Reply With QuoteI think it contains good vaccination information and to say the least, one side not presented often enough. I am not interested in other articles on the website about vaccination at the moment thanks.
Registered User
good vaccination information?
It bothers me that the only article that I can find on BellyBelly about vaccination is more or less "rabidly" anti-vaccination.
Now I know that obviously there are people who believe that vaccination is bad. I once had a long, sad conversation with a woman in the UK who was certain that a childhood vaccine (I forget just now which one it is that is controversial over there, but it interests me that there is no similar controversy here in Australia, and I think we had the same vaccine for a while, not certain about that one) had made her child autistic. Being interested, and a scientist by nature and profession, I did some background reading on that particular issue. It turns out that one study, done some 25 years ago, on a small group of patients who were chosen because they were already sick, tentatively made the vaccine-autism connection basically because the researchers messed up their data analysis. This result has been totally contradicted by the much larger and better designed studies that were done since then. But there are still parents in the UK who think a vaccine caused their child to become autistic, which is a really sad, angry situation for them to be in.
Another thing that worries me heaps is that my parents, when they became grandparents (to my niece), were advised to get their shots for whooping cough because it is now apparently so common in the community that older people are also at risk. I think that's appalling! Almost my whole generation has never seen a baby die of whooping cough, or any of the other fatal diseases we were vaccinated against as children, so we have no experience of how bad the diseases can be. I just bet that our mums and grandmas, having seen babies die, would never consider not getting an available vaccination for something like whooping cough.
Anyway, I've been trying to find good information about vaccination that is without all the "oooh, vaccines have nasty things in them" stuff from articles like the one I mentioned above. Frankly, the air we breathe has nasty things in it, so does the water we drink, so do most of the things we eat, but we don't freak about that, we sit down and work out whether the nasties are there in enough concentration to do us any actual harm, and if they do we take action and if they don't we don't worry about it. I also know for sure that crossing the road is far more dangerous than getting vaccinated, yet most of us cross a road every day without fear. Information such as in that article promotes fear without actually being informative, as there are no details on the risk factors of all the "scary" things mentioned. It also draws conclusions that can't be drawn from the information given, for example implying that vaccinations have caused the increased rate of chronic disease in recent decades when of course there would be a million other things that have changed in recent decades (like eating more processed food, the aforementioned nasties in air, water, food, reduction in daily exercise, etc) that could equally well be the cause of that.
Now, one very different (and better, as far as I can tell) source of information about vaccination that I've found is the articles from vaccination.org.au, particularly this one: Comparison of effects of vaccines and diseases
But I'd like to find more information from difference sources from this, so I can read more widely about the issues and discussions about vaccination.
Can anyone suggest some other sources of information on vaccination?
If we get a good bunch of varying links together, maybe we can put them into an article for BellyBelly, as the one article I can find (maybe I am missing something) is one-sided to say the least. I hate to think of any parents only reading information from that source.
♥ BellyBelly's Creator ♥
I think it contains good vaccination information and to say the least, one side not presented often enough. I am not interested in other articles on the website about vaccination at the moment thanks.
Kelly xx
Creator of BellyBelly.com.au, doula, writer and mother of three amazing children
Registered User
I feel a bit "bad mummy" here because I vaccinate DS too.
But I figure... would I rather him get the disease? Nah. The autism/MMR link is there ONLY if there is a genetic history of autism in the family, for some reason the MMR can spark some dormant gene. So for DS, while we knew it would make his eczema worse for a month, we figured that was better than him getting one of the bugs. It is a personal choice though and we can't tell people off for the decision they make. (Sadly in some cases...)
Your local GP will have LOADS of pro-vaccination leaflets, but that's more propaganda again. You just have to go with what you feel is right. And be as informed as you can when you make the choice. There are heavy metals in the vaccinations and that's not great, but you have to do risk analysis on it. Just like crossing the road or driving a car or cooking the dinner - know the risk and pick what you know is the minimum risk option.
Registered User
I would think people would be interested in getting information from more than one side of any discussion on this site. I had the impression that Belly Belly was set up as much to enable discussion as to give information, recognising that different people do have different viewpoints, and that this will often stem from them having access to different sets of information to start with.
