Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Friday, 16th May 2008 Change Date

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Scotland failing to hit child MMR immunisation targets



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 26 March 2008
SCOTLAND is still failing to meet global targets for child MMR immunisation, new figures revealed yesterday.
The World Health Organisation recommends that 95 per cent of youngsters should be vaccinated against measles, mumps and rubella.

But in Scotland, the take-up rate among two-year-olds was 91.8 per cent in the latest quarter, from October to Decem
ber, and 92.1 per cent for last year as a whole.

However, researchers said the number of children getting the drugs had increased on the previous three months.

The figures remain well above the take-up rate of 85.8 per cent among two-year-olds in 2003, although they are lower than for some quarters in 2006. This may be due to a short-term lack of available vaccination appointments because of a catching-up exercise in another area of the vaccination programme.

Among five-year-olds, the rate was 94.4 per cent, both in the latest quarter and for the year as a whole, while immunisation rates for other childhood diseases are well above the 95 per cent target.

The MMR vaccine was introduced in 1988, but take-up levels began to fall in 1998, when a fiercely disputed study claimed it was linked to autism. The connection has been largely discredited, and immunisation rates have been rising again since 2003.

Earlier this month, an outbreak of measles was reported across Scotland, leaving three people in need of hospital treatment. Experts put the 36 cases recorded by Health Protection Scotland down to the low level of inoculations from 1998. Health chiefs said most of those affected had not been fully immunised.

Last night, Shona Robison, the public health minister, said it was "very encouraging" that take-up rates for the majority of childhood vaccinations remained above the 95 per cent target.

She added: "It is also good news that uptake rates for MMR have continued to rise over the past few years, although we need to continue to encourage parents to have their children given this vaccine.

"We have one of the most successful childhood vaccine programmes in the world. It has provided vital protection for children in Scotland from serious infectious diseases."

However, Ms Robison said the government was continuing to encourage parents to engage in the process, adding: "This is the safest and most effective way of protecting all children, and the wider community, against serious infectious diseases."

Mary Scanlon, the Scottish Tories' health spokeswoman, said while the party backed the MMR vaccine, free individual inoculations should be available in cases where parents were wary of giving children the combined jab.

And Jamie Stone, the Lib Dems' public health spokesman, called for a public information campaign addressing concerns about the triple vaccine.

WEALTH AFFECTS DEATH RATE
THE death rate for youngsters in the country's poorest areas is more than twice that for children in the wealthiest areas, it emerged yesterday.

Official statistics showed a total of 362 children under the age of 15 died in 2006 – giving a rate of 4.2 deaths per 10,000. The rate in 1986 was 8.5 per 10,000. However, the death rate in the most deprived areas was six per 10,000, compared to 2.4 per 10,000 in the least deprived.

The Lib Dems said the figures were "extremely disturbing". Shona Robison, the public heath minister, said a ministerial task force on health inequalities was due to report back in May.





The full article contains 583 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 25 March 2008 11:56 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: MMR vaccine
 
1

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 26/03/2008 00:48:21
For..'Gods Sake' you wonder why,?

Well I will tell you!!

Its because the Scottish People are NOT Stupid! and we have,

'Minds of our Own'

Rant on until you are..'Blue-in-the-Face'!

NO Smoke without Fire!

You can,,'Fool all of the People' some of the Time!

But NOT,,'All of the people' all of the Time!
2

!Ya basta!,

26/03/2008 02:34:51
Charles, stupid is exactly what you are.

We need herd immunity, its an extremely well established epidemiological principle.

If people are excessively worried about the triple jab they should go for the single jabs, even if it costs.

The state should pay for the single jabs too and give people the choice. But in the meantime don't leave your kids without protection.
3

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 26/03/2008 08:30:32
!Ya basta!, @#2,,
NO NO, You are the "Stupid One', for NOT following my posts, to which you would have seen, that I have NO problem with the single "jabs", But the "MMR" is a definite NO!

