A forthright, honest, balanced article from the good Doctor!
As a former health care worker I can state from personal experience, anecdotal evidence and research that my observations match his closely.

There are some claims by the anti-immunisation camp though that I believe could have merit. One is the suspected link with autism and another the increasing incidence of severe allergy problems. Once again of course it is the balance of positive vs negative outcomes that swings strongly in favour of immunisation. However without serious research into the phenomena seemingly occuring in some sensitive individuals we don't know what may be happening. Maybe we never will ...

Fact is despite incredible advances in science the gaps in knowledge are immense. Also while Pharmaceautical companies call the shots on much of the research we'll see more and more push towards chemical remedies for all maladies. Whatever, one day, whether old, young or in between we're all going to die of something ......

On a current topic, should you allow yourself to be vaccinated against swine flu when a vaccine becomes available? Tom Jefferson, an epidemiologist, has his doubts.

See: http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,637119,00.html

Will I personally get vaccinated?

Make that a definite maybe!

A doctor collegue of mine once said it was in some ways choosing to play russian roulette when the choice was a revolver with one bullet or one with three bullets.

With regards the swine flu vaccination, it depends when it comes. If the disease has burnt itself out, then vaccinations are pointless, but if offerred one now I would definitely take it.

Although a matter for a full risk analysis by someone with all the stats, imunisation against swine flu may not be worth it, particularly now. The death toll has basically been trivial when compared with those who die every day from all causes, with the vast bulk of the deaths resulting when there has been some other factor (another disease or the patient is very old). Has it caused more deaths or fewer deaths than seasonal flu? Would it have been worth the trouble to get a shot to avoid taking a few days off work? What about immunising those in the big risk category - that is, already sick with something else - and would that cause more deaths or fewer the the disease? All that said immunisation against serious diseases - rubella, polio ect - is a must, and those who advocate otherwise have to make their case. So far, as the author notes, they haven't. Immunisation remains.

I used to feel apprehensive about some immunisations, until I commenced working as a nurse on paediatric wards.

I have held very sick, tiny babies coughing their life away after contracting whooping cough,while their terrified parents looked on. These parents were either racked with guilt because they didn't immunise their baby, or livid with anger because their baby contracted the disease from some other non-immunised child before their baby was old enough to have the immunisation.

I have cared for children with severe brain damage following a bout of encephalitis after suffering from measles. German measles affected several babies severely after their mothers had it during their pregnancies- leaving the baby blind, deaf and brain damaged.

All these patients had one thing in commen- none had been given their immunisations. Many children can't have immunisations because of life-threatening illnesses like cancer. These kids are then seriously at risk while on treatment for their condition of contracting other diseases from the community from people who have not had immunisations out of ignorance or choice.

What right do these anti-immunisationists have to condemn other children to disease, misery or death because they chose not to immunise their children?

Yes, I have also looked after autistic children, but there were several of these I cared for that had never been immunised anyway!
There were far more problems out there caused by those who did not give their children immunisations than those that did, I can assure you.
Immunise your children for goodness sake!

Shadow Minster

I LOVE that analogy. Mind if I use it – with attribution of course?

suzeonline,

Of course you are right when it comes to most vaccinations. We had no hesitation vaccinating our children against mumps, measles, rubella, whooping cough, polio etc. By the time they were born there was no more need for a smallpox vaccination.

But in the case of swine flu I am not so sure. Read the linked article and tell me what you think.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,637119,00.html

Suzeonline - I agree that people definately should immunise their kids. I'll add to that also to continue having booster shots themselves through adult years - provided there are no contra-indications. Resistance wears off over time and nasty little germies 'evolve' making earlier vaccines less effective. Adults can contract diseases like whooping cough just as easily as babies. Explains why my daughter caught it at age 10 from another child her own age and then gave it to me - all of us fully immunised as children. This was 18 years ago. Also explains how recently there was an outbreak in her office building with 5 adults positively diagnosed and several suspected.

Back to my comments about problems which have been suggested as possible complications of or exacerbated by immunisation: We all know there are real risks posed by vaccines. To deny this would be unscientific and unprofessional. The facts are that risk of disease greatly outweighs risk of immunisation. This is not to say there is no more work to be done. Monitoring, research and improvements to minimise adverse effects can only result in better outcomes for all - a healthier population with greater confidence in immunisation.

PS - While we are on the subject, the best "immunisation" a new mum can provide for her infant is her own milk. Breastfeeding should be, if possible, continued for at least 6 months and preferably 1 year or longer. It is not a substitute for shots but it makes a healthier more disease resistant child.

