A challenge to the Society of Homeopaths
Vaccination is much in the news at the moment, given that low vaccination rates a few years ago have now led to a serious measles outbreak in south Wales. This is serious. About 60 children have so far been hospitalised, and if the outbreak continues, then it is quite possible that someone will die.
It would therefore be particularly evil if, in the current context, alternative medicine practitioners were advising people not to be vaccinated.
A recent story in the Guardian quotes the main bodies responsible for homeopathy in the UK: the Society of Homeopaths, the British Homeopathic Association, and the Faculty of Homeopathy as saying that they would never dream of doing such a thing, and their advice is firmly that homeopathy cannot protect against infectious diseases and that people should therefore follow their GPs' advice and seek conventional vaccination.
This is, quite frankly, dishonest.
A spokesman is quoted in the article as saying "I don't know where the parents in Totnes are getting their information from – it certainly is not us". Well, I don't think their spokesman was looking very hard. The societies themselves may not be giving out advice to avoid vaccinations and use homeopathy instead (though the Society of Homeopaths does make the thoroughly implausible claim on their website that homeopathy can prevent at least one infectious disease), but their members certainly are.
Let's take a look at some homeopaths practising in or near Totnes and see what they say about vaccinations, shall we?
This one says of vaccination:
"Unfortunately, for a variety of reasons, it is not always 100% effective. It is also not as long lasting as natural immunity."
and then goes on to say:
"There isn't enough space on this page to go into the arguments for and against vaccinations! But there is now documented evidence that homeopathic prophylaxis may be as effective as the conventional kind."
The Totnes Clinic of Homeopathy is not quite as explicit as that, but does claim that homeopathy can be used to treat "childhood contagious illnesses".
Or how about Exmouth Homeopathy, which claims:
"Homeopathy is the perfect medicine for children, working with their bodies innate ability to heal itself, promoting and maintaining a strong and healthy immune system."
Sounds awfully like promoting homeopathy as an alternative to vaccination to me.
It's hard to see how this page could be considered anything other than promoting alternatives to vaccination, given that its title is "VACCINATION: There is an alternative".
And this page is devoted to lengthy claims about how homeopathy is supposed to maintain a health immune system, and tells us:
"This new research supports what holistic practitioners have been saying for a long time; that repeated challenges to the body - whether in the form of inappropriate foods, drugs, vaccines, shocks, or other stresses can eventually cause some kind of disorder to develop."
I'd say that's promoting homeopathy as an alternative to vaccination: wouldn't you?
And finally, while the antivaccine rhetoric is mild on the website of this homeopath (she's explicitly against flu vaccination, but to be fair, that's not really in the same league as measles vaccination), I can't help pointing out her website anyway, as she appears to be promoting homeopathy as a treatment for cancer. That is not only mind-bogglingly irresponsible, but may also be illegal under the 1939 Cancer Act.
Every single one of the homeopaths whose websites are linked to above is (or claims to be) a registered member of the Society of Homeopaths.
So, I have a challenge to the Society of Homeopaths. I would like them to comment publicly on the claims on those websites. I would like them to explain whether, in contradiction to what they told the Guardian, they support those claims, or whether they stand by the comments made in the Guardian and condemn those homeopaths claiming that homeopathy can be used as an alternative to vaccination. And if they condemn those claims, then I would like to know what they are going to do about it.
The Society of Homeopaths claim that their registered members are bound to a "strict code of ethics and practice". This is their chance to show whether they mean it.
You're a medical stats man. Of the x% who die from contracting measles in this country, what percent are seriously ill or vulnerable before contracting measles? Or, what percent of perfectly healthy people die from contracting measles? And of those, what is the death actually from?
Measles deaths in recent years have been rare in the UK, so it's impossible to say with any precision what % are vulnerable before contracting measles.
As for what death is from, according to this paper, the most common fatal complication is pneumonia, which may be caused directly by the measles virus or a secondary infection.
But I'm not sure what your point is. Are you suggesting that it doesn't really matter if measles kills people, because it only kills "vulnerable" people, and they are somehow less worthy?
Yes, tough luck on people with hereditary immune deficiencies, or kids who got HIV passed on from their HIV-positive mothers, or children undergoing (immune-suppressing) treatment for leukaemia.
Anyway, good to know the homoeopaths are thinking of them too.
That was not my point and you know it. The claim from the medics is about the amount of deaths the vaccine avoids. My point is that many of those appear to be very vulnerable already, and thats not what the medics are implying with their stats. They aim at the general population - "your child is at risk" when it appears to be more accurate to say "if your child is already seriously ill, they are at risk".
