Please explain, succinctly, the anti vac argument

[WorkingBling]

With all the current news re vaccines and measles I realised that while I am very comfortable and believe strongly that vaccines are the most appropriate defense, I don't actually understand the anti vac argument. I remember the Wakefield thing but that has been debunked. So why do people still resist? What is the thinking?

Someone told
Me that he doesn't "agree with vaccines" in much the same tone as he mightn't say he doesn't agree with the death penalty but I was too nervous to push him further without understanding the issues better.

There are children that cannot be vaccinated for genuine medical reasons - as outlined by anotherday. It is partly them that are protected by herd immunity. If I was in that position I would be furious at those who refused to vaccinate without sound scientific/medical reasons. There is a lad in my DC's class who is undergoing treatment for leukaemia and is therefore immune-compromised. The idea that he could be exposed to disease completely un-necessarily is awful.

SideofFoot, feel free to refuse vaccinations for your children, but please inform me if your DC are at my school, or invited to my house or my parties so that I can make a risk assessment based on having unvaccinated DC near mine.

but please inform me if your DC are at my school, or invited to my house or my parties so that I can make a risk assessment based on having unvaccinated DC near mine.

Out of interest, what are your plans for screening unvaccinated adults? Or have you not given them a thought?

Fugg - not easily . It was mostly from reading the medical literature, trying to identify the particular risk factors for experiencing adverse effects to vaccines or their ingredients, crossing that with family history of atopic disease etc., and calculating whether my ds was at any greater risk than average for an adverse reaction to any of the scheduled vaccines.

I won't pretend it was a foolproof method and I almost certainly missed something, but since I knew I was able (given my academic background) to do a personalised estimate of risk, I felt I should try.

Had I found he was at high risk of an adverse effect, I would have raised it with my GP and asked for a referral if needed, etc. to look at the issue more closely.

. I've found natural immunity has worked quite well in my case (baby exposures to chickenpox (8 months) & whooping cough (8 weeks) - neither caught - not sure it would have been so great without some exposure to both diseases)

My friends son had a very severe immune problem - everyday conditions that most of us carry without symptoms were far more of a concern for them than an unvaccinated child.

Sorry halfwilding - I know a lot of unvaccinated children, they're everywhere :plays spooky music:

My children have only ever caught a vaccine preventable disease from a vaccinated child.

And geek presumably you have no reason to believe your child will be danaged by a HPV vaccine? If you did I'm assuming you wouldn't be so keen to expose them to that risk to protect others.

And I've said it before but the child that others avoid ime is my vaccinated child (gather up your children & run).

'But he was vaccinated, and still got it?'

That's one thing that people don't seem to take in - vaccinations are not 100% guaranteed, mumps i think was at best 70% effective - the recent flu vaccine 50%.

We went for a slightly delayed / staggered vaccination schedule for DD and single jabs rather than MMR. She had severe eczema, urticaria an allergic bowel, she was also what the paed allergies consultant called 'a highly allegric person' Haven't decided yet about DS.

Saintly - hope you don't mind me asking but was your DC1 vaccine damaged or was there some condition already there made worse by vaccination?

And this'll do but go to section 8.1

A baby born to a mother who had naturally acquired measles is believed to have good protection to 6 months (and if you talk to docs - they'll say it's often longer - as in ds2's 8 month chickenpox exposure). Babies born to vaccinated mothers often have no immunity.

From an NHS document.

Link www.documents.hps.scot.nhs.uk/about-hps/hpn/measles-guidelines.pdf

Saintly - I'll do the risk reassessment all over again in a few years for the HPV. Right now, he's low risk, but I'll have new info available (in the lit and regarding his own health history) by the time he's old enough to get it.

3% success for flu this year (50% is a good year!) news.sky.com/story/1422308/flu-jab-found-to-work-in-just-3-percent-of-cases

Essex - ds1's case is complicated & I don't talk about what happened on here. Some people start demanding I provide names & addresses of the doctors & researchers we've spoken to which is beyond bonkers. Ds1's neurologist probably made the most accurate comment - which was to come back in 20-30 years & they'll be able to tell us more. In the meantime we make decisions based on the information we have.

Oh Essex am happy to talk by pm though

Ukil: that article is hugely inaccurate or at best misleading.
Measles has never had a mortality rate of 20%
Measles has never completely disappeared.
Waning immunity is a potentially greater risk of diseases being passed on. But those who are immune can also pass on the disease so it's not just the non vaccinated that are a risk.
Recently vaccinated people shed the disease and actually spread it whereas unvaccinated people do not actually carry the disease unless they contract it.

but please inform me if your DC are at my school, or invited to my house or my parties so that I can make a risk assessment based on having unvaccinated DC near mine.

And of course, you will furnish proof to other parens that the vaccine took in your child's case, just so that the other parents can also perform a risk assessment.

Why do those who are unquestionably pro vaccination make the assumption that the non-vaccinated are always incubating some disease or other?