So I suggest its back to 'comic time' for you!
4

Crank Parent,

Livingston 26/03/2008 08:36:49
Measles, mumps and rubella are not serious diseases, they are mild diseases. All three were in steep decline long before vaccination was introduced. In fact, in 1970 when the government introduced the measles vaccine they did so because numbers were so small they hoped a vaccine would eradicate the disease for good (they did not believe it was a serious disease). That hasn't happened and won't happen, even if 100% of people are vaccinated as the vaccine is not 100% effective and only provides short term immunity - it just shifts the pattern of disease to older more at risk groups.) Also, the JCVI didn't want to introduce the rubella vaccine as a mass vaccination as it was felt that is was better for this disease to remain in the community to offer children lifelong protection.

That system had been working fine for years and there was no suggestion that this policy needed changed until vaccine manufacturers lobbied the government. It was at this point the government suddenly announced measles, mumps and rubella were dangerous after years of telling the public they were mild diseases. The MMR has not reduced cases of any of these diseases but the vaccine has caused harm and side effects.

Also herd immunity is nonsense. The government's assumption is that if 95% of the population are vaccinated and are immune to a disease then this will protect those who are not vaccinated from catching or spreading the disease. They have no evidence that this works and it can't for a number of reasons.

There is no reliable method of calculating the effectiveness of a vaccine. Manufacturers base their figures on the number of people who acquire a specific level of antibodies in their blood after vaccination. (So they might say a vaccine is 40-70% effective because that many people have a certain level of antibodies in their blood after vaccination.) However, the "necessary" level of antibodies is plucked from the air. They have no idea what level is required to infer immunity
5

Crank Parent,

Livingston 26/03/2008 08:37:40
cont.

In any case, the level of antibodies in your blood has no bearing on whether you are a carrier of a disease or whether you will get a disease if you come into contact with it. (This has been proven time and time again during epidemics where children with high levels of antibodies who are considered immune catch a disease and children with no or low levels of antibodies do not.) Immunity is much more than the presence of antibodies. So, even if we assume that manufacturers figures are correct (and we know from research that they are not), then only 40-70% (for example) of the 95% of vaccinated people will potentially be immune. This is not enough.

Add into the equation that people travel (frequently) and are very likely to come into contact with lots of carriers of a disease (who are just as likely to be vaccinated as not) on a regular basis and the fact that vaccines have a short life and wear off, it's easy to see that the idea of herd immunity doesn't work.

Even if 100% of people are vaccinated, there will always be plenty of people for whom the vaccine didn't work or has since worn off who are carriers of a disease or who will catch it during an outbreak. (Outbreaks of measles and other diseases regularly occur amongst 100% vaccinated communities in the US.)

Vaccination has made parents complacent. Many parents think their children are safe or protected and can't catch these diseases. In reality they have no idea if their child is now or ever was protected by a vaccine. And many have no idea when their children catch these diseases either. They have no idea what they are looking at and their doctor tells them it's just a virus.

More worryingly, while there are the same number of cases of many of these diseases in younger children, there are growing numbers of cases in much older children and adults where the diseases are not so mild and complications are more likely.

6

Crank Parent,

Livingston 26/03/2008 08:41:39
Feeling like a rant today, so final part of post:

At the beginning of the 20th century measles was a killer. Between 1900 and 1918 an average of 10,000 to 12,000 children died from measles each year. Over the next 40 years numbers declined significantly. By the 1950's it was around 100. The number of deaths has continued to decline at the same rate since then. Between 2001 and 2004 there were only 3 deaths from measles (only one was a child) reported by 19 European countries. Research suggests that if vaccination had not been introduced we'd have the same level of measles and deaths today as we currently have.

Malnourished children from poor families were much more likely to suffer from measles related complications and had a greater proportion of deaths than well off families who had a better diet, were in better general health and had access to healthcare. It's the complications that can kill not measles itself and most deaths pre-vaccination were in severely mentally or physically disabled children who were more prone to complications.

Today children who catch measles who are at risk of complications can be given large doses of vitamin A.
7

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 26/03/2008 08:45:02
Crank Parent, @~4/5/6,

WOW you certainly are in..GOOD Forum today!

Well-Done and Nice-One!
8

Crank Parent,

Livingston 26/03/2008 08:46:21
I have loads more but not enough space here...
9

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 26/03/2008 08:50:06
Crank Parent,#8

Yeh Know what you mean, this new web-site, is very poor, not a patch on the old one!
10

Crank Parent,

Livingston 26/03/2008 08:58:12
"THE death rate for youngsters in the country's poorest areas is more than twice that for children in the wealthiest areas, it emerged yesterday.

