More HPV news - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#1 of 68 Old 07-28-2013, 07:32 AM - Thread Starter
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Outside the hive mind
Posts: 7,502
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 83 Post(s)

HPV Vaccines: Resounding Success or Future Failure?

This is an article on the much publicized study showing the "effectiveness" of HPV vaccines

 

UK Drug Safety Agency Falsified Vaccine Safety Data for 6 Million

 

The MHRA has been tampering with the figures to make HVP vaccines look safer than they are and encouraging health professionals not to report adverse reactions, claiming they can be 'psychogenic'.

applejuice and BeckyBird like this.

Rainbow.giftstillheart.gifsmile.gif

 

"If you find from your own experience that something is a fact and it contradicts what some authority has written down, then you must abandon the authority and base your reasoning on your own findings"~ Leonardo da Vinci

Mirzam is online now  
#2 of 68 Old 07-29-2013, 02:02 AM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,785
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 119 Post(s)

That last link makes some extraordinary claims against a UK government agency deliberately falsifying data in a way which would harm millions of young women without providing very much proof..... If it's true it would be shocking, but I cannot be convinced by the article which is linked to (or the many other non-vax sites online which copy it).

 

Take this statement from the linked article:

 

"In the UK the disease is so rare there are just 3 deaths in every 100,000 women of all ages as figures from Cancer Research UK show.

 

I followed the link to download an excel file and find this figure: 

 

 

 

That average of 3 deaths per 100,000 including data on under 24s in the UK, who in 2008 (the year of the data) had just 6 deaths from cervical cancer (and none for girls under the age of 19). For women 25+ in the UK, the rate was actually 5 deaths per 100,000. I admit it's not a huge difference, but it is a bit misleading, and it also doesn't give me a lot of confidence in the rest of the article. 

 

The article also questions the policy of HPV vaccine at age 12 to protect from a disease which only starts affecting women in their 20s and is most common in older women. That seems to completely misunderstand the mechanism by which a vaccine against the HPV virus protects against cervical cancer. No-one here I think would claim that the minute a girl becomes infected with HPV she will die of cervical cancer. The vaccine needs to be in place to give girls immunity from HPV during the time period they are most likely to be exposed to the virus (and before they have every been exposed to it, as it cannot cure a HPV infection already in place), not when they are most likely to die from cancer if they have previously been exposed to it. So it's a bit of a straw man to grumble about that in my opinion, and the vaccine needs to be given to girls before they are likely to have been exposed to HPV to be effective at all...

 

In fact from the NHS info on HPV (http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/vaccinations/Pages/why-is-hpv-vaccine-needed.aspx): 

 

"If you become infected with one of the high-risk strains of HPV, and your immune system does not deal with it, the infection can lead to cell changes and the growth of pre-cancerous cells in your cervix. This is known as cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN).

CIN is not cancer but, if left untreated, it can develop into cancer in some women. This can take up to 10 years."

 

The article linked by Mirzam also states this: 

 

"Professor Woods then advised medical professionals not to report an adverse reaction if it “may” be psychogenic. "

 

However if you follow the link they give, the letter from Prof. Woods actually says this (I have extracted all sentences with the word "may" in them (there were four instances): 

 

"Please report via the Yellow Card Scheme ADRs that you suspect may have been caused by Cervarix."

 

"Please report only reactions that you suspect may be related to the vaccine and not those associated with the injection process or procedure"

 

"If having considered this advice, you wish to report an episode which may have been psychogenic, please include only the main diagnosis or event as the suspected reaction"

 

"We may need to contact you for confirmation."

 

Further more the letter ends: 

 

"Remember, every Yellow Card report matters. Thank you for your help in monitoring the safety of this important new vaccine."

 

which I think we can all agree is an important message - that reporting an monitoring of adverse events is really essential to continue to assess the safety of vaccination programs. 


