Thank you for my Vacine & Autism

[RedTomato]

We decided not to vacinate our baby daughter.

The autism link was only one small part of it, which we mostly ignored anyway.

My father worked as a GP (Brit front line health general practioner) in a small community for many decades, and his advice was to go ahead with the vacine if we wanted to, but that in his opinion, he had observed that they caused a small degradation in general health over the rest of the person's life.

His point was that vaccines are a trade off - you introduce foreign material straight into the bloodstream, gain some years of immunity to the relevant disease, but against that, you cause damage to the body's immune system, and create a slight overall decline of general health.

He also pointed out that most diseases are caused by poor housing, poor hygiene, poor diet, overcrowding etc, and that national disease rates for specific diseases started declining due to Victorian public hygiene improvements well before vaccines for these specific diseases were rolled out.

Where I live, in west London, has a slightly higher rate of tuberclosis than average, due to high immigration and a couple of bad estates. Our baby's health visitors kept trying to persuade us to accept TB vaccine.

We did our research, and found TB is a disease of poor housing, overcrowding, damp houses etc, none of which apply to my family, luckily enough, as we live in a lovely airy, dry, light flat on a nice road.

Catching it is also next to impossible if you don't actually live with the diseased person in the same crappy housing.

So we refused the TB vacine. To hear our health visitors carry on, you would have thought we supported the Black Death. They told us all sorts of scare stories, treated me like an idiot etc. Way to get my support, right.

xoxo

Tomato

 

[aloofman]

My father worked as a GP (Brit front line health general practioner) in a small community for many decades, and his advice was to go ahead with the vacine if we wanted to, but that in his opinion, he had observed that they caused a small degradation in general health over the rest of the person's life.

His point was that vaccines are a trade off - you introduce foreign material straight into the bloodstream, gain some years of immunity to the relevant disease, but against that, you cause damage to the body's immune system, and create a slight overall decline of general health.

No offense to your father, who I'm sure was a capable doctor, but does he have any scientific study to back up his "observation" that vaccines cause a "small degradation in general health"? Every unbiased study I've ever heard of says that the benefits of vaccinations far outweigh the relatively rare bad reactions that can be caused.

 

[RedTomato]

Well, they wanted to do an amnio to see if the baby had the trisomy problem. Now things get interesting, I was knowledgeable enough to know that an amnio can (not often) cause a miscarriage. So I asked 3 different doctors over a 2 day period what the odd of a miscarriage were, (I am not making this up, as in HeeHaw 'truth is stranger than fiction") I got 3 different answers ( they were all obgyn's in the same practice) the answers I got were 1 in 300, 2 in 300, 3 in 300. Ok so I got the feeling it was low, but possible. Now the next question is, if the baby has trisomy is there anything we can do to "cure" or help her by knowing it from the amnio. Answer-NO. Well why do it? If you want to abort. (Notice if you don't ask no one will tell you, you just go get an amnio) So we could get peace of mind or horrors, either way my wife would not abort, and the amnio would increase the odds of losing a possibly wonderful child.
...
What I want those reading this to understand is; know what you will and won't do, know what and why you are having a test BEFORE you have it, UNDERSTAND the consequences of each test and procedure BEFORE you have it-don't blindly do it cause some Dr said to. We could have had an amnio to see if our baby had trisomy based on a VERY LAME screening and had a miscarriage of my perfectly healthy 6 yr old Miranda Grace.
BECAREFUL AND WEARY, BE YOUR BEST ADVOCATE-CAUSE SOMEONE ELSE MIGHT NOT BE.

I had almost eactly the same experience. Our baby was diagnosed as being at risk of Downs Syndrome. After considering the same issues, we had a procedure slightly similar to an amino, with the same risks, because we felt the situation needed clarifying.

The hospital were very keen for us to have the amino, and we were told it carried a 1 in 200 risk. Fortunately, everything went fine, and the results were good.

Come the birth, it was found (by accident) that my partner had a streph B infection. This is very common, 1 in 3 women have it.

The hospital refused us a water birth, which my partner had desperately wanted, wanted to pump my partner and her unborn baby full of antibiotics at birth etc.

