Mumsnet has not checked the qualifications of anyone posting here. If you have any medical concerns we suggest you consult your GP.


(395 Posts)
Mosschops30 Fri 12-Apr-13 21:33:38

You can turn up to various venues
Ystrad Mynach Hospital
Belle Vue Surgery Newport
Children's Centre, CRI
Children's Centre, llandough

Don't worry if you're not sure If your dc has had booster, you can still attend.

Please protect all our children

Mosschops30 Fri 12-Apr-13 22:24:46

Bump, please keep bumped for welsh mnetters smile

Beachcomber Sat 13-Apr-13 08:17:19

Do you know if single measles vaccine is being offered?

IwishIwasmoreorganised Sat 13-Apr-13 08:25:41

Bump again! Our 2 have had both of their MMR's but I'm still concerned as we live very close to the outbreak.

The posters that I have seen have only said MMR, not single vaccine.

Probably best to contact your GP if your dc need vaccinating but can't have the MMR.

Mosschops30 Sat 13-Apr-13 08:32:48

Only MMR


Beachcomber Sat 13-Apr-13 08:43:15

Do you know why? This is measles that we are trying to protect children from, not any other disease.

VivaLeBeaver Sat 13-Apr-13 08:51:57

Because the Nhs hasn't offered single vaccines for years and years. The stance is that mmr is safe and more effective then single vaccines.

I'm not debating this btw, as this really isn't the thread. smile

Just answering the above question and bumping thread.

IwishIwasmoreorganised Sat 13-Apr-13 08:58:06

No idea why. Probably to keep things simple and get numbers through the clinics as efficiently as possible.

While we are dealing with a measles outbreak now, who's to y that mumps and rubella won't become problems too if so many are unvaccinated?

Your GP should be able to help with getting the single vaccine if that is what your dc need - please get it done ASAP though.

Mosschops30 Sat 13-Apr-13 09:57:58

The NHS does not offer measles as a single vaccine.
It has a triple vaccine that is safe for the majority.

If your child can't have the MMR for medical reasons then please see your GP

Beachcomber Sat 13-Apr-13 11:06:06

I'm not asking for my dc. Although i am in the position of having a child who cannot have the triple vaccine.

I think it is very poor policy to refuse to provide the single vaccine. I wondered if the government was rethinking their position and prioritising children's health instead of just clinging to a political position.

But it seems not. Which is a disgrace.

IwishIwasmoreorganised Sat 13-Apr-13 11:24:51

Have you asked your GP about the single vaccine for your dc who cannot have the triple vaccine?

If there is a compelling medical reason why they cannot be protected with the MMR, then I would be amazed that an alternative wasn't available.

If it was me in this position, I would be looking at how to get my dc protected asap if I was having problems with getting a single vaccine through the NHS. Protecting my children needs to take priority over government politics.

Mosschops30 Sat 13-Apr-13 11:49:15

Beachcomber I know you are a regular on the vaccination threads

Please don't use this thread to discuss your problems with the MMR.
If there is a medical reason ur dc can't have the MMR then you should be offered an alternative

Beachcomber Sat 13-Apr-13 11:53:33

Oh i don't have any problems getting single measles vaccine for my DC. I live in France and the single is easily available and free.

My question was because i wondered if the uk government was rethinking its unwise and stubborn refusal to provide the single on the NHS.

But it seems not. They are still prioritising politics over public health.

Beachcomber Sat 13-Apr-13 12:06:00

Mosschops I really think the time has come for a proper public discussion about the government's irresponsible and unjustified policy.

British children should not be pawns in their political manoveuring.

Much of the british public has lost confidence in the triple vaccine and events such as those in Swansea are a result of the government's pigheadedness.

Urging people to queue up to have a vaccine with a poor safety record and which is not neccesary in order to protect from the disease in question is ethically dubious and very irresponsible.

I cant quite believe they are doing this.

Mosschops30 Sat 13-Apr-13 12:12:53

Not on this thread there hasn't

Please go start your own thread

There is no risk to children from the MMR which is why it's given here

Beachcomber Sat 13-Apr-13 12:39:53

Come on Mosschops. No-one can categorically state that there is 'no' risk.

I think this thread urging people to queue up for a vaccine with a poor safety record and which is the subject of litigation in several countried and which the people of Swansea do not actually NEED in order to be protected against measles (they need a measles vaccine not a rubella and mumps one) is highly irrresponsible.

I'm sorry if you don't appreciate my comments on this thread but if you are going to urgre people to get an ethically dubious and reactive vaccine i'm afraid people are likely to have an opinion about that.

Mosschops30 Sat 13-Apr-13 12:41:23

I will not comment further cos I find you exhausting

HellesBelles396 Sat 13-Apr-13 13:03:25

beachcomber you will clearly take no notice as your mind appears to be closed to the possibility that the MMR jab is both effective and safe but copy and paste this into your browser. it summarises actual research by actual scientists.

HellesBelles396 Sat 13-Apr-13 13:08:45

after summarising Andrew Wakefield's nonsense.

Beachcomber Sat 13-Apr-13 13:37:11

Thanks Helles, I'm pretty familiar with much of the science. I prefer to read the actual studies themselves.

Sorry to exhaust you Mosschops!

Beachcomber Sat 13-Apr-13 13:51:50

Although i did read your link and it was good to see that Professor Finn admitted that British children were exposed to dangerous combined vaccines that caused meningitis.

Good to see that he also doesn't try to deny that numerous children with ASD diagnoses have been awarded damages for reactions to MMR vaccines.

HellesBelles396 Sat 13-Apr-13 14:14:50

Wow! you're very good at taking soundbites that mean the exact opposite of what was actually said.

For the benefit of readers, the take home messages actually were:

private damages are awarded based on a very low threshold of "proof" - correlation rather than causation so the awarding of damages does not constitute evidence of serious damage caused by MMR.

no reputable study has ever shown a link between MMR and autism.

I can point you in the direction of several reputable and peer-reviewed studies that would convince any sensible person but reading your posts - including your most recent one - it is clear that reasoned evidence-based debate is not of interest to you.

I hope no-one reads your nonsense and makes a decision that puts their child - and others - at risk as a result.

Beachcomber Sat 13-Apr-13 14:27:17

Oh please. Vaccine court does not hand out massive sums in compensation in hugely controversial issues easily. Cases can take years, involve hundreds of medical documents, several expert witnesses and teams of legal staff.

Trying to pretend that landmark cases are insignificant and have been given away on a judge's whim is risible.

Finn admits to MMR vaccines causing meningitis and he admits that families have won damage cases for their autistic children. The double think of the 'MMR is safe' mantra is starting to sound very shaky indeed.

HellesBelles396 Sat 13-Apr-13 14:40:31

I didn't say lightly - I said there is a lower burden of proof than is required to scientifically show causation.

the side-effects associated with MMR are the same as are associated with the single vaccines and weaker versions of those from actually having the diseases. the facts are that in the UK, with proper storage and administration of vaccines, no child has died from the MMR jab but a child dies every year from measles alone.

Beachcomber Sat 13-Apr-13 15:11:28

The side effects aren't the same though.

For example the MMR containing Urabe strain mumps virus caused meningitis in children in unacceptable levels whereas the single vaccine of the same mumps strain didn't.

When chicken pox is added to the MMR adverse events happen at a much higher rate than with the single CP vaccine.

Beachcomber Sat 13-Apr-13 15:24:53

And there have been deaths after MMR vaccination.

Cant link as am on phone but google MMR death Telegraph and you will easily find reports.

Dont think there have been deaths in recent years from measles apart case of a teenager with a preexisting condition. Of course that doesnt go to say that measles doesnt have the potential to be very serious and indeed have fatal complications.

Which is why it is unacceptable for the government to withhold the single vaccine for political reasons.

noblegiraffe Sun 14-Apr-13 19:47:07

Beachcomber, that would appear to be incorrect

" Twenty cases [of aseptic meningitis] were temporally associated with the administration of a monovalent mumps vaccine and 34 with a trivalent measles, mumps and rubella vaccine (MMR)"

MikeLitoris Sun 14-Apr-13 19:54:18

Mosschops do you know if these clinics are goimg to be open this week or is it just the weekend?

I had planned to take dd1 to doctors tomorrow but the cri is on my door step so could go there instead.

I cannot remember taking her for her booster and I cant find her red book.

Mosschops30 Sun 14-Apr-13 20:30:23

mike it was just weekend AFIAK through the week it would be your GP

CatherinaJTV Sun 14-Apr-13 20:30:54

For example the MMR containing Urabe strain mumps virus caused meningitis in children in unacceptable levels whereas the single vaccine of the same mumps strain didn't.

one of Wakefield lies (lovely voice, the man, but lies as he breathes)

Twenty cases [of aseptic meningitis] were temporally associated with the administration of a monovalent mumps vaccine and 34 with a trivalent measles, mumps and rubella vaccine (MMR).

CatherinaJTV Sun 14-Apr-13 20:31:39

noblegiraffe did not see your post before I wrote mine smile

MikeLitoris Sun 14-Apr-13 20:38:07

I'll stick to the doctors then. Will the receptionist be able to check if dd had the vacc? I wouldnt want to waste anyones time taking her unnecessarily.

slightlysoupstained Sun 14-Apr-13 20:41:27

Beachcomber you've been asked several times politely to go start your own thread instead of trying to derail this one into the same old argument. Why are you continuing to try to start arguments with people, going so far as to use words like unethical sounds like goading to me.

I am getting increasingly nervous at how close to home this is getting, threads like this are important.

HugAndRoll Sun 14-Apr-13 20:50:19

GPs are also allowing babies under 1 to have their vaccine early due to the increasing number of cases. Ds2 is booked in for tomorrow. I think the drop in clinics are for ages 1+ so those with babies ages 6mo-1yr ring your GP.

beach stop being so unhelpful. Easy for you to say what you are about the MMR in the safety of France but we are actually facing an epidemic here. It may also help you to look up the definition of "discredited" and also what it means and why a doctor would be "struck off" before you spout that shit anymore.

PoppadomPreach Sun 14-Apr-13 20:54:26

Good thread, OP. shame an idiot is trying to derail.

sashh Mon 15-Apr-13 05:32:20

I think it is very poor policy to refuse to provide the single vaccine. I wondered if the government was rethinking their position and prioritising children's health instead of just clinging to a political position.

Go read up on vaccine damage from single measles vaccine in the 1970s, then tell me it is better than MMR.

Sorry to be derailed, back on track


bumbleymummy Mon 15-Apr-13 11:42:34

Do you have any links Sashh? All that seems to come up is related to the MMR, not single measles.

Afaik, one of the two single measles vaccine that is offered by private clinics in the UK (rouvax) is offered as part of the schedule in France. It is manufactured by sanofi Pasteur (who also produce pediacel (5-in-1) vaccine) so I wonder why it would still be in use if it was considered dangerous and had been shown to cause damage.

gnushoes Mon 15-Apr-13 11:45:00


noblegiraffe Mon 15-Apr-13 12:07:39

Single vaccines are not considered dangerous, they are considered more likely to cause children to miss vaccinations due to the need for multiple appointments, increase the risk of catching the disease due to the extra time between appointments and the simple unpleasantness of administering three needles to infants where one would suffice.

bumbleymummy Mon 15-Apr-13 12:15:45

I was replying to this noble giraffe:

"Go read up on vaccine damage from single measles vaccine in the 1970s, then tell me it is better than MMR. "

In any case, there is an argument to be made for giving mumps and rubella vaccines at a later age anyway.

YoniRanger Mon 15-Apr-13 12:17:20

Beachcomber you are very very far away from an outbreak caused by the kind of twatish thinking you are applying here.

If you would like to bring your unvaccinated children to stay at my house in Powys and actually practice what you preach you are more than welcome. After all measles is only mild right? Right?

bumbleymummy Mon 15-Apr-13 12:23:21

Well in the majority of cases it isn't life threatening yoni but in any case Beachcomber was asking whether the single vaccine is also bring made available and I think she raises a valid point. If the single vaccine had been left as an available alternative instead of being withdrawn while there were concerns about the MMR then there wouldn't be a problem would there? Politics.

noblegiraffe Mon 15-Apr-13 12:28:43

But why would they make the single vaccine available when the MMR is perfectly good? Making the single vaccine available would suggest doubt that the MMR was the best method of vaccination. And it is better than three single vaccines for the reasons I listed. Why offer a less good alternative?

OpheliasWeepingWillow Mon 15-Apr-13 12:41:41

Oh my goodness gracious.

What a horrible hijack!

It's such a shame when the minority preach extremist views that risk the health of the majority (yes, really)

bumbleymummy Mon 15-Apr-13 12:56:13

Noble, if the point is to vaccinate children against measles to protect them in this outbreak then it shouldn't matter which measles vaccine people opt for. If making the single vaccine available would encourage more people to vaccinate overall then the politics shouldn't matter.

What extremist views have been expressed that would risk anyone's health ophelia? A single vaccine would still protect against measles. It should never had been withdrawn when there was so much concern about the MMR. If it had still been available then more people would have vaccinated their children (which surely is the whole point!) and there wouldn't need to be queues of people waiting outside pop-up vaccine clinics today.

noblegiraffe Mon 15-Apr-13 13:07:37

Bumbly, if parents are that worried about the measles outbreak that they want their child vaccinated, but are still concerned about the MMR for some reason then they can pay for it privately.

The NHS is providing a vaccine. If they suddenly started providing a different vaccine for parents who can't get over the MMR scare, then that would be validating their concerns, sparking a rash of parents suddenly leaving the perfectly good MMR queue.

OpheliasWeepingWillow Mon 15-Apr-13 13:40:24

Well I believe that scaremongering the supposed side effects of MMR is an extremist view with no basis in science or reality.

There is NO NEED for a single vaccine.

Anyway - I'm saying no more except if you are in Wales and especially South Wales there are clinics available to provide immunization against Measles.

Mosschops30 Mon 15-Apr-13 13:47:35

Thank you all for keeping this bumped and for fending off the hijackers who despite being asked politely several times, still feel the need to stay here and talk nonsense

We are offering MMR to children between 6-12 months in Wales now. Please spk to your GP if this is something you want

RandallPinkFloyd Mon 15-Apr-13 13:54:40

I've been trying to find a thread to ask about my DS. But haven't seen one yet that hasn't been derailed by in-fighting.

I'm not interested in debating the vac. I have made my own decision based on all the information I could gather. I am happy with it.

My question is that DS is 20mo so has had the first mmr but not the second. I'm in north rather than South Wales but should I be thinking about getting the second jab earlier? Or is the gap important?

I'm not overly worried as we have no cases here and I believe the first vac is 95% effective, but if the length of time between doses isn't important I'd be of the opinion that he may as well have it now. He'll be having the second one when it's due anyway so it wouldn't be an extra one, just seems pertinent to ask.

If I'm not mistaken I think there are a couple of GPs on his thread (apologies if I'm wrong!) so I'd be very grateful for their advice.

Mosschops30 Mon 15-Apr-13 14:03:33

The vaccines can be given one month apart in children over 12 months. So potentially one at 12 months and then one at 13.

The reason they are spaced as they are is purely logistics of getting children back into clinic for all boosters before school.

I can't advise whether to have early, but there is no risk to having it early.
My ds2 is having his early tomorrow

HTH smile

bumbleymummy Mon 15-Apr-13 14:18:21

Oh don't be so precious mosschops. There is nothing nonsensical about anything I have said. It is perfectly legitimate to talk about alternatives to the MMR that also provide protection against measles. If anything, it is extremely irresponsible to suggest that the single measles vaccine (which many people have opted for ) is in someway dangerous as Sashh did. I don't see Ophelia jumping on her for scaremongering about that.

Most people will opt for the MMR anyway but if people were genuinely concerned about children catching measles rather than worrying about people's opinion of the MMR then they wouldn't care which one was used to protect against measles.

RandallPinkFloyd Mon 15-Apr-13 14:22:12

Thanks moss, that's what I though but just wanted to check.

The way I see it, if he's going to have it eventually anyway why not have it now just to be safe.

He's had a stinker of a cold for the last month and is still a bit snotty, no temp and fine in himself but is that a reason not to have it? Or is it only raised temp and proper illness that should be avoided?

Mosschops30 Mon 15-Apr-13 14:26:57

Normally yes, temp or unwell on day would be a no.
Check with your practice nurse or GP though when u take him

RandallPinkFloyd Mon 15-Apr-13 14:46:20

You've been really helpful, thank you.

Think I'll give it a few days for this last bit of stubborn snottiness to subside then I'll take him.

