Aunty Jenny and Tinker Bell

My mother was the youngest of six children. Her next oldest sibling, Jenny, contracted polio at the age of six. She damned near died but struggled through to spend the rest of her life in a wheel chair. She had what I now know was a severe kypho-scoliosis but all it meant to me as a child was that she had to wear what was called in the family “Jenny’s case”, a supportive spinal case. And calipers. Ghastly. You do not see them now. She was highly intelligent, and always a pleasure to see. She read to me endlessly and, when I was a little older, she taught me card games. She died in her early fifties of respiratory complications secondary, I am sure, to her crooked spine and to her chain smoking. She smoked Du Maurier cigarettes.

An eccentric choice. I can see the packets now. Did she think they were sophisticated? I don't know, but she was never without one. Fortunately for me, passive smoking had not been invented then. Jenny lived with her mother (my grandmother) Martha. Martha lived to the ripe old age of 91. She did not smoke. She made the most wonderful parkin, and shrewsbury biscuits and treacle toffee.
You do not see polio patients very often now. What was common place when I was a child has disappeared. You do not see children with diphtheria. Martha described a childhood friend of hers dying of diphtheria. When Martha was a child, parents lived in fear of diphtheria. When I was a child the only illness we really feared was smallpox. (Yes, we were pretty blasé and naïve about measles) I can remember queuing for a vaccination when there was a smallpox outbreak. Smallpox has now been eradicated. Diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, measles, mumps, rubella, some forms of meningitis, and the virus that causes cervical cancer can all be prevented. I have no idea how many millions of lives have been saved by vaccination and immunisations. On a personal level, in a strange way, the millions of lives saved mean less to me than Aunty Jenny's life. She did not die of polio, but her life was appallingly compromised. I am the only doctor there has ever been in my family but, long before I went to medical school, my extended family was always at the front of the queue for any immunisation that was available.
I am annoyed when pseudo-scientists and misguided, malevolent fools start lobbying against immunisations. I am angry when dangerous organisations such as JABS get so much free publicity. I am in two minds about even discussing the controversy in a public forum for, each time it is discussed, it provides a platform for the anti-immunisation brigade and that means that every doctor in the country will have another family or two who will hesitate about immunisations. I only mention the problem now because, to coin a phrase, “something wicked this way comes”.
I refer to David Kirby. You have never heard of him. You are about to. He is an American who has “reservations” about immunisations. Reservations that are not scientifically sustainable. In fairness, I should say he is not wicked. It would be much easier if he were. He is far more dangerous than “wicked”. He is sincere, articulate and persuasive. He writes well, he speaks well, he believes what he says (I assume) and he is on a mission. He is utterly, totally wrong. He deserves as much credence as a representative of the Flat Earth Society. Yes, the society really does exist. You can join here if you wish. Safer to join them than JABS. But, as a member of the Flat Earth Society, do not expect to be asked to speak in the Houses of Parliament.
U.S. Journalist David Kirby, author of the award winning book “Evidence of Harm, Mercury in Vaccines and the Autism Epidemic - A Medical Controversy,” will give a special briefing on this debate at the Houses of Parliament in London, on Wednesday, 4 June. Mr. Kirby will speak about recent legal, political and scientific developments in the United States in the ongoing vaccine-autism controversy. The briefing is open to Peers in the House of Lords, Members of Parliament, their Staff, members of the Media, and Invited Guests.Full details of the nefarious Mr Kirby can be found here. Why is he being given a platform in Parliament? Because he has been invited to speak by Lord Hodgson.
Hodgson has a son diagnosed with mild Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). Like many parents with kids with ADHD or autistic spectrum disorders (ASD), he has felt dissatisfied with the mainstream treatments on offer and become interested in alternative therapies. However, he has also seemingly bought some of the anti-vaccine lobby line:I despair. I understand the frustrations of any parent who has an autistic child. But you can’t conflate “mild” ADHD and ASD and you can’t “treat” autism. A child with autism does not need treatment; he/she needs support and understanding. Will Lord Hodgson be asking a reputable paediatrician from Great Ormond Street to share the platform and describe the lack of an evidence base for so called vaccine damage? Of course not. Again, I despair.