Mother of two living in UK. Daughter (2007) born in USA, son (2010) born here. I'm pro natural birth, midwife care, breastfeeding, co-sleeping, baby wearing and a keen advocate of cloth diapering. I'm a full time working research scientist (physical sciences) and I'm pro-vaccine.

prosciencemum is online now  
#3 of 68 Old 07-29-2013, 02:16 AM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,785
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 119 Post(s)

But that's all minor stuff compared to the article claiming that: 

 

"MHRA Systematically Tampered with 6000 reports of Adverse Reactions To Declare The Vaccine Safe"

 

I'm pretty sure that would be illegal if it's true, so I hope CHS has some good evidence for it.... 

 

So the article goes on to say that what happened was the 6000 reports of adverse events (from 6 million doses - that's 0.1% of doses having a reported reaction, or 99.9% of doses been given with no adverse reaction incase anyone missed it) were then subjected to an analysis to see which symptoms occurred most frequently. Symptoms were separated into categories of 

 

"A. Injection-site reactions
B. Allergic reactions
C. ‘Psychogenic’ events
D. ‘Other recognised’ reactions
E. not currently recognised"

 

according to the article. The article claims this analysis was equivalent to hiding an tampering with the reports with the aim of misleading the public to think the HPV vaccine is safer than it is, but provides no further evidence I can see to back that up, and indeed never accuses the MHRA of touching the raw data (which I assume is archived somewhere) just of doing an analysis on it to look for common symptoms. Forgive me for not seeing anything shocking in that.

 

I think this is the MHRA report they object to (pdf: http://www.mhra.gov.uk/home/groups/pl-p/documents/websiteresources/con028377.pdf). Not sure why they're talking about it now as it's 3 years old.... anyone? Did I miss a more recent version? This 2010 report is actually based on 4000 adverse reports (from 4 million doses) not the figures CHS report.  MHRA say in the report  how they identify sympotoms as pyscogenic (ie. to do with fear of the injection, rather than a side effect) by looking at the entire description of the adverse event (that's on page 8 of the report). So they look at all the symptoms reported together and then make an assessment. Rather different to how CHS presents it.... 

 

It's my opinion that this is fear mongering rubbish - distoring the truth to try to give people references which say HPV is more dangerous that all the credible reports say it is. I'll repeat again - over 4 years of routine HPV vaccination in the UK, 6 million doses have been given with 6000 reports of adverse events - that means 99.9% of girls get this potentially life saving vaccine with absolutely no problem at all..... 


Mother of two living in UK. Daughter (2007) born in USA, son (2010) born here. I'm pro natural birth, midwife care, breastfeeding, co-sleeping, baby wearing and a keen advocate of cloth diapering. I'm a full time working research scientist (physical sciences) and I'm pro-vaccine.

prosciencemum is online now  
#4 of 68 Old 07-29-2013, 05:22 AM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,207
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 58 Post(s)
Prosciencemum, did you even look at the chart of reported reactions and their classifications? You apparently think that it's fine to report reactions like myalgia, arthralgia, migraines, convulsions, grand mal seizures, asthma, etc., as "psychogenic events."

"No worries, ma'am, your daughter's asthma is just a 'psychogenic event.' No real risk there."

Migraine is sometimes listed as "psychogenic event," sometimes as "other recognized reactions," sometimes as "allergic reactions," and sometimes as "not currently recognized." Oh, yes, THAT'S reassuring...
applejuice likes this.
Taximom5 is online now  
#5 of 68 Old 07-29-2013, 05:32 AM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,207
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 58 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

It's my opinion that this is fear mongering rubbish - distoring the truth to try to give people references which say HPV is more dangerous that all the credible reports say it is. I'll repeat again - over 4 years of routine HPV vaccination in the UK, 6 million doses have been given with 6000 reports of adverse events - that means 99.9% of girls get this potentially life saving vaccine with absolutely no problem at all..... 

But 6 million doses were given to 2 million girls, not to 6 million girls. It's a 3-dose series, remember?

