Vaxxing

Dear Winki,

Vaccinating offspring is plain common sense.

However, Darwinism will sort out those who cannot use logic - to no bad effect in my humble opinion. A kind of voluntary Eugenics ...

ATB from George

If i had children, there would be many vaccines they would get (e.g., MMR, DTap, Hepatitis A & B, polio) and others they would not (Influenza, HPV.)

It should be pointed out that Merck was found to be falsifying the data on its mumps vaccine a few years ago to come up to the 95% effectiveness rate required.  Of course they were also the same folks for whom internal communications were discovered showing they knew about the link between their Cox-2 inhibitor and coronary events...but suppressed the data.

And if you don't think money doesn't enter into the equation, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you.  The pressure on pharmacists to get their vaccination numbers up from the cooperate heads is very high, because the markup on the product is so high.  Four+ years in retail pharmacy (with CVS, Rite-Aid, and K-Mart) was as much as I could take, since it was all about moving units vs. actual health care.  And that attitude goes right up the pharmacy food chain to the manufacturers.

Of course the "boots on the ground" folks (pharmacists, most researchers, etc) are in it for the right reason, and doing the best they can, but I would love to see a rule whereby EVERY trial run had to be pre-registered and once completed or terminated MUST be published...not run 5 and pick the 2 you like best.  Cherry picking results is not science, it is manipulation of data.

Sadly, a lot of the commentary come from parents who have had the luxury of not experiencing the impact of certain infections in their own communities because they were vaccinated, e.g. Polio, TB, small pox.  

i speak as someone who was deaf for 18 months as a toddler following a measles infection and still has balance issues as a result of the structural damage to the middle / inner ear, 45 yrs. later. At least the hearing returned but i have hateful memories of the physiotherapy that was required to sort out my balance issues. 

No doubt there are commercial aspects that need to be considered and weighed, with appropriate checks and balances to control standards. The issue is further complicated by the different health economic frameworks that exist across the globe and make an open international debate difficult, e.g. who makes the decision, who pays...

If the issue was that clear-cut most parents probably wouldn't opt-out of their children's vaccines, as I have to assume they want what is best for their children's health. There has been a great deal of speculation in the US regarding associations with early childhood vaccines and autism (proven or not). From a population perspective, a 90% vaccination rate generally makes them effective, so not every child need be vaccinated. And, as Dr Mark points out, the pharmaceutical industry is profit driven and huge legislation lobbyers, which results in it's own source of public doubt. My children are fully vaccinated, and my wife and I discussed the related issues at the time.  

On the other hand, I've never had a flu vaccine and indirectly rely on the greater populace that do get the shots to protect me. Flu shots can be somewhat of a crap shoot anyhow, and this year it was a miss in the US. My father had a terrible bout with the shingles and I'm a prime candidate to get them since I had chicken pox. There is a relatively new vaccine for shingles, but I'm currently hedging my bets and waiting to see what the long-term fall out from that shot might be, at least over the next few years. At my age, there is a great deal of trust that needs to be established before I'll voluntarily sit and allow a pharmaceutically developed antigen to enter my bloodstream.

Finally, any mention of Darwinism or evolutionary theory in the discussion of a parent's decision to vaccinate offspring is completely misguided. And I won't even address the notion of Eugenics in this context.

Joe and others

Some thoughts in response.

The autism link (or rather lack of) is proven. it is not for debate, not at any scientifically sensible level.

Stating that as long as 90% are vaccinated then you can refuse and still be safe is a) wrong b) rather a non-sequiteur since If others shared that view, it would all fall apart. It is selfish.

I'd suggest opting out as an adult from choices and opting out children who have no personal choice in the matter is different.