We did our research, found that in our circumstances, there was a roughtly 1 in 5000 risk, except if a certain sequence of events occured, when it went to 1 in 1000.

So we refused antibiotics, with clear instructions that we would accept them if that certain sequence occured. (to simplify, a gap of more than 48 hours between waters breaking and birth.)

To hear the hospital, you would have thought we were condeming our baby to death. I had to argue the case with 14 different staff while assisting my partner through a 30 hour labour, despite formally agreeing our plan with medical staff a month before the birth...

I found it hypocritical that they were ancouraging us to accept a 1/200 risk of death just to discover some information of dubious relevance, but refused to accept our decision on a 1/5000 risk.

To make it even worse, I found this hospital had a policy of not bothering to scan all pregnant women for strep B anyway, meaning that 1 in 3 of their births have this infection present and undiagnosed, waterbirths and all, yet almost all of these births go perfectly fine.

So why give us so much hassle? why refuse a waterbirth to my partner when she desperately needed one?

Like StuBeef says, you gotta do your own research, make your own decisions, and be your own best advocate.

Next time, we're having it at home, hire a water tub and all

xoxo

Tomato

 

[stubeeef]

The issue is not the science behind the vacine, the issue is the preservative used to dispense it. There are other ways, safer, but more costly was than the preservative they are using. There is a marked increase in autism when this preservative became vastly more present. That is the link.
I want my kid vaccinated, and did, but had I known of the preservative issue, I would have asked and paid for a version without it.

 

[aloofman]

There is a marked increase in autism when this preservative became vastly more present. That is the link.

No, there has been an increase in observed autism rates over a similar time span that the preservative has been used. That doesn't prove that the latter causes the former. It creates a suspicion that warrants investigation. So far the most scientific studies haven't shown a link. There could still be one we haven't detected yet. You could make the argument that they should switch to another preservative anyway just to be on the safe side.

 

[stubeeef]

No, there has been an increase in observed autism rates over a similar time span that the preservative has been used. That doesn't prove that the latter causes the former. It creates a suspicion that warrants investigation. So far the most scientific studies haven't shown a link. There could still be one we haven't detected yet. You could make the argument that they should switch to another preservative anyway just to be on the safe side.

I'll concur with your version, either way there is suspicion, and I would rather avoid the likelyhood. I think more will come to light very soon, and will swing the ball to or away from that preservative.
Staytuned, btw what is wrong with Scarborough Country? It was good enough for Kennedy...

 

[aloofman]

I'll concur with your version, either way there is suspicion, and I would rather avoid the likelyhood. I think more will come to light very soon, and will swing the ball to or away from that preservative.
Staytuned, btw what is wrong with Scarborough Country? It was good enough for Kennedy...

Except for the whiny moron that hosts it, I suppose it's not much worse than the other "news" talk shows. Every time I've turned it on, he was complaining about something. I can only stand it for about 30 seconds.

 

[MongoTheGeek]

So we refused the TB vacine. To hear our health visitors carry on, you would have thought we supported the Black Death. They told us all sorts of scare stories, treated me like an idiot etc. Way to get my support, right.

Never mind that it takes months to kill or even seriously injure you and is highly treatable.

 

[RedTomato]

No offense to your father, who I'm sure was a capable doctor, but does he have any scientific study to back up his "observation" that vaccines cause a "small degradation in general health"? Every unbiased study I've ever heard of says that the benefits of vaccinations far outweigh the relatively rare bad reactions that can be caused.

Yeah, he actually lectures in hospitals and to postgrad medical students now on the immune system. Sorry to be so vague, but having grown up in such a medical environment, and seen the stress my dad went through, I have strenuously avoided any career linked with medicine, or even learning too much about it...

He's got bookshelves full of research and studies on this topic, which I avert my eyes from when I visit him

I'll stick my neck out and say i think he's refering to the general rise in chronic diseases, diseases which go on and on, and are 'difficult' to treat, such as arthritis, cancer, AIDS, etc.

That's as opposed to 'acute' diseases, from which you get ill, stay ill for a few days/weeks, then recover from, back to full health. That's his preferred mode of illness, rather than something which rumbles on at a low level, running through a gamut of treatments, slowly getting worse and worse over the years.

