Mumsnet has not checked the qualifications of anyone posting here. If you have any medical concerns we suggest you consult your GP.
Andrew Wakefield speaks out(181 Posts)
Sorry if this has been done to death. I've never been to this part of MN before. This is a really interesting clip, worth watching to the very end. My LO is due MMR soon and I have my doubts now.
Previous to watching this I was sure he was a bad scientist. He says the measles outbreak in wales may be due to the vaccine not working. He also throws doubt on the people who approved the triple vaccine & challenges certain professionals to a televised public debate. Very thought provoking stuff.
Please just get your child vaccinated; for his/her sake and to provide protection for those who can't have the MMR.
andrew wakefield is a discredited idiot - and i say this as a mother of a son with autism.
my son was autistic before the mmr.
he also had a life threatening child hood disease that meant a 2 month stay in hospital and a 2 year recovery. a vaccine did become available for his illness a few years later.
prevention is way better than hindsight.
This guy has been struck off. His work discredited.
Get your kids vaccinated.
Umm, I have every intention of having my child vaccinated. I have doubts which mean I'm questioning what we're being told & I might look at single vacs instead.
I know he's a discredited idiot. That's why the clip is so interesting but
I see from the time of all your posts that none of have actually watched it. At least certainly not in its entirety.
I watched it all the way through, and he reminded me of David Icke.
It would help his cause if what he was saying was evidence based, it just sounds like conspiracy theories.
Yes of course the out break in Wales is because the vaccine doesn't work and nothing what so ever to do with the really really low take up in the area.
I started watching, but he started telling lies, and more lies. I only got to 1.14.
Give your child MMR. Do not 'look into' singles, there isn't one for mumps and would you really want to give your child 1960's 'technology'?
That's what vaccines are, they are a form of technology being developed and changed all the time.
The reason we still use BCG is because no one has developed a better one. The reason we use MMR is because it is better then singles.
I didnt need to watch it to know he is full of shit.
The man has a lot to answer for and doesnt deserve an audience!
There is an article in the daily telegraph saying in a robust society you can cope with the likes of Wakefield, and assess what he has to say as nonsense - but the above article reviews wake fields history. The article says he was motivated by greed, he committed fraud and was not seen as a maverick, but rather an incompetent scientist and doctor. If it weren't true, the journo would have been sued for libel and the article retracted. Wakefield has enough supporters to mount a legal defence. Clearly however, he hasn't, so clutching at straws (ie reduced to releasing youtube videos).
I think he is now so low down he looks and sounds completely insane.
He's like that woman on Sunset Boulevard or Miss Havisham with her wedding dress. Muttering inanities to himself and thinking anyone is still listening.
Sad sad man. And dangerous too.
OP- read enough objective material about Wakefield not to have to watch his own propaganda btw.
I support dr Andrew Wakefield. My stance on that wont change due to personal experience and a very very strong gut instinct. I am also a former HCP.
Neither of my young children have had the MMR. I don't agree with vaccinations. They both had chickenpox last year, my dd quite severely, but with the normal care and rest as well as monitoring them, they recovered well and quickly.
I don't give a fig what other people think of my decisions. Facts are, pharmaceutical companies make billions out of vaccines every year that don't have a 100% safety record. Facts are, we are not shown the children who have measles, mumps and rubella and shock horror, survive them. I support Andrew Wakefield because I believe he tells the real story, and the fact he has deliberately put his career on the line to whistleblow says a lot to me. I've been following his findings and reading the research for years now and am very glad with the decision I took NOT to vaccinate my children.
I refuse to watch it. He does not deserve our attention, nor does he deserve any more publicity. He was struck off for a reason.
The reason I am sitting in the middle of a measles outbreak, and the reason that I had to subject my 8mo baby to an extra injection 2 weeks ago is due to the low uptake of the MMR around 15 years ago - the teenagers that were babies during the peak of the scare are the ones now suffering with measles.
Please don't listen to this man, he is a fraud
Sassh, another post where you are criticising the single measles vaccine. I asked you about your comments on the other thread but you didn't reply - I'll try again. What do you have to support the idea that there is something wrong with the singles measles vaccine wrt to the protection it offers against measles? You mentioned something about it causing vaccine damage on the other thread - do you have a source for this? One of the single measles vaccines offered by private clinics in the UK (Rouvax) is manufactured by Sanofi Pasteur, who also manufacture Pediacel (5-in-1) and that measles vaccine is still in use in France. Do you really think there is a reason that we should not trust them as a manufacturer to provide a 'safe' and effective vaccine against measles or did you not trust then wrt the 5-in-1 vaccine too?
predictably there will of course be propaganda spread about dr Wakefield to discredit and ruin his reputation. I am no conspiracy theorist, it annoys me mostly, but the money making and constant prolific scaremongering to vaccinate, particularly with the MMR, is undeniable.
It's interesting also how much diet, lifestyle, environmental factors and most importantly the adequacy of care during a bout of severe illness can affect the outcome. Most importantly, being vaccinated does NOT guarantee your child will not get an illness.
How did you get a job as a HCP if you don't agree with vaccination? I had to have Hep A and Hep B before even starting my degree, and we had to take our vaccination cards in with us to university before being allowed to treat patients.
He's no longer a doctor! Incompetent charlatan of a man. FFS.
Amandine, the reason you are sitting in the middle of a measles outbreak is because the singles measles vaccine was withdrawn in the middle of a huge media scare about the MMR leaving Parents with no alternative to the MMR to protect against measles.
No Waynetta but it can seriously reduce the effects of the illness and slow down the spread, helping to protect those who cannot be vaccinated for actual reasons.
You are entitled to your opinion. But your support of this man is very deluded.
OP it's completely your choice. Do your research, trust your gut instinct, and go into any decision with your eyes wide open.
Leaving this thread now but wishing you the best xx
bumbley where does she criticise the single measles vaccine? She just says that the MMR is better - which it is - it protects against mumps, which isn't available as a single vaccine; and saves the need to be stuck with a needle 6 times to protect against 2 diseases (or 9 if mumps was available). That is 'better' in my opinion.
Agree with (most of) the other posters, don't listen to this man. He has been discredited & struck off. Vaccines were introduced to protect people & prevent the spread of very serious illnesses. Vaccination is why Smallpox has now been eradicated.
For anyone blathering on about vaccines being dangerous or pharmaceutical companies earning millions, do you bypass drugs altogether then? Never use Calpol or ibuprofen or bongela? No, didn't think so.
Get. Your. Child. Vaccinated.
"would you really want to give your child 1960's 'technology'? "
She also criticised it on another thread, which I did mention in my post.
Ahh so the problem is people making money out of vaccinations?
Do you realise the anti vacc lobby is a money making industry in its own right? That people are giving the single jabs to make money?
Nice to see so many people with an accurate view of Wakefield.
Fluffy as a HCP I do not have to state my opinions to anyone in my profession nor do I advocate my opinions to those I work with. That's the long and the short of it.
Wannabe With respect, I think you are deluded in your views, but we are all entitled to an opinion as you said.
Good day all.
There is an argument to be made for delaying and selectively vaccinating against mumps and rubella but that would take us off on a tangent. I'm just talking about measles for now. If people are concerned about the measles outbreak then it shouldn't matter which vaccine they use - I'm wondering what Sashh has against the single measles vaccine wrt its protection against measles which is what people are looking for at the moment.
Forgetful, AW is not anti-vax
Bumbley, I didn't say he was
Please get your immunity checked after getting the single vaccines. I remember being in Sheffield a couple of years ago where they had a measles outbreak. A number of children who had it were found to have had the singles vaccine. It was later linked with one clinic who had given the vaccine but none of the patients had gained immunity - not sure if it was a dodgy clinic (but had a good reputation up to this point) or dodgy vaccine batch.
