Placebo medicine for kids

A fruit-flavoured placebo pill, that tricks small children into thinking they are getting medical treatment, is to be launched in the UK, the Guardian reported today.
"Obecalp" - it's "placebo" spelt backwards - will retail at £3 for 50 pills, and says it will "Soothe the pains of childhood" without resorting to drugs.
I have two, directly opposing views on this. The first is that teaching children that the answer is always found in a pill, or a drug, will raise a generation of codeine-gobbling kids, thrilled and comforted by the thought of syringes and medicine-bottles.
The second is WHO WOULD BE SO STUPID to spend £3 on 50 pills, when they could just give them a Tic-Tac? I do it at least six times a week, whenever they get "growing pains/brain ache/a funny feeling in my bottom."
And as for calling it "Obecalp" - you might as well call it "KcirTasti". Imagine what will happen when they find out they've been given fake drugs by the people they trust most, and that the truth was taunting them on the bottle's label. They'll think they're in the plot to "Lost."

Comments

[j]

Thank you Delilah- and yes, if we going to move on to NHS funding then, as someone who has audited pfi hospital providers and seen just how much money is in the deal for them- I can certainly join in with that.

[Sue]

Well, Delilah, if you're going to talk about the senior management of the NHS, especially at ministerial level and the nightmare/insanity of PFI funding etc, then I'll join you in the ear-steam room!

[DELILAH]

J, apologies if my post came across as a personal attack on you. It wasn't meant to be.

But I AM angry, angry, angry at the way the British public is lied to, lectured, shortchanged, and ripped off particularly in the field of socialised medicine. Angrier still because there doesn't seem to be a damn thing you can do about it, and I get REALLY angry when someone suggests that, actually, it doesn't matter, because the government will look after us.

I used to believe in socialised medicine. I worked FOR the NHS for many years, after working for the private sector. My conclusions?

(1) An institution that still genuinely believes that the best response to incompetent medical care is to say it didn't happen, or won't happen again, and still actively regrets the loss of Crown Immunity, should't be running a restaurant, let alone a hospital.

(2) NHS managers in cardigans who report to civil servants but not patients are sitting ducks for pharmaceutical companies, construction companies, and banks. The feeding frenzy is fuelled by private sector flattery and and public sector ignorance and naivite.

(3) You can't transfer risk to the private sector when the public sector remains a monopoly provider and refuses to change the way it's always done things. All that can happen then is a fudge where the private sector flatters a desperate government department into letting them pay for a project that the government isn't allowed to pay for up front, because it isn't allowed to incur that much debt. Then you hope that the economy doesn't tank badly enough to throw the repayment - sorry, service payment - schedule off, so that the private partner forces you to step in and bail them out a-la Railtrack/National Air Traffic Control System/ Metrorail. There is a horrifying amount of debt rolled into NHS construction projects, partly to cover the PPP consultancy gravy train that's been running for years. The economy is tanking. Who'll pay? The people who need the hospital most, of course - and that is not the private sector partner. Or even the government.

The MMR thing was symptomatic of all these problems, rolled into one. The government wants control, but not responsibility. That remains firmly on the backs of individuals, who expected the government to look after them. Here's a hint - don't.

[J]

Sue, I guess I was going by "yes, really, steam issuing from the ears) -"

but I shall wait to see if Delilah replies .

[David Gwilliam]

There are few things wrong with the inside of a child that cannot be cured by the outside of a dog.

[Sue]

Obviously I can't second-guess Delilah's intent, but just wanted to point out that in written comms like these it's quite easy for 'agggression' and 'passion' to look quite similar. Not saying they always do, or can't be avoided, just that sometimes it's difficult to tell the 'tone' of the speaker.

For that reason it's probably always safer to err on the side of ensuring some kind of 'I'm being passionate not aggressive!' flag in somehow, if it can be done (unless, of course, the intent IS aggressive all along!!!!) (Thinking about it, 'impatience' can come across as 'aggressive' as well, as I found out when I 'peeved' about depression vs physical illness!)

As to the substance of D's post, I would say that irrespective of the existence of the NHS (which yes is a very very significant factor in the reality of the British attitude towards health and health care)(and all too often shamefully abused because 'well, it's free, innit, so if I waste NHS resources, well, so what???'), if the government had to literally 'put its money where its mouth is' via compensation, I guess that would concentrate ministerial minds quite a lot!

[j]

Delilah, my point is that your emphasis on that post, where you said that compensation was the main thing where you drew the line seems odd to me.

Money is not the sole, or the main issue, and even less so in the UK. I know children with a similar condition to mine in the US who are unable to get health insurance, so of course it will be more of a concern under a different system.

On the rest, I have already said that I would support single vaccines on request as a pragmatic way of getting vaccination reats up, and that I think vaccination is important.

The aggressive tone of your post was uncalled for.

[DELILAH]

And finally (yes, really, steam issuing from the ears) - I just wanted to add that the 2002 UK vaccine damage legislation denies any compensation for a child that dies before the age of two. Even if it is absolutely, scientifically proved that the child was vaccine damaged. Isn't that typical government two-facedness? How many vaccines did your child start after the age of two? I know that if I'd kept to the recommended schedule we'd have been onto boosters by then. Did your trustworthy doctor/immunisation practitioner tell you about this particular consideration when discussing vaccination risks? How many of them even know?

[DELILAH]

J, compensation may not be uppermost in the mind of your average British patientMaybe not to the woman on the street, (although it should); but it has exercised the minds of British public authorities since the 50's - with the UK Government dragging its feet every inch of the way. The situation was improved, marginally, in 2002 (long after I resolved my personal MMR crisis) by new legislation. The following extract is from www.charge.org.uk, a British website which campaigns for adequate and fair compensation for British vaccine victims. The original article includes quotes from High Court judges calling for better compensation, and pointing out that children damaged by public vaccination campaigns are as deserving of support as war veterans, having been damaged for the public good.

The comments in square brackets are mine.

"In June 2002 the UK legislation on vaccine damage compensation payments was finally changed, although some of the targets being campaigned for were not met in full. The current criteria for claiming compensation is

"The claim must be made:

"On or before the vaccinated person's 21st birthday (or if the person has died, the date they would have reached age 21)

"Within 6 years of the vaccination the claim is for
(whichever is later.)

"The percentage of disablement that is counted as severely disabled has changed from 80% to 60% [hooray for that! Bad luck if you only lose 50% function, though].

"The payment scheme also places less onus on the requirement of absolute proof of vaccine damage, to one based on probability [in other words, you can now use the basic legal proof which governs normal negligence actions, rather than having to carry out your own double-blind nationwide study].

"The targets of the UK campaign which were not met in full included, compensation payments based on a sliding scale of disability from 1% to 80%.

"If you receive a Vaccine Damage Payment can affect other benefits, such as:
Income Support
Income-based Jobseeker's Allowance
Working Families' Tax Credit
Disabled Person's Tax Credit
Housing Benefit
Council Tax Benefit. [So, you'll be no better off, as you'll be living on benefits anyway].

"Although these improvements will be welcomed by the families, they still fall far short of the American model of compensation in terms of proper legislation, rights, compensation, and the imposition of responsibility on the pharmaceutical industry by a tax payable on each bottle of vaccine.[Quite!]

"One of my main motivations for writing this article would have to be, that I am a father who over the past 19 years has raised a son who used to have twenty epileptic seizures a day when he was younger, but thankfully who's condition has greatly improved, although he still has occasional uncontrolled seizures. And because of this, I have very hard experience of the dilemma's, vigilance, commitment, life threatening challenges, resources and energy that is needed to support a damaged child and have some insight into the difficulties faced by vaccine damaged victims and their families. Many I know for a fact, are in far more severe situations than my own.
Because of these experiences I am therefore compelled and obligated to challenge any Government, Political Party, or Exchequer, to do the right thing, and ' put their initiatives and money where their mouth is, ' make the pharmaceutical industry accountable and prioritise this priority of justice for vaccine damaged children and their families and resolve this issue that has been on Britain's doorstep for decades.

JOHN JOHNSON"

Yes, the Brits don't care about money. Much.

[j]

"I draw the line at a government campaign which offers practically no compensation for vaccine damage. "

Nice though the money would be, Delilah, I think that people would be less persuaded by compensation in the UK than perhaps they are in the USA Dont forget we have the NHS and universal free healthcare, so money is perhaps not so quickly on people's minds as it is in a system where you always have to know how your medical bills will be paid.

[Sue]

I do think that, whever the science, the MMR 'issue' was a complete PR ballsup (if I may use such a phrase in this educated company!) by the government. It has, to me, all the hallmarks of the Blairite 'look, let me explain the benefits yet again to the hard of learning' which dear old TB used to do till he was pale from incomprehension at such stubborness in folk.

We are seeing exactly the same attitude again now with the Lisbon Treaty - apparently the Irish electorate 'got it wrong'.....

[DELILAH]

Gipsy, failure to take up the MMR wasn't - and isn't - indicative of a lack of faith in vaccination. The tragedy of the MMR situation was that a lot of parents who opted out generally support vaccination, got their kids vaccinated with everything else, and wanted nothing more than to vaccinate for measles, rubella, and if they must, mumps too. They just didn't want the MMR.

