By Bill Dewison
If I offered you a cocktail which included in its ingredients formaldehyde, aluminum phosphate, ammonium sulfate, washed sheep red blood cells, embryonic fluid from chickens and thimerosal, what would be your initial reaction? Would you gladly accept this concoction of animal byproducts, heavy metals and chemicals without question?
It is more than possible you lack the relevant knowledge of chemistry, biology and metallurgy to identify what all those ingredients are, as do I, so I decided to look up one of these; thimerosol. It is a mercury-containing compound (an organomercurial) that has been in use since the 1930s. There have been concerns raised regarding its use, or specifically more than a little concern about its effect on the male and female reproductive systems. To quote the OEHHA ‘The scientific evidence that PMA and Thimerosal cause reproductive toxcitity is clear and voluminous’.
Why would any of this be relevant to you? Well if you have children, the chances are you’ve already allowed these chemicals, animal byproducts and heavy metals to be injected into them. They are present in modern vaccines, vaccines given to newly born children right through to the age of 18 years of age. But why should we worry? Surely these vaccines have been thoroughly researched and tested to ensure that they are safe long before they are given to the population?
My wife has recently given birth to our daughter and inbetween changing nappies, cleaning clothes, changing nappies and have I mentioned changing nappies, we are discussing the implications of immunising our child against potentially fatal diseases. It is something I would imagine many parents discuss and with an 18 month old son, it is something we seem to have talked about nonstop over the past 2 years. As a couple we are faced with the dilemma of believing what we are told by the medical authorities or questioning what we give our children in the same way we would question what foods to give them, what the environment around them is and how we go about educating them.
Our primary worry is the sheer number of vaccines contained in a single injection, but also the number of injections our children are given in one sitting. Our daughter can not for instance be injected with the tetanus jab by itself, we can not opt to have measles and mumps seperately or even to have the injections themselves spread out over a longer time period. Considering the age of our children, they are after all still developing, their internal organs are yet to fully form and their immune systems are not operating at full capacity. I feel our concerns are justified, regardless of the scare stories proliferated by our media here in Britain.
The media does tend to rule the roost these days in terms of what we see and hear, and it does seem that everyday we are presented with conflicting health related advice or information, much of which is grossly exagerated to sell the story to the public. For instance, take the measles virus, are you aware that in the past 17 years there has been one death in relation to measles? This death, tragic as it is, was a 13 year old boy who was taking immunosuppresive drugs for a lung condition. Although this particular case was reported correctly by the media, it led to numerous stories of measle epidemics. It has been noted that the media in general have exagerated figures by as much as 700% to sensationalise their story which does nothing but damage to the messages the government is trying to convey to parents just like me.
That said, it can not be ignored what is happening with regards to immunisation and the serious questions still to be answered. Why, following the injection of vaccines in America, has the American government paid out millions of dollars to parents of children who have had adverse effects to these vaccines, but at the same time accepted no responsibility? If we follow America on things like immunisation and it has been reported often that parents who have refused to sign consent forms for vaccinations have been accused of child abuse for doing so, will we follow America on that one?
Once a child is injected with a vaccine we can not remove that vaccine from their system, so isn’t it about time this was debated with parents in a realistic manner? Before the National MMR Vaccine Catch-up Campaign was launched, providing PCTs (Primary Care Trusts) with additional funding of £30,000 each, wouldn’t it have been prudent to discuss some of the concerns of parents about the MMR? And long before we start to have decisions made about unvaccinated children entering the school system, what is wrong with a discussion about injecting them with a certain vaccines that contains 62.5 mcg of mercury which is 78 times the safe level?
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
StumbleUpon
I agree doctors do know quite a bit about vaccines but these doctors are in the minority, the rest just follow the DOH party line!!
There are far too many professionals out there touting professional knowledge that in fact have no such thing. The most important vaccines to have are the measles and the rubella. unfortunately, figures for measles are not as low as you think and rising quite markedly, for example uptake for MMR combined vaccine is at an all time low. We need to address this by making choice in vaccination a reality. Why don't the DOH speak to some of the single vaccine companies about practice based commissioning so that all types of vaccines are offered and therefore no escape from vaccination of course unless it is contra-indicated of which there are many children!!
Lastly, 99.999% of doctors agreeing on the MMR vaccine is overplaying your hand a bit!! There are a very high number of doctors that have the single vaccines but push the combined vaccine on their patients because they cannot be seen to be going against the DOH. I can strongly put this case forward as I work at a single vaccine company where nearly 40% of the clients are medical staff with a high proportion being GPs and Paediatric doctors!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You've asked for a debate, but that debate has been had. Billions of pounds each year go into the researchy bits of the NHS, the medical bits of universities, etc, to research precisely this question. These vaccines are safe. Endless research demonstrates this. When you say you want a debate, what you mean is that you want everyone to keep opining loudly, rather than finding out that this is actually not a matter of opinion, but a matter of fact.
Immunise your children. That way they won't die of measles. Measles rates are tiny but rising fast, and a small but noticeable proportion of those that catch it die. That way they won't end up impotent in the aftermath of mumps, etc etc etc etc etc.
I'll end with a statement that ought to be obvious but apparently isnt: doctors know quite a lot about medicines and their effects. The rest of us need to do a whole bunch of careful research before questioning their judgement, especially when 99.999% of them agree on something.
People have an absolute right to put themselves first and their own families first.
No they don't. What part of history or law don't you understand. Of course you have a right to protect your family, or pursue their well being, unless it harms others
Not vaccinating your children, and therefore putting the whole of society at risk is a classic example of this.
But without making mistakes, nobody learns. So it's all good in the end.
I've certainly learnt a lot more about this issue thanks to this diary, albeit from the negative responses
I think that a single statistic can give you an idea of the immune system's flexibility is that the body can potentially produce a huge number of different antibody structures(all based upon a common template) - according to one source about 100,000,000 - which gives you an idea of the number of antigens that can detected! Combination vaccines - such as MMR - reduce the number of injections - probably helpful in small children - without reducing the effectiveness.
You asked about memory cells. What happens is that antibodies to a particular antigen are attached to the surface of naive T cells so that they act as sensors for that antigen. If the antigen reappears later, this then binds to the memory cell which then divides into antibody producing cells. It is this that saves your bacon.
Bill ...
If you want to take this off-line then send an email to bonetired@googlemail.com which is a gash email account I use and I will be delighted to help you further !
Perhaps a better example to think of is potassium. Potassium is a highly reactive metal. From what I remember of my chemistry lessons in school it's stored in oil to prevent it reacting with the moisture in the air. Put it in water and goes crazy (one of my teachers managed to smash a bowl, a perspex screen and scorch the ceiling by putting too much potassium into a bowl of water). So you might think you don't want to have anything to do with potassium, and certainly don't want to injest it. You'd be wrong. One of the reasons bananas are good for you is that they are a good source of potassium - which you need to keep your heart healthy amongst other things.
incorrect and completely devoid of any scientific merit, I find it has pretty much finally made up my mind to
leave the Labour Party. I've been a long time member, and never once considered voting for any other
party, but now I'm convinced that I have nothing in common with the people who are leading it and directing
policy. This sort of mindless rubbish being put on a Labour website is just the straw that broke the camel's back.
I've been arguing with anti-vaccinators for over ten years, and my patience has run thin. When I turn up at a left-wing progressive website, I don't expect to be confronted with ill-informed emotive nonsense about vaccines that I expect to find on sites or on Melanie Phillips blog. There is plenty of good quality information about vaccines on the internet, why not go and read them?
There are risks attached to vaccines, no-one denies that, but the material in your post is fear-mongering nonsense (like the concern about the number of vaccines children receive, in fact children can deal with thousands of antigens and vaccines today are purer than they were in the 1960s).
You have a public platform here. You are part of the new media. You therefore have a responsibility to fact check your material, and if you find that you are in the minority going against informed scientific and medical opinion that shows that vaccines are on balance the safest option, then you go and look at the material you are using to form your opinion. Because you are probably wrong. What are the chances that you have found some great insight that the government EXPERTS on vaccines have missed? Low I would have thought.
What you choose to do with your own child is your own business, you may not trust the government or the pharmaceutical industry, but you should think more carefully before you expose others to your dangerous ignorance on vaccine safety.
Anti-tory troll's comment about other people's children being your concern is also true. I would have thought anyone with a left-wing bent would understand the point about public health being made there.
We all know that heavy drinkers tolerate alcohol better than abstainers. (My wife who hardly drinks reckons that a sniff of a cork is enough)
Part of the reason is that the enzyme that breaks ethanol down in the liver is what is known as an "inducible" enzyme. This means that if no alcohol is drunk then no enzyme is produced. In drinkers high levels of the enzyme is present which breaks down the chemical much more quickly than in a non-drinker.
Mercury was used simply as a preservative against contamination. Other preservatives are also used - you mention formaldehyde which is very quickly broken down in the body (in fact some formaldehyde is naturally produced)
I will answer your questions about multiple exposures tomorrow!
If the multiple exposure to these antigens is better than single antigen exposure, is there a point of overload? Is there a tipping point that can lead to a failure in the system, or is that dependant on the patient and the sort of inbuilt immune system present? (not sure if what I've just written will make sense, I understand what I mean, but I can't think of another way of putting it)
The thing that is confusing me is the presence of mercury in vaccinations, is it a necessary component? I accept it is given in very small quantities, but is there not a substitute for it? If the thimersal has been discontinued, what has replaced it?
Multiple exposures to different antigens also are fine. Different memory cells are formed simultaneously. The body can easily handle (again think about a new born child. Although the mother will provide a fair degree of protection via immunity passed through the placenta as well as breast milk, the new born child will be exposed to god alone knows what!)
In fact there is some evidence that multiple exposures are actually better that single antigen exposure. (note that this is for a specific vaccine aganst breast cancer)http://www.obgyn.net/newsheadlines/womens_health-Breast_Cancer-20040628-25.asp
You said in your first paragraph, "Would you gladly accept this concoction of animal byproducts, heavy metals and chemicals without question?" You were using "Animal byproducts" and "chemicals" as pejorative terms and thus "scaring up" the ingredients.
My mum's Sunday roast is an animal byproduct and everything in the world is made of chemicals. As for heavy metals, any first-year toxicology student will tell you that the difference between medicine and poison is dosage.
What I mean is, if T cells are given the task of sorting one thing out, does the introduction of another cause any problems or can it cope quite easily with multiples?
I apologise in advance for being a bit simplistic and if I'm misunderstanding, but I really do appreciate your time on this and for having the patience to explain it.
First of all the preservative. The thimerosal is bound by special proteins called metallothioneins whose sole purpose seems to be to remove metals such as silver, cadmium and mercury from the body. They bind to these metals and they then pass through the gut wall and go literally down the pan!
The time taken for the concentration of a substance to drop by half is known (surprise surprise) as the half-life. In the case of ethyl mercury this is in the order of less than 7 days (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1280342)
This compares with about 20 days for the methyl mercury.
It is also important to realise that the amount of mercury is tiny: In the vaccines that use thimerosal the concentrations per 0.5ml dose is in the order 25 microgrammes (not milligrams). So after 6 days that will have dropped to 12.5; after 12 about 6 micrograms. After a month we are talking about nanogrammes (10^-9 or 0.000000001 [if I have got the number of zeros right!]) left. I hope that you can see that that is a tiny tiny amount.
This article http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/357/13/1281 is also good. It isn't written in too technical a language and also - and this is important - it is a large scale sample. The key part is this "The weight of the evidence in this study does not support a causal association between early exposure to mercury from thimerosal-containing vaccines and immune globulins administered prenatally or during infancy and neuropsychological functioning at the age of 7 to 10 years. The overall pattern of results suggests that the significant associations may have been chance findings stemming from the large number of statistical tests that we performed."
In other words: statistical glitches.
Now for the vaccine themselves.
