Should parents have the right to refuse vaccinations...

[Maria Mac]

Latest post of the previous page:

Hi Maria et al,
I attended a Vaccine Debate yesterday in London where the respected Dr David Eliman, was one of the 4 speakers.
He is the co author of this site and is very pro-vaccine
http://www.ich.ucl.ac.uk/immunisation/

He said, on the subject of mandatory vaccines, that he and his collegues in the Dept of Health, are against this. He used the phrase "Over their dead bodies". Most of the countries of the world do not force vaccines and I trust that there is another way to promote and support children's health.

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/POSTpn219.pdf
Here you can read how the "DH and the medical profession do not see compulsory vaccines as an option for the UK, and the BMJ rejected a call for this at its 2002 conference".

That's not an argument, it's an appeal to authority. There isn't even any information on why British doctors don't see it as 'an option for the UK'. Is the mere fact that they have a different view to mine on the subject supposed to make me think differently?

As for the tragic death of Whooping cough - it is a shame that you feel that campaigners are to blame. Especially as the uptake for the Whooping cough is very high, consistently over 90%. Surprising then that "Cases of whooping cough have nearly trebled since 2003, according to figures from the Department of Health." http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7288459.stm

I edited my post because I don't actually know who is to blame for the low take up of the pertussis vaccine in the area where that baby lived and died which, as my post makes clear, is in Australia. It may be a failure of the local health authority but if it transpires that people are not taking up the offer of a vaccine that they know to be easily available because they have been persuaded by anti-vaccine campaigners that it's dangerous, then I'll happily re-edit my post back to its original content. If the anti-vaccine campaigners in the UK had their way, there wouldn't be a 'consistently high' take-up rate, more children would get whooping cough and some would die.

"Anthony Harnden, a lecturer at Oxford and a GP, was the lead author on the paper. He said the problem was that the vaccine did not last very long, not that the immunisation policy was not working....

MILLIONS of British children have probably been infected with whooping cough even though they have been immunised against it.

A study has found that nearly two in five children who went to their GP with a persistent cough had suffered from whooping cough, though very few doctors diagnose it. The results suggest that the whooping cough vaccine is ineffective at preventing infection, but makes symptoms less severe — thereby concealing just how common it remains."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/u ... 684270.ece

I fail to see the relevance of this section of your post. So the vaccine is not 100% effective or permanent and some immunised children become infected but because they have been immunised, the symptoms are much less severe and they don't die from it. Sounds like yet another good reason to vaccinate.

Re Measles, in 2006 there was one UK measles death in a 13 years old male who had an underlying lung condition and was taking immunosuppressive drugs. Prior to 2006, the last death from acute measles was in 1992.

And your point is?

Measles deaths (from 1901/2, averaged) declined by 99.4% before vaccination in 1968 and deaths have continued to decline as per the trend so hard to attribute the fall to vaccines.

No, they didn't "continue to decline as per the trend". Notifications of measles fell sharply and the death toll followed suit.

Satellite.gif (6.48 KiB) Viewed 5533 times

In the ten years before the single measles jab was introduced in 1968 there were around 400,000 cases of measles a year and on average 86 deaths from measles a year. In the ten years after 1968 there were 160,000 cases a year and on average 29 deaths annually - a fall of 66%. In 1988, the year MMR was launched, 16 children died from measles. Source.

Usually measles death is rare in the developed world, and often other health problems are present. Vitamin A can reduce death by 50% and the WHO organization give Vit A with the vaccine. And furthermore allowing the body to have a fever is key as the virus needs a high temperature to fight the virus. just in case you hear of anyone with measles.

Again, I've no idea what your point is. Prior to the introduction of the measles vaccine, many more children in the developed world died of measles and that's all there is to it. The girl who died recently in Switzerland was not vaccinated. That's why she got measles. Measles is a serious infectious disease which is sometimes fatal. That's why she died.

I find these constant attempts by anti-vaxers to downplay the dangers of measles quite sickening, frankly.

[Zoe]

Re Measles, in 2006 there was one UK measles death in a 13 years old male who had an underlying lung condition and was taking immunosuppressive drugs. Prior to 2006, the last death from acute measles was in 1992.

Source?

According to the Health Protection Agency source for England and Wales that Maria links to, there
were 4 deaths in 1993, 1 in 1995, 3 in 1997, 3 in 1998, 3 in 1999, 1 in 2000, 1 in 2001 and 1 in 2004. There's been 1 in 2007, the last year for which figures are available.

