Parade Article-Why So Many Parents Are Delaying or Skipping Vaccines

[emmy526]

http://www.parade.com/health/2012/10/07-why-so-many-parents-are-delaying-vaccines.html

imo,  seems  to be the basic pharma paid fearmongering article in mainstream media

[Taximom5]

They must be getting desperate. The child in the article was fully vaccinated! She supposedly had a "rare underlying immune issue;" of course, they didn't mention what it was called, nor whether that issue might ave put her at risk for vaccine reactions, nor how to screen for such an issue, nor how prevalent it might be.

They couldn't find an unvaccinated child who contracted meningitis to write about!

And they couldn't find a writer who could actually make a convincing case for vaccinating? It's far too late to trot out doctors who bleat, "vaccinations are safe and effective, when most parents personally know of children who had severe reactions, and whose vaccines failed to protect them.

[Jennyanydots]

Yeah. Total propaganda. Makes me mad to read stuff like that.

[prosciencemum]

My reading - a sad story which demonstrates why it's so important that vaccination rates are high to limit as much as possible the circulation of these potentially nasty diseases.

 Some people do have immune disorders which prevent vaccines from working, and we also need to protect babies too young to get vaccinated. In the 5 children who came down in this outbreak 3 (or 60%) chose not to get the vaccine. That's massive compared to the overall rates of people not getting vaccinated (which I think is about 5-10% right?).  

 Also Taximon- I question your statement that most parents know a child who's had a severe reaction to vaccines? Do you have any statistics for that? I don't know anyone personally. I encounter them on this forum (like yourself) but that's hardly representative as this is clearly a collecting point for parents angry about vaccinations. 

[pek64]

The article stated that smallpox has been completely eliminated. Why didn't MMR vaccines eliminate those? There was a *huge* push for that, so don't tell me it's because of folks not getting their kids vaccinated. It was around the same time as the smallpox push. It seems most likely that parents were equally responsive to both vaccinations at that time. So what went wrong?

[prosciencemum]

I'm sure I read something recently about why it is that some diseases responded better to being eliminated by vaccines, while others are "better" at mutating etc, so are proving more difficult. Might have been related to discussion of why the pertussis vaccine is not as effective as we'd like it to be. Or perhaps the Bill Gates push to eliminate polio in the last few countries which have significant rates. I can't remember. Will post it if I do. 

I don't remember a huge push of MMR at the same time as small pox was being eliminated. But then the last case was before I was born (UK in 1978 according to wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smallpox#Eradication

Was there an MMR push in 1970s? Looks like it was only introduced in late 1960s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMR_vaccine - and check out the rubella rate drop in early 70s after the introduction of the vaccine!). 

[pek64]

There sure was a big push in my area! I ended up with 5 MMR vaccinations in a couple of years because the free immunization sites kept failing to provide documentation to our family doctor. I finally said I would get one more shot if the doctor did it himself and I watched him enter it in my chart. That's what we did (and he was lousy at giving shots-- it hurt! ). During all that, I also got innoculated for smallpox.

Edited to clarify what was in my area.

Also adding --

If some viruses are better at mutating, and therefore cannot be eliminated, why is there still the push for vaccinating against them? They will simply mutate and a new vaccine will be needed. It seems to me that the focus should be on treatment, instead, since the disease cannot truly be prevented.

[kathymuggle]

Push to eliminate measles (scroll down to measles section)

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

[kathymuggle]

A very typical piece:  how those who do not vaccinate endanger everyone else, trotting out of Wakefield…..

There was virtually no discussion of why parents choose not to vaccinate (other than the Wakefield/"mercury moms" comment…which they then "debunk").

A very one-sided piece - which will do nothing to promote any sort of understanding on why people do not vaccinate.   If it does anything, it will add fuel to fire for those who vax.  Gotta love hate-mogerring.  