Mosschops30 Mon 15-Apr-13 15:07:26

No worries smile

Tabitha8 Mon 15-Apr-13 17:31:04

If the gov't really believed that measles is a "killer disease" then it would be doing all it could to ensure that we were all protected, and provide a single vaccine.
Therefore, I concluded some years ago that the gov't doesn't subscribe to that particular view of measles.
Sorry to hijack again.

AuntieStella Mon 15-Apr-13 17:35:03

I think the Government took a wrong decision when it allowed license for single jabs to lapse just as controversy was igniting, and before eg The Lancet recanted. But that was 15 years ago and the picture has changed nice then.

ShangriLaLaLa Mon 15-Apr-13 17:41:15

Has anyone heard if the uhb are planning to run drop ins in CRI/Llandough again this weekend? Nothing on the website as yet.

We are supposed to be going away but I'd prefer to get DS's 2nd dose sorted a few months early. Horribly high temp today, so maybe it won't be possible anyway!

Cherriesarered Mon 15-Apr-13 17:42:30


Powys has 40 cases of measles and warning have been sent home with children from school, so the outbreak is moving upwards through Wales so well done in planning to vaccinate!

OceanBeach Mon 15-Apr-13 17:49:09

beachcomber did you realise that every time you posted and tried to derail, all it did was make the thread title pop in active comments, so you commenting has actually made people see it and decide to go get the MMR for their children.
Doh! epic fail

Thanks for helping get children vaccinated beach and protect all children

RandallPinkFloyd Mon 15-Apr-13 17:54:45

Crickey, I didn't know that cherries, that's getting scarily close. I'll ring for a appointment tomorrow I think, prob take a week or so to fit him in anyway so the interminable snot should have finally subsided by then!

Mosschops30 Mon 15-Apr-13 18:44:39

shangrilala are you registered with a GP in cardiff? They will probably be running extra vaccination clinic (we are)
I haven't heard how well attended the weekend drop ins were or if they're running again, but I'll post if they are

ShangriLaLaLa Tue 16-Apr-13 14:02:57

Thanks for this, Mosschops. I'll keep an eye out.

Maddeningly, we were at gp's yesterday for a check-up for something else but DS's temp was far too high for vaccination. Think my best bet is to see if they run at the weekend and go along if he's better.

Of course, I've managed to convince myself that his high temp is an early symptom of measles. Despite the fact that we live in Cardiff which is (for now) only registering the lowest levels of reporting. Also despite the fact that he's had the initial jab.

I had it really badly in childhood and the prospect of either of them having it petrifies me, so I am allowing myself a modicum of obsession.

Mosschops30 Thu 18-Apr-13 18:05:19

shangrilala just been on news that drop in clinics will be run again this weekend.
Will let you know if I find out where

adagio Fri 19-Apr-13 12:33:25

Christ these vaccination threads are a completely minefield.

For the record, I will make my own mind up and do not want to discuss and have the shit scared out of me by hijackers. Its a crappy decision to have to make, lesser of two evils etc.

Now, sensible question - baby aged 4 months, I see the advice seems to be MMR 'early' at 6 months in danger zone; why 6 months? My HV said if I want it earlier than that I can, but I am struggling to find any coherent advice on why the 6 months date has been set. I appreciate if we have it early we will have to repeat at 12 months and 3 years, but can anyone tell me what if anything I should be doing with my 4 month old baby?

AuntieStella Fri 19-Apr-13 12:49:57

It's to do with typical length of time it takes maternal antibodies which transferred during pg to completely clear the system. If maternal antibodies remain, then the baby will not form an adequate immune reponse.

By a year, they can be confident that it will be stimulating the baby's immune system, which is why first routine jab is set when it is. But that's worked out in the assumption of a herd level that means no outbreaks, and is at least in part associated with convenience.

When there is an outbreak, the factors change. It becomes 'best guess' for when there's a good enough chance it might work effectively.

AmandinePoulain Fri 19-Apr-13 13:03:51

" I wonder why it would still be in use if it was considered dangerous and had been shown to cause damage."

Yes Bumbley - we could apply that argument to the MMR too...

The first death that may have measles as a contributing factor in Swansea is currently being investigated. Please, please attend one of these clinics if your child has not had two doses of the MMR.

There has been a suspected death from measles today in Swansea, a young man aged 25.

bumbleymummy Fri 19-Apr-13 13:31:52

Amandine, if you're happy enough with that logic then presumably you don't agree with those questioning the safety of the singles vaccine. Not everyone decides against the MMR based on concerns about autism/ safety etc. You know that, right?

Yes, very sad to hear that a young man has died. Measles is more risky in adulthood and we don't know if he had any underlying conditions so it's probably best not to speculate.

AmandinePoulain Fri 19-Apr-13 13:42:33

I never questioned the safety of the single vaccine confused; but in the UK the MMR is the recommended choice. If the DoH started offering single vaccines now it would look as if there was something wrong with the current schedule and confidence in it would plummet. I don't think that single vaccines are unsafe; but I do think that the MMR is the better option.

bumbleymummy Fri 19-Apr-13 14:18:34

Sashh did though amandine which was why I was asking her.

You do seem to be using a political argument against singles though rather than looking at it from a health point of view. To be blunt, who cares what people think of the MMR as long as children are getting some protection against measles? Some people would probably still opt for the MMR anyway.

slightlysoupstained Fri 19-Apr-13 19:47:01

Whilst I appreciate the bumps, I'd appreciate even more not having to wade through hijacking to get info on current outbreak. To echo an earlier poster, I am not thick, I can make my own mind up so please fuck the fuck off and stop trying to "save" me from myself you patronising fuckers. (She was more polite.)

Apparently my city has lowest uptake of MMR in area so if it spreads here we're fucked. Which is just great.

MikeLitoris Fri 19-Apr-13 20:01:26

Ignoring all the sidetracking going on, I need to take dd1 for it on wednesday as she missed the booster. Should I take 2 yo dd and ask for her to have the booster too?

IwishIwasmoreorganised Fri 19-Apr-13 20:41:11

Presuming that your dd2 had her first vaccine when she was called, there's no reason why you couldn't mike

bumbleymummy Fri 19-Apr-13 20:47:52

Slightly, singles aren't recorded so children may still be protected in your area - just not by MMR. smile

slightlysoupstained Fri 19-Apr-13 21:02:15

I don't give a flying fuck about singles.

bumbleymummy Fri 19-Apr-13 21:07:25

Why not? I thought you were concerned about children being protected during the measles outbreak? I'm just pointing out that just because a certain number haven't had the MMR in your area doesn't necesarily mean that they're all at risk of measles - they may have had the single measles vaccine but this won't have been recorded. Does that not reassure you a bit?

MikeLitoris Fri 19-Apr-13 21:11:28

Yes she was 13 mo iirc.

I hadn't heard much about having boosters early. I didnt think it was needed.

I would rather err on the side of caution.

PigletJohn Fri 19-Apr-13 22:19:51

"bumbleymummy Mon 15-Apr-13 12:23:21
Well in the majority of cases it isn't life threatening"

well isn't that nice.

bumbleymummy Fri 19-Apr-13 22:34:06

It's true Pj.

IwishIwasmoreorganised Fri 19-Apr-13 22:40:38

Yes bumbleymummy you're right that,"in the majority of cases it isn't life threatening" but also in the vast majority of cases of children having the MMR there are no long term negative effects.

bumbleymummy Fri 19-Apr-13 23:45:39

Where have I said there are?

IwishIwasmoreorganised Sat 20-Apr-13 07:08:34

You've not, but that's the choice that we as parents have to make. To say that measles isn't usually life threatening and leaving it at that is not helpful. The alternative have to be considered and weighed up too.

Anyway. Who's off to the clinics today?

bumbleymummy Sat 20-Apr-13 08:20:20

Iwish, I said it in response to Yoni's post:

"If you would like to bring your unvaccinated children to stay at my house in Powys and actually practice what you preach you are more than welcome. After all measles is only mild right? Right?"

PigletJohn Sat 20-Apr-13 11:30:38

so you were brushing off measles and saying not many people die from it.

Nothing to worry about, then?

scaevola Sat 20-Apr-13 11:33:35

Quick question: anyone know how long between jab and immunity actually forming? (I know that for some recipients it doesn't 'take' so it's never, I mean in those where there is the intended response).

AmandinePoulain Sat 20-Apr-13 15:24:15

I believe that it's 72 hours.

bumbleymummy Sat 20-Apr-13 16:33:33

No, I wasn't brushing it off.

PigletJohn Sat 20-Apr-13 17:06:11

so you now say.

bumbleymummy Sat 20-Apr-13 17:23:51

Haven't said anything different PJ and other people understood me so it may just be you smile

Mosschops30 Sun 21-Apr-13 00:01:06

Immunity can take about 15 days.

Hope all of you in Wales are ok smile

Cherriesarered Sun 21-Apr-13 14:27:28


I doubt that many people in Powys would have had single injections. You keep on posting on this issue when clearly from your other threads, you know nothing and are incapable of understanding the evidence based research that on other threads has been provided. So actually I urge anyone in Powys who hasn't been vaccinated to be vaccinated with the MMR because it is a safe vaccine and could save you from serious illness or death.

bumbleymummy Sun 21-Apr-13 14:39:43

Well you don't know that do you cherries? You can doubt it all you want though. What evidence based research on other threads contradicts anything I have said about the single measles vaccine here? confused I'm pretty sure no one has produced any info about it tbh.

I came on this thread to ask Sashh a question which she didn't answer. I don't think making false, unsubstantiated claims about the ineffectiveness of the singles measles vaccine is helpful when some people have used it as an alternative to the MMR. It's not just people from Wales that read this thread you know.

WeAreSix Sun 21-Apr-13 14:41:54

I'm not in Wales (on south coast) but thinking of vacc-ing DD4 8mo early. Would rather she was protected before the epidemic gets down here rather than a panic reaction if it becomes a problem iykwim.

Is that possible? Safe?

Cherriesarered Sun 21-Apr-13 15:04:16

What are you saying Bumblemummy?

Are you saying that parents shouldn't get their children vaccinated with the MMR?

If you know so much about the area that I live in tell us where you get a single vaccine for measles from and how much it costs?

Although there is no evidence that single vaccines are any better than the MMR. If there is please link to that evidence (and not some ridiculous crackpot website)


AmandinePoulain Sun 21-Apr-13 15:19:42

cherries I asked for sound evidence of the superiority of the single vaccine on another thread. Surprisingly none was forthcoming hmm

PigletJohn Sun 21-Apr-13 15:22:19

I suppose bumbley is entitled to guess that if "a certain number" (lets say, for example, fifty thousand) people in your area have not accepted MMR, they might have had the single vaccine.

Equally, the rest of us are entitled to believe it is a pile of poo highly improbable.

Cherriesarered Sun 21-Apr-13 16:53:35

Still waiting for a reply....

bumbleymummy Sun 21-Apr-13 20:43:17

Why don't you read my posts Cherry? I came on to the thread on page 2 asking Sashh why she was saying that the single measles vaccine was unsafe. I haven't said anything about anyone not getting the MMR or that the singles provide better protection. What exactly have I said that you're objecting to?

CatherinaJTV Sun 21-Apr-13 20:47:35


is this is the first or second MMR you are talking about? Infants as young as 6 months can get the MMR in an outbreak (if it is the first you are talking about). There only need to be 4 weeks between first and second MMR. In Germany, the first MMR is recommended for 11 - 14 months and the second for 15 to 24 months of age. So if you are talking about the second MMR, yes, you can give it, it is safe and it is reasonable.

PigletJohn Sun 21-Apr-13 21:16:39


what makes you think she said that?

Cherriesarered Sun 21-Apr-13 21:22:13

My concern is that you have come onto this thread and basically said "well okay, the offical vaccination rate is low in your area but actually it might be okay because people may have got single jabs".

The vaccination rate is according to the letter from NHS Wales sent home with the children in their teens about 75% which is far too low to prevent an outbreak of measles which leaves 25% of teens unvaccinated, given that we lives miles from anywhere and probably many people who didn't give their children the MMR wouldn't have been able to afford to travel or get a single vaccination. Certainly I know people who didn't vaccinate but didn't get an alternative. So this is why we have an outbreak now.

bumbleymummy Sun 21-Apr-13 21:28:30

It's pointing out that the 'official figures' don't include those who have been vaccinated with singles so it is possible that there is a higher percentage of people vaccinated than has been recorded. It's not that complex a point and one that has been made quite a few times on different threads by various posters.

That is nothing like saying 'don't get your child vaccinated with MMR' or 'single vaccines provide better protection' so where exactly did those ideas come from?

bumbleymummy Sun 21-Apr-13 21:30:50

You're actually making quite a good supportive argument for one of my posts which was that if the single vaccine had been kept available on the NHS while the whole media scare was going on about the MMR then more children would have been vaccinated. As you've pointed out, not everyone can afford singles.

Cherriesarered Sun 21-Apr-13 21:55:39

But we have MMR which is safe and effective and when you live a 16 mile round trip to the GP a alot more convenient.

bumbleymummy Sun 21-Apr-13 22:17:34

Well obviously not everyone thinks that otherwise they would have all been vaccinated wouldn't they? Doesn't negate my point that if you could have gotten the single at the GP then more children would have been vaccinated.

PigletJohn Sun 21-Apr-13 22:19:58


this idea of yours that the shortfall, of hundreds of thousands of people who didn't take up MMR, might not be a problem because perhaps they paid for expensive, private, single vaccinations -

is it based on any sort of evidence, or is it a hopeful guess?

bumbleymummy Sun 21-Apr-13 22:30:10

What idea is that PJ? How does ^ the 'official figures' don't include those who have been vaccinated with singles so it is possible that there is a higher percentage of people vaccinated than has been recorded.' ^ equate to "hundreds of thousands of people who didn't take up MMR, might not be a problem because perhaps they paid for expensive, private, single vaccinations ".

PigletJohn Sun 21-Apr-13 22:36:42

you haven't really forgotten, have you?

This idea

I'm just pointing out that just because a certain number haven't had the MMR in your area doesn't necesarily mean that they're all at risk of measles - they may have had the single measles vaccine but this won't have been recorded. Does that not reassure you a bit?

It's pointing out that the 'official figures' don't include those who have been vaccinated with singles so it is possible that there is a higher percentage of people vaccinated than has been recorded.

I don't know how many times you've floated it, but these are two recent ones.

is it based on any sort of evidence, or is it a hopeful guess?

BTW you haven't explained what you meant by this

I don't think making false, unsubstantiated claims about the ineffectiveness of the singles measles vaccine is helpful when some people have used it as an alternative to the MMR.

bumbleymummy Sun 21-Apr-13 22:45:52

Yes, I did quote one of those again myself PJ so clearly I hadn't 'forgotten' it hmm but I'm asking how that equates to:

"this idea of yours that the shortfall, of hundreds of thousands of people who didn't take up MMR, might not be a problem because perhaps they paid for expensive, private, single vaccinations"


I would have thought this:
"I don't think making false, unsubstantiated claims about the ineffectiveness of the singles measles vaccine is helpful when some people have used it as an alternative to the MMR."

was pretty self explanatory. What part are you struggling with?

PigletJohn Sun 21-Apr-13 22:54:55

I see you're avoiding both my questions.

is it based on any sort of evidence, or is it a hopeful guess?


what makes you think she said that?

Answer mine first. Sorry if it's difficult for you.

bumbleymummy Sun 21-Apr-13 23:16:18

Here's your answer:

1)I haven't said that "the shortfall, of hundreds of thousands of people who didn't take up MMR, might not be a problem because perhaps they paid for expensive, private, single vaccinations"

so what evidence would you like me to produce for a statement that you've made up?

2)What makes me think who said what? Your last question to me was:

^BTW you haven't explained what you meant by this

"I don't think making false, unsubstantiated claims about the ineffectiveness of the singles measles vaccine is helpful when some people have used it as an alternative to the MMR."^

It's pretty self explanatory. Certain posters have made unsubstantiated claims about the ineffectiveness/risk of singles vaccines which, given that some people who have used singles to protect their children against measles will be reading this thread, is not helpful. Can you substantiate their claims PJ? Do you think that the single measles vaccine is in some way risky or ineffective?

PigletJohn Sun 21-Apr-13 23:20:28

bumbleymummy Sun 21-Apr-13 20:43:17
... asking Sashh why she was saying that the single measles vaccine was unsafe....