Please don't play put down games here, it really only goes to display the bias and beliefs skeptoids already have.
It strikes me that this isn't helping to convince me that you weren't implying that vulnerable people are less worthy of saving.
You also need to remember that deaths aren't the only outcome being avoided, as measles can cause severe morbidity as well as mortality.
I think that what you are trying to get at is that there may be less *likelihood* of suffering mortality or morbidity due to measles if you are otherwise healthy, compared to those with comordiities, extremes of age etc.
However, whilst the likelihood of serious complications may be less in otherwise healthy adults, the type of and nature of them is the same. In an otherwise healthy population, some of these may actually have more impact on an individual patient and wider society due to loss of work, socioeconomic factors etc etc etc.
The quantification of risks will change on an individual basis, but obviously from a public health promotion perspective this is unworkable. The risks will vary between individual patient groups, age ranges, illness groups etc etc etc and no two people are likely to have exactly the same likelihood of suffering serious complications. However, the risks are still there, and if someone is unlucky enough to suffer them, they will have the same experience.
blindness is blindness, whether or not you are elderly and infirm or otherwise usually healthy, for example,
I'm not sure if that is a particularly clear explanation, but hopefully it helps.
Interesting but fallacious arguments
What Medics?
All medics?
What do you mean by "medic"?
The only claim "medics" make?
Anyone else claiming effectiveness for vaccines?
Do they make other claims?
Is it only seriously ill people who are at risk?
Are there ay other effects from Measles?
What would you suggest instead of vaccination?
Your evidence for that suggestions?
And then we get "don't play put down games here" followed by a put down!
Cognitive dissonance perhaps?
Just answer the question :)
Actually, I asked you questions.
I am sure that if you read the above comments you ill see that yours was answered
So, looking forward to your answers.
The answers given were 'don't know'.
I was not particularly vulnerable when I suffered a bout of measles - I was not immunosuppressed, nor was I otherwise ill. I was, however, not fully vaccinated against measles, and still ended up seriously ill in hospital as a result. Complications affect anyone, and it's disingenuous to suggest only the particularly vulnerable/ill are in danger.
I was lucky. Despite complications, primary viral pneumonia.and seizures, I was unharmed. But at the time, my doctors made it clear that I was probably exceptionally lucky, and had I not had even a partial vaccination response, I probably wouldn't be talking to you now.
I know anecdote isn't proof, and I'd have to double check, but my understanding is that measles is so nasty precisely because it doesn't just damage the weak and sickly. Much the same reason the 1918 influenza pandemic was so.problematic. However, it has been a while since I did my studies, and so I defer to those withmre knowledge and up to date data.
Chris, if that wasn't your point, perhaps you'd like to explain what your point is? To me, it sounds awfully like you're saying that if you're reasonably healthy you don't need to worry about measles, because it's probably going to be someone more vulnerable than you who's going to die if anyone dies.
You're also assuming that measles doesn't ever kill previously healthy people. Sure, people with underlying health conditions are at greater risk, but that doesn't mean previously healthy people are at zero risk. You are also overlooking the importance of non-fatal, but life-changingly serious complications, such as encephalitis or deafness. Are you seriously claiming that previously healthy people never suffer from them?
It seems to me that the point you're trying to make is that it's OK for homeopaths to advise healthy people not to get vaccinated against measles, because they probably won't die of it, and if they give the disease to someone more vulnerable who does die or suffers serious complications, well, that's their problem. If your child passed on measles to another child and that other child died, perhaps that wouldn't bother your conscience, but I'm not sure that would be true of everyone.
If that's not the point you're trying to make, please feel free to correct me.
My point is, when the info goes out about how important it is to get a vaccination from the medical establishment, and via the doctors and nurses who administer it, we are told of the dangers however those dangers are made out to be equal for everyone, when it seems they are probably not.
Its worth looking at the death rate from measles over the years.
eg http://www.hpa.org.uk/web/HPAweb&HPAwebStandard/HPAweb_C/1195733835814
It seems the fall in that rate hasn't been affected much if at all by the introduction of the measles vaccination whereas that is not noted by info given to parents who are told that the vaccine is responsible. The fall is likely to be caused by improvements in both nutrition and medical help and not by the vaccine.
I was asking you as someone who works with such stats if you knew of info that was more useful to get a true perspective than that which we are fed by the system.