[Mirzam]

Originally Posted by prosciencemum 

I don't remember a huge push of MMR at the same time as small pox was being eliminated. But then the last case was before I was born (UK in 1978 according to wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smallpox#Eradication

Was there an MMR push in 1970s? Looks like it was only introduced in late 1960s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMR_vaccine - and check out the rubella rate drop in early 70s after the introduction of the vaccine!). 

Maybe because the UK government knew in 1972 there were serious concerns over the safety of the measles vaccine. They knew the it had the potential to cause vaccine-induced SSPE. This potential problem was discussed in a meeting on March 13, 1972 with a group of experts know as Expert Group on the Surveillance of SSPE.

http://vactruth.com/2012/08/30/government-document-vaccine-unsafe/

Quote:

If this information is not worrisome enough, at around the same time, a memo titled ‘Copy Of Notice To Be Circulated To ABE – Measles Vaccine And Subacute Sclerosing Panencephalitis’ [4] was also sent out, stating that:

‘There has been some concern recently about the suggestion that measles vaccines might occasionally give rise to Subacute Sclerosing Panencephalitis. Professor Sir Charles Stuart-Harris, as chairman of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, has asked whether members of the Association would be prepared to notify cases we see.’

Note the words ‘might occasionally,’ which in my opinion, were specifically chosen to cover the fact that this was a growing problem.

This document, along with many others uncovered, means that the measles vaccination was proving problematic to the neurological well being of young children as far back as 1972.

Edited by Mirzam - 10/8/12 at 3:29pm

[prosciencemum]

Nice analysis of this article (summary - it doesn't demonstrate any link between SSPE and vaccines) from pers in this other thread you started about it. 

http://www.mothering.com/community/t/1361925/uk-foi-documents-on-measles-vax

[Mirzam]

Originally Posted by prosciencemum 

Nice analysis of this article (summary - it doesn't demonstrate any link between SSPE and vaccines) from pers in this other thread you started about it. 

http://www.mothering.com/community/t/1361925/uk-foi-documents-on-measles-vax

Not buying it. Why the heck would the UK government hold a meeting if they weren't concerned about this. Yet more government complicity to hid the truth when it becomes inconvenient. Why is it so hard to grasp that governments can and do things that are harmful to their citizens? Choose to vaccinate by all means, but don't for one minute think the UK government or any government has your best interests at heart and that they care or keep you safe.

[pers]

Originally Posted by Mirzam 

Not buying it. Why the heck would the UK government hold a meeting if they weren't concerned about this. Yet more government complicity to hid the truth when it becomes inconvenient. Why is it so hard to grasp that governments can and do things that are harmful to their citizens? Choose to vaccinate by all means, but don't for one minute think the UK government or any government has your best interests at heart and that they care or keep you safe.

Simple answer: of course they were concerned about it.  When did I (or anyone) say they weren't?  Since attenuated measles is a live virus, it makes sense that people would worry that it could cause SSPE too, especially as there were cases of SSPE in people who had been vaccinated. 

There used to be great concern that if you swam within an hour of eating, you were at increased risk for stomach cramps and drowning.  Should I make my kids abide by that old rule even though now it seems there is no link between time of eating and drowning? There used to be concern that working out without stretching first would lead to injuries, and so gym class when I was a kid emphasised the importance of proper stretching at the start.  Since then, research has shown difference in frequency or severity of injury between those who stretch and those who do not.  

There are all sorts of things on which people/doctors/universities/government/whatever about were concerned about to do a study on or investigate only to find no link.  Does drinking milk cause early puberty?  Not according to the study mentioned here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/48724457/ns/health-childrens_health/t/drinking-milk-not-linked-early-puberty-study-suggests/#.UHR9VBVY3cg, but should we start panicking and banning milk on the basis that they were concerned enough to do a study?  There has been a lot of concern over whether cell phones can cause cancer, and who knows, its a difficult subject to study, so while studies so far have not shown a link, perhaps they do.  But can we really conclude that they absolutely do just because there has been concern without actually having solid evidence of it?  There were big concerns about the amount of cholesterol in eggs when I was a kid, and everyone was being advised to stay away from them. Now they seem to be backing off on that, and while maybe it may still be a concern for specific people with certain health conditions, it seems to be moving toward the thought that eggs are not a problem for the general population.  Should I stick to the old advice anyway since it was such a huge concern at one point?  