[Dan]

Re Measles, in 2006 there was one UK measles death in a 13 years old male who had an underlying lung condition and was taking immunosuppressive drugs. Prior to 2006, the last death from acute measles was in 1992.

Source?

According to the Health Protection Agency source for England and Wales that Maria links to, there
were 4 deaths in 1993, 1 in 1995, 3 in 1997, 3 in 1998, 3 in 1999, 1 in 2000, 1 in 2001 and 1 in 2004. There's been 1 in 2007, the last year for which figures are available.

The HPA are the source. Anna of Arnica is taking the info direct from there:
http://www.hpa.org.uk/webw/HPAweb&HPAwe ... 1942172799

Dan

[Alan H]

So, the information from the HPA is saying that there were numerous deaths most years prior to 2006, so Anna is completely wrong in saying there were none from 1992 to 2006.

[Dan]

Re Measles, in 2006 there was one UK measles death in a 13 years old male who had an underlying lung condition and was taking immunosuppressive drugs. Prior to 2006, the last death from acute measles was in 1992. Measles deaths (from 1901/2, averaged) declined by 99.4% before vaccination in 1968 and deaths have continued to decline as per the trend so hard to attribute the fall to vaccines. However, the cases of measles have dropped greatly since the vaccine, and although there can be many other reasons for this, vaccines must have played a major part in the decline of morbidity (cases).

Again, look at the data:
http://www.hpa.org.uk/webw/HPAweb&HPAwe ... 1942172799

A vaccination against measles first became available in 1963, improved in 1968. MMR was first introduced in 1971.

As the HPA note, deaths attributable to measles can come later in life, so it takes time for the full impact of childhood vaccination to come through.

Dan

[Dan]

So, the information from the HPA is saying that there were numerous deaths most years prior to 2006, so Anna is completely wrong in saying there were none from 1992 to 2006.

Well, not necessarily. The 2006 case was the first child to die since 1992. Other deaths, according to the HPA, are of older people who were not vaccinated in their youth - late effects of measles is how they put it.

Dan

[Maria Mac]

Anna hasn't made any distinction about age. She specifically said there were no deaths from measles between 1992 and 2006. This is clearly wrong if the HPA is to be believed and I too wonder what her source is.

I'm still wondering what her point is in even mentioning those two deaths.

[Emma Woolgatherer]

As Dan said, the HPA is her source. Scroll down to the bottom of the page:

In 2006 there was one measles death in a 13 years old male who had an underlying lung condition and was taking immunosuppressive drugs. Prior to 2006, the last death from acute measles was in 1992.

Other measles deaths shown above are in older individuals and were caused by the late effects of measles. These infections were acquired during the 1980s or earlier, when epidemics of measles occurred.

Emma

P.S. "Older individuals" seems to mean 15 or over. See this Guardian Q&A.

[Anna of Arnica]

Sorry everyone not to include the ref.
http://www.hpa.org.uk/web/HPAweb&HPAweb ... 5733835814
but I can understand the confusion if the HPA are only including childhood deaths on this particular page.

Maria, the reason for my mentioning the collective intentions and plans of the government, the BMJ and medical persons is that these are mostly pro-vaccine groups, I would suggest, many of whom will even have or have had interests in pharma companies. I feel it is significant that they are not calling for compulsory vaccines.

Making something compulsory is very difficult (as we can discuss if you wish) and certainly it is difficult enough 'persuading' parents to vaccinate their children.

To personalise 'anti-vaccine campaigners' if I may?
In my experience (contacts to over 400 parents) reasons in not vaccinating vary in order of commonality from:

* Adverse reactions previously experienced
* Political reasons e.g. should the needs of the masses out weigh the considerations of my child?
* Safety e.g. Are vaccines safe enough to give to my otherwise healthy child?
* Health e.g. the way that vaccines bypass natural immune stages and include toxic substances.
* Ethical reasons e.g. pro-lifers (fetal tissue added) vegans & vegetarians
* Philosophical reasons e.g. Aims and means
.....and around of half of parents who do not vaccinate now did start the programme.

What are our interests do you think? What do we gain from our 'campaigning'? How indeed do we campaign? In reality, most of us don't speak openly about our health choices as the subject has become rather taboo. When parents decide not to vaccinate anymore, it is almost always the case that they do not know anyone else who has made this choice.