[EDIT] I'll try to link it to your question, and say that I think he means that even if there is no 'bad reaction' as such, the body's overall defences are compromised, with subtle effects that take years to show up. Sorry I'm definitely not an expert in this area.

xoxo

tomato

 

[jimN]

Vaccine conspiracies

I've been reading the forums on this site for over half a year but this has been the first thread that has actually driven me to register and post a reply. It's always interesting to see people's take on things that i deal with on a daily basis but it is this rejection of modern medicine that never fails to surprise me. We've seen a number of advances in medicine in the last fifty years and the vaccine program would be described by many health professionals as one of the greatest successes. Preventing illness is by far and away the best way to reduce morbidity and mortality (although obviously it isn't as glamourous as treating ill children but seeing sick children is never pleasant).

The vaccine prgram in england is tried and tested and appropriate:
2,3,4 months of age - 5-in-1 (diptheria, tetanus and pertussis [whooping cough] polio and haemophilus influenza B) + Men C. The DTP vaccine until recently did contain traces of mercury but the process has now changed and it is no longer in there. Everyone is aware of how serious polio is and someone pointed out earlier in the thread that HiB can cause meninigitis. HiB also causes epiglottitis, a serious condition affecting the upper aware that can precipitate life threatening airway spasm if the throat is irritated, and these children have to work very hard to keep the airway open. The DTP part of things protects against largely benign diseases that would be so common that rare complications would be relatively frequent occurences given the size of the population. Men C is potentially fatal, obviously we'd love to be able to protect against men B but we can't at present but bacterial meningitis is often very severe and neurological sequelae are common, as is end organ damage or even auto amputation of digits and occasionally limbs.

The MMR vaccine that has had such bad publicity here is effective and you have to remember that the scandal is over 5 years old and that the original work by Wakefield has been heavily discredited and contradicted. However, whilst everyone was so keen to leap on the 'evidence' when it was first published, better and more recent research that supports the vaccine is treated as suspicious. The reason combined vaccines are given that way are threefold: 1. convenience + less iritation to child, 2. compliance - if you split these things up people start to pick and choose their components and it is hard enough getting people in for all their jabs as it is, 3. cost - in the UK we have a finite budget for health services spread across a near bottomless demand, of course cost is an issue. People seem to forget that all of these conditions have serious consequences. Measles is, for the most part, a benign viral illness but in rare cases the consequences are serious - interestingly enough you'll find autism listed as a possible complication and also the far more unpleasant sub acute sclerosing panencephalitis. Rubella again is prettty harmless but pick it up when pregnant and then things get nasty - i have seen a child with congenital rubella and at present she doesn't look like she'll ever leave hospital. As for mumps - the reason we're so scared of it is that mumps orchitis can knock your fertility off, as a bloke the though of not having the potence you always took for granted is a bit scary!

People who don't immunise tend to rely on what is called herd immunity - the idea that if enough children are protected then the prevalence of the disease will be low enough that their children will never see it. This is flawed on two counts. First if everyone is doing it there goes your herd immunity and two the child is never actually protected and so adult exposure (or adolescent exposure) which can be more harmful, as i mentioned above, may take place. Herd immunity is important for immunocompromised children and those who have yet to be given protection through immunisation, choosing to get your children jabbed needs to be a selfless act to a certain extent.

To address a couple of other points raised here. TB is not an easily diagnosed easily treatable disorder that is only caused by bad housing!! The chances of being exposed to TB in a country with rising levels of homelessness and immigration are pretty good and as such assuming you are safe because you live in your nice little house and don't mix with the 'bad types' is foolish. You never know who'll end up in your child's class at school. TB itself often has a very insidious presentation and is not always in the lungs - it can cause collections and damage pretty much anywhere. Treatment lasts at least a couple of months and can go on for up to a year. The diagnosis is very difficult and has to be clinical because tests take an age to come back and the antibiotics used are many, foul and in one case hepatotoxic.

As for the group B strep comments. Yes the rate of carriage in women is very high and the incidence of sepsis in neonates is in the region of 1 in 3000, and i tootally agree with your sentiments re amniocentesis and chorionic villous sampling. However, children who develop sepsis will get sick very very quickly and death is a common consequence. As a department i know that we would welcome not having to keep in these children whilst giving them antibiotics and putting their parents through hell. But no-one likes to see a healthy child die and that is why we do it. You're right, your child has a very low risk but we look at it as one preventable death in a year and we look to achieve that.