In any case, maybe you know of some general articles (I could start fishing through the peer-reviewed scientific journals, of course, but until I have a better general understanding of the background, I'm reluctant to undertake such a huge job) that are not in favour of vaccination, that give more actual details about why. The article describes "10 reasons why parents choose not to vaccinate", but it does not discuss whether those are actually good reasons, and it uses very loaded terminology about all of them, to the point that I find it difficult to understand what the real gems of information are, if there are any in there. The article also directly contradicts information I've found from other sources that actually give some statistics of risk factors, such as the articles I linked to earlier, which confuses me. So I can't tell anything about whether the "10 reasons" are good reasons without seeing more detail about them.
So, if anyone knows of other good articles online about vaccination I would be interested to learn about them, thanks.
BellyBelly Life Subscriber
Hi there Tenar,
The immunisation that is linked to autism is the Measles-Mumps-Rubella (MMR) vaccine. A quick google will show you that it is very much as controversial here as it is in the UK! Initially, the concern was that a compound known as thiomersal, which is mercury based and was used to stimulate an immune response, might have been responsible for the side effects, but more recently it has been theorised that there is a genetic predisposition that is somehow activated by exposure to the vaccine.
The problem with pertussis being so prevalent is nothing to do with a downturn in immunisation rates. It is because, of all of the vaccines, the pertussis vaccine is the least effective. Statistics indicate that only 60% of the population achieve a strong immune response from the pertussis vaccine - which means by extrapolation, that even if the entire population is vaccinated, 40% of them will still be able to contract, and spread, pertussis. If you choose to vaccinate, then having a booster for pertussis is a good idea once you reach seniority.
The government, as part of it's public health program, presents a sadly one-sided viewpoint on vaccination; that is, that it is the only sensible option. This is not the case; there is mounting evidence that implicates the MMR vaccine in causing autism-like brain disorders, as well as evidence that the incidence of the vaccine preventable diseases was already well on the way downwards before the introduction of vaccines. I have no doubt that immunisation plays an important role in childhood health, but I also believe that, depending on your circumstances, there is certainly merit in adjusting the immunisation schedule the government maintains to avoid giving your child unnecessary immunisations.
It is for this reason that you will find articles that attempt to provide an alternative viewpoint to the conventional ones easily available elsewhere.
I too, would hate to think of parents reading information from only one source; I'd like to think that parents who take the health of their children seriously would research the topic of immunisation widely before making their decision.
Registered User
I guess I'm more pro-vaccination because in the UK we have a lot more open discussions about vaccinations (our doctors and nurses will discuss risks rather than pooh-poohing them - or maybe just my health centre is great) and fewer of them - I'd not give all the vaccinations you guys have! We don't have chicken pox vaccinations, pertussis vaccinations... OK so I think we do have a lot but they're all for really scary and serious illnesses. We can also pick and choose to have one but not another too, which is a good thing to do. And we can delay vaccinations to some extent too.
Even so, I still feel that there is little support for the "informed vaccinationer" as opposed to the "informed no-vaccinationer"; as if everyone who doesn't vaccinate is informed and those who do are not in possession of their right minds. But that's a general statement and not aimed at this website specifically.
BellyBelly Life Subscriber
Well, Rosehip Fairy, from my viewpoint, it certainly doesn't look that way; everywhere I look I see posters advising parents to vaccinate and congratulating them when they do, as well as the government offering a payment to parents who vaccinate. So it seems to me there is a lot more support for those who do vaccinate than there is for those who don't.
Registered User
Yup, that's why I did say it's different in the UK; I wish we were paid to vaccinate our children! My mother would be quids in! Here we have to pay for many vaccinations and no money back. At least the "normal" ones are on the NHS.
But that's not helping the "informed vaccinationer" either - people may believe you vaccinate for the money. Which would NOT be an issue with me, but would be for some. If only people would sit down and discuss it all openly and then you could make an informed decision either way rather than pushing one side only - paying for vaccinations doesn't help either side in the slightest.
♥ BellyBelly's Creator ♥
It's like the democrats say, 'We're keeping the bastards honest.' Just like there is labour and liberal, one without the other would not be good for civilisation. If no-one puts this stuff out there, who will? And who will know what the choices are? What will the other side get away with?
Kelly xx
Registered User
Wikipedia tells me that 157 people per 100,000 were diagnosed with pertussis in the US pre-vaccination, and the rate was around 1 in 100,000 after vaccination. That's a massive difference! It clearly protects a lot more than 60% of the population, or it would not have made such a difference.
I read that pertussis kills around 1 in 200 children under 6 months who are infected with the disease. In the US there was a big scare about the vaccine in the 1980s, leading to a lot less vaccination and also the development of safer vaccines. Deaths from pertussis have increased in the US since the 1980s. On first glance I would guess that would be directly correlated with fewer people vaccinating their children. Apparently both the vaccine and getting the disease will probably protect you for a few years, but you can catch the disease again after that.