"It seems the fall in that rate hasn’t been affected much if at all by the introduction of the measles vaccination whereas that is not noted by info given to parents who are told that the vaccine is responsible. The fall is likely to be caused by improvements in both nutrition and medical help and not by the vaccine."
The MMR vaccine was introduced in 1998. From the HPA page you cited, In the subsequent 20 years there have been 28 deaths. In the 20 years up until the vaccine was introduced, there were 410 deaths.
Are you seriously suggesting that nutrition and "medical hel"p has improved since 1998 to the extent that it is responsible for a sudden drop in measles deaths by an order of magnitude?
Of course nutrition and public health measures have played a part in improving survival rates; nobody is disputing that! If you think that means that vaccination hasn't, you are introducing a false dichotomy: it's not a simplistic either/or.
Tell me, Chris, is there any evidence at all that would convince you that vaccination is generally beneficial? Or is it also the case that you will just automatically reject anything that "we are fed by the system"?
Tetenterre - look at the info at http://www.hpa.org.uk/Topics/InfectiousDiseases/InfectionsAZ/Measles/EpidemiologicalData/ and then get back to me.
I was asking questions not making statements. I'm not closed to the benefits of orthodox drugs but am asking questions. Who is the skeptic here?
The problem with this information is that we have no information on confounders.
Who's to say the number of cases were all reported correctly? What about reporting trends e.g. if there was an awareness campaign, HCPs might be more likely to report, or it may be subject to seasonal variations. How do the levels of uptake of vaccinations compare to this data? We don't know because it isn't presented here.
There are many, many limitations to using such data. the skeptic here would be aware the possibility and types of limitation and confounders, then apply those to the data in front of them. Having done that, this data on this particular site that you have presented isn't sufficient to back up the assertion that the introduction of the MMR vaccine has had no effect on number of measles cases.
If you can find more data which takes into account possible confounding factors and which backs up what you are saying, then perhaps we can have a proper look at that also.
Many thanks again,
You may also know what the percentage is of people who are vaccinated with measles who go on to contract full blown measles is?
"...however those dangers are made out to be equal for everyone"
Evidence / citations please.
And answers to the previous questions would be nice
I don't know the data for that, but I understand that, even if someone is vaccinated a few days after being infected with "full blown measles" (i.e. before the symptoms develop), the symptoms are less severe.
You know that the symptoms are less severe. Always? Sometimes worse? I'd be interested to know where that info is.
I also wonder why skeptics aren't asking these questions.
"I’d be interested to know where that info is."
It was on R4 this afternoon but, curiously, I have also found it in the paper that "Lassie" referenced in his first post in this thread:
http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/189/Supplement_1/S4.full
I ask you again (but not with any more expectation of getting any species of proper answer): What evidence would convince you that vaccination is generally beneficial?
Just one point on the "previously healthy/unhealthy" ruddy proto-kipper:
Even if it was true (and I am certainly not conceding this!) that only the "previously unhealthy" were at serious risk, exactly how does this account for the "unvaccinated previously healthy" person who contracts (say) pneumonia a couple of days before being coming into contact with measles infection?
Tetenterre - if someone gets eg pneumonia before picking up measles, then they would possibly be more at risk, though its possible that already being in an acute state their reaction to the measles virus could be entirely different than someone not in an already acute state. I doubt there is data on this, though maybe you have some?
Ah, I see. So what you're actually claiming is that measles vaccine doesn't protect against measles, right?
I could explain to you why that's completely wrong (even using the data that you posted yourself, if you like), but I'm guessing your mind is closed on that one and there is no point.
I'm intrigued by your assertion that "those dangers are made out to be equal for everyone". Who is saying that?
No, not what I was saying, but interesting that you go there. If measles vaccine protects everyone, that would mean someone unvaccinated poses no threat to anyone else who is vaccinated. Is that what you are saying?
People are told of the dangers of measles - look around, speak to doctors, GP nurses, read the literature. Give me an example of when thats qualified.
You are wrong to assert that an unvaccinated person poses no threat to a vaccinated person. Although the vaccine is very effective, it is not 100% effective. So while a vaccinated person is at considerably less risk than an unvaccinated person, they are not at zero risk.
This is particularly true with people who have weakened immune systems, and they are also those who are most at risk of complications.
You want an example of when information on the dangers of measles is qualified? Not hard to find: the NHS Choices website explains pretty clearly which people are more at risk of complications than others.
I'm still not sure what the point you're trying to make is. You say it's not that you're comfortable with putting vulnerable people at risk, and nor do you seem to be saying that failure to vaccinate doesn't put people at risk. And yet you do seem to be implying that there's no problem with failure to vaccinate. Those 3 things are not consistent with each other.