PigletJohn Sun 21-Apr-13 21:16:39
what makes you think she said that?

bumbleymummy Sun 21-Apr-13 23:26:14

Sassh: "Go read up on vaccine damage from single measles vaccine in the 1970s, then tell me it is better than MMR. "

You could read the thread yourself you know - it's not that long and Sassh didn't post that many times.

bumbleymummy Sun 21-Apr-13 23:27:23

Your turn now smile

PigletJohn Sun 21-Apr-13 23:59:08

Yes, I saw "Go read up on vaccine damage from single measles vaccine in the 1970s, then tell me it is better than MMR.

However, it does not say single measles vaccines are unsafe. Does it. It just asks you to show that they are more safe than MMR. Which you couldn't.

bumbleymummy Mon 22-Apr-13 00:11:16

Actually her post wasn't directed at me (are you sure you read the thread?) so she wasn't asking me to show that it's more safe than the MMR. ( She actually didn't say 'more safe' than the MMR either - she said better) I asked her about the evidence for the vaccine damage caused by single vaccines and she hasn't gotten back to me yet.

PigletJohn Mon 22-Apr-13 00:23:47

you claimed that you were asking Sashh why she was saying that the single measles vaccine was unsafe

you quoted her.

that wasn't what she said.

I asked you what made you think it was.

Are you sure you read the thread?

bumbleymummy Mon 22-Apr-13 00:28:35

Well I've answered you. If you don't like the answer I gave that's your problem not mine smile

PigletJohn Mon 22-Apr-13 00:35:22

so she didn't say the single measles vaccine was unsafe, but you (falsely) claimed she did. Is that it, in a nutshell?

When you say "false, unsubstantiated claims about the ineffectiveness of the singles measles vaccine " is that made-up too? Or can you find an example?

bumbleymummy Mon 22-Apr-13 00:39:51

Read the thread PJ, everything I've said and other people have said is there. You don't need to ask me.

PigletJohn Mon 22-Apr-13 00:50:59

I have read the thread, and I am asking you because what you said does not appear to be correct.

I am paying you the courtesy of asking you to explain.

I can see it is difficult for you.

bumbleymummy Mon 22-Apr-13 00:55:14

Actually, for someone who has apparently read the thread, you've accused me of saying things that I haven't and not answering questions that weren't asked of me so I don't actually have the greatest faith in your comprehension skills smile good night.

PigletJohn Mon 22-Apr-13 01:02:13

... asking Sashh why she was saying that the single measles vaccine was unsafe....

you said that, no question.

"false, unsubstantiated claims about the ineffectiveness of the singles measles vaccine"

you said that, no question

"just because a certain number haven't had the MMR in your area doesn't necesarily mean that they're all at risk of measles - they may have had the single measles vaccine but this won't have been recorded. Does that not reassure you a bit"

you said that, no question.

bumbleymummy Mon 22-Apr-13 01:12:45

Yup - now go read the ones you accused me of that you 'forgot' to mention in that list wink

Tabitha8 Mon 22-Apr-13 17:47:03

I'm just waiting for PJ to accuse Bumbley of scaring people, spreading confusion, etc, etc, etc. Then she can draw up her CV, too wink.
We'll be in competition for the same job, but I'm ok with that. May the best man win smile.

bumbleymummy Mon 22-Apr-13 18:03:39


JoTheHot Mon 22-Apr-13 19:05:38

On the available reproducible evidence MMR is the safest and most cost effective alternative. I appreciate Wakefield, Halvorsen et al have conned a lot of people into believing otherwise, but surely we don't want health policy to be determined by special self interest groups.

If I were to wage a media campaign that successfully convinced people that grape seed extract is a safer and better option than statins, should the NHS then offer grape seed extract just because people are asking for it? Patient choice doesn't just mean giving people whatever they ask for.

Is there even any evidence that introducing singles would improve vaccination rates? It would inevitably lend specious credibility to the MMR scaremongers, thereby further reducing MMR uptake. My guess is there would be a small increase in measels coverage, a small drop in rubella coverage and a big drop in mumps coverage? i.e. an overall drop.

Cherriesarered Mon 22-Apr-13 21:39:22

Yes, why not vaccinate with the MMR? I am waiting for the evidence supporting single jabs from anyone stating that they should be given!

Measles cases in North Wales now!

PigletJohn Mon 22-Apr-13 22:09:49

Evidence? confused confused confused

You're not the first person to ask, but you'll be the first person to see it.

Have you been told "I've said it hundreds of times" or "read the thread" or "read my links" yet? How about "if you can't understand, that's not my problem?"

These are all popular responses by people who have nothing.

AmandinePoulain Mon 22-Apr-13 22:21:30

From what I've read it was Wakefield who started the whole single jabs are safer thing. With no evidence. (And certainly not connected to his own patent for a single vaccine I'm sure hmm)

meditrina Mon 22-Apr-13 22:52:20

A patent for a single jab would have been irrelevant as they'd already been in use for 30 years by then.

And remember, he hadn't been discredited then. His paper had been published in a reputable journal and it led to all sorts of people, including HCPs, wondering what might be uncovered if further studies were made. That's why it was such a crap decision to allow the licence to lapse at exactly that time. For until his findings were further scrutinised, metanayses of other papers carried out and more studies done (wasn't there an influential Finnish one a couple of years later, or have I misremembered?) it was a very different picture.

There's nothing wrong with the single jab. In fact there's a whole pool of the population depending on its efficacy (infants between 1968 and 1988). It's no longer licenced for admin reasons, not medical concerns.

HugoBear Mon 22-Apr-13 22:53:37

I've heard that the measles is spreading towards Cardiff now.

PigletJohn Mon 22-Apr-13 22:59:35

Ex-doctor Wakefield was in the single-vaccines trade and seems to have made some money out of it, but he was greatly aided by the newspapers who sell more fish-wrappings when there's a good scary story to peddle and they can work up the public's levels of excitement. One might have hoped they had learned from their guilt in popularising such wicked lies.

I see there was a person quoted in yesterday's Sunday Express making similar claims (no evidence was provided). By chance he is a director of a company in the single vaccinations business.

AmandinePoulain Mon 22-Apr-13 23:01:33

I never said there was anything wrong with the single jab; I just want to see some actual research to explain why some people think it's better.

There is measles being reported by every health board in Wales.

bumbleymummy Mon 22-Apr-13 23:11:57

I don't think people are necessarily arguing that it's better - just that it's a suitable alternative that will protect against measles.

AmandinePoulain Mon 22-Apr-13 23:15:24

But why? Why not just have an MMR? If you have concerns about the safety of the MMR, why are singles ok? I just don't get it confused

bumbleymummy Mon 22-Apr-13 23:20:44

Well there are obviously still people out there who don't trust the MMR for whatever reason - it's not always to do with Wakefield either. If they are not going to be convinced to have the MMR then the alternative is having nothing. If the goal is to ensure that a high percentage of the population are vaccinated then it makes sense for there to be another option.

PigletJohn Mon 22-Apr-13 23:20:52

I think it's great that there is no-one claiming that singles are better than MMR. It makes things more straightforward. Thanks BM.

So there's nothing stopping us getting on with using MMR to stamp out this epidemic, and preventing the next one.

PJM18 Mon 22-Apr-13 23:21:38

I haven't read all the thread so sorry if I'm repeating. I'm trying to decide whether to give mmr or single measles to my 2 younger children. I'm reluctant as my older son had a reaction to the mmr called gingivostomatitis where he developed bleeding and swollen gums and blisters in his mouth and he ended up in hospital as he couldn't swallow well. I think the problem is that GP's under report reactions so we don't really know the true extent of side effects.
I'm surprised that people question that single jabs should be offered as surely this offers parents choice and would prevent outbreaks. It's all fine saying mmr is safe but I've read hundreds of reports from parents whose children have had serious reactions and there is a government vaccination compensation scheme in the uk so I think it's fair to say that no vaccine is entirely safe. As far as I'm aware France has very good healthcare so if they offer single jabs then I don't see why we can't be offered them in the UK.

PigletJohn Mon 22-Apr-13 23:27:29

the most consistent advice we've had here is that you should consult your GP. In exceptional circumstances s/he may refer you on to a specialist.

bumbleymummy Mon 22-Apr-13 23:29:45

Oh look PJ, you did learn something from Saintly's posts! smile

PigletJohn Mon 22-Apr-13 23:34:05


PigletJohn Mon 22-Apr-13 23:40:40

I think noblegiraffe covered it very well last time.

AmandinePoulain Tue 23-Apr-13 06:51:16

PJM - if anyone thinks that their child had a reaction to a vaccine (or to any drug for that matter) they can report it themselves using the yellow card system. This does not need to be done by a GP.

HugoBear Tue 23-Apr-13 07:42:34

NHS staff now getting MMR, so there can't be anything wrong with it

bumbleymummy Tue 23-Apr-13 08:01:16

What strange logic Hugo confused They've been giving it to millions of children for years but the fact that they're having it themselves means there's nothing wrong with it?

HugoBear Tue 23-Apr-13 08:02:19

Cos if there was, why would they poison themselves? That wouldn't make sense.

bumbleymummy Tue 23-Apr-13 08:05:34

But it's ok to poison millions of children hmm do you think NHS staff would be ok with that?

HugoBear Tue 23-Apr-13 08:09:26

If its same MMR then they can't be poisoning children, or they'd be poisoning themselves too. That would be silly hmm

JoTheHot Tue 23-Apr-13 09:50:00

bumble could you justify your view that introducing singles would increase vaccination rates? As I said above, the opposite seems just as likely to me.

As we can see from the queues in Wales, many people who hadn't vaccinated, hadn't done so because they had mis-estimated the threat posed by measles.

Cherriesarered Tue 23-Apr-13 12:03:44

Bumblemummy: do you work for a single jab clinic? Why wouldn't people get vaccinated with MMR as it effective and safe?

PJM18 Tue 23-Apr-13 22:21:00

The nhs choices website states that one side effect of the mmr that occurs in a small number of cases (1 in 1000) is seizures. This wouldn't make you feel it was safe if it was your child who developed seizures and this is the kind of thing that makes me nervous about it. I've read quite a lot of parents stories about their children continuing to have seizures without a high temperature, therefore not febrile convulsions.

bumbleymummy Tue 23-Apr-13 22:36:57

Hugo, you're clearly missing my point. They've been vaccinating millions of children - so the fact that they are now getting themselves vaccinated doesnt really mean much. Unless you think they would happily 'poison' millions of children without a second thought because they aren't the vaccine themselves. It's a strange thing to find reassuring is all.

bumbleymummy Tue 23-Apr-13 22:48:39

Jo, it would allow people who would not choose the MMR to be vaccinated against measles. I know you suggested it would undermine confidence in the MMR but if for some reason it did then the single would be available. The single vaccine is available alongside the MMR in other countries without either damaging the other's reputation.

No cherries, I don't smile I thought your question had been answered a few times on other threads you've been on. Not everyone trusts/likes the idea of the MMR for whatever reason (not necessarily anything to do with Wakefield) so they will not get it no matter how many times you want to tell them that it is 'effective and safe'. The single is 'effective and safe' too and they may be happier with that.

HugoBear Tue 23-Apr-13 23:27:21

So therefore if millions of children have been vacinnated with MMR and the NHS staff are being re-vacinnated with MMR then that means its pretty safe.

And it makes sense to have it instead of loads of single jabs. when i took DD to get hers done it was a bit distressing all round - even the nurse said she didnt like giving jabs to little ones because it broke her heart to make them cry. But the nurse was brilliant - she asked DD 'who are you friends with at nursery?' and whilst DD was thinking of an answer the nurse went JAB JAB and then said 'would you like a lolly??'

If there is a risk of something happening with a vaccine like you say Bumblymummy, then less jabs = less risk. So MMR makes more sense.

LaVolcan Tue 23-Apr-13 23:38:25

I don't think you can say less jabs=less risk.

If you have a vaccination for a single disease and have some sort of reaction then you know which it is. If you have a vaccination for 3/4/5/6 diseases at once and have a reaction then you don't know for certain which it is. It might have only been one element you were reacting to, but you can't be sure.

HugoBear Tue 23-Apr-13 23:56:10

But people whove been suggesting that the jabs are a problem are saying its because of some kind of preservative, which all the different types of jabs will have.

so if the same preservative is in all the jabs and its the preservative thats the worry and you believe its the preservative thats the problem, its obvious that less jabs = less risk

LaVolcan Wed 24-Apr-13 00:17:25

On this thread, you are the only one who has mentioned preservatives, so I wouldn't necessarily say that this is why people think they are a problem.

Some vaccines use live strains, others are prepared on chick embryos and some people are allergic to eggs. These are all things people worry about.

HugoBear Wed 24-Apr-13 00:25:36

I've heard other people mention preservatives. are we not allowed to discuss other things?? confused

LaVolcan Wed 24-Apr-13 07:17:11

Threads do usually wander off to other things!

I personally don't know which jabs have which preservatives, but no doubt someone will soon be along to tell us. I suppose yes, if they all had exactly the same, and it was the only concern that people had, then fewer jabs could make sense.

I don't think you can say that all people are worried about the jabs because of preservatives, which your post seemed to imply. There seem to be a range of concerns including the ones I mention.

coorong Wed 24-Apr-13 07:59:34

So, looking at the comments on these vaccine website it seems you either
1. Support mass immunisation of MMR - because you recognise the risk of an adverse outcome from contracting measles / mumps / rubella outweighs the risk of an adverse outcome from the actual vaccine (1:100 000)


2. Campaign against MMR because you don't believe the statistics (govt / pharma conspiracy), can search the millions of scientific papers to find one or two papers to support your claim, or assert your GP is not interested in patient care because they don't listen to your google diagnosis

Adverse outcomes (ie death / severe reactions) will be reported because the child would end up in hospital. You can argue that doctors will refuse to report vaccine as the cause. However, I can't believe a parent who believes a vaccine caused their child's death would remain quiet. And yet we don't hear about these (there is one on the Jabs website, the two HPV "related" deaths have since been discredited)

Science / medicine isn't perfect, science is about challenging paradigms, however, these challenges must be repeatable (wakefields weren't, same for cold fusion) and robust (ie stand up to challenge).

LaVolcan Wed 24-Apr-13 08:05:57

3. Do neither of the above, but ask for more information before making a decision.
But asking for more information is a crime, it seems. As is finding that the above poster's comments are oversimplistic and patronising

coorong Wed 24-Apr-13 08:33:35

Either you
1 support mass immunisation
2 campaign against it

Either way, you ask for advice from your GP, not google (which is promotes results on the basis of advertising and clicks, NOT reliability or accuracy)

bumbleymummy Wed 24-Apr-13 08:36:31

Or 4, suggest that if people have concerns (for whatever reason) that they consider have single vaccines and think that singles should still be available on the NHS.

bumbleymummy Wed 24-Apr-13 08:38:19

I don't really see people campaigning against the MMR. As much as you'd like to put this into your two little boxes (why?) it just isn't going to happen.

HugoBear Wed 24-Apr-13 09:39:24

But you're telling people not to get MMR Bumblymummy. Aren't you?? confused

you keep saying theres problems with it - so you must not want people to get it surely? confused

coorong Wed 24-Apr-13 09:56:18

"I don't really see people campaiging against the MMR"

Umm - Andrew Wakefield et al
Jabs, Whale, Australian Vaccination Network

They will say their remit is to give you "choice", but really they are "merchants of doubt" "keeping the controversy alive" by spreading doubt and confusion after a scientific consensus had been reached

It's the basic strategy
- the pro smoking lobby (e.g. Forest)
- climate change skeptics

Again - you either
1. support vaccination
2. lobby against it

either way you seek medical advice, not google advice

bumbleymummy Wed 24-Apr-13 09:56:29

No, I'm not.

Where have I said not to get it or that there are problems with it? I've just been pointing out that singles are available as an alternative if you're concerned for whatever reason.

JoTheHot Wed 24-Apr-13 09:58:02

Can I summarise as follows, bumble?

1. Introducing singles might increase or decrease vaccination rates. It would cost money which would have to be cut from elsewhere in the NHS budget. It would lead to an increase in known side effects of vaccinations.

2.Some unknown, but probably small, number of people want single vaccines because of ideas they have harvested on the internet or from friends/family/strangers. These ideas are comprehensively contradicted by the very substantial body of available research. This research might be flawed in some, as yet to be defined, way. New research might alter current views.

3.Singles should be introduced.

1. and 2. seem pretty much beyond discussion, though you might not like my wording. If you really conclude 3. from 1. and 2., we have very very different values. This much I doubt.