But you must have had to have vaccinations to start working. I started my training 16 years ago and it was a condition of starting the course that I was immune to Hep A and B.
"Vaccines were introduced to protect people & prevent the spread of very serious illnesses." After talking about AW, I thought you were suggesting he was against vaccines in general. The single measles vaccine was still available at the time of the press conference.
I remember reading his original research when it was published. I was studying psychology at the time and a part of that is writing/analysing studies and stats. I was quite confused by it then and thought that the study wasn't in any way conclusive, had too many jumps to conclusion, and the survey group was just way too small. He had a theory and went out to prove it - didn't do this but went with his gut and caused a lot of trouble.
He certainly has caused a big enough question mark over vaccinations. Than goodnesss he didn't also look into other vaccines - can you imagine if he said that the tetnus shot was hazardous?
Most people do yet, there is a booster available for it as well - just like the MMR. The MMR doesn't offer 100% of people immunity either.
Moomins, it was a case series. It was ok for it to be small.
That was what a lot of the 'evidence' was based on though. The press just leapt on it as conclusive. I can't quite remember the whole hoo ha but do remember him being interviewed an awful lot in the press.
The whole thing has caused a lot of heartache for so many parents.
Bumbley, no sorry just bad grammar on my part; I should have started a new paragraph there. I wasn't trying to say that AW was against vaccines.
Yes, the press have a lot to answer for. As do those who decided to withdraw the singles vaccine while so many parents were still worried. If they'd kept it available then children could at least still have been vaccinated against measles.
Ok forgetful - just a misunderstanding then!
I suppose it boils down to money - have one that does all rather than a choice.
Sadly the internet publishes a lot of 'research' to back up any theory you have, so someone with a 'gut' feeling about something can very quickly find stacks of supporting evidence.
The internet has made experts of us all.
Money over health - sad state of affairs. Look how much it is costing now! Probably would have been cheaper to just keep the singles available.
Isabella Thomas who is the mother of two children who were in the Lancet case series has also made a statement.
Here it is in full.
Statement by Isabella Thomas, mother of two boys who were part of the Lancet Study
It is now time for the truth to be told
I, as a parent of two children in the Lancet study, have had to speak out about the vicious attacks on Dr. Andrew Wakefield by his own government, the US government and the media blaming him for the measles outbreak in Wales. The Lancet study was not paid for by the Legal Services Commission and our children were referred to the Royal Free Hospital because they were very sick and would still have had investigations done even if they were not part of the Lancet research as many more children have done after the Lancet study by other consultants at the Royal Free and other hospitals in London.
Dr. Andrew Wakefield listened to the concerns of many parents about their sick children suffering with bowel conditions and a form of Autism, a bowel condition and brain damage that was ignored by other professionals. These parents were demonstrably black listed for saying their children became ill after the MMR vaccine.
Parents were speaking about this situation years before Dr. Wakefield came on the scene and our government also knew about these concerns years before the Lancet study yet they did nothing to investigate, leaving hundreds of other children at risk of side effects. Our government did not listen to parents but accused them of making the symptoms up and threatening to take their children away if they did not stop making a connection with MMR vaccine. As a result, these children and young adults live in a great deal of pain to this day (one doctor saying to my son we believe you believe you are in pain).
There is much more I could say about the experience of my family and others but I want to make it clear that the childrens claims in relation to MMR were supported by many other experts in several disciplines all of whom provided reports for the court. I attach a list of them. These experts would all have given evidence at the Royal Courts of Justice on behalf of hundreds of children we claim were damaged by the MMR vaccine had the cases been allowed to continue. In addition, the solicitors representing the claimants were in touch with and drawing on the expertise from many more than these, but many did not want to be formal experts. I don't know how much the experts listed were paid, but they were all paid fees just as Dr. Wakefield was in the normal way that experts are paid in litigation cases (and probably much less than the defendants experts were paid!).
MMR Claimant Experts (who produced reports that were served)
Professor M B Abou-Donia
Professor of Pharmacology and Cancer Biology and a Professor of Neurobiology, Duke University Medical Centre
Pharmacology and Neurobiology
Dr Kenneth Aitken
K.Aitken Consultancy, Independent Consultant
Child Clinical Neuropsychologist
Professor William Banks
Professor in the Department of Pharmacology & Physiology, both departments at Saint Louis University School of Medicine
Pharmacology and Physiology
Dr. Edward Bilsky
Associate Professor of Pharmacology, University of New England College of Medicine
James Jeffrey Bradstreet, MD, Fellow, AAFP
International Child Development Resource Center Adjunct, Professor of Neurosciences, Department of Psychology, Stetson, University Celebration, Florida
Vera S. Byers, M.D., Ph.D
President of Immunology, Inc
Professor Neal Castagnoli, Jr.
Peters Professor of Chemistry, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA
Dr A Peter Fletcher MB BS PhD FFPM (Dist)
Former regulator Industry Expert
Professor Noam Harpaz
Associate Attending Pathologist, The Mount Sinai Hospital, Director, Division of Gastrointestinal Pathology, The Mount Sinai Hospital, and Associate Professor of Pathology, The Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York
Professor Ronald C. Kennedy, Ph.D
Professor and Chairman of the Department of Microbiology and Immunology at Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center located in Lubbock, Texas
Marcel Kinsbourne, D.M. (OXON), M.R.C.P. (LOND).
Research Professor of Cognitive Studies at Tufts University and Professor of Psychology at the New School University in New York
Arthur Krigsman MD New York University Hospital
Dr John March
Head of Mycoplasmology at the Moredun Research Institute (MRI), Edinburgh Vaccine development
Professor John J Marchalonis
Professor and Chairman, Department of Microbiology and Immunology, University of Arizona, College of Medicine, Tucson, Arizona
Microbiologist and Immunologist
Professor Johnjoe McFadden
Professor of Molecular Genetics at the School of Biomedical and Life Sciences, University of Surrey, Guildford
John H. Menkes, M.D Professor Emeritus of Neurology and Pediatrics, University of California, Los Angeles Director Emeritus of Pediatric Neurology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center
Dr Scott M Montgomery
Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
Professor John J. OLeary, MD, DPhil, MSc, BSc, FRCPath, FFPathRCPI
Professor of Pathology at Trinity College Dublin and Consultant Histopathologist, St. Jamess Hospital, Dublin and the Coombe Womens Hospital
Professor Samuel Shapiro MB, FRCP(E)
Visiting Professor of Epidemiology, Mailman School of School of Public Health, Columbia University. Emeritus Director, Slone Epidemiology Center, Boston University School of Public Health
Dr Orla Sheils
Senior Lecturer in Molecular Pathology, University of Dublin, Trinity College (TCD).
