or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › More HPV news
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

More HPV news - Page 2

post #21 of 68

Here is something interesting from Roald Dahl who is the author of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and the death of his daugter from measles: 

 

"Olivia, my eldest daughter, caught measles when she was seven years old. As the illness took its usual course I can remember reading to her often in bed and not feeling particularly alarmed about it. Then one morning, when she was well on the road to recovery, I was sitting on her bed showing her how to fashion little animals out of coloured pipe-cleaners, and when it came to her turn to make one herself, I noticed that her fingers and her mind were not working together and she couldn’t do anything.


“Are you feeling all right?” I asked her.

“I feel all sleepy, ” she said.

In an hour, she was unconscious. In twelve hours she was dead.

The measles had turned into a terrible thing called measles encephalitis and there was nothing the doctors could do to save her.

 

It is not yet generally accepted that measles can be a dangerous illness.


Believe me, it is. In my opinion parents who now refuse to have their children immunised are putting the lives of those children at risk.

In America, where measles immunisation is compulsory, measles like smallpox, has been virtually wiped out.

Here in Britain, because so many parents refuse, either out of obstinacy or ignorance or fear, to allow their children to be immunised, we still have a hundred thousand cases of measles every year.
 [Since this was written in 1986, the success of the MMR vaccination has reduced this figure to several thousand each year, but unvaccinated children are still at risk, and some do still die of measles].

Out of those, more than 10,000 will suffer side effects of one kind or another.

At least 10,000 will develop ear or chest infections.

About 20 will die.

LET THAT SINK IN.

Every year around 20 children will die in Britain from measles.

So what about the risks that your children will run from being immunised?

They are almost non-existent. Listen to this. In a district of around 300,000 people, there will be only one child every 250 years who will develop serious side effects from measles immunisation! That is about a million to one chance. I should think there would be more chance of your child choking to death on a chocolate bar than of becoming seriously ill from a measles immunisation." 

 

http://www.ovg.ox.ac.uk/blogs/ojohn/how-dangerous-measles

post #22 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post

"Link on the measles stat, please.  That is way higher than anything I have read.  CDC says 1-2/1000, while other developed nations around  use 1/3000. If is worth noting that themeasles vaccine has shifted the age at which people get measles higher.  It is now more common in teens and the like, for whom it is more dangerous (although still not fatal in the vast majority of people)" 

 

"In the U.S., up to 20 percent of persons with measles are hospitalized. Seventeen percent of measles cases have had one or more complications, such as ear infections, pneumonia, or diarrhea. Pneumonia is present in about six percent of cases and accounts for most of the measles deaths. Although less common, some persons with measles develop encephalitis (swelling of the lining of the brain), resulting in brain damage. 

As many as three of every 1,000 persons with measles will die in the U.S.

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/whatifstop.htm

 

 

Thanks for responding.

 

I wish the CDC would make up its mind.

 

Here, they list is as 2 percent:

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/meas.pdf

 

 

Other places have much different numbers.  I am not doing the math, but if you take a look at this chart you will see the numbers are nowhere near 3 in a thousand in the UK.  Could it be possible that mealses is under-reported in the USA, thus making the death rate look higher?  We know doctors are not as used to seeing measles in the USA as they are in the UK, so they might miss it.  That hapenned with pertussis for a long time.   There is also the pesky fact that not everyone in the USA has health insurance.  I wonder if people with mild mealses in the USA just stay home and the numbers are not reported?  

 

http://www.hpa.org.uk/web/HPAweb&HPAwebStandard/HPAweb_C/1195733835814

 

As per Ronald Dahl - it is a sad story.  It is also an anecdote, and well over the 100 word limit.   I could post the Raggedy Ann story, an equally sad story about a vaccine reaction.    Oh, and in 1986, the year quoted in your story? 10 kids died in Britian from measles, not 20, out of 80 000 cases.  10/80000=1/8000.  Now I don't think anyones child is expendable, but it is very, very difficult to assess risk when the figures we have on vaccine side effects are so very lousy.   


Edited by kathymuggle - 7/29/13 at 8:36pm
post #23 of 68
The Roald Dahl story is from 1968 not 1986.