Yeah, there was an investigation into measles vaccine and SSPE.  But what really matters is not so much that there was an investigation, but what did the investigation turn up?  Why is this information omitted from the page linked to discussing the concern?  Where is the evidence that measles vaccine can actually cause SSPE?  

[Mirzam]

Originally Posted by pers 

Originally Posted by Mirzam 

Not buying it. Why the heck would the UK government hold a meeting if they weren't concerned about this. Yet more government complicity to hid the truth when it becomes inconvenient. Why is it so hard to grasp that governments can and do things that are harmful to their citizens? Choose to vaccinate by all means, but don't for one minute think the UK government or any government has your best interests at heart and that they care or keep you safe.

Simple answer: of course they were concerned about it.  When did I (or anyone) say they weren't?  Since attenuated measles is a live virus, it makes sense that people would worry that it could cause SSPE too, especially as there were cases of SSPE in people who had been vaccinated. 

There used to be great concern that if you swam within an hour of eating, you were at increased risk for stomach cramps and drowning.  Should I make my kids abide by that old rule even though now it seems there is no link between time of eating and drowning? There used to be concern that working out without stretching first would lead to injuries, and so gym class when I was a kid emphasised the importance of proper stretching at the start.  Since then, research has shown difference in frequency or severity of injury between those who stretch and those who do not.  

There are all sorts of things on which people/doctors/universities/government/whatever about were concerned about to do a study on or investigate only to find no link.  Does drinking milk cause early puberty?  Not according to the study mentioned here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/48724457/ns/health-childrens_health/t/drinking-milk-not-linked-early-puberty-study-suggests/#.UHR9VBVY3cg, but should we start panicking and banning milk on the basis that they were concerned enough to do a study?  There has been a lot of concern over whether cell phones can cause cancer, and who knows, its a difficult subject to study, so while studies so far have not shown a link, perhaps they do.  But can we really conclude that they absolutely do just because there has been concern without actually having solid evidence of it?  There were big concerns about the amount of cholesterol in eggs when I was a kid, and everyone was being advised to stay away from them. Now they seem to be backing off on that, and while maybe it may still be a concern for specific people with certain health conditions, it seems to be moving toward the thought that eggs are not a problem for the general population.  Should I stick to the old advice anyway since it was such a huge concern at one point?  

Yeah, there was an investigation into measles vaccine and SSPE.  But what really matters is not so much that there was an investigation, but what did the investigation turn up?  Why is this information omitted from the page linked to discussing the concern?  Where is the evidence that measles vaccine can actually cause SSPE?  

How about a SSPE like condition which many children exhibit after the MMR vaccine. They label it autism. Who's going to do the research into that?

[pers]

Originally Posted by pek64 

The article stated that smallpox has been completely eliminated. Why didn't MMR vaccines eliminate those? There was a *huge* push for that, so don't tell me it's because of folks not getting their kids vaccinated. It was around the same time as the smallpox push. It seems most likely that parents were equally responsive to both vaccinations at that time. So what went wrong?

There are a number of different factors involved in whether or not a disease can be eliminated by vaccine and how easily it can be done in cases where it is possible. How contagious a disease is, how it is spread, and how effective the vaccine is are all factors. 

