Six Reason to Question Vaccinations

[Ivor the Engineer]

Nah Deetee, we should insist everyone drives three-wheelers

 

[Cuddles]

Check out how lethal garden ponds are!

http://www.nationalwatersafety.org.uk/watersafetyathome/gardenponds.htm

Get rid of your pond now! Don't you care about your kids?!

See, this is why your argument looks so stupid. It is not possible to get rid of all small bodies of water. They happen all over the place, all by themselves. Some of them are useful or necessary. Even essentially useless ones may have positive aspects, such as looking nice or keeping fish alive. Add to that the impossibility of actually enforcing any such law. Just as with cars and guns, all the aspects need to be taken into account. Does a risk-benefit analysis actually say ponds are more trouble than they're worth? Is there a single, simple solution or would many, complex measures be needed? Is it even possible to enforce any of those measures?

With cars, guns and ponds, the risk/benefit analysis says that it is generally better to have them than to ban them, although some restrictions are placed on them. There is no single way to solve the problems, so we have to rely on a whole bunch of factors. And finally, it is pretty much impossible to enforce. How are the police going to know you have an illegal pond? How can they prove it was not just a natural formation?

Vaccines are so much easier. There are a couple of very simple questions. Does the vaccine help prevent the disease, or reduce the severity? Does it cause less problems than it solves? Could the money be better spent elsewhere? The answers to the first two are yes in the vast majority of cases. The answer to the third question is exactly what this report was about, and people with far more expertise than you with far more data at their disposal than you have decided that vaccinating chickenpox would be worth the cost. I trust them a lot more than I trust you.

 

[Skeptic Guy]

Only if spending the money on prevention or treatment for 'that some other way' would not save more lives using a similar amount of money. MMR is probably worth it. Varicella vaccine, no way! E.g, let's save 100's of kid's lives in the third world before we save 7 in the UK.



It's not the harm to 'these children's lives', it's all the other kids (and adults) who don't get treated (as well as they could) because there's less money and resources left to spend and use on them. Try explaining to a mother's children that she's going to die soon because we spent all the money vaccinating them against chickenpox, meningitis and flu.

But why are you looking at it as an either / or proposition. Where is the data that indicates that routine childhood immunization leads to childhood death from other health issues?

Many people have natural immunity to bacteria that cause meningitis. In fact, no one knows why the few who do get it, get it. Currently, it's considered just extremely bad luck.

If you worry enough about your kids getting meningitis to do something about reducing their risk of contracting it by a small amount, you must be in a state of constant fear, given all the much more likely risks to their life they face every single day. Talk about ignoring the elephant(s) in the room.

Ivor, it has nothing to do with "fear". I am not in constant fear for my children's health, but rather I want to provide them with the best health care I can. I can't prevent them from ever being sick and suffering, but I am sure as hell going to do what I can to minimize that. However, I don't lie awake at night sweating about it.

Whether a vaccination saves one child or a thousand, it's worth it.

 

[Acleron]

Why not think of having childhood chickenpox as a very safe one-off medical treatment?

There are several abstracts here that discuss various cost benefit studies of chickenpox vaccination.

Two predicted in America $5-7 savings per $ spent on vaccination.
One predicted in England and Wales that it wasn't economic.
A literature review claimed generally large savings.
It looks as if a straight hospital cost vs vaccination shows a loss but including costs incurred by the care-giver (parents) in time of work etc, there is an overall benefit.

Oh and it prevents kids getting ill and dying, a purely emotional response I know, but there you are.

Looks like a win-win situation except for the increase in shingles in adult populations.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

There are several abstracts here that discuss various cost benefit studies of chickenpox vaccination.

Two predicted in America $5-7 savings per $ spent on vaccination.
One predicted in England and Wales that it wasn't economic.
A literature review claimed generally large savings.
It looks as if a straight hospital cost vs vaccination shows a loss but including costs incurred by the care-giver (parents) in time of work etc, there is an overall benefit.

Oh and it prevents kids getting ill and dying, a purely emotional response I know, but there you are.

Looks like a win-win situation except for the increase in shingles in adult populations.

Doesn't that strike you as fudging figures to justify a decision that has already been made?

Direct medical costs accounted for 10% of the total costs in both groups. The largest cost driver in patient care was caregiver productivity losses, which amounted to $316.5 in the younger age group and to $182.7 in the older age group.

<snip>

The costs associated with varicella infection in normal persons without a varicella vaccination program have been estimated to be approximately $400 million, 95% of which is the cost of caring for a child at home.

Those are just a made-up numbers.

Despite variability in data and model assumptions, the studies suggest that universal vaccination of infants is attractive to society because large savings occur from averted unproductive days for parents. For the healthcare payer, universal vaccination of infants does not generate savings.

So the only way they can justify it is by making up figures for the cost of a parent looking after the child for a few days. Ever heard of paid holiday? Don't many parents stay at home anyway during the years their child is likely to get chickenpox?

Interestingly, although I'm no "expert" (as you all like to point out) my estimate of the cost per life-year gained (£6259) was not far off when you multiply it by the factor of 3.5 (£21906) I mentioned at the end of the post.

