MMR back in the headlines - Italian Court rules it WAS cause of boys Autism

(148 Posts)
doradoo Sat 16-Jun-12 15:04:07

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2160054/MMR-A-mothers-victory-The-vast-majority-doctors-say-link-triple-jab-autism-Italian-court-case-reignite-controversial-debate.html - sorry for DM link....

This is surely going to reignite the debate around the jab - fwiw my DCs were vaccinated with VMMR (with chicken pox too as we're not in the UK) - but I was concerned about the jab having heard / seen the reporting surrounding it.

So is the court right - and what does it mean for the UK and parents here who believe that MMR damaged their children?

traffichalter Sat 16-Jun-12 15:14:21

"Antonio Barboni, a doctor of forensic medicine and appointed by the judge to independently advise the court, wrote a report saying that ‘in the absence of any other pre-existing conditions’ it is a ‘reasonable scientific probability’ that Valentino’s autism can be ‘traced back to the administration of the MMR vaccine . . . by the health authority’.

"Dr Barboni’s findings were endorsed by two other eminent doctors who examined Valentino, investigated his medical background, and gave evidence to the court."

Huge implications for this country - and other countries, surely.

traffichalter Sat 16-Jun-12 15:17:52

Oh, sorry about those numbers.

"Antonio Barboni, a doctor of forensic medicine and appointed by the judge to independently advise the court, wrote a report saying that ‘in the absence of any other pre-existing conditions’ it is a ‘reasonable scientific probability’ that Valentino’s autism can be ‘traced back to the administration of the MMR vaccineby the health authority’.

"Dr Barboni’s findings were endorsed by two other eminent doctors who examined Valentino, investigated his medical background, and gave evidence to the court."

edam Sat 16-Jun-12 15:28:08

Interesting. Back when the MMR debate raging, I asked my colleagues on Drug & Therapeutics Bulletin what they thought. They are expert reviewers of medical evidence. They said it was safe for almost all children but that the safety studies were not sufficient - i.e. more safety studies needed to be done. I thought, well, almost all isn't good enough. So I got ds singles - including rubella as I wouldn't want to be responsible for someone else's child being harmed. There's no more scientific evidence for singles than there is for MMR, btw, so mine wasn't an evidence-based decision. But it was one I was comfortable with.

hackmum Sat 16-Jun-12 15:29:26

It's interesting. I know that a lot of doctors will say that autism often tends to have a late onset, so a child will be developing normally and will suddenly regress. Inevitably in some cases it will happen soon after the MMR jab, so some parents have made a false correlation when in fact it's pure coincidence.

Clearly the doctors in this case thought differently and believe there's a genuine cause-and-effect. I'd love to know more about why the evidence that persuaded them of this. (I have an open mind, by the way.)

traffichalter Sat 16-Jun-12 15:29:39

There's no telling which children it is safe for.

traffichalter Sat 16-Jun-12 15:31:09

Clearly some families can get away with it and some can't.

StarlightWithAsteroid Sat 16-Jun-12 15:36:18

No vaccine, like no medicine is safe for ALL people.

traffichalter Sat 16-Jun-12 15:37:23

How do you tell who it is safe for?

StarlightWithAsteroid Sat 16-Jun-12 15:40:24

No idea. But some children with autism often have symptoms that show they are less able to process certain toxins and foods.

StarlightWithAsteroid Sat 16-Jun-12 15:42:02

I have always been a bit hmm about the instance that the mmr is 'safe' because the science just doesn't make that possible for everyone.

blueglue Sat 16-Jun-12 15:44:27

MMR is safe for the vast majority of children but NOT all of them. That's not good enough for me and I have gone for single vaccines, although am waiting for mumps vax to be allowed into the UK. Apparently after the (government induced) supply problems, some mumps vaccines were produced and they were stopped on their way into the UK this year (by the government). There is nothing wrong with the mumps vaccines, the government are trying to restrict their supply by any means possible to make people have MMR.

Thanks government. I personally know one of the victims that vaccine would go into my DC over my dead body.

traffichalter Sat 16-Jun-12 15:46:43

This should free up the system of getting singles.

Marne Sat 16-Jun-12 15:48:12

This has always confused me too

I think Autism can be caused by lots of things, children react to different things, the MMR is ok for some but not for others

My dd2 reacted to both the MMR and the MMR booster, with the booster we ended up in hospital with a severe reaction, the doctors didn't want to addmit that the MMR had caused it and we got nothing in writing to conform it was the MMR (but were verbaly told it was) Dd2 was diagnosed with Autism at the age of 3, she went down hill after the first MMR. Dd1 is also on the spectrum but showed signs way before the MMR so i don't know what to think. I think its possable that the MMR either caused dd2's ASD or made her regress.

traffichalter Sat 16-Jun-12 15:52:00

Would you consider trying for compensation now? Or is it all a bit heart-sink? sad

Marne Sat 16-Jun-12 16:00:48

Theres a huge history of ASD in the family, i think i would find it hard to prove that the MMR was the cause or that it triggered any kind of regression sad. I feel guilty for letting my gp talk me into the booster (even though by then dd2 clearly had ASD), if i had my time again i would have payed for the singles. Even if dd2 did not have the MMR theres no saying that something else might have triggered off the ASD (i really don't know), all i know is that dd2 had great eye contact and was very resposive before the MMR, 2 months after and the eye contact had faded away and dd2 went into her own little world. Her sister was clearly autistic from the day she was born (hated being touched, hated people near her, was very unsettled and cried a lot) but then each child on the spectrum is different, maybe dd2 was born with ASD but because she was so different to her sister i didn't pick up on it?

traffichalter Sat 16-Jun-12 16:03:32

I imagine you wouldn't want to go over and over it all again, which you would have to do if you tried for compensation. It would be a very hard road to go down. Of course you also can't know whether the singles might have had an adverse effect, too.

perceptionreality Sat 16-Jun-12 16:03:34

I agree with Marne.

perceptionreality Sat 16-Jun-12 16:08:53

Re: regression. Kids who have regressed after, say the MMR do so spectacularly in the cases I have heard about - they were totally normal with well developed language and then it all disappeared.