Alternatively you are against MMR ,singles and ,to a first approximation, vaccinations in general. You are cynically advocating singles in the hope of showing pro-vaxers in a bad light: they claim to want vaccination, at the same time of denying people fair vaccination choice. Hopefully, you now realise that the analysis underlying your attempted smear is parochial, superficial and naive.

btw, which countries did you have in mind for offering singles in parallel with MMR. It has already been mentioned upthread, or possibly on another recent thread, that this is not the case in France.

bumbleymummy Wed 24-Apr-13 09:58:40

I still disagree with you coorong - MMR is not the only option so just because some people aren't getting the MMR does not mean that they are not supporting vaccination or are lobbying against it.

HugoBear Wed 24-Apr-13 10:05:47

What if singles arent available Bumblymummy?
Some people cant afford them or they cant get them where they live. And some people trust single vaccinnes less because they are older and require more visits to the nurse.

when the choice is MMR or nothing, then what? Waht do you think they should do then???

coorong Wed 24-Apr-13 10:13:08

Bubbleyummy - on the Australian Vaccination (which is anti vaccine and promotes Jabs and Whale) website you can post one of two photos -

one of a vaccine damaged baby - which is tragic
an unvaccinated healthy baby.

However, you can't post a picture of a healthy vaccinated baby -

1. you either support mass vaccination (againts a range of diseases)
2. you campaign against it (by sowing seeds of doubt)

bumbleymummy Wed 24-Apr-13 10:13:33

Jo, We'll just have to agree to disagree smile As someone has already pointed out, if the alternative to the MMR is someone not being vaccinated and that person ends up in hospital then that stay alone would more than have covered their single vaccines.

Some people genuinely can't have the MMR and I think you're being a bit dismissive to think that this information comes from the Internet and friends and family rather than medical professionals. I know two people in real life who were advised to have singles by their doctors (and no, these doctors weren't running single vaccine clinics and trying to make money off them before you suggest it!) there are many others in similar circumstances in MN.

Suggesting singles make someone anti-vaccine? [Hmm] That's some strange conspiracy thinking you've got going on there.

The single measles vaccine is available in France. Children still get vaccinated with MMR - they don't all run for the single measles vaccine just because it is available.

PigletJohn Wed 24-Apr-13 10:18:29

bumbleymummy Wed 24-Apr-13 10:13:33
Jo, We'll just have to agree to disagree

Didn't understand that.

Does it mean that 1,2 and 3 are all wrong?

noblegiraffe Wed 24-Apr-13 10:18:30

I don't have a problem with single vaccines being made available on the NHS by prescription for children who are medically unable to have the full MMR, however, I do disagree with them being made available so that parents who don't fancy the idea of the MMR for unscientific reasons can have their concerns validated.

bumbleymummy Wed 24-Apr-13 10:19:09

Hugo, have you missed all the people saying that's why it should be available on the NHS? Why would you trust a vaccine less because it is old? Its bot like it was manufacturered 30 years aho and left at the bsck of the fridge all this time! Do you know how long the BCG vaccine has been around for? People still get given that. It's not up to me what they should do if their choice is MMR or nothing - the point is that some people will choose and are choosing nothing. It's been happening for years and that's why there are now so many unvaccibated children around.

bumbleymummy Wed 24-Apr-13 10:21:14

Coorong - are you solely commenting on people on that specific website then? Or are you generalising and saying that all people fall into one of those two categories?

HugoBear Wed 24-Apr-13 10:24:38

maybe some people are choosing not to have any vaccine because of other people going nudge nudge wink wink, bumblymummy?

bumbleymummy Wed 24-Apr-13 10:26:38

Noble, how do you decide what reasons are unscientific?

If an older sibling is damaged by the MMR and the parents are concerned about subsequent children having it - is that unscientific? There are no tests to determine how likely they'll be to react as well - no way of knowing until you've given it. The alternative (on the NHS) is for them to have no protection. Rock and a hard place.

bumbleymummy Wed 24-Apr-13 10:27:25

Seriously Hugo? hmm what is with all the conspiracy theorists on this thread?

RandallPinkFloyd Wed 24-Apr-13 10:31:38

Ok, I've been lurking on a lot of these threads and have read all sides of the arguments.

What I would like to ask for is some form of evidence based research that shows single vacs are safer than the combined vac.

I'm not talking about cases where the combined vac is contra-indicated for valid medical reasons, I mean in general. What evidence is there to support parents having the choice to chose between the two options if there is no medically diagnosed reason?

I'm not interested in people's views either for or against, I don't think they helps anyone, just actual scientific fact so I can see for myself.

PigletJohn Wed 24-Apr-13 10:33:12

Hugo, Bumbley writes a vast number of posts about MMR.

None of them are in favour.

Conclude from that what you will.

noblegiraffe Wed 24-Apr-13 10:35:21

Ones that are backed up by scientific evidence are acceptable. So the NHS booklet recommends caution for immunosuppressed children, but says that it's safe for children with asthma.

I'm not sure what the evidence is for children where siblings have reacted badly, but if the evidence shows that caution is warranted, then that would be fine too.

What would be unacceptable would be, e.g. "It causes autism".

bumbleymummy Wed 24-Apr-13 10:53:34

Why does everyone think that the only reason people choose not to have the MMR is because they think it causes autism? Hugo just linked to a mother whose child now has epilepsy and can't talk,stand or feed himself. Is there any way she could have known that would happen? No. Is there some test that could have been done to check? No. Is there anyway for her to know whether her other children would have the same reaction? No. So how exactly would she go about proving that she should be allowed to give her other children the single measles vaccine instead? If you were in her position how happy/confident/assured would you be about giving your other children the MMR having seen what happened to your previously healthy son? It's not always black and white. People should not have to jump through hoops to get choices.

HugoBear Wed 24-Apr-13 11:02:19

But if that boy got vaccine damage from one vaccine how do you know he wouldnt have got it from another vaccine, bumblymummy?

you seem to be saying 'don't take vaccine A, take vaccine B' but you haven't said why vaccine b is safer than vaccine a

RandallPinkFloyd Wed 24-Apr-13 11:06:54

That's completely avoiding the question Bumbley, that situation is not "in general" that's a specific set of circumstance.

I was asking in general what is the evidence, barring any medical issues, that the single vacs are safer?

We all know there are children who have been damaged by vaccines. It's tragic. There are also people who have been damaged 'safe' medical procedures and medications, equally tragic. Nothing is 100% safe for 100% of the people.

All I'm asking for is some sort of evidence based research that shows that the risk of vaccine damage from the single vacs is less than the risk of damage from the combined vac for the population as an average.

bumbleymummy Wed 24-Apr-13 11:11:44

We don't know - but how confident would you be, as a parent, about giving the same vaccine that damaged your son to your other children? Should you still have to either just give it or leave them unvaccinated? You can't produce scientific evidence that your other children may react badly to it (noble has suggested this would be acceptable to allow singles) - but then you wouldn't have been able to produce scientific evidence that your son was going to end up with epilepsy either. As I said before, teh reasons for wanting singles are not always straightforward.

bumbleymummy Wed 24-Apr-13 11:19:52

I was replying to hugo, randall, not avoiding your question. hmm

I'm not arguing that the singles measles is safer ( maybe your question would be better directed at someone else?) I've said that the single measles vaccine is a 'safe and effective' alternative to the MMR if you are concerned about the MMR and still want to protect against measles. It was used in the UK for many years before the MMR was introduced, ran alongside it and is still in use in some countries. Do you have any evidence to show that it isn't safe?

JoTheHot Wed 24-Apr-13 11:21:16

Bumble you are being vague. This is either lazy or deliberate.

What do we disagree about?
Why do you bring up people who can't have the MMR? Aside of some rare exceptions, these people couldn't have the singles either.

I live in France, and the singles are NOT offered as a routine alternative. They are available in a few restricted circumstances. This information has already been posted, so you either haven't read the thread or you are being disingenuous? Offering singles in restricted circumstances is hardly likely to create the same suspicion as offering singles freely and widely, in specific response to critics of MMR.

bumbleymummy Wed 24-Apr-13 11:24:45

So you'd be happy for them to be offered in restricted circumstances in the UK then? So what hoops would people have to jump through to be alllowed it restricted circumstances would you consider acceptable?

RandallPinkFloyd Wed 24-Apr-13 11:26:47

With all due respect Bumbley, you've just repeated the same situation you talked about in your previous post.

I will ask again as I am genuinely interested in hearing all sides.

What evidence based research is there that single vacs are less likely to cause damage than the combined vac for the population in general and where there are no other medical contra-indications.

RandallPinkFloyd Wed 24-Apr-13 11:27:56

X-post there.

I do still think you are avoiding the question though.

bumbleymummy Wed 24-Apr-13 11:31:30

You probably just didn't get the answer that you wanted from me. Maybe someone else will come along and give you an another one.

HugoBear Wed 24-Apr-13 11:36:13

Randall - I think bumblymummy is confused as well. How can she say that one vaccine is safer than another and not have proof?

The only doctors who are saying to get single vaccines are private doctors who you have to pay. Which makes me very suspicious.

HugoBear Wed 24-Apr-13 11:37:33

Im not saying that you are a private doctor, bumblymummy! smile

bumbleymummy Wed 24-Apr-13 11:40:41

I've already said that I know two people in real life who were told to get singles and they weren't 'private doctors who you have to pay'. The only reason there are private doctors offering them is because there is a demand for them. Why are you suspicious of that? Easy solution to get away from it if it concerns you - offer them on the NHS!

noblegiraffe Wed 24-Apr-13 11:46:06

Bumbley, if your child had a reaction to Lemsip, which contains aspirin, paracetamol and caffeine (ignoring that you wouldn't give aspirin and caffeine to a child), why would you decide that giving aspirin, paracetamol and caffeine separately would be a good solution? Or even just aspirin?

RandallPinkFloyd Wed 24-Apr-13 11:48:07

I haven't asked for a specific answer at all, maybe I worded my question badly.

I was just asking for some basic facts. As a parent I feel it is my duty to reasearch things as thoroughly as I possibly can before forming an opinion.

You seem to be a strong advocate for the single vacs to be available to all so I presumed you have, or know where I could get, evidence based research for that side of the argument.

I apologise if I got that wrong.

PigletJohn Wed 24-Apr-13 11:50:28

You won't get an answer that is clear enough to examine and critique.

Vague suggestions and smears do the job and are harder to pin down.

bumbleymummy Wed 24-Apr-13 11:54:58

Well I wouldn't give my child aspirin at all noble - I don't think it's advised for under 16s. smile If they had an allergic reaction to something that contained all 3 I would want to know which 1 (or more) ingredients they reacted to. Do you think any doctor would encourage you to just keep pressing on with the Lemsip because the reaction was probably just a coincidence or would they suggest an alternative treatment?

If there was a risk associated with them not having one of the three ingredients and that risk was perceived to be greater than the risk associated with them having one of the ingredients in isolation then you would probably proceed cautiously with the one ingredient.

bumbleymummy Wed 24-Apr-13 11:57:02

I think the choice should be available Randall, that's all. I don't like the all or nothing/one size fits all approach.

RandallPinkFloyd Wed 24-Apr-13 12:02:22

But you must have a reason for wanting a choice. That's what I was getting at.

Why do you think the NHS should offer both options to everyone?

The UK vaccine program offers several combined vaccines, is it that you would prefer all vaccines to be available as singles?

HugoBear Wed 24-Apr-13 12:03:12

I once had someone tell me I shouldnt wash down Anadin Extra with Diet Coke because you shouldnt mix paracetamol and caffeine. But when I looked on the box it said that Anadin Extra already contained caffeine!

When I told her that, she got really funny and defensive and still wouldn't take it back! Some people just get funny ideas about things and won't be told otherwise.

noblegiraffe Wed 24-Apr-13 12:05:31

bumbly, I did say ignoring the fact you wouldn't give aspirin to a child.

Most people are fine with Lemsip. But you want the doctor to offer all parents the three ingredients of Lemsip to be spaced out just in case they have a reaction to one element, which you wouldn't know about in advance and which they probably won't have because most people are fine with Lemsip?
Isn't that a major faff if they are going to react to the individual ingredient anyway? If you're allergic to caffeine, you're going to be allergic to it however it's given.

bumbleymummy Wed 24-Apr-13 12:13:36

Because without the choice some people are choosing to have nothing because they don't want/trust the MMR. Some people also don't need all 3 components (because they may already be immune to one or more of them) but they have to get them all anyway. Some people think that's not an issue but what other medications would you take that you don't actually need?

I do actually think there is an argument to be made for having other vaccines split as well. For example, if you need a whooping cough booster, you can only get it in combination (usually with Tetanus and Diptheria) and too many Tetanus boosters are not a good thing.

noblegiraffe Wed 24-Apr-13 12:17:41

There are plenty of people who thought they didn't want or trust the MMR who seem to have changed their minds now the chips are down. Improving trust in the MMR is the key, not undermining it.

HugoBear Wed 24-Apr-13 12:18:50

Sorry, Noble - I probably didnt make myself clear.

This person was claiming that mixing caffeine and paracetamol at the same time was bad and that if taken separately they were ok - that they somehow 'combined' to make something bad. Which was nonsense as both are in the same tablet!

I thought thats what you were getting at when talking about single vaccines and MMR.

bumbleymummy Wed 24-Apr-13 12:18:55

You didn't answer my question noble - do you think a doctor would encourage you to continue on taking Lemsip or would they suggest an alternative if you had a reaction?

Yes, most people would be fine with the Lemsip but for those who aren't, do they get no alternative?

Also, as I said before, if there is a risk involved in them not having one of the ingredients then maybe they would need to proceed with caution with the separate ingredients.

It's not a great analogy really - is it?

bumbleymummy Wed 24-Apr-13 12:20:14

They don't all of a sudden want/trust it - they've just been forced into it because they don't have an alternative. Some people still aren't having it and are still unprotected against measles.

HugoBear Wed 24-Apr-13 12:22:06

bumblymummy - if youre vaccinnated against something that youre already vaccinnated against then its not going to do anything because youve already got immunity! So I dont understand when youre saying this is a problem. it makes no sense.

HugoBear Wed 24-Apr-13 12:29:40

And then you say singles are OK and MMR isn't but you cant or wont say why. That makes no sense either.

bumbleymummy Wed 24-Apr-13 12:31:04

I didn't say it was a problem as such - just that it's unnecessary - would you take other medications in combination even if you didn't need them all? (and actually too many tetanus boosters isn't a good idea so in some cases it isn't great that they're all bundled together)

bumbleymummy Wed 24-Apr-13 12:31:50

HAven't said MMR isn't ok anywhere.

Have to head out. Back later.

HugoBear Wed 24-Apr-13 12:32:36

And you seem to be saying 'some people cant take Lemsip so no-one should have Lemsip'

bumbleymummy Wed 24-Apr-13 12:37:04

No, Hugo, I haven't said that about Lemsip either hmm

'Yes, most people would be fine with the Lemsip but for those who aren't, do they get no alternative? "

Where does it say that they should all have something else?

noblegiraffe Wed 24-Apr-13 12:38:33

Bumbley, I've already said that the NHS recommends caution where a child has had a previous reaction to the vaccine. So no, the doctor doesn't simply continue recommending Lemsip to that child.

RandallPinkFloyd Wed 24-Apr-13 12:40:56

All I'm trying to do is get to the absolute crux of the issue.

I am aware that people have concerns, what I'm interested to know is what those concerns are and why they have them.

I'm not talking about already identified contra-indications, I'm not talking about people who are completely anti-vac, I mean the general, average parent who's child as no pre-identified issues. Why do they "not trust" this vaccine in particular?

I can respect your preference for singles options for all vacs. I don't agree with you but I can appeared that you would see that as a way of isolating a cause and being able to attribute a reaction to a specific vac. I can also see that it would be a way of avoiding a child having a vaccine the don't need.

I'm just trying to find some facts related specifically to the MMR vaccine.

RandallPinkFloyd Wed 24-Apr-13 12:42:14

*appreciate, not appeared.

HugoBear Wed 24-Apr-13 12:56:42

Bumblymummy - so if you agree that most people are fine with Lemsip why won't you even say that most people are fine with MMR when all the facts say that they are?