I don't understand this. Our supermarkets abound with identical products packed in different boxes to keep shoppers happy. We are even urged to buy identical electricity or gas from different suppliers. We are free to pay extra for organic food if we want to. But for the things that really matter, like vaccinations, we're not allowed to choose the package. Imagine if the government's initial response to the BSE crisis had been to remove every type of meat other than oxtail from the market. Would it have made people eat more beef? To a certain extent, if you have nothing but oxtail then people will eat more of it; but it would also have created a large percentage of consumers who would never trust British beef again, and feed a cult of "safe" black-market meat supply or vegetarianism. It was completely crazy to risk this with a vaccination program, which (in a democracy anyway) relies absolutely on public acceptance and trust to be effective.

And again on risk. I'm all for preventing the preventable, but I draw the line at a government campaign which offers practically no compensation for vaccine damage. That was the other thing missing from the government's promotion of the MMR. American children receive compensation for effects that have not been scientifically linked to vaccination, because that's what was necessary to get public authorisation for immunisation. The very fact that the government can afford such an offer suggests that the cost - and therefore the risk - of such effects are small. Wouldn't it have been cheaper, and more effective, to offer a similar underwrite for the MMR in Britain? After all, as the scientists keep pointing out, there are very few cases that would even come up with the legal standard of proof for a link to MMR. Added to which, a lot of the costs of vaccine damage would already be being carried by socialised medicine, reducing the claims. Why not just pay them off, in the interests of universal vaccination, as they do in many other countries?

[SNQ]

Mumtobe, we are all trying to raise healthy children, if you really belive that you are above fate, nature, genetics etc i fear you are in for some very hard lessons, you can do everything "right" and still have a sick child, and have to watch a chain smoking mother feed junk to her very healthy children, life is cruel, all we can do is what we belive in our hearts to be the best for our children and hope we are right!

[j]

exactly JJ. Debbie, all my sympathy as I have similar flashbacks even now to my children's various procedures. You can only do your best, but I think that good parenting makes a difference at the margins.

Child C was breastfed for 18 months. It didnt cure the multiple disabilities he has but it did keep him alive, as it was the only thing he could keep down. We'd have spent a lot more time on the wards without it.

[j]

Mum2B, no I dont ask them and I'd rather not have to. But following Kitta's point about how it spreads, you cant be upfront about it to all the people who are concerned because you wont meet all the many people put at risk by one unvaccinated child. That's the point really. Parents of immunocompromised children live in fear of this, and they will probably never meet the child (or the parents) who originally put their child so badly at risk.

But I definitely dont send them to school ill either.

[M]

With you 100% on that last point M2B

[Mum-to-be]

J, do you ask every mother of every child your child comes into contact with to see their full vaccination history before you let them play?
I am not trying to be funny here but at least I am being upfront with my choices but I could imagine that there are a lot of people who aren't. All the parents that rather take their child to nursery or school even though they are ill so that they can go about their normal business are a lot more careless me thinks.

[Jean Jones]

...beat fate this time, even if you led the life of a non-smoking, teetotal saint during pregnancy, breastfed for 9 months or more and never let sugar pass the baby's lips. It helps, but it isn't infallible.

[Jean Jones]

Sue - there is no autism in my family or my husband's either, but it still didn't prevent my son being autistic with SLD. The latest research seems to be pointing in the direction of the term 'autism' in fact covering quite a few different-but-related things, where the outcome (the triad of impairment) looks the same but the causes vary. So some autism may well have a genetic basis, but that is by no means the case for all those affected. I repeat that I do not believe, not in the slightest, that vaccination had anything to do with it. It is purely coincidence that the signs start showing at around 15 months which is when the MMR is usually done. It has been recorded for decades that this is the course the condition takes. Some might say it was particularly cruel that you think you have a normal child for the first year or so, only to find when they regress that it isn't so; others, whose children have been disabled from birth, might argue that at least you had that year of blissful ignorance. But what I now know is that until a child is walking, talking and otherwise acting perfectly normally at about 2-3, you can't relax and breathe a sigh of relief that you beat fate this time.

[j]

on the placebo, I still think this placebo is for the mothers, not the children. We are the ones who are apparently prepared to believe that it is a better placebo if it looks like medicine and costs more money.

[j]

Sue, as I said below I do agree that we should let people pay for single dose vaccines if they want to. That is well within the bounds of personal choice within a responsible overall approach to it.

Very different from "knowing" you will be fine and never mind if someone else is at risk. Worse than smokers, Mum2b, as we all have the option to avoid smokers but we get no choice about avoiding you, your child will be at my child's school (well she won't of course as the age gap is there, but you know what I mean).

[Sue]

Sarah: there is an effect even when they know it's placebo. It's a strange thing.

- good heavens, really? How to docs/psyches think they work, then, if you actually know it's not 'real medicine'?

[Sarah]

I think Rhys was probably not serious but we should be aware that it was never supposed to be a secret that this was a placebo - that would not be ethical outside a properly regulated trial! Of course small children are not likely to be reading this, but more interestingly the 'placebo effect' does not actually depend on the person believing it to be a 'real' medicine, there is an effect even when they know it's placebo. It's a strange thing.

[Sue]

I do think there are issues surrounding the differences between risk and perceived risk, because the latter is so very, very psychology based (we only have to look at how extremely variable parents are about what they consider to be safe things for their chidlren to do!).

There are (I'm one of them!) very risk-averse people, and I will err on the side of safety, probably to the extent of being neurotic (if not paranoid!), and some who aren't. On top of that, of course, is evidence-based risk (ie, 'real' risk), and when it comes to medicine, one of the things about the latter that haunts the former is that dreadful 'so far' caveat - ie, this is the best research/evidence 'so far', and all the fears of hidden dangers lurking and so on.

I would argue that to a large extent risk-averse people like me are very seldom convinced by the 'evidence' (note how I put it in quotes for a start!). For example, it's no good saying to me 'the stats are that no more children are abducted and murdered than when you were growing up and walking to school alone at the age of six etc etc' because I just don't 'believe' that (and anyway, if even ONE child is abducted, well, the next one could be mine, etc)(I read, in the ST Style section, a very sad - but hopefully happy ending - tale of a mother with a child developing a rare cancer, and I was struck very much by what she said. She said "I didn't ask 'why my child?' I asked 'Why not my child?'....")(that's my psychology to a T).

This is why I'm arguing the corner of trying to find a compromise option for those parents who like me (but about vaccination, which isn't one of my 'fears' as there isn't autism in the family etc,)(so I don't 'perceive' it as a 'real' risk!), are going to be very very hard to reassure.

If those parents find it psychologically very very hard (if not impossible) to buy into things like MMR, then why can we not, for the sake of their children's health, and those they come into (and thank you, MTB, for saying that about letting other parents know your views), let them vaccinate in what they consider to be a 'safer' way. It really will be a very few of the total population, and will be better than not having those children vaccinated at all.

And, perhaps, too, the experience of Debbie's anti-vaccination mum with a child with a non-trivial disease now, will perhaps become the strongest 'convert' to pro-vaccination, and be far more convincing of fellow antis now BECAUSE she was 'once like them'.

I certainly fully agree that during our generation we have grown careless of remembering just how debilitating and dangerous such 'ordinary' childhood diseases can be. TB, of course, is another case in point, where that Pale Rider has arrived at Terminal 3 to remind us all over again.

[Kitta]

I think although they are used synonymously vaccination is the act of introducing a material in order to produce an immune reaction, and immunisation is the end result.

Vaccination is an action, where as immunity can be naturally acquired

I think.............

[Debbie]

By the way, does anyone know if there is any difference between immunisation and vaccination or are the two words synonymous?

[Debbie]

If I have learned one thing above all being a mother, it is that you have to learn to go with the flow and take what motherhood throws at you. It takes many of your preconceived idea and shakes them up by the scruff of their neck and throws them back in your face. I have learned the hard way sometimes and tried to do things that simply do not work. The health of your child is one thing you simply cannot predict. I know everyone one of us would do everything we could to prevent our children ever getting sick or suffering any pain.

Unfortunately we can't stop it from happening. I will never forget the feeling of complete anguish, watching my eldest daughter in hospital being held down while a canula was put in her arm (she was 4 at the time) and her struggling to breathe with undiagnosed asthma and pneumonia. We all do what we think is best, but sometimes it isn't enough.

[M]

I know, KM, the rest of us are just careless.

[KM]

"I know that I can raise a healthy child."

I cannot think of any statement I have ever read on Alphamummy that has so defied parody.

[Gipsy]

Tongue in cheek Rhys? Or perhaps most British children do indeed read the Times.

[j]

Poor you, Debbie. Still at least you know early and you have the experience to manage it well.

[Rhys Jaggar]

So you wrote this article to make people aware that it was a placebo.

so it isn't any more!

Well done!

[Debbie]

Sorry for the double post, my internet link threw a wobbler in the middle of posting and it did it twice!

[Debbie]

Jean - Haven't discussed this with her, as I find it hard to talk with her on subject such as this as we have such diametrically opposing views on these things! I might ask her and see what she says. It would be interesting to hear her point of view.

I think your previous post was excellent and words of wisdom. You cannot change peoples minds on this sort of things once they are locked onto a path. All I know from my own point of view, is that you can only do your best for your children and it doesn't always succeed. I am asthmatic and did everything I could to minimise the risk of my children developing asthma, yet both my children are now asthmatic despite my best efforts, the youngest one just diagnosed this week. We do our best, but unfortunately life sometimes has different ideas despite our best efforts.