My dd (severely autistic not caused by MMR) also regressed around 18 months - 2 yrs but there were key skills she never had which my NT children developed quickly and strongly and before anything else. There were things she could do that appeared normal at 1 but also lots of things she never did at all which you would expect to see in a NT child.

jaffacake2 Sat 16-Jun-12 16:15:02

How do you know that single vaccines are safe?

traffichalter Sat 16-Jun-12 16:17:15

There is the argument that having lots of vaccines all at once overloads the system? Are there cases of vaccine-damaged children from a single?

AlpinePony Sat 16-Jun-12 16:20:08

The comments after that article are heartbreaking and it's making me think twice about my second son who appears to exhibit symptoms associated with a high risk of adverse reaction.

jaffacake2 Sat 16-Jun-12 16:22:30

There was controversy about the whooping cough vaccine in the 80s causing fits. It was later thought to be febrile convulsions due to the reactive fever some children had from the vaccine. That is why there is now the recommendation to give paracetomol or ibuprofen following vaccines to regulate the temperature.

I decided not to let my daughter have the jab and she then caught whooping cough on holiday in Portugal. 100 night cough,it is called,it was awful.

Not sure on the MMR debate,will be interesting to see the WHO response to the Italy ruling as WHO fully support the vaccine.

MarySA Sat 16-Jun-12 16:27:00

I have never trusted that triple vaccine and its link to autism. It was just too much of a coincidence. Was it Tony Blaire who had his son 'done' in France so he could have them given singly. And it was all hush hush. MMR is probably OK for a lot of children but not for all.

AdventuresWithVoles Sat 16-Jun-12 16:27:49

Was the version of MMR given in Italy at the time the same or similar to the versions given in USA or UK?
The article says he had the jab at 9 months but elsewhere online says 15 months.
I can't find anything to say how old the boy is now, 10yo?

Hebiegebies Sat 16-Jun-12 16:29:46

Having reacted badly to vaccines myself I decided on singles for my kids. DS already showed signs of ASD before the jabs and so i know they ddnt cause it, but I wonder if if he would have been more affected than he is if he'd had MMR.

I will never know.

edam Sat 16-Jun-12 16:31:27

jaffa - good question about whether singles are safe. As I said, I had to accept that my choice to give ds singles wasn't necessarily better for him - there are risks with all medicines and I don't know of any studies comparing single vax to MMR. (I doubt you could get the funding to do one, and it may be logistically difficult anyway.)

Wasn't one of the things Wakefield posited that one group of autistic children have very sensitive guts? There was something about vaccine-strain measles being found in their tummies, and the mumps vaccine acting as some sort of pathway that allowed the measles vaccine to do X Y or Z - it's so long since I looked into this I've forgotten the details.

I know Wakefield has been demonised but I do wonder whether we we look back and think it's another case where someone who was demonised was actually onto something all along. Like Yudkin and sugar.

Marne Sat 16-Jun-12 16:32:35

I wasn't vaccinated as a child because of epilepsy in both sides of the family, it was later proved that there was no link.

I think its important that children are vaccinated but a 3 in 1 vaccine is just too much for some children.

I dont think there will ever be a 'yes' or 'no' answer to the ASD MMR question.

traffichalter Sat 16-Jun-12 16:35:34

"The Italian judgment has important implications for Britain for a number of reasons.

"First, the jab given to Valentino — called MMR 11 — contains the same active measles, mumps and rubella viruses in the same quantities as MMR VaxPro, one of only two approved MMR vaccines in the UK which is used on hundreds of thousands of children every year. (Prior to the introduction of MMR VaxPro in 2006, MMR II had been used in the UK since 1988).

"This match of ingredients is confirmed in the Department of Health Green Book — a guide for doctors on inoculation against infectious disease — and by detailed data on MMR vaccines released by the European Medicines’ Agency."

ThoughtBen10WasBadPokemonOMG Sat 16-Jun-12 17:01:30

DS definitely was on the spectrum looking back to him as a baby even at a few days old he behaved differently than the other babies I knew. So for him his ASD is not linked to MMR.

I didn't have the whooping cough jab as a child due to the link with fits as my gm had epilepsy. Luckily I didn't catch whooping cough.

Fourthdimensionallizard Sat 16-Jun-12 17:15:47

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

traffichalter Sat 16-Jun-12 17:46:08

Isn't one of the differences however that with vaccines, you don't get the product info leaflet? When you get medicines, you do get an insert, and the risks are all spelt out.

But with vaccines, you get a reassuring leaflet and thats it.

VivaLeBeaver Sat 16-Jun-12 17:50:59

I rememebr reading on the JABS website about 10 years ago about cases of UK children where their problems had been deemed to be caused by MMR. So much so that the govt had paid out large sums of compensation. I gave dd single jabs.