What is this craziness ? It's a personal decision in this country school admission isn't dependant on a full vacination record (unlike France and Canada). How on earth would you know if some random child was immunised ? and why would it matter ? Surely what matters is if the child has a contagious illness if you think your dc is particularly vulnerable either because they are unimmunised or immunosupressed FWIW even if vaccination doesn't protect you completely you will probably be less ill. Which is why we offer it to contacts.

According to WHO

Measles is one of the leading causes of death among young children even though a safe and cost-effective vaccine is available.
In 2013, there were 145 700 measles deaths globally – about 400 deaths every day or 16 deaths every hour.
Measles vaccination resulted in a 75% drop in measles deaths between 2000 and 2013 worldwide.
In 2013, about 84% of the world's children received one dose of measles vaccine by their first birthday through routine health services – up from 73% in 2000.
During 2000-2013, measles vaccination prevented an estimated 15.6 million deaths making measles vaccine one of the best buys in public health.

Measles accounts for 5% of deaths in under 5's. UNICEF from recollection, much of this data is from 2000.

I wish I could find the link which talked about the bacterial pneumonia and how zinc and vitamin A would have the biggest impact on what accounts for the largest number of deaths and that this would also half the number of deaths from measles.

This blog post from an angry father of an immunosuppressed child is doing the rounds. It's not out to make friends, but it's a perspective worth reading.

anotherday - you could as a starter try the link which Ubik took the quotation from.
measles

Nothing wrong with the quote in itself, it's just painting a too simplistic picture to take this one extract in isolation.

You could try this extract from the same document.

"Severe measles is more likely among poorly nourished young children, especially those with insufficient vitamin A, or whose immune systems have been weakened by HIV/AIDS or other diseases."

So how about a multi=pronged approach - give out Vitamin A, (which to be fair the WHO does recommend) and tackle HIV/AIDS, plus improve the health infrastructure? Interestingly enough they recommend a measles and rubella vaccination - no mention of Mumps.

Another WHO report states:
"Leading causes of death in under-five children are preterm birth complications, pneumonia, birth asphyxia, diarrhoea and malaria. About 45% of all child deaths are linked to malnutrition."

Thankfully the conditions causing death are largely ones we have dealt with in the UK.

This blog post from an angry father of an immunosuppressed child is doing the rounds.

But the child didn't actually catch measles as far as I can see. Such a child would be vulnerable to any virus. Are we going to try to eliminate all viruses?

I expect if his child did catch measles from a vaccinated child he would either be told that it was 'measles like' or 'just coincidence'. It wouldn't make it any better for him or his child.

The blog post from an angry father.

Doesn't seem to give a shit about DS2 and his catastrophic reaction to vaccination.

I could write a bog. I could be angry. Does that make my position more valid? Or just more emotional?

< really tired of emotional clubbing from those who venture fuck all>

Doesn't seem to give a shit about DS2 and his catastrophic reaction to vaccination.

I don't think angry father's post implies that, Pagwatch.

He's angry at people who have no medical reason for refusing measles vaccination, but he's not claiming vaccines are harmless or anything like that.

But the child didn't actually catch measles as far as I can see. Such a child would be vulnerable to any virus. Are we going to try to eliminate all viruses?

Well... yes. The harmful ones anyway. There are entire branches of medicine devoted to its research.

But more seriously, it's the sheer virulence of measles that makes it so dangerous to vulnerable groups like the immunosuppressed. A child like that can avoid most harmful viruses by avoiding unnecessary contact with others, washing hands often, and making sure your family so the same. None of that works with measles because it's airborne and highly contagious. Measles really is quite a different category when it comes to its ability to infect.

I expect if his child did catch measles from a vaccinated child he would either be told that it was 'measles like' or 'just coincidence'.

Come again? I have no idea what you mean here. The blog post is quite right when it says that infection could come via a vaccinated person who it turned out didn't have a good response to the vaccine in the first place and hence is not immune - including the child's own father, the author of the post! The whole point of herd immunity is to mitigate this kind of risk. Yes, vaccines don't produce immunity in a small % of those vaccinated - it's pot luck. But if enough other people are vaccinated, the chains of transmission are broken even with this small % remaining susceptible.

I'm genuinely not trying to be goady here but have a question for those who believe their children to be vaccine damaged. Why do you think the vaccine caused the problem? I have three friends with autistic children and all say their babies changed overnight. One was before his jabs, another after but my cousins baby changed the day she should have had her jabs. My uncle was in an accident and the appointment was missed. My cousin says that she would have 100% blamed the MMR had her daughter had it that day.

From a mathematical point of view thousands of babies receive the jabs every day. The jabs coincide with autistic regression. The numbers mean that jabs immediately followed by regression will be a normal occurrence. Just a matter of coincidence.

I worry, also, that the focus on vaccines/autism is detracting from research into autism and neurological damage. How many studies must find no link again and again, find evidence that children were showing autistic traits before the jab before money is spent researching elsewhere. Autism has been increasing I would like to see money spent on why and not having to discredit a seriously flawed study for the millionth time.