Private school pupils at greatest measles risk ...

[Stillhomewardbound]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/10021904/Private-school-pupils-at-greatest-measles-risk.html

This is a headline and first para that is pungent on so many levels. Firstly, there is the DT's indignation that the nation's private school system might be so afflicted (abserrlootly gharstly!!). Second, the revelation that MMR avoidance may have been rife amongst the 'Range Rhuavver' set ('My Tarquin will NOT be brain damaged ... have you any idea how much we've payed to put his name down for 'Icklestone Grange Hall'? It's the very best prep school in the area.); and third, the consequences of 'combying' an established immunisation programme (and one not too expensive at that) in the interests of economies. Why the ffff did they not leave well alone? Even if the suspicions of MMR are unfounded, its introduction has been sufficiently counter-productive as to introduce doubt into a trusted system.

[decantor]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/he...sles-risk.html

This is a headline and first para that is pungent on so many levels. Firstly, there is the DT's indignation that the nation's private school system might be so afflicted (abserrlootly gharstly!!). Second, the revelation that MMR avoidance may have been rife amongst the 'Range Rhuavver' set ('My Tarquin will NOT be brain damaged ... have you any idea how much we've payed to put his name down for 'Icklestone Grange Hall'? It's the very best prep school in the area.); and third, the consequences of 'combying' an established immunisation programme (and one not too expensive at that) in the interests of economies. Why the ffff did they not leave well alone? Even if the suspicions of MMR are unfounded, its introduction has been sufficiently counter-productive as to introduce doubt into a trusted system.

Let us set aside for a moment the irresistible urge to use the outbreak of a serious disease as an excuse to lob rotten tomatoes at Tarquin and his mummy. So.....

1) The DT article contains this:

Prof Ashton was the director of health in Cumbria last September when there was a measles outbreak in Sedbergh School, a private mixed-sex establishment, which infected 66 pupils. When doctors were attempting to manage the outbreak they found that of the 66 cases, 31 involved pupils who had not been vaccinated, or had only been partly vaccinated, or whose records could not be established.

The logical conclusion from the figures therein is that 35 pupils who had been vaccinated contracted the disease. Thus either the vaccine is of dubious efficiency, or the DT has misreported the figures.

2) There is more recent 'evidence' that Wakefield just might have been right - eg here

3) Private schools, and especially boarding schools, take all pupil health issues very seriously - every new intake will be medically screened as the school physician will need an up-to-date record. However, these schools are in no stronger a position to insist on immunisation than any other school.

4) Protective indignation on the DT's part is evident only to those determined to find it: I see implied criticism of the private schools. Yet it is undoubtedly true that a former government's economies contributed to this calamity - single jabs were withdrawn, and Wakefield's research was not independently duplicated, as he'd requested. Now we have a problem.

[Stillhomewardbound]

My post is reflecting on the Telegraph's presentation of this story. It points up a trend, rightly or wrongly, among private schools in terms of measles cases.

I know nothing as to the precise demographic of this current outbreak, but I do query the presentation of the Telegraph, which, as I suggests, implies an issue at play in the private education environment. Such, as my not be a concern for that paper on a grander scale.

There then comes the 'Tarquin' factor which is not the easy lobbing of rotten tomatoes but, rather, a legitimate query as to the preponderance of case of measles among a given group.

As for item (4) in the previous post, here we may see a melding of views. My only quibble, however, would be the statemment ... 'that a fomer government's economies contributed to this calamity'. Can I suggest the better use of 'former governments'.

I think we ought to acknowledge that the two-party system ended with Tony Blair who was happy, albeit nascently, to stick with the overall Thatcher/Major scheme of things.

Put it this way. PM Cameron has no plans for a return to a single vaccine programme, so, talk of 'this party' or 'that party' is redundant.

[Resurrection Man]

My post is reflecting on the Telegraph's presentation of this story. .....

No the Telegraph story makes no pejorative observations at all in its first paragraph. All is factual. No observations made whatsoever.

Any perceived/imagined slant/bias/bigotry in the article is apparent in your reading alone.

[teamsaint]

Jean makes an interesting related point here on another thread.

http://www.for3.org/forums/showthread.php?8187-peanuts&p=287620#post287620

[An_Inspector_Calls]

Decantor:
The statement "When doctors were attempting to manage the outbreak they found that of the 66 cases, 31 involved pupils who had not been vaccinated, or had only been partly vaccinated, or whose records could not be established" is too muddled to draw any firm conclusion since the 31 included three separate categories.

Your point two links to an article made sometime around 2006 (at least that's the time of the sub-linked Daily Mail article). Since then we've moved on in terms of evidence for and against both Wakefield and MMR.

[An_Inspector_Calls]

Allergies and immunisation: correlation but not causation?

http://www.vaccinestoday.eu/facts/12-do-immunisations-cause-allergies/

"There are many other studies which argue against any connection. Doctors in the Netherlands evaluated all published scientific articles written between 1966 and 2003 and concluded that no increased allergy risk after immunisation has been established.

The reunification of Germany is sometimes seen as an informal – but extremely large – experiment in how immunisation policy can affect allergies. Immunisation rates were close to 100% in East Germany where vaccination was compulsory. Prior to reunification there were hardly any allergies.