Fourthdimensionallizard Sat 16-Jun-12 17:57:45

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

traffichalter Sat 16-Jun-12 17:58:55

Oh thnaks for that Viva, on htat website there's the product info:

Adverse reactions.

Friend of mine's teen dd got arthritis after MMR, which her mum (a nurse) said was listed as a known adverse reaction but I didn't know where to find that info.

traffichalter Sat 16-Jun-12 17:59:36

I didn't know you had a legal right to the inserts. Who would give them to you?

silverfrog Sat 16-Jun-12 18:09:22

you are supposed to get the inserts befoe you sign the consent form - and time to read them, digest, and ask any questions you may have.

it is only after all this that you are able to give 'informed consent', after all.

I was refused the insert when I askd for it with dd1 - the nurse got extremely shirty, would not let me read it, threw the form at me to sign, and snapped 'if you read it you'll onlyhave questions afterwards' hmm (err, isn't that the point of being able to read the insert?)

she also went on to mutter lots about parents questioning 'since all that rubbish about autism' - very diplomatic since dd1 was in the system being assessed at that point hmm

anyway, luckily for me I had done my reading before going - it is possible to find copies of the inserts and information - so I told her in no uncertain terms that I would be complaining about her attitude, that I had questions I wanted answered regardless, and that the form she was trying to pressurise me into signing would be worthless if she didn't let me read the insert, as it would not be informed consent.

she let me have the leaflet, but didn't know the answers to the questions I had hmm hmm

so I am not particularly surprised that more parents don't read the inserts, tbh. I doubt lots of them are given the inserts to read...

silverfrog Sat 16-Jun-12 18:27:09

there are a few inaccuracies in that article, though - MMRII was intro'd in about 1992ish, iirc, after 2 or the original 3 vaccines used i nthe UK were withdrawn, due to unacceptably high side effect/complication rates (which were known about before those strains were intro'd into the UK - part of what the whole furore has been about, tbh)

I also thought (but have not had time to read up on this recently, so could easily be worng) that the boy in the article also received the Urabe strain (the withdrawn one), not the MMRII equivalent.

whichever he did receive, though, I am glad his family has had some sort of verdict on this (small comfort though tht may be).

pointythings Sat 16-Jun-12 18:32:23

I think there are probably some children for whom the MMR or any other vaccine is not safe.

I think parents should have access to all the risk information as a matter of course - it could be sent out with the appointment.

I think children who are damaged by vaccines should receive financial compensation - after all it happens very rarely, the state could bear the cost and meanwhile the children who do benefit from vaccination could continue to do so.

donnie Sat 16-Jun-12 19:05:35

single vaxes for both my dds here. I have absolutely no regrets. I do believe one day Wakefield will be vindicated.

mosschops30 Sat 16-Jun-12 19:26:49

OMG here we go again.

There is NO proven link between MMR and autism
The Wakefield research paper was so flawed that even the doctors who put their names to it were struck off
There is NO evidence to suggest single vaccines are safe or safer
No vaccine can ever be 100% safe, you have to either protect your child and take a small risk, or dont protect them taking a bigger risk.

traffichalter Sat 16-Jun-12 19:42:26

Did you read the link in the OP?

Marne Sat 16-Jun-12 19:48:28

mosschop-people are always going to discuss the MMR and Autism, parents of autistic children are always going to question the MMR. Yes 'there is no proven link' (yet) but it also can't be ruled out.

No one is saying 'don't vaccinate your kids' but it should be a parent choice wether to opt for the single vaccines.

Fourthdimensionallizard Sat 16-Jun-12 19:52:03

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

HappyMummyOfOne Sat 16-Jun-12 20:04:59

We had the singles too as wasnt happy with all the speculation around the mmr, very happy we did even if only for our own peace of mind. Sadly the mumps vax is very hard to get now so not all parents get to choose.

traffichalter Sat 16-Jun-12 20:17:32

I think it will get easier now.

pointythings Sat 16-Jun-12 20:41:16

BTW mine have both had the MMR and I agree that Wakefield's research violated every basic precept of scientific method.

But that doesn't mean vaccine damage is impossible - we need more research about vaccine interaction with certain genetic predispositions, immunocompromised children and probably a lot more besides.

Hopefully we will end up with a situation where parents can make a truly informed choice.

perceptionreality Sat 16-Jun-12 22:40:01

There is no proven link because the number of children the issue affects is very small.......and because the government is not going to let anyone suggest that everybody should not contunue to do as we are told without questions, let alone allow any funding for research which might show a result they don't want to get out.

Silverfrog - I am appalled at that nurses attitude!

perceptionreality Sat 16-Jun-12 22:42:16

It is hard for parents to make an informed choice in a situation where the waters are muddied by the fact pharma companies make so much money from vaccines and the government prioritises disease control over trying to find out which children are at risk from bad reactions to vaccines.

traffichalter Sat 16-Jun-12 22:47:32

Collateral damage. Should be recognised and compensated for.

perceptionreality Sat 16-Jun-12 22:49:54

I agree traffichalter - unfortunately the lack of admission that bad reactions can happen does little to instill trust in some parents.

dikkertjedap Sat 16-Jun-12 23:37:33

Oddly enough, it is the Daily Mail who picks this ruling up. None of the Italian papers, do you know why?

This was the ruling of a very minor provincial court in Italy. The Italian government will certainly appeal and almost certainly win. This is why everybody else is ignoring this decision.

It is a storm in a teacup and only picked up here in the UK to stir up the debate again, scare people again in not vaccinating their kids at a time of several serious measles outbreaks.