“It is unlikely that there is any one single cause [of ADHD]. Genetics and heredity will probably be found to play a significant part. But what other factors are in play? One matter looks increasingly likely to be a significant contributory cause: the requirement in this country that every baby receives three injections in the first 16 weeks of life as immunisation against diphtheria, tetanus and whole cell pertussis—whooping cough, to laymen (full report from Dr Aust)
Great Ormond Street is the most famous children’s hospital in the world. J.M. Barrie bequeathed the royalties from Peter Pan to the hospital. Peter Pan is particularly relevant. I hope Lord Hodgson will read it again. Spare a thought for Tinker Bell. She said that
every time someome says “I don’t believe in fairies” a fairy dies.It is the same with immunisations.
Every time you provide a platform for someone to say “I don’t believe in immunisations” somewhere a child will die.Die unnecessarily from measles, or meningitis, or diphtheria. Or polio. Take your pick. We did not have the medical technology to protect Aunty Jenny from poliomyelitis. We do have the technology now, and we must not allow the media indulged lunatic fringe to throw it away.
++++++++++
The polio victim pictured above is not Aunty Jenny. It is Edna Hindson from the USA. Her story is here.
Labels: aunty jenny, Dr Aust, immunisations, JABS, lunatics, MMR Wakefield, Orac, tinker bell









47 Comments:
I remember the 1957 outbreak of polio, the boy who sat next to me at school got it. Interestingly this was on the Drudge report yesterday
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D90US5SG0&show_article=1
Tenn. woman, 61, dies in iron lung after outage.
It is still with us
Taking credit for Shakespeare's work now, eh Crippo? ;)
Great post.
It's terrible that Kirby of the ever-changing, and always wrong autism causation theories, is to be given such a respectable platform from to which to spread his nonsense. I do hope he will face informed opposition at his 4th June evening talk in London. I wish I could be there.
'Fortunately for me, passive smoking had not been invented then'
LOve it.
I have written about this before in the last vaccination debate. My Uncle had polio, and eventually it too killed him. I suspect many people of our generation could say the same about a relative.
Stupidity will destroy us. Not oil, not war, not even famine. Plain, old fashioned, stupidity.
We're just cursed with these fuckwits!
The Canadian Chiropractic Society party line is that they support immunisation. For some reason, individual chiropractors often do not.
Midwives around here, when asked by a physician whether they advise immunisations, will almost unanimously say, of course, what do you take me for. But they advise patients against them and do not vaccinate their own kids.
Fine. Herd immunity and all that. I still think it's wrong to subject a child to such a risk.
I challenge them to travel the places I have been (without their yellow fever jabs, polio jabs, hep A/B jabs). I challenge them to get bitten by a bat or rabid animal (and not get the rabies post-exposure series).
I understand not trusting Big Pharma. But just go somewhere polio is still endemic to see why vaccines were invented, and why the medical profession is so emphatic that they're a good thing.
In the U.S. the anti-Gardasil people are often fundamentalist moral crusaders who worry that its use will encourage sexual promiscuity. I wish that I could get it, since even though I'm older than 26, I'm quite sexually inexperienced, but it is not officially approved for anyone over 26 and therefore not covered. I know that vaccines show robuster responses in younger people, so it may not be worth the cost of vaccinating me.
On the autism/ vaccine nonsense, I thought that the people were claiming that the autism was caused by the thimerosol in the vaccines. Hasn't that all been removed?
I don't think that it is quite fair to say that there are no treatments for autism. They are primarily psychological ones based on social skills training, but that does not prevent them from being real treatments.
I think that some U.S. doctors use low doses of atypical antipsychotics for people with Asperger's, but I'm not sure what the evidence is for that, and it strikes me as potentially dangerous without clear benefits.
Thanks for the link, John.
By the way, media natural health doc, nutrition fan, and tap-water-is-bad-for-you evangelist Dr John Briffa has been sharing his views on MMR and autism over on his blog. No prizes for guessing how he sees it:
"And now some dirty great cracks are starting to show in the defense of the pro-vaccine lobby. I might be wrong, but I think the MMR vaccine/autism war is far from over. In fact, I reckon it’s only just begun."
*sigh*
Fully agree with you on the issue of vaccinations. It has to be done. I got measels as a kid and nearly died. However, would anyone in the healthcare professions on here care to comment on my experience of getting my kids vaccinated.
We had the usual vaccination police (i.e health visitor) ring us six times to check we had had our kids done with the MMR but when I asked if they could also have the TB jab I was told that in Oxfordshire Tuburculosis was not seen as health risk as so few people got the disease so no pint in vaccination.
