with is a good thing; and spreading the knowledge of how to utilise such systems is important? On these threads I have seen it implied that only doctors can use the Yellow Card Scheme, which is untrue. Just now you wrote that: "if a child is under 2 when they are damaged then you cannot claim", which it is easy to demonstrate is factually untrue too.
If you are genuinely concerned about how side-effects are reported I might suggest you may want to re-assess how you are going about dealing with the current situation.
Cheers,
Rosewind

Yes, 'no one' is too broad a term. 'MMR causes autism' is frequently used by people saying things like 'the claim that MMR causes autism has been refuted by " IME, most people do tend to qualify it with 'in certain children' unless they are trying to do the above and use a population study in attempt to disprove any possibility of a link.

RW, I've just read through AW's comments in that article and he too has said things like "in some infants" , "if there is a genetic background" etc. It helps if things are read in context rather than just taking snippets of long articles that are discussing specific things.

The people who are doing the sweeping are those who refuse to acknowledge that certain genetically susceptible children may have autism triggered by something like a vaccine. Other triggers have already been accepted.

No one implies that only doctors can use the yellow card scheme - you tried to accuse me of that on the other thread and I clarified that. I am one of the people who encourages people to use it on this site so I am only too aware of how few people are actually aware of it.

Stating the fact that many doctors will be dismissive and not report adverse events (for the many reasons outlined above) is drawing attention to the problem. You originally seemed to be denying that the problem of under -reporting even existed although you do now seem to be acknowledging it. Many of the changes are going to have to come from the doctors themselves. Yes, we can increase awareness of the yellow-card scheme and encourage people to report their own reactions but the problems identified within the medical community in relation to their reluctance to report needs to be addressed. Denying that it happens and saying that it is 'rude to doctors' isn't particularly helpful. I think people need to be more aware of the extent to which it occurs.