Really clever!

traffichalter Sat 16-Jun-12 23:38:30

Why would the Daily Mail do that?

misslinnet Sat 16-Jun-12 23:42:27

I expect the Daily Mail has picked it up because it knows how much publicity the MMR debate has had here in the UK, and they think that more people will buy the Daily Mail or look at their website if they cover it.

And re. inserts, when DS got his first vaccinations, the GP gave me the inserts to read and take home with me. I assumed that was normal.

Springforward Sat 16-Jun-12 23:53:19

I thought the UK doctor who started this scare with his dodgy research got struck off at his GMC hearing for running papers with bad science.

So... are the Italian doctors better scientists/ statisticians? (Genuine question btw, not rhetorical).

traffichalter Sun 17-Jun-12 00:02:11

It says a number of doctors reviewed the evidence.

silverfrog Sun 17-Jun-12 10:19:38

Daily MAil has always reported MMR stuff. More to keep it in circulation, rather than spin/scare, imo.

The lack of reporting elsewhere does not surprise me - lots of landmark rulings don't get reported in the UK - the Hannah Poling verdict was buried (and that was major news); barely a mention of Bailey Banks either (another huge case). dh had some correspondence with the BBC over both those cases, and the answer each time was 'not in the public interest to report' - this was on days when eg the news consisted of waterskiing budgies and simialr (after the major headlines) so not as though not enough space etc, and these were huge stories, with big implications, but not a peep.

CatherinaJTV Sun 17-Jun-12 10:49:04

The Daily Fail article is just to stir up a sh*t storm and increase their sales and web site clicks. Totally irresponsible, IMO

hackmum Sun 17-Jun-12 10:56:11

Well, the DM may well be interested in causing a shitstorm. Two of its columnists, Melanie Phillips and Peter Hitchens, have in the past been critical of the MMR vaccine.

But I still think it's a story worth reporting. One of the things we were told repeatedly when the MMR scare was at its height was that this was a purely local concern; only the British were worried about it, nobody else. The story at least gives the lie to that.

Solopower Sun 17-Jun-12 16:28:12

The only way to know for sure if the MMR vaccine has anything to do with autism is to look at how many people were autistic before the vaccines started being given and how many have it now, while eliminating any other factors. But it's impossible to do this, since it is such a complex diagnosis, and there may well be other factors that have yet to be identified.

The various govts and medical profession have not acted well over this, imo. All we need is balanced information about the vaccine so that we can make up our own minds. Herd immunity is important, but the govt/medics shouldn't treat us like a herd of animals, and should protect individual children who might be at risk from the vaccine.

numbertaker Sun 17-Jun-12 16:37:51

I really don't get the attidude that because no other news papers picked it up, it must be the DM fearmongering.

Acutally this story has been all over the net and on alternative media.

You might not actually like the truth because it makes you feel uncomfortable, and it challenges your long held beliefs, but for those who have 'Collateral damaged children' and that is a disgusting phrase, its something they have been waiting for for a long time.

The lid is off this one, and its not going away.

WidowWadman Sun 17-Jun-12 16:55:13

"on alternative media"

You mean like the JABS forum and other tinfoil hat congregations?

numbertaker Sun 17-Jun-12 17:42:12

LOL. Its not going away.

Ineedalife Sun 17-Jun-12 17:52:39

Dd3 had single vaccines, they cost a fortune and she hasnt had the mumps one.

My GP was not allowed to get single vaccines for her even though he was happy with my reasons for wanting her to have them.

We already saw signs of autism in her and I was worried that she MMR would cause more problems.

She had bad reactions to all the combined vaccinations but no probs with the single measles and rubella.

I dont think this will ever go away and I think parents should be able to choose without spending £300+ on singles.

CoteDAzur Mon 18-Jun-12 09:15:46

"The only way to know for sure if the MMR vaccine has anything to do with autism is to look at how many people were autistic before the vaccines started"

Not really.

Autism has significantly increased over the past couple of decades - this is what any such study will find. However, correlation doesn't mean causation, so you can't say the increase is due to MMR. There are other factors at play - like better diagnosis, widening of definition re "the spectrum" to include Asperger's Syndrome which in my school days was just called "being a nerd", etc.

The number of children said to be affected by MMR/autism is quite small, so unlikely to make a statistically significant difference in total autism figures, anyway.

misslinnet Mon 18-Jun-12 12:59:06

The only way to be really sure whether autism is caused by MMR would be to do a massive trial, with thousands and thousands of children.

Put the kids into one of 2 random groups. Give one group MMR, give the other group single measles / mumps / rubella vaccines, and make sure neither the children's parents or the nurse administering the vaccines knows which group is getting MMR and which is getting single vaccine. Administor placebo shots as necessary so each group gets the same overall number of jabs.

Then, a few years down the line, see whether there's any difference in autism diagnosis between the two groups.

