What do you all think bout vaccination?

tallaght01

Hi folks,

I just thought I'd start this thread to gauge public opinion about vaccination amongst non-medics/non-scientists.

What I'm hoping for is a brief yes or no, followed by why you believe that. Yor beliefs don't have to be scientifically based. I'm really looking for your gut feeling.

Like, when I was talking to my dad about the autism nonsense, he said "well, fair enough, but I think down the track, they'll find out it was linked to autism".

That would be enough of an opinion for this thread.

I just wanna get a feel for whether people trust them, and why. I don't care if your reasons might seem silly to those who work in the area, and I'd ask people not to give people hassle who express views.

I would also ask people not to start linking crappy unproven natural medicine anti-vaccine websites. I don't mind people linking a paper (though, from past experience I'd be amazed if that happened).

So, like I said, just tell us what you think of vaccines, and why. I'd be really interested in hearing people's reasoning.

Dinner

I believe that they are one of the best things to emerge from modern medicine/science. Regardless of how effective the cure is, it's not a patch on being able to prevent it outright.

On the MMR autism thing, even when the 'study' first came out my opinion on the vaccine didnt change. I felt that the apparent risk of autism was outweighed by the benefit of preventing the diseases. Perhaps it's because I'm not a parent but I was suprised by the level of, what I saw as, irrationality amongst parents choosing to take the risk of measles because of this study, even when the study was pretty much disproved.

I've always trusted these vaccines because they don't just appear on the market overnight. They've had extensive trials and tests and the doctors and medical community have a far better view on what is and isnt safe than, say, Sky News. So if the medical community says it's safe, then thats good enough for me.

KittyeeTrix

Hiya,
Hope I answer your query correctly.....
Basically, I am a mum of 4. I have had all of my children vaccinated, my eldest is 15 and my other children are 7, 10 and 12. To my knowledge this question about the safety of vaccinations only came about 6 maybe 7 years ago...
I could be wrong but before that I personally was not aware of it. I therefore questioned what I was doing to my youngest child who is now seven before I gave it to him.
I sat down and I thought about all the children I know who had been given the vaccinations in my lifetime and I crossed referenced that against all the children whom I know were autistic.....
Funnily enough, as a parent aged 35 now, I didn't actually know any autistic people my age and I didn't know any autistic children my kids ages.
I did decide to give my last child the vaccination based upon my own observations.
I must add though, when I was 16 a friend of mine contracted the devastating form of enchapalitic measles and is still in vegatative state today almost 19 years later.....
I would implore parents to get their kids vaccinated
Don't know if that is what you were asking but hopefully it was a help!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

KittyeeTrix

tallaght01 wrote: »

Hi folks,

I just thought I'd start this thread to gauge public opinion about vaccination amongst non-medics/non-scientists.

What I'm hoping for is a brief yes or no, followed by why you believe that. Yor beliefs don't have to be scientifically based. I'm really looking for your gut feeling.

Like, when I was talking to my dad about the autism nonsense, he said "well, fair enough, but I think down the track, they'll find out it was linked to autism".

That would be enough of an opinion for this thread.
I just wanna get a feel for whether people trust them, and why. I don't care if your reasons might seem silly to those who work in the area, and I'd ask people not to give people hassle who express views.

I would also ask people not to start linking crappy unproven natural medicine anti-vaccine websites. I don't mind people linking a paper (though, from past experience I'd be amazed if that happened).

So, like I said, just tell us what you think of vaccines, and why. I'd be really interested in hearing people's reasoning.

Hiya tallaghto1
Was quite happy to reply to your vaccination question request.
Have just noticed you are online so my nose has gotten the better of me, why are you researching vaccinations, no problem if you can't or won't say... Like I said, just being nosey:)

nesf

Non-medic and I have no formal training in any biological science. I'm pro-vaccination and my son is getting all his shots. I could back it up with papers read in journals but essentially it's a question of trust.