When an antigen is injected into the body, it triggers a very specific response: the immune system recognises the antigen which is then taken up by a very specialised cell called an "antigen-presenting cell" This cell binds the antigen which is then presented to another cell called a "T helper cell" These cells release chemicals called "cytokines" which stimulate further cells called T and B cells. (as an aside HIV infects T helper cells which gives a pretty good idea why HIV knocks out the immune system) T Cells help trigger the cellular inflammatory response. Amongst the T cells are ones called "Memory T Cells" These remember previous exposure to an antigen and if re-exposed to it will multiply rapidly and provide the immune response that we know.
Once the immune system is exposed to an antigen (whether for the frst time or upon subsequent exposure) the antigen - vaccine - is destroyed - more slowly upon first exposure (which is why we get a minor reaction upon first exposure. I had a recent tetanus jab and my arm hurt for a couple of days); much much more rapidly upon subsequent exposure. Problems arise when the antigen changes - this is the classic problem with flu. (the antigenic bit is often a side molecule such as a protein peptide or a long sugar molecule and in flu's case this varies with the type of flu)
The B cells provide the generation of the antibodies which also bind to the antigen and provide further memory against further attack
Sorry for the long science lesson (which as you can guess is much much simplified!) but I hope that gves you an idea as to what exactly happens...
With regards to the seperates, they are still available, or at least that is what we've been told. Over whether they are genuine or not, I can't comment, but it is still the medical profession that will administer it, albeit private as opposed to NHS. We're aso in the process of trying to get the tetanus as a seperate jab as opposed to a combined jab. Again, I think we may have to pay extra for this, but if that is what it takes then we're more than happy to do so.
http://www.badscience.net/2008/08/the-medias-mmr-hoax/
You can probably gather from my interaction with ATT that this has happened before. I wrote an article where I quoted Martin Luther King and although I believed I had read enough to understand what he was saying, I'm sorry to say my research could have been better there as well. But I do admit if I believe I'm wrong, it would be monumentally stupid not to because there are some very bright minds here on the LL and they can dissect an argument in seconds given half the chance.
You can probably gather also that I'm not a nose tweaker. This article has been possibly one of the most humbling experiences in writing terms that I have ever had. I've written columns for magazines, had regular slots in various publications and written dozens of product reviews, but where as it has seemed easy to research an inanimate object, that becomes so much harder when it comes to my children. I am guilty of using emotive language in the piece above, I will openly admit it, but in what seems a weak defence, I have 3 brilliant children who I want to have the best from life and that seems to have tainted what I have written in the article and perhaps effected my objectivity to the subject.
There is some great information in the comments though and will no doubt keep my wife and I reading for a while. I'm still wary with regards to certain vaccinations, but some of the facts given have helped and hopefully the book you have recommended will do the same.
As for limiting access for schools to children who have had MMR, the people calling for that aren't the people who have the power to decide that, they're just trying to influence things just as you are and other contributers on this site.
I heard that pharmaceuticals weren't making all the separate vacines now, now that their main customers aren't buying them and have moved on to MMR. Whether or not, isn't there a risk that if you go the separate injection route one of the vacines might be fake, just as might happen if you try to get other drugs without the medical profession?
I haven't seen your name in other debates, but I do look forward to seeing more of your comments. Whether I agree with them is another matter, but I doubt there will be many who can match your eloquence or style of debating - I know I can't.
You're right, though, "shirking" is perhaps too strong a word, and I agree that you're contributing in the comments when it would be easy to cut and run (and many big name bloggers and journalists do so). And yes, perhaps some people's perception of blogs like these is different to mine. I can see how the article above could be written in good faith, but I very strongly believe that it's precisely this sort of thing that has damaged public understanding. It's not your fault that public science discourse is like this, but I do think you're helping to perpetuate it, and have simply tried to explain why.
Anyway; I'd like, in all sincerity, to recommend Ben Goldacre's Bad Science book to you; I hope you'd find it a fascinating read. He, like you, is convinced that the MMR debate is largely a media concoction (although he obviously approaches from the other end of the debate), and very persuasively argues this point, among others. The book is also very readable, frequently funny, and makes it much easier to spot the common pitfalls of popular science reporting. It has a whole chapter on vaccines, and while some might be irked by the occasional snarky reference to humanities graduates, he really does know whereof he speaks. He doesn't spare the pharmaceutical companies, either, and devotes large chunks of the book to their cheeky tricks; bad science is everywhere, and it's easy to spot when you know how.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Bad-Science-Ben-Goldacre/dp/000728487X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1247596703&sr=8-1
People have an absolute right to put themselves first and their own families first.
Some people claim to deny this, but usually that is to put you at a disadvantage so they can, in fact, put their own interest first.
Try to find a lefty here that will put my interests ahead of theirs... You won't find one they will just insist that *I* should put their pet causes ahead of my own interest...
My point on measles, I omitted (as you already know) to say the UK. An error, I grant you, but I wasn't ignoring deaths at all, I simply omitted to say UK.
Childrens immune system, I agree, a serious error and one I should have researched more thoroughly.
My knowledge on vaccines is limited, I didn't claim otherwise. But once a vaccine is in the system, can it be removed?
And on your main point, I wasn't directing the term 'pedantic' towards those who have argued based on science, I was directing it to those who have chosen to correct my spelling, or when I have replied, taken what I have said out of context. I'm fully aware of how this article has effected my credibility which is why I am still here attempting to put it right. It would be very easy at this point for me to cower behind my screen, to not stand by what I have written or argue my point. I could just hit the little red X in the top right hand corner of my screen and run away. I'm not doing that because I'm not a coward, I don't write and run, I will admit when I am wrong and there has been a raft of information and opinions posted that are giving me the knowledge that I readily admit is lacking.
I'm not asking for brownie points or special treatment, I'm fully aware that I have provoked a reaction to my apparently atrocious understanding of the issue, but it doesn't change the main push that I was aiming for with the article. People continue not to vaccinate their children due to scare stories, lack of information and a feeling that they are being forced to vaccinate in a certain way. That has been discussed in the comments and there have been some interesting replies.
As I said above, in hindsight I'd have written the article in a different way, but I didn't. The only way I could change that is to rewrite the article and have the one above removed, but then it wouldn't be cricket and it would be denying my lack of knowledge by hiding it, which again in my opinion isn't cricket either.
Thimersol is still in use. The information I put down is not flawed, it may not be complete, but it isn't flawed.
Sorry but I disagree that I should have to put two sides to the argument to prompt a debate or discussion and my analogy was not ludicrous at all. It was stating that you wouldn't expect two sided arguments in other articles, yet you say I should in this one. My opinion, you're free to disagree with me.
I will respond to some of the replies relating directly to the article, but the reason I am currently arguing with you and others is the fact that my reasons for posting the article in the first place are being questioned, not least by you. You continue to use terms such as 'cagily admit'. I'm not cagily admitting anything, if I believe I am wrong, I will say so in plain English.
I disagree with you that I have put myself forward as a figure of authority on the subject, and again, I categorically deny that it is articles like the one above that stop parents getting their children vaccinated. You are entitled to your opinion on this, as is anyone else, but I still do not percieve the article to be the 'scare story' you claim it to be. And whilst we disagree on that point, we'll continue to go around in circles.
Anyone who wishes to post an article on the LL can contact Alex and he does welcome new contributors all the time from varied backgrounds and many of whom have no background in journalism. You presume that I have responsibility but I'm expressing an opinion and hoping for a discussion. Yes, I'm offended at some of the comments, but the majority of people would be given some of the content below.
You can continue to repeat the same comment again and again with different wording and I can continue to disagree with you. You percieve what I have written from one angle, I see it from another. Just because you say something doesn't make it so and I am entitled to my postion/opinion. You view what I have written as some massive 'scare story', I disagree. You say I've 'shirked' responsibility yet I am here answering comments and continuing to be involved with the article I have written. Shirking responsibility would be to write the article and then not respond to the comments that followed. Would you prefer me to do that?
Whether I agree with you or not, you at have a very effective and eloquent way of presenting an argument.
Or do you understand that just because one vaccine is good, it doesn't mean everyone should have as many as possible?
The vaccine was 'withdrawn' but it turned out that old stocks were being 'used up' - a range of excuses followed.
Those who are so sure about medical assurances should consider how sure/confident the medical profession were with factor 8, thalidomide, blood (cjd) etc...
I remember the medical bods insisting that it was impossible for a protein to be an infectious agent - now prions seem pretty well accepted. It was only 1997 that a nobel prize was awarded for the proof that prions exist.
Before then any one suggesting such a thing would have got a reception like the one the article author gets here...
Just to run through the errors:
Thiomeseral - your facts concerning the toxicology here was just wrong
Measles - your understanding of the effects of vaccination and of herd immunity was incorrect. I have ignored the parochial statement about only one death - ignoring the remaining 200,000 per annum
Children's immune system - As pointed out below children's immune systems are extremely effective since following their birth a child is exposed to every antigen that the world can throw at them. If the child's immune system was undeveloped then immunisation of babies would be pointless.
Knowledge of HOW vaccines work. A vaccine does not remain in the body for life (in fact they are destroyed by the immune system PDQ) but the effects of immunisation last for at least many years if not for life.
Most of the paragraphs that you wrote contained at least one of these errors. This isn't me being pedantic but me trying to convince you WHY you got such a hostile reaction from professional scientists and medics who can see the damage that such an article can make.
I've read over this and I would like others to express an opinion. It relates directly to vaccinations and some of the misinformation given:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/the_facts_about_side_effects_cau#incoming-7443
It is the Freedom of Information stuff I mentioned before.
Your racism/terrorism analogy is frankly ludicrous; if you think vaccine support is in any way analogous to support for racism or murder, then all your claims of an open mind are bunk. Make up your mind: are you writing an opinion piece, or a call to debate? If it's the latter, then yes, you are expected to represent both sides. If it's the former, then you're expected to provide evidence (actual evidence, not scary descriptions). You can't have your cake and eat it.
As I said, the negative reaction you have garnered is because you are far from the first to wade into this debate, and you've done it in a frankly irresponsible manner; it took me, a lay-person (albeit one who's paid attention these last 10 years) a mere 15 minutes to find the vast studies I linked for you below. You are practising journalism here, like it or not; you have responsibilities and have shirked them.
People are failing to vaccinate their children precisely because of articles like yours, presented as honest concern but in fact making no effort whatsoever to get to the truth. Maybe your questions were formed in good faith as a parent, but they are now couched in loaded terms, as a figure of authority. You cagily admit to possibly being naive, but refuse to acknowledge the danger inherent in publishing such unfounded scare stories. Even now, you prefer not to respond directly to the replies providing you with evidence, instead taking to task people you feel are responding too robustly. You claim to want a debate on vaccines' efficacy and safety, but are instead conducting one on the niceties of anonymous discourse.
I'm sure it's unpleasant to be attacked from so many sides, but this, I'm afraid, is a direct result of your biased and irresponsible article. You are right in a way: the media is hugely responsible for the parlous state of vaccinations in this country. What you don't realise is that you are part of that very media, and contributing to the problem yourself.
That is then compounded because the authorities begin to discuss removing children from the education system if they don't have a certain jab. How is that supposed to help? To the parent that is just the authorities using their power to force the parent to immunise the child, whether they agree with the method or not.
Then there is the fact that NHS staff, doctors and midwives can not recommend where to find the single injections. Why not? If the goal is to get the child immunised, then what difference does it make in the case of the MMR whether you have the NHS jab with the combined, or you go privately to pay for seperates? Why is that even an issue?
Taking inspiration from one of the comments to me, if this article had been about racism, would you have expected me to put the argument across for the person who dislikes others because of their colour? Maybe an article about Labour values, do I argue the Conservative side as well just for balance? Or perhaps an article about terrorism, should I argue the case both for blowing up innocent people and against it?