[Debbie]

Jean - Haven't discussed this with her, as I find it hard to talk with her on subject such as this as we have such diametrically opposing views on these things! I might ask her and see what she says. It would be interesting to hear her point of view.

I think your previous post was excellent and words of wisdom. You cannot change peoples minds on this sort of things once they are locked onto a path. All I know from my own point of view, is that you can only do your best for your children and it doesn't always succeed. I am asthmatic and did everything I could to minimise the risk of my children developing asthma, yet both my children are now asthmatic despite my best efforts, the youngest one just diagnosed this week. We do our best, but unfortunately life sometimes has different ideas despite our best efforts.

[Jean Jones]

Debbie - does the mother of this poor child regret not vaccinating?

[Jean Jones]

J and others - there is nothing to be done in the face of people who steadfastly refuse to vaccinate their children except to do what one believes in and let those others take what happens to them. I believe that vaccination is a huge benefit of modern life. I do not believe that vaccination 'causes' autism. Therefore my kids were all vaccinated. End of story. They have not had any of the nasty diseases vaccination is there to prevent, they haven't infected anyone else and and my conscience is entirely clear that I have done the best for my children and for society. I can't do anything about anyone else so I don't try. If others can't work out that the risks from disease are greater than the minute risk from vaccination, that's their problem. And their children's.

[Debbie]

Interesting live example of what happens when you don't vaccinate your child has actually happened this morning. My 3 year olds best friend from preschool, has caught whooping cough from the epidemic here in Darwin. She is vomiting every time she coughs, has been told by the pediatrician that she will take at least 3 months to get over it and has now had two huge doses of antibiotics in an attempt to get it under control. Her mother is a card carrying vegetarian, anti immunisation, totally against conventional medicine person. Now her child is seriously ill, has had massive doses of antibiotics and faces months of extremely distressing coughing and vomiting. I can only be extremely grateful that my children are immunised and have not contracted this horrible disease.

[j]

"I know that I can raise a healthy child"

Oh Mum2b I do hope you are right, but you cant be surprised if those of us with disabled children, who see every day that not every risk can be controlled, that bad luck happens to good people, and who know only too well how hard life can be once it does, feel frustrated and concerned to see you running such an avoidable risk.

[Mum-to-be]

Of course I would make it totally clear to other parents that my child is not vaccinated but to be honest, I would be more worried about the very unhealthy habits most parents have(you metion smoking for example). I will obvioulsy do everything in my power to keep my child disease free but am also in the(for me anyway) very priviliged position of being surrounded by many unvaccinated children so I suppose we will only be a risk to each other.

[Gipsy]

Sue, I don't think our points of view are that different. What I'm trying to put across is that the government hasn't made any decisions in a vacuum, or just said 'do this' or 'don't do that' without saying why or why not.

We can look at the information that the government has based its decision on, and talk to experts that we do feel will provide us with an accurate assessment, and then make our own choice about whether or not we will trust the Government.

Ultimately it comes down to who do I trust more? The Government or the Anti-vaccination side? So far, the anti-vaccination side has presented inaccurate and false facts and experts who make false and misleading assertions (and I'm not including Wakefield here).

[Sue]

I'd agree that being told one is selfish is not very nice, but that doesn't mean that it might not be true! No, I wouldn't necessarily put my child at risk for 'the greater good' but then I would, I hope, also try and think through the implications of just what 'the greater good' was, and whether there was a way I could do what I wanted without risking other people as well. At the very least, in this instance, I think it behoves parents of unvaccinated children to make it abundantly clear to all they come into contact with that their child hasn't been vaccinated, and then let other parents make their own risk assessment as to whether you and your children are 'safe company'. I would expect you would want the same in return, wouldn't you? It doesn't seem unreasonable to me on the whole. It's along the lines of if your child goes to play at the house of parents who smoke (or do any other dangerous activities!). As a parent you would want to know that, and then decide if you were happy for your child to be expsed to that risk.

[Mum-to-be]

Mercury is not in the vaccine any more as such but several of the vaccinations are passed through mercury during the manufacturing process so there will always be some amount of mercury present.
I have no problem with anybody making decisions that they think are right for their family but I don't want to be told what is right for mine. Being told that I am selfish is not very nice, every mother will put the life of their child first before that of others and the decisions I make will not be influenced by governments, threaths of no child benefits or no access to schools.
If anybody is interested in some good reading (by a paediatrician): "How to raise a healthy child in spite of your doctor" by Robert Mendelsohn. I am not sure if he talks about vaccinations as well, it's been a long time since I read it, but it's good.
I know that I can raise a healthy child

[Sue]

Gipsy: They have decided that the risk from the single vaccine ..... wasn't worth it.

-!!! Yes, precisely, 'THEY have decided!'. That is my point and my objection! Again, 'worth it to whom'?? To them.

I do think you and I may have irreconcilable attitudes on this one! My argument is that IF there are anxious parents (providing and assuming there are only a very few in the whole population), who have failed to be 'reassured' (!) by the government's attitude (whether or not that attitude is justified), AND a few children only having the single vaccines does not pose any greater threat than if their only alternative was to have no vaccine at all, THEN why on earth not let them have the single vaccinnes? ie, single vaccines for a few children of nervous parents won't increase the risk to the population overall, and indeed, is better than those children not being vaccinnated at all.

This seems to me to be a reasonable compromise between two irreconcilable positions (ie, 'I trust the government' vs 'I do not trust the government'), and improves things overall.

I would agree, BTW, that parents wanting single vaccines need to understand what risks are attached to that option as well.

[M]

We are semi-educated (quoting Delilah) about immunology and epidemiology unless we specialise in it and Delilah is right, the arrogance of the government over this will impact on other issues in health. They overplayed their hand. I'm keeping an open mind here, because I'm not a scientist, but I wasn't prepared to take the blanket risk of the MMR, nor did I want the other set of risks of scary diseases, so I took matters into my own hands. I'd never have done so, had I not had specific information of where to get the single jabs. I still didn't understand all the ramifications of either argument until I read this thread. M2B, I'm sorry you read it as a personal attack on you that you now won't trust vaccines, or perhaps other government programmes, but neither will I. The thing is, I won't really fully know why not. It will just be risk assessment.

[Gipsy]

>>However, if the single vaccinne option simply did not exist, or was demonstrated adequately to present as great a risk of cuasing handicap as the triple one,<<

That is where I have a huge problem with this debate (not here but in general). You state this as if it were fact, when there has not been anything to show that the triple vaccine causes handicaps!

I too resent being talked down to and told to simply do what I'm told etc. But it isn't just the government that is guilty of this. So are the anti-vaccination side.

Kim - at the end of the day, I would not be willing to sacrifice my child for the good of a greater number of people. And that is what anti-vaccination people are asking me to do. After looking into it I decided that the greatest risk of death and handicap to my child came from the disease, not the vaccination. I have had him vaccinated. But what if he is like the person in this thread, and the vaccination doesn't hold? What if there is an outbreak of the disease and he catches it, and is left permanently damaged or dead? Those anti-vaccination people are willing to take a chance with my child's life and future because of their own mis-informed opinions.

The government has said that the MMR jab doesn't result in autism. They base this on studies and research that are publically available for anyone to read. They have decided that the risk from the single vaccine (for example, it spreads out shots over a longer period of time, so the child is left unprotected for longer than if they had the MMR - there is more but I can't remember it all now, it has been a couple of years since I looked into it) wasn't worth it. Again, all the reasons for this descion are a matter of public record and are there for anyone to look at and consider.

Anti-vaccination campaigners on the other hand throw misinformation and inaccurate facts around with wild abandon. Mercury in vaccinations? That was changed some time ago. Hep B from drug use only? Er no. The list goes on and on.

Who do I think insults my intelligence more? Not the government.

I do think that there are very good reasons out there for not having the vaccination. I do know people who have looked into it and weighed up all the information and risks before making a decision. Some have vaccinated - one person hasn't.

I don't think that any good reasons for the anti-vaccination argument have been put in this thread though.

[Sue]

Gipsy - my point is that if the government were to address the fears of those parents who are afraid, whether with justification or not, about the triple vaccine (and I think that's the only one that people worry about, isn't it, because of the question of the link to autism?), and give them some alternative method, such as single vaccines (which I believe Delilah said was an option in other countries), and did not simply tell us all through their PR megaphone that 'OF COURSE MMR IS SAFE YOU SILLY WOMEN!' in that condesending and arrogant way, then I would be more sympathetic to what they are striving for.

Yes, I would like to see every child immunised if that means every child is safe. BUT, I do not think that that safety can be fairly bought IF it is at the price of handicapping a few children via causing autism, IF that risk of handicapping can be avoided by allowing those few contraindicated children, or those few very nervous/anxious/doubting parents access to the single vaccines.

What I dislike is this 'all or nothing' attitude to the triple, giving people no alternative whatsoever, and making it a real 'lucky dip' as to whether or not your child does or does not survive the vaccine safely.

However, if the single vaccinne option simply did not exist, or was demonstrated adequately to present as great a risk of cuasing handicap as the triple one, then we get down to a much tougher question for governments, which IS the 'group' versus the 'individual' - ie, that the government will knowingly, and deliberately sacrifice the 'few' to the 'many' (and I wouldn't say that is a wrong moral choice to make, if the only alternative is that the many die/get dangerously ill as well as the few!)(ie, sacrificing 'the few' to 'the many' is a 'least worst' option).