For instance, if I remember correctly, tuberculosis is not very contagious.  While it is possible to get it through brief/casual contact (I actually know someone who had it, and she has absolutely no idea where she could have picked it up),  it is rare to get it that way, and most people who get it do from frequent or prolonged contact with someone who has it.  For this reason, TB spreads relatively slowly and would be fairly easy to eliminate with an effective vaccine. However, the current vaccine is not very effective, to put it mildly.  It is still used in some places with higher TB rates for whatever protection it does afford, but in many places (including North America) TB is generally controlled through treating the infected, following up with those who are at risk from being infected by know infections, testing of at risk populations, and isolation as needed.

Measles, on the other hand, is extremely contagious.  It is easy to get measles from brief contact such as sitting near an infected person on a bus or standing next to one in line at the grocery store.  Measles also becomes extremely contagious a couple days before the individual feels sick, so it is easy to get it from someone who is not showing any signs of it or pass it on again before you even realise you are coming down with something.  Measles has been eliminated from North America, which doesn't mean that it never occurs here as outbreaks can still happen among those who were not vaxed or those whose vaccine did not create immunity when the disease is introduced again from overseas.  What it does mean is that enough of our population is immune that the disease remains limited to outbreaks, and chains of infection can not be sustained here long term.  This is not true of many other countries with lower vaccination rates where measles still lives on. It would be possible to eradicate measles as happened with smallpox and has nearly happened with polio, but because measles spreads so easily so quickly, it would take getting the entire world to vaccination levels as high as or higher than the rates in the US, and sustaining these rates long enough to end each train of virus transmission.  This would be very difficult to do, especially in areas with political upheaval.  It's possible it could be done, but I'm not going to be holding my breath for it to happen.

Smallpox is far more contagious than TB, but still not nearly as contagious as measles.  While it spreads much faster than TB and can be spread through casual contact, like TB it is more frequently passed on to people an infected individual has direct/close contact to than to be passed casually during a brief bus ride or passing someone on the street.  This makes it easier to track down potential infections.  Also, unlike measles, while smallpox victims may not always realize they have smallpox by the time they become contagious, they are at least showing symptoms of illness by the time they are contagious, again slowing exposure and making it easier to track contacts of the infected.  

The smallpox vaccine does not last that long, so mass immunization of young children would never have been able to wipe it out the way it could with measles/has with measles in North America. Maybe if they'd managed to vaccinate everyone in the entire world at the same instant - never could have happened.  Instead, smallpox was wiped out by chasing infections and using quarantine and ring vaccination.  Basically, they had teams out hunting reports of infection, and when they found it they'd isolate the sick people and maybe those most likely infected by them, then vaccinate everyone in the community so that any missed cases would be limited in the numbers they could infect.  There are those who give all the credit to the quarantining of the sick and none of the credit to the vaccine.  Certainly quarantine was a very important part of the process, but I do not believe smallpox ever could have been eradicated without the vaccine, much less in such a short time as it took the worldwide effort to do so.  There always would have been the occasional missed case, it would have been impossible to track down every single one especially in war zones and areas with no registry of citizens, but vaccinating entire communities when there was a known infection limited the ability of the missed cases to spread. .

The tracking/quarantine/ring vaccination method never could work with measles.  It could slow the spread, certainly, but the trackers would never be able to keep up with the disease, it just spreads too quickly.  Mass vaccination has the greatest chance of wiping it out, if anything is ever going to. Different methods for different diseases. 

The mumps portion of the MMR is not as effective or long lasting as the measles portion.  I do not know how contagious mumps is compared to meales or smallpox or when it becomes contagious.  There is not a lot of info out there on rubella. It's such a mild disease that it would be difficult to track the disease itself since most cases wouldn't be seen by doctors, I'd think, but congenital rubella syndrome (the main problem with rubella/reason for the vaccine) has pretty much been eliminated from North America, so that's something.  Chickenpox has many of the same problems as measles (spreads quickly through casual contact, contagious prior to symptoms) with the added problem as the vaccine does not seem as effective as the measles vaccine, so while it has the potential to make CP quite rare if very widely used, I don't think the current vaccine could eliminate the disease entirely.  Time will tell.  