Well forgive me for mentioning it, but the fact that it is a rare disease is down to decades and decades of routine vaccination. Everyone in my generation got vaccinated.
Safe to say I got round the TB vaccination blockade by paying privately to have it done for both my kids and worth every penny.
Indeed, I used the same private GP who also gave my kids the single jabs for measels mumps and rubella.
You see, responsible parents can make sensible make choices about all sorts of vaccination issues. Its just the Govt is completely inconsistent on the issue. MMR vaccine essential - but TB vaccine is a total waste of money as far as they are concerned.
Fully agree with you on the issue of vaccinations. It has to be done. I got measels as a kid and nearly died. However, would anyone in the healthcare professions on here care to comment on my experience of getting my kids vaccinated.
We had the usual vaccination police (i.e health visitor) ring us six times to check we had had our kids done with the MMR but when I asked if they could also have the TB jab I was told that tuburculosis in Oxfordshire was not seen as health risk because so few people got the disease and hence no point in vaccinating children.
Well forgive me for mentioning it, but the fact that it is a rare disease is down to decades and decades of routine vaccination is it not?. Everyone in my generation got vaccinated.
Safe to say I got round the TB vaccination blockade by paying privately to have it done for both my kids and worth every penny in my view.
Indeed, I used the same private GP who also gave my kids the single jabs for measels mumps and rubella.
You see, responsible parents can make sensible make choices about all sorts of vaccination issues. Its just the Govt is completely inconsistent on the issue. MMR vaccine essential - but TB vaccine is a total waste of money as far as they are concerned.
Anonymous
100% agree about the TB debacle.
I have four children; two got the immunisation; the other two have not. Crackers. So we are getting them done by the local chest physician (old school network)
The government ballsed up
John
Dr C - you confuse 'anti immunisation' with choosing to give the MMR as single vaccines.
My 6 year old has had his MMR as single vaccines, my 2 year old has had his first course of 3 singles and will receive his next 3 as singles. I'm not anti vaccine, I'm pro choice - and my choice is to give my sons the protection they need by a method other than the combined vaccine.
What's so wrong about that - why can't you respect my choices?
I didn't say I didn't respect your choice.
The worrying thing is that you have made the wrong decision and if there are any repercussion those will be on your children, not on you.
Your decision is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of paediatric immunology
John
What is wrong with that Anonymous is that you have made a utterly misguided decision on the basis of fraudulent and worthless 'research' that has been promulgated by the scientifically clueless.
Why would you choose a separate vaccine? it is not rational, and the shame is the crackpots who say otherwise are given so much media space to spread their lies to the public.
When I was a kid, if any child in the neighbourhood had one of the then common communicable diseases, we all had a party round that child's house...Our parents knew that early exposure to a mild variety gave us valuable immunity later on...
And so it was with vaccination...as it became available we took it...and benefited accordingly ... the kids I grew up with are all (as far as I know) still alive...more than can be said for some of the poor sods deprived of MMR and other innoculations...
This business of accepting every Tom, Dick and Harry's opinion as being equally expert seems to be based on a totally false interpretation of some kind of intellectual democracy - "My opinion is as good as your knowledge"... well it f**king ain't so...
I've nearly thirty five years expertise in my particular field of expertise, and that makes you nothing more than a pleb in that area...Conversely, your knowledge and qualifications make you the king in your field, and myself the pleb...we might occasionally catch each other out in a small error, but on the whole we respect each others areas of expertise and act accordingly...
As a man in my fifties, I can easily accept this dichotomy...but for some reason, sadly ignorant would-be activists in their teens and twenties can't...and they're encouraged by the flattering blandishments of arseholes who should know better...
Truly a little knowledge IS dangerous...
As far as I'm aware, the BCG vaccine is only 40% effective and indeed, concerns have been expressed about even this level of effectiveness. I was made to have it as I'm a healthcare worker, but they emphasised to us to take ALL respiratory precautions when dealing with TB patients, as the vaccine we were given was only about 40% effective. In addition, you will have a positive Mantoux test for the rest of your life if you are vaccinated, which can cause some diagnostic issues at times. Subsequently we got notices that the vaccine we had been given had come from a fucked up batch that was completely ineffective (as opposed to 40%!) and to reattend. I did not. I am strongly strongly in favour of vaccinations and get the 'flu shot every year, however, I can see why the Government would not provide BCG routinely to all kids. It's not effective and you can still get TB. Giving it to high risk groups is in some way rational, but still not really effective.