BUT, since the single vaccines DO seem to exist, then I cannot see why the government has to be so prescriptive about not allowing those very few people in the population who are possibly at risk or highly anxious (and it's not that many, and there would be fewer still if the government weren't so high-handed about all of this MMR business!), to have the singles.

But I just get the impression that the government thinks that if it shouts at us long and hard enough, we will 'get the message' and believe what they are saying about the safety of the MMR. I think their arrogance has undermined public trust, and that's very dangerous for the health of our children.

[Kim]

Mum-to-be - my understanding was that three or four years ago, a decision was made to remove thimerosal (the mercury component) from the DTP vaccine, and that it has never been present in MMR. Do you have evidence to the contrary?

Gipsy - I guess the whole argument of anti-vaccine campaigners is that vaccines do pose a genuine risk to health that is underplayed by the government. Therefore if you have a healthy child you might prefer the risk of it getting the illness than getting the vaccine.

Also, I suspect that most of us are more motivated by doing what is best for our own child than a noble desire to protect the rest of the community. If you thought that vaccines were genuinely risky, you probably wouldn't vaccinate your child, however beneficial you thought it was for other children. The reason you do vaccinate your child is because you probably don't believe there's any risk attached to vaccination, but there is some benefit.

[Gipsy]

>>'the individual' for the benefit of 'the group' - and if a few children die/end up handicapped, well, that's peanuts to the government

I'm just not getting this argument in favour of not vaccinating, when to me it seems like exactly what vaccination programs are doing. How do you use this argument to justify an anti-vaccination stance? Surely it doesn't make a bit of sense when you look at it closely.

Society A doesn't immunise - lots of children get sick, some die and some are damaged permenantly. Society B does immunise - a much smaller percentage of children than in society A suffer from permanent damage and an even smaller percentage than that die, in circumstances that are shown not to be related to the vaccine, but can't be accounted for. So, because people don't trust the government, they don't vaccinate. An outbreak occurs and children die and are permanently damaged - some of whom weren't vaccinated through choice or because they're not old enough and some are like Kitta, they didn't 'hold' the vaccination.

So, those people who don't vaccinate are willing to sacrifice a few individuals in their society so that they can do this. To me that is sacrificing the individual for the sake of the herd.

And you know, saying this about the government as it if is fact - oh they're willing to damage a few kids to roll out a vaccination program? Wow! That's a twisting of the facts if I ever saw it.

How about looking at it like this - the Government saves lots of kids who would have died or been permenantly damaged from a disease by rolling out a vaccination program.

I guess though that under the first argument, the government didn't do any vaccination programs out of a desire to save lives, but just to save cash because supporting the many kids who were damaged by the disease was more expensive. Couldn't possibly be any other reason since clearly Governments are full of people who care so little for life that what the heck, they're willing to sacrifice a few kids because that's a cheaper option.

[anon]

I had mumps later in life and gave it to my boyfriend at the time. He was told that he had a one in seven chance that it could make him infertile. I don't know whether it did or not as we're not now in contact, but I still think about it and hope that it didn't...

[Mum-to-be]

Thnak you M, I a actually not semi-educated middle class but a very well educated professional (in the medical profession) so I don't think that I fall into the category of "doesn't know any better and reads scare stories in the tabloids".
I am glad to see that the discussion has moved into a sensible area, like so many here said now, the government is pushing for what it thinks is right and doesn't give parents a choice. Most childhood diseases should be exactly that, diseases you catch in childhood, develop immunity and then you are done with it.The vaccines don't last forever, like natural immunity does, and that is why diseases have a much worse effect in adulthood.
On a completely different note,most vaccines still contain a certain amount of mercury, which has been shown to destroy neurons in the brain (study was done by the university of Calgary several years ago). In a baby, the last thing the developing brain needs is something that destroys nerve cells.I'd rather take the chicken pox than mercury destroying brain cells.

[Kim]

Thanks, Kitta, for the very clear explanation.

Odd about your experience of rubella! A girl in my daughter's class had chicken pox while pregnant, and the little girl (8) has now had chicken pox five times apparently - something to do with not getting immunity if mother has it in the womb.

[M]

We are friends with our old GP. He wasn't allowed NOT to vaccinate his children, he says, or discuss it with patients. He went to France to get single vaccines, so did we.
Delilah, as usual, so eloquent and I totally agree with you and I think the "high-handed socialised medicine" is affecting so much of other parts of the NHS, too. The "semi-educated middle classes" do hold a lot of sway, there is evidence of how they have been alienated and their resolve hardened, as you say, in this thread, causing potential risks to others and their children become unreachable, like M2B's, into later life on other issues.

[Sue]

I think Delilah has hit the nail on the head - irrespective of the science, irrespective of whtehr the public understand the science, there is an undermining of trust by some members of the public (me included) in what the Government's message is.

I do feel that they are simply railroading 'the individual' for the benefit of 'the group' - and if a few children die/end up handicapped, well, that's peanuts to the government (especially as, in the case of handicapped children, the government spends as little as possible on maximising their lives/potential and easing those of their parents.)

I really dislike what is coming across (intended or not!) as arrogance by the government. Overall, I AM in favour of a 'nanny state' (eg, seatbelts etc) but NOT a 'nanny knows best and don't argue back' message from the government.

The real debate is NOT whether 'goverment right' or 'government wrong', it's children safe, whatever form of vaccination is used.

[J]

Sarah, yes indeed it does mean no peer review. Even I could do a poster at a conference. tsk tsk.

[DELILAH]

If the science was the most important issue, you would have won the argument by now and everyone would be MMR'd. But what is it, 10 years now, and still having problems? Poor dears.

The science is a red herring. Clearly the problem is something else, and I find it annoying that the medical and scientific establishment can't deal with that. If they can't deal with it, they should get help from people who can.

The main problem is trust. There are perfectly good measles vaccines around that are not the MMR. But the medical establishment chose to make them impossible to get hold of, and bullied and lectured the people they needed most support from - the semi-educated middle classes. That was all that was needed to create this fiasco.

It's not good enough to blame the media,and Dr. Wakefield. The media and the good Doctor are quite active in other countries but MMR immunisation rates have not fallen there to the extent that they have in Britain. That is because other parents were and are allowed the option of seperate immunisation from a wide choice of vaccine suppliers. The result, oddly, is that more parents choose the MMR. Loss of fear, improved trust. This crisis is the result of high-handed socialised medicine, poor central planning, and lack of respect for the recipients of state largesse. If lessons are not learned, it will happen again.

My mother terminated her pregnancy with my older sister because she caught rubella in the first trimester. So I am well aware that it is far from trivial for the unborn. But to the semi-educated mother of a baby facing the MMR, those risks are far in the future. That's why the government decided to use measles risk to sell the MMR, and it still didn't work. It was crazy to allow all of these immunisation campaigns to founder just to feed the ego of NHS clinicians. (And to save money. That was clearly a major factor. The refusal of the MMR vaccine supplier to allow the government to back out of their long-term contracts was well-known in the NHS contracting circles I worked in and it was not mischeivous of me to point that out. The government could have contracted to buy more single-dose vaccines but preferred to believe that parents would fall into line if all other avenues were closed off. Good enough reason to risk a measles - and a rubella - epidemic?

[Kitta]

Sorry for spreading/ monopolising the thread but can I just say the Andrew Wakefield is the worse thing that ever happened to the MMR debate…………….
Because of his very very unprofessional way of undertaking his ‘research’, he has damaged the dialog forever.
If you believe in the MMR his studies will be brought up, if you don’t well his ‘research’ has so many holes in it, well it’s like my last attempt at knitting

[Kitta]

Hi Lazy Mummy,
Re: parents and neighbour parties. Chances are your grandparents/ parents had measles etc and they passed limited immunity on to you, a bit like a weak vaccine, so to continue my previous analogy, kids 35-45 years ago got the Ashley version of the measles. But some strains were stronger and lived on.
However then we started vaccinating, AND breast feeding rates fell. So most people under (and this is a guess-amate, I’m not going in to the loft for my old epidemiological/ biology notes for anyone! Have you seen the size of the spiders up there..)
A lot of people about 30-35 yrs old were not breast feed AND didn’t get exposed to the virus so didn’t develop immunity, didn’t pass it on to their kids so kids now are pretty naïve to the virus, so it only has to do ‘pass the virus’ once or twice before it become nasty.

Personally I will never forget the look on my Mums face when she thought that my baby sister had the stereotypical measles rash, raised red spots behind the ears then around the belly. I could have been only 7 at the most and I can still remember that look. Mam is/was a sensible woman who knew that her baby had not been in contact with anyone un-vaccinated, This is a true alpha Mam who had buried both her parents by the age of 18 and raised her 5 siblings, buried a child of her own, nursed her husband through experimental surgery, bore 8 children with all the worries that entails……….And then started a business of her own in which she not only employed Da, but most of us kids at some point, and several other women in the local town

I have seen that look once again on my sister’s face as the A/E staff were calling around the country looking for a Peds ITU bed for my nephew. (FYI both my kid sis and my nephew are fine, now)

So although it could be a mild childhood thing for most, she could very easily remember friends who lost sibs or had very damaged sibs at home.