I have already said I believe I should have written it another way, I have already admitted where I have gone wrong. Maybe the article is naive, it obviously needed to be corrected, but in my ipinion not in the manner some have chosen to do so.
If this is such an old debate or discussion, if the questions have been answered, then why are people failing to vaccinate their children? If it is no longer a problem, then it is debate closed, but it still a problem, so the debate/discussion whatever you want to call it is still open. You may be tired of the old arguments, but to me and many like me, it isn't an old argument at all.
It's perfectly possible that you and your wife are the innocent victims of the undeniably powerful emotive claptrap peddled by anti-vax types. Maybe you're owed the benefit of the doubt, but the unfortunate fact is that by blogging in such a prominent place you have inherited authority, and with it comes responsibility (and brickbats when you misuse it). It simply doesn't do for someone writing to a national audience to throw up their hands and say "I'm just asking questions!" They are loaded questions, and questions that have been answered ad nauseam for those who care to listen. Was it really not obvious to you when writing this article that you had only one side of the debate? It's not hard to come by the arguments in support of vaccines, after all, and yet they are absent in their entirety from your writing.
A spur for discussion is certainly a laudable motive, but your article quite plainly has made no attempt to represent two sides, let alone evaluate their arguments. This isn't a medical or a scientific failing; it is a journalistic one. It's a failing shared by many professional journalists, this much is certain, but I don't think that's an excuse.
Well yes - but I'm not sure how that's down to a lack of information or discussion; the research-based information is out there, but it's rather swamped by the half-truths and the scare stories which the media find much more interesting and which inevitably stick in the minds of worried parents. So what are health agencies supposed to do? They can't give credence or airtime to scare stories that go against the evidence, but by refusing to acknowledge them they attract charges of 'not being open to discussion'.
Though one thing I would say is that its not pedantic to pick up on your errors here. This is science afterall. Were you developing an argeument on social policy, for example, you would get more room. But when it comes to getting things right or wrong then with science it is black or white.
I only took one dose of Tamiflu as I think I did just have a 24 hour flu thing.
However I think there are many people in UK who are not contacting thier GP and who are not taking Tamiflu when they should be for whatever reason eg no flu friend.
My husband and I joked last week when I had to drive him to collect my medication, leaving our ill but recovering daughter alone for 45 mins. We know no one in this area and laughed when we realised that if he were to becone ill then I would have to drive to collect his medication.
Anyway atm we are all well!
So I am a responsible parent for ensuring my child has a suitable diet, a diet that I choose depending on the needs of my child. I am a responsible parent if I educate my child to a certain standard and ensure my child has every possible advantage. But, should I question the way my child is vaccinated on the NHS, I am irresponsible? How does that make sense?
My previous comment wasn't solely directed at you, but rather my feeling with regard to many comments that have been added to this article, and to be honest I see this article as worlds apart from 'I heard this' or 'someone told me that' and it was meant to open a discussion, I had hoped a positive one. Instead I have been lectured on the morality of my decisions, mocked and ridiculed along with my wife and generally been insulted left, right and centre. Do you expect me to be perfectly calm and reasonable when some commenters have implied that my wife and I have fabricated information?
You persistently ask for someone to step up and tell you that vaccines are absolutely safe, yet you cannot seem to see that all the information is being given to you, again and again!
No-one can tell you that ANYTHING is ABSOLUTELY safe! Life is risky. Do you drive a car? Fly? Cross the road? Smoke? Drink alcohol? Breathe city centre air? EVERYTHING has a risk, and your duty as a parent is to minimise the overall risk to your children as far as you reasonably can. You can do this by reading the FACTUAL information that has been pointed out to you, and being healthily sceptical of any opinion not backed up by reproducible scientific evidence.
And as for what's in the vaccines... well, in the absence of any evidence to show a problem, so what?
Have your child vaccinated.
(waits for angry replies)
Oh yes in a different meeting only the chidlren were allowed to talk - they simply were not interested in what the adults had to say. They were leftie, sandal wearing odd looking misfits who in a follow up letter with many innacuries that it was laughable: mentio of a son, a step mother , incorrect name etc It made me laugh then I got cross as my taxes fund these services.
The believe all discipline is bad - so have to ensure that no child is ever put in a position where they actually need any.
This works fine until the child grows up and risk can't be put out of reach.
Mind you I guess that is where all this socialist social control of adults comes from - they are noticing that these undisciplined wild kids are becoming undisciplined wild adults, and keeping thing out of reach needs new draconian laws that end up applying to us all...
This is the problem though, there is no mixed messages from the health authorities - the MMR vaccine is safe. They continue to say this. There is only confusion when article like this, or all the stuff started on the back of the Wakefiled saga, gets published. Its a self-prepetuating cycle of confusion and obfuscation caused by confused and misrepresented science.
Further to that it also feed the perception that the assertion that vaccines are safe is just an opinion, as valid as other opinions. It isn't. It is a demonstrable and proveable scientific fact. Just because some tree hugger who's into homeopathy says there are issues does not make it true.
Bill, let's chill. You made a case based on your moral responsibilities as a parent. People made a competing case based on your moral responsibilities as a parent. That much is opinion, but no ones lecturing anyone else since this is a two way process.
Yes, you have been very gracious in admitting errors in the past, and scepticism is a virtue. But I think the problem here is credulity over scare stories. It's a tough line I accept, but I think your selection of 'immunisation concern stories' is clearly limited and tendentious.
Is this what it comes to then ATT? We spend an afternoon debating pedantic points and misinterpreting what the other has said? What for, sport? Fun?
Immunisation is a public health issue, but rather than address the issues of thousands of kids who haven't been vaccinated, its obviously far more entertaining to brand me as an ill-informed unscientific quack right-wing anti-vaccine propaganda nutjob. And before you say it, I know you didn't say that ATT. Anthony said it above, but I doubt that will stop you finding another pedantic point to pick me up on and waste more time while we disagree with each other.
There is no valid evidence to support an anti-immunisation stance.
Do you know that for sure? Are you aware of all evidence ever produced and have you evaluated it all?
Or are you repeating something you heard/read somewhere - if so do you have a reference?
Have you included the risk of taking a child to a surgery where there may be other sick kids, the risk of dodgy equipment, and all the other variables?
And I'm sorry, but I haven't lectured anyone. I have stated an opinion in an article and all of a sudden you have the right to lecture me about my morals?
Fully accept contradiction and critism, but I don't see that it has to go hand in hand with insult and character assassination. You know fine well I admit when I'm wrong, always have and always will, but I fail to see that I was wrong to raise the issue, nor do I see it as wrong to question what gets injected into my children (or me for that matter).
By the by, my son was born in 1998, which was when I started asking questions. My second, 18 months ago, and my daughter just over a month ago, so yes, I did have sex 9 months ago, but quite how that is relevant or for that matter, anything for you to comment on is beyond me.
I repeat again for the hard of thinking, I am not anti-immunisation. Could you please find me where I state in the article that my children will not be vaccinated at all? Can you also find me where I state that I am against vaccinations full stop? You can't, because I didn't say it.
As far as accepting answers, I have accepted a number of answers here and perhaps the most relevant from Katherine's comment above where she states that no one can give me a 100% answer one way or the other.
Apologies for depressing you, but I fail to see what being a socialist has to do with being a concerned parent? Do socialists just ignore fears and push on regardless? As I was told many a time as a child, if you jump of a bridge, would I follow you?
Sorry to burst your bubble along with everyone else here who seems to think I'm some sort of lone nutjob, but thousands of parents are asking questions and thousands of children are going without vaccines.
Do you think it is aimed at parent trying to make a decision about immunising their children?
or
Do you think it was an open an honest post by a parent to clearly explain how it feels to be in that position, as a prompt for genuine discussion of the issues, and to maybe help other who don't understand what 'the problem' is to get a better handle on it.
I think it is the latter, and anyone who thinks silence is better than even having a discussion about a discussion is bonkers.
Anyone who doesn't 'get it' should read, understand and learn - not try to 'shame into silence' based on their own uninformed prejudices.
What next - pretend there are no immigration issues in this country and then feign surprise when the BNP get elected ? Oh... thats already been done.
Discussion is good.
I suspect the author would just *love* not to think about these things ever again - you can help by answering all his questions, or hinder by shouting him down.
Try turning up at a court with a highly infectious disease, and telling everyone there that your illness is an 'entirely private matter'.
Reading some of the comments in reply to my article, I don't believe my spelling or grammar is high on the agenda with the majority, but duly noted for future reference.
And Bill, with all due respect: it's a bit rich to criticise others for 'lecturing' you, when you've just expended several hundred words lecturing us. I don't doubt your intentions here (though I completely disavow your conclusions about immunisation), but surely if you post this in a public space you've got to accept contradiction and criticism.
As a teacher, I don't particularly hold sway with using children as object lessons, but I think you introduced them into the conversation, and deployed your own concerns as a 'parent' to bolster your argument.
I'm actually a parent as well, and held my son down when he cried during his MMR jabs. It was hard, but I understood the greater principle. I also think the scare stories about autism and MMR were highly irresponsible, and as all subsequent research has proven, unfounded. So I would also urge you to exercise caution when dealing with public health issues which require both a deep understanding of both microbiology and epidemiology.
So to reverse your last point: what gives you any sort of authority on this issue?
Just curious
And where does this term 'vaccine denier' come from? I've heard of climate change denier, but I wasn't aware it had spread to vaccines as well. Nice to know everything has a label and that anything I say will be taken out of context, thrown around a bit or ignored, but since when have I become a 'vaccine denier'?
This is getting to be quite surreal. I write an article based on opinion and the majority of the information being fact and all of a sudden I'm some sort of conspiracy theorist, denier (presumably in the same way the BNP deny the holocaust) and I'm widely viewed as a simple-minded, knuckle dragging idiot who is damaging the issue by bringing it up. Perhaps surreal is the wrong word, but I'm sure someone will be along in a minute to point out my error and claim that if I'd remained in education for a year or so more, or perhaps studied English I would understand my error.
Utterly disgusted with the level of some of the comments here and excusing yourself due to some apparent flaws in an 800 word article isn't good enough. But then I wrote that 800 or so word article, so why do I deserve even a modicum of respect or common decency.
You bring up the MMR, but there is more than one way to skin a cat. Whether my wife and I choose the MMR as the best method of immunising our children, or whether we opt for private treatment and have them sepearately is entirely our concern, but again, where did I state my children would not be vaccinated?
I know of many children who are not vaccinated, I know of many parents who have refused consent for several injections other than the MMR and they will continue to do so because they are not happy with the information currently available.
So thank you for the lecture regarding my apparent selfishness, very much appreciated but not really necessary. One last thing, how does being a teacher give you any sort of authority on this issue? Just curious.
With relation to spreading scare stories, again, I fail to see how the article above does that? It states what is in an injection, the fact that multiple injections are given in a short time period and as far as I'm concerned correctly says that there is no discussion on immunisation and a lack of information given to parents.
Your dissection of my article is in my opinion wholly unfair given that you assume I have copied and pasted it largely from the internet, rather than reading what I am saying. I am not implying that children should not be vaccinated, if you are unclear about that, please could you quote in the article where I have said that?
It is fact that thousands of children remain unvaccinated because parents are unwilling to allow them to have combined injections and the information relating to these vaccines is hidden unmong a mass of disinformation. So you suggest we do what about that situation? Ignore it? Force parents by law to have their children vaccinated as the state sees fit?
Disagree with the way I have written the article, and in hindsight I think there was possibly a better way to ask for a discussion on immunisations, but I repeat, I do not accept I have done damage to the issue, I disagree I am spreading propaganda and at no time during the article did I claim to been an authority on the subject.
Judging by the narrow minded and insulting replies I have recieved from some, it would appear that there is no room for debate on the subject. Children will continue to go unvaccinated as a result, but what does that matter, it is much more important to shout someone down on the internet after all.