In the recent outbreak in Wales, 1200 cases were reported, 86 hospitalisations and 1 death. That consistent with death rates of 1-3/1000.
post #24 of 68
Here's a link with those numbers
http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-23168519

Although it was 88 hospitalisations, 1219 reported cases and 1 death.
post #25 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

Here's a link with those numbers
http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-23168519

Although it was 88 hospitalisations, 1219 reported cases and 1 death.

 

A fairly recent outbreak in the US in the early 90's also shows the 1-3 death rate per 1,000 cases. 

 

"Nevertheless, a resurgence of measles occurred during 1989–1991, again demonstrating the serious medical burden of the disease. More than 55,000 cases, 123 deaths, and 11,000 hospitalizations were reported [7]. " 

 

http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/189/Supplement_1/S1.long

 

In this outbreak, it was a little more than 2 per 1,000 cases.

post #26 of 68
Thread Starter 
Quote:

 

A fairly recent outbreak in the US in the early 90's also shows the 1-3 death rate per 1,000 cases. 

 

"Nevertheless, a resurgence of measles occurred during 1989–1991, again demonstrating the serious medical burden of the disease. More than 55,000 cases, 123 deaths, and 11,000 hospitalizations were reported [7]. " 

 

http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/189/Supplement_1/S1.long

 

In this outbreak, it was a little more than 2 per 1,000 cases.

 

Scam claims appear to include that 1 in 1000 would die from measles when completely false. In the last 20 years+ since 1992 there have been 80,000+ measles cases [counting up to now] in England & Wales and zero deaths in healthy individuals from acute measles in that time. That is a clear and completely true and accurate statement which the vast majority of people find surprising in the light of the information health officials put in the media. They would surely conclude they are being scammed: Official Data Confirms – 20th Century Measles Deaths Would Fall Exponentially – And Regardless of Measles Or MMR Vaccine.

http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/2013/05/11/update-measles-2013/

 

Mealses notification deaths in England and Wales 1940 to 2008

 
In 1966 there were 343,642 cases of meales and 80 deaths.
 
In 2006 there was one measles death in a 13 years old male who had an underlying lung condition and was taking immunosuppressive drugs. Another death in 2008 was also due to acute measles in unvaccinated child with congenital immunodeficiency whose condition did not require treatment with immunoglobulin.  Prior to 2006, the last death from acute measles was in 1992.

All other measles deaths, since 1992, shown above are in older individuals and were caused by the late effects of measles. These infections were acquired during the 1980s or earlier, when epidemics of measles occurred.

 
 
 
 
(1959 saw 539,524 cases and 98 deaths)

Dr I G Watson:
 
So far few complications have arisen. Four cases of otitis media occurred in the first 25 children, but only one had pain. No case of pneumonia has occurred, but one child had grossly abnormal signs in the chest for a few days after the fever subsided, uninfluenced by oral penicillin. One girl had a tear-duct infection and another an undue blepharitis. Of three adult males with the disease, two have been more severely affected than any of the children.
 
 
Dr John Fry:
 
In this practice measles is considered as a relatively mild and inevitable childhood ailment that is best encountered any time from 3 to 7 years of age. Over the past 10 years there have been few serious complications at any age, and all children have made complete recoveriesAs a result of this reasoning no special attempts have been made at prevention even in young infants in whom the disease has not been found to be especially serious.
post #27 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

The Roald Dahl story is from 1968 not 1986.

In the recent outbreak in Wales, 1200 cases were reported, 86 hospitalisations and 1 death. That consistent with death rates of 1-3/1000.

Ronald Dahl wrote that part and dated it  1986.  

 

It could also be consistant with 1-50 /1000

 

1 (less than 1, actually) =/= 3

 

I like precise numbers with these things.  

 

________

 

Teacozy - and anyone else interested in getting at the truth of measles figures, I think you need to look at this:

 

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/G/cases&deaths.pdf

 

In a fit of trying to prove I am right, I went and averaged the cases of measles from 1957-62, 1967-72 and 1977-82 and came up with 1/1012, 1/761 an 1/2500 respectively.

 

Around 1989 the tide turned  In 1989 it was about1/568  1990 was 1/434 and in 1991 was 1/357.  What the……????

 

After 1992 on things get really strange - with very low reported rates, but high death rates related to reported rates.  Average:  1/346.  Some years have a reported death rate over 1/100.

 

So…something is going on.  