Suze,

I don't have copy right on that analogy, so you don't need to attribute it to me.

As far as the swine flu is concerned, although it is only slightly worse than the normal flu, it is proving to be far more contagious, and is already overstretching the ICU facilities, mostly with those already ill, but also with a significant No of those without underlying problems.

As I already have my family vaccinated for the normal flu, the swine flu is a must. (my family very seldom is ill, and I believe the vaccinations play a significant part. I have only taken 6 sick days in 10 years of which 2 were sports injuries.)

Yes, stevenlmeyer, I have read the good Doctor's article and agree with most of the contents.

However, it is all a bit premature yet really. The vaccine against the swine flu is still on human trials, and thus may not even be released if the trials show too many side-effects (hopefully).

Naturally the drug companies are very excited about the current flurry of cases of swine flu. They stand to make alot of money if there ends up being mass immunisations.

No matter what the media churn out about the swine flu, almost all medical people I know say that it is no worse than any of the other flu's around.

If you have a faulty immune system or suffer from diseases or disabilities that lower your resistance to ALL flu's, then yes, you should be worried. These people as well as pregnant women, and indigenous people seem to be the worst affected, so if a vaccine came out then they should have one if possible.

All flu's are dangerous for some people.
I always have a flu vaccination every year and haven't had the flu of any kind for years. Possibly, this is just good luck!

My mother, a child of the Depression era, always said that anyone who had lived through a time when scarlet fever, whooping cough, polio, etc., were common illnesses would have no doubt about whether or not to immunise.

The anti-immunisation zealots, like those who advocate all the other "simple life" lifestyles, are simply those people who are lucky enough to live in an affluent, healthy society, and so have the luxury of indulging their fantasies.

As H. G. Wells once noted, anyone who pined for the "good old days" would change their mind as soon as they got their first toothache.

divine_msn: breastfeeding does have its advantages, but it would appear that those whom my wife dubbed "the Boob Nazis" have been exaggerating quite a bit:

"THE benefits of breastfeeding have been greatly exaggerated, a leading paediatrician says ... Those promoting the "breast is best" message say a mother's milk wards off a host of ills including protecting against obesity, allergies, asthma and diabetes. "

"But Professor Kramer's work has failed to show breastfeeding provides such protection. He claims many of the supposed advantages can be explained by differences in lifestyle."

"I don't favour overselling the evidence – we should not be conveying false information," he said."

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25818342-36398,00.html

Clownfish is correct when she stated that breastfeeding does not deliver all that the millitant Breastfeeding Mother's Association would have us believe.
Certainly breast milk is best for baby if possible and has been shown to give some protective antibodies to the baby, but does not provide effective immunisation to anything.

Having worked as a midwife for more years than I am prepared to admit, I can say that there were many new mothers who really tried hard to breastfeed their infants, but were unsuccessful for many different reasons.
These women were made to feel a failure by some millitant mother's associations, and were thus even more vulnerable to post-natal depression than others.

"The best "immunisation" a new mum can provide for her infant is her own milk. Breastfeeding should be, if possible, continued for at least 6 months and preferably 1 year or longer. It is not a substitute for shots but it makes a healthier more disease resistant child."

Note "new mum" and "not a substitute for shots". Babies do not receive their first vaccinations until 2 months of age.

I too have a nursing background and realise some women have great difficulty nursing or are unable to because of issues such as illness, medications or being unable to take maternity leave. No-one should be castigated for their circumstances.

Fact remains that human milk helps develop infants immune systems and is a greatly preferable choice over infant formula even in affluent Western countries.

May I point out something Suze will/should be well aware of: The incidence of infants hospitalised with infectious complaints who are artificially fed greatly exceeds that of those naturally fed.

This phenomenon is not confined to the human species. Anyone involved in animal husbandry will explain how much more difficult it is to rear orphan animals without a foster mum to feed them. Even feeding milk of their own species as opposed to commercial formula they are more susceptible to disease. Most that never had any colostrum die or do very poorly despite best care and management. This is why folk like myself who have cattle usually store a couple of 2 litre bottles of colostrum from the house cows latest calving in the freezer ..........

The point: Nature/God/evolution - whatever you believe in - has given human and other mammal mothers milk with properties specific to their species. Those who can breastfeed should, even if only for a short time. That's what titties are for .... If this makes me a "Boob Nazi" so be it.