Whereas all the other above vaccines have been proven by scientific evidence and observation to prevent killer diseases and complications.
Vaccines and clean water have probably made more of an impact on our health in the last 100 years than actual medicine.
What's the story with these single vaccines? No evidence for improved safety whatsoever, yet parents keep coming to me and telling me they've paid extra to have single vaccines for MMR. Seems to be the old "It costs more, so it must be better" argument. I try and tell them that it makes no difference, but you're banging your head off a brick wall. Why they would think the paeds community is part of some great cover-up I'll never know. We're paranoid about putting anything into kids. If there was any evidence of a genuine danger here we'd be screaming from the rooftops about it. There is nothing in it for us to cover anything up.
The tinkerbell analogy is a very good one, Dr C.
There's also the issue of guilt. During hte worst of the MMR crisis of confidence, alot of parents of autistic kids felt rotten, thinking that something they had to decided to give their kid may have led to their illness.
Dr. Thunder
Could you guys do us a favor and find a way to keep Kirby over there? Just find a nice out of the way corner to tuck him away, hopefully as far away from a keyboard as possible. You might lure him into some tourist destination because before he wrote his silly book he was a travel writer.
Giving kids seperate shots when there is a perfectly good single shot (that has been available in the USA since 1971, it ain't new!) is not only more expensive but triples the chance of local infection from the needle jab. Small, but it does exist.
It is just a waste of time and money.
In the USA we never got the vaccine for TB. It is not effective (and I've been told that it works best in more northern latitudes) and screws up the tine test... which is what we got in school each year. Four little punctures on the arm that were checked to see if there was an infection.
More than likely the costs and risks were evaluated and the TB jab went the way of the oral polio vaccine in the USA (now it is the IPV).
Oh, speaking of polio... last week a woman who spent almost her entire life in an iron lung died:
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5j0qZZbLRprUWJR3yk0xR2f96ZmrAD90V27F83
To hone in on one small and inconsequential part of your post, I have the same affection for the Flat Earth Society as I do for the lads running The Chap magazine.
And as the mother of an PDD-NDS-diagnosed child, I hear from the anti-vaxers all the time. I am sure a great deal of the push has to do with misplaced guilt. Hell, I feel guilty sometimes regarding my son's condition - after all, he developed in my uterus, right? I think people want to place blame, and they don't want to blame themselves. All very logical, until you get to the place where pertussis breaks out in an elementary school because "vaccines are teh evul!1!"
"The worrying thing is that you have made the wrong decision and if there are any repercussion those will be on your children, not on you.
Your decision is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of paediatric immunology"
Dr C - I have made the decision to have my children immunised appropriately, that's the important thing... how I do it is MY CHOICE. Whether you think that is 'right' is totally irrelevant to the immunisation argument.
I wanted to send this story to all my anti-jab friends (one of whom recently tried to stop another friend from having scans that determined the cause of his extremely painful, disabling vasculitis):
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-ironlung29-2008may29,0,4714211.story
A woman who lived in an iron lung for 60 years as a result of childhood polio, and just died in a power outage.
Thanks John for another thoughtful and well written post. Unfortunately, I fear you have woken the beast of the ill-informed single vaccine/anti-vaccine fuckwits.
Anonymous (why no names? Make one up!) said:
"I have made the decision to have my children immunised appropriately, that's the important thing... how I do it is MY CHOICE"
Well not really. You presumably think your illusion of choice was to have combined or separate vaccines. The scientific peer-reviewed opinion is that is makes no difference. But three separate injections does triple your risk of (your children) developing staph septicaemia albeit that risk is still very small. But you just tripled it.
Did you also choose the additives in your children's vaccines? And the transport medium? And the drug company you used? And what information did you use to make these 'choices'? My point is yes you have made a choice but it is fearmongering based, not evidence based. But good on you for vaccinating.
Hi Richie - thanks for your useful comments. Illusion of choice - no, it was made after alot of careful consideration and having read material from 'both sides'. Do tell, how big is this 'very small' risk of staph septicaemia?
I was interested to read the posts from othe medical professionals who were of the opinion that the TBG vaccine 'is not effective' - so Dr C is giving his kids a vaccine that 'is not effective' and presumably exposes them to the risk of staph septicaemia too.... - all four of them.
Presumably everytime someone has a blood test or injection, for whatever reason, they are also exposing themselves, or their children, to the staph risk too??? BTW - do blood donors face this risk too? Would this be a reason NOT to give blood??