It's highly unlikely anyone's going to do a trial like that though.

bruffin Mon 18-Jun-12 16:55:40

There has been a recent paper looking at rates of autism in children given mmr and single measles in poland. The rate of autism in the children given the single measles was twice the rate as those given mmr and the unvaccinated children had even higher rates of autism.polish study
Because they stopped mmr in japan a while back they have looked at autism rates in Japan before and after mmr was stopped and again autism continued to rise after the mmr was stopped.

a round up of studies concerning mmr and autism

a more up to date japanese study

bruffin Mon 18-Jun-12 17:02:49
Jux Mon 18-Jun-12 20:58:24

What age do they want to give the MMR these days?

minceorotherwise Mon 18-Jun-12 20:59:27

I was interested to see that only the DM picked this up of the newspapers. And the story didn't stay online long. Is that because they are expected to
Lose on appeal and does anyone know when the appeal is?
I expected it to be far more widely reported and thought it a little odd frankly

nellyjelly Mon 18-Jun-12 21:17:47

http://www.badscience.net/2008/08/the-medias-mmr-hoax/

nellyjelly Mon 18-Jun-12 21:20:39

http://www.badscience.net/2008/08/the-medias-mmr-hoax/

nellyjelly Mon 18-Jun-12 21:21:24

Sorry can't do links

misslinnet Mon 18-Jun-12 21:24:17

Doing it for you nellyjelly...

www.badscience.net/2008/08/the-medias-mmr-hoax/

pointythings Mon 18-Jun-12 21:24:37

It's about 13 months, Jux - just when more visible autistic traits start manifesting themselves in some children.

nellyjelly Mon 18-Jun-12 21:25:33

Thanks. bloody ipad!

minceorotherwise Mon 18-Jun-12 21:30:20

Wouldn't that article indicate that the papers are more rather than less likely to print the story then?
I was interested to know why they didn't leap upon it

nellyjelly Mon 18-Jun-12 21:33:56

Probably feel it's old news now given what has happened over recent years. It could still be picked up I guess. Just think the article interesting in showing how it was covered by the press and how it snowballed.

minceorotherwise Mon 18-Jun-12 21:38:07

It is an interesting viewpoint and one I have not heard. I don't agree with his conclusions but I do think he raises and interesting issue about the calibre of journos covering the story, and for sure that had a big impact on the public perception and mis interpretation of data.

nellyjelly Mon 18-Jun-12 21:40:48

The way the DM in particular used the story is interesting. They have a clear anti NHS stance and use anything to support this.

minceorotherwise Mon 18-Jun-12 21:48:30

Yes, the papers are always going to put their swing on it, depending on their values. What I don't understand is how come it isn't such a big deal. Surely it's a huge deal that a court has assessed the evidence and come down in the way it has. Has that ever happened before? Is it just the fact that people think it will be overturned on appeal?
I just find it weird that it's barely been reported good or bad

nellyjelly Mon 18-Jun-12 21:51:07

Just think it's been done here. After all that happened maybe the press feel they don't want to raise it all again.

minceorotherwise Mon 18-Jun-12 21:55:02

Do I sound a bit 'conspiracy theory' if I think it has got to be a bit politically motivated?

nellyjelly Mon 18-Jun-12 21:56:38

In what way? Genuinely interested.

minceorotherwise Mon 18-Jun-12 22:00:52

Well I suppose as the gov stance is that they want herd immunity and the press plus Wakefield etc threatened and lowered that, it would be in the interests of the gov to influence the papers to play down reports such as this? Or maybe they are just waiting to see the outcome of any appeal, to have a stronger story?

traffichalter Mon 18-Jun-12 22:18:38

I think you are bang on, mincey.

edam Mon 18-Jun-12 22:55:54

I think most newspapers are very, very cautious about reporting anything that might question the safety of MMR now.

StarlightWithAsteroid Mon 18-Jun-12 23:14:59

Isn't the bad science guy, the son of a CEO of a pharmaceutical company or something?

bruffin Mon 18-Jun-12 23:25:31

No he isn't.

edam Mon 18-Jun-12 23:27:40

Not according to wiki no. He's genuinely a doctor who gets pissed off at pseudoscience. He made an unfortunate remark about MMR when he blamed 'stupid mothers' or words to that effect for the fuss but apart from that I know no ill of him.

BartletForAmerica Tue 19-Jun-12 09:40:51

"That is why there is now the recommendation to give paracetomol or ibuprofen following vaccines to regulate the temperature."

There is no such recommendation. In fact, giving antipyretics can reduce the effectiveness of vaccines, particularly if given before administration.

BartletForAmerica Tue 19-Jun-12 09:43:00

"Well I suppose as the gov stance is that they want herd immunity and the press plus Wakefield etc threatened and lowered that, it would be in the interests of the gov to influence the papers to play down reports such as this? Or maybe they are just waiting to see the outcome of any appeal, to have a stronger story?"

Lowered herd immunity meant that more children got measles, mumps and rubella.

Mumps can cause, in boys, in fertility.

Measles can cause deafness, meningitis and death.

The government doesn't want herd immunity just because. It is because children used to and still die of these preventable diseases.

minceorotherwise Tue 19-Jun-12 10:56:14

Yes, I am aware of that fact
I am also aware that a percentage of children are more susceptible to vaccine damage than others
Do we ignore that fact to achieve herd immunity ?

MrsGuyOfGisbourne Tue 19-Jun-12 11:15:52

MMR is safe for the vast majority of children but NOT all of them. That's not good enough for me and I have gone for single vaccines
same here.
It is unscientific with any intervention to say that anything is 'safe' withou exception or qualification and I resent being treated like an idiot by 'health professionals' patronise parents by trying to kid them, because they assume parents can;t be trusted.
Feel for those Italian parents sad

edam Tue 19-Jun-12 11:42:52

My sister's an LD nurse and works with adults, some of whom have it documented on their notes that they are vaccine damaged. Herd immunity is a great concept except for those who suffer as a result. And it probably does work well for the whole population, as in fewer people will be damaged as a result of vaccination than would be damaged by the disease. Bit of a bugger for those who are damaged, though. And a bit of a tricky decision for a parent who has no way of knowing whether their child will be the one in 100,000 or 10,000 who will be vaccine damaged.