Could you point out in the article though where I have stated that something is lethal? I've stated things I found after cross-referencing, and obviously there are some flaws in the information I have found, but you seem to be implying that my wife and I have fabricated information. Is that the level of debate you want, or do you have anything constructive to add?
You are clearly a concerned father worried about a big decision. I don't think anyone could ever blame you for wanting to take this issue seriously and you certainly appear to have done some research. Unfortunately, it looks like you have been reading very alarmist literature or have mis-understood what you have read (but without links to your references I can't say for certain).
Unfortunately, the article you have now published on the internet will be found by other parents in your position and, although you do make it clear you are not an expert, you do mention the ‘facts’ put forward by experts. In short, your ill-informed (and I use the word, not to cause offence) discussion with authoritative sounding un-referenced ‘facts’ adds to the problem other parents may face when deciding whether or not to vaccinate their children from deadly diseases.
Although there are no absolute certainties in much of science, statistics are another matter. A child is more likely to die of measles if not vaccinated than to be damaged by a vaccination if it is.
I would like to urge you to amend your article, not just in the comments section (who reads these anyway?), but in the main text.
I'm not saying that vaccine denialism is equivalent to BNP sympathies, of course. I'm saying you need to exercise common sense in assessing your sources. As any journalist knows who's ever slipped up by trusting Wikipedia.
The medical establishment isn't beyond blame: for years it was too authoritarian, and presumed it always knew better than its patients. But immunisation is one of those no-brainer things that require collective action for individual benefit.
Part of being a parent is teaching your kids some moral lessons. What you're basically proposing is 'free riding'. You'll absent your children from the MMR vaccine, assuming others won't. It's classic selfishness in operation, and with the long term downsides apparent.
Did you know that in addition to being a component of almost all vaccines and medicines, it is even recommended by Big Pharma to "help" ingest their pills?
Even educated people are often unaware of the very real hazards associated with this substance but thankfully the truth can be found by those looking for answers:
http://www.dhmo.org/
We can only hope that after a bit of reading from some dubious sources, Mr Dewison and his wife will make something up as they go along and expose this DHMO conspiracy.
I can't recall the incident you talk of but it does sound like a rumour rather than reality.
Each outer box is labelled with batch #, expiry date or use by/before, product license #,marketing authority #. In addition each single unit of a drug ie a vila, ampoule, sachet, nebule, iv bag, dressing would be labelled with batch #, expiry date or use by/before. They would both be recorded on a patients chart or immunisation book (red book as they know in the community).
I too always double check everything I am told we owe it to ourselves and our families.
What a defence. "I deny doing damage or spreading misinformation as all I have done is credulously rehash and post ill-informed unscientific quack right-wing anti-vaccine propaganda which I have read on the internet".
We can all find utter rubbish on the internet and repost it. The point is you need to be able to discern what is good information, and what is utter drivel. What makes you think a bit of googling gives you special insight that makes you more qualified to discuss this issue than the scientists advising the government on vaccination, the World Health Organisation and 99.9999% of all medical professionals in the UK?
This is even worse than the tripe that Melanie Phillips posts on her blog.
Utterly disgraceful.
Firstly it increases the amount of the things you are worried about (rightly or wrongly, rationally or irrationally) being injected into your child - more injections = more suspension fluid etc.etc..
Secondly it increases the amount of time your child is vulnerable to nasty diseases, thereby increasing their chances of getting said nasty diseases.
Thirdly parents have a tendency not to follow up early vaccinations/immunisations and complete the programme. Parents can find the whole thing rather traumatic - their child doesn't like having a needle stuck in them and lets you know about it, not to mention if the child has any side effects (eg starts to run a fever) - and so don't come back.
I think that at least some of the ridiculous opinions about vaccines come from people forgetting how bad these diseases were. When I had measles as a child I spent a week in bed. And by "in bed" I mean too weak to stand, high fever, aching, hardly eating. Have friends who were worse and ended up partially deaf. So when we discuss risks let's please remember that before vaccination around 400,000 children a year caught measles. Of these ~4,000 ended up in hospital, ~2,000 had convulsions, ~400 contracted encephalitis or meningitis and ~ 80 died.
Daughter number 2 seemed in good spirits today after managing a full day at school! She is 15 btw.
I think at the start I was looking for information on the global outbreak on non-UK sites as the UK sites were just not coping.
However they quickly got themselves sorted and I no longer look at the CDC site.
The HPA, DOH and WHO sites are really informative.
I did laugh when it was announced that the containment phase was over because I read that a good week before the government’s announcement. Every time something like that happens I despair even more at this incompetent government.
I think that the nature of the beast was unknown and so I guess that’s why contacts of those testing positively for swine flu were treated. In hindsight this was a silly move in the West.
Did you know that at the end of June Denmark recorded the first case of a patient infected by the A/H1N1 who had developed a resistance to Tamiflu?
However the patient did respond to Relenza, the other antiviral drug normally used against the main forms of influenza.
So Novartis, Sanofi-Aventis , GlaxoSmithKline , and Solvay will be shipping out the swine flu vaccine very soon let’s hope it will target the swine flu that will be affecting populations then.
This of course makes them NK.
How so?
Unlicensed pharmaceutical products are available on a named patient basis in UK and have been for years. The so called 'black listed drugs' can be purchased privately but they have licenses but are consider not as effective (or cost effective) as others.
I have first hand experinec of dealing with abusive social workers:
Social worker 'hmm what is in those bottles?'
Me 'alcohol'
Social worker 'are there glass doors on the shelf that I can not see?'
Me 'no, we do not feel a need to lock up bottles of alcohol, we trust the children not to touch it'
Social worker 'do you know how much is in and every bottle'
Me 'roughly yes'
and so it went on...I had invited these people into my house and they wrote in their report that the "alcohol should be locked up and that the adults should show control over their use of alcohol".
Honestly get lost, it was enough to drive me to reach for a pint of G&T.
"it was an article posted about the lack of information given to parents about immunisation".
Look. Medicine and science agree. MMR is as safe as it gets. The benefits >>>>>> risks. The NHS will tell you this wherever you go. There really shouldn't be a debate on it.
Perhaps you should focus your attention on WHY there still is. Why are people actively promoting not immunizing? Since this is far more dangerous than driving 20 mph over the speed limit every time you're on a dual carriageway, why isn't this fineable?
If we do a thought experiment. Let's say it takes 1,000 non immunisations to result in 1 measles death. Let's say you're Jenny McCarthy, American former playboy model and outspoken antivaxxer that gets to promote this agenda on the Oprah Winfrey show.
Multiply her influence on people with the number of non vax'ings. Calculate the number of deaths thus caused. Now if it's >1, why is she still free to spout this dangerous nonsense?
Actual. Lives. Are. At. Stake.
Please do something about it.
On their Measles Fact Sheet it states : As high as 10% of measles cases result in death among populations with high levels of malnutrition and a lack of adequate health care.
Unlike some I do not feel a community duty to do anything.
I am concerned at the fast tracking of the Swine Flu (H1N1) vaccine, it will be made avaialble to UK patients within 5 days of being developed.
There is a write up on this here :
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article6694046.ece
Even though I work in the industry I am concerned about having this vaccine.
The Government insists on allowing this poisonous chemical to be used on our children, despite of these facts:
- Accidental inhalation of DHMO can kill, even in small quantities
- Prolonged exposure to solid DHMO causes severe tissue damage.
- DHMO is a major component of acid rain.
- Gaseous DHMO can cause severe burns.
- DHMO leads to corrosion and oxidation of many metals.
- Found in biopsies of pre-cancerous tumors and lesions.
DHMO is not only found in vaccines - it continues to be used daily by industry:
- as an industrial solvent and coolant,
- in nuclear power plants,
- in the production of Styrofoam,
- in the manufacture of biological and chemical weapons
- in the development of genetically engineering crops and animals
There is as much evidence to support banning DHMO as there is to support scrapping MMR - why isn't it being discussed?
Have you heard of the following:
Phosphorus (makes nice stuff like organophosphates and nerve warfare agents), Sodium (one of those alkali metals the science teachers used to put in water at school and it fizzed around), Potassium (another alkali metal from the school classroom, it's the one that goes mental and really reacts violently when placed in water), Chlorine (used in disinfectants like bleach and handy for keeping the nasties out of swimming pools, the Germans also found a handy use for it during the first world war to gas allied soldiers as when entering the lungs it forms hydrochloric acid), sulphur (used in detergents and fungicides), cobalt (used in Lithium Ion batteries), lead (going to assume you've heard how nasty this stuff can be to us humans).
Can we agree that there's some pretty nasty stuff up there? Good. Apart from all those substances are found naturally in the human body, yours, mine, everyone's (unless that have a particular deficiency for some reason or another which incidentally usually causes problems).
Going down the route of picking up a list of various nasties and turning it into an argument about 'you wouldn't want this kind of stuff in your body would you' is scientifically disingenuous. There's lots of stuff out there that's really rather bad for us fleshies, but it all a question of proportion. Some of it's no problem at all and completely vital to our existence and good functioning but you wouldn't want too much of it of course.
As for your use of statistics over one death from measles in the last 17 years, do you think perhaps, there might be a reason there's only been one death in that time? Vaccination possibly? The death rate from measles is circa 3 in every thousand, pretty low odds but a right bummer if you happen to be one of those three. Not to mention other complications that include varying levels of blindness and if caught in adult males; infertility. You mention about your daughter but not your son. If you haven't had him vaccinated and he manages to get through childhood without catching it but gets it in his 20's and then finds out he can't have kids or you're not going to get any little grand kids to play around with, how exactly are you or him going to feel based on the decisions that you've taken on what looks like taking notice of ill-informed woo-mongering?
As a Labour type, such as myself, don't you also consider that you have a civic duty to your community/society as a whole? To prevent serious outbreaks of measles we need to maintain a vaccination rate of circa 85-90%. When it dips below that we start seeing it coming back. Just say for instance you child gets it because they're not vaccinated but they don't suffer any side-effects and recover fine. Great for you as a relieved parent, but lets just say for instance they pass it on to their best friend at school whose parent also decided not to vaccinate their kid and they die. Hypothetical and an extreme case scenario I know but tell me, how exactly would you feel when you run into your kids best friend's parents in the supermarket?
You make an interesting point about combined vaccinations, the MMR being probably the most debated on account of a completely useless and hideously flawed/fiddled bit of 'research' in 1998 that got the media into a frenzy and probably accounts for the falling levels of vaccination in particular relation to measles. The best example of the use of the MMR vaccine probably comes from Finland who adopted it early and effectively eradicated the diseases from the population with no reports of any side-effects. MMR is recommended by the (WHO) World Health Organisation and for all those paranoid 'big pharma companies are evil' conspiracy theorists, WHO aren't exactly known for being uncritical of their industry's practices.
On a personal note and as a parent with kids, 3 and 1. We've had all their vaccinations done because although there is never any 100% guarantee in anything in life, the alternative odds of complications and even death sure as hell aren't very attractive to us.
On a final point, I've had measles, it's crap, really crap. It probably didn't help having whooping cough at exactly the same time when I was 4 years old. My mother sat at my beside for nearly a month nursing me back to health and I had to have daily visits by my GP. If you fancy doing that with your kids then by all means be my guest - I won't.
I have two boys - german measles will do them no harm - why would I let them be vaccinated against it?
Ok, so I don't want unnecessary vaccinations (i.e. german measles), so what are my options? Oh - the crappy NHS witholds measles and mumps.
Can I get them privately? no because the government have gone out of their way to make them unlicensed so not available at all...
Go on keep trying to *force* me to let you do what you will with my kids, I will fight you tooth and nail, I don't recognise anyones authority over them but my own.
Who should I unquestioningly trust my kids to? Abusive social workers, abusive priests, abusive doctors etc... No, I'll choose on a case by case basis as I see fit and accept responsibility, is on my own head as a parent and I will be answerable to my kids when they are older.