Official statistics showed a total of 362 children under the age of 15 died in 2006 – giving a rate of 4.2 deaths per 10,000. The rate in 1986 was 8.5 per 10,000. However, the death rate in the most deprived areas was six per 10,000, compared to 2.4 per 10,000 in the least deprived."

This is extremely misleading, the death rate they are talking about is not deaths from measles but they don't make that clear. In Europe in 2005, only 12 children died from measles (11 in Romania and 1 in Germany). There have been no deaths from measles in Scotland for some time.
11

Sgurr,

26/03/2008 09:11:17
I really hope people will come back round to MMR (either as single or multiple jabs) as it really IS important. Its quite amazing that one poorly researched (and subsequently withdrawn) article could cause so much damage.

Parents of course have free choice, but they should try to make it based upon the weight of evidence, not what has been passed on by the "daily mail" health rumours column...you know the one that says things like "salmon causes cancer" one week and "salmon is miracle super-food" the next.

For a pretty good overview, try http://www.hps.scot.nhs.uk/immvax/index.aspx This website is where many medical professionals will go for advice.
12

Crank Parent,

Livingston 26/03/2008 09:17:56
Or alternatively (for impartial advice not provided by vaccine manufacturers) read this book written by a UK GP, based on evidence from peer reviewed research:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Truth-About-Vaccines-Without-Knowing/dp/1903933927/ref=pd_bbs_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1206522998&sr=8-1


13

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 26/03/2008 09:23:54
Crank Parent @#12,

And NO-ONE!,,better mess about on this Topic with you!

A 'Woman's Scorn' and all that!...to which I admire your stance!

Quite..'Rightly So'!
14

Unimpressed one,

26/03/2008 09:42:04
Why should children be vaccinated against rubella only to protect pregnant women? This is protection by proxy which may sound fine but is it ethical? Hence single vaccinations should have been made available to give people choice. Instead, the government has forced the triple jab on all parents, yet now they bleat that the uptake is not high enough???
15

Sgurr,

26/03/2008 09:53:59
#12 - Yup, read your book, also read the HPS website (which isn't paid for by drugs companies!) read anything else you find on the subject. A small word of warning on books though - a book written by someone with a PhD or an MBChB is no different to one written by someone with an ABC; if I wanted to, I could write a book on the subject and pay for it to be published myself.

Yes, read, but think about why the person is writing, what their motive is and what the wider scientific community thinks of their work. There are plenty of people who carve a career out of scaremongering about eg cancer-causing properties of all sorts of things - they write books, contribute to newspapers, go on tv chat shows...but where is their peer review? There is nothing to stop me writing a book about the cancer causing properties of blah, or writing about it in a newspaper...does that make it a fact though? Yes, be cautious and question your professionals.
16

Michael Ryan,

Shrewsbury 26/03/2008 10:49:14
The Lancet is considered an authorative journal which featured measles and MMR in a letter in the issue dated 8 April 1995.

The letter included a graph showing the drop in measles notifications after the introduction of the single measles vaccine in 1968, ie twenty years prior to the introduction of MMR. Measles had been virtually eradicated in the UK prior to MMR and there's no scientific or medical advantage in giving the triple vaccine which was introduced when the patents for single measles expired.

In Japan, they ceased using MMR in or around 1992 and instead give single measles vaccince to all children at minimum age two years and then single mumps vaccine to boys and single rubella to girls, meaning that Japanese children get just two vaccinations which give good immunity.

Here in UK, mothers were sometimes bullied, but always coerced, into allowing two MMR vaccinations and if you check locations of mumps outbreaks, you'll see that they occur in polluted zones among children who have had MMR.