Dr Fiona Scott BSc (Hons) PhD C.Psychol
University of Cambridge
Dr Carol Stott BSc (Hons) PhD (CANTAB) C.Psychol
University of Cambridge
Professor SAMY SUISSA
Professor of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McGill University and Royal Victoria Hospital Montreal, Canada
Professor Richard Tedder
Head of the Joint Department of Virology, University College London. Also Clinical Lead for the UCLH NHS Trust Department of Virology and Clinical Head of Microbiology Services UCLH NHS Trust
Professor Edward J Thompson Doctor of Medicine (MD, FRCP,FRCPath) and a Doctor of Science (DSc,PhD)
Head of the Department of Neuro-Immunology at the National Hospital for Neurology & Neurosurgery
Professor John Walker- Smith
Emeritus Professor of Paediatric Gastroenterology in the University of London
Dr. Troy D. Wood
Associate Professor in Chemistry and Adjunct Faculty in Structural Biology at the University at Buffalo, State University of New York, Buffalo, NY, USA
Chemistry and Structural Biology
The court case was not heard and parents did not lose. Legal Aid decided to pull their funds for the sick children at the last minute. Legal Aid is government run and the government took out an indemnity to protect the drug companies from parents suing and we as parents had no idea that the litigation case was set up to fail right from the start. The government could not afford for the children to win and thus they could not afford for the statements from the experts to be read out in court. I have these reports and am told they are sealed and I am not allowed to produce them here, however tempted. Below is a summing up by Justice Keith when a few of us parents tried to continue the case without the support of Legal Aid and spoke in front of a room full of drug company representatives about our sick children at the Royal Courts of Justice. I was very proud to be part of that group.
"It is important for the claimants litigation friends to understand why their childrens claims are not being allowed to proceed. It is not because the court thinks that the claims have no merit. Although this litigation has been going on for very many years, the question whether the claims have merit has never been addressed by the court. The reason why the claims have not been allowed to proceed is because everyone has realistically recognised for some time that it is just not practicable for the claims to proceed without public funding. With no realistic prospect of public funding being restored for any of the claims save for the two which are now to proceed as unitary actions, the dissolution of the litigation became inevitable.
Before leaving the litigation, I wish to express my thanks to the defendants legal teams for the assistance they have given the court. Although at all times advancing the interests of their clients as is to be expected in adversarial litigation, they recognised the needs of the claimants litigation friends, and provided them with all the information they needed, as well as affording them the occasional indulgence. The assembly of the various bundles of documents, and the preparation of the skeleton arguments, were of an exceptionally high order. But my final words must go to the claimants litigation friends. As I said in an earlier judgment, no-one can fail to have enormous sympathy for the parents of the children to whom this litigation has related. They have spoken eloquently and with great feeling of the tragedies which befell them when their children became ill. They blame the vaccines produced by the defendants for damaging their children, and they are bitter over their inability to proceed with their claims. But when they came to court, they always expressed themselves in a measured and moderate tone, despite their disenchantment with the Legal Services Commission which they believe has let them down, and at all times they treated the court with courtesy and respect. They made my difficult task less wearing that it might otherwise have been. I am grateful to them for that." Justice Keith.
Dr Andrew Wakefield has made front page news over the last few days in some of the national papers prompting an immediate reaction that it is lunacy to give him space, and that what he says is "balderdash". What is highly questionable (and vindictive) is to blame him for all the ills of MMR vaccine because he published a paper in the Lancet 15 years ago (which has neither been "discredited" nor did it claim that MMR causes autism) and because he suggested that children should be given the single measles vaccine.
The association between autism and MMR was never assessed by the UK courts because of the withdrawal of legal aid. In the USA and Italy the courts have awarded compensation for MMR vaccine damage. The USA also has an expert committee for assessing claims of vaccine damage and they have compensated other parents for damage caused by MMR which did not then need to go through the full legal process.
How long does it take the UK government to learn that cover-up is invariably a more serious matter than the original crime or mistake? It's time the spotlight was turned on Professor David Salisbury, who had little or no background in immunization and had only been in post a short time when he reassured his committee that they did not need to worry about the adverse effects of Pluserix despite its withdrawal in Canada and serious reports from Japan. It's time to turn the spotlight on the process by which I believe Brian Deer was recruited by the Department of Health to help rescue their MMR programme. It is, of course, easy to conjecture and it needs a full enquiry which must come sooner or later, the results of which demand full media attention.
I am aware that in 1992 two of the three brands of MMR were withdrawn overnight on the safety ground that they caused viral meningitis and that when MMR was first introduced the Department of Health stated that the single vaccine would continue to be available. For their own reasons they changed their minds later. Had they not done so, those who had concerns could have continued to protect their children from measles and this present outbreak would not be happening.
I know that it is officially denied that there is any link between the vaccine and any form of autism (even though American and Italian courts appear to have accepted the link). What is not denied is that the rate of autism has increased substantially since the 1990s (from about one in 2500 to as many as one in 50). Instead of blaming Andrew Wakefield every time there is a measles outbreak why does the Government not put funding into finding the cause of this distressing condition? If it can be shown that the cause of the increase in autism has absolutely nothing to do with vaccines, then that will remove the suspicion that it does and you can all forget that Andrew Wakefield ever existed.
Governments should be putting huge resources into finding out what is causing this disabling condition which is putting an immense strain on families and draining the welfare resources of the UK and other countries, and attacking doctors and parents of telling lies
By not listening to the Experts, families and more importantly to the children then this in my opinion has to come into the category of child abuse.
Professor John Walker Smith, who was part of the Lancet team, was exonerated in March 2012 in the Autism MMR GMC Case. The GMC issued the following statement following the judgment Mr. Justice Mitting has made a number of criticisms about the inadequacy of the reasons given by the panel for the decisions they made on the charges facing Professor Walker-Smith. The panel of medical and non-medical members, having heard all the evidence, were required to set out very clearly why they reached the decisions they did. They failed to do that in relation to key questions, including whether Professor Walker-Smiths actions were undertaken for the purpose of medical practice or medical research and whether procedures performed on the children were clinically necessary. These were important points that needed to be addressed by the panel in the determination and the failure to do so was the major cause of Mr. Justice Mitting allowing the appeal. (Extract of official GMC Statement).
In my opinion, this also stands for Dr. Wakefield who did not have the funds to challenge the GMC as Professor Walker-Smith did.
Mother of two boys who were part of the Lancet study
Blame big pharma all you like, but who makes money out of single vaccines - private clinics! And who do you think owns all those natural remedies and peddles them - large multi-billion pound / dollar industries.
The case is far from cut and dried. There are big hitters on both sides of the argument.
Not all children who have the mmr develop autism. Not all people with autim have had the mmr. There are so many other factors. We strongly suspect that a family member has mild autism and he is in his late 50s.
Here's one of your expert witnesses beachcomber - quoted in2007
There was a huge conflict of interest, said Dr John March, an animal vaccine specialist who was among those recruited. It bothered me quite a lot because I thought, well, if Im getting paid for doing this, then surely its in my interest to keep it going as long as possible.
March, who the LSC allowed almost £90,000 to research an aspect of Wakefields theories, broke ranks this weekend to denounce both the science of the attack and the amount that the case had cost in lawyers and experts fees.
The ironic thing is they were always going on about how, you know, how weve hardly got any money compared with the other side, who are funded by large pharmaceutical companies. And Im thinking, judging by the amounts of money youre paying out, the other side must be living like millionaires, he said.
Also among those named as being paid from the legal aid fund was a referee for one of Wakefields papers, who was allowed £40,000. A private GP who runs a single vaccines clinic received £6,000, the LSC says.
Is that from Brian Deer's website by any chance coorong?
It is normal practice for expert witnesses to be paid.
I see you don't you have anything to say about Isabella Thomas' actual words. I guess there isn't anything up about her statement on Brian Deer's website yet.
Coorong, only because there is a demand for it. A demand that wouldn't be there if the single vaccine hasn't been withdrawn from the nhs schedule.
It is fascinating how people are generally pretty cynical about both the government and Big Pharma - until it comes to vaccines. If the subject is vaccines then the Bad Guys are small private clinics, the parents who will inconvenience us all with their vaccine damaged children and whistleblowing doctors.
The government and Big Pharma are altruistic, trustworthy and always right.