Not in Wales but just dropping in here to say I've made an appointment this morning for my pre-teen/teen DCs to have their MMR's in a week or so. Started another little thread about it in AIBU "To think that response to outbreak in Wales has been too slow"
But is good that these clinics are being held, and that on the whole attitude has been fairly un-judgemental towards parents for past decisions

AmandinePoulain Wed 24-Apr-13 13:00:22

This is what I'm having trouble with. If parents have concerns regarding the safety of the MMR, why are singles ok? I've repeatedly asked this and have yet to have an answer. Why on earth should we be offering singles when there appears to be absolutely no scientific evidence that the chances of detrimental effects would be lower in a child receiving a single measles vaccine vs the MMR? No one has said that taking a child for an MMR is 100% risk free, but nor is taking them for a single measles vaccine!

And why are too many tetanus boosters 'a bad thing'? I'm genuinely interested as I have never heard that before.

AngryGnome Wed 24-Apr-13 13:08:57

Could anyone let me know where I can find reliable information on the risk of measles to children who are in-between their two vaccines? I cant seem to find anything on the NHS website, but i could be looking in the wrong places.

DS is 2.5, and had his first MMR at 12 months, but his booster jab is not for another year. I can't seem to find any info on whether or not he is at risk in this in-between period?

We are supposed to be making a trip to South Wales, to an area where I believe there have been cases of measles, and I want to get a sensible perspective on the level of risk.

PigletJohn Wed 24-Apr-13 13:09:35

bumbleymummy Wed 24-Apr-13 12:31:04
I didn't say it was a problem as such

bumbleymummy Wed 24-Apr-13 12:31:50
HAven't said MMR isn't ok anywhere.

Hooray, that's settled then. I did ask Bumbley a few times on a different thread if she knew a reason not to use it, but she didn't.

PigletJohn Wed 24-Apr-13 13:14:53


Have you seen

Near the top, under "Children who need the MMR vaccine" where they talk about the second dose increasing from 90% to 99%
Towards the bottom, under "Measles outbreaks"

RandallPinkFloyd Wed 24-Apr-13 13:16:52

Angry I asked that on another thread and I was advised that they are protected up to a point but not fully protected until the second dose.

I was also advised by my doctor that there is no harm at all in bringing the second vac forward so if you are going to be travelling to an affected area I would speak to your surgery and I'm sure they would be happy to make an appointment for you.

AngryGnome Wed 24-Apr-13 13:21:53

Thanks Pigletjohn - I hadnt seen that page, I might have known I was looking in the wrong place blush

I think I will have a quick chat to the surgery to see what they would reccomend as well - thanks RandallPinkFloyd

noblegiraffe Wed 24-Apr-13 13:21:57

Randall, I asked the same question about single vaccines on another thread, and the response I got was a vague notion of overloading the immune system by giving too many vaccines on the same day.

I couldn't find any scientific support for this.

RandallPinkFloyd Wed 24-Apr-13 13:27:06

But other vacs are given in combined doses too. If they opted to have those why not this one? That what I don't understand.

I know there are people who are completely anti-vac but this seems to be different. Certain people who have had all other vaccines still seem to have doubts about this one.

I'm genuinely interested as to why.

PigletJohn Wed 24-Apr-13 13:31:30

I did enquire, but Bumbley among others does not report a downside.

Surely the combined/single vax thing was all a part of the discredited Wakefield controversy - at it's height when DD was born.

bumbleymummy Wed 24-Apr-13 13:35:38

Hugo, I have never suggested that most children aren't fine with MMR anywhere! Good grief! you're on a roll here. It would be really great if people would stop jumping to conclusions so we don't have to keep going back and correcting them.

The majority are fine with the MMR (obviously!), the majority of parents will chose the MMR (obviously) but for the others there should be a choice.

bumbleymummy Wed 24-Apr-13 13:38:12

Randall, that suggests that children only get partial immunity from the first vaccine and need the second to get full immunity - is that what you're saying? It's different to what the NHS website is saying which is that after the first vaccine a certain percentage will be protected and the second is to catch the ones who did not develop immunity after the first.

bumbleymummy Wed 24-Apr-13 13:40:09

Some people have concerns about it being 3 live viruses which is not like the 5-in1.

AmandinePoulain Wed 24-Apr-13 13:46:45

But why?

And what about my tetanus question?

RandallPinkFloyd Wed 24-Apr-13 13:52:47

The information is all there on the link PigletJohn provided earlier. I was just simplifying. Apologies if I didn't use the correct wording. Approx 90% will be protected by the first does, 99% by the second.

Ok, so people have concerns about it being 3 live vaccines. What is it about live vaccines that concerns them?

This is the view from the NHS as to why they don't offer single vaccines

Single vaccines are not routinely given in the UK. They're not available on the NHS as there is a risk that fewer children would receive all the necessary injections, increasing the levels of measles, mumps and rubella in the UK.

The delay in having six separate injections would also put more children at risk of developing the conditions, as well as increasing the amount of work and inconvenience for parents and those administering the vaccines.

I'd be just as interested in hearing the opposing argument. I don't think any parents concerns should be brushed aside. But equally I don't think unfounded fears should be fed for no good reason.

I think all facts should be available to everyone. How else can people make an informed choice?

I have seen plenty of evidence that shows MMR to be as safe as the single options. I'd like to see the counter argument so I can judge for myself.

RandallPinkFloyd Wed 24-Apr-13 13:57:13

For the record, I'm not trying to change anyone's mind. Everyone will have a reason for their views.

I'm also not particularly interested in hearing people's opinions.

I'm simply interested in why they hold these views. The facts, figures, data, analysis etc. on which they have formed these views.

bumbleymummy Wed 24-Apr-13 15:51:22

Amandine, CatherinaJTV has posted about it before. She might be able to answer better than I would. Something to do with the titres being too high and an increased risk of reaction. As for why people have concerns about it, you would have to ask them. smile

Randall, the protection and spacing with the single measles as the sane as with the MMR so people would have protection against measles in the sane timeframe. There is a case to be made for delaying rubella and mumps anyway. The idea that they all need to be given in early childhood at the same time only came in with the MMR.

AmandinePoulain Wed 24-Apr-13 15:56:00

Thanks. I wasn't asking to challenge you by the way, I've just genuinely never heard that before smile

bumbleymummy Wed 24-Apr-13 17:38:48

That's ok smile I think it's interesting too!

magdalen Wed 24-Apr-13 17:44:32

Hello everyone,
I am really interested in an answer to Randall's question here, too.
What is the evidence base for preferring single vaccines to the MMR?
Could we have some facts and figures?
Why be happier with the singles than with the MMR?

RandallPinkFloyd Wed 24-Apr-13 17:59:46

That was a direct quote from the NHS website btw, not my opinion, I thought I'd made that clear. As I said, I purposely haven't given my opinion because I don't think other people's opinions count for anything.

What I would like is some facts/figures/data. The actual basis for these fears that the MMR isn't as safe as the singles.

What is the evidenced based research on which to form an opinion that single vacs should be made available on the NHS to everyone.

The quote I posted is the reasons the NHS give for not offering them, the studies that have formed the basis for this decision are readily available and have been linked to countless times. I really am genuinely interested in hearing the counter argument and the facts and figures it is based on.

I not asking purely to be argumentative, I do actually want to read it.

bumbleymummy Wed 24-Apr-13 18:09:14

Sorry noble, I missed your post:

"noblegiraffe Wed 24-Apr-13 12:38:33
Bumbley, I've already said that the NHS recommends caution where a child has had a previous reaction to the vaccine. So no, the doctor doesn't simply continue recommending Lemsip to that child."

I'm glad you agree that should be the course of action. So what do you make of the doctors who tell parents who are concerned about a vaccine reaction that it was a coincidence, nothing to do with the vaccine and that they should carry on regardless?

bumbleymummy Wed 24-Apr-13 18:21:33

Radnall, I know it's a quote from the NHS website. My reply still stands smile

What facts/figures/data are you looking for? Do you have facts/figures/data for the opposing argument ie. That the MMR is safer than singles?

The idea of making them available to everyone does not mean that everyone will have it - most people will probably still choose the MMR - for convenience or whatever. It would just mean that those who wanted to have the singles vaccine, for whatever reason, would not have to jump through hoops to get it.

JoTheHot Wed 24-Apr-13 18:22:17

Bumble has no facts/figures/data. If she did, so too would Cochrane and policy would be different.

She just wants to state ad nauseam her view that, after as much as 12 seconds of reflection, she thinks singles should be offered. That's it.

She doesn't want to engage further because this might show her opinion to be ill-considered, and then she'd have to change it.

RandallPinkFloyd Wed 24-Apr-13 18:26:22

I haven't presented an argument, purposely so.

I also haven't stated my own opinion.

Your stand point, as I understand it, is that the NHS should offer singles to everyone. I am interest in what that opinion is based on.

bumbleymummy Wed 24-Apr-13 18:40:13

Seeing as we've gone down the whole Lemsip path - let's look at another analogy.
Consider paracetemol and ibuprofen - both used for pain relief. Some parents prefer one over the other - they think it works better for their child/maybe doesn't upset their stomach as much//whatever. They have an opinion on it and they have a choice about what they want to give when their child is sick. Now imagine the only way to get them was through your doctor and they decided that only ibuprofen was giung to be offered on the NHS - it works, it's safe, it would do the job but what about all the parents who would prefer paracetemol? Their only choice now is to either sick it up and give ibuprofen or leave their child without pain relief. Would offering paracetemol as well make everyone switch from ibuprofen? No. Would it mean that everyone got the pain relief they wanted/preferred? Yes. Would everyone be happy? Yes smile

LadyGranulomaFortesque Wed 24-Apr-13 18:43:13

Vaccination coverage would be higher if single vax were offered, quite simply. Many parents insist that they will not trust the MMR, regardless of state bullying, 'education', being talked down to by their superiors or any other manner of intimidation. If the aim is to immunise as many people as possible then single vax offer a potential solution. It won't persuade those who won't vax full stop, but it may persuade a large proportion who won't touch MMR with a hundred foot barge pole.

This is not my opinion. It is a fact that coverage would be higher.

coorong Wed 24-Apr-13 18:46:50

wrong analogy, paracetemol and ibuprofen are entirely different drugs - but you can safely take them together (much like a combined vaccine really)
from what I understand your single measle vaccines are the same component as in the combined vaccine - so really MMR is just doing what we do sometimes do with paracetemol and ibuprofen - taken together

bumbleymummy Wed 24-Apr-13 18:48:58

What facts/figures/data do you want? Safety studies on singles measles vaccine have been done - it is considered 'safe and effective'. It offers the same protection as the MMR and can be given within the same timeframe. So if you want to protect against measles and don't want/need/have some concern about the MMR (whatever it might be) - then it's a suitable alternative. What is your problem with someone having that opinion? It's a shame you have to be rude and patronising to express yours. smile

bumbleymummy Wed 24-Apr-13 18:52:42

I didn't say they were the same drug - they are different drugs that can both be given for pain relief. Same as the MMR and the singles measles vaccine are different vaccines but both protect against measles. Hth.

coorong Wed 24-Apr-13 18:55:56

Bubbly - I think the poster is asking if singles are safer than MMR - you've not compared the two, only saying that singles are considere safe and effective' (sic).

what about stats comparing MMR to singles?

"Vaccination coverage would be higher if single vax were offered."
Not according to the children's immunisation clinic - who are now touting for business in wales - they say
"The majority of parents who have rejected the MMR option , for whatever reason, have also not opted for the single vaccine"

so ladygranula where are your facts for higher coverage if singles were offered?

Now there is data showing the uptake of MMR declining following Mr Wakefield's scare stories and and increase in uptake when he was struck off

see BBC
"That paper, and subsequent media coverage, led to immunisation rates plummeting. From a high of 92% across the UK in 1995-6, it fell to an average of 80% in 2003-4.

For children in England reaching their second birthday it rose to 91.2% in 2011-12, but that is still below the World Health Organization target of at least 95%."

LadyGranulomaFortesque Wed 24-Apr-13 19:03:34

Oh my word, how patronising! I shall search the BBC website for such statistics!

It is a simple mathmatical equation,which I am happy to draw out for you here:

a + b = c
a + 0 = a

Your lovely BBC numbers bear no relevance at all to the question in hand, which is what is the basis for offering single vaccines. The basis is to increase immunisation coverage.

Yes, you can educate, bully, condescend, patronise and even, in some cases, win round. But for everyone who doesn't respond, there is a chance they would be amenable to the single option.

And you say:
Not according to the children's immunisation clinic - who are now touting for business in wales - they say
"The majority of parents who have rejected the MMR option , for whatever reason, have also not opted for the single vaccine"

But surely, you aren't using these guys to support your flawed assumptions now? Wow

bumbleymummy Wed 24-Apr-13 19:04:46

Why does it need to be safer/more effective? Why can't it just be the same?

bumbleymummy Wed 24-Apr-13 19:06:51

Perhaps they aren't opting for the single vaccine because they can't afford to pay for it privately?

noblegiraffe Wed 24-Apr-13 19:25:26

Bumbly, it's not a choice between paracetamol and ibuprofen, it's a choice between the MMR and the M + M + R. The same stuff, except in a faffier format that requires extra doctors appointments. Like saying you want Lemsip but you'll have the paracetamol bit now, the caffeine tomorrow and the aspirin the day after. For no good reason other than you don't fancy the Lemsip all at once, if you are offering the 'choice' without medical reason.

That doesn't strike me as a good use of NHS resources. So yes, the singles need to be better than just the same as the MMR if you want them offered.

RandallPinkFloyd Wed 24-Apr-13 19:27:38

Where on earth have I been rude or patronising? I asked a question, nothing more. I stated that I wasn't interested in opinions, only the reasons for the opinion.

Why would anyone base their opinion purely on someone else's opinion? I don't believe you have based your views on purely hearsay so I was asking what information you have used.

I also stated several times that I really am genuinely interested. I honestly don't see the problem.

You'll also notice that I haven't once stated what my opinion is. How do you know I even have an opinion? Maybe I am one of the parents who isn't sure so wants all the information so I can make an informed choice for myself.

Resorting to calling people names and passive aggressive smileys is not something I would chose to do.

bumbleymummy Wed 24-Apr-13 19:28:36

If you just want to protect against measles (which is what we're discussing on this thread) then it's just the same. In your analogy, if the paracetemol does the job then why the caffeine and the aspirin are just extras.why would you take them if you didn't need them right away?

bumbleymummy Wed 24-Apr-13 19:32:02

Randal, you are not the only person on this thread - I was replying to Jo.

Wrt my opinions/views. I've said that its a suitable alternative to protect against measles. You can check up on the Rouvax studies for safety/effectiveness yourself if you like.

noblegiraffe Wed 24-Apr-13 19:32:22

So what do you make of the doctors who tell parents who are concerned about a vaccine reaction that it was a coincidence, nothing to do with the vaccine and that they should carry on regardless?

It could be true, temporal association of a symptom with a vaccine isn't the same thing as a vaccine causing the symptom. My DD developed a worrying issue the day before she received her first set of jabs. If she had developed it after the jabs, only a day later, I'd have certainly worried that the jabs were the cause.

And some reactions aren't enough to contraindicate a booster dose of the vaccine, even if they were caused by the vaccine.

PigletJohn Wed 24-Apr-13 19:34:51

bumbleymummy Wed 24-Apr-13 18:48:58
What facts/figures/data do you want? Safety studies on singles measles vaccine have been done

Oh good. How does it compare ?

noblegiraffe Wed 24-Apr-13 19:38:16

I don't understand people who say they don't want the other parts of the MMR for their kids. I mean, totally avoidable unpleasant illnesses could be protected against. There are a good couple of hundred cases of mumps across the UK every week. Perhaps their parents don't mind seeing their DC in extreme discomfort? Perhaps they can afford to take the time off work to care for them? I'd rather not.

LadyGranulomaFortesque Wed 24-Apr-13 19:43:23

But if you were willing to make that sacrifice of a week off work Noble, and your child caught wild mumps, they would then have the advantage of lifelong immunity, unlike that conferred by vaccines.

I see no reason to vaccinate against non-dangerous childhood diseases at all, especially when they stack up problems for those of university age who suddenly find themselves vulnerable. Certainly a week off work is not a good reason for many parents.

RandallPinkFloyd Wed 24-Apr-13 19:47:01

So, the single vaccine is safe for the majority of people.

The combined vaccine is safe for the majority of people.

What is the reason to make both available to all, rather than just to those who are medically contra-indicated to one or the other? That really is my only question.

So, what is the evidence that singles are safer than combined for the average person? What facts are there to validate people's fears regarding the MMR specifically? Should we be allaying those fears or are they entirely justified?

Without seeing the basis for an opinion how can anyone agree or disagree with it?