But to be honest I'm not going to bother asking you again, as it's pretty clear you're not willing to be explicit about what you mean.
AJ, you make assumptions about what I assert. You haven't once questioned anything pro vaccination, even when its clear you don't have all the facts. Your mind is made up, you have an agenda, but then you are a paid up member of the Skeptic Sect, and sadly experience shows those ways go hand in hand with that. I have nothing at all against true scepticism, its a valid tool in the search for truth. Its a shame you don't practice that as there is a lot to learn out there.
The author of the paper cited at the beginning of your article has research grants from Glaxo Klein who manufacture measles vaccines.
Of course measles can be a killer, just as diarrhea, flu etc can be. It can push those not well, not well nutritioned etc over the edge. Is it a killer here in the UK? Maybe you agree it isn't? But lets look at the evidence, question, and not defend a position.
From the graphs here http://www.hpa.org.uk/Topics/InfectiousDiseases/InfectionsAZ/Measles/EpidemiologicalData/ you can see how death rates declined before the vaccine and if you take the graph even further back in time you could see how the introduction of vaccines appears to have a minimal if not zero effect on the progression of those rates towards zero. Do you ask questions here? No, you defend vaccination. That is not a sceptic approach.
Thought not.
Personally, I am so pleased that smallpox decided to eradicate itself from the world. Obviously, it had nothing whatsoever to do with vaccination.
Oh, wait....
There's currently a mini-epidemiological study going on as we speak, right under our noses. It's called "Wales".
The skeptical approach is to look at the evidence and revise opinions following a full appraisal of it. There is clear evidence that vaccination works, for everybody, whether vulnerable or not. Of course there are clear risks associated with vaccination, but these pale into insignificance when compared to the real, documented risks of the infectious diseases they are designed to combat.
The choice of whether to vaccinate or not is down to the individual. It helps when they are given accurate information including exactly what harm is likely to their child from contracting the illness. There are side effects of MMR vaccination, thats a fact. What those are exactly is up for debate.
On that NHS page it is made clear who's vulnerable. On the main lead page on Measles in the second sentence it brings in "even death" without qualifying that.
Nowhere in the Measles section of that site are side effects discussed, not even in the section about the vaccine itself.
On searching, there is http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/vaccinations/Pages/mmr-vaccine.aspx where side effects are discussed. And http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/vaccinations/Pages/mmr-side-effects.aspx this is gone into further, as it should be.
I wouldn't expect the NHS info to go into the further side effects that are reported, and thats not my issue here.
The issue is that the "death" word is freely thrown in without qualification, even by the NHS info, never mind the rest. From the links I gave you above, which you have so far chosen to ignore, it does suggest that the vaccine may well not have had any effect on death rates whatsoever in the UK.
You can now discuss this in a balanced and inquiring manner as a true sceptic would, defend the vaccines, or ignore it.
I do wish you'd make up your mind. Are you saying you believe that measles vaccination has no effect on measles deaths or aren't you?
If you can provide some coherent comments, I'll be happy to answer them. If you're just going to continue to obfuscate, then I shall ignore you. Last chance to be coherent.
Out of interest, Chris, do you have any of the data you were asking about re conventional vaccines, but for homeopathic vaccines?
Is there any data on the rate of measles (or other vaccine-preventable diseases) within a population who relies on homeopathy?
Are there any stats on the incidence of measles-related deaths or morbidity in vulnerable populations treated with homeopathy?
What percentage of people who use a prophylactic homeopathic measles product then go on to contract full blown measles?
Is there any evidence of an attenuated version of measles occurring in those who have used a prophylactic homeopathic product?
Given that you are keen that "skeptoids" directly answer questions, I'm keenly awaiting your clear, concise response.
H jo - we both know there is no hard scientific evidence for homeo prophylaxis. I'm not advocating that, but its a choice people have and some people are happy with that in the face of the dangers of the alternatives.
It must be said that most people who would choose homeo prophylaxis are also doing many other things to improve the health of their children including very good diet, exercise, massage, treating them with homeopathy, accupunture, herbs, shiatsu, using conventional medicines only when absolutely necessary etc. ie they do all they can.
Hi Chris,
As discussed last night I am pleased to see your responses.
As there is no hard scientific evidence for homeo prophylaxis, there is also no evidence of its safety. I'm not sure how people can therefore make a choice to use it in the face of the dangers of the alternatives- a choice of unknown harms of a homeo treatment that no one has done any studies on + the risks of a potentially serious disease vs a choice of known, but very rare risk of serious ADRS with a vaccine to me seems like an odd choice to be putting out there.