After Germany was reunited, vaccination was no longer legally compulsory and the immunisation rate decreased. At the same time, allergies became more common. This would imply that while some aspect (or a combination of aspects) of modern living is responsible for higher allergy rates, vaccination is not part of the equation.
"

[jean]

Jean makes an interesting related point here on another thread.

http://www.for3.org/forums/showthrea...620#post287620

I was just thinking that myself.I've always resisted having a 'flu jab because I'm lucky enough not to be particularly susceptible to such infections.

After my sister had a horrendous reaction to the 'flu vaccine (this wasn't just her own idea - it was what the doctor thought) I am even more determined.

Fortunately there isn't any pressure on me to be vaccinated for the common good.

[Richard Tarleton]

2) There is more recent 'evidence' that Wakefield just might have been right - eg here

Decantor, I'd be cautious about citing anything off the Mercola website as evidence, even in inverted commas - see here.

I had measles while doing time at boarding school, long before vaccinations - they certainly provide ideal conditions for infectious diseases. My mother was of the generation that sent their children to mumps parties in the hope they would "get it over with" :erm:

[MrGongGong]

2) There is more recent 'evidence' that Wakefield just might have been right - eg here

I'm sorry BUT
we really have to stop promoting these fictions
the man is NOT a doctor , he was struck off for very dodgy practices indeed
and has managed to trick people into thinking that there is an element of truth in his beliefs

The problem with this is that there is (and particularly in the USA) a strong "movement" that believes that Autism is somehow a curable disease which leads many folk to seek out a "reason" rather than find other strategies. The medical model of disability in this area serves no one well at all.

I find it very offensive indeed to have this charlatan somehow given credibility again
He should be made to pay for the cost of treatment of all those who have contracted measles as a result of non vaccination,

[french frank]

Hmm, well, I 've had an outside email about one or two comments here as this is a controversial subject, so I'll try and pick out the keys points (as I, with my poor understanding of the issues, understand them).

Firstly, it seems to depend how you read the DT article as to the message you take away from it. The Lancet article which is reported there is making the point about 'reservoirs of disease' which then pose a risk to the wider population. It doesn't matter whether these are (as mentioned) children of "gipsies and travellers", or children from overseas/middle class children in private education: if they are themselves at risk and mix with the general population, there might be a risk of an epidemic. (Arguably, if the DT focuses on 'middle class children', it is speaking to its predominant readership).

The Lancet article also speaks of "under immunised" children, as well as those who have not been vaccinated at all. There is an implication that 'middleclass' parents would be most likely to have read - and "be in thrall to" the discredited Wakefield research.

To quote from the email I received: "There are good reasons to do with uptake for giving multiple not singular jabs - the child gets a sore arm, maybe a bit of fever, the parent / s don't bring the child back. Result - partial immunity / non-immunity. There is no new evidence..."

But the point is also made that there are still certain strong advocates 'out there' of non-vaccination. To quote again: "They are barking mad & aggressive."

The medical advice is that all parents should ensure, as a responsibility to the rest of the population, that their children are fully immunised, whatever their social class or the type of school they go to (or, presumably, keep their children away from other children entirely). And that schools should check the 'immunisation status' of their pupils - especially those from abroad where different immunisation policies may pertain.

On an unrelated matter to Radio 3, I don't want this to become a forum on the rights and wrongs of the medical evidence.

[Richard Tarleton]

There was an interesting discussion on Newsnight a couple of nights ago - at the end of the discussion, Dr Ben Goldacre dropped in the (to me, and to Jeremy Paxman) fascinating nugget that these health scares not only come in cycles, but observe cultural boundaries which they do not cross. So we had the MMR scare which nobody else did. France had a scare unique to France about Hepatitis B vaccinations leading to Multiple Sclerosis, Nigeria one about polio vaccinations leading to infertility. These scares are social, cultural and political phenomena - by implication not medical ones. Available on iPlayer for 4 more days, the studio discussion starts at 8.53.

[Pabmusic]

...2) There is more recent 'evidence' that Wakefield just might have been right...

Very unlikely. Wakefield's original paper (now pulled by The Lancet) described nothing more than a 'case series' - anecdotes of twelve cases at the Royal Free. It was not a cohort study (comparing the incidence of autism between the subjects and a control group) or a case-control study (comparing the subjects with a non-autistic group). Autism, colonic problems and the MMR vaccine are all quite common, so twelve cases is a minute group - especially remembering that the Royal Free has a national specialist unit where patients were referred from all over the UK (so the cases would not be representative of a typical group).

Given all this, Wakefield's paper did not actually find a clear link with anything. And his team also found no evidence of a link with autism, but suppressed the findings. Wakefield nevertheless called for separate vaccinations. It later transpired that he had received a substantial amount (more than £400,000) from a firm of solicitors who represented all twelve sets of parents, eleven of whom sued the NHS for giving their children the MMR vaccine. This all happened in 1998, but very few knew of it until the press took up the case in 2001 (or thereabouts - I can't recall), about the time the Blair's son, Leo, was due to receive his first MMR. The prevarication of the Blairs over whether Leo had received the MMR served to whip the media into a frenzy (with not a science correspondent in sight) that led to swathes of children not being vaccinated. We are now reaping the result.

In 15 years there has been no significant study that supports Wakefield.

[MrGongGong]

In 15 years there has been no significant study that supports Wakefield.

:ok:

Some people will believe all sorts of nonsense
I should know , I used to live in Totnes :yikes:

[Barbirollians]

I cannot believe that some people are still peddling this nonsense about MMR - it evidently explains why there is still a resistant minority to the vaccine - and the consequence is that a lot of children are getting very ill from their parent's ill-founded fears.