RandallPinkFloyd Wed 24-Apr-13 19:49:00

Mumps can cause male infertility. The safety of the vaccine itself aside, I personally see that as a good reason to vaccinate.

noblegiraffe Wed 24-Apr-13 19:52:12

More vaccines is the way forward then, if immunity waning is an issue.

Mumps reinfection can occur if you have wild mumps, btw.

HugoBear Wed 24-Apr-13 19:54:20


- why do you think the measles bit of the MMR is different to the single vaccines that you cant get in a single vaccine??

I asked this before and didnt get an answer so I turned internet detective and looked around and found that the UK MMR is called Priorix and the measles bit is the Schwartz strain.

I then did some looking to see what strains are used in the single vaccine and the first page I found said that the single vaccine in France that you want to import for people is also the Schwartz strain!!

I also found this link on a website that doesn't like MMR and links to doctors who will give single vaccines instead of MMR, and the only one that says exactly what they give is one in Manchester that gives the same singles as what makes up the MMR for £130 each!! shock

So it seems to me that with singles you get the same coverage and run the same risk and pay nearly £400 for no sensible reason hmm

LadyGranulomaFortesque Wed 24-Apr-13 19:54:34

Or just let kids catch it when they're in the relatively safe age group to do so! More vaccines? For something that is innocuous in children?

LadyGranulomaFortesque Wed 24-Apr-13 19:56:00

Randall - that's fine. Choice is good and I totally respect that.

Noble - Yes reinfection can occur in very rare cases. Most people get lifelong immunity from wild mumps.

RandallPinkFloyd Wed 24-Apr-13 19:59:16

But the child can pass it to an adult. I did, I passed it on to my dad. He was horrendously ill.

So looking at the bigger picture, and ignoring debate regarding the safety of specific vaccines, yes, I do think that if mumps can be vaccinated against it should be.

noblegiraffe Wed 24-Apr-13 20:07:08

Mass vaccination reduces the incidence overall and protects those who haven't been or can't be immunised. Look at rubella, nearly eradicated. How many babies has that saved?

My DD being vaccinated against mumps protects her brother and her dad. What's not to like?

LadyGranulomaFortesque Wed 24-Apr-13 20:28:47

As an aside to the current topic of conversation, could anyone kindly point me to the figures showing the split between vaccinated and unvaccinated in the current outbreak? They must be published somewhere but I cannot for the life of me find them.

I am guessing that in terms of persuading parents to opt for the MMR, these stats are going to be very effective if they paint the 'right' picture.

magdalen Wed 24-Apr-13 21:04:30

I haven't seen any figures published either. It may take a while to get the details, and the outbreak isn't over yet, sadly (and they probably would rather report once they have the correct figures and full analysis). If you want some recent data from Europe, here you go...
Measles cases across Europe 2006-2007:


There were, in total, 12,132 cases of measles. 
Regarding the vaccination status of those catching measles, where it was known (which is was in 90% of the cases):
In 2006 94% were either unvaccinated (77%) or incompletely vaccinated (17%). 
In 2007 97% were either unvaccinated (87%) or incompletely vaccinated (10%). 
So fully vaccinated individuals accounted for 6% of cases in 2006, and 3% of cases in 2007.

Obviously I don't know what the figures will be for Wales, yet. I'll be interested to see.

bumbleymummy Wed 24-Apr-13 21:13:34

noble, see the difference - reaction to lemsip - don't continue to recommend. Reaction to vaccine - probably not anything to do with the vaccine, carry on. why?

Randall, how do you determine who it is medically contraindicated for? Again, why does it have to be safer? Why not just as safe? Also, according to the HPA, there is no firm evidence that mumps causes sterility. WRT you passing it on to your Dad, wouldn't it have been better if he could have vaccinated himself against it because he was at an age where it could be more of a risk?

noble, what about all the teenagers whose immunity to mumps has now waned?

bumbleymummy Wed 24-Apr-13 21:15:30

How many cases of measles in vaccinated people were not recorded though. Gareth Williams was seen by an OOH doctor the night before he died and not diagnosed.

bumbleymummy Wed 24-Apr-13 21:22:39

Hugo, yes, I knew the Schwartz strain was in the Rouvax vaccine. I think there is also an Edmonston strain MMR available in the UK as well as Priorix. I hope your info has reassured you about the safety/effectiveness of the single vaccine.

noblegiraffe Wed 24-Apr-13 21:26:59

Teenagers should be re vaccinated.

It would be great if we could eradicate these diseases completely, but we can't because of other countries.

PigletJohn Wed 24-Apr-13 21:31:44

Has the Gareth Williams investigation been completed then? I didn't know a report had been published. Where can I see it?

magdalen Wed 24-Apr-13 21:39:14

Let's look at those figures, I provide data from almost eleven thousand cases of measles with known vaccination status. You say "Well, Gareth Williams wasn't diagnosed". Do you not think you can do a little bit better than that? I am pretty certain his family would not be happy with you using his untimely death in this manner, and I find it pretty distasteful. 
I have figures from an outbreak in Lyons (2010-2011 this time), again broken down into vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals too? 
Oh, tell you what I will link to them:
Percentage of those with known vaccination status contacting measles who were fully vaccinated? About 4% (11/287 in this case).

bumbleymummy Wed 24-Apr-13 21:42:38

Right - so when the MMR was brought in, only 1 dose was needed, then 2 and now we should introduce a third because the mumps component wanes more quickly and isn't as effective as the other two? Great.

PJ< thats just what has been reported in the news so far.

noblegiraffe Wed 24-Apr-13 21:44:12

Well, the single mumps vaccine would do, but I understand there isn't one available.

RandallPinkFloyd Wed 24-Apr-13 21:51:32

I personally wouldn't decide who it is medically contra-indicated for, I would expect a medical professional to do that.

What I don't understand is if both options are equally safe, as you say, why the need for the option?

I completely agree that singles should be available if there is a genuine reason to suspect the combined vac presents a danger which is not present in the single option.

But why shoild the singles be available to all. In order to justify the extra expense and extra worry offering an alternative would create there would surely need to be evidence that offering the choice is warranted.

Vague doubts isn't enough for me. If I'm going to decide on something so important I need to see the facts from both sides.

I've seen the arguments and evidence for the MMR but in order to form a well-rounded opinion I need to see the arguments and evidence against.

bumbleymummy Wed 24-Apr-13 22:00:13

Magdalen, let me get this straight- it's ok to plaster photos of the poor man all over the papers because he had measles when he died but it's not ok to mention that he had been vaccinated and that the doctor didn't diagnose measles?

How exactly do you expect me to produce figures for all unreported cases in vaccinated people? Do you think the doctors keep note of them or something? The only reason we know that it happened in this case was because they diagnosed it after he died. Do you really think this is the only time that a diagnosis in a vaccinated person has been missed? Does it not concern you that the figures could be skewed?

bumbleymummy Wed 24-Apr-13 22:03:24

Randall, how do you expect them to do that?

RandallPinkFloyd Wed 24-Apr-13 22:14:00

Using their medical knowledge, that's what they are there for.

Anyway, this is just going round in circles. I was simply asking a question. If you'd prefer not to answer then just say so, (you're certainly not compelled to answer, I'm just some random on the Internet), but so far this is a massive waste of time for both of us.

PigletJohn Wed 24-Apr-13 22:18:34

Bumbley, in the absence of an investigation into the death of this poor man, which bits of "news" are you going to spread?

Are you going to mention his weight and other health status?

I don't know if he was immunised; I don't know if he died of measles. Neither do you.

bumbleymummy Wed 24-Apr-13 22:24:28

Randall, I've tried to answer you - sorry if its not what you're looking for. confused The point I'm making is that they should be available to all because there's no way to define who should be eligible for them. How would you say, 'ok, you can have it but you can't' - many people only find out that they shouldn't have had the vaccine when they react to it!

Most people would probably still opt for the MMR - they are hsppy with safety/effectiveness studies - they find it more convenient etc. just because the single is available doesn't mean that they would chose to have it. However, for those who don't want/trust/can't have the MMR there would be the option of the single with no questions asked.

bumbleymummy Wed 24-Apr-13 22:31:46

PJ, I didn't say he died from measles - no one knows that yet and no one has reported it. It has been reported that he was vaccinated, that he had been in hospital for his asthma and that he had been seen by an OOH doctor the night before he died. I don't need to 'spread' the news. It's plastered all over the papers for anyone to read.

Don't start trying to be all sanctimonious about it - you were on a thread that was talking about this for days. You didn't have any problem with that.

noblegiraffe Wed 24-Apr-13 22:37:15

Bumbley, if someone is going to react to the MMR, then what makes you think they won't react to the singles? Given that they're the same vaccines?

PigletJohn Wed 24-Apr-13 22:38:55

Nothing sanctimonious there

But there is criticism of you for selectively using unconfirmed snippets.

You appear to be using the death of this unfortunate man to try to make some kind of a point.

RandallPinkFloyd Wed 24-Apr-13 22:41:44

With all due respect Bumbley you haven't answered my question at all.

I am aware there are people who don't want/trust the MMR. My question was why don't they want/trust it.

It's not a big issued ifyou'd rather not answer, you don't have to justify your choices to anyone but yourself. You just seemed very vociferous in your argument so I got the impression you would be happy to share your research.

No problem, I'm off to bed now anyway so I'll sign off.

bumbleymummy Wed 24-Apr-13 22:43:43

Well it's not he sane vaccine is it? Certain ones may have the same strain hug it also has two other live viruses in there as well - that may very well make a difference to some people. The same way as some people in your Lemsip example may be absolutely fine taking paracetemol but are allergic to Lemsip.

RandallPinkFloyd Wed 24-Apr-13 22:43:46

That sounded a bit arsey reading it back. What I meant is no one has to justify their choices except to themselves.not that I think either choice is right or wrong iyswim.

bumbleymummy Wed 24-Apr-13 22:44:21

You're still being sanctimonious PJ. smile

bumbleymummy Wed 24-Apr-13 22:49:44

I did answer that Randall - I said it would have to ask them. People have many different reasons for it - maybe a previous child/they themselves have reacted badly, maybe they are already immune to one or more of the diseases and just want to boost the one they aren't immune to...

I don't know what type of research you expect me to start quoting tbh because people's reasons for choosing singles vary.

bumbleymummy Wed 24-Apr-13 22:50:45

You didn't sound that arsey - just a bit wink good night

noblegiraffe Wed 24-Apr-13 22:52:08

So, bumbley, you're suggesting that the NHS provide a more costly and less effective (due to missed vaccinations) vaccination schedule option because you have a vague notion that it might cause some people some problems to have the three viruses in one go?

bumbleymummy Wed 24-Apr-13 23:00:41

I was suggesting a reason why it might cause certain people problems. Why can you accept that certain people may react badly to a combination of certain ingredients (Lemsip) but be fine with one of them(paracetemol) but not accept that the combinations of 3 vaccines in 1 may cause some people problems?

PigletJohn Wed 24-Apr-13 23:09:24

We'll just have to agree to differ, BM. You think I'm sanctimonious, and I think you're an evasive flanneler smile

noblegiraffe Wed 24-Apr-13 23:10:15

If someone reacts to the paracetamol in lemsip then why would giving them paracetamol on its own be any less of an issue?

You're suggesting that someone who doesn't trust Lemsip should take a paracetamol, an aspirin and a swig of coffee instead. How does that make sense?

bumbleymummy Wed 24-Apr-13 23:13:25

Sanctimonious is one of many things PJ...believe me! smile

bumbleymummy Wed 24-Apr-13 23:14:44

I'm pretty sure we covered all this earlier noble when we were talking about the Lemsip analogy...

bumbleymummy Wed 24-Apr-13 23:15:15

I need to get an early(ish) night tonight so I'll have to leave you all to it. Good night! smile

Sommink Wed 24-Apr-13 23:17:26

I really don't understand this argument at all.

We live in the UK. There is a measles outbreak in the UK. The only vaccine on offer to us is the MMR. It is as safe and any vaccine can be.

We do not live in France. Single vaccine is not an option, so why are people trying to force an option that isn't there?? If people stopped raising the issue then the vaccine rate would surely go up?

I say this is a parent who was medically advised not to have the MMR and was probably one of the last to get them individually on the NHS (fear of contraindications with a genetic disease weirdly). This has not stopped me vaccinating my child with a vaccine that works and has been proven to work. Even if she had had a reaction to the MMR, I would have known that I was taking the best medical care available to protect my daughter. Medicine is not 100% effective, there will always be some level of risk with everything medically you do, but I would be more upset knowing I hadn't vaccinated and she became ill with any of the illnesses we have the ability to try and reduce or eradicate.

noblegiraffe Wed 24-Apr-13 23:17:48

Yeah, you didn't explain it then either I think.

bumbleymummy Wed 24-Apr-13 23:19:03

It's available in the UK privately Som, so it is an option but unfortunately only for those who can afford it which doesn't really seem fair.

noblegiraffe Wed 24-Apr-13 23:32:16

Lots of things are available privately for those who can afford it, the NHS doesn't offer gold teeth either, although some might fancy them.

bumbleymummy Wed 24-Apr-13 23:32:35

Or maybe you just didn't like the answer - see post from Wed 24-Apr-13 11:54:58. Second paragraph in particular but I also think it makes sense to know which component you reacted to.

bumbleymummy Wed 24-Apr-13 23:34:36

Now I know that you are not trying to say that vaccinating your child against measles during a measkes outbreak is the same as getting a golf tooth noble....are you?

bumbleymummy Wed 24-Apr-13 23:35:18

Or a gold

lucybrad Wed 24-Apr-13 23:42:15

I know its been said before - and there are 13 pages of your ramblings that I can not be bothered to read through - but it is people like you spouting rubbish that caused this outbreak in the first place. My advice - shut up - lets protect our kids while we still can. Stop talking nonsense and let the government and health authorities do their jobs.

PigletJohn Wed 24-Apr-13 23:44:05

are you not tolerant of evasive flannel, then lucy?

bumbleymummy Thu 25-Apr-13 00:00:35

If you read the thread Lucy you might have a clue what you were talking about and your opinion might actually mean something to me. How does suggesting singles as an alternative over getting nothing induce a measles outbreak exactly? hmm

bumbleymummy Thu 25-Apr-13 00:02:16

<snort> at 'let's protect our kids while we still can' after you've just had a go at someone who suggests that people consider protecting their kids by an alternative method if they aren't happy about the MMR.

noblegiraffe Thu 25-Apr-13 07:26:02

I'm suggesting that demanding a single vaccine during a measles outbreak is like having a painful hole in your tooth and complaining that the NHS won't give you a gold tooth but are offering you a perfectly good white one.

And given that most people are fine after the MMR, I'm still not seeing the benefits of giving them separately just so that the few who have a reaction can tell which bit they reacted to (I think from the reaction itself it is possible to tell in some cases anyway).

HugoBear Thu 25-Apr-13 07:52:25

Bumblymummy - I'm not convinced that singles are safer than MMR when it's the same strain of measles in both.

So why do you keep going on about singles being safer when they cant be??? That makes no sense at all confused

HugoBear Thu 25-Apr-13 07:59:06

Noble giraffe - I don't think analogies help bumblymummy. She gets confused and goes off in different directions.

HugoBear Thu 25-Apr-13 08:10:19

Bumblymummy - I don't think it's very nice to be rude to Lucy for not reading the thread when some of us have been reading the thread for days and not been able to get a straight answers from you :-)

LaVolcan Thu 25-Apr-13 08:46:01

I can't see anywhere where bumblymummy says that singles are either safer or less safe, so perhaps someone could point to the specific post? What I see her asking for is that those who for whatever reason don't want the MMR are given the option of a single vaccine. It used to be the policy until the MMR came in that if you didn't want something you could opt out - it wasn't all or nothing.

noblegiraffe Thu 25-Apr-13 09:03:15

Where would people like the extra money for the single vaccines (and associated extra appointments) to come from?

LaVolcan Thu 25-Apr-13 09:16:40

The same place that they got the money before. Why would you need extra appointments? Are you saying that a singles vaccine needs more doses to be effective? I have not heard that said anywhere.

AmandinePoulain Thu 25-Apr-13 09:18:10

Because the children would need 6 injections, not 2?

LaVolcan Thu 25-Apr-13 09:20:39

Do you need 6 injections against measles?

noblegiraffe Thu 25-Apr-13 09:22:54

So you're suggesting that the NHS should abandon its vaccination plan and allow people to pick just the vaccine they fancy right now because there's an outbreak and screw the rest?

noblegiraffe Thu 25-Apr-13 09:25:52

And by screw the rest, I mean not only screw the rest of the vaccines, but screw the rest of the population who might benefit from a mass vaccination programme by the eradication or near eradication of these diseases?

