kids vaccinations
Mar 19th 2009, 10:03 am
#256
Canuck/Aussie
Joined: May 2006
Location: BC, Canada
Posts: 4,547
Re: kids vaccinations
Again we can talk about all the problems with specific vaccines until the cows come home. There is no denial here from me, as with the vast majority of medical procedures and pharmaceuticals there are risks and complications involved. Vaccination is not particularly special in that regard. However, it cannot be denied that total deaths and morbidity has been reduced since vaccination and programs should only be discarded if it can be shown that there is no benefit compared to before vaccination was introduced. Again this all has to be weighed up against what alternative would you propose which would lead to less death and morbidity than we have now? I'm still waiting to hear a bit more about that.
Anyway, that's enough from me.
Anyway, that's enough from me.
Mar 19th 2009, 10:03 am
#257
Forum Regular
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 234
Re: kids vaccinations
Yes, absolutely important in our case because we went to the Philippines last year and plan more trips in the future. We had some additional vacs done too - Hep A and Typhoid.
Mar 19th 2009, 10:19 am
#258
Forum Regular
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 234
Re: kids vaccinations
In the quote from you above, can you please clarify for me whether you define "serious outbreaks" as "large in number", or "of serious pathology"?
Mar 19th 2009, 1:54 pm
#259
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Aug 2008
Location: Canada->WA->Melbourne
Posts: 1,612
Re: kids vaccinations
I wasn't avoiding your question, I just only had about 30 seconds to respond before I left to pick up the oldest from school.
I wouldn't consider Europe to be a country with a high disease rate, I would typically think of more third world countries.
Here are some scenarios then for you to answer:
- would you send your child to school if there were cases of measles or mumps reported, or would you keep them at home? This is just general curiosity because if there was a serious disease going about then I'm sure most parents would do the same thing, vaccine or not.
- would you avoid travel to areas (Africa, Nigeria, etc) on the off chance that you might be exposed to things like Polio, measles, etc? Now it's one thing to say you'd never go there because you don't have an interest in it, but what if you really wanted to see parts of Africa.... would you go there if you were unvaccinated and there was a chance you might catch one of those diseases? I know there's plenty of other diseases to catch that don't have vaccines, so as I say I'm just curious.
I fully admit that vaccines aren't 100% effective, I'm proof of that. I would like to see them keep researching and making things better. But I don't think things will improve if large numbers of the population stop vaccinating.
I wouldn't consider Europe to be a country with a high disease rate, I would typically think of more third world countries.
Here are some scenarios then for you to answer:
- would you send your child to school if there were cases of measles or mumps reported, or would you keep them at home? This is just general curiosity because if there was a serious disease going about then I'm sure most parents would do the same thing, vaccine or not.
- would you avoid travel to areas (Africa, Nigeria, etc) on the off chance that you might be exposed to things like Polio, measles, etc? Now it's one thing to say you'd never go there because you don't have an interest in it, but what if you really wanted to see parts of Africa.... would you go there if you were unvaccinated and there was a chance you might catch one of those diseases? I know there's plenty of other diseases to catch that don't have vaccines, so as I say I'm just curious.
I fully admit that vaccines aren't 100% effective, I'm proof of that. I would like to see them keep researching and making things better. But I don't think things will improve if large numbers of the population stop vaccinating.
Africa? We have no desire whatsoever to go there. 95% of polio cases are asymptomatic, so one could very well contract polio, think they have the flu and recover completely...and it's transmitted through the fecal-oral route, so hygiene is important. I think any strategy, vaxing or not, needs a flexible, adequate risk-benefit anaylsis that includes everything...not just chance of infection, but treatment protocols, chance of recovery/disability, long term immunity gained etc. Polio's another interesting one. There's now new novel strains of polio going around in endemic areas, from the vaccination program (articles in Virology and the Lancet). Plus, for me, the monkey cell issue is a big one. I know the tissue bases are not screened for adventitious agents and companies don't really care about this and don't think it's important. I guess all those folks who got cancer from the SV-40 in the old polio vaccine are on their own.
Mar 19th 2009, 2:02 pm
#261
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Aug 2008
Location: Canada->WA->Melbourne
Posts: 1,612
Re: kids vaccinations
Rob12Paws, thanks for your honest answers. I was just interested as a matter of point of view, nothing I wanted to debate about. Just pure curiosity.