If I had a history of auto-immune disease in my familiy, I'd be very cautious about MMR. As it is I got ds singles initially (following research and consultation with colleagues who are expert reviewers of medical evidence and said the safety studies weren't sufficient) but by the time the booster came around, I felt confident that he was not vulnerable, and he had the booster. My decisions are not hugely evidence-based or right for anyone else, just me judging what seemed to be the best option for my son, with the smallest consequences for anyone else (e.g. I was determined he would have rubella because I would hate to think my decision for my child had harmed anyone else).

CoteDAzur Tue 19-Jun-12 11:56:08

"Lowered herd immunity meant that more children got measles, mumps and rubella"

So? What seems to be the problem with children getting rubella - a routine childhood disease so mild and quick that most people don't even notice that their children have had it?

Rubella is only dangerous for fetuses whose mothers have it for the first time when pregnant. Why can't we test girls at age 12 and vaccinate those who aren't immune?

And mumps - it doesn't cause sterility in children, only in pubescents and adults. Why can't we test boys at age, say, 7 and vaccinate those who aren't immune?

If you leave it alone, children will have these diseases early and be immune forever, just like with chicken pox. We can always test children at a later age and vaccinate then if necessary.

RoseParade Tue 19-Jun-12 12:12:02

Exactly what Cote said.

bruffin Tue 19-Jun-12 12:18:20

Because the aim of vaccine is to eventually eradicate the disease, as they did with measles in america until it was imported again.
Both Rubella and Mumps can cause other problems in smaller children ie mumps causes encephylitis and deafness, rubella epidemics comes in waves years apart and not easy to catch as a child, hence the number of cases of Congenital rubella syndrome before we vaccinated against rubella

[[http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=13164&page=106 lots of information here on the disease and safety of the vaccines that prevent them

bruffin Tue 19-Jun-12 12:18:39
CoteDAzur Tue 19-Jun-12 12:54:11

"Because the aim of vaccine is to eventually eradicate the disease"

That is a silly and unrealistic aim, considering MMR is not obligatory, is not done in many parts of the world, long incubation periods when disease is still infectious, and air travel is now so cheap that hundreds of thousands travel between various cities around the globe every day.

I don't think that's the aim of vaccination, by the way.

Mass vaccination is done because its cost is much less (especially when three-in-one like MMR) than large scale economic costs of outbreaks and parents staying home to look after sick children.

bruffin Tue 19-Jun-12 12:56:28

It was one of the Who's aims to eradicate measles.

CoteDAzur Tue 19-Jun-12 12:56:43

DS had rubella at 4 months, by the way. I noticed it by chance because I had just read an article about its symptoms (red behind the ears and low fever for a day, then spots two days later that pass within 24 hours). He didn't suffer at all.

Comparing it to chicken pox, I know what the more difficult & dangerous disease is. Why don't we vaccinate against chicken pox?

CoteDAzur Tue 19-Jun-12 12:57:04

And it was one of UN's aims to have world peace.

MrsGuyOfGisbourne Tue 19-Jun-12 13:19:17

Cote - I completely agree. In the Times on Saturday, there was a doctor giving his opinion on why mmr should be done, and then went on to explain the risk of measles confused - err isn't he missing something there? If the gvt was serious about getting the max number of dc immunised against measles they could, by offering the single measles vaccine, or at least not making it only the most determined who can now get hold of it. And, as you say, off the other vacines appropriately. But in this country, the asumption is that we are all dumbasses ( who can;t be trsuted, incidentally to have plugs in our bathrooms, unlike in other countries where adults are expected to have a basic level of intellingence and responsibility)
Tell poepel the real reasons behind the mmr, but let them decide for themselves if they want their babies vaccinated against mumps and rubella as babies, or have those jabs later.

nellyjelly Tue 19-Jun-12 17:03:07

Because rubella can cause devastating birth defects. They want to minimise the risk of this to pregnant women. It is a serious risk. Research showed a large increase in rubella related defects when the whole mmr avoidance issue kicked in during the 90s.

MrsGuyOfGisbourne Tue 19-Jun-12 17:17:55

But the risk is not to the child receiving the vaccine - that is where the dishonesty lies. Tell the parents the truth! 'This will not directly benefit your child, but is for the greater good'. Then leave it up to the parents to decide. Anything less is pure dishonesty, and part of the reason why people have lost respect for, and trust in, health 'professionals'. Of course people want to eradicate dieases that will haem potential future babies but to lie to them is unethical and unacceptable, and ultimately counter-productive - poeple are not stupid and if the wool is pulled over their eyes very blatantly they will resist future attempts to dupe them.

misslinnet Tue 19-Jun-12 17:46:52

MrsGuyOfGisbourne - the NHS leaflet on vaccines I received, and also the NHS birth to five book the health visitor gave me, both clearly state that rubella is usually mild and can go unnoticed in children, but that it is very serious for unborn babies.

They're not pretending that the rubella bit of the MMR will directly benefit the child (although if your child is a girl and gets the vaccine, I'd argue that it will directly benefit her in the future if she gets pregnant).

The leaflet / birth to five book gives brief descriptions of all diseases currently vaccinated against, and I believe these publications are given to all new parents in the UK. If a parent chooses not to read this freely provided information, it's unfair of them to then claim that they were 'lied to' and that no one told them rubella is usually only harmful to unborn babies.

And health professionals can't force children to be vaccinated without the parents consent.

