Two days ago we told you a story that we would have never wanted to tell: a 6-year-old boy is admitted to the ICU of the Vall d'Hebron Hospital in Barcelona suffering from diphtheria, stable at the moment, but serious. The boy was not vaccinated because his parents felt that the best option for him and his sister was not to do so. That is, they were part of those parents who are colloquially referred to as "anti-vaccines."
The reaction of this case of diphtheria, after almost 30 years without any case in the country, has been immense in all media and in pediatric and health societies, trying to offer information and raise awareness of what important that our children are vaccinated. And what do the anti-vaccine groups say? Right now we explain it to you, because you don't know what to think anymore: This is how the anti-vaccines are reacting to the case of diphtheria in Olot's child: asking you not to vaccinate.
The League for Freedom of Vaccination
The League for the Freedom of Vaccination is the most influential anti-vaccine group in Spain and, for now, the only ones that have made a statement about it. You cannot find it on their page that is quite outdated, or on their Twitter, which is also almost dead (it is anecdotal that parents look for reliable and updated information to decide whether or not to vaccinate their children and find lifeless pages of those who say they have that information), but on some page, such as the Healthy Life Association, which has made it public and has received it through Dr. Xavier Uriarte, a well-known anti-vaccine doctor.
The statement reads as follows:
First of all, we want the good evolution of the affected child, encouragement to the family that is present and a recognition of the work of health professionals who assist the child affected by diphtheria. We have to leave from the LLV a few very clear points to families, professionals and opinion on a subject always so delicate and sensitive when certain infectious diseases appear.
Diphtheria is not an initially severe infectious disease. Only when it is complicated can it evolve badly. The diphtheria epidemic in Spain throughout the twentieth century was remitting independently of the vaccine. When the epidemic had already subsided without a vaccine in 90%, a few doses (104,616) were introduced among the Spanish population in the year 1950.
It was between 1965 and 1980 when a diphtheria vaccine coverage of more than 80% was reached. Both the introduction of the vaccine in 1950 and the referred mass vaccination were attributed the success of vaccination in remission of the epidemic. However, the diphtheria epidemic had already subsided without the vaccine. Living conditions throughout the twentieth and twenty-first century made this change in the mortality and morbidity of diphtheria possible.
In the composition of the diphtheria vaccine we currently find diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, haemophilus, polio, aluminum (500 micrograms), phenoxyethanol, traces of thiomersal or mercury (50 micrograms) and polysorbate 80. This means that in addition to diphtheria they are present other vaccines and toxic components of high harmful capacity for the vaccinated organism. Possible side effects of diphtheria vaccines include postvaccination death (1 death per 2,000,000 doses administered), immune hypersensitivity reactions, neurological lesions or postvacunal encephalopathy, kidney disease or kidney injury (1 person per 1,000- 10,000 doses administered).
The appearance of a person affected by diphtheria does not mean that we are in an epidemic and that the vaccine resolves the situation, but that we are currently experiencing an infection that did not occur three decades ago. From the League for Freedom of Vaccination we call on families that do not vaccinate to stay in their decision and health authorities to make a correct analysis of the situation.
League for Freedom of Vaccination (LLV)
June 3, 2015
Our position before the statement
Surely you will have your own opinion before the statement that you just read and you may not need the words that come next, but I feel the moral obligation to respond to set the counterpoint, because it seems to me personally as a court of law that after such a case as that family is living will be made such a writing.
Let's go by paragraphs:
First of all, we want the good evolution of the affected child, encouragement to the family that is present and a recognition of the work of health professionals who assist the child affected by diphtheria.
A detail, but it is a child who, most likely, would not be where he is now in the event that on his day, from 2 months of age, he had received the relevant doses of diphtheria vaccine. In fact, at 6 years old, it would take 5 doses. It is also appreciated that the work of health professionals who try to save the child's life and who, in order to prevent such cases, is recognized, recommend that children receive vaccines from the systematic calendar for viruses and bacteria as dangerous as measles or diphtheria.
Diphtheria is not an initially severe infectious disease. Only when it is complicated can it evolve badly. The diphtheria epidemic in Spain throughout the twentieth century was remitting independently of the vaccine. When the epidemic had already subsided without a vaccine in 90%, a few doses (104,616) were introduced among the Spanish population in the year 1950.
It was between 1965 and 1980 when a diphtheria vaccine coverage of more than 80% was reached. Both the introduction of the vaccine in 1950 and the referred mass vaccination were attributed the success of vaccination in remission of the epidemic. However, the diphtheria epidemic had already subsided without the vaccine. Living conditions throughout the twentieth and twenty-first century made this change in the mortality and morbidity of diphtheria possible.
Of course, you tell those parents that a pity that has been complicated and that the child is now serious ... that if it had not been complicated he would only be a carrier and that he could go on infecting other people and children who could suffer the complication. Because this bacterium is like that, many people have it but do not suffer from it, and they become carriers. That is precisely why it is interesting that people are vaccinated, because in case of infection it will not suffer the consequences of an infection that is complicated by generating the bacteria in the body the diphtheria toxin, which is life-threatening.
With regard to the number of cases in Spain, it is true. Food and hygiene did a lot of good, because diphtheria is a disease that takes advantage of overcrowding and poor health conditions to spread it. Solving that, the number of cases drops a barbarity. That does not mean that it disappears. That is, if he had no vaccine, diphtheria cases would remain diverse annually (to show a button) and from time to time we would suffer disease outbreaks.
They comment that the vaccines arrived in Spain in the 50s. Actually, the Health Bases Act of 1944 defined the obligatory nature of vaccination against diphtheria and smallpox, and from that moment the population began to be vaccinated control, therefore, more and more, the cases.