We take the health of children very seriously, and practise healthy eating and living e.g. avoiding toxins where possible and educating each other on excellent nutrition.

Often people who do not vaccinate are seen as the 'enemy'.
However, I see many other scenarios where members of society put themselves first (selfishly or not) and others are put at risk. For example, 4000 people die on the roads each year yet people still use their mobile phone when driving, which of course is against the law. And despite a decline since 'deep cleans', thousands still die annually from MRSA, an infection worsened in society with the overuse of antibiotics. How many still use them unecessarily? Our family hasn't in living memory but with 2 children the average should be at least 7 times in the past 5 years (children are prescribed one dose per year on average). Many of the families who decide not to vaccinate are very responsible in this respect, as antibiotics are seen as the last resort. Can we have some credit here if there is a tally for putting others at risk?

I felt as though I was 'violating' my son when I first vaccinated him and I feel just as strongly now.

Anna

[Dan]

I'm not a supporter of compulsion, but...

There is a sense, of course, in which people who refuse vaccination are "the enemy", because of the way community immunity works. If you have a high enough percentage of vaccinators, then people who are not vaccinated gain some protection - this includes children who are as yet too young to be vaccinated as well as people for whom the vaccination failed for any reason.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity

Dan

[Maria Mac]

Sorry everyone not to include the ref.
http://www.hpa.org.uk/web/HPAweb&HPAweb ... 5733835814
but I can understand the confusion if the HPA are only including childhood deaths on this particular page.

Thanks, I'm glad we've cleared up the confusion and sorry for not noticing the word 'acute' in your quote. However, I'm no clearer about what point you were making when you mentioned the two measles death in first place.

Maria, the reason for my mentioning the collective intentions and plans of the government, the BMJ and medical persons is that these are mostly pro-vaccine groups, I would suggest, many of whom will even have or have had interests in pharma companies. I feel it is significant that they are not calling for compulsory vaccines.

I'd kind of guessed from the fact that you mentioned it in your previous post that 'you feel it is significant'. What I don't know is why you feel it is significant. If you have a link that provides more information about what the BMJ's etc arguments against compulsory vaccines are, I'd appreciate it. Unless you know these, I don't see how you can read any particular significance into their stance.

Making something compulsory is very difficult (as we can discuss if you wish) and certainly it is difficult enough 'persuading' parents to vaccinate their children.

Of course it is. However, I am not advocating 'making it compulsory'. I simply said that I would vote differently in the poll today than how I did when it was first posted. In the OP of this thread, it was said that in some states in the US, schools can refuse to accept students who've not had the vaccines. I think that when there is an infectious disease epidemic, schools and other places where children go should have the right to make immunisation a condition of attendance. I wouldn't have children forcibly removed from their homes and parents fined or imprisoned, however. IOW, I would vote, 'it depends'.

What are our interests do you think?

I'm not sure what you mean by your 'interests' but if it's in the sense of 'hobbies', I'd imagine reflexology and aromatherapy are popular. If you mean what motivates you, I'd imagine it's the health and well-being of your children. Nobody is suggesting the anti-vac campaigners are any less concerned about these than pro-vac adults are, including the doctors and scientists that the anti-vac movement habitually portrays as being callous, dishonest, uncaring and motivated by pure greed. That's one of the most risible things about anti-vac campaigners and why I find it hard to take them seriously. Take your despicable comment about why Dr Michael Fitzpatrick, father of an autistic child, defends the safety of the MMR, for example:

p.p.s. Micheal Fitzpatrick also has an ax to grind (I have met him) - he is a DR who has vaccinated many children - it has to be safe!

What do we gain from our 'campaigning'?

One of the things you gain is a reputation for being stupid and irrational. I'm sure you've seen what is said about high profile anti-vac people like Jenny McCarthy, Melanie Phillips and Jeni Barnett. You're 'feeling' that immunising your child against infectious diseases is violation is typical of the irrationality associated with ant-vaxers. It's 'feelings' like this that lead you to make crazy and unsupportable assertions and to be paranoid about the sources of any evidence that conflicts with what you 'feel' to be true.

How indeed do we campaign?

You campaign by spreading misinformation all over the web and other media.

Can we have some credit here if there is a tally for putting others at risk?

There's no tally. Different people are irresponsible in different ways. Refusing to immunise your children against dangerous diseases is just your way.