I trust modern medicine (to an extent) but moreover I trust the opinion of my GP who I have a lot of respect for (she's as cynical as I am). I don't see any people I have respect for opposing vaccinations so it's a pretty each thing for me to be positive about.


If you want non-medic opinions though I'd start a thread on AH rather than here due to the "self-selection" that posters who skim thread on this forum will have gone through.

tallaght01

fluffyorganic1 wrote: »

Hiya tallaghto1
Was quite happy to reply to your vaccination question request.
Have just noticed you are online so my nose has gotten the better of me, why are you researching vaccinations, no problem if you can't or won't say... Like I said, just being nosey:)

I'm just curious, really. Plus I want to start putting the idea out there that we don't educate the public enough.

I work in paediatrics and public health. I'm amazed at the attitudes some people have to vaccination.

They're terrified of autism. But, I think the response they usually get is "ah don't mind that, trust us".

But they're thinking this article was published in the Lancet. The public don't realise that publishing data is sometimes just a way to put an idea out there, or that a lot of really crappy research gets published.

I've got wakefield's original papers at home with me this weekend, as I'm trying to find a simple way to describe to parents what the study was about (a lot of our well educated parents ask this), and I want to be very familiar with the other epidemiological data that proves the safety, and I want to work out a way to convey this in simple terms to parents.

But, to address concerns, I want to try and understand the concerns of parents.

Dizzyblonde

I'm a mother of 2 adult children. I didn't get the whooping cough vaccine for either of them because of a strong history of epilepsy on both sides of the family. My GP at the time fully agreed and actually recommended that I get the 2-in-1 rather than the 3-in-1.

When it came to the MMR, I had my eldest vaccinated - but when it came time for my second daughter, I really felt it wasn't right. Call it mother's instinct or whatever. And this was over 20 years ago, there wasn't a lot of adverse publicity about it then.
She went on to have both measles and mumps since then, but I still don't regret it.
I've lately seen an interview with the actor Aidan Quinn who has an adult daughter with severe autism which he and his wife swear they can trace back to just after she had the MMR - and I wonder if there's something in it. I've seen other parents who have the same story too. Maybe it's the fact that they're mixed together in one vaccine, I don't know.
I understand that vaccines are important and save x amount of lives, but the people who have adverse effects are all someone's child.

eth0_

I trust vaccinations like MMR because they've been around for a long time, it never did me any harm, nor my relatives and friends, and because there is zero scientific proof that it is harmful. In fact the only "evidence" of harm comes from quacks like homeopaths and "Doctor" Wakefield.

But I don't think this is the big issue, Tallaght01.

The main issue here is why the media are allowed to get away with scaremongering without ANY evidence whatsoever.

tallaght01

Well, we can't control the media unfortunately.

What we have is a situation where vaccinated kids have no more autism than unvaccinated kids. That's pretty compelling proof.

It's not a difficult concept.

But where we're failing is in giving people that information.

I keep hearing things about vaccines giving too many combinations at once, pertussis vaccine causing epilepsy (even a GP was in on this), overloading immune systems, MMR and autism etc.

Obviously, we all know none of the above have any basis in reality. But where are people getting their info from.
And where are the people who supply that info getting their info from.

I think that's the part of the chain that we can potentially influence.

doctor evil

I think as a consumer people should be able to get the three in one etc individually. Now to ensure all the vaccinations are taken would require some creative thinking like a deposit or tax credits.

Vaccinations protect those in the population who for whatever reason cannot be immunised. Although the illness can sometimes still be caught if the vaccine has had the vaccine.

IMO one of the most important vaccines would be for tetanus as a person can so easily injure themselves or be bitten through the skin. Everyone has stories of stepping on a nail!

tallaght01

doctor evil wrote: »

I think as a consumer people should be able to get the three in one etc individually. Now to ensure all the vaccinations are taken would require some creative thinking like a deposit or tax credits.

Vaccinations protect those in the population who for whatever reason cannot be immunised. Although the illness can sometimes still be caught if the vaccine has had the vaccine.