Kind regards,

Michael Ryan
Shrewsbury
17

jtdx,

26/03/2008 11:54:06
#12 the book is written by someone who runs a private "single vaccine" clinic. So guess what it recommends *drum roll* single vaccinations.
18

Saoghal Beag,

26/03/2008 12:43:01
12 Crank parent, aren't you just, measles is not a serious disease???? what planet are you on? In 2006, it was estimated that there were 242 000 measles deaths globally. The majority of these deaths are in developing countries with low incomes and low immmunisation. Is measles not serious as it tends to kill impoverished inhabitants of third world countries. Do you think that children in developing countries are free from the risk? Is that a risk you recommend that parents take with their childrens' lives?
19

Saoghal Beag,

26/03/2008 12:48:12
#5 crank parent, your understanding of immunology is obviously non-existent. A high antibody count is indicative of a current infection. your body does not waste time continually flooding your blood with antibodies to every antigen it has ever come into contact with.
20

Saoghal Beag,

26/03/2008 12:50:50
crank parent, April 2006 a 13 year old boy became the first measles death in the uk for 14 years. Actually happened in the north east of england.

You are pandering lies and ignorance to those waiting to be duped.
21

Crank Parent,

Livingston 26/03/2008 14:46:20
#12 the book is written by someone who runs a private "single vaccine" clinic. So guess what it recommends *drum roll* single vaccinations

Have you actually read the book? The author is a UK GP who used to be pro-vaccination. He began his research fully expecting his views to be upheld by the evidence. He was shocked and surprised that they were not. His clinic offers single vaccines as an alternative to the MMR because the NHS refuse to give parents the choice. He is very critical of vaccination in his book and given a second chance would not immunise his own children. Throughout the book he refers to peer reviewed research and documents he has obtained from the DoH and the JCVI.
22

Crank Parent,

Livingston 26/03/2008 14:49:43
#5 crank parent, your understanding of immunology is obviously non-existent. A high antibody count is indicative of a current infection. your body does not waste time continually flooding your blood with antibodies to every antigen it has ever come into contact with.

I am well aware of that fact, thank you. This is exactly the reason why vaccine manufacturers cannot claim to be able to assess a person's immunity to a disease based on the level of antibodies in their blood after vaccination. It doesn't stop them doing that though!
23

Crank Parent,

Livingston 26/03/2008 14:59:49
# 18 Saoghal Beag, 26/03/2008 12:43:01
"12 Crank parent, aren't you just, measles is not a serious disease???? what planet are you on? In 2006, it was estimated that there were 242 000 measles deaths globally. The majority of these deaths are in developing countries with low incomes and low immmunisation. Is measles not serious as it tends to kill impoverished inhabitants of third world countries. Do you think that children in developing countries are free from the risk? Is that a risk you recommend that parents take with their childrens' lives?"

Deaths from measles complications occur in malnourished children or children with underlying health conditions in countries with poverty and deprivation. Measles is a mild illness in healthy children. Research shows that Vitamin E supplements would be a much cheaper and more effective way to reduce measles deaths.

In the UK, vaccination is more of a risk than allowing a child to catch measles. Many more children die or are severely disabled or have severe side effects from vaccination than do from measles.
24

Saoghal Beag,

26/03/2008 15:04:29
The first 20 years of licensed measles vaccination in the U.S. prevented an estimated 52 million cases of the disease, 17,400 cases of mental retardation, and 5,200 deaths.

Seems like more than sufficient evidnece that the vaccine is effective. The decline following the intorduction is dramatic and not part of a continual downward trend, ie it is mathematically significant. What more relative measure do yu need the lifes saved?
25

Saoghal Beag,

26/03/2008 15:09:47
23 in your opinoin based more children die or are severly disabled by vaccination. what is the death rate from vaccination.
26

Saoghal Beag,

26/03/2008 15:10:52
23 And i note that you do not consider the malnourished children worthy of saving. very christian.
27

Crank Parent,

Livingston 26/03/2008 15:25:07
20Saoghal Beag, 26/03/2008 12:50:50
"crank parent, April 2006 a 13 year old boy became the first measles death in the uk for 14 years. Actually happened in the north east of england.

You are pandering lies and ignorance to those waiting to be duped."

The child in question was a traveller taking immunosuppressive drugs for a lung condition. He picked up measles during a stay in hospital and died of complications caused by his illness.

The question is whether it is moral, sensible and cost effective to vaccinate millions of children in the UK (and expose them to the risks of vaccination) when the death rate from measles is so low.

The government has paid out considerable compensation to families of vaccine damaged children and still cannot guarantee to parents that any vaccine is completely safe.