It's refreshing to see an anti-vaxer (not meant negatively!) that can debate in an intelligent fashion. I've seen too many vaccination debates where people look like raving loonies which sadly does nothing for your cause.
I've done my reading, to the best of my ability, and I still choose to vaccinate. It's my choice though just as every other parent has the same option. I can respect those that choose not too after they've throughly researched it and weighed the pros and cons. However, I'm afraid often people don't know enough to do it properly or don't bother to go into great detail beyond what they may have seen on Oprah or read in a crappy paper. I wish every put as much thought and effort into the decision as some of the posters on this thread.
It's refreshing to see an anti-vaxer (not meant negatively!) that can debate in an intelligent fashion. I've seen too many vaccination debates where people look like raving loonies which sadly does nothing for your cause.
I've done my reading, to the best of my ability, and I still choose to vaccinate. It's my choice though just as every other parent has the same option. I can respect those that choose not too after they've throughly researched it and weighed the pros and cons. However, I'm afraid often people don't know enough to do it properly or don't bother to go into great detail beyond what they may have seen on Oprah or read in a crappy paper. I wish every put as much thought and effort into the decision as some of the posters on this thread.
Mar 19th 2009, 2:07 pm
#262
Forum Regular
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 164
Re: kids vaccinations
I'm not particularly surprised actually. It's well known that the UK has had a lower than desired take up of the MMR since the 1990s a la Wakefield and this can be evidenced by the 13 year high of measles reported recently. If the herd immunity threshold is getting close to being compromised then you will see more situations of where vaccinated people will get infected because not everyone who is vaccinated is immune to the disease circulating in the country. I'm guessing Anglesey was probably a high immunisation rate area if everyone infected was previously immunised? Did the original disease carrier come from another area? Hopefully the people involved suffered a milder version of mumps than would occur naturally.
I had a look at 1997 - the year before Wakefield's paper was published - and 2007.
According to http://www.hpa.org.uk/web/HPAweb&HPA.../1195733819251, in 1997, there was 92% MMR compliance. In 1997, there were 3962 cases of measles, 1914 cases of mumps, and 3260 cases of rubella. The measles and mumps were broken down as follows:
Measles - 1997
Under 1s - 1030
1-4 - 1681
5-9 - 715
10-14 - 218
15+ - 258
Mumps - 1997
Under 1 - 26
1-4 - 461
5-9 - 515
10-14 - 326
15+ - 562
In 2007, compliance was lower at only 85% - presumably influenced by the Wakefield paper. There were 3670 cases of measles, 7196 cases of mumps and 1082 cases of rubella. These were broken down as follows:
Measles - 2007
Under 1 - 638
1-4 - 1753
5-9 - 598
10-14 - 220
15+ - 412
Mumps - 2007
Under 1 - 57
1-4 - 824
5-9 - 775
10-14 - 628
15+ - 4851
While first glance would appear to suggest that the 15+ total might be as a result of the Wakefield paper, this cohort would have been too old to be affected by that. They would presumably have had their MMRs done and dusted long before Wakefield's paper hit the news.
Interesting, too, that measles rates remained almost unchanged, while mumps sky-rocketed and rubella was reduced by almost 50%. Apologies for figures - my maths isn't good this late and I'm not a statistician, but it seems to me that the reduced compliance should have shown increases in all illnesses?
The numbers I've quoted here are from the Statutory Notifications of Infectious Diseases table, totals for 1994 to 2007. http://www.hpa.org.uk/webw/HPAweb&HP...=1191942172956. There is a notation against the figures for measles, mumps and rubella which says "in recent years a substantial proportion of notified cases of these diseases are shown subsequently not to be the implicated infection but do not get de-notified." So it's quite possible that the numbers are pretty meaningless!
To answer your question about the Anglesey outbreak, as I understand it, the outbreak occurred after a party at the Young Farmers', and was thought to have been brought to the party by a guest from Manchester!
I have to be honest, I am always somewhat puzzled when I hear it suggested that vaccinated people suffer from a *milder* dose of an illness should they contract it. I cannot fathom why a vaccine would cause a person to suffer a milder case of anything, and if you can explain this phenomenon to me, I would be most grateful. I have never understood it. Flu seems to be the one most quoted. People get the flu vaccine, then get flu but are consoled by the fact that they would have had it much worse without the vaccine. How can anyone possibly know this?