My offer still stands for any of you who are anti MMR to bring your unvaccinated children to stay in my house in Powys where we have a nice outbreak and put your theories about how mild it is to the test.
Yoni, who are you directing that to? Beach's children can't be vaccinated for medical reasons - and she lives in France where there was a huge outbreak last year. I'm simply asking Sassh what she has against the single measles vaccine. Just because people haven't opted Gilford the MMR doesn't mean they're unvaccibated.
YoniRanger, I'm not sure that the argument is so much about how dangerous or not measles is. I don't think there are many parents who don't take the disease seriously, none of us know beforehand how our children would cope with it (or any other infectious disease such as chicken pox which has the potential to be very serious too).
As I have said on another thread, measles having the potential to be dangerous does not make the MMR vaccine safe. Or indeed even necessary as it is a triple vaccine.
I really think if the government takes the risk of measles as seriously as they claim, they should offer the single vaccine. If the objective is to protect children from measles there is no logical reason for not making the single vaccine available. The government is being pigheaded about this. And that is utterly ridiculous - it is extraordinary that they say they are very worried about this measles outbreak and yet they withhold the vaccine most relevant to dealing with the problem.
I hope you and your family are OK.
I love Wakefield's voice - shame he lies so much - I watched him recently and got to the first lie within the first couple of minutes (it was the "single mumps vaccine never caused complications/meningitis" claim that we discussed and debunked in the other thread). I agree with the "sad, sad man" comment further up the thread.
There is not much wrong with singles per se, as long as you can get them all, they come from a reputable source and are kept cold and appropriately stored on transit. Then what remains is that you need 6 GP/health provider contacts. It would take a very organised/dedicated parent to work these all in, so children will stay unprotected. Apart from that - how do you space the shots? Biomedical evidence says live viral vaccines need to be spaced 4 weeks. People with vested financial interest pull all sorts of schedules out of
their arses thin air, I have seen 3, 6 and 12 months, all with the same vague notion of "viral interactions", not supported by any biomedical literature.
You cannot get all singles, single mumps is not being made. Some clinics are very vague where their single measles vaccine will come from. I think Wakefield and the media-manufactuversy actually contributed to Merck dropping the singles, the decision was in part political. But of course, this decision could only be made because there is a reasonable and safe alternative: the MMR. Just go get it.
but AW performed one small group study. no good science, or good scientist, basis any significant theory on one small study.
it is bad science.
Faster, it was a case series - small samples are fine.
Catherina, yes you mentioned the singles being 'dodgy' on another thread and then disappeared iirc.
I'm not sure which clinics you've found that don't disclose which measles vaccine they use. Usually they are rouvax (sanofi pasteur) and m-vax (Egg free vaccine from SII). I'm not sure why the argument about mumps and rubella seems to feature so much when discussing protection against measles. They weren't diseases that were ever lumped together until the MMR became available. The singles vaccine can be used as an alternative to the MMR against measles - that's pretty much all that is relevant.
I think it's a bit patronising to suggest that a parent won't be able to add another 4 appts to their schedule (or 2 seeing as mumps isn't currently available) They cope quite well with all the others that have been added over the years! Some people actually prefer to delay those until closer to puberty anyway.
this is the first page I looked at:
We remain committed to sourcing all our Single MMR jab vaccines from internationally recognised manufacturers.The vaccines may not be licensed in the UK but all this means is that they do not have a Marketing License in the UK and must therefore only be prescribed and can not be freely promoted or bought over the counter.
Dodgy. They follow it up with the Walker conference presentation which has never seen the light as a peer reviewed publication. Überdodgy. Loads of folk lacing their pockets abusing (and fuelling with dodgy arguments) the fear of parents.
the "later" vaccines are usually given in schools btw, so no "scheduling" on the parents' side needed.
What's dodgy about that? In fact, many of the vaccines that we use on the NHS schedule come from 'internationally recognised manufacturers'. We don't only use vaccines produced in the UK you know.
Do you really think parents who decide to opt for singles are incredibly incompetent and unable to factor in a few extra appts? Really? Have you seem the UK childhood vaccine schedule?
I too am at a loss as to why it is so important for children to have rubella and mumps vaccines in order for them to be protected against measles.
CatherianJTV Sanofi Pasteur is the biggest vaccine dedicated company in the world. They supply the French equivalent of the NHS and globally supply more vaccines than Merck does. Hardly dodgy!
I don't agree with your speculation that there are issues with single vaccines being given in private clinics. But even if I did, I see that as yet another argument for the government to stop withholding single measles vaccine. Vaccine uptake will improve, no private clinics will be able to cash in and we will have government assurances on how vaccines are transported, stocked and administered. Win win all round.
Thank you everyone for responding, especially those of you who responded with links to other sources.
Let me be clear - my eldest has had the MMR. I was very much in the camp that this man was an idiot. My point was that watching the video surprised me and has made me think there might be more to this than has been reported.. So I will be doing some more research and looking into single vac, despite someone here telling me not to. (WTAF?)
IMO it's good to keep an open mind. A government that can lie about WMD and take us into an illegal war can lie about other things too. However I also take coorong's point that wakefield has enough supporters to mount a legal defence and he hasn't so...
I'm by no means decided on this though I still lean towards MMR. I would never not vaccinate my kids so please stop telling me to vaccinate.
ps also agree there's nothing dodgy about the wording of the single vac site up above this post ;)
CatherinaJTV I'm not sure that it is a good idea for you to slag off specific private clinics and call them dodgy like this - not sure if it the sort of thing that could potentially get MN into trouble. Perhaps it would be better if you stuck to doing it on your vaccination blog?
If you look a little further on the website you link to, you will find;
MMR single vaccinations are manufactured in France, India the EU, China and Russia. Single vaccinations we use for Measles and Rubella are approved by the World Health Organisation (WHO), and mmr single vaccinations have a specific import licence granted by the Medicines Health Regulatory Agency (MHRA), the body that maintains strict control on the use of medicines and vaccines in the UK.
MMR single jabs are specially imported and stored at temperatures between 2-8 C., to ensure that their effectiveness is maintained.
All our doctors are either trained GPs, Registrar or UK Specialist Registered Paediatric and Neonatology Consultants. All our doctors are registered with the GMC (General Medical Council) and have professional indemnity insurance. We maintain a strict code of conduct to ensure the highest standards of patient care.
See, I would totally buy the "clinic doing their best to help parents to find singles, because it is the parents' wish" - I have used a private clinic to be able to get my kids the TdaP/IPV when their school only offered the Td/IPV. However, if they actively contribute to parental fear, thereby increasing the market for their services, I will call that loads of things, dodgy probably being the most flattering.
How are they contributing to parental fear?
bumbley, its still one study not something to turn current thinking on its head.
Faster, it's a case series - no one should look at it as proof of anything.
So your reasons for using private clinics are valid. But others' reasons are not.
I really think you should stop calling specific clinics dodgy on MN.
Bumbley How are they contributing to parental fear?
by posting this:
In 2009 (1) a Dr Walker in the USA has studied 275 autistic children (2) and found in a large percentage of the cases that these children had the live Measles virus living in their gut after vaccination with the triple MMR . You can see more about this on the Daily Mail online. (3) We do not use the same MMR or Measles virus vaccine in the vaccine we have chosen to use. (4) (my numbers)
(1) nope, actually, the work was presented as a poster at the IMFAR conference in 2006.
(2) actually, the abstract reports on results of 82 kids, 70 of them supposedly had measles virus in the gut. They tell us they have samples of >275, but have not analysed them all.*
(3) www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-388051/Scientists-fear-MMR-link-autism.html it says 2006 now, but for the longest time, the Daily Mail had not date stamp on this article and therefore every few months, this Mail blurb would be flaunted as new evidence supporting Wakefield.