As regards ‘getting mumps/rubella pre-adolescence was the best way to protect against worse effects later in life’ yes for most that works, unless you’re a freak like me!!!!
I can’t ‘hold’ a rubella vaccine. I have had the vaccine twice and had German measles 3 times…………….
Missed my birthday once, Christmas once, and a general off school week. So for me when/ if I ever get pregnant I’m relaying on ‘herd’ vaccination.

[Sarah]

J, the 'baby monkey' study was not published in any journal at all - the results were presented in poster format at a conference, which as anyone in academia will know means it was not held to the same rigorous standard and peer review as an article for publication in a scientific journal.

[Gipsy]

Thanks Kitta.

I only know one person who has opted against the MMR vaccine, and that isn't for autism reasons (it is up to her to explain why if she wanted, but I do fully understand her reasons and would do the same in her position).

I do have some issues with the use of antibiotics in very young children. There is still a lot we don't know about physical development and with the brain still developing crucial functions, I'd rather we understood more about the role beneficial bacteria has in our bodies. That said, if your child (as did the child in one case in our family) has life threatening bronchitis, then that's a risk you really do have to take.

I've known one adult get chicken pox, and frankly that's pretty scary. I've never seen anything like it and they were ill for a long time. I wouldn't want anyone to go through that. Rather relieved that son has had chickenpox.

[Sue]

Agree with Kitta though that this is an area where dual funding ought to be allowed: as she says, anything that gets people to do it. Probably cheaper than yet another public education campaign...

- I agree too. Why not? It's what I object to in the government's attitude, that it seems to be more about 'We are RIGHT and you are WRONG' than 'let's just try and get the disease rates down, shall we, folks?'

[Lazy Mummy]

Loved Kitta's explanation. Thank you.

If these illnesses (measles, mumps, rubella) were only trivial in & of themselves, why did our parents & grandparents hold parties for neighbourhood children when one of the youngsters caught one of these diseases? We've known they have far more serious effects on adults (esp. pregnant women) for a long time; prior to vaccines, getting mumps/rubella pre-adolescence was the best way to protect against worse effects later in life.

FWIW, all the stuff I've heard recently about MMR/vaccines linked with autism in the US seems to be focused on the issue of preservatives like thimerosal (mercury-derivative) & another (aluminium-derivative). In fact, our doc thimerosal-free versions & those are what we used.

[Jean Jones]

Delilah - rubella is indeed a very trivial illness. It's not the children who get the vaccine that need protecting from it, it's pregnant women who may catch it from them. Rubella damage to unborn children is catastrophic and I am old enough to remember seeing children who had been damaged by maternal rubella, back in the 60s before schoolchildren were routinely vaccinated against it. I don't see how anyone could possibly argue against rubella vaccination. It's such a trivial illness that you may not even be aware whether you've had it or not, and by the time you're pregnant it may be too late to find out that you aren't immune. The last thing you need is unvaccinated kids passing it on to you.

[J]

thanks to all for posting research etc; bears out my view that selective reading of things we stumble across is not at all the same as a professional background in the trade. Kitta clearly knows what she is on about, as do several of the others posting here.

I repeat: you only know the people you come across. That's why we have peer-reviewed research. I'd be interested to know what journal the monkey study was published in.

As for all the conspiracy theory stuff about having to shift a mountain for cheapo vaccines and bolster some spin-out, I do think it is mischievous to say, ahah what a co-incidence etc.

Agree with Kitta though that this is an area where dual funding ought to be allowed: as she says, anything that gets people to do it. Probably cheaper than yet another public education campaign.

[jdc]

Sorry, it appears my link was too long for this site. http://preview.tinyurl.com/5zolbl should take you to Orac's critique of the Wakefield monkey baby study.

Most damningly, one group in the study included just 3 subjects. As Orac points out: "the study almost certainly doesn't have the statistical power to find much of anything with confidence".

[SNQ]

I don't know about anyone else but i was unaware of any distraction from the government it was well publicised by all the scare mongers and sensationalists that it was the MMR vaccine which was implicated in the yet to be proven link to autism, i am fully behind mumofteenagers on this one, if these people had to do one shift as a nurse on a childrens ward dealing with the effects of these diseases they would be first in line to vaccinate their own children

[Kitta]

Kim; please be patient , it’s already been a long day and I’m only half way there!
To answer your question
Weak little cold bug wandering around, hitches a ride on Bob, and gives him an annoying case of the sniffles. Bob’s immune system gets in to gear and kicks it out, but not before the bug has learnt one or two lessons from how to hide from Bob and one of the bugs has jumped on to Bill. Now although Bill and Bob are unrelated certain of the actions that the immune system takes will be the same, but Buggy , thanks to Bob knows how to hide from this, so it hit Bill a little harder and takes his immune system a little longer to overpower Buggy, all the while Buggy is learning and mutating. Bill is an inconsiderate work colleague and instead of staying at home and drinking fluids he continues to go in to the office where he passes Buggy on to Jo, Mary and Sarah. Jo gets a full blown cold does the right thing stays at home, washes her hands often and that strain of Buggy who knows Bill, Bob and Jo’s system dies out. Sarah is one of those disgustingly healthy people who never catches anything (her immune system pounces on everything, when it grows up it wants to join MI5) so that strain dies as well.
Mary is a martyr, with a full cold she drags herself in to work spreading a stronger version of Buggy. Eventually either one of the strains of Buggy gets so strong if you catch you have no choice but to go home and watch Phillip and Fern, but therefore limit the spread. Or Buggy has mutates as far as he can and immune systems have started to recognise him and shoot on sight.

Measles Virus is wandering around, jumps on to Ben, but Ben has been vaccinated and overwhelms this virus and it goes no further.
Ashley picks up the same virus, and hasn't been vaccinated, is ill for a few days while her immune systems figures out what to do and the virus is learning and mutating, but eventually gets in to gear and bashes it.
In the mean time during the incubation and infectious period before the spots appeared Ashley has been to playgroup and spread the virus around 20 other kids, 19 have been vaccinated so even thought this is now Measles virus+ Ashley, the immune systems still see it for what it is and bash it. The one child who hasn’t been vaccinated call her Petra, goes off to her childminder and spreads it to 3 other children 2 have been vaccinated one hasn’t.

This child catches the virus that has already been mutated by Ashley and Petra and dies.

Meanwhile Ashley’s mum is telling all her friends that all this stuff about needing vaccines is silly her child had measles last week and didn’t die no worse than a cold………………

Sorry if this reads a bit simplistic, but it’s how it was explained to me and I’ve never
forgotten it.

In the year 2000 when the immunisation rates in Ireland fell to their lowest point, (72% nationally), 3 children died, 350 were hospitalised and over 1603 cases were reported

And remember it’s not just babies and toddlers that are at risk, on a personal note a friends very fit healthy, up till then, 32 year old husband caught Chicken pox, following 2 weeks in ITU, another 3 in hospital, a year later he’s still not fully recovered.

Not to mention anyone who is pregnant, the birth defects that these diseases can cause are horrific, personally as soon as we decided to start trying, the first thing I did was check that all my vaccines were up to date, seems as sensible as taking folic acid.

I do however feel that if you want the option to pay to have single vaccines then the option needs to be there. Hell if it improves vaccination rates and you’re willing to pay, why not?

[jdc]

Re "a recent five-year double-blind study has found that monkey babies" - was this study conducted by discredited scientist Andrew Wakefield?

There is a critique of the monkey baby study here: http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2008/05/some_monkey_business_in_autism_research.php

[DELILAH]

Interesting, isn't it, how the Govt has successfully distracted everyone from the fact that it wasn't measles immunisation that was implicated in autism, it was specifically the MMR.

The measles epidemic is the result of government health officials being hell-bent on also stamping out mumps and rubella. Whatever the benefits of that, the Govt knew that parents weren't going to override their fears of the MMR just to protect their kids from mumps and rubella (both of which are trivial until puberty). Parents were already lining up to have their children immunised against measles only. So the government withdrew the measles-only vaccine.

My daughter was halfway through a course of single measles jabs - on the NHS - when they were summarily withdrawn. I tried to buy the remaining doses privately but discovered that the government had simultaneously reduced the quota for import of single doses for private use to almost nothing. The Govt had also imposed restrictions on private vaccination that meant that we would have to make separate visits to the clinic (100 miles away) for mumps, then rubella, and finally measles - assuming they had enough measles vaccine by then, which they rather stupidy told me was far from likely.

Apart from DOH arrogance, it can't be coincidence that the NHS was legally committed to buying gallons of MMR which they suddenly found they couldn't even give away.

All of this was done BEFORE the outcome of the Wakefield investigation, and in the midst of the Bristol children's heart surgery scandal.

Whatever the science, I think the DOE needs to think quite hard about how it promotes public confidence in its great ideas. Obviously scaring the pants off us wasn't very effective; perhaps they misconstrued how scary parents find autism. I remember thinking that I'd rather see my child dead or deaf than profoundly autistic.

That's the issue, my friends. If my child had been damaged, I wouldn't have received a scrap of compensation from the government to help care for her. In other countries, where vaccination is done by consent, vaccinations campaigns don't get rolled out until the government has provided a budget for vaccine damage which promotes confidence rather than dismay and agrees to cover some cases that probably had nothing to do with the vaccine just to give people the confidence to line up. And I really don't think compulsory vaccination is the answer. Do you seriously want to be forced to use a drug on the sayso of some empire builder in the health department who will lose nothing more than their job if it turns out to damage a whole generation? At least, for God's sake, get the insurance industry to underwrite it - and if they won't, it's probably not a wise thing to do.