Mar 19th 2009, 2:26 pm
#263
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Aug 2008
Location: Canada->WA->Melbourne
Posts: 1,612
Re: kids vaccinations
Okay, finally have a chance to read that big chunk of text you threw at me. 
Some thoughts follow.
So what does Hilary propose in response? That everyone be exposed again to the natural infection that caused significant morbidity before vaccination for pertussis started?
Again, people are good at highlighting the problems but are not coming up with any solutions. I think the key in the quote here is that while the vaccine does not protect against infection as much as other vaccines that people are spared of the severest aspects of the disease such as brain damage and pneumonia. Again, not a perfect system but does the best of a bad job.
So again, let's say this is agreed in the mainstream what is the alternative? In the UK there was a time in the 1970s when vaccination coverage for Whooping cough dropped from 80% to 30% and there followed 3 major epidemics in which 100 people died. Same with Japan in 1979 when coverage dropped to 10% due to vaccine safety rumours and guess what, they had an epidemic that resulted in 41 deaths. Are these scenarios better than the current system because people get natural immunity to clear ACT? For all of the current problems, we are not seeing the same level of deaths. The little baby that died here in Australia was the first death since 2000 I believe from whooping cough.
Actually, I learned on another board that there is discussion going on in some legal circles as to whether institutions that accept unvaccinated children and parents who do not vaccinate their children can be held to be negligent and sued for damages if proven to be the source of an infection that causes harm to a vulnerable person. See http://www.michiganlawreview.org/fir...accination.pdf
They now have the technology to trace the source of the disease to the originator. So it looks like a case of going both ways.
It's not clear yet what this impact will have on the overall effectiveness of the Prevnar program in the long term. This is something that is on the wait and see list. However, prolonged antibiotic use in the treatment of streptococcus pneumonia has also led to strains evolving that are very difficult to get rid of. Without the vaccine then antibiotics is the usual course of action when carriage leads to colonisation and infection. So there is no easy answer.
Again we can talk about all the problems with specific vaccines until the cows come home. There is no denial here from me, as with the vast majority of medical procedures and pharmaceuticals there are risks and complications involved. Vaccination is not particularly special in that regard. However, it cannot be denied that total deaths and morbidity has been reduced since vaccination and programs should only be discarded if it can be shown that there is no benefit compared to before vaccination was introduced. Again this all has to be weighed up against what alternative would you propose which would lead to less death and morbidity than we have now? I'm still waiting to hear a bit more about that.
Anyway, that's enough from me.
Some thoughts follow.So what does Hilary propose in response? That everyone be exposed again to the natural infection that caused significant morbidity before vaccination for pertussis started?
Again, people are good at highlighting the problems but are not coming up with any solutions. I think the key in the quote here is that while the vaccine does not protect against infection as much as other vaccines that people are spared of the severest aspects of the disease such as brain damage and pneumonia. Again, not a perfect system but does the best of a bad job.
So again, let's say this is agreed in the mainstream what is the alternative? In the UK there was a time in the 1970s when vaccination coverage for Whooping cough dropped from 80% to 30% and there followed 3 major epidemics in which 100 people died. Same with Japan in 1979 when coverage dropped to 10% due to vaccine safety rumours and guess what, they had an epidemic that resulted in 41 deaths. Are these scenarios better than the current system because people get natural immunity to clear ACT? For all of the current problems, we are not seeing the same level of deaths. The little baby that died here in Australia was the first death since 2000 I believe from whooping cough.
Actually, I learned on another board that there is discussion going on in some legal circles as to whether institutions that accept unvaccinated children and parents who do not vaccinate their children can be held to be negligent and sued for damages if proven to be the source of an infection that causes harm to a vulnerable person. See http://www.michiganlawreview.org/fir...accination.pdf
They now have the technology to trace the source of the disease to the originator. So it looks like a case of going both ways.
It's not clear yet what this impact will have on the overall effectiveness of the Prevnar program in the long term. This is something that is on the wait and see list. However, prolonged antibiotic use in the treatment of streptococcus pneumonia has also led to strains evolving that are very difficult to get rid of. Without the vaccine then antibiotics is the usual course of action when carriage leads to colonisation and infection. So there is no easy answer.
