Debate continues in favour of vaccines

Print

Sun, 21 Aug 2011 6:18p.m.

Research shows only a handful of parents are actively opposed to vaccinations

Research shows only a handful of parents are actively opposed to vaccinations

By Jane Luscombe

A world expert in immunisation has been describing the future to New Zealanders, including a vaccine one day against arthritis.

Professor Stanley Plotkin also had plenty to say about parents who don't protect their children against preventable diseases.

Actor Jim Carrey will not be pleased to know there is an explosion of experimental vaccines that will one day become routine. He already thinks there are too many.

But Professor Stanley Plotkin, the man behind the rubella vaccine, is unapologetic.

“I see the future as the expansion of vaccines, particularly to control disease in adolescents and adults”, - diseases like HIV, tuberculosis and malaria and even for conditions like arthritis.

But there is a more pressing issue; getting more children immunised with existing vaccines.

“If you do not vaccinate you are in a sense living off the decisions of other people to vaccinate because they are protecting you and your children.”

Research shows only a handful of parents are actively opposed to vaccinations.

And we are getting better. Two years ago 80 percent of two-year-olds were immunised which has now risen to 90 percent. But to prevent disease outbreaks, a 95 percent uptake is needed.

Paediatrician Dave Graham says doctors are not immunising children for trivial reasons.

“These are things that will kill some children, maim some children, leave children handicapped in the long term.”

That is what Dr Mike Shepherd faces in the children's emergency department at Auckland Hospital.

“Probably one in 1000 children that contracts measles ends up with some lasting complications, the most severe of which is permanent brain damage.”

The doctors say immunisation opponents often do not appreciate the dangers because they have never seen them.

Professor Plotkin says the logic is simple – the risk from the disease is always far higher than the risk of a reaction.

3 News

Become a fan of 3 News on Facebook and on Twitter.

Comments

22 Aug 2011 01:27p.m.

jaberwocky wrote:

This bothers me. Why do these "experts" think that because you choose not to vaccinate your child, that the parents still expect them to have immunity. My daughter is not vaccinated, and I expect her to get sick from time to time. I also expect to take time off work to look after her, and provide the necessary remedies to help her through her bugs. She is almost 2, and has been sick once. Note: once. joejoe: As an anti-vax family, you constantly have to find information to keep those passionate about vaccinations at bay. It is sad what is happening in the U.S., when you look at numbers, that is a lot of children that are going to need some form of help for the rest of their lives. Also, this help is going to cost the state a lot of money, whether directly, or indirectly. Pharmaceutical companies will be making a killing from the medication to help these little ones. I read a study a while ago that pointed out that the same percentage of vaccinated children get the measles as non-vaccinated children. The children who were vaccinated had the more serious side effects. Also, from my own research vaccinations have had a minimal effect on reducing the incidence of these diseases. Check this out... http://vran.org/wp-content/uploads/Immunization-Graphs-RO-2009.pdf

22 Aug 2011 09:12a.m.

joejoe wrote:

I can certainly tell that more people are getting vaccinated here in the U.S., 1 out of 6 children are now disabled, autism and ADHD on the rise since the vaccine manufacturers were given complete immunity from lawsuits in 1986, since then more vaccines have been mandated, and with the new mandates you have a direct increase in autism rates anyway you look at it.

Post a Comment

Before commenting, please take the time to read our moderation guide


(Won't be published)