That's not a solution to their question, it just makes them think there's actually something to worry about and means more children are likely to miss one or more vaccination.
The problem isn't that people are asking questions, it's that they often don't have any frame of reference for the answers. People want to know that everything they give to their child is completely safe, but there's no such thing in the real world. Even if the risk is less than you child being hit by an asteroid, humans are notoriously bad at judging relative risk.
There's a similar problem with the ingredients sounding nasty where food ingredients concerned. Almost all processed foods have some form of additive and most of them sound like "chemicals". Unfortunately, people then can't tell synthetic chemicals added for colour from vitamins added as preservatives.
If you've got young kids, you should definitely check out a book called E Is For Additives. It'll tell you why somethings there, where it's from and what risks there are.
Science is based upon critical rationalism and the null hypothesis.
I'd agree with you though that to the average member of the public this is a hard thing to grasp, not least as science is taught so badly in schools at the moment.
What we end up with is a scientifically illiterate population and fiascos like the MMR scare, climate change nay-sayers and endless posters mocking bird-flu, swine-flu and CJD.
No, it isn't wrong.
What you are experiencing is the understandable frustration of people who have seen these arguments many times before, often balancing a few anecdotes and one piece of discredited research against a large number of research studies. As a result of the one side getting MUCH more press than the other in recent years, immunisation rates have dropped to a level that is dangerous, and we will be seeing deaths as a result. As a result some jump too hard on those who seem to be pushing a line that they think will lead to people dying.
I think you're probably right about the ethics - but at least it's a fairly amazing example of a life lost that wasn't in vain. The original foetus was aborted because it had rubella; its cell-line descendants prevent others dying and being disabled from the same disease.
If we don't put anything into our bodies until it is proved absolutely safe in all dose levels, we'll all die pretty fast. (After all, drinking too much water will kill you!)
It has been extensively proven that these vaccines cut death and serious injury rates by frankly incredible amounts. It has been theorised, and thus far, not proven that MMR is dangerous (bar one inconclusive, poorly organised trial which has been widely condemned). {I'm not linking to these results, as many others have here already)
You are right to want to ask the questions. However, as you'll never have 100% proof one way or the other, how will you weigh the answers? It's pretty conclusive that not immunising your child exposes them to danger of serious illness or death, and increases that risk to others (lack of herd immunity). It's less conclusive that there may be dangers. And you have to look at the sources. You're generally going to have to balance scientists who've studied 100's of thousands of cases against people with a handful of anecdotes and a liking for conspiracy theories.
As well as timing dangers, one of the dangers of having three seperate jabs is simply the visiting the doctors. Lets put it this way. Do you want to sit in a room full of ill people with infectious illnesses in close proximity three times or once?
The child abuse angle is interesting. Personally I'm not sure that parents believing scare stories over science and acting dangerously as a result should be considered child abuse. However, in some other arenas, parents have been prosecuted for not treating serious injuries with real medicine that could have cured the child. However, I guess if you child never goes to school, and avoids people in later life too, the risks to themselves and others from not being immunised is small.
The hardest part is this. If one person doesn't get their child immunised, it's no problem (and there are some who cannot be, due to health issues). If 5% of people aren't immunised, it's not a big problem. You'll get a few flare ups, and maybe the odd serious case. If 20% of people aren't immunised, we'll see significant numbers of serious cases and deaths. Yes, there may be small chances of side effects, but that has to be balanced against the significant risk of widespread serious issues.
Big Pharma are sometimes resort to dirty tricks, such as hiding the results of negative tests to make their drugs appear better than they are. However, numerous independent studies are carried out as well as company funded ones, and there are well established methods to remove much of this bias. In an ideal world all drug testing would be completely independent, but I wouldn't hold your breath for this.
Despite the shortcomings of a corporate system of drug research, the scale of any conspiracy in the case of MMR would have to be massive. Much data would have to not just be withheld, but outright falsified. This includes several studies with hundreds of thousands to millions of participants, by publicly funded research organisations in multiple countries (Finland and Denmark are two that spring instantly to mind). Such a conspiracy would involve not just big pharma companies, but numerous governments, universities and medical professionals around the globe. Such scale not only makes a conspiracy impractical, it also renders it pretty pointless; there are far easier ways for pharmaceuticals to make money.
I think your final comment -- "I think it shows how little any of us really know" -- is were the crux of this argument lies. I'll admit freely that I know little about medicine or vaccinations, at least compared to the doctors and scientists that research these things. This is the strength of the scientific method, and peer-reviewed journals. They allow those who do have the knowledge to argue it out until they come to some sort of conclusion. It is then left to more generalists (such as GPs, who still have seven years more medical training than you or I) to communicate these findings to the public when they need to.
In the end, it is not governments or pharmaceuticals or even the NHS that I trust, it is Science.
1) Wakefield's MMR paper *even as presented* did not show a link between MMR and autism. It was a tiny series of 12 self-selected case studies, which even then did not uniformly show immune problems. Even these weak results were partially falsified by Wakefield, who is now a medical disgrace. He merely found 12 children who had had MMR (like almost every child), and had autism. This is not difficult. He also kept silent about the fact that he was being employed as an expert witness in a class action lawsuit against vaccine manufacturers. You want a conspiracy? Here's one.
2) Madsen et al's study of over half a million children for the Danish Epidemiology Science Centre showed no correlation between MMR vaccinations and autism. Link: http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/347/19/1477
3) A study conducted by the CDC showed no correlation between MMR and autism. Link: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/113/2/259
4) After Japan withdrew MMR to replace it with single shots, there was no detectable decrease in autism rates. Link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1469-7610.2005.01425.x
There have been many more vast studies, all of them showing no statistical link between MMR and autism; you can find descriptions of some in this *six year old* article by Ben Goldacre: http://
www.badscience.net/2003/12/mmr-never-mind-the-facts/
You keep challenging people for the evidence in favour of vaccines; it is abundant, and your ignorance of it is inexcusable, not only for a supposedly concerned parent, but for someone who presumes to lecture others about concern for their children. It is your turn to provide evidence against vaccines; evidence that is not scary lay descriptions of pharmaceutical ingredients, or tired paranoid inferences from the acts of politicians. The data is there; if you choose to ignore it, that's your problem.
Might I suggest the following book as a good primer to understand some basic principles of the scientific method and how it can go wrong or be misused and misunderstood by certain groups, including "educated people":
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Bad-Science-Ben-Goldacre/dp/000728487X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1247507634&sr=8-1
This is not meant to be spam btw but an honest recommendation to help you improve your understanding of modern medical science. Get it from the local library.
The truth - as always - is far far less emotive. The MRC-5 cell line (one of the main cell lines used) was isolated in 1966 from a single male aborted foetus and cultured ever since. There are NO cells living that came directly from the foetus, in much the same way that there is probably more of Henrietta Lacks genetic material alive now that ever when she was alive. (The very well known cell line HeLa came from Henrietta)
I also suggest that a modern ethics committee would reject the use of such harvesting such cells for research - but that was done over 40 years ago in the days of (immediate past) capital punishment, overt homophobia and racism. "The past is a foreign country ...."
You shouldn't believe everything you read on the internet. Try typing "moon-landing", "9-11" or "the assassination of JFK" into google. With anything as controversial, such as vaccines, there will be many opinions floating round the web, some of them utter rubbish. If you can show me some reliable links showing the dangers of vaccines then my kids (if I have any) will be very grateful. Otherwise there are people here (myself included) who I'm sure will be very happy to reassure you over the safety of vaccines and show you why the websites you've read are wrong.
I think we need an honest independant review of the whole thing to educate parents about this issue without them feeling they are being lied to over the facts, treat us like the adults we are, I'm sure we can handle it. I feel that all negative comments and concerns are being swept aside while the government bangs it's drum for the positives sacrificing a few for 'the greater good'. If parents had the facts in front of them, rather than digging around on the internet and coming up with the wrong conclusions, uptake in the vaccination schemes would increase.
The article I've written was based on quite a bit of reading, possibly from some dubious sources by the looks of things, and my wife and I made notes together as we went along. I'll openly admit when I saw the list of ingredients in the average injection, I was more than a little shocked, so I concentrated on the one of them and cross referenced it with various websites. I then looked up information with relation to measles specifically, and found that the stories I'd read in the media where inaccurate, so I added that in to the article.
Now maybe I am ill-informed, it very much looks that way from some of the great information posted below, but I didn't claim to be a scientist. I stated I had little knowledge and I also stated that it was information I had found. I've reread the article a number of times and I'm sorry, but it doesn't deserve the thrashing I've recieved in comments below. I'm not an idiot, I'm a concerned father and I take onboard that with limited medical knowledge and some of the websites I've looked at having a focused anti-immunisation agenda that I could have gone a lot further and found some of the links posted below by other people.
No doubt this reply will be jumped on and I will again be accused of a number of inaccuracies and told I should never have written this article for the LL, but the reason I wrote it was to get people to talk about the issues surrounding immunisation. What exactly is wrong with that? It isn't anti-science, it's nothing like being anti-science, I wanted to have a discussion based on what I had been reading about and I wanted informed comments on what I'd found, which granted, some comments have been very helpful in resolving at least some of my worries, but others are just filled with insults. Whats that all about? Is having a discussion about immunisation wrong?
In short, yes, the article has a lack of scientific knowledge, but it wasn't designed to attack anyone, it was an article posted about the lack of information given to parents about immunisation and behind it the mixed messages we get from the media and government ministers such as Tony Blair who refused to say whether his son was given an injection and then set about looking at whether single injections could be given to babies as opposed to the combined injections. Obviously I should have stated UK in relation to the measles bit, obviously I should have researched thimerosol more thoroughly, but I deny doing damage or spreading misinformation as all I have done is relay what I have found.
The crunch is that there are thousands of parents across Britain who have the very same questions and who are looking at the very same research that my wife and I have looked at. They are doing the same thing, wondering whether they should get their children vaccinated or not. But dare they ask questions? Should they ask a medical professional as we did who didn't put our fears at rest? They are educated people, people who don't just follow everything they are told to do because they have valid questions. And if the immediate solution to their question is to offer single vaccinations instead of combined, what is wrong with letting them do that and pay for the difference in cost out of their own pocket?
Dear Bill,
Perhaps you could tell me your search strategy on pubmed, and which articles you were able to retrieve and review?
I respect and empathise with your position. I was in a similar position some years ago (closer to the whole MMR uproar). It quickly struck me that there were zealots on both sides and that while opinons were plentiful, the reliability of information could not be assumed.
I was fortunate in that I had been trained in scientific methods. I knew that you don't get evidence from the web. Google is not research nor is a website much more than a collection of opinions, some of them held with rather more enthusiasm than sense.
The place to go is the scientific literature - avoid google. Use pubmed. There you will find scientific papers which report real data and real hypothesis-testing. There you'll find the debate that you seek - a debate that relies on careful rational thought rather than highodecibel opinions. Scientific method - which functions disseminates itself through careful peer-reviewed publication, is rarely perfect but it is far better than the strident tub-thumping that you'll find from searches of the web.
I am glad that you want to do the research in making the decision. I won't pre-empt your conclusions but I would urge you to focus your reseach on the science not the websites.
(my own decision was eventually rather easy to make - once I had weeded out the prophets and zealots from my research, it was clear that there is no more reason to suppose that MMR causes autism than to suppose that turkeys cause christmas)
DWARFIST!!
Separate injections mean fewer children have the full course (because of missed appts mainly) and the longer time between doses means more chance to catch the infections, which means more children suffer (and potentially die), and therefore the diseases also have more chance to spread in communities and affect people who haven't yet had the immunisations or can't have them (the immunocompromised). Not the simplest answer at all.
You're in an incredibly privileged position to be able to consider whether or not to immunise, you know; if these diseases were rife in the country I suspect you'd be jumping at the chance to protect your family. And the reason they *aren't* rife? Oh yeah - mass vaccinations.