LaVolcan Thu 25-Apr-13 09:29:47

The suggestions are yours noblegiraffe. If they want a measles vaccine I can't see why they can't have it. How is that 'screw the rest'?

The present policy is screw the rest - if for some reason you don't want MMR or can't have MMR then your choice is b*gger all, unless you find somewhere to go privately. That I call screw the rest policy, or blackmail.

bumbleymummy Thu 25-Apr-13 09:36:40

Hugo, for around the fifth time on this thread alone - I am not 'going on about the measles vaccine being safer'. I am saying the singles measles vaccine is an alternative to the MMR if you are not happy about giving the MMR . If its the same strain then why would you try to argue that it is less safe or effective?

bumbleymummy Thu 25-Apr-13 09:39:30

Thank you LaVolcan . At least some people in this thread are capable of reading! smile

HugoBear Thu 25-Apr-13 09:45:29

La Volcan - bumblymummy keeps saying 'some people thing singles are safer' but won't say why.

When people ask her why she says nothing.

When people ask her if she thinks singles are safer than mmr she says nothing.

When people ask her if she has proof singles are safer than mmr she says nothing.

So it looks like bumbleymummy is going "Some people think MMR isn't safe (nudge nudge wink wink)". It looks sneaky.

noblegiraffe Thu 25-Apr-13 09:50:53

Because, LaVolcan, you are suggesting that people be allowed to pick just to have measles and not bother with the rest.
Usually when people talk about opting for single vaccines, the assumption is that they will have all of them, because that's the vaccination programme.
Why should the NHS facilitate people opting out of the mass vaccination programme for mumps and rubella? confused

LaVolcan Thu 25-Apr-13 09:51:44

HugoBear bumblymummy has never said that singles are safer or even that some people think they are safer, so why ask her to prove a statement she never said?

bumbleymummy Thu 25-Apr-13 09:58:25

No, I don't. I say some people don't want/trust/need the MMR - can you really not see the difference?

LaVolcan Thu 25-Apr-13 09:59:37

Why should the NHS facilitate people opting out of the mass vaccination programme for mumps and rubella?

Because they have already had the diseases, and don't see the point of a vaccination?

About rubella: we keep being told that we must give our children the MMR because they are not protected against serious diseases, but rubella itself is extremely mild. It is valid to wish to eliminate Congenital Rubella Syndome, absolutely, but why on earth not tell people that is the aim of the policy?

What you are not told is that the immunity conferred by the vaccine can wear off. We might have already eliminated CRS in the UK but what about women of childbearing age,(like my daughter, I could add), who travel to far flung places where the disease is still prevalent? They are never told to check their rubella immunity status - it could easily be offered at travel vaccination clinics, but it's not.

This lack of decent public health information really annoys me.

HugoBear Thu 25-Apr-13 10:01:33

Noblegiraffe - I heard that when rubella was a single vaccine, lots of mums would refuse to get their baby boys done because rubella doesn't affect boys. But boys are carriers and would infect others, sometimes their own mothers when pregnant again and cause horrible birth defects.

noblegiraffe Thu 25-Apr-13 10:05:24

LaVolcan, the suggestion that each vaccination be offered individually so that each individual can select which individual vaccination they care to take up based on personal preference and whatever disease is popular at the time is kind of missing the point of mass vaccination programmes.

Which is to vaccinate as much of the population as possible against a centrally agreed selection of diseases as efficiently as possible.

If the NHS had to start pandering to individual requests (and I'm saying request rather than medical need - being immune already is not a contraindication to having a jab again) then the whole programme starts to fall apart.

LaVolcan Thu 25-Apr-13 10:18:58

noblegiraffe Well, let's just say that the NHS used to 'pander to individual requests' and their vaccination programmes didn't fall apart as far as I recall. Why not offer vaccinations to the whole population then? Many of us will have had measles, as children, but why not immunise us again? (Cost I suppose.)

HugoBear I don't think boys were ever offered the single rubella vaccination. However, if there had been a public health awareness campaign saying that the aim of rubella vaccination was to eliminate Congenital Rubella Syndrome, then I think a lot of parents would have along with it.

HugoBear Thu 25-Apr-13 10:19:07

But you won't say why they don't trust MMR, bumblymummy. You just leave it at that, hanging in the air... hmm

And when you keep saying they don't need bits of the MMR (like the mumps bit), you suggest that having an 'unnecessary booster' is like developing a tolerance to painkillers that makes them less effective. Vaccines dont work like that. smile

Because if vaccines did work like painkillers and people got tolerant and they get less effective, then doctors/nurses etc would get ill from the people they treat all the time!!

noblegiraffe Thu 25-Apr-13 10:32:32

LaVolcan, I've no idea about pandering to individual requests in the past, but the MMR is clearly a more efficient way of achieving the required outcome of triple vaccination so the fact that the decision was made that the MMR was the way forward is entirely understandable.

What do you mean why not offer vaccinations to the whole population? confused Are you suggesting attempting to immunise 60 million people in one go?

PigletJohn Thu 25-Apr-13 10:33:56

Be fair, Hugo.

Bumbley doesn't like to say anything clear, because then it could be examined for truth and accuracy, running the risk of being disproved.

Her method is to spread vague and unsubstantiated rumour with nothing behind it. If asked a direct question, she will typically ignore or evade it.

Don't make the mistake of thinking you are having an evidence-based debate with her.

LaVolcan Thu 25-Apr-13 10:34:48

noblegiraffe I once did a law course, and we were always pulled up on statements like clearly, obviously.

noblegiraffe Thu 25-Apr-13 10:37:34

Sorry, LaVolcan, I thought it was clear that getting parents to make and keep one appointment for a jab for their child was more efficient than trying to get them to make and keep three.

Is it not obvious?

Well, I've made an appt to get my DC's vaccinated with MMR - do you think I should ask/ they would offer to give it to me as well ?
Though I may have had measles as a child, I'm not sure.
Doesn't seem parents are offered it though - only children ?

noblegiraffe Thu 25-Apr-13 10:44:18

Depending on when you were born you should have either had measles (born before 1970), had the single measles vaccine (introduced 1968) or the MMR (introduced 1988). Can you ask your parents?

I can try NG but I have a couple of sibs and my mother is pretty confused as to who had what - though I know we all had chicken pox together one half-term hol ! I'm ancient - I think having had measles in childhood may be the most likely possibility ? But yes, thanks, I'll try asking her before going to the appointment and see what she says.

gnushoes Thu 25-Apr-13 12:52:55

Surely the point is that for the huge, vast majority of the population MMR is safe.
If all of those people get their MMRs, then those who can't for medical reasons (previous bad reaction, family genetics, etc) then should be at far less risk of measles, children in the womb protected from rubella, because the illnesses will hardly circulate and so there is minimal risk of catching them. Community immunity as I heard it described yesterday.
Ergo, no need for single measles vaccine which does lead to a pick and mix mentality whereby individual families might decide not to bother with mumps as their children are girls, for instance.
I agree that there should be more information for girls (perhaps when getting their HPV at 13) that the rubella immunity does wear off and they might wish to be cautious if trying to conceive/travelling abroad. But I had my rubella at 14 or so, and there was even more concern among medics about that wearing off (I had one chase me down the road after mentioning I might be ttc -- she suggested I should check rubella status first) as there wasn't the herd immunity you (should) get from the current MMR.

bumbleymummy Thu 25-Apr-13 14:12:48

Hugo, I don't leave it 'hanging in the air' - you'd have to ask people themselves why they don't trust the MMR (if that's their reason). I have given a few examples on this thread eg. If they/another child has had a previous reaction to the MMR. I thought you said you'd read the thread?

I'm not sure where you think I've compared unnecessary boosters to building up tolerance to painkillers. More made up accusations? hmm this is why it is important to read what people are actually writing - it saves a lot of jumping to conclusions and going around in circles.

LadyGranulomaFortesque Thu 25-Apr-13 14:16:12

bumbley, I complained about that yesterday and s/he just went off and started doing it to someone else (you). Either Helen Flannagan is now debating on Mumsnet or some people are being deliberately disingenuous. I suspect the latter in this case.

lottieandmia Thu 25-Apr-13 14:20:10

But what evidence is there that MMR wears off later than single vaccines?

lottieandmia Thu 25-Apr-13 14:20:59

that was to gnushoes

magdalen Thu 25-Apr-13 14:23:01

It does appear to be true that a lot of people decided not to get the MMR in the aftermath of the Wakefield paper and subsequent media health scare. Not because a previous child had a reaction, for example. Lots of people did not vaccinate because they believed Wakefield, and the press scaremongering linking the MMR to ASD. Or are you denying this?
These people therefore didn't/haven't/still will not accept the MMR based on a retracted paper, and on a premise (ASD-MMR link) which has been totally refuted by all credible recent studies.


LadyGranulomaFortesque Thu 25-Apr-13 14:26:27

Quote: which has been totally refuted by all credible recent studies.

Have you got any examples (with emphasis on the credible)?

LadyGranulomaFortesque Thu 25-Apr-13 14:28:27

Sorry, that was to Magdalen.

PigletJohn Thu 25-Apr-13 14:31:05

I think we've established that Bumbley is not saying on this thread that there is anything wrong with MMR, or that singles are better.

bumbleymummy Fri 19-Apr-13 14:18:34
To be blunt, who cares what people think of the MMR as long as children are getting some protection against measles?

bumbleymummy Wed 24-Apr-13 12:31:04
I didn't say it was a problem as such - just that it's unnecessary

bumbleymummy Wed 24-Apr-13 12:31:50
HAven't said MMR isn't ok anywhere.

but she feels it should be made available, at NHS cost, to anyone who wants it on a whim

bumbleymummy Wed 24-Apr-13 11:57:02
I think the choice should be available Randall, that's all. I don't like the all or nothing/one size fits all approach.

bumbleymummy Wed 24-Apr-13 12:31:04
I didn't say it was a problem as such - just that it's unnecessary

Separately from which, it is I think generally accepted that there are some people who may be advised by their GP that vaccination is unsuitable, so they have a medical need, not a whim, and these are the ones who need the protection of herd immunity, which is achieved by the rest of us being vaccinated.

noblegiraffe Thu 25-Apr-13 14:39:00

"Results: The MMR vaccination rate in the city of Yokohama declined significantly in the birth cohorts of years 1988 through 1992, and not a single vaccination was administered in 1993 or there- after. In contrast, cumulative incidence of ASD up to age seven increased significantly in the birth cohorts of years 1988 through 1996 and most notably rose dramatically beginning with the birth cohort of 1993. Conclusions: The significance of this finding is that MMR vaccination is most unlikely to be a main cause of ASD, that it cannot explain the rise over time in the incidence of ASD, and that withdrawal of MMR in countries where it is still being used cannot be expected to lead to a reduction in the incidence of ASD. "

The authors do note:

"Epidemiological data, however, cannot test the very different hypothesis that MMR might involve an increased risk of ASD in a very small number of children who, for some reason, are unusually sus- ceptible to damage from the vaccine. There is no evidence in support of such a hypothesis and no indication of how such a postulated susceptibility might be manifest. Hence, the burden of proof must be on those who favor such a hypothesis."

But Wakefield wasn't talking about a small number of cases anyway, he looked at the graph of increasing incidences of autism (like the Japanese one, but for the UK and US) and said it was caused by the MMR. He was wrong to do so.

magdalen Thu 25-Apr-13 14:41:30

How many studies do you want?

These are just six of the many, many studies that have been done on looking at a possible causative link between MMR and autism (some of which include looking at inflammatory bowel disease) that you can find by searching on Google Scholar for "MMR autism".,5
If you read even just the abstracts it makes it abundantly clear that none of these trials have found a causative link with the MMR.


gnushoes Thu 25-Apr-13 14:44:58

LottieandMia -- not sure quite what you are getting at, unless my point that rubella immunity does wane over time. Presumably its expected life is the same whether you're immunised at 3 (with the MMR) or as a teenager (in the old days when I had mine). So if it lasts 20 years, that remains the same: it's the start and end points that change. But since the point of the MMR is to stop rubella circulating it matters much less if immunity wanes.

LadyGranulomaFortesque Thu 25-Apr-13 14:45:15

Epidemiological studies are not credible, as your own study point out

""Epidemiological data, however, cannot test the very different hypothesis that MMR might involve an increased risk of ASD in a very small number of children who, for some reason, are unusually sus- ceptible to damage from the vaccine."

bumbleymummy Thu 25-Apr-13 14:45:50

LadyG - I think there may be more than one.

LadyGranulomaFortesque Thu 25-Apr-13 14:46:22

No effect of MMR withdrawal on the incidence of autism: a total population study

Not credible. Does not look at possibility of MMR causing regressive autism in rare cases.

bumbleymummy Thu 25-Apr-13 14:49:00


No, I'm not denying that some people are still concerned about the MMR autism link but it's not the only reason. Some parents who do believe their child regressed after the MMR may not be as convinced that the link has been refuted and may therefore choose not to vaccinate any other children with the MMR - it may not just be a case of them reading something in the paper.

LadyGranulomaFortesque Thu 25-Apr-13 14:51:09

Mumps, measles, and rubella vaccine and the incidence of autism recorded by general practitioners: a time trend analysis - as above

No evidence for measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine-associated inflammatory bowel disease or autism in a 14-year prospective study - the famous Finnish study - as above

A Population-Based Study of Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Vaccination and Autism - as above

No Evidence for A New Variant of Measles-Mumps-Rubella–Induced Autism - same again

MMR and autism: further evidence against a causal association - Samer problem.

In order to refute a claim, the same study, in this case clinical study, has to be replicated. DO you have an example of a credible clinical study?

bumbleymummy Thu 25-Apr-13 14:53:37

PJ, I don't need you to speak for me on this thread - particularly when you're going to quote things out of context and use phrases such as 'on a whim' . Unless of course you consider a woman with a vaccine damaged child choosing not to give the MMR to her other children 'a whim'. I am pleased that you finally seem to accept that I have not said that there is anything wrong with the MMR or that singles are better. Progress is good smile

bumbleymummy Thu 25-Apr-13 14:55:36

Gnu, if immunity wanes then it will still be circulating - just in an older population - which could, unfortunately, include women who are trying to conceive.

noblegiraffe Thu 25-Apr-13 14:57:33

Lady, the study is certainly enough to counter Wakefield's claims, the ones that started this whole mess.

As the authors of the Japanese study say, it is up to the people who hypothesise that the MMR might trigger autism in rare cases to prove it, as to prove it isn't the case is, well, proving a negative.

So, have you got any credible studies to support that hypothesis?

gnushoes Thu 25-Apr-13 14:57:46

Yes, but still better than previous situation of giving to girls only as teenagers (when it could wear off before pregnancy) or not being given at all (because who'd bother if single vaccines available). But, there should be more publicity about checking rubella status pre ttc. As I said, one place would be when girls get HPV jab at 13.

bumbleymummy Thu 25-Apr-13 15:00:23

Noble, did AW actually say that the MMR was the cause of the increased cases of autism? Do you have a link? From what I remeber reading he was proposing that there may be a small subgroup of susceptible children that could be at risk.

bumbleymummy Thu 25-Apr-13 15:04:32

Gnu, why is it better? If it wanes after 20
Years and is given in early childhood it will have worn off by the time they may start considering having children. I'm sorry, I don't understand your argument. What do you mean by:

"not being given at all (because who'd bother if single vaccines available)"

They would bother because they want to be protected during pregnancy surely?

I do agree about immunity checks though. Although if they do need a booster that means a third dose of MMR being introduced into the schedule.

LadyGranulomaFortesque Thu 25-Apr-13 15:05:38

as bumbley said.

An epidemiological/population study is incapable of disproving AW and other studies. The Japanese study looks at a broad trend. We aren't interested in autism, per se. We are interested in the developmental disorder, tagged as autism, that may or may not be triggered by the MMR.

lottieandmia Thu 25-Apr-13 15:06:17

Why is rubella single vaccine more likely to wear off than MMR though? It used to be government policy for girls to have it at 11 (rather than MMR given at 13 months).