Even vaccine manufacturers accept there are considerable risk associated with their products. As an example, you can see the leaflet that accompanies the Merck MMR vaccine online. Read the contraindications, warnings, precautions and adverse reactions:

http://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_circulars/m/mmr_ii/mmr_ii_pi.pdf

Did your health professional show you this leaflet and discuss it with you before vaccinating your child?
28

Crank Parent,

Livingston 26/03/2008 15:31:02
# 24
"The first 20 years of licensed measles vaccination in the U.S. prevented an estimated 52 million cases of the disease, 17,400 cases of mental retardation, and 5,200 deaths."

No there is no evidence that vaccination prevented these cases or deaths. Measles was in steep decline all over the world before vaccination was introduced. The same decline can be seen in countries which do not vaccinate.
29

Crank Parent,

Livingston 26/03/2008 15:36:39
#26

"23 And i note that you do not consider the malnourished children worthy of saving. very christian."

I'm not sure why you think religion has anything to do with this topic (other than the ingredients that vaccines contain are considered offensive by many religions around the world).

However, I did not say they were not worthy of saving, only that there are much better ways of achieving this goal which do not carry the same risk. (These solutions don't make large profits for big pharmaceutical companies though.)

Providing children in developing countries with safe water and sanitation would save more than 1.5 million lives, more than would be saved by providing 100% coverage of the WHO currently recommended vaccines but without any side effects.

Malnutrition kills more than 5.6 million children under 5 every year. Providing communities with the tools required to grow food and improve the diets of children would be more sustainable and cheaper than vaccinating in the long term.

VSO have said that "Immunisation requires a degree of organisation that exists only with external input: sterilisation, materials, vehicles and fuel, refrigeration, portable ice boxes, maintenance, trained staff, and vaccines or serum samples. Such operations are intrinsically unsustainable in certain environments."

Immunisation disrupts routine health services and diverts money from other badly needed services like clean water, sanitation and basic medical supplies.
30

HarderTruth,

26/03/2008 15:44:52
Crank Parent
I fear you have appeared in the wrong blog space. This site is for ignorant ranting, by those with no knowlegde or understanging of a subject beyond that found in the pub or the Sun. Your aguments are a clear contravention of this site's rules, i.e. be rude, abusive, cretinously ignorant. Happily, most of the other contributors are dutifully obeying these strictures.
31

Crank Parent,

Livingston 26/03/2008 16:22:25
:-)
32

Saoghal Beag,

26/03/2008 16:25:21
so you are saying that the child that died was malnutritioned because he was a traveller?
33

Saoghal Beag,

26/03/2008 16:29:58
28, measles was in decline but with the introduction of vaccination the decline was markedly more rapid. that in your books is obvioulsy just coincidence.

Vaccinations have proven effective, small pox for example for starters.
34

Saoghal Beag,

26/03/2008 16:37:35
the merck document looks pretty average. this is not a scary medication and like most other medical leaflets is more concerned about ensuring that the company is not putting itself at risk of being sued. go read the leaflets for paracetamol, asprin, eanything and you will find a list of contraindications and warnings. if you consider the MMR info to be sufficient not to take it then you won't take any medication.

i was fully inormed and had no concerns in ensuring that my children were vaccinated. the risk is neglibible and i did not wish to rely on herd immunity to protect them from measles and its possible complications.
35

Saoghal Beag,

26/03/2008 16:40:39
Providing sanitation, clean drinking water and adequate nutrition are not mutually exclusive of providing them with vaccinations. Both have the ability to save lifes and both should be used to the benefit of those in need.

THe sterile materials, refrigeration etc are not just necessary for vaccines but many other modern medicines. These people do not deserve to be denied access to these.
36

Saoghal Beag,

26/03/2008 16:41:08
anyway what is the death rate from vaccination?
37

Sgurr,

26/03/2008 16:46:49
Children! Children!

This GP did some research and wrote a book about his findings. Has he published his findings in a creditable peer-reviewed journal? Has that paper subsequently been widely cited in the affirmative? If it has, then fair enough, but remember, even the original MMR~Autism link paper got through the net - but was subsequently pilloried (which is why wider acceptance is so important).

If he has not peer-review published this then ask why not? Why has he not shared this with the scientific community? Or did he try and the paper was rejected? Is that why he wrote the book?