Again we can talk about all the problems with specific vaccines until the cows come home. There is no denial here from me, as with the vast majority of medical procedures and pharmaceuticals there are risks and complications involved. Vaccination is not particularly special in that regard. However, it cannot be denied that total deaths and morbidity has been reduced since vaccination and programs should only be discarded if it can be shown that there is no benefit compared to before vaccination was introduced. Again this all has to be weighed up against what alternative would you propose which would lead to less death and morbidity than we have now? I'm still waiting to hear a bit more about that.
Anyway, that's enough from me.
http://www.beyondconformity.co.nz/
I'm merely pointing out that continuing to vaccinate with a vaccine that 1) cannot prevent colonization/carriage, 2) cannot prevent infection in the vaccinated individual is a fundamental problem of the vaccine and current program that cannot be blamed on non-vaccinators. Even with 100% compliance, there will still be circulating pertussis. And that study I linked said it is the under 1s who are most affected right now, including the infants who have had their primary series with the aP. So, then what do we do? Even with 100% compliance, do we decide that sort of adequate is good enough, ignore the problems, and institute annual boosters for the entire population, hoping that if we just increase the levels of boosters to a yearly one that the problem will sort itself out? If the problem is with the vaccine, shouldn't we be asking our doctors and the drug manufacturers to make a BETTER vaccine? But that's not cost effective and might also mean that the manufacturers have to highlight the limiting issues with the current vaccines and programs.
As for legal issues, I'm sure lawyers would turn this to their benefit in any way. Seeing as the drug manufacturers themselves acknowledge that their vaccines do NOT guarantee 100% immunity, I find it interesting to see how it would play out if someone suffered vaccine failure and then decided to lynch the local non-vaccinators. Maybe they should go after the drug companies instead. Oh but wait, in the U.S., they're protected by federal law from litigation, so even children who have demonstrated, permanent lifelong disability from a vaccination cannot sue. They get to apply for compensation from a fund whose contributions come from families who do vaccinate.
It's not up to me to propose a grandiose scheme to rid the world of all its illness. Don't others get the big bucks for that? And aren't they doing a great job...antibiotic resistance, iatrogenic incidences at all time highs, chronically sick populations. I'm just a parent exercising my right to choose what I feel is best for my family. As I've said before, they are my responsibility and the health and well being of society in general is not...maybe folks should be thankful for that or else I'd make all foods with refined sugars and unhealthy fats illegal and institute mandatory breastfeeding until 3 years of age...others are responsible for the health of their own children, and if that includes vaccination or not, well that is their choice and we all have to live with the consequences of our choices.
BTW, I have also met hundreds of parents whose children were either killed or permanently maimed while they were trying to do the "right" thing and protect the herd. These stories are tragic (and not just "rare" exceptions) but I guess what gets me is the trust they had in their doctors and the vaccines, they were obviously all for vaccinating, and then their lives would never be the same. But then to make an omelet, I guess we have to break a few eggs, right?
Last edited by Japonica; Mar 19th 2009 at 2:45 pm.
Mar 21st 2009, 6:10 am
#264
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Oct 2006
Location: Yarraville, West Melbourne
Posts: 1,014
Re: kids vaccinations
I've been having a look at the HPA website and some basic figures, and it's interesting to compare some anomalies with the MMR.
I had a look at 1997 - the year before Wakefield's paper was published - and 2007.
According to http://www.hpa.org.uk/web/HPAweb&HPA.../1195733819251, in 1997, there was 92% MMR compliance. In 1997, there were 3962 cases of measles, 1914 cases of mumps, and 3260 cases of rubella. The measles and mumps were broken down as follows:
Measles - 1997
Under 1s - 1030
1-4 - 1681
5-9 - 715
10-14 - 218
15+ - 258
Mumps - 1997
Under 1 - 26
1-4 - 461
5-9 - 515
10-14 - 326
15+ - 562
In 2007, compliance was lower at only 85% - presumably influenced by the Wakefield paper. There were 3670 cases of measles, 7196 cases of mumps and 1082 cases of rubella. These were broken down as follows:
Measles - 2007
Under 1 - 638
1-4 - 1753
5-9 - 598
10-14 - 220
15+ - 412
Mumps - 2007
Under 1 - 57
1-4 - 824
5-9 - 775
10-14 - 628
15+ - 4851
While first glance would appear to suggest that the 15+ total might be as a result of the Wakefield paper, this cohort would have been too old to be affected by that. They would presumably have had their MMRs done and dusted long before Wakefield's paper hit the news.