I don't think it was at all true that people didn't bother to get single rubella - we used to get letters home from school explaining about congenital rubella and everyone was aware how important that was for all girls to have it. I don't remember anyone not having it tbh.

noblegiraffe Thu 25-Apr-13 15:09:13

Bumbley, yes, see this letter to the Lancet

Note the graph of increases in autism cases where he has put the arrow for MMR at the start of the increase. It's clear that he is blaming the MMR for the increase. (Don't worry about the graph, btw, it's an awful example of a misuse of data).

The Japanese graph of increases in autism with the arrow "MMR withdrawn here" blows Wakefield's argument out of the water.

noblegiraffe Thu 25-Apr-13 15:11:39

So Lady, what you're saying is that you don't have any credible studies to support that hypothesis, and even if it's correct, it's very rare?

magdalen Thu 25-Apr-13 16:03:51

Would you like some studies on measles virus (be it vaccine or natural) persisting in children with ASD?
"Results: No difference was found between cases and controls for measles antibody response. There was no dose–response relationship between autism symptoms and antibody concentrations. Measles virus nucleic acid was amplified by reverse transcriptase-PCR in peripheral blood mononuclear cells from one patient with autism and two typically developing children. There was no evidence of a differential response to measles virus or the measles component of the MMR in children with ASD, with or without regression, and controls who had either one or two doses of MMR. Only one child from the control group had clinical symptoms of possible enterocolitis."
"INTERPRETATION. There is no evidence of measles virus persistence in the peripheral blood mononuclear cells of children with autism spectrum disorder."
"This study failed to substantiate reports of the persistence of measles virus in autistic children with development regression. ."
"This study provides strong evidence against association of autism with persistent MV RNA in the GI tract or MMR exposure."
"No significant differences in antibody titers to measles, mumps, and rubella viruses and diphtheria toxoid were found among the four groups. Additionally, there were no significant differences between the four groups for total immunoglobulin (Ig)G or IgM"

These are just the first five I came across, how many more do you want. Scientists have attempted to replicate Wakefield's findings, and they haven't been able to. His study itself was fraudulent, as is described in the BMJ:
'In an editorial, Dr Godlee, together with deputy BMJ editor Jane Smith, and leading paediatrician and associate BMJ editor Harvey Marcovitch, conclude that there is “no doubt” that it was Wakefield who perpetrated this fraud. They say: “A great deal of thought and effort must have gone into drafting the paper to achieve the results he wanted: the discrepancies all led in one direction; misreporting was gross.”

Yet he has repeatedly denied doing anything wrong at all, they add. “Instead, although now disgraced and stripped of his clinical and academic credentials, he continues to push his views. Meanwhile the damage to public health continues.”

“Science is based on trust,” concludes Dr Godlee. “Such a breach of trust is deeply shocking. And even though almost certainly rare on this scale, it raises important questions about how this could happen, what could have been done to uncover it earlier, what further inquiry is now needed, and what can be done to prevent something like this happening again.”'

Do you want it spelt out any clearer? There is no link. Studies have looked for the link and not found it, and Wakefield's original paper on which this whole thing is based was fraudulent. Not just wrong, but fraudulent.


LadyGranulomaFortesque Thu 25-Apr-13 16:12:52

But why don't any of them look at children that are said to have regressed into autism following MMR?

There is no question at all that MMR causes autism. My own uncle is autistic as a result of oxygen deprivation at birth. If they used him in one of these studies, they wouldn't be able to come to the conclusion that MMR has a link with autism, would they? They are asking the wrong questions and using the wrong subjects.

LaVolcan Thu 25-Apr-13 16:13:49

But since the point of the MMR is to stop rubella circulating it matters much less if immunity wanes.

I have to take issue with this statment. You would need to eliminate rubella world wide for it not to matter about immunity. Otherwise a woman's immunity wearing off slap bang in the middle of her childbearing years could matter very much.

LadyGranulomaFortesque Thu 25-Apr-13 16:14:00

The Singh study has replicated the results of Wakefield's study. It has been poo-pooed by the media but the reasons for that are very unclear indeed.

I do need it spelled out clearer using credible studies. Show me one.

LadyGranulomaFortesque Thu 25-Apr-13 16:16:36

We also need to look at who funds the research. It would be awful to assume that a study of such seriousness was biased just because it was funded by a biased party, but the risk is there.

LadyGranulomaFortesque Thu 25-Apr-13 16:22:30

As an aside, I saw one 'credible' study that stated that autism rates were higher in those who had not received MMR, therefore

"In that case parents who did not have their children vaccinated with MMR would put them at risk of both harm from measles, and harm from being at increased risk of developing autism. "


PigletJohn Thu 25-Apr-13 16:26:19

LadyGranulomaFortesque Thu 25-Apr-13 16:14:00
The Singh study has replicated the results of Wakefield's study. It has been poo-pooed by the media but the reasons for that are very unclear indeed.

I do need it spelled out clearer using credible studies. Show me one.

That's interesting, Lady. You have a research paper that supports Wakefield?

In the same way as you ask for credible studies from your others, will you show us yours?

CatherinaJTV Thu 25-Apr-13 16:29:13

Singh has not "replicated" Wakefield...

If autism rates are higher in those who've not received MMR then could that be that there is more autism in the family leading to more concerns about it in the parents - hence deciding not to have the MMR ? So, genetic factors ?

magdalen Thu 25-Apr-13 16:32:19

But they do look at "regressive autism":
"There was no evidence that onset of autistic symptoms or of regression was related to measles-mumps-rubella vaccination."
"Results. The prevalence of childhood disintegrative disorder was 0.6/10&#8201;000 (95% confidence interval: 0.02–3.6/10&#8201;000); this very low rate is consistent with previous estimates and is not suggestive of an increased frequency of this form of pervasive developmental disorder in samples of children who are immunized with MMR. There was no difference in the mean age at first parental concern between the 2 samples exposed to MMR (19.3 and 19.2 months) and the pre-MMR sample (19.5 months). Thus, MMR immunization was not associated with a shift toward an earlier age for first parental concerns. Similarly, the rate of developmental regression reported in the post-MMR sample (15.6%) was not different from that in the pre-MMR sample (18.4%); therefore, there was no suggestion that regression in the developmental course of autism had increased in frequency since MMR was introduced. In the epidemiologic sample, the subset of autistic children with regression had no other developmental or clinical characteristics, which would have argued for a specific, etiologically distinct phenotype. Parents of autistic children with developmental regression detected the first symptoms at a very similar age (19.8 months) to those of autistic children without regression (19.3 months). Moreover, the mean intervals from MMR immunization to parental recognition of autistic symptoms were comparable in autistic children with or without regression (248 vs 272 days; not significant). In the epidemiologic sample, gastrointestinal symptoms were reported in 18.8% of children. Constipation was the most common symptom (9.4%), and no inflammatory bowel disorder was reported. Furthermore, there was no association between developmental regression and gastrointestinal symptoms (odds ratio: 0.63; 95% confidence interval: 0.06–3.2; not significant), and only 2.1% of the sample experienced both problems, a rate that did not exceed chance expectations.

Conclusions. No evidence was found to support a distinct syndrome of MMR-induced autism or of “autistic enterocolitis.” These results add to the recent accumulation of large-scale epidemiologic studies that all failed to support an association between MMR and autism at population level. When combined, the current findings do not argue for changes in current immunization programs and recommendations."

Etc. etc. etc.
Please go to google scholar and search on "Regressive autism MMR", you'll find the same story over and over again.

You wrote "There is no question at all that MMR causes autism". No, you are completely wrong there. In fact, there is no evidence at all that MMR causes autism. I have looked at the Singh paper in some depth, would you like my brief comments on it?


LadyGranulomaFortesque Thu 25-Apr-13 16:45:23

Aggh I lost my response :-(

John, the journal is down at the moment but you can find Singh's study just by googling. It is pretty famous!

Catherina - yes, apologies for misstating that. I meant "appears to support", rather than replicated. The study is NOT a replication.

Magdalen - The problem is the credibility of the studies. The first one here is a questionnaire. We need clinical evidence when it comes to vaccine safety. The second one is similar, however, the author is an expert witness for vaccine manufacturers in the US, so again, we have to worry about bias.

LadyGranulomaFortesque Thu 25-Apr-13 16:46:36

As the cochrane review stated, there is a huge body of 'evidence' but little of it adequate.

LadyGranulomaFortesque Thu 25-Apr-13 16:49:28

Oh yes, sorry, the "no question" thing. Sorry my earlier response vanished - I did address that. If you read it again, it shows I am saying that I am in no way saying mmr is responsible for all forms of autism, as demonstrated by the fact that there is autism in my own family that was caused by something completely different.

noblegiraffe Thu 25-Apr-13 16:53:21

I looked at what Singh found, and this study attempted to find it too, but couldn't

CatherinaJTV Thu 25-Apr-13 16:58:55

LGF - Singh has written a lot of studies, but they don't lend support to Wakefield's claims. There is

Singh VK, Warren RP, Odell JD, Cole WP. Antibodies to myelin basic protein in children with autistic behavior. Brain, Behavior and Immunity 1993;7:97-103

which found some but not all children with autism to have specific antibodies to myelin basic protein (MBP). This study did not look for measles virus, nor did study look for mumps or rubella virus or administration of the MMR. It also predates the Lancet study, so could no specifically lend support to it. The other one that is often cited is:

Singh VK, Jensen RL Elevated levels of measles antibodies in children with autism Pediatric Neurology 2003; 28(4): 292-294.

which claims just what the title says. However, the findings of this study have been refuted by several other studies, such as Baird G, Pickles A, Simonoff E, Charman T, Sullivan P, Chandler S, Loucas T, Meldrum D, Afzal M, Thomas B, Jin L, Brown D. Measles vaccination and antibody response in autism spectrum disorders. Arch Dis Child. 2008 Oct;93(10):832-7.

CatherinaJTV Thu 25-Apr-13 16:59:36

waves at noblegiraffe grin

LadyGranulomaFortesque Thu 25-Apr-13 17:01:07

Juggling - yes. Absolutely. The study tries to hint that MMR protects against autism and that by not getting it, in fact you are putting your child at risk of 'catching' it.

IwishIwasmoreorganised Thu 25-Apr-13 17:04:00

OP - it might be worth starting a new thread for this weekend's clinics as this thread has lost its raison d'être!

magdalen Thu 25-Apr-13 17:20:29

I will hazard a guess you refer to V K Singh's paper titled "Phenotypic expression of an autoimmune autistic disorder (AAD): A major subset of autism".
Now I have come across Singh before because this paper is one of the ones that is included in a list of 28 papers which supposedly support Wakefield's. This list of 28 "studies" pops up all over the place, I remember a happy afternoon spent fisking it some time ago. The reason I remember this paper in particular is that it was just about the only entry on the list that might be genuinely construed as supporting Wakefield's claims.
I have also come across is as its a favourite of antivaxers, and have therefore looked at the paper as a whole. The below are some of my comments, though I am a scientist by trade this isn't my area of expertise, and all errors are mine. 
The major problem with the study is that the findings have not been replicated. Singh is claiming to have identified "a major subset of autism" which he calls "autoimmune autistic disorder" or AAD. In his conclusion he speculates that if 75% of the American autistic population have AAD or autoimmunity then up to 1.9 million individuals could "benefit directly from autoimmunity research".
You'd think, perhaps, that AAD would be a topic of much research. However, if you go to Google scholar and search for "autoimmune autistic disorder" it pulls up just 42 results. The vast majority of these appear to be papers referencing Singh's papers, or papers by Singh himself. Actually just using Google (rather than the scholar version) you just get references to Singh's paper, including one from Age of Autism for the first three pages, after which I got bored. 
Back to the paper itself, and the conclusion which begins boldly:
"Current scientific research from laboratories worldwide has demonstrated that autoimmunity is the core of the problem in a vast majority of of people affected with autism/ASD."
He then refers to his references 2, 3, 4 & 41. If you check out these references they have one thing in common, they're all authored by one V K Singh. Actually almost a exactly a third of his references share this feature.
Now, as I say this isn't my area of expertise but this number of references to your own papers strikes me as rather exceptional. 
Back to the paper though:
Let's go to page three under "Immune findings in autism". It reads "Immune studies in laboratories around the world have have shown the existence of autoimmune problem (TABLE1) in children with autism/ASD" and then a list of references. Of these references twenty of the twenty nine are works by a V K Singh. If you look at table one the same pattern is apparent. If these autoimmune problems are genuinely being found in autistic children in "studies in laboratories around the world" you'd really think he wouldn't have to rely so heavily on his previously published work to demonstrate this.
On to some of the results he presents.
We have the "MMR antibodies" found in autistic children (page 5). To quote the paper "...we invoked the hypothesis that an atypical measles infection may be etiologically linked to brain autoimmunity in autism. There is considerable credence to this hypotheses is based on studies of autoimmunity-inducing cytokines that have been reported in the literature. First, autistic children have significant increases in autoimmunity-inducing cytokines such as interleukin-12 (IL-12) and interferon-y (IFN-y) in favour of a Th1 immune response." Then gives two references to papers authored by, you guessed it, V K Singh. If the literature genuinely has enough evidence reported to give his hypothesis credence you'd think he'd refer to some papers other than his own, to give his hypothesis a bit more, er, credence. Then at the end of the page he writes "it is quite conceivable that MMR vaccine might also be involved in the pathogenesis of autism". Then refers to another two papers, authored again by a V K Singh.
Moving on to those unsolicited letter from parents of autistic children. I am rather surprised they were even included in a published paper. These are letters written to the authors after publication of a paper on "Abnormal measles-mumps-rubella antibodies and CNS autoimmunity in children with autism". This group of parents can hardly be said to be drawn at random from the population.

Moving swiftly on, however, to the conclusion (as this post I'd already hideously long). They begin "Currently scientific research from laboratories worldwide has demonstrated autoimmunity is the core of the problem in a vast majority of people affected with autism/ASD." That bold claim again, and again the only reference given to back it up are authored by Singh VK. "We have identified and characterized the autoimmune subset as a major subset of autism and designated it as an AAD". 
To which I think one might respond, well you have, but I don't see anyone else doing so.

This is the major problem with this paper, the fact that it makes extremely bold claims which it itself fails to back up with independent studies (no matter what claims are made about studies from laboratories around the world have found, if that were true it'd be great if some of those studies were referenced). No one else seems to be using the terminology AAD to describe a major subset of autism, and the only people keen on citing this study are the anti-vaccination bunch. 

So, that's a brief summary of some of the things I find less than inspiring about the paper. Like I say this is not my area of expertise, and all errors of judgement and fact in the above are mine.
By the way, I am not doubting there is an autoimmune link in some cases of ASD. The above refers to Singh's paper, not to any other- so please don't link to other papers by different authors which are looking at autoimmunity as if this negates what I have said above, because it doesn't. I am talking about Singh and his "AAD". 

magdalen Thu 25-Apr-13 17:30:32

You wrote there was a credible study stating:
"In that case parents who did not have their children vaccinated with MMR would put them at risk of both harm from measles, and harm from being at increased risk of developing autism."
That doesn't sound like a quote from a scientific study to me. I found it here at Bandolier:
"What is Bandolier?
The first issue of Bandolier, an independent journal about evidence-based healthcare, written by Oxford scientists, (RAM AND HJM) was printed in February 1994. It has appeared monthly ever since and has become the premier source of evidence based healthcare information in the UK and worldwide for both healthcare professionals and consumers."

Where they end the article:
"And the systematic review and meta-analysis was within a whisker of having a statistically significant result that went the other way, that there was a reduced risk of autism in children who had been vaccinated with MMR. Perhaps it is too early to say, but another study like the ones we have so far would nail it down. In that case parents who did not have their children vaccinated with MMR would put them at risk of both harm from measles, and harm from being at increased risk of developing autism."

The article itself refers to this:

Now I don't have the full paper, but who wants to join be in a bet that the rather cheeky quote doesn't appear in the actual paper?

JoTheHot Thu 25-Apr-13 18:37:29

LGF says - 'As the cochrane review stated, there is a huge body of 'evidence' but little of it adequate.

LGF - cites Singh et al and Wakefield et al. 2 examples of the inadequate studies Cochrane was talking about.

IwishIwasmoreorganised Thu 25-Apr-13 21:31:16

Crikey you lot - give it a rest will you?

Have you read the title of this thread? Where does it ask for a discussion about the safety of the MMR or single jabs?

It doesn't.

It's intended as a source of information for people living in the South Wales area.

PigletJohn Thu 25-Apr-13 21:47:50
IwishIwasmoreorganised Thu 25-Apr-13 21:53:37

Thanks for that confused

This thread was intended to advertise the extra vaccination clinics being held in South Wales.

Nothing more, nothing less.

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