As you can see in the graph, extracted from an entry of our Magnet colleagues, from the 40s the number of cases was decreasing thanks to hygiene, thanks to the healthiness of food and thanks to the population starting to get vaccinated against diphtheria.
Since a mass vaccination was not carried out and the vaccination percentages were still low, the cases continued to occur until vaccination campaigns were initiated throughout the country in the mid-1960s. This was in 1965, when all children aged 3 months to 7 years were vaccinated in campaigns carried out in winter and summer with the new DTP vaccine (Diphtheria, Tetanus, Pertussis).
Thanks to these campaigns the percentage of vaccination began to increase considerably and Diphtheria cases dropped to very low levels. And so on until 1987, when the last known case occurred until a few days ago.
Surprisingly, they want to convince us that without the vaccines the disease would be eradicated, and more so when now it is suffered, precisely, by a child who is not vaccinated.
In addition, we are lucky to be able to look at data from other countries, that diphtheria is not exclusive to us. In the United Kingdom they lived something similar. Vaccination began and the cases began to descend:
We follow:
In the composition of the diphtheria vaccine we currently find diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, haemophilus, polio, aluminum (500 micrograms), phenoxyethanol, traces of thiomersal or mercury (50 micrograms) and polysorbate 80. This means that in addition to diphtheria they are present other vaccines and toxic components of high harmful capacity for the vaccinated organism. Possible side effects of diphtheria vaccines include postvaccination death (1 death per 2,000,000 doses administered), immune hypersensitivity reactions, neurological lesions or postvacunal encephalopathy, kidney disease or kidney injury (1 person per 1,000- 10,000 doses administered).
That's right, in the diphtheria vaccine there are more vaccines, all of them together to avoid more punctures than necessary for babies and children. Is it better to click six times to give six vaccines or once to administer the six? Surely children think the second option is better. It is done because it can be done, because it has been shown that it is as safe as doing it separately and because it has been shown that vaccines are equally effective. In addition to vaccines there are other components that serve to boost the immune response in the body, that is, to help the body create defenses against the pathogen for which it is vaccinated. Are they toxic? Well, as toxic as not (it has already been shown that mercury does not cause autism and that aluminum is not dangerous - and if so, we can stop eating fruits and vegetables because they are loaded with aluminum -), but they do not stop be chemical substances introduced into our body to cause a reaction that, in some cases, cause side effects. Let's say they are like a medicine (we all know that possible side effects are described in the medicine leaflets), but instead of curing a disease, try to prevent it. Here, then, one may ask: Is it better to prevent or is it better to cure? Is it better to run the risk of a side effect from vaccines, usually mild and, if they are serious, very minor, or run the risk of catching the disease? Well considering that the diphtheria mortality rate is approximately 20% in children under 5 years and those over 40, and 5 to 10% for those between 5 and 40 years old, and that in the 1930s was the third leading cause of death in children in England and Wales, it seems that vaccinating is a better solution.
The appearance of a person affected by diphtheria does not mean that we are in an epidemic and that the vaccine resolves the situation, but that we are currently experiencing an infection that did not occur three decades ago. From the League for Freedom of Vaccination we call on families that do not vaccinate to stay in their decision and health authorities to make a correct analysis of the situation.
Of course it is not an epidemic, but it is a disease that had already been controlled in the country that is again present in the body of a 6-year-old boy who had not decided anything about whether to be vaccinated or not and whose life, right now , is in danger. Now you have to control all your surroundings, your friends, your classmates and, as you know, they are all quite calm because everyone is vaccinated. If they weren't? Well, maybe we could talk about the risk of an outbreak and a subsequent epidemic.
Then they request a correct analysis of the situation and add what they do a call to families who do not vaccinate to remain firm in their decision not to vaccinate. Well, they may be interested to know that the affected family has decided not to stand firm in the decision, because they have a 2-year-old daughter who had not been vaccinated who has already received a dose of the diphtheria vaccine and that the parents, just in case , have received a souvenir dose too.
It is really outrageous that in such a situation do not give your arm to twist and continue to misrepresent the information and not only that, but also ask that children not be vaccinated. Is there talk that there could be legal actions? Well, I hope you start here, for the League for Freedom of Vaccination.
The silence of the rest of the vaccines
That of the League for Freedom of Vaccination is the only statement that has been made public, but you see that they have not even bothered to publish it on their page nor have they given space on their Twitter account or on their Facebook. For those who come to them looking for an explanation or their position will be difficult to find. Come on, they will have felt the need to say something but, just in case, to say it as whispering, lest they give them everywhere.
Something similar should have been considered by other anti-vaccine communities, because if you look for anti-vaccine pages on Twitter and Facebook you will see that there is no reaction to the case of diphtheria. Neither in "No to vaccines", nor in Free Vaccination, nor on Facebook pages related to vaccines. They are the first to speak of objectivity and to choose freely, because in situations like this they should position themselves or give their opinion, or at least, discuss in their pages on the subject, because now the issue of vaccines is hot and the position of the anti-vaccines in question.
So you see: some say we don't vaccinate and the others say nothing. The child is serious, but the most sensible thing, I repeat, according to them, is not to get vaccinated. Anyway.
The statement of the Spanish Association of Pediatrics
In contrast, the Spanish Association of Pediatrics issued a public statement yesterday to explain what diphtheria is, how it is transmitted and what the prognosis is, and advocate for Vaccination as the best individual and group prevention measure.
Photos | Photomontage made with images of Zaldylmg and Lars Plougmann on Flickr, iStock
In Babies and more | Has there been helplessness of the child? Ex officio investigation will be opened on the case of the child with diphtheria, What the league says for freedom of vaccination about measles epidemics
In Xataka | Vaccines and disease return, a story of fear and irrationality