(4) I think that is a lie, since there is no way the people at the clinic can know what vaccines the kids Walker looked at had had, because it is not reported in the abstract (* below) and a full paper has not been published since 2006.
Now, tell me how you can interpret the above facts and let the clinic appear in a good light. At best, their research was irresponsibly shoddy and they believed the Daily Mail. At worst, they are intentionally fuelling parental fears to see their singles with false claims.
* full text of the abstract:
Persistent Ileal Measles Virus In A Large Cohort Of Regressive Autistic Children With Ileocolitis And Lymphonodular Hyperplasia: Revisitation Of An Earlier Study
Steve Walker, Karin Hepner, Jeffrey Segal, Arthur Krigsman, Wake Forest University School of Medicine
Background: Autistic enterocolitis, consisting of a nonspecific ileocolitis coupled with ileocolonic lymphonodular hyperplasia (LNH), was first introduced as a new, potentially virus-induced disease entity eight years ago in a group of ASD children with developmental regression.
Objectives: The primary objective of this study was to examine ileal biopsy tissue in a large cohort of pediatric patients who carry a diagnosis of regressive autism and whose chronic gastrointestinal symptoms warranted diagnostic endoscopic evaluation, for evidence of measles virus RNA.
Methods: Patients who had been diagnosed with autism and who were referred to a pediatric gastroenterologist for evaluation of chronic GI symptoms were eligible to participate in this IRB approved study. For each patient, medical histories, vaccination records, histopathology reports, and ileocolonoscopic biopsy tissue were available for evaluation. Terminal ileum (TI) biopsy tissue was assayed by RT-PCR for the presence of measles virus RNA and PCR-positive samples were sequenced.
Results: Medical and clinical data have been collected for >275 patients who fit the study inclusion criteria. PCR analysis on TI biopsy tissue from an initial 82 patients showed that 70 (85%) were positive for the F gene amplicon. Fourteen have been verified by DNA sequence and an additional 56 amplicons are being sequenced now. Work is ongoing to assay the remaining specimens (~200) and to identify and assay relevant control tissue samples. Conclusions: Preliminary results from this large cohort of pediatric autistic patients with chronic GI symptoms confirm earlier findings of measles virus RNA in the terminal ileum and support an association between measles virus and ileocolitis /LNH. Sponsors: ARI; NAA; individual donations
That one clinic was just the first I came across, but now that I have looked at their pages a bit more in depth, my opinion has gone downhill from "dodgy" (see my longer post above).
The only 'false claims about singles' that you seem to be accusing them of is that it's not the same strain as in the MMR. If you've only read the abstract then it is possible that they have said which MMR vaccine was used. Do you know which strains are in the US MMR vaccine/s?
There are lots of other clinics that you'll need to look at Catherina before you start labelling them all as 'dodgy'. Although you seemed happy enough to label the singles as 'dodgy' on the other thread when you didn't even know who the manufacturers were.
the information is not in the abstract, which is the only openly accessible information. Again: there is no publication, this was only ever presented in poster form at one autism meeting in the US in 2006, which I doubt the kind GPs attended. Had they attended the IMFAR meeting or gotten information from elsewhere, the rest of the info in their blurb should have been more accurate, wouldn't you think?
Bumbley, you get awfully hung up on one word. Do you think it is neutral and evidence-based how this particular clinic advertises the singles?
Do you know which strains are in the US vaccines? That might be worth knowing before you accuse them of making false claims.
I don't see it as being 'hung up' on a particular word. I'm more hung up on you goving people the idea that anyone considering single vaccines is somehow putting their child at risk because the private clinic or the vaccine itself is somehow not up to the standards of the NHS or the MMR.
Do you know that Walker only looked at kids vaccinated in the US? Since Arthur Krigsman is the senior author, who offered his gut biopsy services world wide (i.e. parents flew their autistic children in from the UK, for example), you cannot know that. Neither can the GPs who make those claims.
The MMR2, which is most widely used in the US contains the Jeryl Lynn mumps strain and the Edmonston measles strain.
I'm more hung up on you goving people the idea that anyone considering single vaccines is somehow putting their child at risk because the private clinic or the vaccine itself is somehow not up to the standards of the NHS or the MMR.
That idea sort of grew in your own head though.... although I do admit that I think that a single clinic importing a vaccine from Russia or China will have a much harder time upholding the cold chain and controlling the background of their vaccines.
I'm only finding the Merck vaccine in the US which uses the Edmondton strain. Rouvax uses the Schwartz strain.
What other impression so you think people will get from your comments Catherina?
Also, (for probably the fifth or sixth time now) Rouvax is manufactured by sanofi Pasteur - the French company who also manufacture Pediacel. Do you worry about Oediacel not being kept at the correct temperature when it's making its way to all the NHS GPs?
CatherianJTV could you please, out of respect for MNHQ, stop.
You are scaremongering about the methods and respectability of private clinics and that is unfair to parents who use them and MNHQ who are responsible for the content of this site. It is also based on pure speculation and a rather high opinion of your own personal views.
You have a blog about vaccination - use it to push your opinion.
Do you know he didn't only use US children? I think you'd better check before you make your accusations tbh.
She just says that the MMR is better - which it is - it protects against mumps, which isn't available as a single vaccine; and saves the need to be stuck with a needle 6 times to protect against 2 diseases (or 9 if mumps was available). That is 'better' in my opinion.
But you could also argue that having single vaccines at separate times, and therefore more spaced apart - is better. 3 jabs all in one go can be horrendous in terms of side effects. I spent 3 odd months having every jab under the sun for travel ourposes, as an adult. I felt permanently ill for 3 months while my immune system did its thing. For a tiny tot it must be awful, surely? And aren't all they available as a single, but this country refuses to buy/produce/license them?
I have grave doubts about MMR due to experience of family friend when I was a child, who was a GP. He was convinced that a jab he administered to a child was responsible for the development of its autism. I don't think he every got over his sense of guilt.
Amazed by the implicit trust in big pharma most people seem to have. And I don't get why '60's technology' is implicitly bad. Think that argument needs to be supported somewhat.
Sassh just seems to like to throw those types of phrases about and then disappear from the thread when she is questioned about them. I'm not sure why!
Look CatherinaJTV, if you really think that the clinic you linked to is importing dodgy vaccines and not respecting storage temperatures, I suggest you notify the relevant authorities ASAP and get it checked out. If your speculation holds any truth whatsoever, children could be seriously ill, if not killed. So, rather than scaremongering about your speculations on MN, I suggest you actually DO something.
Report these people. Get them investigated. Have them done for fraud (they say on their website that the vaccines they use are WHO approved, that they have a Medicines Health Regulatory Agency importation license and that they are imported and stored at temperatures between 2-8 C., to ensure that their effectiveness is maintained) - if you have reason to think that all of that is bullshit, report them.
Go on. Put your money where your mouth is, I double dare you.
Please do get back to us and let us know what happens.
Otherwise, please stop posting unfounded scaremongering opinionated crap on here and stick to doing it on your blog.
"He says the measles outbreak in wales may be due to the vaccine not working"
Surely even his supporters must find this in the extreme?
The only significant measles outbreak has so far occurred in a part of the country which is known to have a very low take up of MMR.
If the vaccine doesn't work why haven't there been any outbreaks in areas where take ups is high?