All invasive procedures carry a risk of something, as crossing the road carries the risk of serious injury or death; we make decisions based on our own risk assessment at the time....
Richie - I might be wrong but doctors have no medico-legal right to FORCE parents to immunise children, irrespective of benefits to individual children, or the wider community.
Certainly from an A&E perspective we see the results of injuries or illness that to a large extent are self-inflicted, or at least significantly exacerbated by unhealthy life style choices, such as drug taking (in all it's myriad forms), obesity, reckless behavious, etc, etc - we can gently hint at the consequences of poor decision making but that's about as far as it goes.
Doctors are agents of the patient, primarily - not the state.
Their job is to provide balanced info about the pros/cons (and there are always con) of a proposed treatment, then patients (or parents) make their own decision, irrespective of how irrational that decision might seem from an ideal standpoint - assuming they have capacicty, of course.
I would be very interested to a hear a conversation between Andrew Wakefield and a GP attempting to persuade him to consent to his children having MMR.
Incidentally, I do not suffer from 'Blair-itis' - I have three sproggs, all fully imunised, inc MMR.
While I support vaccination wholeheartedly - and really must renew my anti-tetanus before I do much more off road riding, I also believe that vaccination is doing a significant amount of damage.
The rise in allergies (and _possibly_ in autism) does correlate nicely with vaccination.
Even as an allergy sufferer, even in the hayfever season, I'd prefer this to polio or diptheria.
Let us be honest - despite generations of simplistic schoolbook descriptions of Jenner's and Pasteur's work - we are not 100% certain just HOW a vaccine works, especially not in a child's immature immune system. So we shoudl KEEP ON giving vaccines but we should also NOT assume we couldn't improve on them and make them safer.
And removing mercury does sound thike a pretty good starting point...
Hoddy
"hoddy"... Rule #1 in statistical analysis:- "Correlation is not causation".
hoddy, thats bollocks.
There is still a rise in children being diagnosed with autism yet vaccination rates are slipping.
Murcury was taken out of vaccines years ago (funny thing was they tried to say the murcury was the cause of autism in many kids who had had vaccinations after it was removed).
How are we not 100% sure how a vaccine works? I am a medic and have a prior degree and i thought i was pretty clued up on how vaccines worked, please tell me how my text books and lectures were all wrong?
The best way to improve the vaccines i to get every kid in the country to get them (excluding those who can't i.e. immunocompromised etc).
Damn i can't seem to type today. Please excuse all spelling mistakes.
'The rise in allergies (and _possibly_ in autism) does correlate nicely with vaccination.'
Also high definition televisions. And mobile phones. And the number of resteraunts Gordon Ramsay now runs.
I'm sure I've posted this before, but I've read that cases of M.E. went up after polio vaccination - NOT because polio vaccines give people M.E., but because removing polio allowed other enteroviruses to move into the vacuum, and these other enteroviruses are implicated in M.E.. e.g. serological studies in Iceland showed that the 1948 M.E. epidemic protected people from the 1957 polio epidemic. Those who had had the M.E. epidemic in 1948 also did not have a normal response to the oral polio vaccine.
K
On the subject of vaccination, autism and MMR etc. I would point to a possible analogy between the medical profession's use of vaccines and their use of antibiotics. At one stage antibiotics were the be all and end all and were dished out like smarties whenever there was any sign of infamation etc. Once it was discovered that the bugs were becoming resistent it all changed overnight and you now have to be almost dying to get prescribed them. I wonder how long it will be before a similar thing happens with regard to vaccines! Basically the question is does vaccination weaken the immune system such that when variant measles or other viruses appear it will be totally defenceless?
NHS dependent:
"does vaccination weaken the immune system such that when variant measles or other viruses appear it will be totally defenceless?"
An easy one - no. Absolutely no. Never. Not ever. No. Not in a lab. Not in the wild. Not in a human population.
In 20 years I've never dished out antibiotics like smarties & was always aware of resistance. My prescribing practice has not changed in this time nor as far as I'm aware has that of my colleagues. Nothing has changed overnight and antibiotic resistance has been known about longer than I've been alive. I certainly don't restrict their use to the dying. I presume you are alluding to their use in viral infections for which they were never going to work & the 'pressure to prescribe' may have been influential.