No there aren't. Do a bit more research (as opposed to copy-and-pasting stuff off the internet without questioning it).
You would be a terrible parent if you didn't pay attention to what your children are being vaccinated against, of course. But you are spreading misinformation and bad science. You list ingredients without understanding anything about them, and without any sort of context. You parrot rubbish you find on anti-science scare sites. You imply there is a debate where there is none.
You are afraid because you are using for your information sites that are written to induce fear.
> I really don't want to risk my son's life or my daughters.
Then get them vaccinated. Failure to do that is massively negligent and far more likely to harm them than not vaccinating them.
"hoping that someone with more knowledge than I can glean from the internet will put forward an argument that will reassure me about whether I'm doing the right thing for my children"
You don't vaccinate your children for their sake only, or even primarily. It's your responsibility to do it to protect the wider community. The chances are your kids aren't in that category, so it's fine for them to get these diseases, just like I did when I was a kid. The
The problem is that the loss of a broad base of immunity means more kids are getting these diseases, which in turn means there's a much higher chance of a vulnerable child catching them and becoming very sick or dying.
That's beginning to happen, right now, because of this kind of self-centred, amateur hand-wringing. You have the opinion of the medical profession. If you disagree, do the research. If you are not qualified to do the research then keep out of it; lives are at stake in this. Probably not your kids', but that doesn't mean you don't have to care.
As it says on that page, "The information here originally appeared in, Homeopathy in Practice Journal". Sounds like a great place to use as a scientific resource. Your other linked resource is another anti-vaccine website. If that's where you get your information, of course you're going to be scared - you're reading scare-sites.
> why is this problem not being addressed properly
Because there isn't a problem - there is scare-mongering by people who are basing their opinions on bad science. There is no evidence at all to link vaccines and autism or other harmful side-effects (other than the obvious, allergies etc). There is tonnes of evidence that vaccines do a great job of preventing your children from dying from easily avoidable diseases.
You are being irresponsible by not vaccinating your children. Go and speak to an actual medical professional if you want real information.
The link between MMR and autism is based mainly on the fact that since the introduction of the MMR vaccine autism rates have increased dramatically. It is quite easy to replace MMR in the above argument with many other things, from the internet to piped gas in homes to mobile phones.
During the time which autism rates have risen, so has the amount of TV children watch. A link between TV and autism sounds just as plausible as MMR and autism. Or perhaps it is just that the definition of autism is much more broad now than it was 30 years ago.
How do we figure whether MMR actually causes autism, rather than the huge amount of other factors that could be responsible? You have to compare a large number of kids who had the vaccine with a large number of kids that didn't, and see if the autism rates vary. This has been done, with 537,303 childeren in Denmark. That is not a typo, this study included over half a million children. They found no link between MMR and autism.
This study can be found here http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/347/19/1477
Kreesten Meldgaard Madsen, M.D. et al.
A Population-Based Study of Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Vaccination and Autism
The New England Medical Journal, Volume 347:1477-1482 November 7, 2002
Want a great response.
I hope your daughter is feeling better. I can’t imagine how worrying it must be. My mother use to give us hot lemonade when we had bad throats.
How do you think the Government have handled the situation?
In Unity
MA
consensus is there to be challenged. The article above hardly constitutes science.
they are dealing with 24 hours a day. What is the marginal impact of the vaccine?
The internet is full of the rubbish you are peddling here. Why pollute Labourlist with such nonsense?
Throughout this thread you have asked for a debate, but accused anyone who questions your viewpoint of trying to close this debate down. This is irrational. There is no valid evidence to support an anti-immunisation stance. Questions are fine, but accepting answers is also part of life.
That this post appears at all on Labour List is depressing, as it is a prime example of a viewpoint that should be considered as anathema to social justice. If you reduce the herd immunisation, more kids get sick. This is not a Socialist thing to do.
The former is supposed to be a solution to the latter. A single jab also reduces the amount of preservatives used like thimerosal that you're worried about.
"For instance, take the measles virus, are you aware that in the past 17 years there has been one death in relation to measles?"
That doesn't mean that a measles vaccine is unnecessary, it just shows that it works. Waving statistics around out of context is one of the reasons people have accused you of being "anti-science". To give it some context;
1960-69 861 deaths
1970-79 231 deaths
1980-89 000 deaths
The measles vaccine was introduced in 1968.
"It has been noted that the media in general have exagerated figures by as much as 700% to sensationalise their story which does nothing but damage to the messages the government is trying to convey to parents just like me."
It's a shame that people have such selective memories, otherwise they might apply that same scepticism to whichever scare story got them worried initially. It also doesn't help that the explanation for why someone like Wakefield was completely wrong can often be complicated and the media have no interest in explaining it.
The other common trick to beef up a story's impact is the ick-factor. That's where you use chemical names that people are unfamiliar with and phrases like "animal byproducts".
"Before the National MMR Vaccine Catch-up Campaign was launched, providing PCTs (Primary Care Trusts) with additional funding of £30,000 each, wouldn’t it have been prudent to discuss some of the concerns of parents about the MMR?"
Not necessarily, if "discussion" is the usual combination of the uninformed and terrified running around waving there arms in the air, it'll be no help at all. There's only so long you can spend discussing the non-existence of the monster under your kids bed before you have to tell them just go to sleep.
Anti-natal? Waste of time.
Regarding vaccines - wasn't there a problem with the suspension (or whatever) containing mercury, but the NHS 'lost' all the use by dates, so said they couldn't identify the old unfit batches so kept using them anyway?
When push comes to shove, I wouldn't take a doctors word on anything I couldn't verify myself.
http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.1000114
This is a really nice article, although it focuses primarily on MMR it's an eloquent round-up of the science around the debate and attempts to address why doubts still persist in light of overwhelming evidence. For me, this was perhaps the most depressing line in the piece:
"When researchers announced in 1955 that a nationwide trial showed that the first polio vaccine was safe and effective, inventor Jonas Salk was greeted as a national hero. Today, rotavirus vaccine inventor Paul Offit routinely endures vitriolic attacks on his credibility, along with death threats, for defending the safety of vaccines."
I had my thirteen month daughter vaccinated early in spring, and give thanks daily that I did. Of course I understand the concern but any (real) doubts are dwarfed by the risks of an entirely preventable disease (it's worth remembering that around one in ten cases of measles in London last year required hospitalization).
I'll leave the final word to Roald Dahl.
http://www.blacktriangle.org/blog/?p=715
Bill's research is flawed on the mercury front and most certainly on the 1 fatality from measles.
He suggested that one of the contributors use google, the trouble is that the information is out there but you have to be able to decipher the relevent certified sites form the cranky ones with poor evidence.
in asking is it safe for your child to be given a vaccine you don't appear to have asked yourself whether it is safe for you child not to be given a vaccine. You need to consider the risks of not immunising your children and them then contracting an illness that could be painful, leave them with a permanent injury, or even be fatal.
Personally I think the government has done a good job on this, and the NHS Immunisation website explains things pretty well: http://www.immunisation.nhs.uk/
However, if you really want to be thinking about risk and statistics I recommend reading The Tiger That Isn't by Michael Blastland and Andrew Dilnot.
Also if you visit the WHO website you can type in MMR in the search box and get access to further information. I have a greater faith in the WHO than in the UK government due to the fact that WHO have attacked ruthless Pharmaceutical companies historically and have a reasonably good record.
On the Department of Health Website you can again enter MMR in the search box and get access to the latest data. Normally I would trust this site, but in light of the recent exposure of Ministers getting jobs with private sector firms I will remain suspicious as to thier motives.
This of course is the consequence of them showing us thier true colours and the consequent harm done as a result of loss of trust. Which is why we need to get rid of the Right Wing corruption and insanity in the New Labour/Old Labour party and ensure our MP's have no vested interest with any private health firms and so retain objectivity (So I wouldn't ask Milburn or associated cronies (about MMR for example as you are likely to get a similar or worse reponse than from Tony Blair).
I do not think you should worry too much, just get as much information as you can, even consider getting a second opinion or speaking to other parents who have taken the jab and see what they say; then you can make an informed decision.
If you find anything that does not make sense on the Department of Health website let me know and I swear I'll address it to the Minister on your behalf when I return to the UK.
Children are after all the most precious little people in our society.
Did Newton not challenged the existing "science" of his time?
It is only anti-science if the whole idea of immunisation is condemned for an irrational reason not based upon reason or logic.
Frankly I was horrified when the gp told me on the phone that they were no longer (it was 25th June) swabbing suspected cases in our area as it could no longer be contained and as an aside she mentioned that they had exhausted supplies of swabs. So a clinical diagnosis was made and I went off to collect her drugs from a Walk In centre. There is much talk of swine flu being mild in most people well even with my knowledge I had a difficult time keeping my daughter comfortable - ice packs on her head 24/7, paracetamol, ice lollies and a fan on her. Her throat was so sore that upon waking she was crying so I quickly realise that I had to be ready with a bowl of ice cream to spoon into her mouth as soon as I waked her. She attempted attending school after a week and a half then rested the next day and did a half day Friday. I am hoping she'll cope well tomorrow.
As this thread is about vaccines though I was concerned with the yahoo headline of 'Health chiefs are preparing to vaccinate the entire population against swine flu'. I shall be researching this tomorrow as it seems rather soon although I did read the pharma contracts for the vaccines manufacture some months ago.
Please don't mention the biased BBC, I don't watch terrestrial channels ever, apart from Wimbledon thankfully rugby and cricket are on Sky.
Perhaps ‘Everyone seems to have jumped on that and the references to mercury’ because you are ill-informed.
In 1999 in the USA concerns were raised about exposure to mercury in vaccines, based on the cumulative amount of mercury in the infant immunization schedule potentially exceeded the recommended threshold set by one of the United States government agencies for methyl mercury.
However thiomersal, contains ethyl mercury and not methyl mercury.
From my pharmacy background I can tell you that the quantity of ethyl mercury used as a preservative is formulated at an amount of 0.01%w/v
The Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety (GACVS) first assessed the issue of vaccines formulated with thiomersal in a special meeting in August 2000 and continues to review the safety aspect of thiomersal-containing vaccines as new evidence emerges.
In the latest review by the committee (at its meeting of 6-7 June 2006) the conclusion previously reached was reaffirmed that there is no evidence of toxicity in infants, children or adults exposed to thiomersal in vaccines.
Single vaccines are available you have to do a little research Bill. Single Adsorbed Tetanus Toxoid Vaccines are available in the industry but they would require a private prescription charge and quite possibly a physician professional fee, a couple for information are: 1)Te Anatoxal Berna (Anatoxal Te)~ Swiss Serum & Vaccine Institute 2)Tetavax ~ Aventis Pasteur.
I had to laugh when I read ‘For instance, take the measles virus, are you aware that in the past 17 years there has been one death in relation to measles?’, as Measles remains a leading cause of death among young children globally, despite the availability of a safe and effective vaccine. An estimated 197 000 people died from measles in 2007, mostly children under the age of five. That equates to nearly 540 deaths every day or 22 deaths every hour.
My youngest daughter reacted badly to her first and second triple vaccines even though the injection site was altered for the second doses. I decided that the risk of her having an epileptic shock was too high and I made the decision for her to have single third doses of DIP and TET and not to complete the scheduled Pertussis immunisation.
As parents we have to be guided by the evidence available at the time and our gut feelings in relation to our children however on certain issues the evidence for a particular route is so over whelming that it would be crazy not to take it.
In the late 90s a journal reported of a potential carcinogenic effect of intramuscular but not oral phytomenadione prophylaxis.. Newborn babies are given phytomenadione to prevent bleeding due to a lack of vitamin K (which can occur during the first weeks of a baby's life. Phytomenadione helps with blood clotting and after a delivery of any kind the infant is at risk of bleeding internally.
One of the exipients in the injected form, castor oil, was identified as the chemical to blame and the story appeared in the press.