IMO one of the most important vaccines would be for tetanus as a person can so easily injure themselves or be bitten through the skin. Everyone has stories of stepping on a nail!

You can get individual vaccines if you pay for them.

But this is the kind of thing I'm looking for. Why do you think people would want individual vaccines?

dudara

I'm completely pro-vaccines.

With regard to the suggested autism link, I've often wondered if the rate of diagnosis of autism has more to do with educated/nervous parents than to do with the vaccine? i.e. the more that tests are performed for autism, the more cases are likely to be diagnosed.

cnocbui

Smallpox

Do you have any further questions? ;-)

THE doctor who sparked the scare over the safety of the MMR vaccine for children changed and misreported results in his research, creating the appearance of a possible link with autism, a Sunday Times investigation has found.
Confidential medical documents and interviews with witnesses have established that Andrew Wakefield manipulated patients’ data, which triggered fears that the MMR triple vaccine to protect against measles, mumps and rubella was linked to the condition.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article5683671.ece

sillymoo

Tallaght could you PM me the reference to the original journal articale linking MMR with Autism? Doing a epidemiology project on measles in the UK and could tie that in. Cheers

AtomicHorror

doctor evil wrote: »

I think as a consumer people should be able to get the three in one etc individually.

Yeah, but I don't think the state should be compelled to provide them unless there's evidence that it's actually necessary. Why pay for 4 licences instead of 1 just to cater for superstition? If people would like the monovalents they should pay for them. Now maybe there should be state incentives for having gotten prime and boost for MMR or the monovalents (to ensure people complete the vaccinations), but it's a waste of taxpayer money for the state to have to provide the monovalents themselves.

AmcD

I have to agree with vaccination. The public always seem to hold on to scares and "bad news" regarding vaccination, despite overwhelming evidence that it is safe. Of course parents want to do the best for their children and have to weigh the evidence for themselves. But Andrew Wakefield has done untold damage to rates of MMR vaccination.

The link between autism and the MMR is very much in dispute. There is definite proof that the "natural diseases" that they prevent can result in death and disability. It is all very well having a child suffer a mild dose of mumps or the measles, but it is an entirely different case when an adult catches one of these diseases. Male sterility with mumps would be an example.

There is a chickenpox vaccine available in the US. At present nearly all Irish kids get it and emerge with one or two chickenpox scars. Unfortunately my husband caught chickenpox in his thirties while working in a children's hospital. He developed encephalitis- which has a an 80% mortality rate if left untreated. I am not sure how he got to adulthood without getting chickenpox. Anyway, it has made me think about the possible merits of having the chickenpox vaccine here. But that is a whole different thread.

cuckoo

tallaght01 wrote: »

Obviously, we all know none of the above have any basis in reality. But where are people getting their info from.
And where are the people who supply that info getting their info from.

I think that's the part of the chain that we can potentially influence.

Possibly more publicity given to measles deaths/aftereffects? There are lots of vocal parents who are willing to swear that vaccines damaged their child (on tv, trashy magazines, at the school gate) and those stories get passed along. It would take a selfless parent to go public and state that they didn't have their child vaccinated, and as a result the child died of measles.

MiniMetro

Thought this might be of interest:

Read it a couple of months back in the guardian.

link

Outbreaks of mumps across Ireland and the UK at the moment as well.

nesf

MiniMetro wrote: »

Thought this might be of interest:

Read it a couple of months back in the guardian.

link

Outbreaks of mumps across Ireland and the UK at the moment as well.

From the article this quote grated on my nerves:

Harding says. "No one has given a solid explanation for why autism, asthma and attention deficit and hyperactive disorder are increasing. Is it the polluted planet, is it a rise in reporting these things or is it the injections we are giving babies?"

Seriously, it's been pretty conclusively proved that vaccines aren't linked to autism, asthma and ADHD but no, because a specific cause hasn't been generally found for increases in these then it has to be the injections. :rolleyes:

Public health is far too important to be left to the people, similar to democracy...