StarlightWithAsteroid Tue 19-Jun-12 17:53:38

Wot cote said. My unvaccinated children are only 'at risk' because the population has been artificially interfered with and the opportunity for contact and the development of natural immunity whilst a child has been eroded!

mosschops30 Tue 19-Jun-12 18:11:47

Absolutely starlight before we had vaccination programmes and people were 'interfered with' no one ever died of disease hmm

StarlightWithAsteroid Tue 19-Jun-12 18:17:07

Of course some people died moss. But 'high risk' and 'vulnerable' groups could and should be screened for, as in the flu vacs etc.

misslinnet Tue 19-Jun-12 18:22:18

Smallpox, diptheria, whooping cough, polio and measles all killed plenty of children, and caused life long disability in plenty more for the rest of their lives, before vaccinations were available.

Starlight, perhaps you could explain what you mean by 'artificially interfered with'?

pointythings Tue 19-Jun-12 19:04:58

Time to pack up, the antivaxers are out. brew

nellyjelly Tue 19-Jun-12 19:20:22

Agreed pointythings.

LaFataTurchina Tue 19-Jun-12 19:26:27

How odd, when my brother and I had our childhood jabs in Italy 20 odd years ago we had mumps, and rubella separately(I had to get all my vaccine notes off of my mum when I moved GPs).

No measles jabs then - had it done later in England.

Dollydowser Tue 19-Jun-12 20:01:13

I have seen research that shows many of the illnesses that there are now vaccines for, were already in sharp decline BEFORE vaccinations for them began.

There is a wealth of information from The Informed Parent, with research and articles from all over the world.

StarlightWithAsteroid Tue 19-Jun-12 20:06:39

Hope you're not making any assumptions Pointy

edam Tue 19-Jun-12 20:14:12

MrsGuy - rubella vaccine is an advantage to your child as they avoid an unpleasant illness (wasn't around when I was a kid and I remember German Measles, as we called it, being quite miserable). More importantly it stops your child causing grave damage to you (if you are p/g) or someone else. My best friend at school was deaf in one ear and had heart damage as a result of her Mother contracting rubella during pregnancy.

CoteDAzur Tue 19-Jun-12 20:26:39

"rubella vaccine is an advantage to your child as they avoid an unpleasant illness"

Rubella is very very mild. A cold is more unpleasant. Chicken pox is much more unpleasant and lasts far longer than rubella.

"They're not pretending that the rubella bit of the MMR will directly benefit the child..."

So why exactly should my 1 year old baby bear the responsibility for an unvaccinated mum? Should she not be responsible for the safety of her unborn child?

And why should my 1 year old baby boy be vaccinated for rubella at all?

"... (although if your child is a girl and gets the vaccine, I'd argue that it will directly benefit her in the future if she gets pregnant)."

You seem to be under the impression that a vaccine at age 1 will protect a girl when she is pregnant at age 20. It won't. These girls will have to have boosters through their lives, never completely sure if they are completely immune (vaccines don't confer 100% immunity).

The better choice for DD is to have rubella as a child and be immune all her life.

Fourthdimensionallizard Tue 19-Jun-12 20:34:32

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

traffichalter Tue 19-Jun-12 20:59:56

Could I ask who tested your dd, lizard? Did you have to go private? I'm really hoping my dds have had it and are immune for life.

bruffin Tue 19-Jun-12 21:00:33

Most people didn't catch rubella as, a child, why do you think there were so many cases of congenital rubella. In the last big epidemic in the us in the early, there were 10s of thousands of miscarriages and still births due to rubella.
I actually caught rubella from my mother in 75 a few weeks before I was due to have the vaccine myself at the age of 13. My mother had got to 37 years of age without getting it.

edam Tue 19-Jun-12 21:01:06

so? It's still an advantage to be healthy instead of ill. Your child may be lucky enough to barely notice rubella, but you couldn't possibly know that was going to be the case in advance.

CoteDAzur Tue 19-Jun-12 21:12:51

" lucky enough to barely notice rubella, but you couldn't possibly know that was going to be the case in advance"

Err yes you can. Because rubella is an extremely mild disease for children. For everyone, actually, except fetuses of non-immune mothers.

Seriously, put aside the fear mongering and at least recognise that.

bruffin Tue 19-Jun-12 21:23:59

Banging head against a brick wall,
You are not guaranteed to get it as a child, do you think all those cases of crs are due to young teenage pregnancies.

bruffin Tue 19-Jun-12 21:37:00

I would also point there are other viruses that are very similar to rubella and unless you have had immunity checked you cannot guarantee that you have had rubella.

Fourthdimensionallizard Tue 19-Jun-12 21:40:24

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

CoteDAzur Tue 19-Jun-12 21:40:55

Bang whatever you want. I plan to test DD at age 16 or so and vaccinate her then if necessary.

traffichalter Tue 19-Jun-12 22:00:50

That's fantastic, thanks, didn't know the GP would do that.

Fourthdimensionallizard Tue 19-Jun-12 22:14:19

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Clareypen Tue 19-Jun-12 22:36:48

Where are the MMR vaccines manufactured? Are they FDA or whatever the UK equiv. approved? These single Vac's where are they manufactured?

Clareypen Tue 19-Jun-12 22:39:24

Schools, nurseries etc also want to see a copy of your childs vaccination certificates before entry so really its not a choice.

traffichalter Tue 19-Jun-12 22:49:13

You mean in the US, Clareypen? I'm pretty sure there are parents who do opt out.