Interesting, too, that measles rates remained almost unchanged, while mumps sky-rocketed and rubella was reduced by almost 50%. Apologies for figures - my maths isn't good this late and I'm not a statistician, but it seems to me that the reduced compliance should have shown increases in all illnesses?
The numbers I've quoted here are from the Statutory Notifications of Infectious Diseases table, totals for 1994 to 2007. http://www.hpa.org.uk/webw/HPAweb&HP...=1191942172956. There is a notation against the figures for measles, mumps and rubella which says "in recent years a substantial proportion of notified cases of these diseases are shown subsequently not to be the implicated infection but do not get de-notified." So it's quite possible that the numbers are pretty meaningless!
To answer your question about the Anglesey outbreak, as I understand it, the outbreak occurred after a party at the Young Farmers', and was thought to have been brought to the party by a guest from Manchester!
I have to be honest, I am always somewhat puzzled when I hear it suggested that vaccinated people suffer from a *milder* dose of an illness should they contract it. I cannot fathom why a vaccine would cause a person to suffer a milder case of anything, and if you can explain this phenomenon to me, I would be most grateful. I have never understood it. Flu seems to be the one most quoted. People get the flu vaccine, then get flu but are consoled by the fact that they would have had it much worse without the vaccine. How can anyone possibly know this?
I had a look at 1997 - the year before Wakefield's paper was published - and 2007.
According to http://www.hpa.org.uk/web/HPAweb&HPA.../1195733819251, in 1997, there was 92% MMR compliance. In 1997, there were 3962 cases of measles, 1914 cases of mumps, and 3260 cases of rubella. The measles and mumps were broken down as follows:
Measles - 1997
Under 1s - 1030
1-4 - 1681
5-9 - 715
10-14 - 218
15+ - 258
Mumps - 1997
Under 1 - 26
1-4 - 461
5-9 - 515
10-14 - 326
15+ - 562
In 2007, compliance was lower at only 85% - presumably influenced by the Wakefield paper. There were 3670 cases of measles, 7196 cases of mumps and 1082 cases of rubella. These were broken down as follows:
Measles - 2007
Under 1 - 638
1-4 - 1753
5-9 - 598
10-14 - 220
15+ - 412
Mumps - 2007
Under 1 - 57
1-4 - 824
5-9 - 775
10-14 - 628
15+ - 4851
While first glance would appear to suggest that the 15+ total might be as a result of the Wakefield paper, this cohort would have been too old to be affected by that. They would presumably have had their MMRs done and dusted long before Wakefield's paper hit the news.
Interesting, too, that measles rates remained almost unchanged, while mumps sky-rocketed and rubella was reduced by almost 50%. Apologies for figures - my maths isn't good this late and I'm not a statistician, but it seems to me that the reduced compliance should have shown increases in all illnesses?
The numbers I've quoted here are from the Statutory Notifications of Infectious Diseases table, totals for 1994 to 2007. http://www.hpa.org.uk/webw/HPAweb&HP...=1191942172956. There is a notation against the figures for measles, mumps and rubella which says "in recent years a substantial proportion of notified cases of these diseases are shown subsequently not to be the implicated infection but do not get de-notified." So it's quite possible that the numbers are pretty meaningless!
To answer your question about the Anglesey outbreak, as I understand it, the outbreak occurred after a party at the Young Farmers', and was thought to have been brought to the party by a guest from Manchester!
I have to be honest, I am always somewhat puzzled when I hear it suggested that vaccinated people suffer from a *milder* dose of an illness should they contract it. I cannot fathom why a vaccine would cause a person to suffer a milder case of anything, and if you can explain this phenomenon to me, I would be most grateful. I have never understood it. Flu seems to be the one most quoted. People get the flu vaccine, then get flu but are consoled by the fact that they would have had it much worse without the vaccine. How can anyone possibly know this?