A&E Charge Nurse - genuinely not sure if you're being sarcastic but of course doctors can't force anyone to be vaccinated against their will. You may recall a recent attempt by MPs to allude to making it compulsory which went nowhere (as the then Prime Minister wouldn't even 'fess up as to what vaccinations his new Balmoral-conceived sprog had it seemed somewhat rich to enforce this upon the rest of the populace). Education of children for the good of the country is deemed compulsory, fluoridation of water is mandatory for your better health, vaccination, it would seem, is not. But I would posit this is not for lack of evidence but because of the distinct lack of balls of a government chasing it's own tail. Not that I am arguing for mandatory vaccination, just that our overlords & masters feel fit to legislate for compulsory dosing of some things (fluoride being the prime example) whilst not others. But no-one ever got elected on consistency.
As for A&E presentations, I certainly do remember stitching up my 20th drunk of the night in the early hours of a Saturday morning & wondering where his responsibility ended & mine began. We legislate against alcohol & driving because of the damage it does to other innocent parties; would mandatory vaccination legislation not also be consistent with this belief?
I absolutely concur that we are agents of the patient & not the state even if they do pay us. Is my responsibility not just to the patient in front of me but to the next one who may be at risk of the disease this one is refusing to be vaccinated against?
Hoddy - 'we' are 100% certain how a vaccine works, even in a child's immune system. Right down to which subtype of immune cells are stimulated, how they proliferate and how the immune response works at a chemical level when those foreign agents are subsequently encountered. And mercury went a long time ago as someone has already said.
On of the Anonymi - in short, yes. Everytime you stick a needle through your skin, your microinnoculate yourself with staph. The more you do it, the higher the risk. So, yes, giving blood carries risk. The point I was making was that more injections increase this risk but presumably this wasn't factored into your informed choice. The risk is still miniscule but there. Unlike the risk of taking all 3 MMR together which has been proven not to be increased. So you've swapped a risk that you perceive as real that science says isn't there (3 vaccines in one) for a risk that you didn't know about that science says is there. Obviously this risk is reduced with correct injection technique. But it is still a risk. A real one. As opposed to a ficional one.
Vaccine rejectionism has existed since vaccines were introduced over 200 years ago. During the past 200+ years the vaccine rejectionists have advanced a myriad of claims about the "dangers" of vaccination, and NOT ONE of their theories or fears has been correct.
Vaccine rejectionism is the "flat earth" theory of the 21st century. It depends on ignorance, in this case, ignorance of basic science, statistics and immunology.
In addition, vaccine rejectionists are unethical. They are the classic free riders. They take the benefits of society and dump the risks on other people. Vaccines are known to have real risks, including the risk of brain damage and death. They also have benefits in addition to preventing the vaccinated individual from getting the disease in question. Vaccinations actually prevent OTHER people from getting the disease by limiting the ability of the virus to spread through the population. In that way, vaccination protects the very young and the immunocompromised from getting the disease, even though they cannot get the vaccine itself.
Vaccine rejectionists count on everyone else getting vaccinated to minimize the risk that their own children will be exposed to the virus. They expect to reap the benefits, and they expect everyone else to shoulder the risk. That's what it means to be a free rider, and that's unethical.
Vaccine rejectionism is based on a lethal combination of ignorance and selfishness, and people die as a result.
"On of the Anonymi - in short, yes. Everytime you stick a needle through your skin, your microinnoculate yourself with staph. The more you do it, the higher the risk. So, yes, giving blood carries risk. The point I was making was that more injections increase this risk but presumably this wasn't factored into your informed choice. The risk is still miniscule but there. Unlike the risk of taking all 3 MMR together which has been proven not to be increased. So you've swapped a risk that you perceive as real that science says isn't there (3 vaccines in one) for a risk that you didn't know about that science says is there. Obviously this risk is reduced with correct injection technique. But it is still a risk. A real one. As opposed to a ficional one."
Richie - thanks for your comments; we'll agree to disagree;
Does the Blood Transfusion service inform donors of the Staph risk - not when I gave blood, it didn't. Presumably this risk exists with any skin damage be it medically inflicted or not? Should I get rid of my cat in case it scratches me, maybe I shouldn't garden or do any DIY?!!
Your argument seems a bit tenuous when placed in perspective - particularly when Dr C has choosen to have his kids vaccinated against TB when other medical contributors say it's not effective. I had two doses of BGC - should I have refused it all those years ago?? - Wait a minute I don't remember being given a choice...
Thanks Richie - didn't mean to sound sarcastic, sorry if it came over like that.