If some viruses are better at mutating, and therefore cannot be eliminated, why is there still the push for vaccinating against them? They will simply mutate and a new vaccine will be needed. It seems to me that the focus should be on treatment, instead, since the disease cannot truly be prevented.

Is it really a choice between treatment and vaccination? Why not focus both on trying to prevent as many cases as possible and finding better treatment for those cases that can't be prevented.  

[Taximom5]

Originally Posted by pers 


Is it really a choice between treatment and vaccination? Why not focus both on trying to prevent as many cases as possible and finding better treatment for those cases that can't be prevented.  

Because there have been far too many of us who have had severe reactions to these vaccines. We don't know how many, because health care providers have been unable or unwilling to recognize and diagnose these reactions. But so many of us have been stunned to learn of others who have had (or whose children have had) the same reactions (after being told that our reactions were unique) and almost without exception, we have all had the same lack of response by medical personnel, that we know it's far, far more than is admitted by the industry.

Even when reactions are recognized, admitted, and compensated, there is still a huge effort to hide the facts. Compensated individuals tell of a terribly adversarial process in getting their reactions recognized, and of being forced to submit to gag orders after winning their cases.

Even though there is clearly at least one subgroup who is at risk for severe vaccine reactions (people with mitochondrial disorders), absolutely no studies have been undertaken to determine extent of this subgroup, nor to prescreen before vaccinating. No surprise, really, as there are indications that vaccines themselves can cause mitochondrial disorders.

With all that going on, and with the horrific amount of corruption in the pharmaceutical industry, there are too many reasons not to trust in vaccines as preventative medicine.

Now, if the pharmaceutical industry hadn't been so greedy and dishonest, and if we were only talking about a few vaccines over a lifetime, and we were talking about making those vaccines safer, and having a better system set up to catch theses who might react BEFORE such a reaction--we'll, that would be a different conversation entirely.

[Bokonon]

Originally Posted by pers 

Is it really a choice between treatment and vaccination? Why not focus both on trying to prevent as many cases as possible and finding better treatment for those cases that can't be prevented.  

I agree there should definitely be more effort at treatment (and proper diagnosis) research.  Even the most pro-vax know that there are some children who cannot and should not be vaccinated.  This number is getting larger and larger, and this population is not less important that those who can be vaxed and do vax.

[prosciencemum]

Originally Posted by Bokonon 

I agree there should definitely be more effort at treatment (and proper diagnosis) research.  Even the most pro-vax know that there are some children who cannot and should not be vaccinated.  This number is getting larger and larger, and this population is not less important that those who can be vaxed and do vax.

Of course it is understood that not everyone can be vaccinated. That's the main reason it's so important that anyone who can be vaccinated is - to decrease the liklehood that someone who cannot be vaccinated is exposed to the disease.

And of course it's important to get better treatments too. But the best of all would be to eradicate the disease, so no-one gets it ever. 

[emmy526]

i thought the main reason people vax themselves is to protect themselves....i don't know of anyone ever who has said to me, 'yaknow, i'm going to vax myself and my kids because i'm so concerned about someone else catching something'....  

Originally Posted by prosciencemum 

Of course it is understood that not everyone can be vaccinated. That's the main reason it's so important that anyone who can be vaccinated is - to decrease the liklehood that someone who cannot be vaccinated is exposed to the disease.

And of course it's important to get better treatments too. But the best of all would be to eradicate the disease, so no-one gets it ever. 

[prosciencemum]

Originally Posted by emmy526 

i thought the main reason people vax themselves is to protect themselves....i don't know of anyone ever who has said to me, 'yaknow, i'm going to vax myself and my kids because i'm so concerned about someone else catching something'....  

Frankly it was part of my decision to vaccinate. I believe it's the community minded choice. 

Of course it also has benefits for the individual, lowering the risk of catching a VPD if you're exposed to it significantly.