Vaccines as a group are, by the standards of most modern medicines, astonishingly good drugs. They are pretty effective but not 100%, they are very safe, but not 100%. No treatment is ever perfect but the effectiveness vs risk ratios are incredibly good. Those odds vary for specific vaccines of course. If you want data check out national epidemiological data for the childhood conditions. It is easy to find, and astonishingly impressive. (below is a link to some men C data)

https://www.gov.uk/government/...p__year___region.pdf

Am I suspicious of Big Pharma-oh yes! However immunisation is without doubt the greatest medical intervention that man has ever made. It is precisely its routine effectiveness (smallpox eradicated, polio on the brink of worldwide extinction, tetanus almost a folk memory, once common disabling childhood infections such as measles, pertussis etc now rare) that we have the luxury of stroking our beards and wondering.

The 'campaigns' against vaccination were largely initiated by just as much self interest as Big Pharma themselves exhibit and are infested with bad science and bad information. We have recently had a pertussis outbreak locally because a specific community here decided to opt out of pertussis vaccination years ago, we have had the same for measles. We have seen several admissions to hospital in the affected group (now adults) and two people are suffering long term complications. That community is now beating the doors down to immunise their kids!

Do in understand scepticism re modern medicine; yes. Do I understand parents not wanting to give painful injections (flu for kids is now a nasal spray by the way); yes. Do I see parents susceptible to headlines and hype; yes. However the facts about vaccination need to be stated and restated over again, not the wacky ill informed speculation of the few. If properly informed people then want to miss them I'm absolutely fine.

Bruce

Bruce,

I'm not sure how you went from A to B above, as my statement was qualified from a population perspective. I was not stating my attitude; as I said, I made an informed decision to have my children fully vaccinated rather than put them at risk.

With regard to the usual childhood diseases, I believe parents with the means have a social responsibility to immunize their children, thereby protecting the population without such means.

Joe

Sorry, I obviously misunderstood and failed to read your post carefully. However you do state that you rely on others having flu vac to give you some protection.

if vaccination does not reach something in excess of 85% of the population then the herd immuinity protection tends to fail. this is generally achieved for childhood vaccinations (which I think are a legal requirement in some US states?) but nowhere near this is done via voluntary flu vac. Flu also mutates significantly each year thus meaning that protection 'expires' annually.

If you want protection from flu then have the vac.

Bruce

NOT PROVEN!!

Absolutely, completely, utterly and comprehensively debunked.

Andrew Wakefield was PAID to conduct his totally flawed 'research' using a tiny sample (12), which proved precisely nothing, and about which he lied repeatedly .

He was found guilty by the GMC of three dozen charges, including four counts of dishonesty and 12 counts involving the abuse of developmentally challenged children. They ruled that Wakefield had "failed in his duties as a responsible consultant", acted both against the interests of his patients, and "dishonestly and irresponsibly" in his published research. The Lancet immediately and fully retracted his 1998 publication on the basis of the GMC's findings, noting that elements of the manuscript had been falsified. Wakefield was struck off the Medical Register in May 2010, with a statement identifying deliberate falsification in The Lancet research, and is barred from practising medicine in the UK. No other researcher has ever been able to demonstrate Wakefield's assertion of a link. There is no link. 

He should be in prison. He is directly responsible for the deaths of hundreds of children.

THERE IS NO LINK WHATSOEVER OF ANY KIND BETWEEN THE MMR VACCINATION AND AUTISM. There never was, there never was a suggestion that there was. There is not.

It's fine that people believe water flows down plugholes in different directions in different hemispheres, because although it's nonsense, it is harmless.But for anyone to persist in suggesting that there is/was something in Wakefield's paper, and/or refuse to immunise children on that basis, is criminal.

Bruce,

No need to apologize. I was just reiterating stance my with regards to my children. I did the responsible thing. As far as the flu, I've been fortunate to have it only twice in the past 15 years. I know it will kick my ass when next I get it, and I'm giving the vaccine more consideration with each passing year.

As for the flu vaccine - I challenge anyone to produce the data that it is effective...because I have yet to see it.  I would rather cast my lot with adequate sleep, nutrition, and hand washing.

As Bruce says there is not a perfect drug that is totally safe.  I used to (only half kidding) tell the patients at the pharmacy "Everything back here is bad for you, it's only a question of whether not taking it will be worse."  With flu vaccine, between the numerical odds of them getting it right on the 3 strains they will pick, to the overall lack of compelling data, to the general effectiveness of common sense lifestyle factors, that one is a no go for me.