[Dan]

I felt as though I was 'violating' my son when I first vaccinated him and I feel just as strongly now.

Anna

But your feelings aren't evidence.

At some point you have to look at the issues objectively, rather than through the prism of prejudice.

Especially when what you decide can have serious effects on other people.

Dan

[Alan H]

Bumping to announce the tragic death of 4-week old Australian Dana McCaffery, a victim of the whooping cough epidemic sweeping parts of Australia.

This was reported in a local newspaper:

********************************************************************************
Health service warns against homeopathic whooping cough remedy - myBIZ
http://mybiz.optus.com.au/channel/news/ ... emedy.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Health service warns against homeopathic whooping cough remedy
Mar 20, 2009 1:12am

The North Coast Area Health Service is warning people not to rely on homeopathic preparations against whooping cough.

The health service recently began offering free whooping cough vaccinations for all carers of young babies, after a four-week-old girl from Lennox Head became the first child to die from the respiratory disease since the 1990s.

The area health service director of public health, Paul Corben, says a local newspaper has now run an article about the benefits of a homeopathic vaccination against whooping cough.

But he says there is no scientific evidence to support the effectiveness of homeopathic vaccinations.

"Even the professional bodies that oversee the work of homeopathy practices advise that use of those preparations is not an alternative to conventional vaccination," he said.

[Retrieved: Fri Mar 20 2009 11:28:22 GMT+0000 (GMT Standard Time)]

###################

(My emphasis.)

Those who promote homeopathic 'vaccinations' should be prosecuted.

[Alan C.]

Yes they should be prosecuted, but they have a get out clause.

"Even the professional bodies that oversee the work of homeopathy practices advise that use of those preparations is not an alternative to conventional vaccination," he said.

So what do they advise? Using the homeopathy alongside proper medicine? Then claiming a result when a patient is cured?
Twats!

[Alan H]

The article says:

But he says there is no scientific evidence to support the effectiveness of homeopathic vaccinations.

This is the usual scientific language and its use is understandable and is fully understood by anyone with a modicum of scientific understanding. However, I feel it needs to be written differently for a general audience, who might see something that just isn't there in that statement. Perhaps it should be:

Homoeopathy doesn't fucking work, so get properly vaccinated!

[Anna of Arnica]

My comment on Micheal Fitzpatric GP was most definately out of order. One should not stoop to sarcasm or negative personalization to further an argument, especially as his son is disabled. Duly striked!

It is rare that I feel such animosity but this forum does tend to make the emotions rise, especially when swearing and name calling occasionally occurs (with sarcasm & negative personalization). I do use homeopathy which clearly, and understandably, receives a strong predudice here, and my natural health philosophies will always set me apart here.

And as for my subjective response to my children, I do not apologise for that.
I have read more shocking transcripts of vaccine damage and death (as decided through courts) than there have been deaths from childhood infectious diseases recently in the western world. I have never met a child who has suffered serious complications from childhood diseases (although know of several who nursed children through measles without issue). Conversely, I have known many vaccinated children suffering from conditions which their unvaccinated peers suffer far far less. And I have worked with children for 12 years.

I feel a responsible parent in so many ways, but no I will not offer my children to be vaccinated with the short term risks and long term health implications that I consider are involved, in order to perhaps reduce the risk of another child's suffering in the future.

Most parents have their children's health at the heart, and of course so do doctors and most scientists... I have never " habitually portrayed them as being callous, dishonest, uncaring and motivated by pure greed" but we disagree at the route, the means, to health.

What's changed?
In January 1959 (pre-measles vaccine) the British Medical Journal reported measles as ‘"the commonest infection in the world” and said that “complications were extremely rare thanks to improved living conditions". Fifty years later, despite continued improvement in living standards, parents are now fearful of measles and out to lynch the unvaccinators.

Adieu

[Anna of Arnica]

...p.s.
Meant to include this

"...explosive investigation by CBS News has found that since 1988,
the vaccine court has awarded money judgments, often in the millions of dollars,
to thirteen hundred and twenty two families whose children suffered brain
damage from vaccines.

In perhaps hundreds of these cases, the children have all the
classic symptoms of regressive autism; following vaccination a
perfectly healthy child experiences high fever, seizures, and other
illnesses, then gradually, over about three months, loses language,
the ability to make eye contact, becomes "over-focused" and engages in
stereotypical head banging and screaming and then suffers
developmental delays characteristic of autism. Many of these children
had received the autism diagnosis.
Yet the radioactive word "autism"
appears nowhere in the decision.
http://www.theoneclickgroup.co.uk/news. ... es&id=3305#\
newspost

[Alan C.]