I would take with a pinch of salt anyone who accepts this statement just because Andrew Wakefield says it, the fact that he even says it makes his judgement suspect in my mind. Saying that it was the governments fault for not allowing single vaccines is a reasoned argument (even if you agree with why they didn't allow them) - trying to claim that the MMR just didn't work is what moves him for me into totally lacking credibility any longer.
Andrew Wakefield, or to give him his proper title, Andrew Wakefield (thank you Ben Goldacre for that quote) is not a doctor. He is no longer licensed to practice medicine because of his fraudulent activities and does not posses a PhD.
Did someone call him Dr Wakefield on the thread slug?
His latest claims are pure speculation and make me wonder about his mental health/personality.
Something is not quite right about him. And he is dangerous to anyone who listens to him.
He should have been arrested & thrown in prison for all the upset he has caused, a dangerous idiot who fooled so parents.
Navada, I think the media are more guilty of scaremongering than AW. Much more convenient for them to make a scapegoat out of him though.
"I support dr Andrew Wakefield."
Ok, your comment just seemed a little out of the blue!
Actually he is called Dr Wakefield.
He is no longer licensed to practice in the UK following the GMC hearing. But he has a medical degree and is entitled to use the title Dr.
I know lots of slightly immature bloggers and journalists think it is great fun to refer to him as Mr Wakefield, but they are incorrect. The MMR controversy is a serious issue, it might be a good idea to resist the standard of the lowest common denominator. It doesn't add much to this discussion and seems rather
Speaking of the GMC hearing I'm disappointed that no-one has anything to say about Isabella Thomas' statement, including what she said about Professor Walker-Smith's successful appeal and Justice Mitting's comments about the flawed GMC hearing.
Beachcomber - please don't put words into my mouth. I said that importing vaccines as a single clinic from far away overseas sources increases the risk of improper storage and there is one anecdote in the forum that supports this notion (not that large organisations don't manage to mess up the cold chain, I am just talking about increased risk, no intent implied).
After having looked at the paragraph I quoted from that website, citing Steve Walker all wrong and making untenable claims on their singles, I am considering to complain to the ASA (and would not be the first to complain about similar issues www.asa.org.uk/Rulings/Adjudications/2012/10/BabyJabs-Ltd/SHP_ADJ_204913.aspx ).
Anyway, back to more serious matters. Someone asked upthread what we think of Dr Wakefield's suggestion that there may be issues with the efficacy in MMR with regards to measles protection.
Well, certainly for anyone who knows anything much about vaccine science, his suggestion is scientifically plausible and should be taken seriously.
We know that there are issues with mumps vaccine efficacy and Merck themselves have said that the continued use and replication of a virus over many years plus the 'passaging' of the virus that are part of the production process, weaken the virus and can cause mutations. This then means that a vaccinated person is not immune to the wild virus that they will encounter in a natural setting.
Merck know that this has happened to their mumps strain which has been in use now for decades. I'm not aware of a scientific reason why it would be impossible for that to happen with their measles strain. Perhaps someone on here has different information though?
According to government officials, MMR uptake is around 95% in Wales for 5 year olds and younger. I don't know what the figure is for older children, but I'll see if I can find out. Certainly it would be very interesting to have concrete information on vaccinated versus nonvaccinated measles cases plus an idea of the seropositivity in vaccinated populations (as tested against wild measles).
Mr Wakefield would actually indicate that Wakefield qualified as a surgeon, which he didn't. He could be Professor Sir Andrew Wakefield and would still not be any more credible. The title issue is mainly an unnecessary distractor.
Beachcomber, Public Health Wales published the numbers http://www.wales.nhs.uk/sitesplus/888/page/66389#unvacc
In the end, after the thousands and thousands of pages I have read and the hours and hours I listened specifically to Wakefield (he has a lovely voice, did I mention that?), the most parsimonious explanation is that Wakefield lied.
Well, certainly for anyone who knows anything much about vaccine science, his suggestion is scientifically plausible and should be taken seriously.
For anyone who is following outbreak reporting, there is zero indication that the measles vaccine (in MMR) does lose effectiveness.
Wow. He has totally lost it.
I though you could only call yourself Dr. as in medical doctor if licensed to do so by the GMC? I may be wrong though.
BEachcomber - wales is a big place! There were schools in south wales in 2009 reporting MMR uptake as low as 14.8%.
I think the figures specifically for the Swansea area would be more helpful. Are you aware of any outbreaks in areas with 95%+ uptake because that to me would indicate a problem with the vaccine.
It would also be interesting to know if any of the chilren with measles had the MMR. Because that too would indicate a problme with the vaccine
People still believe this?
Apparently 1 in 6 children in the swansea area haven't ever had MMR compared with 1 in 10 elsewhere in Wales.
So how do I find out how many childrne with measles actually had the MMR?
the numbers in the outbreak will be published later, since PHW still needs to gather the vaccination data (that is usually the case, see www.eurosurveillance.org/ViewArticle.aspx?ArticleId=20226 on the last big outbreak in Merseyside)
Well you go for it CatherinaJTV. Good luck!
From what I can understand, the Merck measles virus master seed was isolated and developed in 1960.
The Enders' Edmonston strain of measles virus was isolated in primary human kidney cell tissue culture from the blood of a child (Edmonston) in the early acute phase of measles. The virus (10 ml) was received by Merck from Dr. John Enders at the Childrens Hospital of Harvard Medical School in 1960. Further passages were performed at Merck to develop the Moraten (more attenuated Enders) strain that served as a pre-master seed from which the Master Seed was derived.
Presumably if they were no longer using the original measles source, they would have to re do all their safety testing.
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
so 16.5% of children 2-18yrs in teh swansea area either either unvaccinated or undervaccinated.
since we all know that Wakefield and Walker did not really find measles virus in the guts of those kids anyway, the discussion over strains is almost futile...
I have scoured the media and can only find stories of children who have unvaccinated measles cases. Would love to find out how many were vaccinated. I suspect (but obviously can't yet prove) that it will make a nonsense of blaming this outbreak on the efficacy of the vaccine.
Why can;t paretns who didn;t vaccinate accept that there was a much higher risk their child could get measles? Its not rocket science to work that out is it? They have had perfectly reasonable reasons for taking that risk but surely they understood that was the risk.
Kewcumber, I don't know about outbreaks in the UK but there have been measles outbreaks in the US in highly vaccinated populations.
The issue with the outbreaks was more that they showed that the concept of herd immunity was flawed rather than that there were lots of vaccinated children catching measles. Less than 5% of the population were not immune to measles and therefore there should not have been an outbreak IYSWM.
Gustafson et al.  An outbreak of measles occurred among adolescents in Corpus Christi, Texas, in the spring of 1985, even though vaccination requirements for school attendance had been thoroughly enforced. Serum samples from 1806 students at two secondary schools were obtained eight days after the onset of the first case. Only 4.1 % of
these students (74 of 1806) lacked detectable antibody to measles according to enzyme- linked immunosorbent assay, and more than 99 % had records of vaccination with live measles vaccine...
After the survey, none of the 1732 seropositive students contracted
measles. Fourteen of 74 seronegative students, all of whom had been vaccinated, contracted measles. In addition, three seronegative students seroconverted without experiencing any symptoms. We conclude that outbreaks of measles can occur in secondary schools, even when more than 99 percent of the students have been vaccinated and more than 95 percent are immune
I'm particularly interested in the swansea data as that is what wakefield is claiming that this outbreak might be due to effectiveness of the vaccine.
I'm prepared to accept this might be an issue if someone can prove it to me with some fairly basic data - I'm easily convinced with a few little facts. Not so convinced by the assertion of someone who has an interest in claiming it was the evil MMR wot dun it.