 

Either measles is more dangerous now given that doctors and parents no longer know how to spot it and treat it (although I only imagine that can make a difference in severe cases), and/or the burden of the disease has shifted given mass vaccination onto the very young and older people - both of whom are less equipped to handle it, as the sidebar on the CDC pink book page shows.  Alternately, it could be a case of under-reporting of measles currently that makes the death rate seem high.  

 

The British Stats posted up thread paint an far less scary picture.  

 

Why the discrepancy?

post #28 of 68
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

The Roald Dahl story is from 1968 not 1986.

In the recent outbreak in Wales, 1200 cases were reported, 86 hospitalisations and 1 death. That consistent with death rates of 1-3/1000.

 

The man that died was not healthy to begin with and he was given inappropriate treatment: he was sent home by doctors, told to take paracetamol (Tylenol) and advised to stop taking detox meds, he had just started in case he was reacting to them.

 

 

Quote:

He was said to be vulnerable to infection as he had begun a detox two weeks before his death after suffering from alcohol problems. 

 

Consultant pathologist Dr Maurizio Brotto said at 5ft 8in, Mr Colfer-Williams was 'very underweight' weighing just 7st 7lbs*.

* 105 lbs



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2352740/Father-died-measles-South-Wales-outbreak-inoculated-disease-child.html

post #29 of 68

The CDC report of stats on a recent outtbreak in Europe, says this:

 

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6047a1.htm?s_cid=mm6047a1_w

 

As of October 26, 2011, a total of 12,882 (49.4%) cases had occurred among persons aged ≥15 years, 6,527 (25.0%) among children aged <5 years, and 6,423 (24.7%) among children aged 5–14 years (Table 1). The median age of patients was 15 years. Overall, 11,763 (45.1%) patients were unvaccinated, and vaccination histories of 11,825 (45.4%) were unknown (Table 1). A total of 7,288 (28.0%) measles patients were hospitalized, including 4,293 (58.9%) in WE, 2,609 (35.8%) in CEE, and 386 (5.3%) in NIS. The proportion of hospitalized patients was higher in CEE and NIS (73.1% and 49.5%, respectively), where hospitalization of measles patients is a long-standing routine practice, than in WE (19.8%), where only patients with severe cases usually are hospitalized. Nine measles-associated deaths were reported, including six in France, one in Germany, one in Kyrgyzstan, and one in Romania. Seven deaths occurred among persons aged >10 years. Four decedents were unvaccinated, and the vaccination histories of the remaining five, all adults, were unknown.

 

So  1/1433 fatality rate.  You will note the burden does seem to have shifted to older people.

post #30 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirzam View Post

 

The man that died was not healthy to begin with and he was given inappropriate treatment: he was sent home by doctors, told to take paracetamol (Tylenol) and advised to stop taking detox meds, he had just started in case he was reacting to them.

 

 

 

And he very well might have survived mealses if he had it as a child.  It is less dangerous in children.

 

Wasn't he sent home multiple times?  I really wonder if he fell throught he medical cracks, so to speak.  RIP.  

post #31 of 68
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

 

Teacozy - and anyone else interested in getting at the truth of measles figures, I think you need to look at this:

 

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/G/cases&deaths.pdf

 

In a fit of trying to prove I am right, I went and averaged the cases of measles from 1957-62, 1967-72 and 1977-82 and came up with 1/1012, 1/761 an 1/2500 respectively.

 

Around 1989 the tide turned  In 1989 it was about1/568  1990 was 1/434 and in 1991 was 1/357.  What the……????

 

After 1992 on things get really strange - with very low reported rates, but high death rates related to reported rates.  Average:  1/346.  Some years have a reported death rate over 1/100.

 

So…something is going on.  

 

Either measles is more dangerous now given that doctors and parents no longer know how to spot it and treat it (although I only imagine that can make a difference in severe cases), and/or the burden of the disease has shifted given mass vaccination onto the very young and older people - both of whom are less equipped to handle it, as the sidebar on the CDC pink book page shows.  Alternately, it could be a case of under-reporting of measles currently that makes the death rate seem high.  

 

The British Stats posted up thread paint an far less scary picture.  

 

Why the discrepancy?

 

This paper from 1980 might shed some light on this subject. Basically the better off people are the less likely they are to die of measles. 