Fourthdimensionallizard Wed 20-Jun-12 07:33:18

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

traffichalter Wed 20-Jun-12 08:02:56

Do you know if, for example, a family history of auto-immune disease would qualify for exemption in most US states?

MrsGuyOfGisbourne Wed 20-Jun-12 08:30:21

would in any case be better to routinely test girls at puberty and vaccinate then becasue it would raise awareness in those girls. At them moment, they are probabaly unaware. I was tested by the GP when we decided to try for a baby.

MrsGuyOfGisbourne Wed 20-Jun-12 08:31:21

(I was immune, as it happens, tho had never been vaccinated or been known to have disease - so must have had it too mildly for anyone to notice)

Mosman Wed 20-Jun-12 08:36:57

Where are the MMR vaccines manufactured? Are they FDA or whatever the UK equiv. approved? These single Vac's where are they manufactured?

This is what worries me, how are they stored, where are they manufactured.
It could be that everyone who has had single vaccines is no more protected than mine who've had none. But at least I know that and keep my wits about me.

UnimaginitiveDadThemedUsername Wed 20-Jun-12 13:55:44

It's fucking disgraceful of the Daily Mail to pull up a minor judgement from a foreign court and use it to justify their history of ludicrous scaremongering.

It's a shame that there's not a UK equivalent of the jennymccarthybodycount.com site for Melanie Phillips (which could be a twofer and include the Norway massacre as well as her hysterical support of the quack Wakefield)

MrsGuyOfGisbourne Wed 20-Jun-12 14:23:47

'foreign court' because they can't be trusted, can they, those 'foreigners' hmm

UnimaginitiveDadThemedUsername Wed 20-Jun-12 14:26:03

Is that the best you can do? Why didn't you comment on the 'minor court' part?

traffichalter Wed 20-Jun-12 15:44:03

Always good to see rational debate on this topic.

speeder1 Wed 20-Jun-12 15:57:15

This might be a stupid question...

...BUT I know that autism isn't diagnosed often until after aged 2. Does that mean that in most cases the DC develops normally then regresses (at about, I understand, 13 months, coincidentally or otherwise when MMR is given...)

Or are the signs of autism frequently present from birth?

Or both?

Presumably the parents that feel that MMR caused their DC's autism fall into the first category. It does seem strange to me that a child can develop completely normally and then suddenly regress - something must trigger it.

I opted for single jags for DD1 (minus mumps which isn't available, thanks government) and will do the same for DD2. I don't feel that in the vast majority of cases that the MMR does cause autism but my instincts tell me that giving three live, albeit inactivated vaccines, at one time, can't be a good thing for a young developing immune system to deal with.

silverfrog Wed 20-Jun-12 16:36:44

speeder - there are many different types of autism. the problem with the majority of studies carried out is that they tend to treat autism as one thing. and it isn't. it is a whole range of things under an umbrella term.

as you point out, some children develop entirely typically, and then suddenly and catastrophically regress. others may lose skills slowly, with a regression happening over a longer period. others still have symptoms present (in hindsight) from birth.

there is, of course, no way of knowing which category (if any) your child may fall into until after the fact.

there is good evidence for a genetic link in some types of autism. and strong evidence for latent-and-environmentally-triggered-at-some-point links for other types of autism.

my dd1 was autistic before she had her mmr (but she had a shitload of jabs - not all of them necessary imo, and several given without consent - when she was a newborn as we lived abroad). but the mmr did damage her gut to some extent, and it has taken many years to even get her back on an even keel with that side of things (she is doing well now). my dd2 is in a prime category for latent-but-could-be-triggered, and so has not had any jabs (yet). dc3, due next month, will also have delayed jabs.

Ineedalife Thu 21-Jun-12 14:46:59

One of the things that worried me was being told that only the measles part of the vaccine needed a booster at 4 yrs approx and yet they are more than happy to give the mumps and rubella again even though it is totally unnecessary.hmm

The NHS don't tell you that do the?? They certainly didnt tell me, it was the private doctor who gave Dd3 single vaccines. I believe him because he could make a lot more money giving 6 jabs instead of 4.

DuelingFanjo Thu 21-Jun-12 14:49:20

I have pretty much made up my mind not to let my DS have the booster jabs, after the reaction he had to the MMR at 14 months.

ToryLovell Thu 21-Jun-12 15:01:28

Speeder for DS yes that is exactly how it happened. He was toddling, had several words, good eye contact, would play with toys etc; within two weeks of his MMR, he had lost all of those skills.

As DH and FIL have some autisitc traits, then I do believe that it is genetic within our family.

What we will never know is whether DS would have been less severely autistic if he had not had the MMR.

MrsGuyOfGisbourne Thu 21-Jun-12 15:35:43

For public health, it is acceptable to have individual casualties for the the greater good. For an individual parent it is not acceptable that their DC are casualties for the 'greater good' Therefore parents have to make decisions based on thier own circumstances. Health 'professionals' make a big thing about the fact that only a tiny proportion of people who are vacinated have vaccine damage, and so they insist on it, even thought in fact only a tiny proprtion of measles sufferers are adversley affected, a tinier proportion of mumps sufferes, and no rubella sufferers...

traffichalter Thu 21-Jun-12 16:04:38

Yes, that is true. You have to decide whether to take a risk for your own child "for the greater good" - and there is a vast amount of pressure to put your child forward "for the sake of other children". But actually, if you start to read about vaccination programmes, you realise that vaccination policies aren't necessarily for the greater good anyway. They are very good for profits, however.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now