 |
|
Comment
A pox on vaccines
Parents who refuse to have children immunised are regarded as dangerous
cranks - in defiance of the facts
Anne Karpf
Guardian
Wednesday January 16,
2002
We call it propaganda when
governments peddle "facts" which are demonstrably untrue. And yet the claim
that without vaccination measles is a stalking killer is disseminated by
both the Department of Health and most medical journalists, despite strong
counter-evidence. In 1976, Professor Thomas McKeown, investigating trends in
mortality, compared declining death-rates from infectious diseases with
medical interventions since the cause of death was first registered in 1838.
He found that immunisation had no significant effect on the trend of the
death-rate from measles, which had fallen to a low level before mass
vaccination was introduced, because of major improvements in sanitation and
nutrition. So too had morbidity, the incidence of the disease.
Those of us who haven't had our children vaccinated aren't cranky
obsessives or zealous Jehovah's Witnesses. On the contrary, we're mostly
pretty well-informed, as you have to be if you refuse the orthodoxy of
vaccination. We do so for two main reasons, neither of them specifically to
do with autism, which most people would agree is dreadful but only affects a
small number of children.
The first, and most shocking one, is that vaccination simply can't
sustain the claims made for it. In the US immunisation rates are as high as
98% is some areas, and yet there are still regular measles epidemics. The
Centres for Disease Control in Atlanta found that 80% of measles cases in
1985 occurred in children who had been vaccinated, while a 1987 outbreak
affected a secondary school more than 99% of whose pupils had had live
measles vaccine. In Italy there were just 10 deaths from measles between
1989-91, even though they had only 40% coverage from the vaccine. In the
following two years coverage from the vaccine grew, as did deaths from
measles (to 28). So much for "herd immunity".
Second, we believe that in the case of infectious diseases, Pasteur's
germ theory has been oversold. Pasteur, Robert Koch and others focused on
the bacteria that caused infections, which medicine then tried to zap. Most
anti-vaccinators argue that the host, ie the body, is as important as the
infecting germ. Starting from a quite different paradigm, they prefer to
nourish the body's own immune system, which vaccination (they maintain)
impairs.
Opponents of immunisation feel vindicated by epidemiology, for measles
isn't a disease that strikes randomly unless routed by vaccination. On the
contrary, it turns out to be depressingly class-conscious and poverty-aware.
Those most debilitated by it are the least well fed - there's a tragic
synergy between malnutrition and infectious diseases. According to a 1973
World Health Organisation report, "ordinary measles or diarrhoea - harmless
and short-lived diseases among well fed children - are usually serious and
often fatal to the chronically malnourished.
"Before vaccines existed, practically every child in all countries caught
measles, but 300 times more deaths occurred in the poorer countries than in
the richer ones. The reason was not that the virus was more virulent, nor
that there were fewer medical services; but that in poorly nourished
communities the microbes attack a host which, because of chronic
malnutrition, is less able to resist". Given that there's no vaccination
against poverty, governments prefer the quicker fix of vaccination. Vaccine
producers like it too: there's gold in them thar jabs.
This isn't a sphere where conscientious objections are tolerated, either
among doctors or patients. Each GP gets a "target payment" (did someone say
"bribe"?) of £2,730 for vaccinating 90% of two-year-olds on their list. Some
practices are now considering dropping unvaccinated families from their
lists. When my first child was newborn, my GP asked why I was risking her
life by refusing to have her vaccinated. I changed practices soon after.
Journalists, too, are expected to toe the public health line and are
labelled irresponsible (as I will be) if they don't, even though accusations
of "inaccuracy" often mask genuine disagreements.
Alternative health practitioners argue that measles and other infectious
illnesses, far from damaging children, actually improve their overall
health. But a child suffering from the disease needs proper, labour-intensive
care. Nursing used to be an essential part of the job-description of
motherhood: our mothers (for it was mostly them) knew how to nurse an
infected child - drawn curtains, cold drinks, and wet flannels. We now think
of nursing almost entirely in professionalised terms, as something we pay
others to do.
Above all nursing is slow, but life is fast. What child, today, can
afford to miss a week of the national curriculum, and what mother can take a
week off work? I don't usually admit it in public lest a passing doctor
burst a blood-vessel, but I want my children to contract measles. Yet
whenever I hear of someone from whom they could catch it, it's never the
right time - an exam or deadline is always looming.
One consequence of the mass vaccination of children is to turn measles
into an adult (or adolescent) disease, when it's far more dangerous. And now
the government is considering the introduction of a chickenpox vaccine -
thus does the vaccination cocktail grow. We're familiar with the concept of
informed consent. On vaccination, increasing numbers of people are turning
towards the concept of informed refusal.
[email protected]
Special report
Medicine
and health
|