And the fact that a reaction was not reported does not mean that it never occurred, nor that there was "absolutely no problem at all."
applejuice likes this.
Taximom5 is online now  
#6 of 68 Old 07-29-2013, 07:04 AM
 
MamaMunchkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 356
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)

6000 adverse events over 6-million doses.
Or, 1 adverse event per 1000 doses.
Or, "nothing happens" to 99.9%.

99.9% looks good, say, for a quiz - probably even an A.  But, let's see what this means in other context, say, for flying.

There are about 30,000 commercial flights per day in the US.  If flying is 99.9% safe, then on average one expects 30 flights - per day - not per month, not per year … to have serious problems.  If this were the stats, I personally won't fly myself …

If I have to guess … one counter argument would be that the benefits outweigh the risks.  
However, regardless whether one deems a given vax safe enough or not - the safer it is, the bigger the benefits/risks ratio will be.  

So, why are we, as parents, not demanding better safety, esp. if you vax?  Why instead all the resistance and undermining against advocacy for safer vaxes?






 


Pro rights (vaxes).
MamaMunchkin is offline  
#7 of 68 Old 07-29-2013, 07:08 AM
 
MamaMunchkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 356
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)

Yet another article on Japan and HPV:

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/806645

 

First 2 paragraphs from the article:

 

UPDATED June 25, 2012 —The Japanese government withdrew its recommendation to use human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines in girls last week, citing concerns from the public about adverse effects, according to news reports.

The announcement is in stark contrast to the pronouncement last week by health officials in the United States that vaccination rates in teenage girls should be increased after a study concluded that estimated vaccine effectiveness is "high."


Pro rights (vaxes).
MamaMunchkin is offline  
#8 of 68 Old 07-29-2013, 07:40 AM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,785
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 119 Post(s)

I think maybe some people misunderstand what pyschogenic means in this context. 

 

I can totally understand how an asthma attack or a migraines could be triggered in someone due to fear of a needle. That would make that particular reporting of asthma or migraine "physocgenic" in the way the term is meant here. 

 

Given this was a period of time in which those administering the vaccine were being actively encouraged to report problems, I'm happy that 99.9% of doses being given without a report means they occured without a problem happening, but I'm also happy to admit that's an assumption. We can expect some people may have not bothered to put in reports (not doing their job properly). I prefer to assume the medical profession would not deliberately hide problems to make the vaccine look safer, but I accept that others assume completely the opposite, as is their right. Neither of us have any way to prove our point on that.


Mother of two living in UK. Daughter (2007) born in USA, son (2010) born here. I'm pro natural birth, midwife care, breastfeeding, co-sleeping, baby wearing and a keen advocate of cloth diapering. I'm a full time working research scientist (physical sciences) and I'm pro-vaccine.

prosciencemum is online now  
#9 of 68 Old 07-29-2013, 07:43 AM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,785
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 119 Post(s)
Quote:



So, why are we, as parents, not demanding better safety, esp. if you vax?  Why instead all the resistance and undermining against advocacy for safer vaxes?


 

 

But we are demanding that medicines (including vaccines) be as safe as they possibly can be. Although it's my opinion that many people who contribute to non-vax sites would be much better employed adding to that call than in saying all vaccination should cease as it's significantly more dangerous that the diseases it's meant to protect against. 

 

Vaccination will never be 100% safe - but that doesn't mean it's 100% worthless or that it's more dangerous than the alternative (ie. the whole population being unvaccinated). 


Mother of two living in UK. Daughter (2007) born in USA, son (2010) born here. I'm pro natural birth, midwife care, breastfeeding, co-sleeping, baby wearing and a keen advocate of cloth diapering. I'm a full time working research scientist (physical sciences) and I'm pro-vaccine.

prosciencemum is online now  
#10 of 68 Old 07-29-2013, 10:48 AM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,207
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 58 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

But we are demanding that medicines (including vaccines) be as safe as they possibly can be. Although it's my opinion that many people who contribute to non-vax sites would be much better employed adding to that call than in saying all vaccination should cease as it's significantly more dangerous that the diseases it's meant to protect against. 