I think Crippo has cited the French policy (on previous threads) - so blame him, if I've got this wrong.
Immunisation (in France) is not mandatory but school is.
To get into a school children MUST be immunised.
Perhaps another example why France seems to have one of the best health systems in the world ?
Anonymous - yeah it is all sounding a bit tenuous & you do keep flogging it. Perhaps I'll give up. Cats are nasty animals & probably should be removed from the house anyway. Go read about toxoplasmosis - that'll make you kick Fluffy out.
A&E CN - I wasn't aware of the French situation. That is a brilliant way of circumnavigating the issue. I was just out with a few friends & talking about MMR etc and found out that here in NZ, no creche will allow your child to be registered with them unless you produce a certificate proving vaccination. These are private companies yet they seem to be able to do what the government cannot.
Vive La France! Vive Les Creches!
Hi Richie - maybe you're giving up because your argument was pretty weak to start with.... "have the MMR 'cos your children will be at less risk of Staph infection... but wait, don't give blood and don't let the sprogs get any cuts or scratches either!!!' Yeah, right!
I've lived with cats all my life and I've never had toxoplasmosis (been tested for the antibodies in pregnancy) so all in all you're not doing too well, are you?! :-)
NHS dependent:
"does vaccination weaken the immune system such that when variant measles or other viruses appear it will be totally defenceless?"
An easy one - no. Absolutely no. Never. Not ever. No. Not in a lab. Not in the wild. Not in a human population.
Thanks Richie. I will of course take your word for it with regard to antibiotics. Perhaps anti-depressants would have been a better analogy.
I still think there must be some factor, environmental, lifestyle or otherwise causing the apparent increase in autism. If it isn't the vaccine then do you or anyone else have any other theories?
Anonymous (again with no name!) - sorry, perhaps my sarcasm was not apparent. If you are in the process of administering cuts & scratches to your children then please continue unabated. You seem to have taken someone challenging your 'choice' rather badly.
NHS Dependent - thanks for taking my word for it. You've made my day. At last, someone with common sense. Please tell me about resistance to anti-depressants - this is a new one I hadn't heard of. Oh no, wait, we're going down the 'All doctors are in the pay of big pharma' route again. If you think there is some other factor then you get out there & study it. The Government will just throw money at you. Then you can report back to this comments page & watch people throw jibes at you and tell you you're an idiot & they know better because they read it someone's blog once.
And anyway, how exactly would you treat a 'change in lifestyle'?
No I don't have any theories, yes other people do. Unfortunately most of them are mentalists. And some of them post here (see just about any article on Madwives)
Immunisation (in France) is not mandatory but school is.
To get into a school children MUST be immunised.
Perhaps another example why France seems to have one of the best health systems in the world ?
A small point but school is not compulsory in France, home education is legal. DTP is the only compulsory vaccination in France now (BCG used to be compulsory) and proof of vaccination is required to enrol in school. I haven't been able to fine out if DTP is compulsory for home educators in France.
These twats who think single jabs are a good idea - complete middle-class know-fuck-alls who think their useless opinion is valid, and self-importantly trumpet it on the internet.
Do they have any knowledge of the millions of different antigens presented at the same time to the immune system of the newly born that then stimulate an immune response? And the anti-MMR crowd are reducing those millions of presentations by how many by having single jabs. Ah...two.
Anonymous @ 0942. Your choice is not respected because you're someone who wants to boost your ego by thinking you can make a valid decision on this important subject. You have no knowledge on the subject beyond that you've picked up off google. I suggest you read a primer on immunology and then you'll see how silly your opinion is. Yes, you can make your own decisions, but like the smoking-pregnant woman, the drinker who hits the kids, the motorist who drives dangerously without the kids being strapped in, you think you know best. You bloody well don't.
It is clear that vaccinations don't cause autism and that the media 'advertising' this claim have been very irresponsible.
I agree Amy Tutear that those not vaccinating their children are relying on other people vaccinating their children.
However, the claims about the link between autism and MMR vaccines, have been so widely listened to by parents because ultimately people don't trust the medical profession. Practised medicine is often an inexact science. Thus most people by the time they have reached middle age, have had either personally or witnessed immediate family and friends, experience of misdiagnosis or incorrect treatment. In some cases this will be because of incompetence, but in many cases it will simply be because of the inherent difficulty in diagnosing and treating people with seemingly minor symptoms.