Anna
I do use homeopathy which clearly, and understandably, receives a strong predudice (sic) here, and my natural health philosophies will always set me apart here.

Anna let me introduce you to Nancy Malik (as you seem to be stuck on this one thread)
She is a homeopath extraordinaire, I'm sure you and her will get along just fine.
Maybe you could start your own self appreciating thread? And the rest of us could ignore it

Anna, you say you use homeopathy, so do you believe that water has a memory? Just a yes or no, (please)

[Alan H]

"...explosive investigation by CBS News has found that since 1988,
the vaccine court has awarded money judgments, often in the millions of dollars,
to thirteen hundred and twenty two families whose children suffered brain
damage from vaccines.

Anna

In what way should we give what reporters at CBS say more weight than what the experts (on both sides) and judges said in each of the three omnibus cases, whose conclusion was that there was no evidence whatsoever to link MMR and autism (or any other brain condition)?

[jdc]

Interesting stuff. I think there's an argument that parents should have the right to refuse vaccinations, but that their refusal should be informed rather than "ignorant refusal" (APGaylard blogged about this), just as consent to vaccination should be "informed consent".

Re the seriousness of measles: I blogged about measles and vaccination and found the HPA data useful in constructing my post. In the nineteen sixties, there were about 85 deaths per year before the introduction of single measles vaccine in 1968. The advent of the single measles vaccine brought a period of twenty years in which there were 401 deaths from measles (20 per year). Following the introduction of the MMR vaccine, deaths per year from measles fell to 1.5 - so (as far as I can see) both vaccines have saved lives since their introduction.

Another post I found interesting was one on Lay Science, covering recent outbreaks of measles: http://layscience.net/node/198

Italy, 2002: 4 deaths, 594 hospitalizations.
California, 1989/90: 75 deaths, 3,390 hospital admissions.
Japan, 2000: 88 deaths.
Germany, 2006: 160 children hospitalized, 3 with brain inflammation.
Ireland, 2000: 3 children dead, 350 hospitalized.

[Dan]

...p.s.
Meant to include this

"...explosive investigation by CBS News has found that since 1988,
the vaccine court has awarded money judgments, often in the millions of dollars,
to thirteen hundred and twenty two families whose children suffered brain
damage from vaccines.

In perhaps hundreds of these cases, the children have all the
classic symptoms of regressive autism; following vaccination a
perfectly healthy child experiences high fever, seizures, and other
illnesses, then gradually, over about three months, loses language,
the ability to make eye contact, becomes "over-focused" and engages in
stereotypical head banging and screaming and then suffers
developmental delays characteristic of autism. Many of these children
had received the autism diagnosis.
Yet the radioactive word "autism"
appears nowhere in the decision.
http://www.theoneclickgroup.co.uk/news. ... es&id=3305#\
newspost

The truth looks somewhat different, regrettably.

The rest of the article being cited is full of lies and distortions:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2009/ ... d_gene.php
and
http://neurodiversity.com/weblog/article/148/

This is the CBS story you've cherrypicked from the swamp:
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/06/27 ... 4847.shtml

Here are the stats they cite:
http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation ... report.htm

Since 1988 there have been 12925 petitions filed. (numbers will have increased since the CBS report)
Of those, 7361 headed "nonautism" and 5564 headed "autism" (most since 2001).

Now, there were 7020 adjudications. OF the non-autism column, 2285 were found to be compensatable, 4331 not. Of the autism column, none were found to be compensatable, and 404 were dismissed (i..e all of those adjudicated).

The 1322 number comes from an email apparently sent to CBS, which can be found here:
http://actionforautism.co.uk/2009/03/01 ... ine-court/

Email from HHS to CBS
Here are the numbers of compensable cases for encephalitis / encephalopathy and seizures in our database from October 1, 1988 to March 4, 2008.
Encephalitis/Encephalopathy 611
Seizure Disorders 711
Total 1,322
There’s not much difference in the medical history and outcomes for children that were compensated for “encephalopathy” versus “seizures.”
Those compensated for encephalopathy often had seizures as part of their clinical picture, and vice versa.

the argument is supposed to be that these, or some of these, are "really" autism cases. But there is no evidence for that whatsoever.

Dan