 

Measles Mortality in the United States 1971-1975

 

 

Quote:
There was an inverse correlation between median annual family income of a county and measles death rates of a
county, with measles death rates being nearly 10 times higher in counties where median family i'ncome was less than
$5,000 than in counties where median family income was
over $10,000 (Table 3).
For the period 1973-1975, the highest death rate due to
measles alid the, highest d'eath-to-case ratio were seen in
those less than one.year of'ge (Table 4). Of the 13 deaths in
children under onec year of age, 11I occurred in the 6-11
month -age group. 'Both the death rate and the Case rate of
measles declined with increasing age. The death-to-case ratio followed a U-shap'ed p'attern with the trough being in the
5-9 age group (Table 4).

 

post #32 of 68

So the man who dies in the Welsh measles outbreak was unhealthy to start with. And measles is more fatal to people with poor lifestyles. Fine. Statistically, people choosing to not vaccinate are more likely to be high income, so that's all well and good for them and I personally hope that they all never catch a VPD and never live to regret their choice. I honestly do - I don't know which emoticon to put here to say I'm not being sarcastic. I don't wish anyone poor health - what kind of person would. 

 

BUT

 

is it OK to dismiss deaths and risk just because it only matters for people who were already unhealthy and/or living in poverty. That man in wales (a young father) could still be alive if there had not been a measles outbreak in his area. He would not have caught measles if not exposed to it, and he would not have died at that time if he did not have measles. Sure he might have died later, but then again we all will. Maybe he would have turned his health around and gone on to live to 90 and be a wonderful grandfather. We don't know. The fact is he dies of a diseases which could have been prevented if he and/or a higher fraction of those living around him had been vaccinated. I don't think that's something to dismiss just to make people feel better about choosing not to vaccinate. 

 

 It's you're right to choose not to vaccinate, but don't be in denial about the real truths of the dangers of measles and other VPDs. 

post #33 of 68
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

So the man who dies in the Welsh measles outbreak was unhealthy to start with. And measles is more fatal to people with poor lifestyles. Fine. Statistically, people choosing to not vaccinate are more likely to be high income, so that's all well and good for them and I personally hope that they all never catch a VPD and never live to regret their choice. I honestly do - I don't know which emoticon to put here to say I'm not being sarcastic. I don't wish anyone poor health - what kind of person would. 

 

BUT

 

is it OK to dismiss deaths and risk just because it only matters for people who were already unhealthy and/or living in poverty. That man in wales (a young father) could still be alive if there had not been a measles outbreak in his area. He would not have caught measles if not exposed to it, and he would not have died at that time if he did not have measles. Sure he might have died later, but then again we all will. Maybe he would have turned his health around and gone on to live to 90 and be a wonderful grandfather. We don't know. The fact is he dies of a diseases which could have been prevented if he and/or a higher fraction of those living around him had been vaccinated. I don't think that's something to dismiss just to make people feel better about choosing not to vaccinate. 

 

 It's you're right to choose not to vaccinate, but don't be in denial about the real truths of the dangers of measles and other VPDs. 

 

He could also have been alive if he had caught measles naturally as a child. I am not in denial about the real truths and dangers of measles and other VPDs, but you might be. I am a measles survivor, as were all my friends, and acquantances. I personally know what it is like to have measles as a 7 year old child and it is very much like the good doctors of 1959 described it.

post #34 of 68
That's great for you. Not everyone was so lucky.
post #35 of 68
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

That's great for you. Not everyone was so lucky.

 

True, but most are. I will repeat what Dr John Fry of Beckenham, Kent said:

 

In this practice measles is considered as a relatively mild and inevitable childhood ailment that is best encountered any time from 3 to 7 years of age. Over the past 10 years there have been few serious complications at any age, and all children have made complete recoveries. As a result of this reasoning no special attempts have been made at prevention even in young infants in whom the disease has not been found to be especially serious.

 

He also make this interesting observation:

 

In the majority of children the whole episode has been well and truly over in a week, from the prodromal phase to the disappearance of the rash, and many mothers have remarked ”how much good the attack has done their children,” as they seem so much better after the measles.

post #36 of 68
That's one small town. Seems they were also statistically lucky.