Sorry bEachcomber - I have started churning through that link but it seems to be about the risks of vaccinating. I would like to know how many children who have both MMR jabs contract measles in an epidemic (or even not in an epidemic I suppose) - if a massively smaller number of vaccinated children get measles than don't then I don't see how Wakefield can claim the MMR isn't effective
The herd immunity thing is a different issue (in my mind)
an outbreak in a school with 1806 pupils in which only 14 contracted measles is a testament to the huge efficiency of measles vaccination in my book. That is fewer than 1% of the students! In 1985, most kids will have had 1 measles containing vaccine, because the two shot policy in the US was not introduced until the 1989-91 outbreak, so you are looking at exactly the 95% efficiency that is published.
For medics, Dr is actually a courtesy title, not something conferred by a qualification. I'd be prepared to call him Dr if he had a PhD but he apparently does not have one.
Kewcumber - I asked PHW - they are collecting the numbers and will publish them soon.
I'd be very interested Cath - have family in that part of the world and went down last week. Many families ffeling a bit silly and guilty just now. Also notable that lots of people blaming everyone else - media/GP's/Wakefield/government.
I don't have any info about Swansea specifically with regards to vaccination status. I was just trying to answer your question about measles outbreaks in highly vaccinated populations.
As I said, we know that what Dr Wakefield suggests with regards to measles vaccine failure has already happened with the mumps element of the MMRII so it does certainly seem worth investigating if it has happened with measles.
A complaint has been filed against Merck by two of its employees for falsifying mumps vaccine efficacy test results. The complaint is quite long but it does explain that the virus seed changes and loses potency over time.
The idea certainly bears thinking about although we cannot know what is happening in Wales without more info.
For heaven's sake, read the science. As a medical journalist, I did so and decided to have my daughter vaccinated at the height of the Wakefield MMR controversy. She is now a happy healthy teenager. Despite scientists from all over the world - Japan, Sweden, World Health Organisation scientists, USA, Australia, etc - trying to replicate Wakefield's "research", NONE could do so. And not all were funded by pharmaceutical companies, should that be an objection. Scientists actually wanted to know the truth. Wakefield was struck off the medical register in the UK and that is never done lightly and for no reason. Yet there are still those who slavishly follow him. Research done on the triple vaccine overwhelmingly shows it to be safe. And that's worldwide, too. Much is available on the internet. Read it.
Kewcumber, will surely post here - no parent should feel silly. With the media and private doctors blowing up Wakefield's made up claims it is no wonder that parents were confused. Not everyone reads medical literature like it was the Metro ;)
I was just trying to answer your question about measles outbreaks in highly vaccinated populations.
yupp, and when those happen, they turn out a pathetic 0.something% infected kids in the overall vaccinated population and anti-vaccine folk have to go back as far as 1985 to find them...
not exactly the same but
one of my friends has children damaged by an anti convulsion drug and the same thing has happened there really, big bucks versus small fry (people)
they really don't give a shit about your children, it's all far more complex
I have vaccinated and my dd has anti convulsion drugs btw I just do not agree with silencing people and stopping debate
Catherina, are you ignoring the fact that not all singles vaccines are imported from long distances? Or no further than other vaccines still included on the NHS schedule?
I agree it would be very useful to have figures showing incidence in vaccinated children. Considering under reporting in vaccinated children the figures may not be that accurate.
Medjourno, your comment about people not being struck of lightly may have had more weight behind it before walker-smith had his charge of misconduct dropped.
Based on my limited knowledge of the subject, I would say that he is being misleading at the following points in the video:
I gave up at 12 minutes
Bumbley, the web site doesn't tell us which vaccine is currently given though. Not saying that parents would be left in the dark, but a happy "it could be from France or India or Russia" sounds, um, not very reliable (but that is just me and if I was looking for a particular measles singles, I would call them and find out more).
The Merseyside numbers have been published. 12/359 laboratory confirmed cases had had 2x MMR. Most were un- or under-vaccinated. That is pretty typical.
CatherinaJTV do you mean to be so rude and call people names like 'anti vaccine' just because they disagree with you?
I quoted the measles outbreak I did because I happened to have been reading about it and therefore had a source at my fingertips. Excuse me for not looking up something that comes up to your standards
Disease outbreaks happen regularly in highly vaccinated populations, notably with pertussis and mumps. This isn't terribly controversial you know.
Out of interest do Merck have a manufacturing plant in the UK?
I know they have one in China and are based in the US but I wonder where the vaccines they sell to the UK, are made. Maybe they have a plant in the UK...
and you found an infection rate of under 1% in a population mostly vaccinated 1x worth mentioning as an argument for what, exactly, if not the excellent protection even one MMR offers?
Um, yes CatherinaJTV it does.
I wasn't saying otherwise. I wasn't commenting at all on the efficacy of the relevant vaccine, which in that case was indeed excellent.
I was simply answering a question about whether measles outbreaks have happened in highly vaccinated populations. That is all.
Catherina, as I've pointed out to you already - it's the egg free version that's from India and Rouvax is from France. Do you think everyone should question which country every vaccine they give their child on the NHS schedule comes from?
As the mother of two children with autism I would always advise that a parent vaccinates as all my children have been. The MMR didn't cause the autism, they both had autism from birth. Ds contracted whooping cough at six weeks before he could have been immunised because someone somewhere didn't immunise their child. I suppose some would question whether the whooping cough triggered the autism but ds was odd before then.
Dd at twelve months had an episode that was identical to what parents report where their child makes a high pitched whine (for four days in dd's case) and subsequently their child is changed forever and they no longer smile, talk, wave, clap. This happened to dd, but she hadn't had MMR because the gp advised that because of dd we wait until nearer two. She had MMR a week after her autism diagnosis on her second birthday.
BEachcomber I hope it wasn;t my question you were answering because I don;t think I asked any questions about measles epidemics in a vaccinated population. I was asking about how many of the children in swansea were vaccinated because if it turns out that none or a small handful had MMR and all the others were unvaccinated then it would resolve once and for all that the outbreak is due to the vaccine being ineffective.
I find it slightly that Wakefield is prepared to blame the outbreak on the efficacy of the vaccine when there is no data at all available on this yet. It doesn't shore up his credibility in my eyes.
14 kids among 1806 is not really an outbreak though. The Salzburg Steiner school (vaccination coverage 20%) got 172 (all unvaccinated) of 300 a couple of years ago - that is an outbreak.
Insanity, sorry to hear your dS caught whooping cough so young. I do want to point out that the reason for all the WC outbreaks is not to do with poor uptake of the vaccine but rather the fact that immunity to WC wears off after a few years so many older children and adults are no longer immune.
FYI catherina, the clinic in question offers rouvax and m-vac (for children with egg allergy) - a quick phonecall confirmed that. Maybe you can stop the scaremongering about long-distance imports now?
For those who are interested the Schwartz strain of measles that is in the single Rouvax vaccine is also used in GSK's MMR vaccine.
that is not what's on their website
For those who are interested the Schwartz strain of measles that is in the single Rouvax vaccine is also used in GSK's MMR vaccine.
if that were the case, they'd be definitely lying when they claim that their singles don't contain the strains used in the MMR. However, the MMR2, which is the current Merck vaccine contains the Edmonston strain:
^M-M-R II is a sterile lyophilized preparation of (1) ATTENUVAX* (Measles Virus Vaccine Live), a more attenuated line of measles virus, derived from Enders' attenuated Edmonston strain and propagated in
chick embryo cell culture; ^
Iirc they just said 'international suppliers' - I think France and India fall
Into that category.