Vaccination will never be 100% safe - but that doesn't mean it's 100% worthless or that it's more dangerous than the alternative (ie. the whole population being unvaccinated). 

It's outrageous that your arguments are against "people who contribute to non-vax sites" (is that your current label for what you used to call "anti-vaxxers?") rather than addressing the concerns of those of us who DID vax, you have a dismissive and demeaning attitude towards rhose of us who learned the hard way that severe reactions go unrecognized and unreported. You do us a grave disservice by either ignoring or denying the validity of our children's reactions, and by implying that our children's severe reactions are an acceptable risk.

"Vaccines can never be 100% safe" is a lame excuse when said to those who have suffered severe reactions.

We could just as well say that diseases will never be 100% non-fatal, and parents with potentially at-risk children should just accept it, and that their children should be kept out of schools.

At some point, you need to admit to yourself, if not to the rest of us, that you are insisting that parents of vaccine-injured children sacrifice their child to protect yours--and that those parents will probably never, ever forgive you.
applejuice and Devaskyla like this.
Taximom5 is online now  
#11 of 68 Old 07-29-2013, 12:03 PM
 
Katie8681's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Northern Cali
Posts: 676
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
It's completely possible that had it not been for vaccination, vaccine injured children may not have lived past infancy, having died from any number of VPDs. I am saying this with the understanding that some posters here think that vaccine injuries are much more frequent than I think they are.

At home amongst the redwoods treehugger.gif with my husband and my son, born 7/5/11 familybed1.gif  Instant CNM, just add caffix.gif !

Katie8681 is offline  
#12 of 68 Old 07-29-2013, 12:15 PM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,785
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 119 Post(s)

@taximom - please make this less personal. We are asked to talk about the issues not each other.

 

I chose to use the term non-vaxer to be more polite as people have complained about my use of "anti-vaxer" in the past. What term should I be using to describe groups which promote the idea that vaccines are much more dangerous than mainstream sources let on, that vaccines are not responsible for saving anyone from VPDs and that suggest that no-one should be vaccinated?

 

How many times do I have to write that I accept that rare serious side effects from vaccines occur? That's very very sad for the people they happen to, and I wish it wasn't the case. It doesn't change the fact that overall vaccines have saved millions of lives, and on balance for most modern vaccines it's safer to have them than to not. A random person reading this online is more likely to benefit from vaccines than to face any serious side effects. 


Mother of two living in UK. Daughter (2007) born in USA, son (2010) born here. I'm pro natural birth, midwife care, breastfeeding, co-sleeping, baby wearing and a keen advocate of cloth diapering. I'm a full time working research scientist (physical sciences) and I'm pro-vaccine.

prosciencemum is online now  
#13 of 68 Old 07-29-2013, 01:09 PM
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,530
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 391 Post(s)

"That's very very sad for the people they happen to, and I wish it wasn't the case. It doesn't change the fact that overall vaccines have saved millions of lives, and on balance for most modern vaccines it's safer to have them than to not. A random person reading this online is more likely to benefit from vaccines than to face any serious side effects. " 

 

It's kind of like peanut allergies.  As many as 1 percent of people have an allergy to peanuts and while it is extremely sad and devastating to the parents of a child who died from a peanut allergy, it doesn't mean they should go around trying to talk every parent out of ever letting their child eat peanuts or peanut butter. Their child suffered a rare reaction. Most people don't.  Most people enjoy peanuts and peanut butter. 

 

Of course this is not a perfect analogy because there isn't a risk associated with *not* eating peanuts, while there is a risk (a greater risk in my opinion) of not vaccinating than to vaccinating. 

 

As someone posted in another thread, your child is many many times more likely to die from a television falling on top of them than from a vaccine reaction.

 

Even if I concede that every case of something like GBS is caused by vaccines (which I don't), if we stopped vaccinating for, say, measles which causes death in up to 3 out of every 1000 cases, at least 100 children would have to die to prevent one case of GBS since GBS occurs in 1 out of every 100,000 people.   Do you think that's worth it? 