Remember kids, there are good GPs and bad GPs out there - I have no idea what Harold Shipman's views on MMR were though. Don't just take one self-published Doc's word for it!
38

Crank Parent,

Livingston 26/03/2008 16:51:24
I didn't say the traveller child died because he was malnourished. I clearly said he died from complications due to his lung condition.

I do not rely on herd immunity to protect my children - that would be stupid as herd immunity is a myth. I based my decision not to vaccinate any further after two of my children were vaccine damaged. I have spent 13 years researching the subject and I am confident that I am doing the best for my children.

Smallpox was not eradicated by vaccination. The smallpox vaccine was crude and dangerous, it killed hundreds of thousands of people. It it now accepted by many scientists to have been a failure. The biggest outbreaks of smallpox happened during compulsory vaccination where 100% of populations had been vaccinated. It is currently still considered too dangerous to be used as a routine vaccination. Before 1853, the highest number of deaths in any two year period was 2,000. By 1870, after more than 15 years of compulsory vaccination, in 1870 and 1871 alone more than 23,000 people died from smallpox. In Germany, over 124,000 people died in just one epidemic, all of whom had been vaccinated. In Japan, 29,000 people died over a 7 years period during a compulsory vaccination and re-vaccination program. In comparison, during the same period in Australia, smallpox virtually disappeared (3 cases in 15 years) after vaccination was abandoned. Research shows that 90% of smallpox cases occurred in vaccinated people. The higher the percentage of babies vaccinated, the greater the number of deaths from smallpox. Deaths from smallpox declined only after people refused to be vaccinated.
39

Crank Parent,

Livingston 26/03/2008 17:05:51
# 36 Saoghal Beag, 26/03/2008 16:41:08
"anyway what is the death rate from vaccination?"

Which vaccine in particular? They are all different. Also, different countries have different reporting procedures, most adverse reactions are not reported at all and many aren't included in the statistics because they didn't happen with 14 days of vaccination (most reactions occur 14 days+).

However, as an example, independent Danish research has shown that the DTP, Polio and TB vaccines are killing twice as many babies than they are saving in developing countries (the very people the WHO claim could be saved by vaccination). The WHO sent researchers to verify this and have refused to act on the information they found.

The black death, scarlet fever and hundreds of other diseases we have never vaccinated against but have been common killers in the past have all but disappeared today.



40

Crank Parent,

Livingston 26/03/2008 17:11:34
#35

"THe sterile materials, refrigeration etc are not just necessary for vaccines but many other modern medicines."

Wrong, many vaccines requires refrigeration.
41

Saoghal Beag,

26/03/2008 17:24:19
#40 no not wrong. it is not ONLY vaccines that require refrigeration, anti-sera for a start.
42

Saoghal Beag,

26/03/2008 17:27:14
as we don't exactly know the causitive agent for the black death we really can't comment on whether it does or does not exist. possibly some of the haemorraghic viruses are desecndents from that, who knows?
43

Saoghal Beag,

26/03/2008 17:33:49
39 obviously MMR since that is the thread, but you ellude that answer, i reckon the only attributable deaths you could find were due to anaphylaxis. something that can occur with anything and to label goods antigen free is completely wrong. but should we ban peanuts because they are a potentially greater death threat to children than vaccination. what about people allergic to other stimuli?

i do hope you have allowed your children to have the tetanus vaccination, granted this is against a toxin not a virus.
44

Crank Parent,

Livingston 26/03/2008 17:37:40
My point was that in many developing countries money is being diverted from basic healthcare to pay for vaccines. They do not have the resources to pay for refrigeration (regardless of its purpose) and therefore many vaccines are not stored or administered safely. It's also the case that developing countries cannot afford to pay for newer vaccines and are still administering much cheaper older vaccines containing mercury which have been withdrawn elsewhere over safety concerns.
45

Saoghal Beag,

26/03/2008 17:38:02
38 you repeatedly refer to the the poetntial of mneasles to cause death only in the malnourished and that it is now virtually un-contractable in the uk because children are healthy enough to fight the infection. Yet the traveller child who was on other medication still died. Did he get the initial infection/malaise because he was undernourished or not. If he wasn't malnourished then this is a clear example of a reasonably well nourished child dieing because of a measles infection.

this aside there are children in the UK who now have permanent brain damage from measeles infections, be it deafness or otherwise. A risk the parents took and their children lost the bet.
46