Incidentally, the former head of the National Institutes of Health in Maryland has recommended that the link requires further study. It may be a preservative in that particular formulation of the vaccine, rather than the measles. In any case. a recent five-year double-blind study has found that monkey babies who receive the range of vaccines given to American babies (including the MMR) display hypersensitivity, aggression, and developmental delays and gut inflammation not exhibited in the control group.

[Zac Smith]

My sister had measles when she was a kid and is deaf. Measles isn't a trivial disease.

Get immunised.

[mumofteenagers]

I am a practice nurse, and run an immunisation clinic every week. Not only do I immunise all the babies and toddlers, I have three of my own teenagers who have had all imms.Everything. Some points - it is in no-one's interests to poison/harm or create autistic children by injecting them with toxins;universities are insisting on all immunisations being up-to-date before a child goes away to study;immunisation is responsible for the virtual eradication of some of the deadliest diseases known to man.The diseases are only kept in check by regular vaccination of babies and children, hence reappearance once uptake falls.
Nurses are used to seeing the (hospitalised) effects of not immunisaing, so making a little one cry (usually briefly)although not nice, is far better than having to care for desperately sick children, too ill and weak to cry.

[Jean Jones]

I also have an autistic son and i fully agree with J. I had all my children vaccinated and if I have grandchildren I will urge my daughter and son to have them vaccinated too. I am 100% convinced, on scientific grounds, that MMR has nothing to do with autism. Many parents with a disabled child are desperate for someone or something to blame. I believe that accidents happen and the process of making a perfect human being from a sperm and an egg is so amazing that it would be extraordinary if things didn't occasionally go wrong all by themselves.

[j]

I dont think mum2b is interested in the wider implications: she has said "I am not injecting my child with something that to me is unsafe and "might" prevent a disease just so that everybody else can benefit."

However, there is a more direct benefit that might persuade her. And that is, once your child catches measles etc, it's too late to vaccinate then, so you will have to run that full risk.

She says, " I know many unvaccinated children and adults, still alive strangely enough, who have not brought death on anybody else."

Yet.

Again, once they do, it will be too late.

Arguing from the tiny number of people we meet is not mdeical research. It's like saying that you will smoke during pregnancy as your friend did, and her baby was fine. You havent met the people who did smoke and it wasn't fine, probably cos they are stuck in SCBU, hospital and special schools, and you never go there.

There is a 10 year old child I know who is unable to do much more than roll her eyes. She was born fully able. Her condition is a tragic result of quite a common childhood illness, but not one which can be vaccinated against.

I have an autistic son and I think that Wakefield has done great harm by his paper. I entirely agree with all the rude comments made by the medical research community about the lack of professional rigour in the selection of his group (from memory, he picked them all from children who were already autistic) and his research on them thereafter.

[Debbie]

Following from my last post ( this subject has really got to me), having lived and worked in many countries around the world, many of them third world countries with poor health care, it is only in wealthy countries with effective immunisation programs that people indulge in the luxury of deciding not to have their child immunised.

Pretty much every government in the world bends over backwards to try and immunise all children and to use antibiotics to treat illnesses that would otherwise cause the death of hundreds of thousands of children.

People will queue for hours or days to get their child immunized or treated with antibiotics in order to give their child a better chance to survive to adulthood. Thousands of children used to die in the UK every year around the turn of the last century in the early 1900's, most families would lose at least one or two children whilst they were growing up. Now most of that has been eradicated by mass immunisation programs and by the use of antibiotics to treat illnesses that used to kill in their thousands. My own grandmother who was born in the 1800's, lost two brothers to a disease that today would take a simple treatment of antibiotics to cure.

It is naive in the extreme to imagine you would have this luxury in many countries in the world, you too would be queuing to get an immunisation if you knew your child's life was at risk on a day to day basis.

[Debbie]

BTW, am I the only one who thinks its great that we are now getting back into some serious debates, immunisation, depression, use of antibiotics etc. So much more interesting that some of the other threads.

Kitta, I thought what you said and how you put it was excellent. The fact that some of these disease are almost stamped out completely in most of the world is down to immunisation. Smallpox which used to kill thousands of people worldwide each year has been ERADICATED from the world due to blanket immunisation in all countries.

Protecting your own child (in theory) by not vaccinating whilst putting everyone else at risk seems unbelievably selfish and in fact does NOT protect your child, it puts them at risk of serious illness, particularly if you travel overseas where some of these illness, which have practically died out in the UK, are prevalent.

I think many people in countries like the UK have become very complacent because so many of these disease have become virtually eradicated, whereas in many other parts of the world thousands of people and in particular children die each year. Or does that not matter as long as ones own child is safe? Ethically I have a real problem with that philosophy.

[Sue]

Reading this debate I wonder whether it's time there was some kind of coherent social policy on the issue of non-vaccination. I have, I must say, a knee-jerk reaction to the current 'OF COURSE MMR IS SAFE YOU SILLY WOMEN!!!' campaign which I feel is coming out of the government right now, which I feel is along the lines of the 'OF COURSE IT'S SAFE TO EAT BEEF AND YOU WON'T GET BSE, YOU SILLY PEOPLE' campaign that came out of the early days of the mad-cow coverage. ie, that the government are poo-poohing the worries and 'just telling people' to do what the government wants them to do and shut up about it.

I don't find that reassuring, I find it insulting and suspicious, because I don't feel it is treating the public as intelligent or sensible, but just to be herded along mindlessly for the good of the government, and dismissing their anxities as idiotic.

There is, as always, an inherent tension between 'risks to the individual' and 'risks to the group' which anyone watching a nature programme can see. A herd (group) of gazelles is untroubled when a predator brings down one of them (individual) because that keeps the predatory busy while the rest of the get away and perpetuate their genes etc etc. This is understandable as evolution works at species level, etc. I think Tennyson put it 'nature so careless of the individual, so careful of the type' (not direct quote).

But, of course, for the predated individual, well, tough.

Government, in a way understandably, has to safeguard the group primarily, and when it comes to vaccinations that's what mass vaccination does - and if a few babies/children get sacrificed along the way, well, that's the price paid for the health of everyone else. (It's a similar logic in health screening - maybe it's 'safer' for women to have annual breast screening, but the expense isn't warrented, says the Government, as it would only save a small number of extra lives over the current three year screening, etc)

However, I do think that there is a better way of 'squaring the circle' between the well being of the group and the well being of each individual, when it comes to immunisations. I think that perhaps a social policy that said 'the group can "carry" a small number of non-vaccinated children, BUT, let that small number be only those ones who are the most associated with contra-indication, eg, have an autistic sibling' (or whatever are the contraindications).

In that way, the 'privilege' of being non-vaccinated is kept to those who need it most, and not extended to, perhaps, people who simply object 'on principle' rather than 'on specific individual medical grounds' so to speak.

Whether or not there is or is not any discernible links between triple vaccines and autism etc, I can well understand the levels of anxiety of parents with autism in their families, and I think cutting some slack to them is not unreasonable (eg, allowing single vaccines, or whatever a milder alternative to the triple is?) on psychological grounds, even if medically there is no reason for it, if it doesn't compromise public health overall??

[mumoftwo]

According the World Health Organisation, deaths from measles are in decline, dropping by 39 percent from 873,000 deaths in 1999, to 530,000 in 2003. That's half a million people a year dying of measles and that's considered a massive improvement! When I read things like that I feel very very lucky I am healthy and have my children immunised. Measles may be mild if you are well-fed, there are treatments if there are complications (there's still a death rate of about 1 in a 1000 in developed countries), if you aren't immuno-compromised...thank god for vaccination programmes. Measles is dangerous because it is very easily spread, so although 999 children might just brush it off, 1 won't, and when you are talking about infecting hundreds of thousands, then the death statistics start to rise...

[Kim]

Kitty -" With diseases, which you have, a vaccine against the vector does not have the same chance to be passed through the population and it in itself remains weak." I don't understand this - can you explain a bit more?

fwiw, when I was a kid, measles was considered a normal part of growing up, and very few people had long-term side effects. While I can accept that there is no proven link between MMR and autism, I do tend to think that the hysteria about potential measles epidemics is unjustified. (And yes, I know some kids die of measles, and I know some will suffer permanent damage, but for the vast majority of otherwise healthy kids, they just get it and then it's over with.)

[Kitta]

Mollie put it very well: "Those of us with healthy children... owe it to those who are immune comprised to have our children vaccinated. If we don't then diseases that will make our children ill will kill those who are weaker."
Herd Immunity must also be considered, one of the reasons that peeps who have not been vaccinated 'are fine' is that the 'herd' is immune thanks to vaccinations.
But once that level drops below, for most ‘childhood’ diseases 90% every unvaccinated child is in potential danger.

One of the theories of why when there is an outbreak of these diseases at the moment that it’s mild is that the germs have not had the chance to mutate. In other words the reason colds are still around (yes I know it’s viral and most childhood diseases are bacterial, but the basic premises is the same) is that as we pass it along it mutates and becomes stronger. And although there are lucky buggers who never get a cold most of us do at some point in our lives and the virus mutates and mutates.
With diseases, which you have, a vaccine against the vector does not have the same chance to be passed through the population and it in itself remains weak.