Adolescent vaccination is estimated to cost approximately 18 000 pounds sterling per QALY gained from the NHS perspective.

And this is just disgraceful:

BACKGROUND: The influence of providing information about complications of disease and vaccine cost on parental decision to vaccinate against varicella was assessed. METHOD: During telephone interviews of 330 parents of infants aged 9 months, parents were asked if they would agree to have their child vaccinated and were presented information first about varicella complications and then about cost of the vaccine. RESULTS: When complications were explained but information about cost was not, 94% of parents were favourable toward having their child vaccinated. When complications were not explained but cost was presented, this percentage was only 34%. When both cost and complications were presented, 60% of parents were favourable toward the vaccine. INTERPRETATION: In improving receptivity towards varicella vaccine, parents should always be presented data regarding varicella complications by their health care provider.

The more I read about these types of tactics public health bodies are using to get compliance, the more I distrust their "advice". They appear to have been reduced to little more than pushers for drug companies' products. By behaving in this way they are bolstering the anti-vaxers claims:

"They are lying to / misleading you about this, so what else are they lying to / misleading you about?"

 

[Cuddles]

Doesn't that strike you as fudging figures to justify a decision that has already been made?

No, it strikes me as including all the factors rather than just a select few.

Those are just a made-up numbers.

Prove it.

So the only way they can justify it is by making up figures for the cost of a parent looking after the child for a few days. Ever heard of paid holiday? Don't many parents stay at home anyway during the years their child is likely to get chickenpox?

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employment/Employees/WorkAndFamilies/DG_10026555
There is no legal requirement for paid compassionate leave. As for parents staying at home, mine certainly weren't, and I come from a fairly well-off, dual income family, not, for example, a single parent struggling to pay the bills in a minimum wage job.

And this is just disgraceful:

You think it's disgraceful that they say parents should be given all the facts?

The more I read about these types of tactics public health bodies are using to get compliance, the more I distrust their "advice". They appear to have been reduced to little more than pushers for drug companies' products. By behaving in this way they are bolstering the anti-vaxers claims:

"They are lying to / misleading you about this, so what else are they lying to / misleading you about?"

Seriously, what the hell are you talking about? You quote a report which says parents should be told about complications, specifically highlight that part, and then complain that they are lying about things. Engage brain, then post.

 

[Acleron]

Doesn't that strike you as fudging figures to justify a decision that has already been made?

These were predictions made prior to the decision in the US. And it strikes me that they are trying, in peer reviewed journals, to arrive at a real cost benefit ratio including societal costs. I must admit it surprises me because my back of the envelope calculation for the UK was a cost of £40,000 vaccine cost per hospitilisation and I found it hard to see the hospital average charges and care giver costs at anywhere near this figure. Rather than accuse people who are more experienced, better qualified and have more data of simply fudging their figures, it prompts me to delve deeper into their data and methodology.

 

[kellyb]

Let's not forget that the varicella vaccination wares off after less than 20 years, meaning that more than one shot is needed to avoid cases of breakthrough chickenpox in adulthood.

Why not think of having childhood chickenpox as a very safe one-off medical treatment?

It's an additional dose that's needed to stave off primary and secondary vaccine failure in childhood. It would or will be a third (or more) doses needed later, possibly throughout life, to keep later infections from happening.
And that's just for classic chickenpox.
There's shingles, too, to add into the equation. Since no one really knows for sure exactly how that will pan out, it seems like one end of the spectrum of possibilities to be considered is universal vaccination in childhood getting everyone in the society hooked (sorry...couldn't think of a better word) on chickenpox shots for life.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employment/Employees/WorkAndFamilies/DG_10026555[/url]
There is no legal requirement for paid compassionate leave. As for parents staying at home, mine certainly weren't, and I come from a fairly well-off, dual income family, not, for example, a single parent struggling to pay the bills in a minimum wage job.

How many people in the UK have either:

a) Another family member (e.g., grandparents) to look after their child for a few days while they are at work

b) entitlement to 20+ days paid holiday per year

c) The ability to throw 'sickies' to look after their kids (or recover from a late night drinking session)?

How do parents cope when their children have colds or stomach bugs?

You think it's disgraceful that they say parents should be given all the facts?

Try reading what it said, rather that what you thought it said. It said nothing about all the facts, only that they should be told of the complications.

Seriously, what the hell are you talking about? You quote a report which says parents should be told about complications, specifically highlight that part, and then complain that they are lying about things.

Rather than flat-out lying (like making up figures for death rates which we have already seen for measles), they are most likely misleading parents without emphasizing the remoteness of those complications actually occurring.

Engage brain, then post.

Personal insults are so easy, aren't they?

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

These were predictions made prior to the decision in the US. And it strikes me that they are trying, in peer reviewed journals, to arrive at a real cost benefit ratio including societal costs. I must admit it surprises me because my back of the envelope calculation for the UK was a cost of £40,000 vaccine cost per hospitilisation and I found it hard to see the hospital average charges and care giver costs at anywhere near this figure. Rather than accuse people who are more experienced, better qualified and have more data of simply fudging their figures, it prompts me to delve deeper into their data and methodology.