Saoghal Beag,

26/03/2008 17:39:13
44 you probably have more mercury in your mouth from fillings, unlerss you have prefect teeth and ceramic fillings.
47

Saoghal Beag,

26/03/2008 17:42:49
44 and my point is that all these people should have access to appropriate medication and this requires refrigeration not just for vaccines but other medicines and we should not be looking for excuses to deny people these but looking for solutions.
48

Saoghal Beag,

26/03/2008 18:01:54
Crank parent, since this about relative risks, vaccination versus infection, what about all the other daily risks you expose your children to? the air that we breathe in cities is now polluted with a mix of PM1 - 10 (particulates) which are effective not only at adsorbing the polyaromatic hydrocarbons from petrol engines, but carrying them deep into the lungs and holding them there. is that preferable to lead a not disimilar systemic toxin with a long biological half life as mercury has? do you allow your children to be exposed to such toxins?

do your children have mercury fillings?

as for herd immmunity it certainly does exist. lets take a very simple analogy. if you place two blindfold footballers on a pitch and give one a ball. if that ball is kicked what are the cances of it hitting the other player? if you fill the pitch with 50 players and give 5 a ball, when they kick hte ball what are their chances of hitting another and if the player who is struck what chance of they hitting another player. the ball is the infectious agent, you need to extrapolate to the next bit where the immunised are shielded and though their shields are struck they don not come into contact with the ball and are aunable to pass it on.

foot and mouth was controlled by a process of slaughter within a surrounding area of immunisation and restricted movement.
49

Crank Parent,

Livingston 26/03/2008 18:09:04
#45
"38 you repeatedly refer to the the poetntial of mneasles to cause death only in the malnourished and that it is now virtually un-contractable in the uk because children are healthy enough to fight the infection. Yet the traveller child who was on other medication still died. Did he get the initial infection/malaise because he was undernourished or not. If he wasn't malnourished then this is a clear example of a reasonably well nourished child dieing because of a measles infection.

this aside there are children in the UK who now have permanent brain damage from measeles infections, be it deafness or otherwise. A risk the parents took and their children lost the bet."

I haven't claimed at any point that is is virtually impossible to get measles in the UK. They are regular outbreaks of measles all over the UK, as there always have been. I made the point that many health professionals now regard it as a mild disease which is unlikely to result in complications in healthy children in the UK. As I said before the exception to this is children with malnutrition or a previous underlying condition which means they are NOT healthy. The child in England did not die from the measles infection, he died from complications due to his illness, he was NOT healthy.

You also seem to be making the assumption that the small number of children who have had measles complications were all unvaccinated. (The parents took the risk and the child lost.) This is not true. In an outbreak, just as many vaccinated as unvaccinated children catch measles. The ones that have complications are the ones that are unhealthy whether they are vaccinated or not.

Vaccination does not guarantee your child will not get measles or complications from measles. Many vaccinated children still catch measles. (My second daughter had the MMR and had measles shortly afterwards.) The vaccine is not 100% effective and only confers very short term immunity. Vaccinated children are at even more risk by t
50

Crank Parent,

Livingston 26/03/2008 18:09:50
cont.

the time they are teenagers as they no longer have vaccine immunity (if they ever did) and haven't had the disease to get natural lifelong immunity. The number of cases of measles in older children is rising rapidly. Older children are at much greater risk of complications and long term damage.

To be honest I think the whole MMR and measles thing is a red herring. All vaccines carry risks. All parents should have access to impartial information to make an informed choice. At the moment this doesn't happen. Many parents just turn up the surgery and the health professional lines their child up for a jab, no questions asked and no discussion. Of those that do ask, most will be provided with government information which is in turn provided by vaccine manufacturers. Most parents do not spend 13 years researching vaccines. Many parents don't know they have a choice. Many children are not given the choice - in a school setting consent it presumed to be given (and acceptable for a minor to give) by virtue of the fact that they lined up when the teacher told them to. They do not check for contraindications or actually seek written or verbal consent from the child or parents before vaccination. (One of my children had to physically break free and run away from a nurse trying to give her the MenC vaccine at school, despite written instruction from us that she was not to have
51

Crank Parent,

Livingston 26/03/2008 18:10:59
46Saoghal Beag, 26/03/2008 17:39:13
"44 you probably have more mercury in your mouth from fillings, unlerss you have prefect teeth and ceramic fillings."