The immune system is not a muscle. It does not need a work out.
post #37 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

So the man who dies in the Welsh measles outbreak was unhealthy to start with. And measles is more fatal to people with poor lifestyles. Fine. Statistically, people choosing to not vaccinate are more likely to be high income, so that's all well and good for them and I personally hope that they all never catch a VPD and never live to regret their choice. I honestly do - I don't know which emoticon to put here to say I'm not being sarcastic. I don't wish anyone poor health - what kind of person would. 

BUT

is it OK to dismiss deaths and risk just because it only matters for people who were already unhealthy and/or living in poverty. That man in wales (a young father) could still be alive if there had not been a measles outbreak in his area. He would not have caught measles if not exposed to it, and he would not have died at that time if he did not have measles. Sure he might have died later, but then again we all will. Maybe he would have turned his health around and gone on to live to 90 and be a wonderful grandfather. We don't know. The fact is he dies of a diseases which could have been prevented if he and/or a higher fraction of those living around him had been vaccinated. I don't think that's something to dismiss just to make people feel better about choosing not to vaccinate. 

 It's you're right to choose not to vaccinate, but don't be in denial about the real truths of the dangers of measles and other VPDs. 

But why the double standard?? You dismiss death and risks from vaccines. Yo dismiss reported-but-unconfirmed-by-lab cases of severe vaccine reaction, and then turn around and cite reported-but-unconfirmed-by-lab cases of measles and measles deaths. You express concern for those at risk for disease complications, but none for those at risk for vaccine complications.

What it comes to is this:

There are people on both sides who are at risk. We don't know for sure the size of either group because of flaws in the reporting system. We are led to believe that one group is smaller than the other because of purposely misleading data from the pharmaceutical companies.

There are no screening procedures in place to identify that group, even though some risk factors are known. Moreover, people with known risk factors are urged to vaccinate anyway.

It is not ethically acceptable to demand that one set of at-risk people undergo the invasive procedure that may cause them harm in order to protect the other set.

It's a huge problem that everyone is assumed to be NOT at risk until they have a vax reaction, and even bigger problem that when they do have such a reaction, it goes unrecognized and unreported.

An alcoholic with other underlying health problems who contracts measles, is not adequately treated by doctors, and ends up dying of complications should not be viewed any differently than a child who suffers vaccine-induced seizures and resultant brain damage. Both are tragic; both should have been prevented.

But preventing the death of the first by requiring the vaccination--an invasive procedure--of the second, resulting in severe injury, is not ethical.

That would be like requiring a healthy person to donate one kidney to save the life of someone who would die without the transplant. Even if you could save 10 people with one donated kidney, or 100, it would still not be ethical.

But that's what you are doing when you demand that vaccination for the sake of here immunity.
post #38 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

That's one small town. Seems they were also statistically lucky.

The immune system is not a muscle. It does not need a work out.

With chicken pox, the immune system needs boosters in the form of re-exposure, in order to keep the dormant virus dormant.
post #39 of 68
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

That's one small town. Seems they were also statistically lucky.

The immune system is not a muscle. It does not need a work out.

Oh please, the experience of Dr Fry was no different from other GPs. Bottom line they knew by 1959 measles was no killer and they reported it truthfully without an agenda.

I am fully aware the immune system is not a muscle. I have argued against the concept of boosting it. The immune system just is, and should be more accurately described as a healing support system. What Dr Fry's mothers are describing is is not an immune boost, but one of the benefits of common childhood diseases: that of developmental gains and a cleansing of the system.
post #40 of 68
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katie8681 View Post

No, they have not had reactions to vaccines other than immunity to those diseases. they were not vaccinated for the diseases that permanently damaged them.

Are you saying you think that having an adverse vaccine related event indicates a more effective immune response to diseases?

Hm, could be. Not suggested by anything other than your anecdote, but it could be.

I don't think it's that simple. There are many possibilities.

Some children's immune systems clearly over-react, to vaccines and to everything else.

Some are sensitive to vaccine ingredients, such as thimerosal, or allergic to ingredients such ass eggs or yeast.

Some do fine with vaccines but have underlying conditions predisposing them to serious complications from otherwise mild illnesses.

And sure, some might be vulnerable to both.

The problem is that the approach to vaccines AND disease is "one-size-fits-all." It's not working. Too many are having reactions, and those that see those reactions are then reluctant to at Russian Roulette with vaccines themselves.

Unfortunately, those who don't see these reactions first hand deny that they happen at all.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations Debate
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › More HPV news