Mothers at the group of hospitals that I was working at stopped their babies from having the injection and asked for an oral alternative even though the oral preparation offered was severely reduced with that of the i/m product.
Overnight we had to formulate and manufacture a suitable oral preparation for patients, leading to a product that was commercially manufactured. However infants were put at risk by not having in the injection.
I am sorry Bill but no one can present you with evidence to show that you ‘should 100% put my kids through the vaccination process’. It is for you decide and live with your decision.
Well that's put my mind at rest, I think I'll take both my children down to the doctors first thing in the morning. It's opinions like this that are causing the problem. I've been reading this debate with interest, hoping that someone with more knowledge than I can glean from the internet will put forward an argument that will reassure me about whether I'm doing the right thing for my children, so far it has not been forthcoming.
I am not against immunising them, my eldest is up to date with all his jabs other than the MMR which we have opted to take seperately, the issues I have are the ingredients and the amount given into such a tiny body while it is still developing. Surely with all the medical advancements we are making we can come up with something more trustworthy than the cocktail of ingredients we are using at the moment (http://www.vaclib.org/basic/vacingredient.htm). Reading through the lists of what the immunisations actually contain I am unsure whether I have been a good mother or a bad one for letting this be injected into my son, and am in turmoil about whether now to do the same for my daughter.
There must be others like me who are turning to the various websites out there (e.g. http://www.jabs.org.uk/) and reading what I am, why is this problem not being addressed properly rather than a few people with 'medical knowledge' barking at the people who express an opinion about how stupid they are for not believing what they are being told?
Sorry but you're the one being OTT here. I have valid concerns and I want them to be debated and someone to come forward and relieve my concern. I didn't expect someone to take the argument to illogical extremes and throw a hissy fit because they'd lacked the verbal presence to debate.
If you lack the knowledge, say so, but don't hide behind pathetic arguments that try to make me out to be a neanderthal. I'm not stupid, I'm a concerned parent. And your answer is to insult me?
You misunderstand me about the point of debate though. The very fact that no one knows means that all this muddle over whether to have one injection or the other is a farce. Surely the simplest answer is to have the injections as seperates and to spread them out? That might just put some fears about injections like the MMR at rest.
This isn't just about the MMR though, although I admit it is a large part of it, it is about all injections. We have a blind faith that what the medics are doing is right, but what happens when that blind faith is brought into doubt? Should parents be bullied into a decision that will effect their children for a lifetime? Should parents set aside their worries on the basis of a few scientists saying it is okay?
Compare this to something like child care. We all thought that our kids were safe, we all thought we could trust our nursery nurses, then the lady was arrested who had been taking indecent photos of them. It made us doubt child care in general. Well one single autistic child after any vaccine makes me wonder, it makes my wife wonder, and why shouldn't it?
My research may not be perfect, but my reason for posting this article should be clear. I care about my family, they come first and I want my kids to have the best start. If any injection puts a spanner in the works, that will not sit well with me, which is why I want as much information as possible. That doesn't include the government saying it is okay.
I did the anti-natal stuff - so as to be 'fully prepared' and not have any 'surprises'.
What happens after the birth? Some wanker turns up and asks for consent for a vitamin K injection...
FFS - what was the anti-natal for if they spring this on you when you are least prepared to consider it?
My experience of the NHS is pretty much all negative - but I have no option but to pay for a service I despise.
I don't understand what is "limiting" your GP. I can understand that they would be reluctant to tell you how to get the separate injections, but there should be nothing limiting your GP from giving you advice about the MMR jab. There is no conspiracy here, if your GP says that it is safe (and he should do) then it is safe. But whatever you do, make sure that you get the immunisations, even if you pay and get the separate injections privately.
As to the debate, I repeat what I said above. We do not have the knowledge, there is no point in us having the debate because none of us knows the issues one way or the other. We will be just arguing, secon or third hand, the opinions of someone else. That is not a proper debate. Perhaps you would like to debate the subject of my PhD thesis (on semiconductors)? Sure, it will be pointless.
It may sound like tivialising the subject but "sh*t happens". It does. Since we reproduce sexually (as opposed to cloning) it means that genetic issues occur. Some kids are cleverer than others (even siblings), so differences are to be expected. Autism is a dreadful condition (my neighbour's grandson is severely autistic) and it is natural for parents to look for something to blame.
FWIW I am more angry at the way that parents of autistic children are treated by the state. For severe autistic kids there are residential schools, but when the child becomes adult they have to be moved to a residential home. These are privately run. The parents have to petition social services for the money, they money is never refused, but even so, the parents have to fill in the forms. It is disgraceful IMO, because the parents are made to feel that it is their fault. The sums are substantial, for my neighbour's son a year in residential care was about £200K.
For once you have do a response without talking about your taxes. Well done. I think you put your point across well. The only down side is the last two lines, well you were doing well.
Anyway, I remember when the MMR thing kicked off and that the BBC where all over it. I do think that the media really should not jump to the conclusions that they do because they are at the forefront of forming public option.
What does your wife think about the swine flu at the moment?
In Unity
MA
I am a scientist, I trained as one, and for 6 years (sadly not now) I was a researcher. I have every confidence in science. I have little confidence in science journalists (or medical journalists) since I consistently found them misreporting subjects in the area where I was an expert. Not maliciously, and often the misreporting may have seen to be trivial to the non-expert, but their reporting was still wrong. A retraction is worthless because once published the article becomes "truth", as we have seen with the MMR scare.
Science journalists are not practising scientists and often they report on subjects where they have no experience (how can someone with a life sciences degree report accurately about the Large Hadron Collider, for example? I operated large superconducting magnets when I was a researcher and I found much of the reporting about the initial problems with the magnets of the LHC to be seriously lacking in science and missing the point).
So I *never* accept any "science" reported in the newspapers (the exception is Ben Goldacre, who is a GP). If I want to know about a subject I will read the journals where it is published. Often the papers are in subjects which I have no knowledge, and in that case I ask an expert who does have the necessary knowledge. In medical matters I ask my GP. You do have to accept the opinion of someone who is an expert.
As to Blair, well, you only have to look at the New Age advisers that Cherie was using and then you understand their opinion about science.
As to debating. Well, if there is an issue then it will be in the journals. And that is the best place for the debate to be held - between experts who know the subject and can argue from a position of knowledge. Otherwise it is just a matter of who you believe, and as an atheist I have no truck with people who give any importance to belief.
Now no matter what differences we have on politics, this is a medical issue and we both have kids. Do you not wince, not even in the slightest at the fact that you kids are being injected with something? Because I do. I trust that we have good medics in the world, but at the same time I look at them and think 'Do you really know what it is you are doing?'
My neuro surgeon admitted the limited knowledge they have on the brain, and the fact they couldn't explain my memory loss. They tried to understand and they tested me, again and again I went through test after test, but they have no idea why I forgot the memory of my son, but I remember how to drive.
All I'm asking for is some perspective on the immunisation drive. I know we need to contain diseases and that some people will lose children as a result of mass vaccinations, but the 0.1% loss to the government is 100% loss if it happens to my child. Do you see where I am coming from? I really don't want to risk my son's life or my daughters.
I'm not a monster, I'm not belittling what has happened to you for one second, but I am asking you to verify for my kids, and for that matter, every parent just like me that vaccination is safe.
We live in a society of numbers, a number of people are made redundant, the government say we have a number of months to recovery, so give me some numbers. Let me see the data tha proves that I am wrong with my doubts and I should 100% put my kids through the vaccination process.
My wife worked with WHO and EPHEMRA on a global scale and gets pretty cranky when she reads the sort of anti MMR rubbish you get in the press.
The MMR debate was wipped up by an attention seeking GP who has subsequently been found to be at serious fault in his analysis and pretty much looked upon as an idiot by mediacal science. His population group was miniscule, had underlying health issues and did not produce the statistical link he claimed anyway.
There was no other MMR research that backed his findings and the BMA has completely rejected the science and research behind his report.
Of cours vaccines can negatively effect health, so can anti-biotics and off the shealth products like paracetamol and ibuprofen. You can have allergiews to almost any chemicla compound.
This issue is not whether any given immunisation may to a very miniscule level of chance cause harm, but what is the likelihood of catching the thing it is trying to prevent. The threat of mumps, measles and rubela is far more of an issue than dodgy reports on autism.
My wife had our kids immuised because of the nasty nature of the diseases they would prevent, so should you. Every single person who buys into the conspiracy nonsense over vaccinations decreases the group immuisation and therefore increases the chance these diseases get a foothold back again.
When I went into hospital a general anaesthetic could have killed me, a super bug could have killed me, negligent medical staff etc. etc.
Life is not about removing all chance of disaster it is about weighing things up. The vaccines you refer to have been used upon billions safely.
This anti science thing in the UK needs to stop. The teaching of science under Labour is a joke and we now have a mass of people who see horoscopes and blind ignorance as peferable to science.
There is overwhelming evidence - including in my case that the number of cases of Meningitis C has dropped to near zero since the vaccine was introduced - that the benefits of vaccination vastly outweigh the very very small risks associated.
You want to do the best for your children?
Then get them immunised.
Yes, you've touched a nerve because you have callously disregarded my entire argument based on the fact that you believe I am talking 'gibberish'.
Well my wife hasn't suffered a tumour, she hasn't been effected by a 0.5% chance arrangement, so is she still talking 'gibberish'?
The only way I would apoligise to you right now is if you somehow managed to prove that vaccinations do not cause problems with certain children, and you can't. Categorically you can not do that. Claim that my research is flawed, and I will no doubt agree with you, but you can not say that vaccinations are 100% safe. If you do, you're an idiot.
So reset the argument, go back to square one and maybe reassure my wife with some links to prove what you're saying is right. If I can find links to say how vaccinations can negatively effect my kids, you should be able to provide me with categorical proof that they don't.
Well can you?
I lived because my parents believed in modern medicine, in the treatments that were available. Since an vaccine for Meningitis C came around a few years ago I have become one of its staunchest supporters precisely because I don't want any child to have to go through what I went through - being severely disabled when it is completely avoidable.
So I believe that an apology is in order.
PS You say that you spent some time researching this. Well you already have admitted that the imformation concerning mercury was wrong. Obviously not researched enough.
Then when you come back, look up my article and tell me where I claimed 'millions' are effected.
As far as the Huffington Post, no disrespect to anyone, but I haven't read it, doubt I will read it and if you think I'm associated with it, read up on my other comments here.
If you're in the mood though, I can provide you with a number of links regarding to vaccines, but you wouldn't read them would you?
You may see my wife and I's concerns as gibberish and ignorance but I have 3 children, 2 of which are under the age of 2 and whether or not you choose to believe it, vaccines do effect children negatively.
Go on, give me the whole percentage line, but before you do, I was effected by a tumour that effects 0.5% of all people who suffer a tumour. I had more chance of winning the lottery or being struck by lightning, but it effected me, so why should I be careless when it comes to my children?
You can just pass this off with a throw away comment and put it down to politics, but if my child develops a disorder that lasts him or her a lifetime, will you be there to take care of them? Will you then spout your political crap whilst they suffer?
This isn't about PARTY POLITICS, get it through to your thick skull, this is about a father and a mother who are really scared s**tless about what we're being asked to inject our children with. So I make a mistake and miss a vital piece of information, so what? Does that invalidate my concern?
Look up Thalidomide. It isn't just a disorder that effects newly born children, it was a recommended drug in the late 1950s. By the mid 60s it was barred. Why? Well you can see the results still evident in society today. So don't sit there with your santimoneous 'gibberish and ignorance' line, answer what I have asked and if you can't, go buy yourself a chocolate bar, a bottle of wine and a good film, the article isn't entertainment or a political point, its about my kids lives.
I think some Tory on the links below has mentioned something about the paucity of scientific literacy being displayed by most people on this comments link. He has a point.