Is there any suggestion that the MMR vaccine, even if it is causing autism-like disorders (I've not read that it is, can you please give me the links to that information, as I'm very interested in that one in particular - it seems, on the reading I've done, to be an interesting case of bad science + media getting things wrong and scaring a lot of people into a misunderstanding of the risk factors), is causing more problems than the deaths from those diseases?
Wikipedia tells me that the death rate from measles in otherwise healthy adults in developed countries is 1 in 1000. Mumps and rubella don't kill very often at all, though they both have some very nasty possible complications like encephalitis and sterility, as most people here probably know.
I managed to miss getting chicken pox when I was a kid (my siblings got it the month I was overseas), and got the vaccine for it as soon as I could as an adult. No way would I want to catch that one as an adult - it's nasty! In my opinion vaccines for things like that are great, especially for adults who never had the disease.
Registered User
Well I for one entirely agree with this. It is very important to be informed about multiple sides to any such decision.
My other opinion on the matter (and I'm certainly not afraid to state this one!) is that everyone should study more statistics at school. If people had a better understanding of risk and probability we would live more relaxed lives and we'd make better, better-informed choices about many of the things we do.
♥ BellyBelly's Creator ♥
The problem with wikipedia is that anyone can contribute. You or I could... it's not the most reliable form of information. I have contributed to it too and I know others who have.
Kelly xx
Registered User
Of course I've also contributed to wikipedia - I doubt there are any very internet-centered people (and most of us here are clearly that), who haven't
This is, in my opinion, the most powerful thing about it. Wrong information doesn't stay wrong for long. I believe it to be a very reliable source of information about science (which doesn't change very fast), less so about things like politics (do change fast), and even less so about things where you have subjective opinions, not actual facts and numbers. I'm a scientist by trade and I tell my students that a wikipedia article on the topic is a good enough reference for me, for something they want to write a short article for me on for an assignment question or whatever. That's how good I think the information is, for things in the physical sciences, at least.
In any case, any good wikipedia article (the ones that are not so good are nearly always flagged as such, or else they are very very new, certainly articles about things as well known as measles have been very thoroughly reviewed), will have an extensive list of references at the bottom, where one can check the source of the information. Wikipedia's brief is to be encylopedic, and to only present facts that can be verified elsewhere (eg papers on the research, or whatever suits that topic). So nothing should be there where the original source cannot also be checked for the details.
Someone did a study (I think it was published in Scientific American, but I might misremember the journal) where they sent articles from Wikipedia and from Britannica, on a range of scientific topics, to experts in the field. They found that the rate of errors in both encyclopedias was similar (can't remember which was worse). Wikipedia isn't perfect, but it's a pretty good source of information at least in some areas.
BellyBelly Life Subscriber
Thank you. It appears that trials on recent versions of the aP vaccine show an efficacy of nearer to 90% now - it looks like I was working from old figures, and I apologise. My point remains, though, that 10% of the population will remain unprotected from immunisation.
And to put the figures you quote into perspective - pre-immunisation, 0.1% of the population were diagnosed with pertussis; post vaccination, 0.001%. You are right, that is a significant difference; but the rate to start off with (0.1%) is still pretty small.
Note that I also have no objection to the pertussis vaccine; now that our eldest is in preschool we are currently trying to source the pertussis vaccine. We simply don't want to give her unnecessary immunusations, such as the diptheria vaccine that is bundled with it in the triple antigen.
Pertussis is quite dangerous in children under 6 months of age. However, it should be noted that a signficant exposure is required to contract pertussis - in the order of several hours of consistent exposure to someone else with the disease. Most parents would have little trouble preventing a 6 month old from being coughed over for several hours! I do believe it is wise for parents with children in child-care, where they are unable to supervise them personally and where they are being exposed to a wide variety of other children, many older, to immunise for pertussis. I'd also contend that the rise in pertussis infections in the US has more to do with that factor - more children in long-term care, means a greater opportunity for children to become infected.
Contracting pertussis almost always confers a life-long immunity. The vaccine is less effective.
Well, the main problem with those three diseases is the measles. 1 in 1000 children who contract measles will go on to develop a viral encephalopathy, or inflammation of the brain, and this can have serious side effects. Mumps, on the other hand, is a benign disease in females and is dangerous only in males during adolescence, when it can cause scarring of the sperm ducts and lead to fertility problems. And on the other side of the coin, rubella is a benign disease in males and is dangerous only in females if it is contracted during pregnancy, because it can damage the fetus.