So there is no real point in simply saying to the public as some Dr's do, trust what we are saying because we are the professionals. You need to explain to people why you hold the view you do. Without this understanding of the public's lack of trust, Dr's are always going to struggle to get people to accept medical practice that is in their best interests.
After giving this whole "Autism Increase vs Vaccinations" thingie a lot of thought, I'm starting to wonder if what we are seeing might not simply be the correlation of all the folk who would have died of vaccinatable diseases but didn't because they got vaccinated - those folk perhaps being predisposed to some level of autism ... some genetic/chromosomal link ...
Prior to widespread vaccination, a lot of people simply died of diseases - some survived, some didn't ... perhaps those who we now find are autistic to perceptible levels would have ben the ones who died off in prior centuries ...
This could potentially simply explain why there would seem to be a correlation with vaccinations, yet not be *caused* by the vaccinations ...
Comments ? Thoughts ?
ruth:
"However, the claims about the link between autism and MMR vaccines, have been so widely listened to by parents because ultimately people don't trust the medical profession."
Although it may seem that vaccine rejectionism is based on skepticism of doctors, it is actually a different phenomenon. Vaccine rejectionism is based on currently fashionable attitudes about authoritative knowledge.
The article 'Trusting blindly can be the biggest risk of all': organised resistance to childhood vaccination in the UK (Hobson-West, Sociology of Health & Illness Vol. 29 No. 2 2007, pp. 198–215) explores these cultural attitudes. The first social construct is a re-imagining of the meaning of risk:
"A primary way this is achieved ... is to construct risk as unknowns... [This] serves as an example of how the realist image of risk as a representation of reality is undermined. In the realist account, uncertainty and unknowns may be recognised but are usually framed as temporary phases that are overcome by more research. For the [vaccine rejectionists], there is a more fundamental ignorance about the body and health and disease that will not necessarily be overcome by more research. Interestingly, this ignorance is constructed as a collective – ‘we’ as a society do not know the true impact of mass vaccination or the causes of health and disease."
The fact that vaccine rejectionism is based on false premises is elided by ignoring the actual scientific data and focusing instead on whether parents agree with health professionals or refuse to trust them. Agreement with doctors is constructed as a negative and refusal to trust is constructed as a positive cultural attribute:
"Clear dichotomies are constructed between blind faith and active resistance and uncritical following and critical thinking. Non-vaccinators or those who question aspects of vaccination policy are not described in terms of class, gender, location or politics, but are 'free thinkers' who have escaped from the disempowerment that is seen to characterise vaccination..."
This characterization of vaccine rejectionists can be unpacked even further; not suprisingly, vaccine rejectionists are portrayed as laudatory and other parents are denigrated.
"... instead of good and bad parent categories being a function of compliance or non-compliance with vaccination advice ... the good parent becomes one who spends the time to become informed and educated about vaccination...
... [vaccine rejectionists] construct trust in others as passive and the easy option. Rather than trust in experts, the alternative scenario is of a parent who becomes the expert themselves, through a difficult process of personal education and empowerment..."
The ultimate goal is to become "empowered":
"Finally, the moral imperative to become informed is part of a broader shift, evident in the new public health, for which some kind of empowerment, personal responsibility and participation are expressed in highly positive terms."
So vaccine rejectionism is about the mother and how she would like to see herself, not about vaccines and not about children. In the socially constructed world of vaccine rejectionists, risks can never be quanitified and are always "unknown". Parents are divided into those (inferior) people who are passive and blindly trust authority figures and (superior) rejectionists who are "educated" and "empowered" by taking "personal responsibility".
This view depends on a deliberate re-definition of all the relevant terms, however, and that re-definition is unjustified and self aggrandizing. The risks of vaccines are not unknown. Believing that vaccines are spectacularly successful at preventing mortality and morbidity is not a matter of "trust"; it is reality. Questioning authority is not the same as being "educated"; indeed, it isn't even related. Lacking even basic knowledge of immunology and rejecting medical facts is not a sign of education, independent thinking or taking personal responsibility. It is a lack of education at best, and self serving, self aggrandizing ignorance at worst.
This post has been removed by the author.
Good article.Especially the language.We end up with a justice system again, where many innocent people are locked up again on the basis of an anonymous witness who may have a grudge financial interest etc in cooperating with the Police or whoever wants the defendant put away.
flashlights rc helicopter video games Tactical Flashlights Wolf-Eyes Flashlights rc helicopterr c airplane video game
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home