I have perfect teeth. :-)
52

Crank Parent,

Livingston 26/03/2008 18:14:02
# 48
"do your children have mercury fillings?"

Nope. I have five children and not one has a filing. They were also long term breastfed and have a very healthy organic vegetarian home cooked diet...
53

Saoghal Beag,

26/03/2008 18:26:29
Crank, the difference between a poison and a cure is the dose, to paraphrase Paracellsus. There you consume that can not cause you serious harm in the right dose. Vitamins cause ill health at low doses and at high cause other problems, but at the right doses are essential for our well being. therefore it is all down to a question of moderation and chosen risk.

I agree that vaccines come at a risk, however so does the infections they fight against and it is up to individual parents to make that choice. The problem about making an informed choice is that the parents must possess a level of understanding of science and immunology. Like most things in biosciences vaccines come with caveats (a Hep vaccine does not protect against all strains of Hepatitis Virus and hepatitis is a condition which may not be caused by infection, likewise the flu vaccines) this is not easy to communicate with the general public and is frequently picked up and misintepreted, especially by journalists!

I would not be without cover for tetanus, i consider hep inocculations essential in certain circumstnaces and would not face the risk without that. I believe that the risks associated with vaccinations are no differnet thatn those of any medication and on balance i prefer the protection they afford. You obvicouly differ on that.
54

Crank Parent,

Livingston 26/03/2008 18:37:24
#48
"as for herd immmunity it certainly does exist..."

This a firebreak analogy, people are not trees and disease is not fire.

Your example assumes that vaccination protects people from a disease 100% of the time (which it doesn't) and that vaccinated people cannot be carriers of a disease (which is also not true). Also, people are not enclosed in nice little boxes, they get to the leave the pitch and the football ground and come into contact with lots of other carriers of the disease or people infected with the disease (many of whom will also have been vaccinated). (Small world theory shows that the chain of acquaintances required to connect any one person to another is very short.) Vaccination would have to be 100% effective 100% of the time and be given to 100% of people if it were to prevent a disease from spreading. It would also have to cope with different mutating strains of a disease and countless other factors your football pitch analogy doesn't allow for.
55

Saoghal Beag,

26/03/2008 19:03:35
what the football pitch aims to illustrate is that the probablity of coming into contact with an infectious agent is dependent on the number of carriers, symptomatic or asymptomatic, in a given area and the number of non-infected coming into potential contact with them. if a proportion of those that are effectively immunised come into contact but do not become carriers (note effectively) then the ability of the infectious agent ot spread is compromised.

if vacciniation is 98% efficient and those two non-immmunised are standing at opposite ends of the pitch and one is infected, the probability of that infection spreading to the other is very very slim.

that is how herd immunity works, on the basis, it compromises the ability of the infectious agent to spread through the community.
56

Crank Parent,

Livingston 26/03/2008 19:26:19
Nice on a piece of paper but doesn't actually work in real life, which is why you get outbreaks of disease amongst 100% vaccinated communities (often with the primary source being a vaccinated individual).
57

seanie,

27/03/2008 23:24:58
#38
"Smallpox was not eradicated by vaccination."

It most certainly was.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/smallpox/en/

"In the early 1950s – 150 years after the introduction of vaccination – an estimated 50 million cases of smallpox occurred in the world each year, a figure which fell to around 10–15 million by 1967 because of vaccination.

In 1967, when WHO launched an intensified plan to eradicate smallpox, the "ancient scourge" threatened 60% of the world's population, killed every fourth victim, scarred or blinded most survivors, and eluded any form of treatment.

Through the success of the global eradication campaign, smallpox was finally pushed back to the horn of Africa and then to a single last natural case, which occurred in Somalia in 1977. A fatal laboratory-acquired case occurred in the United Kingdom in 1978. The global eradication of smallpox was certified, based on intense verification activities in countries, by a commission of eminent scientists in December 1979 and subsequently endorsed by the World Health Assembly in 1980."

As for...

"It is currently still considered too dangerous to be used as a routine vaccination."

Not much point in using it as a routine vaccine is there?

Since smallpox has been eradicated.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.