“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson 
teacozy is offline  
#14 of 68 Old 07-29-2013, 02:23 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,207
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 58 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katie8681 View Post

It's completely possible that had it not been for vaccination, vaccine injured children may not have lived past infancy, having died from any number of VPDs. I am saying this with the understanding that some posters here think that vaccine injuries are much more frequent than I think they are.

Katie, anything is possible, but my vaccine-injured children have had vaccine-preventable diseases that thy were not vaccinated for, and they were fine. They actually had a much easier time than their vaccinated friends. And I've heard the same reports from other parents.
applejuice likes this.
Taximom5 is online now  
#15 of 68 Old 07-29-2013, 02:51 PM
 
Katie8681's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Northern Cali
Posts: 676
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post


Katie, anything is possible, but my vaccine-injured children have had vaccine-preventable diseases that thy were not vaccinated for, and they were fine. They actually had a much easier time than their vaccinated friends. And I've heard the same reports from other parents.

That's very lucky for them. My uncle is deaf from childhood mumps and my MIL has post-polio syndrome and is battling to stay out of a wheelchair. My face is scarred from chicken pox (not that I cry about it or anything, but I like that my kid runs a better chance of not having facial scars than I did). 

 

That's my anecdata to your anecdata, but research backs up my impression.


At home amongst the redwoods treehugger.gif with my husband and my son, born 7/5/11 familybed1.gif  Instant CNM, just add caffix.gif !

Katie8681 is offline  
#16 of 68 Old 07-29-2013, 04:20 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,207
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 58 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katie8681 View Post

That's very lucky for them. My uncle is deaf from childhood mumps and my MIL has post-polio syndrome and is battling to stay out of a wheelchair. My face is scarred from chicken pox (not that I cry about it or anything, but I like that my kid runs a better chance of not having facial scars than I did). 

That's my anecdata to your anecdata, but research backs up my impression.

No, actually, it does not.

There is no research on whether those sensitive to vaccines are also sensitive to diseases and vice versa.

Those of us who have severe reactions to vaccines aren't necessarily reacting to the antigen in the vaccine. Some have documented reactions to thimerosal, which, despite prosciencemum's trust in its safety, was banned by the Fda in over-the-counter contact lens solutions and eye drops in 1998.

There are studies indicating that other ingredients in vaccines, such as aluminum sulfate, can cause or trigger autoimmune disorders.

You didn't mention whether your relatives who suffered complications from diseases also had reactions to vaccines, but I can tell you that chicken pox facial scars are vastly preferable to vaccine-induced brain damage.
Devaskyla likes this.
Taximom5 is online now  
#17 of 68 Old 07-29-2013, 04:36 PM
 
Katie8681's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Northern Cali
Posts: 676
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
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.

At home amongst the redwoods treehugger.gif with my husband and my son, born 7/5/11 familybed1.gif  Instant CNM, just add caffix.gif !

Katie8681 is offline  
#18 of 68 Old 07-29-2013, 04:40 PM
 
Katie8681's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Northern Cali
Posts: 676
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Taxi, what if my uncle had died from mumps? Is it preferable do you think to have a vaccine induced brain damaged child, or a dead child?

At home amongst the redwoods treehugger.gif with my husband and my son, born 7/5/11 familybed1.gif  Instant CNM, just add caffix.gif !

Katie8681 is offline  
#19 of 68 Old 07-29-2013, 06:32 PM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,131
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 180 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

 

But we are demanding that medicines (including vaccines) be as safe as they possibly can be. Although it's my opinion that many people who contribute to non-vax sites would be much better employed adding to that call than in saying all vaccination should cease as it's significantly more dangerous that the diseases it's meant to protect against. 

 

Vaccination will never be 100% safe - but that doesn't mean it's 100% worthless or that it's more dangerous than the alternative (ie. the whole population being unvaccinated). 