So the pattern of confirmed measles cases looks like this
http://www.iconocast.com/00036/C9/News7_6.gif (sorry I can't make the graph show up in this message.
For 2007 there were 624 confirmed cases, for 1997 only 159. http://www.hpa.org.uk/webw/HPAweb&HP...=1191942172799
The same is true for Mumps- in 2007 there were 1,040 confirmed cases, in 1997 only 100. http://www.hpa.org.uk/web/HPAweb&HPA.../1195733790975
Rubella rates do actually seem to have decreased, from 36 in 1997 to 9 confirmed cases in 2007 http://www.hpa.org.uk/web/HPAweb&HPA.../1195733784648 though you can't really put faith in such small numbers, just 1 outbreak will massively affect the results.
So it appears that whilst reported cases may not show an effect due to the MMR hysteria (and yes I do mean to use that word), the actual cases do show a very definite effect for measles and mumps. This is a classic example of scientific illiteracy I'm afraid, where people who don't really understand what the figures show apply a crude interpretation to them which doesn't show the real picture- like you say the figures are completely useless, and disclaimer you note does show this.
As for why a vaccine makes a case less severe, a vaccine doesn't stop you being infected it just makes your immune system respond more quickly when you are infected. The quicker and more efficiently your immune system can respond the less severe the symptoms noticed by the person. In many cases you can be infected and your body respond without you feeling any ill effects.
Mar 21st 2009, 8:01 am
#265
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Jun 2005
Location: Oz -> UK -> San Diego
Posts: 9,912
Mar 21st 2009, 8:05 am
#266
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Jun 2005
Location: Oz -> UK -> San Diego
Posts: 9,912
Re: kids vaccinations
They ARE mild for most people, but deadly for some. There's is no question that one automatically dies from measles or chickenpox, but some people do.
Mar 21st 2009, 8:12 am
#267
Account Open
Joined: Jan 2005
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 4,298
Re: kids vaccinations
We took our 1 yr old for his jabs today, he had 3 needles. vaccinations were hib, hepb, mmr and meningococcal c.
There were a few tears, especially with jab no. 3, the doctor said "this one is the worst" and it was ! but 20seconds later, the little fella was back to his od self, laughing and playing with the doc's collection of fluffy wombats!
We are giving him some panadol over the next 24hrs as a precautionary measure against fever, as per doc's advice.
There were a few tears, especially with jab no. 3, the doctor said "this one is the worst" and it was ! but 20seconds later, the little fella was back to his od self, laughing and playing with the doc's collection of fluffy wombats!
We are giving him some panadol over the next 24hrs as a precautionary measure against fever, as per doc's advice.
Mar 22nd 2009, 1:11 pm
#268
Forum Regular
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 164
Re: kids vaccinations
What's much more important that pulling out figures for a random year (which may very well be anomalous) is to look at the pattern of infection rates. It's also important to look at the pattern of confirmed cases - the figures you quote are for reported figures, which may well not turn out to be the actual infection at all.
So the pattern of confirmed measles cases looks like this
http://www.iconocast.com/00036/C9/News7_6.gif (sorry I can't make the graph show up in this message.
For 2007 there were 624 confirmed cases, for 1997 only 159. http://www.hpa.org.uk/webw/HPAweb&HP...=1191942172799
The same is true for Mumps- in 2007 there were 1,040 confirmed cases, in 1997 only 100. http://www.hpa.org.uk/web/HPAweb&HPA.../1195733790975
Rubella rates do actually seem to have decreased, from 36 in 1997 to 9 confirmed cases in 2007 http://www.hpa.org.uk/web/HPAweb&HPA.../1195733784648 though you can't really put faith in such small numbers, just 1 outbreak will massively affect the results.
So the pattern of confirmed measles cases looks like this
http://www.iconocast.com/00036/C9/News7_6.gif (sorry I can't make the graph show up in this message.
For 2007 there were 624 confirmed cases, for 1997 only 159. http://www.hpa.org.uk/webw/HPAweb&HP...=1191942172799
The same is true for Mumps- in 2007 there were 1,040 confirmed cases, in 1997 only 100. http://www.hpa.org.uk/web/HPAweb&HPA.../1195733790975
Rubella rates do actually seem to have decreased, from 36 in 1997 to 9 confirmed cases in 2007 http://www.hpa.org.uk/web/HPAweb&HPA.../1195733784648 though you can't really put faith in such small numbers, just 1 outbreak will massively affect the results.