I also find it interesting that the US pushes the flu shot so much more aggressively than it appears is done in many other first world countries.  (The pharmacy pays about $4-5 for it and charges $20-30.)  Also of note is the aggressiveness and number of vaccines in the US vaccine schedule vs most other developed countries (essentially double.)  I don't think it is a coincidence that the pharmaceutical lobby has more sway here and that such is the case.

I've yet to see New York but I trust that others have and I'm pretty sure it exists 

Not this year Bruce. The virus has mutated to a point where this years vaccine is only 3% effective.

So I believe. Most years the hit rate is a wee bit better!

Bruce

Totally agree. I have reading a good book on this issue, and other data issues, that we must contend with in the desire to truly know things like the effectiveness of medical interventions.

Or you cold just read the package insert in GSK's FLULAVAL vaccine:

"Safety & effectiveness of FLULAVAL in pediatric patients have not been established."

Adam,

You might consider a thorough Brazilian waxing as an effective homeopathic treatment for those crabs. One and done.

Come on Mark-taking your information from drug company packaging is pretty woeful. You and I know they are generally useless and if anything that is a 'defensive' comment rather than of value on this debate.

It is fair to have legitimate doubts about the true population benefit of annual (rather than pandemic) flu campaigns especially those that are not targeted just at high risk individuals but given on a whole population basis. Outcome data in terms of hospitalisation, deaths and long term mobidity are not conclusively in favour across various settings. Individual efficacy is well studied-and we know varies from year to year, and according to patient group.

The safety of flu vac over millions upon millions of doses is well established. The value maybe less so.

Bruce

I know it is a CYA statement Bruce, but citing a retrospective cohort study is not exactly strong evidence either, and of all vaccines, flu vaccine has the least benefit established...even apart from the 3 virus guessing game. And such a statement does not appear in many drug inserts for drugs with known safety and outcome benefit.

And yes I realize that is also because it is nearly impossible to run double blind placebo controlled studies on vaccines, for both practical & ethical reasons.

I also saw a mass spectrometry analysis of the flu vaccine that revealed much higher levels of mercury (> 50 PPM) than is seen in other vaccines.  Why this is so I do not know.

I gave literally hundreds and never discouraged anyone from doing it, but I'll pass on it for me.

The new politicization of vaccinating our children is really disturbing for me.  I have a science education, my wife is a Ph.D. scientist (including having worked for several years on an Autism diagnostic), we both work in the life sciences industry . . . and what we read from the under-informed masses is scary.

But that's the point, at least here in the States.  These "masses" of which I speak treat their uninformed nature as a badge of pride.  They find it easy to state that 'the drug companies only care about the money and the government only wants to control all aspects of our lives and take parenting decisions away from parents,' and then find those two positions ample basis to disregard the rest.  It's not a discussion, at this point, that can be had with any sort of common sense I'm afraid.  It's pure emotion.

There is a great book on this. Basically explores the psychology of how we manage/choose to deceive ourselves in the face of all available evidence. 

I'm thinking of using this on my right knee, it's been giving me gyp for the last six months. Nothing to worry about, it only contains mild radium. I'm more concerned about the dodgy mains plug and cable..

Still the proven benefits, (seems to cure most illnesses known to man) surely outweigh the risks.

The most worrying thing in that advert is 'The Late Professor Singer'

The web is full of hokum that is not so far removed from that sort of stuff, which by repetition somehow gains respectability. Even better if some celebrity endorses it. Colonic irrigation a fine example of utter hogwash, and potentially dangerous at that. I note Gwynneth Paltrow was recently advocating steam cleaning her uterus in similar fashion. I jest not

Not that modern medicine is without its blind alleys. Doctors used radiation treatment for eczema not so long ago. I have a 1950's textbook that I use with med students to show them how we should be careful to believe we have the 'truth' in any generation; and how common sense is often what persists!

Bruce