Why do we not vaccinate against chicken pox?

[PolkaDotRachel]

My SIL has just mentioned that her DD is having some more jabs this week - and one of them is chicken pox.

Why do we not vaccinate against chicken pox in the UK?

Can it be done privately?

Any thoughts?

I must admit I haven't looked at the study but experience suggests that there's a tendency to say "yes but that didn't happen" or "yes it happened but it had nothing to do with the vaccine even though we don't know why it happened".

So "no association" - in the past that doesn't always mean what it's appeared to mean.

those of you on this thread who say 'well all my children have had it and never had a problem' - well then you should count yourself lucky, just because it has not caused a problem to you does not change the fact that it can be life threatening to certain people, that is a fact.

Why don't you just come right out and say that there is no study, no matter how many millions of children are involved, that would convince you that there is not some plot to deceive the general public about vaccine safety and line the pockets of shareholders in pharmaceutical companies.

Your objections are getting ridiculous.

Blueberties - you are making assumptions about disease-acquired immunity to chicken pox, which was already not 100% in pre-vaccine times. As said, my son had them twice, know plenty of folk (and literature) who did.

Keep your hair on. Don't forget I've got great evidence to support my point of view. Mention adverse events, even when there is appropriate temporal correlation, even when they are similar to events acknowledged by the manufactuer, even when there is no other explanation, even when they are similar to other denied adverse events reports - and they are denied without resort.

They're denied because they don't "fit into a pattern" - with little thought that perhaps if they were not denied they might form a new pattern.

And I don't think it's necessary really to talk airily about studies of millions of children as if you had any number that you could pull out of your back pocket to prove me silly and wrong.

Many large scale vaccine studies are flawed, as you very well know. I can think of the findings of one meta-analysis, headlined as based on thousands of studies, which are actually based on two.

No such assumption. My daughter had it at 14 months because everyone knows that at a very young age you may well have it twice. We expected her to get it again; she had shingles in the end, two years later.

I think you might be making your own assumptions about vaccine-induced immunity to be honest. You might not be, and be prepared for boosters, but that's how it seems.

My top sentence is weird. She didn't have it because everyone knows that.

She had it, and because everyone knows that, we expected her to get it again.

Is death actually a known risk of any vaccination? Whereas there is no doubt it is a risk of many of the diseases there are vaccinations for, & for me the % risk doesn't come into it for death, as death is final so if the odds are a 1 in whatever risk of death vs presumably reasonable odds against side effects of vaccines (otherwise the vaccine wouldn't have been passed by the various necessary legislative organisations) then I would avoid the risk of death of my child if I see it as a relatively straightforward thing I can do to achieve that, as opposed to eg never going near vehicles to avoid death in a car accident.

Yes, idle, death is one of the risks with any vaccination. It's rare, just as death from cp is also rare.

Bluberties, how did the first ever adverse reports get categorised then? I think you are flat out wrong that only reports that fit a pattern get counted.

'I can think of the findings of one meta-analysis, headlined as based on thousands of studies, which are actually based on two.' So you basically believe absolutely nothing from any study and are not prepared to accept even one word that is not your own half-baked opinion?

How can you believe the worst case scenarios only, and indeed dwell on the worst case hypotheses, while discounting and dismissing other far less serious observed responses?

"half-baked opinion"? I don't think there's any need for that.

I'm really happy to respond to posts which are civil.

Nothing you have posted is based on science or an understanding of the reporting process or an ability to read thoroughly. What I see is paranoia and a minute focus on one aspect of a problem to the exclusion of all other concerns, Therefore half baked. Imo.

Math: if you examine the reporting process in the UK you will find that it is based on assessment via computer software of patterns of adverse events reports.

I'm not sure why asking questions about denied adverse events reports is a "minute" focus but I think your use of the term explains why you're able to put them aside with such efficient complacency.

I'm not sure why there is the need to be perjorative. I can understand that you really don't want to talk about adverse events reports that can't be explained away so I assume you're trying to change the subject by being personal.

Well lucky for us we don't rely completely on the reports from any one given country. There are different reporting systems throughout the world, and it is possible to deduct from the stats that the overall picture is of vaccines that cause far less harm than the diseases they prevent. In addition, in the litigation happy US, there are hordes of PI lawyers keeping manufacturers honest.

Can you answer my question?

Wrt yr last post: are you saying that this has never happened anywhere except the UK

These reports aren't investigated and don't appear in the figures. The only way you can trust the figures then is if you assume they are lying.

I am not on a tooth fairy thread here -- adverse reactions that apparently do not get reported or allegedly do not get counted are irrelevant because you can state there are any number from 1 to 1 million and beyond and since there are no stats nobody can contradict you and you can carry on with what really amounts to innuendo, guesswork and the free use of your imagination, in the absence of any solid figures.

Why are you avoiding the question?

But there are very specific reports of adverse events. We both know this. I'm not imagining them. You have to be clear. As I'm not imagining the adverse events reports, you must think the women are making things up.

'These reports aren't investigated and don't appear in the figures'

What reports? Where are they reported if they are not reported? Where do they exist?

I thought I was on the HPV thread there.

Still, it's very revealing about your mindset that you believe adverse events reports which are denied simply are irrelevant.

WRT actual adverse reports that are recorded in the (according to you) highly unreliable official stats, of course they exist.

But how many are there, vs the reports of deaths or serious complications from the diseases the vaccines prevent?

The basic compare and contrast exercise convinces me that I am not taking any sort of a high risk when I get my DCs vaccinated.

Two threads, same conversation.

I think you need to be aware that there's no point introducing a risk benefit analysis when the risks remain unknown.

Your last sentence seems to mean that you do, in fact believe that you count denied adverse events reports in your personal calculations.

Who denies adverse reports?
What reports are denied?
Who makes the adverse reports that are denied?
How many are there?
Where do they show up if they are not included in the 'official' stats?
How do you know of their existence?

'I think you need to be aware that there's no point introducing a risk benefit analysis when the risks remain unknown.'

The risks?

What risks?

If risks remain unknown after the vaccine for cp has been out since 1988, then how long will you want to wait before taking the plunge?

How can you believe so fervently in the assumed but as yet apparently unknown risks of the vaccine, while discounting real and documented risks of the disease?