The reason I quoted the reported figures was because I thought it relevant that there was a stipulation that most of the reported cases turned out not to be the illness in question after all - yet I'm sure in their pursuit of sensationalism, the media will report the notified cases, even if these aren't the final totals.
Whatever, I did make the point that I am not a statistician - perhaps we should be grateful that the figures are available for inspection at all!
As for why a vaccine makes a case less severe, a vaccine doesn't stop you being infected it just makes your immune system respond more quickly when you are infected. The quicker and more efficiently your immune system can respond the less severe the symptoms noticed by the person. In many cases you can be infected and your body respond without you feeling any ill effects.
Right, that's a new one on me. I thought the idea was that the vaccination tricked the illness - measles, mumps, pertussis, whatever - into thinking that the body had already had it due to the presence of antibodies from the vaccination, and thus the body didn't succumb again. In its most simplistic explanation, of course. But I see your point. Thank you.
Mar 22nd 2009, 1:14 pm
#269
Forum Regular
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 164
Re: kids vaccinations
May I ask if your doctor advised giving antipyretics before the vaccinations as well? I have heard from several American contacts recently who have said that in the US the doctors are advising use of tylenol/equivalent several hours before vaccinations as well as a couple of days afterwards.
Mar 22nd 2009, 4:30 pm
#270
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,144
Re: kids vaccinations
I have made a half an hour appointment with my Dr to discuss vaccination for my second and third child - they are vaccinated to some degree but not up to date and I have kind of lost track of where I am at. I do have a signed conscientious objection form which was no dramas to get.
Another poster discussed how she needed evidence for her dr to get him to sign the conscientious objection. I am not sure he/she would be interested - Drs are, in some cases, refusing to sign these forms not because they want a debate on the pros and cons but more for legal liability issues. they represent the patient (ie child) not the parent and the union or whatever its called for Drs raised the point that they could potentially be sued for allowing a disease to occur when they have clear advice that vaccination is needed. So it is nothing to do with their individual point of view.
It is interesting that the single vaccines are not available I had previously been told (before oldest had a reaction) - however on my last visit the Dr said, ahh but they are, I can get them and we can also discuss those as a potential course of action.
I am going, not to argue the fors and againsts but to work out where we are now and weigh up what I should do from now. I am dreading it but I guess I will also be reading this thread in a bit more detail before that visit.
I have had 5 rubellas in 3 years, dont seem to work for me. I have had lots of vaccines as I was born in Africa and my arms are very marked from them. I even had one made from monkey brains or maybe I am making that up It was for Japanese encephalitis.
I am umming / ahhing about vaccines yet my daughter has botox every 6 months - I even wonder whether I should be doing that. It does make such a difference though. She has it for medical reasons but I am seriously thinking I shouldnt let her go it alone.....
Vivienne
Another poster discussed how she needed evidence for her dr to get him to sign the conscientious objection. I am not sure he/she would be interested - Drs are, in some cases, refusing to sign these forms not because they want a debate on the pros and cons but more for legal liability issues. they represent the patient (ie child) not the parent and the union or whatever its called for Drs raised the point that they could potentially be sued for allowing a disease to occur when they have clear advice that vaccination is needed. So it is nothing to do with their individual point of view.
It is interesting that the single vaccines are not available I had previously been told (before oldest had a reaction) - however on my last visit the Dr said, ahh but they are, I can get them and we can also discuss those as a potential course of action.
I am going, not to argue the fors and againsts but to work out where we are now and weigh up what I should do from now. I am dreading it but I guess I will also be reading this thread in a bit more detail before that visit.
I have had 5 rubellas in 3 years, dont seem to work for me. I have had lots of vaccines as I was born in Africa and my arms are very marked from them. I even had one made from monkey brains or maybe I am making that up
It was for Japanese encephalitis.I am umming / ahhing about vaccines yet my daughter has botox every 6 months - I even wonder whether I should be doing that. It does make such a difference though. She has it for medical reasons but I am seriously thinking I shouldnt let her go it alone.....
Vivienne