Would you be so kind as to send me the data you have that people who choose homeo prophylaxis also make improved dietary and lifestyle choices? I'd be really interested in that sort of information.
Many thanks,
H Jo
AJ - My points are clear, as are my questions.
I can repeat in brief if that helps you. First read again my last post above, maybe three times, slowly.
I am asking the question "has and does the MMR vaccine protect against death from measles in the UK?". Look at the stats I referred you to and comment.
Allow me to refer you to Tetenterre's previous comment, based on the figures you directed them to yourself:
"The MMR vaccine was introduced in 1998. From the HPA page you cited, In the subsequent 20 years there have been 28 deaths. In the 20 years up until the vaccine was introduced, there were 410 deaths "
Can you provide any evidence that this decrease in number of deaths was due solely to dietary and other measures as you purport? Have you compared this data with a similar country to the UK, with similar demographics and a similar healthcare system, but with no MMR vaccine?
I'm asking because I haven't, but as you are asserting that the decrease may not be due to the vaccine, I am assuming you have seen such data.
Many thanks,
H Jo - I am not asserting this, just flagging it up as a possibility.
If you look at the stats in the link I gave in another post that shows the figures back to 1940, and if you also look at the official government stats going way back, you can see the picture clearer. To look at a snapshot that Teteterre refers to, there is far more danger of being mislead. Indeed the NHS, certainly in the days when I had young kids, used stats in snapshots designed to back up a perspective that was far from balanced.
Chris:
I'll refer you to my previous comment about confounders etc. We can't really use data from the 1940's to compare to today's picture. diagnosis and Reporting rates are likely to have varied widely back then and obviously socioeconomic factors will be very different.
also: if you're not making assertions, its worth taking some time to read what you're writing first. as an example:
"It seems the fall in that rate hasn’t been affected much if at all by the introduction of the measles vaccination whereas that is not noted by info given to parents who are told that the vaccine is responsible. The fall is likely to be caused by improvements in both nutrition and medical help and not by the vaccine." sounds like an assertion to me.
I'm very happy to make the assertion that vaccination programmes work. This is based on robust data, not just for measles, and, as I mentioned earlier, the fact that we have an example of what happens when herd immunity fails right under our noses, in Wales and Teeside at the moment. I think we can all agree that the world is a better place for having no smallpox. Unfortunately, I'm not convinced by having looked at the information you have provided so far that I need to rethink this assertion. I look forward to you presenting some further, more robust data for consideration.
Many thanks,
H
“The MMR vaccine was introduced in 1998. From the HPA page you cited, In the subsequent 20 years there have been 28 deaths. In the 20 years up until the vaccine was introduced, there were 410 deaths ”
Your statement is misleading to say the least.
When something is already on decline and continues doing so, just taking 20 years before and after can only serve an "agenda".
I have put 5 yearly stats below for you to see a clear picture "of declining trend".
Years MeaslesDeaths
----------- --------------
1940 - 1944 3476
1945 - 1949 2211
1950 - 1954 966
1955 - 1959 443
1960 - 1964 422 <-- Measles Vaccination started
1965 - 1969 381
1970 - 1974 152
1975 - 1979 90
1980 - 1984 80
1985 - 1989 46
1990 - 1994 8
1995 - 1999 10 <-- MMR vaccine started
2000 - 2004 3
If you're just asking that one simple question, then the answer is a nice simple "yes". Happy to be able to help.
I'm sure you can back that statement up in the face of those stats I referred you to, but maybe you're "too busy" or something?
Of course.
Based on the stats you showed, the number of deaths after single measles vaccination was introduced (in 1968) were generally lower than in previous years, and then the number fell still further after 1988, when MMR was introduced.
Now, that's based on uncontrolled time series data, so although it's hard to imagine what else had changed after 1988, we can't be absolutely sure that it was the vaccine (if you have a plausible explanation for what else might have been responsible for such a dramatic drop in mortality, I'd love to hear it).
Fortunately, of course, we don't have to rely on just that one piece of information. We also have a handy little Cochrane review which uses better controlled data, and finds vaccine efficacy in various studies that's consistently greater than 90%.
You might still, of course, object to the fact that the Cochrane review was based on cohort studies rather than randomised trials. Of course, it's unethical to do randomised trials in countries such as the UK. However, here is a randomised trial of measles vaccine from Guinea-Bissau. Guess what? Turns out measles vaccine was highly effective.