Actually about fluoride in water. I agree. And you know what, it's because there are verifiable numbers to calculate the risk concerned, that aren't ridiculous.
However, I would draw the line at linking fluoride in water with toothpaste, unless of course you eat the stuff. There is a clear difference between ingestion and washing.
You need to compare apples with apples.
I'm not going to comment anymore on this thread because frankly I might as well ask a bunch of creationists to explain how dinosaurs fit into their irrational belief system.
The significant decrease in deaths from 'traditional diseases' (tubercolosis, whhoping cough spring to mind) and the significant decrease of deaths (to zero?) in poliomyelitis seems to indicate to me that mass vaccination works in a lot of cases. And, aren't people of all ages expecting a longer life?
"The media does tend to rule the roost these days in terms of what we see and hear, and it does seem that everyday we are presented with conflicting health related advice or information, much of which is grossly exagerated to sell the story to the public."
The media jumped on the MMR vaccination 'scare' started by Andrew Wakefield and I'm not so sure that a lot of it wasn't politically motivated. And, what are we seeing now? Increased measles cases.
You mention the US. I don't have children, but as sure as eggs is eggs, I would accept what NICE (independent of what happens in the US) tells me much more than than any newspaper - or the BBC - tells me.
Premature death normally. On a very large scale.
Any preferred notions, or dare I say it, downright facts?!
It seems that if you just ask questions in our society you are seen as a freak. The wilful ignorance and blind trust in government that some people have is scary.
I'm sure Tony Blair must know plenty that us proles are forbidden from finding out. He's allowed to decide on the MMR jab for his own family and as usual everyone else is expected to do what they're told and take what's on offer.
Anyway, thank you for raising the issue. It deserves a higher quality debate, but if anything I think it shows how little any of us really know!
Interesting article. Can't really comment on it as I don't have kids or need vaccines.
Yet as a Vegan, I am amazed at the amount of animal products that are used in a whole variety of food stuff. There are loads of alcoholic drinks are not suitable for vegetarians or Vega’s.
You should have a look at some of the ingredients that are in some of the food, and look them up on the Vegan Society web site.
When it comes to the meat that you also eat, you should also be aware of the amount of chemicals pumped into the animals and farming methods used to get them ready for their final journey.
In Unity
MA
"If you're that worried it's probably worth making sure your children brush their teeth if you don't want them to have mercury amalgam fillings as well."
Try and buy fluoride-free toothpaste, though. Tests have shown that fluoride in the water supply can reduce the IQ of children by ten points or more.
It's high time the government were honest on loads of important things.
"I think you should ask your GP for a proper answer about your concerns. I believe they are actually educated in the subject."
I know a few GPs and I'd be staggered if any of them know what goes into their vaccines.
With respect, we don't really know what the side-effects are. Vaccines have been blamed for the rises in autism and cancers, for example. If not vaccines, then what?
Lots of things look scary and horrible when you break them down into their constituent parts. Cars are big metal boxes that use highly flammable liquid (so flammable they only actually use the the vapours) to propel you and your family around at incredibly dangerous speeds. Most homes in the UK use a power source that can easily destroy said home, and is so deadly it has to be artificially coloured and scented in order to give people a chance of not being killed by it (it's gas). For 200 years one of the most potent fertilisers used in agriculture has been bird droppings. Just because it can be made to sound scary, does not mean that is justifiably is scary.
I would also be very wary of seeing the diseases your child could be immunised against as simply being fatal or not fatal - there are many other problems with contracting these diseases such as causing infertility or deafness. I'd also be wary of relying too heavily on historic statistics to gauge risk: when the vast majority of the population is immunised the risk of catching said disease goes down even if you're not immunised. Therefore, if people follow your example and avoid immunisation then the risk to children who have not been immunised goes up.
It's interesting that this article has appeared shortly after Labour List forged links with The Huffington Post. The Huffington Post is famous for perpetuating myths about vaccines and ignoring research.
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2008/04/the_huffington_post_and_vaccines.php
About allergies. You won't know you're allergic to a substance until you're exposed to it. Therefore the more substances you're exposed to, the greater the risk of coming into contact with something your body doesn't agree with.
The problem is people seem to be irrational about quantifying risk.
I can calculate the probability of an electronics unit failing because I have the numbers for every single device I can use in designing it. These numbers cover the design life and operating conditions.
The reason I have these numbers is because there has been a huge investment in determining the failure rate because frankly people get upset if a plane falls out of the sky, a cars brake systems fail, or the medical equipment stops working.
I can quantify the risk. It is never zero. And any number less than 1 in a million you can discount because frankly only an idiot would feel happy in deciding he had taken into account the unknown.
I know someone who was told there was a less than 1 in a million factor of their second daughter being born with the same defect. Good job they knew how to deal with it when she was born with it.
So your're correct there is a chance something will go wrong. But are you telling me you'll never let your child travel in a car, go on a plane, or go across the road?
But at the same time you're prepared to let them catch a transmittable disease because you've actually seen something documented about the medical risks.
Safe driving. (I think we're down to under ten people dying a day on the roads. Of course that ignores the crippled and injured.)
If you have any doubt over this then may I say that in the 20th Century alone Smallpox killed about 300 million people. Completely eradicated through mass vaccination
Polio. Anyone remember the iron lungs? I can just.It crippled or killed hundreds of thousands of children around the world. Pretty well completely eradicated through vaccination.
Next lets look at measles. You state "For instance, take the measles virus, are you aware that in the past 17 years there has been one death in relation to measles?"
Complete and utter rubbish. In the year 2007, there were according to WHO nearly 200,000 measles fatalities in the world. (If you just meant the UK then you should have said so!). Even that appalling number has been steadily dropping precisely because of vaccination. Again from WHO "Measles vaccination efforts have reaped major public health gains, resulting in a 74% drop in measles deaths between 2000 and 2007 worldwide - a drop of about 90% in the eastern Mediterranean and Africa regions."
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs286/en/index.html
The reason why there are so few measles cases in the UK is because we have an efficient and effective vaccination programme resulting in what is known as herd immunity where the few remaining unprotected individuals are safe simply because the vast majority of the population have been vaccinated. In measles the percentage required to effect this herd immunity is between 83 and 94%. Drop below that and then we will see measles epidemics back - which are not just lethal but also can leave permanent damage to surviors.
To take another example - rubella. Do you really want the horrific side-effects of rubella to return? To take a well known example: The Amish people in Pennsylvania have refused to have immunisation against rubella. The result of that is that 1 child in 50 born in that community in 1995 was rubella damaged. http://www.amishdirectfurniture.com/page.html?chapter=6&id=79
Do you really want that back? It is also worth looking at the number of rubella cases in the UK: http://www.scribd.com/doc/16439371/Sense-and-Mmr
I am afraid that your article is based upon a huge lack of scientific knowledge.
Aside from the MMR, there are other vaccines that raise concern. Not because of media scare stories, but because of the effects they have had on children around the world. It is not being debated, parents concerns are not listened to at all, which can't be right whoever is in government can it?
I don't argue that children should not be vaccinated, after all vaccines have saved millions of lives, but there is conflicting research and very different attitudes about how we go about vaccinating our children and I believe it is only right for it to be debated sensibly. Party politics has no place with this issue, but neither does political posturing and it infuriates me when I see members of the government who won't give their children a particular vaccine, but then tell us we must have them injected into our children.
Anyway, the article isn't just about the MMR. Everyone seems to have jumped on that and the references to mercury and ignored the fact that we are injecting our children with more than just one injection. We've spoken at length with the health visitors and my doctor (who is the most down to earth and sensible chap I've ever met) but they are limited to what they are allowed to tell us. We can opt to go privately, spread the injections out if we wish to, but they are not allowed to recommend or even point us to a facility that will do that.
My daughter had the heal prick test the other day and due to health and safety the midwife could not put a plaster over the injection hole because my daughter may be allergic. But then they are quite happy to inject her with a myriad of chemicals in one sitting? What is she is allergic? What if these injections cause her, as they have done with many, to have adverse effects?
As I said in the article, and this is being proved here and now, that noone wants to debate these injections and are quite happy to listen to one side of the argument. My wife and I are not, and we know other couples who are in a similar situation. So what is the answer? We refuse consent for our kids to be vaccinated and then we are told in a couple of years that they won't be allowed into the local school?
So what about the rest of it? If I have made an error or overlooked something, does that make the rest of the article irrelevant?
Furthermore just because we are told that MMR is safe, it doesn't mean it actually is. Could you explain why the US government is spending millions for the upbringing of children who have had reactions to vaccinations and why there are so many cases, there is now a specific court to deal with the cases?
This is exactly why I have written the article, because you dismiss debate based on evidence presented to you whilst ignoring any other side to the debate. Many thanks for your comment, but it doesn't address anything I have said above.
The MMR controversy has been shown to have no scientific basis, and it showed the scandalous influence of journalists who have no science training. Your point about one child dying of measles in the last 17 years shows how effective MMR is at protecting our children. The fact that we do not have millions of kids with adverse effects from the chemicals in immunisations shows how safe they are.
As to your initial statement about injecting a concoction of chemicals, I have to say that I have done this four times daily for the last 30 years, and I still haven't shown any adverse effect from them. I am type 1 diabetic, by the way.
As I said above. have a good rest, you and your wife deserve it (a Labour innovation, that, paternity leave). And when you have had your rest, make sure that you campaign to make sure that your daughter lives under a Labour government: you know that it is the best thing for her.
I had some dissimilar concerns when our children were immunised. Unfortunately my daughter was too young for the MMR and caught measles which affects her hearing today because so many people weren't prepared to take the advice of their doctors, and thereby contributed to the spread of the disease.
About the metals:
Sodium reacts explosively when even a small amount is dropped into water. Don't get any on you.
However, I wouldn't advocate a sodium free diet, because without common salt you'd die.
It's not the element you should be worrying about, but the compound and it's stability.
Mercury doesn't explode, but hey, we were allowed to flick it around on desks in Physics not so long ago.
If you're that worried it's probably worth making sure your children brush their teeth if you don't want them to have mercury amalgam fillings as well.
Small pox was eradicated. The first vaccine for it was derived from cows.
I think you should ask your GP for a proper answer about your concerns. I believe they are actually educated in the subject.
It maybe better than this forum.
Next time please do some better research.
Here are some comments from Ben Goldacre on MMR:
http://www.badscience.net/2008/08/the-medias-mmr-hoax/
I hope this gets somewhere, because we can't trust pharmaceutical companies or the government, so when they are in cahoots, the potential for damage doesn't bear thinking about.
There is a host of unbelievable ingredients in vaccines. Even, as I understand, material from aborted babies in at least one case.
Parents are entitled to the courtesy of being told what's going into their babies and what the consequences might be.
Firstly thiomersal. This is being phased out anyway but the World Health Organisation have categorically stated that "conclusion previously reached was reaffirmed that there is no evidence of toxicity in infants, children or adults exposed to thiomersal in vaccines." (I assume that you DID check that little piece of information?) http://www.who.int/vaccine_safety/topics/thiomersal/en/index.html
Your information about measles is also complete and utter bullshit. Again from the WHO, there were nearly 200,000 deaths worldwide http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs286/en/index.html (I assume that you did mean worldwide or were you being parochial? You didn't say where your single death occured!) The use of the measles vaccine has cut the incidence of measles deaths by up to 90% in developing countries and upto 100% in developed. THAT is why there has been so few deaths in the UK! The level of vaccination in the UK has caused what is known as herd immunity. Have you also taken into account the secondary effects that having measles can have on children? Pneumonia and brain swelling. Do you want to bring that back?
You say "Once a child is injected with a vaccine we can not remove that vaccine from their system". That is scientific nonsense ! The EFFECTS of the vaccine stay for possibly life (not all do btw - that is why tetanus boosters are needed after 10 of so years)
You have written an article that is not just scientific rubbish but also dangerous scientific rubbish.