Dizzyblonde

nesf wrote: »

Public health is far too important to be left to the people

That may be, but mothers will always have a say in what is given to their children so they're the ones who need to be convinced.

norrie rugger

Simple thing to do is ask your doctor "are your kids vaccinated"
Or the nurse.

Or anyone you know with a Biological Science BSc, MSc, PhD!!

I would imagine that the support from the people, who have dedicated years of their life to these topics, would be massively in favour of vaccinations.

There is a very tenuous link between vaccines and possible adverse affects. There is a guarranteed link between death and absence of vaccination.

Polio/smallpox gone due to vaccination (still think that Jenner was a psycho and coward)

Measles should be gone, except for that tool Wakefield. I contracted Measles at 6 weeks and subsequently had Chronic Bronchitis till around 10 years old. Thank you, whomever did not take up the vaccine for ten years of liquid ventolin (worst thing ever in my mouth) and ten years of regular flareups causing month long coughs and asthma attacks.

AtomicHorror

norrie rugger wrote: »

Simple thing to do is ask your doctor "are your kids vaccinated"
Or the nurse.

Or anyone you know with a Biological Science BSc, MSc, PhD!!

But all this leads us to is getting people to accept scientific information on the basis of authority again. Andrew Wakefield has an MD- so going by authority it would be easy to believe him. And what's the value of going by numbers? Weighing up the numbers of authorities on one side versus the other. What we really need is to show them how to understand what we understand. How to weigh up the evidence.

norrie rugger

AtomicHorror wrote: »

But all this leads us to is getting people to accept scientific information on the basis of authority again. Andrew Wakefield has an MD- so going by authority it would be easy to believe him. And what's the value of going by numbers? Weighing up the numbers of authorities on one side versus the other. What we really need is to show them how to understand what we understand. How to weigh up the evidence.

It is not accepting on authority. It proves that this is not a "do as we say" issue but "do as we are doing to ourselves and children"

Showing them the information behind it is important but also showing that the vast majority of scientists/medical staff take it seriously and truthful enough is also important.
People want real life examples also, so the proponents of vaccination must be as vocal about vaccinating themselves/children, as the anti group are about not getting it done

nesf

Dizzyblonde wrote: »

That may be, but mothers will always have a say in what is given to their children so they're the ones who need to be convinced.

Indeed, I tagged on "democracy" to the statement to reflect how controversial and complicated the issue of who should dictate and enforce public health policy is.

As a parent I'd have strong views about parental consent being necessary but then that's balanced by a realisation that I am not in a position to tell be the best course of action with regards to medical care of my son.

AtomicHorror

norrie rugger wrote: »

It is not accepting on authority. It proves that this is not a "do as we say" issue but "do as we are doing to ourselves and children"

Leading by example is still authority. That's not how science works and it should not be how the public follow it either.

norrie rugger wrote: »

Showing them the information behind it is important but also showing that the vast majority of scientists/medical staff take it seriously and truthful enough is also important.
People want real life examples also, so the proponents of vaccination must be as vocal about vaccinating themselves/children, as the anti group are about not getting it done

I'm sure it can help in this case, but it's a bad habit to get people into and it's not how scientists acquire knowledge. Besides, if the public don't trust the scientists to tell them the truth about vaccination, then they're not going to trust their word on whether they got their kids vaccinated anyway. Trust needs to come out of the equation entirely. Show people how to understand the evidence and let the evidence speak for itself. Maybe that won't be practical for some people but I say leave the leading by example to the politicians.

norrie rugger

indeed you are right but that is in a perfect world or a world where everyone has training in the sciences.
Neither applies in this case. Unfortunately it does come down to trust, with the general public.
Much like people trust the police in terms of law, they trust doctors (to a lesser extent scientists) in terms of health.
What we have now is people pandering "alternative" crap, in a very convincing manner. A person is easy to talk to but the crowd is easily spooked and fall for this.