 

I tend to find non-vaxxers do more as lay people to promote vaccine safety that lay pro-vaxxers.  Non-vaxxers are usually the ones saying the studies have not been done, there is data missing, there is conflict of interest, etc...while pro-vaxxers defend vaxxing.  The reason for not vaccinating are complex and they do not only come down to vaccine safety.  Non-vaxxers are not only going to advocate for vaccine safety, as vaccine safety is not the only issue.

Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post

 

Even if I concede that every case of something like GBS is caused by vaccines (which I don't), if we stopped vaccinating for, say, measles which causes death in up to 3 out of every 1000 cases, at least 100 children would have to die to prevent one case of GBS since GBS occurs in 1 out of every 100,000 people.   Do you think that's worth it? 

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)

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Katie8681 View Post

That's very lucky for them. My uncle is deaf from childhood mumps and my MIL has post-polio syndrome and is battling to stay out of a wheelchair. My face is scarred from chicken pox (not that I cry about it or anything, but I like that my kid runs a better chance of not having facial scars than I did). 

 

That's my anecdata to your anecdata, but research backs up my impression.

research does not back up your anecdotes.  The vast majority of people do not fall deaf from mumps, and I have no idea on chicken pox facial scarring, but I don't see very many people wandering around with facial scarring.  As per Polio, it is asymptomatic in something like 95% of people.  I don't want to get Polio, I think it one of the vaccines that makes the most sense , but saying research backs up your anecdotes is false.


There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
#20 of 68 Old 07-29-2013, 07:00 PM
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,530
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 391 Post(s)

"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

 

 


“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson 
teacozy is offline  
#21 of 68 Old 07-29-2013, 07:21 PM
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,530
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 391 Post(s)

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


“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson 
teacozy is offline  
#22 of 68 Old 07-29-2013, 08:25 PM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,131
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 180 Post(s)
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.   

applejuice and Devaskyla like this.

There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
#23 of 68 Old 07-29-2013, 11:21 PM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,785
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 119 Post(s)
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.

Mother of two living in UK. Daughter (2007) born in USA, son (2010) born here. I'm pro natural birth, midwife care, breastfeeding, co-sleeping, baby wearing and a keen advocate of cloth diapering. I'm a full time working research scientist (physical sciences) and I'm pro-vaccine.

prosciencemum is online now  
#24 of 68 Old 07-29-2013, 11:23 PM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,785
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 119 Post(s)
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.

Mother of two living in UK. Daughter (2007) born in USA, son (2010) born here. I'm pro natural birth, midwife care, breastfeeding, co-sleeping, baby wearing and a keen advocate of cloth diapering. I'm a full time working research scientist (physical sciences) and I'm pro-vaccine.

prosciencemum is online now  
#25 of 68 Old 07-30-2013, 05:08 AM
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,530
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 391 Post(s)
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.


“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson 
teacozy is offline  
#26 of 68 Old 07-30-2013, 06:34 AM - Thread Starter
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Outside the hive mind
Posts: 7,502
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 83 Post(s)
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.
applejuice likes this.

Rainbow.giftstillheart.gifsmile.gif

 

"If you find from your own experience that something is a fact and it contradicts what some authority has written down, then you must abandon the authority and base your reasoning on your own findings"~ Leonardo da Vinci

Mirzam is online now  
#27 of 68 Old 07-30-2013, 07:06 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,131
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 180 Post(s)
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?

fruitfulmomma and applejuice like this.

There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
#28 of 68 Old 07-30-2013, 07:14 AM - Thread Starter
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Outside the hive mind
Posts: 7,502
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 83 Post(s)
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


Rainbow.giftstillheart.gifsmile.gif

 

"If you find from your own experience that something is a fact and it contradicts what some authority has written down, then you must abandon the authority and base your reasoning on your own findings"~ Leonardo da Vinci

Mirzam is online now  
#29 of 68 Old 07-30-2013, 07:16 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,131
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 180 Post(s)

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.


There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
#30 of 68 Old 07-30-2013, 07:17 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,131
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 180 Post(s)
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.  


There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off