So that’s how you get the ‘ I/ My Hubby/ my aunts gardeners friends brothers kids had measles and it did them no harm.

Now I’m a big fan of not using drugs unless needed. I get cold sores; as soon as I get the ‘tingle’ I ‘m there with the Tea tree oil, and I use honey for everything from cuts to hay fever. But I also have a chronic ear disorder which leaves me susceptible to ear infections, and the minute I feel one of them coming on I’m down the Doc’s.

As regards reactions, anyone can develop an allergy to anything at any time, statistically, sadly there are going to be babies who will react to vaccinations.
I’m also a hopefully Mum to be, and my question is why would you put your child through the small possibility of a vaccine reaction vs the larger possibility of contracting a disease that they don’t have to?

[First timer]

Mum to be: I do think your attitude is rather selfish, when you say "I am not injecting my child with something that to me is unsafe and "might" prevent a disease just so that everybody else can benefit." Mollie put it very well: "Those of us with healthy children... owe it to those who are immune comprised to have our children vaccinated. If we don't then diseases that will make our children ill will kill those who are weaker."

And KM - I assume your son's drugs were delivered via a cannula, not a calendula - I've heard of alternative medicine, but that's a bit extreme... (smily emoticons, realise it's a serious subject but I found that amusing!).

[Gipsy]

Mum-to-be: I do agree wholeheartedly that the use of antibiotics and other drugs such as calpol need to be carefully considered. For that reason, we decided not to use a prescription for antibiotics the doctor gave following a mild infection, for example. But when it comes to something major - he had an exceptionally bad case of conjunctivitis for example, yes we did.

You have made blanket statements about all antibiotics and all vaccinations, and then been upset when others have made blanket statements. Please do think about what you're saying at the start of a discussion and the way that your posts are likely to come across if you want to have a meaningful discussion.

Polio - well, how many kids in the 30s would have loved to have had that vaccination? I have an aunt crippled by polio, so does my husband. We're a lucky generation, I think.

[Lazy Mummy]

Btw, on the scarlet fever question, my mother had it as a small child in the 40s, and I think it was one of the most traumatic events of her childhood. She was isolated in her room for weeks on end with only my grandmother & the doctor for company and once she was declared cured, they fumigated her room and burned all her clothes, toys & books.

This was right before the invention/distribution of penicillin. It didn't kill her. It made her stronger. But she still talks about how awful it was, to this day.

[Lazy Mummy]

Mumtobe:

I'm really interested in your answer to the meningitis question. Both my siblings had meningitis, one as a young (infant school age) child; the other as a 6th former. As I recall, there are two basic strains: viral, which makes you really sick but doesn't kill you, and bacterial, which can kill you but is treatable.

If your child had bacterial meningitis, would you allow it to be given antibiotics?

Also, if you were taking your child to a third world country (say, deepest Africa or somewhere tropical like Vietnam) would you allow you & your child to have the tropical disease vaccinations before going? Like, typhus, cholera, yellow fever?

I'm really interested in your position, especially since, as I posted before, I'm not a fan of pill-popping for the sake of it.

[Lazy Mummy]

Kim:

"Can't we have some rule that says people are only allowed to post on Alphamummy if they pass a basic intelligence test?"

LOL! I tend to think the same for voting too.

(LM ducks under parapet as grenade explodes).

[Mr Potarto]

MUM-TO-BE:
"And by the way, antibiotics work for bacterial infections and not viral infections!"

Thanks for that insight. The two diseases discussed below (whooping cough and scarlet fever) are both bacterial infections.

[Kim]

Kate - yes, scarlet fever can be treated with antibiotics, but, to quote Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scarlet_fever: "Since the middle of the twentieth century the disease has, for reasons which are not understood, become much milder in its effects."

BTW, I'm sure you meant well with all your references but I think the post as a whole was, well, a little on the long side.

[SNQ]

on the issue of Autism I belive that the apparant rise in the number of children with the condition is largely down to better understanding of the symptoms by doctors and parents so children who in the past were just branded difficult or odd are now being properly diagnosed, and has nothing to do with vaccinations

[SNQ]

the reason your friends are ok is that thankfully we live in a society where most intelligent people look at a balanced arguement and decide that the very small risk from the vaccine far out weighs the huge risk from the disease, if more people had your very single minded and selfish approach we would be in serious trouble

[Mum-to-be]

I do know that Andrew Wakefield hasn't done us any favours and I am certainly not basing my decisions purely on his research but herd immunity just doesn't do it for me.
I am not injecting my child with something that to me is unsafe and "might" prevent a disease just so that everybody else can benefit. I know many unvaccinated children and adults, still alive strangely enough, who have not brought death on anybody else.
And by the way, antibiotics work for bacterial infections and not viral infections!

[Kate]

Oh, and Kim, I had scarlet fever as a child. The reason it's not as dangerous as it used to be is... that it can be treated with antibiotics.

Mum To Be, it isn't the case that vaccinating your own kids is enough to protect them, because not all vaccinations work. We rely on everyone getting vaccinated to stop diseases gaining a foothold - herd immunity. Therefore your decisions on vaccination affect my child, too. As to why cancer rates have risen - they've primarily risen because people aren't being killed off younger by now-preventable diseases. You might also want to read these studies on the MMR, given as how you're very keen people should look at all the evidence:

Research carried out in controlled, circumstances, peer reviewed.

Feb, 1998
The Lancet published a paper by Wakefield et al., which describes the findings of an investigation of 12 children with a 'novel' regressive autism condition with gastrointestinal features. The onset of behavioural symptoms in these children was claimed by their parents to be associated with measles or MMR vaccine. In the paper Wakefield et al. states that 'We did not prove an association between MMR and the syndrome described'.

Wakefield A J et al. (1998) Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children. The Lancet 351: 637-41. [These findings differ from those of Fombonne & Chakrabarti, 2001 and Taylor et al, 2002].

The Lancet published a research letter by Afzal et al., in response to Wakefield et al.'s earlier papers published in the Journal of Medical Virology (39:345-53, 1993 and 51:90-100, 1997) describing the presence of measles virus in Crohn's and ulcerative colitis tissues. They concluded that using the best available polymerase chain reaction ( PCR ) technology, they were unable to find measles virus genome in gut mucosal biopsies from patients with Crohn's disease or ulcerative colitis.

Afzal M A et al. (1998) Absence of measles-virus genome in inflammatory bowel disease. The Lancet, 351: 646-7.

Subsequent research by Wakefield et al. could not confirm their initial findings (see research letter by Afzal et al., above). The Journal of Medical Virology published a paper by Wakefield showing that the measles virus RNA could not be detected in samples taken from patients with bowel disease.

Chadwick N et al. (1998) Measles virus RNA is not detected in inflammatory bowel disease using hybrid capture and reverse transcription followed by the polymerase chain reaction. [see Davis et al., March 2001].

Begg N, Ramsey M, White J and Bozoky Z (Feb 1998) Media dents confidence in MMR vaccine BMJ Vol 316: 561

The media’s effect on confidence in MMR.

To view please go to the BMJ website and search/archive 1998:316:561
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/

Mar, 1998

Chen RT and Destefano F (Mar 1998) Vaccine adverse events: causal or coincidental? The Lancet Vol 351: 611-12

Commentary that highlights vaccines are given to millions of healthy people, usually infants, and that extremely high standards for vaccine safety are demanded. It important that the report by Wakefield of several children whose chronic bowel and behavioural abnormalities were linked by their parents and physicians to measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccination are examined, critically and with an open mind.

The commentary also highlights that vaccine-safety concerns such as that reported by Wakefield and colleagues; "may snowball into societal tragedies when the media and the public confuse association with causality and shun immunisation. This painful history was shared by the UK (among others) over pertussis in the 1970s after another similar case- series was widely publicised, and it is likely to be repeated all too easily over MMR. This would be tragic because passion would then conquer reason and the facts again in the UK."

To view this commentary please go to:

http://www.thelancet.com/home

Registration is required

Fombonne Eric (Mar 1998) Inflammatory bowel disease and autism, The Lancet- Research Letters Vol 351: 955(March 28 1998)

Research letter published in The Lancet on 28th March 1998, written by Eric Fombonne that suggests no particular association between Crohn’s disease and autism among children immunised with MMR.

To view letter please go to:

http://www.thelancet.com/home

Registration is required

Kiln MR (Mar 1998) Autism, inflammatory bowel disease, and MMR Vaccine, The Lancet- Research Correspondence Vol 351: 1358(March 28 1998)

Correspondence published in The Lancet, written by MR Kiln. Highlights that Wakefield and colleagues' report did not show an established link between MMR vaccine and autism, and that health professionals and parents should have even more, not less, confidence in the safety of present MMR vaccine and the benefits of vaccination.

To view letter please go to:

http://www.thelancet.com/home

Registration is required

May, 1998
Peltola H et al (May 1998) No evidence for measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine associated inflammatory bowel disease or autism in a 14 –year prospective study The Lancet 351:9112

This study showed with over a decade's effort to detect all severe adverse events associated with MMR vaccine could find no data supporting the hypothesis that it would cause pervasive developmental disorder or inflammatory bowel disease.