Finally, having been through a medical education in Britain and now working in a children's department i can say that i have never heard of a link between vaccination and long term good health. Cancer and arthritis are more prolific because of an aging population that isn't bneing killed off by other things - life still has 100% mortality! Arthritis in particular isn't helped by everyone getting more plump. As for AIDS, given the theories regarding its origin from animals it seems that vaccination is an unlikely precipitant.

That's my take on things, just felt compelled to share it.

Competing interests:
JN is not a father but looks after children at work and gets really annoyed with parents who smoke even if they insist 'it's always outside the house'.

 

[rt_brained]

I'm a very good driver.

 

[Gizmotoy]

No, there has been an increase in observed autism rates over a similar time span that the preservative has been used. That doesn't prove that the latter causes the former. It creates a suspicion that warrants investigation. So far the most scientific studies haven't shown a link. There could still be one we haven't detected yet. You could make the argument that they should switch to another preservative anyway just to be on the safe side.

Sure, it definately warrants an investigation. At this point, we don't know enough about its causes to make a recommendation either way about the link. Although, it's easy to be skeptical of the studies disproving the link. A good friend of mine (who is in medical school) attended a vaccination lecture at a major university medical school where the speaker insisted it was the medial community's duty to protect the drug companies from links between autism and thimerosal. Only then would they be able to continue to develop vaccinations and take risks during their development. While I can see the advantages of such a course of action (vaccines are extremely important), why should a doctor go out of their way to protect a potentially negligent company? This feeling is, unfortunately, widespread within the medical community. While thinking on a global scale is commendable, a doctor operates on a small scale. I don't see how you would be able to recommend your patients take the thimerosal vaccines knowing the risk involved, especially when there are viable alternatives.

To me, the proof is in the phasing-out of thimerosal in the US (although we're still shipping it to other countries). Clearly, the risk is there and someone knows it. Until then, I would say that it is advisable to request vaccines that have not been preserved with thimerosal as opposed to denying all vaccinations. Even if studies down the road clearly illustrate a link between thimerosal and autism, the risk of contracting the diseases the vaccines cause seems far greater.

 

[aloofman]

Sure, it definately warrants an investigation. At this point, we don't know enough about its causes to make a recommendation either way about the link. Although, it's easy to be skeptical of the studies disproving the link. A good friend of mine (who is in medical school) attended a vaccination lecture at a major university medical school where the speaker insisted it was the medial community's duty to protect the drug companies from links between autism and thimerosal. Only then would they be able to continue to develop vaccinations and take risks during their development. While I can see the advantages of such a course of action (vaccines are extremely important), why should a doctor go out of their way to protect a potentially negligent company? This feeling is, unfortunately, widespread within the medical community. While thinking on a global scale is commendable, a doctor operates on a small scale. I don't see how you would be able to recommend your patients take the thimerosal vaccines knowing the risk involved, especially when there are viable alternatives.

To me, the proof is in the phasing-out of thimerosal in the US (although we're still shipping it to other countries). Clearly, the risk is there and someone knows it. Until then, I would say that it is advisable to request vaccines that have not been preserved with thimerosal as opposed to denying all vaccinations. Even if studies down the road clearly illustrate a link between thimerosal and autism, the risk of contracting the diseases the vaccines cause seems far greater.

I agree. By no means should suspicions about a link be used to justify letting a Big Pharma off the hook. The danger is that people will shun vaccines that save lives based on rumor and hearsay.

 

[Sun Baked]

Interesting, looked at one of the other sites I look at ...

And the guy running it, who has an autistic child, thinks all this is hogwash.

He says the standards for autism have loosened, and they are getting much better at detecting it -- so of course the rates have gone up as a result.

By the standards they used 20 years ago, there isn't a change in the rate of autism.

---

Of course since the rate of thimerisol usage has gone down, you'd expect a decrease ...

However there are other things to look at if the rate continues to stay stable.

Edit: watch it's probably a far out combo of factors like dental visit at the time of a vaccine containing aluminium phosphate.