Perhaps I have a better developed BS detector than you?

 

[Deetee]

During telephone interviews 330 parents were asked if they would agree to stop driving their 4x4s to school. They were presented with information about the damage 4x4s can do both to the environment and to children they collide with en route, and information about the costs of sending their own children to school by bus.
RESULTS: When 4x4 risks were explained but information about bus cost was not, 94% of parents were favourable toward sending their child by bus. When 4x4 risks were not explained but bus cost was presented, this percentage was only 34%. When both bus cost and 4x4 risks were presented, 60% of parents were favourable toward sending their children by bus.
INTERPRETATION: In improving receptivity towards school bus utilisation, parents should always be presented with data regarding the risks of alternative transport by their local education authority.

I agree, quite disgraceful. If they can lie like this, what else are they lying about?

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

(From my post in another thread, this shows how parents are lied to)

From the transcript of a programme on immunization:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/science/casenotes_tr_20061003.shtml

...
PISANI

So she's had all the normal immunisations as a baby and Men C and the MMR. Have you heard about the new pneumococcal vaccine, have you seen it advertised on…?

MOTHER

Yeah I've heard an advertisement on the telly but I don't actually know the actual name of the injection.

PISANI

Well we've now discovered that if we give this vaccine it will prevent pneumococcal meningitis and there's an awful lot of deaths as children from this, so we're offering this to all children. What I'll do today is I'm going to do the pre-school booster today and I'm going to give you a leaflet on the pneumococcal if you like or we can do it all today, but if you like we can wait.

...

An awful lot of deaths from pneumococcal meningitis?

So it seems our health care providers in the UK aren't above lies to coerce parents into having their children vaccinated.

And they wonder why parents don't trust them.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

I agree, quite disgraceful. If they can lie like this, what else are they lying about?

Again, read what it actually states:

INTERPRETATION: In improving receptivity towards varicella vaccine, parents should always be presented data regarding varicella complications by their health care provider.

It says NOTHING about informing the likelihood of those complications, only that the list of complications should be presented to improve "receptivity". I.e. scare the parents and they'll have their kid "protected".

E.g.,

"Chickenpox can lead to many different complications, including: <insert list here> and death."

 

[Acleron]

Perhaps I have a better developed BS detector than you?

I couldn't possibly comment on that without upsetting you.

 

[Deetee]

Again, read what it actually states:

It says NOTHING about informing the likelihood of those complications, only that the list of complications should be presented to improve "receptivity". I.e. scare the parents and they'll have their kid "protected".

I did read it again. It merely says, and I quote, that parents were presented with "information first about varicella complications"

Now that may well have included information about the likelihood of their occurence. Where does it say that it didn't, and that only a "list of complications be presented to improve receptivity"?

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

I did read it again. It merely says, and I quote, that parents were presented with "information first about varicella complications"

Now that may well have included information about the likelihood of their occurence. Where does it say that it didn't, and that only a "list of complications be presented to improve receptivity"?

I'm sure they put the complications in context for the parents, just like PISANI did for the mother in the transcript I quoted.

In the whole of the UK there is typically 200 cases per year of pneumococcal meningitis, of which 150 cases are in 0-16 year olds. Given a fatality rate of less than 20%, that's about 30 deaths per year of children from pneumococcal meningitis. That is not "an awful lot of deaths".

So was she scaremongering or not?

 

[Skeptic Guy]

I don't know, what is the official definition of "an awful lot of deaths" in terms of the number of deaths?

Would you consider 50 deaths "an awful lot"? 100 deaths? Or do we need to start looking at 6 digit death rates before it could be called "an awful lot"?

And is the number of cases of meningitis so low because of the fact that everyone is innoculated against it?

(SNIP)...they are most likely misleading parents without emphasizing the remoteness of those complications actually occurring.

Evidence?

 

[Capsid]

One death is one too many surely? Measles vaccination has prevented deaths from this disease; it used to be about 10 a year in the UK before MMR introduction. I'd say that was worthwhile.

 

[Belz...]

It is not a ridiculous statement, it just goes against your totally screwed-up perception of risk.

Hit a nerve ?

1 in a 1000 (at most in the US) unvaccinated children die of measles. Once you have had measles you are immune for life. Vaccination has nothing to do with it. There is a 1 in 345 chance you will be killed with a firearm if you live in the US your entire lifetime.

1/1000 deaths, one of which could be my own child, and I can stop it easily by getting the kid vaccinated for free. Hummm...

And to answer your second post, no, I'm not anti-vax at all. I'm anti-scaring-people-with mis-information-and-sanctions-if-they-don't-comply.

Fair enough.

 

[Belz...]

Let's try again:

If 1000 children get measles in the US, one dies.

And how many more would get the measles without vaccination ?

The issue is with coercing parents to have their children vaccinated using lies, mis-information and (in the US) sanctions for non-compliance for what amount to pretty small risks to the children's health.

I think you're using far too strong a word with "lies".

And death isn't a small risk as far as the parents are concerned.

998 deaths a year. Heck, we manage to kill over 3 times that many on the roads in the UK each year.

You're right. Stupid children, anyway, right ?