To view study please go and use the search engine at:

http://www.thelancet.com/home

Registration is required

Jun, 1999
This population-based study investigated whether there was an association between the incidence of autism and MMR immunisation in the North-East Thames region. This study confirmed that there was an increase in the prevalence of autism but this increase was not related to the introduction of MMR or to vaccine coverage. This study did not identify any association between MMR vaccine and the age of diagnosis of autism. The results of this paper do not support a causal association between MMR and autism, either in its initiation or the onset of regression.

Taylor B et al. (1999) Autism and measles, mumps and rubella vaccine: no epidemiological evidence for a causal association. The Lancet; 353: 2026-9.

Aug, 1999
Fombonne E (August 1999) Are measles infections or measles immunizations linked to autism? Ask the Editor Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders Vol 29:No 4:1999

Letter in the Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders that examines whether measles infections or measles immunisations are linked to autism. The letter concludes that no evidence exists to causally link exposures to measles virus or vaccination and autism.

To view letter please search at:

http://www.ingenta.com/journals/browse/klu/jadd

Subscription is required

Nov, 1999
Wakefield J and Montgomery S M (Nov 1999) Autism, Viral Infection and Measles-Mumps-Rubella Vaccination, IMAJ 1999,1:183-187

View paper at:

http://www.ima.org.il/imaj/

Mar, 2000
The Journal of Medical Virology published a paper by Afzal et al, providing further evidence to that published in February 1998 concluding that measles virus did not persist in the gut of patients with Crohn's disease.

Afzal A et al. (2000). Further evidence of the absence of measles virus genome sequence in full thickness intestinal specimens from patients with Crohn's disease. Journal of Medical Virology, 62: 377-82.

Dec, 2000
Patja A et al (Dec 2000) Serious adverse events after measles-mumps-rubella vaccination during a fourteen-year prospective follow-up, Pediatric Infectious Diseases Journal 19(12):1127 - 34

This study concluded that causality between immunisation and a subsequent untoward event cannot be estimated solely on the basis of a temporal relation. Comprehensive analysis of the reported adverse reactions established that serious events causally related to MMR vaccine are rare and greatly outweighed by the risks of natural MMR diseases.

To view abstract please go to:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11144371&dopt=
Abstract&holding=f1000

Jan, 2001
Adverse Drug Reactions and Toxicological Reviews published a paper by Wakefield & Montgomery which looked at the possible adverse effects of the administration of the combined MMR vaccine.

Wakefield AJ & Montgomery SM (2000). Mumps measles rubella vaccine: through a glass darkly. Adverse Drug Reactions and Toxicological Reviews 19:265-83.

The Medicines Control Agency and Department of Health carried out a systematic review of the Wakefield & Montgomery paper and found serious errors in it, such as incorrect analysis of trial results, incorrect reporting of the length and detail of studies and a failure to identify and analyse all the evidence.

Medicines Control Agency/Department of Health (2001) Combined measles, mumps and rubella vaccines: Response of the Medicines Control Agency and the Department of Health to issues raised in papers published in Adverse Drug Reactions and Toxicological Reviews 19(4): 2000

The Committee on Safety of Medicines reviewed the Wakefield & Montgomery paper and concluded: 'In those studies where MMR has been compared with the component vaccines there is no suggestion that MMR causes more adverse effects than measles vaccines alone.'

Committee on Safety of Medicines (2001). Summary of the Committee on Safety of Medicines meeting held 10 January 2001.
http://medicines.mhra.gov.uk/aboutagency/regframework/csm/csm10101.pdf

The World Health Organization (WHO) released its view of the evidence regarding the safety of the MMR vaccine. It stated: ‘WHO strongly endorses the use of MMR vaccine on the grounds of its convincing record of safety and efficacy. The combination vaccine is recommended rather than the monovalent presentation when available and the disease burden justifies its use. There has been no new scientific evidence that would suggest impaired safety of MMR. On the contrary, all results from vaccine trials published reaffirm the high safety of MMR vaccine.’

World Health Organization (2001). Statement on the use of MMR vaccine 24 January 2001 www.who.int/immunization_safety

Feb, 2001
Archives of Disease in Childhood published a study by the Public Health Laboratory Service (PHLS) and Royal Free Hospital stating that 1 in every 22,300 children immunised are at risk of developing the blood disorder ITP (Idiopathic Thrombocytopenic Purpura) confirming the existing estimates which were around 1 in 24,000. The study concluded that children whose illness was caused by MMR tended to have milder symptoms and spent less time in hospital than those whose ITP had nothing to do with vaccination.

Miller E et al. (2001). Idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura and MMR vaccine. Archives of Disease in Childhood 84:227-9.

A study by Kaye et al. published in the British Medical Journal in February 2001 used the GP Research Database (a sample of records from UK GPs) to compare MMR vaccine coverage over time with reported rates of autism. The authors concluded that ‘the data provided evidence that no correlation exists between the prevalence of MMR vaccination and the rapid increase in the rise of autism over time.’

Kaye J, del Mare Melero-Montes M & Jick H (2001). Mumps, measles and rubella vaccine and the incidence of autism recorded by general practitioners: A time trend analysis. British Medical Journal 322:460-3

Mar, 2001
A study by DeWilde et al. was published in British Journal of General Practice. It looked at whether children who go on to be diagnosed as autistic consulted their GPs more frequently in the months after their MMR vaccination than a control group. It concluded: ‘Any dramatic effect of MMR on behaviour seems unlikely.’

DeWilde S et al. (2001). Do children who become autistic consult more often after MMR vaccination? British Journal of General Practice 51:226-7.

The Journal of the American Medical Association published an analysis of data comparing immunisation rates of young children in California with the number of children diagnosed with autism between 1980 and 1994. The authors report that although there was a 373 per cent relative increase in identified cases of autism per 100,000 live births over the period, MMR coverage rose only by 14 per cent. They concluded: ‘These data do not suggest an association between MMR immunisation and an increase in autism occurrence.’

Dales L, Hammer S & Smith N (2001). Time trends in autism and in MMR immunisation coverage in California. Journal of the American Medical Association 285 (9):1183-5.

Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine published findings from the University of Washington in Seattle which showed that MMR, or other vaccines containing the measles virus, do not increase the risk of inflammatory bowel diseases, such as Crohn's disease.

Davis R L et al. (2001). Measles-mumps-rubella and other measles-containing vaccines do not increase the risk for inflammatory bowel disease. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine 155:354-9

Apr, 2001
The US Institute of Medicine Immunisation Safety Review Committee published a report which concluded: ‘The evidence favours rejection of a causal relationship at the population level between MMR vaccine and autistic spectrum disorders (ASD).’ The chair of the committee warned of possible ‘devastating disease outbreaks’ if parents refrained from having their children vaccinated due to autism fears.

Institute of Medicine Immunisation Safety Review Committee (2001). Report of measles-mumps-rubella vaccine and autism.
www.nap.edu/catalog/10101.html

May, 2001
The American Academy of Pediatrics hosted a multidisciplinary international workshop to review the evidence regarding a possible association between MMR vaccine, inflammatory bowel disease and autism spectrum disorders, specifically autism with regression. It decided a considerable body of evidence did not support a causal relationship between MMR vaccine and autism or inflammatory bowel disease. In addition, it found no data to suggest the separate administration of measles, mumps and rubella vaccines would offer any potential benefit over the MMR vaccine. In fact, it voiced its concern that such an approach would result in many under-immunised children.

American Academy of Pediatrics (2001) Measles-mumps-rubella vaccine and autistic spectrum disorder: A report from the new challenges in childhood immunisation conference.
www.aap.org/advocacy/archives/mayautmmr.htm
Halsey et al (2001) Pediatrics 107 (5):e84.

Jun, 2001
Vaccine published a study that re-examined previous research, published in The Lancet, which examined signs of autism in children shortly after they received the combined vaccine. Following criticism that the onset of autism may not necessarily be short, the new research looked at the data from the same 357 autistic children who had taken part in the first study but used an extended timescale. The results provided further evidence against a causal association between the MMR vaccine and autism.

Farrington P et al. (2001). MMR and autism: Further evidence against a causal association Vaccine 19:3632-5.

Sep, 2001
Archives of Disease in Childhood published a review of evidence on MMR to date by Elliman and Bedford. It concluded that there is neither experience nor research evidence for giving the triple vaccine separately anywhere in the world. There is no case for introducing single vaccines and worries over MMR are unjustified.

Elliman D, Bedford H & Miller E (2001). MMR vaccine: Worries are not justified. Archives of Disease in Childhood 85:271-4.

Oct, 2001
A study was published in Pediatrics by Fombonne et al. comparing autistic children who have had MMR to those who have not. It failed to support an association between MMR and regressive autism and concluded that, when combined, current findings did not argue for changes in current immunisation programmes and recommendations.

Fombonne E & Chakrabarti S (2001). No evidence for a new variant of measles-mumps-rubella-induced autism. Pediatrics 108 (4): e58.

Adverse Drug Reaction Toxicological Review published a paper by Spitzer, Aitken et al. reviewing children whose parents are taking legal action against drug manufacturers. It stated that the first symptoms of autism appear over a year after the MMR vaccine and claimed prior research is invalid. However, it provided no evidence to link MMR to autism and the authors failed to produce any scientific references.

Spitzer W, Aitken K et al (2001). The natural history of autistic syndrome in Bri