The main objection to the MMR is that no one knows if their child is the one that is pre-disposed to developing an autism-like disorder. It's certainly a risk; statistically, the risks associated with contracting measles is higher, but considering that measles is not common (although by no means eradicated) it comes down to parental choice as to which risk is worth taking, and which isn't.
Details about the US Government's concession that the MMR may be linked to an ASD-like disorder can be found here - keep in mind that the author is quite strongly anti-immunisation, and I don't think he necessarily does the cause any favours, but he does offer coverage of the controversial decision. This study also provides another hypothesis for the link between the MMR and autism.
I certainly agree, varicella is nasty in adults. But I guess the thing is, as adults, we have a mature immune system and we are able to make the choice ourselves. No one has ever developed ASD as an adult from an MMR booster; it seems to be a condition that occurs as a result of childhood vaccinations.
Last edited by Schmickers; September 5th, 2008 at 11:54 PM.
Registered User
I always believed there was no such thing as a mature immune system because it was always growing and changing. Please correct me if I'm wrong - my immune system may respond faster than my son's because I've "seen it before" but a vaccination that is new to both of us then we'll both have the same response from our immune system.
I'd rather get DS immunised for MMR because what if he got all three as a teenager and hung out with pregnant women? Brain damage, infertile AND loads of babies affected. OK, so not likely to happen but then again the side-effects are so mild I'd rather take that risk in my situation.
Registered User
Tenar, my advice to you would be to stop googling and get yourself a copy of "Just a little P.rick" by Peter and Hilary Butler from NZ. I believe one can only be truly informed when they have read BOTH sides of the 'argument'. I know you come from a scientific background, but you will really benefit from reading this book.
Last edited by Trillian; September 6th, 2008 at 11:21 AM.
Tenar i did extensive research in DD's first year and i'm afraid to tell you i found the only way to get to a decision which i felt was solid enough WAS to read the journal articles and use the internet to learn about any and every detail necessary until i had an understanding i could rely on. It's all very well to freak out about monkey kidney cells in a vaccine solution, but finiding out WHY they use the substance is important, and i would agree with Trillian and Schmickers that reading both sides IS the only way to come to a clear conclusion.
There are as many reasons to vaccinate as not to, and where the weight of the arguments of both sides lies is very individual. My child is fully vaccinated and there are ASD's in my family. My dad has aspergers, both his siblings are on the sprectrum, their father was too.
This is a difficult rationale for some people, i know. The US case indicates that some children (1 so far has been conclusively identified, but several others are under investigation and testing) have metabolic disorders which display ASD-like symptoms which CAN be exacerbated by some of the routine vaccines on offer. My father was NOT vaccinated as a child with the modern vaccines. His father was not vaccinated at all. His father's great uncle, institutionalised at 15 for being "mentally retarded with criminal inclinations" was undoubtedly autistic in some way and was certainly not vaccinated nor exposed to any of the modern chemicals or fertilisers our generation have been. The gene is there in my family and not vaccinating in the past HAS NOT prevented it from coming out. We have lost many of our number through the generations to polio, measles, smallpox. We have lost none to ASD's. It would also be very difficult for me to rationalise not vaxing my kids in order to potentially stop them being like my dad, a man who i love with all my heart *just* the way he is.
It's an incredibly difficult and personal decision. My dad jokes that i was scientific in my approach and that any kid i have is probably going to be on the spectrum anyway, because their mum is (i have some traits, but not a diagnosible condition), and their granddad is. Perhaps we as a family are meant to be this way? Perhaps any autism brought on by my choosing to vax was inevitable because my approach to the decision-making process being a hard, statistically based one was both a symptom of the gene and the reason it would be triggered?
I don't know.
But i have good and bad news for you. The good news is that my XP had chicken pox as an adult and though it was deeply unpleasant he survived. The bad news is that the varicella vaccine is the least effective vaccine in mainstream use, it's failure rate is so high i'm not getting it for DD, i'm going to take her to a pox party instead.
Best of luck with your journey and decisions. PM me if you want more info.
Bec
Registered User
I found the book "the vaccine book" by Dr Bob Sears informative. Although all the stats are from the US, i found it interesting and helpful.
It presents information on both the risks and likelihood of contracting a particular disease and the risks associated with the vaccine. Then its up to you to decide if the benefits outweigh the risks for each vaccine/disease.
Bookmarks