You say that this is not how science works, that is great for us scientists but the public are not scientists. Remember that the public are an emotional mass, especially about kids and need all the support that those with the education and training can give.
This is a world where the charlatans and media do not need to give proof, just headlines, and scientists are seen as cold hearted drones of "da man"

I'm tired and popped up on pain meds, so am rambling. I'll debate my side better on monday

Capt'n Midnight

norrie rugger wrote:

Polio/smallpox gone due to vaccination (still think that Jenner was a psycho and coward)

Polio is not quite gone yet, fingers crossed.

Measles should be gone, except for that tool Wakefield. I contracted Measles at 6 weeks and subsequently had Chronic Bronchitis till around 10 years old. Thank you, whomever did not take up the vaccine for ten years of liquid ventolin (worst thing ever in my mouth) and ten years of regular flareups causing month long coughs and asthma attacks.

It's gone in the America's 9 out of the last 10 outbrakes in the US were from people who were in Europe , two people died. At least three people have died here. Europe should have been measles free by now :mad:

Ostrom

Anyone follow the Ben Goldacre/Jeni Barnett affair?

I am curious (non-medic) as to what arguments parents present when refusing or disputing vaccination (if it is appropriate to say)?

AtomicHorror

norrie rugger wrote: »

indeed you are right but that is in a perfect world or a world where everyone has training in the sciences.
Neither applies in this case. Unfortunately it does come down to trust, with the general public.
Much like people trust the police in terms of law, they trust doctors (to a lesser extent scientists) in terms of health.
What we have now is people pandering "alternative" crap, in a very convincing manner. A person is easy to talk to but the crowd is easily spooked and fall for this.

You say that this is not how science works, that is great for us scientists but the public are not scientists. Remember that the public are an emotional mass, especially about kids and need all the support that those with the education and training can give.
This is a world where the charlatans and media do not need to give proof, just headlines, and scientists are seen as cold hearted drones of "da man"

I'm tired and popped up on pain meds, so am rambling. I'll debate my side better on monday

Yes but the problem is that they don't trust scientists or doctors any more, and that is an emotional and irrational mistrust and I really don't think that more authority is the solution. That's what the quacks are pushing down their throats now. The romantic vision of fighting the man combined with a authoritative-sounding version of our scientific language but designed only to obfuscate rather than inform. We cannot compete with that by playing that game because we're bound by verifiable truth and what we're up against is disguised lies. In the battle of one word against another theirs will always be more more exciting, more filled with promise and anecdote. We need to show them how it all really works. How to look for evidence, and how to assess its value even if they can't always understand it fully. Get them to understand the peer review system and how studies are done. So that at least they can look at someone's claim and say, "yeah but how big was that study and was it peer reviewed?".

If I can roughly assess the value of physics research without knowing anything about the field but instead knowing how the publication and review system works, how basic statistics and observation and verification work, then surely the public can get a grasp of biology in a similar way. Biology is a much more intuitive science too.

Education. Long term. It's the harder solution but one which will have a far greater impact.

AtomicHorror

efla wrote: »

Anyone follow the Ben Goldacre/Jeni Barnett affair?

I am curious (non-medic) as to what arguments parents present when refusing or disputing vaccination (if it is appropriate to say)?

Yeah, I blogged about it. Even made it onto the great big list of 170 or so blogs that covered it after the story exploded thanks to Barnett and LBC being very silly indeed.

As it began: http://thebiologista.blogspot.com/2009/02/mmr-is-safe-tell-your-friends.html

And then as it all went pear-shaped for Jeni: http://thebiologista.blogspot.com/2009/02/streisand-effect.html

nesf

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Yeah, I blogged about it. Even made it onto the great big list of 170 or so blogs that covered it after the story exploded thanks to Barnett and LBC being very silly indeed.

As it began: http://thebiologista.blogspot.com/2009/02/mmr-is-safe-tell-your-friends.html

And then as it all went pear-shaped for Jeni: http://thebiologista.blogspot.com/2009/02/streisand-effect.html

They made the classic mistake of taking something that was at that time very small and by creating a "martyr" of sorts explode it into something far more public.

(+1 to your subscribe numbers too, you shill... )