They said they don't use the same strains as in the MMR that was in the Walker study.
which we have settled they cannot know, because the Walker abstract doesn't give that information and the data never saw the light of day.
Did we settle that. I thought you just assumed it. I don't think you confirmed whether the children in the study were all from the US which would suggest that they'd been vaccinated with the Merck vaccine.
In any case, as Beach said, good luck with your reporting. They don't seem to be offering 'dodgy' vaccines from 'dodgy' suppliers in any case so perhaps you should consider withdrawing that accusation?
I have not watched it but I have not vaccinated any of my 5 children with MMR (my dd's will have single vaccine rubella though) and I certainly wont be doing it in order to protect 'other children'.. My choice. All this fucking hysteria about measles is incredible.
thanks for the good luck wishes Bumbley - I'll see how I can work the word "dodgy" into my complain to the ASA and will certainly not take back things I did not say...
Beachcomber you are indefatigable and you have my heartfelt applause.
I certainly wont be doing it in order to protect 'other children'.
really? perhaps we should all fiddle our taxes, sorry, use tax minimisation schemes and maybe we should all cancel our charitable donations, after all, if we are all looking after our own and screwing everyone else.....
is that really the world you want?
Oh that's right - it was the other thread where you called the French and Indian suppliers dodgy...
I agree Pansy. It's mad scaremongering. I wouldn't be surprised if one was more likely to die from flu than measles. I had it as a kid as did all my mates and family. No-one was scared of it in the 70s. All four of my kids had it at more or less the same time a couple of years back.
The worst thing for me about my informed choice not to expose my children to the jab has been the righteous fury of other parents who are almost evangelistic despite clearly having done little to inform themselves.
I normally keep off these threads because people get quite scarily vitriolic.
That's the point, Spider. We don't see measles anymore so have no idea how to deal with it.
If my child had measles, I could hardly go to my neighbours for advice because they wouldn't have nursed a child through it.
Me? I'd give vitamins A and C, keep the child warm and sling out the Calpol.
Nothing to do with Wakefield, but some of you may be interested in the following article:
Some quotes from the full article:
"Measles cases have surged in parts of Canada and the United States this year  , with cases among unvaccinated children and teens driving the high numbers. A still smoldering outbreak of measles in Quebec is the largest in the Americas in over a decade.
An investigation into an outbreak in a high school in a town that was heavily hit by the virus found that about half of the cases were in teens who had received the recommended two doses of vaccine in childhood in other words, teens whom authorities would have expected to have been protected from the measles virus.
It's generally assumed that the measles vaccine, when given in a two-dose schedule in early childhood, should protect against measles infection about 99 per cent of the time. So the discovery that 52 of the 98 teens who caught measles were fully vaccinated came as a shock to the researchers who conducted the investigation."
It goes on to suggest the problem was the timing of the vaccinations (different in Canada to the UK). However, another possibility - surely one worth investigating further - is that it might be due to declining efficacy of the vaccine.
Ah, so we'll need a third MMR. Then a fourth......
Fossilmum - the attack rate in fully vaccinated was 4.8% vs over 80% in unvaccinated pupils. Attack rate was 2% in students vaccinated for the first time at 15 months, so over 40 times lower than the unvaccinated students.
Spidermama - there were 44 measles deaths in 1970, 39 acute deaths and 5 from SSPE.
It isn't just death though is it? I looked after a teenager in 80's who had caught measles as a child and whose brain was damaged I think as a result of measles related meningitis (sorry don;t know the medical terms).
I will admit to being tired of all this bullshit (not necessarily referring to MN, but just, you know, in general).
Fact is until we properly examine children thought to have MMR vaccine damage, we will never know the truth. Nor help them, sadly.
The truth will come out, either way - it always does. Let's hope for sooner rather than later though.
Yes Catherina, the vaccine clearly helps reduce measles cases - a lot. But the attack rate (actually 3.7%) among the doubly vaccinated in the Quebec outbreak was significantly higher than the expected 1%, and this did raise concerns among local health officials at the time. In fact the second measles vaccine was only introduced after many years of assuming a single dose would be adequate, then subsequently finding that it wasn't. It would seem foolish and irresponsible of the vaccination establishment to avoid seriously considering the possibility of waning vaccine effectiveness. Of course, they may be quietly addressing this issue internally while outwardly feeling obliged to express complete faith in the current vaccines - as they are what we currently have, and do clearly do a lot of good - but unfortunately, the apparent approach of sweeping adverse reaction reports under the carpet, rather than seriously and scientifically studying them, doesn't inspire faith that this is happening.
Your link is interesting and sobering FossilMum.
Am always a bit when people use the argument 'well I had it and 3 of my friends had it and we were ok'.
That's like saying my parents didn't wear seatbelts in the 70s or I didn't have a car seat as a baby and we're ok. Yes the majority would be, but a significant minority would not.
In a civilised society I like to think we would work to reduce the minority that suffer debilitating complications or death from disease. That is why we vaccinate.
And for those who don't like the fact that vaccinating their child might help protect somebody else's, born or in utero, I hope I am raising my children to know that they are the centre of my universe but that does not mean other people have less value than they do.
Ok. Probably rather incoherent rant over. Bad night.
Tilder, "well I had it and 3 of my friends had it and we were ok"
People use that argument to refute vaccine damage as well you know.
As far as protecting the foetus in utero - why is the mother not immune? Does she not have any responsibility towards the child she's carrying or is it just everyone else's child that should take that responsibility?
So step back from the vaccination debate and look at overall decision making. We all heuristics ("gut feeling") to make decisions. (wikipedia - simple, efficient rules which people often use to form judgments and make decisions). The problem is that heuristics are mental shortcuts and we focus on one aspect of a complex problem and ignore others. THis is fantastic for the highly skilled (bear with me) - with years of experience. E.g. a car mechanic who's spent years listening to cars, just "knows" the engine sounds dodgy.
However, it's not so useful for assessing information. You get what is called "cognitive bias" - again from Wikipedia - affecting choices in situations like valuing a house or deciding the outcome of a legal case. Heuristics usually govern automatic, intuitive judgments but can also be used as deliberate mental strategies when working from limited information.
A specific application is the "availability heuristic" - In psychology, availability is the ease with which a particular idea can be brought to mind. When people estimate how likely or how frequent an event is on the basis of its availability, they are using the availability heuristic. When an infrequent event can be brought easily and vividly to mind, this heuristic overestimates its likelihood. For example, people overestimate their likelihood of dying in a dramatic event such as a tornado or terrorism. This heuristic is one of the reasons why people are more easily swayed by a single, vivid story than by a large body of statistical evidence.
Then there is confirmation bias.
Nate Silver has written about this regarding the US election. Right wing pundits refused to admit polls showed Obama would win.
So have a look at the actual stats on vaccination rates; outcomes and epidemology from the BIG data sets (with hundreds of thousands; millions of MMR vaccinations). Or, cherry pick data.
I doubt there is anything that would sway some of you of the merits of vaccination. BUT I've seen people devatasted by these preventable disesases (deaths and disability) and yet to meet a single person who's been affected by vaccination.
The MMR is the best available protection at the moment. That may change, but it's been used for close to 40 years in the UK - where are the millions of adverse outcomes?
coorong, your explanation would also explain why people are so worried about dying from measles - or mumps for that matter!
Tabitha8 there have been calls for the MMR to be boosted every 4 to 8 years. Although the reason cited was waning mumps immunity leading to outbreaks in highly vaccinated populations.
Which brings us back to the complaint filed against Merck by two of its employees under US whistle blower laws.
I linked to it earlier and I'm really surprised that no-one has commented. I know the document is long but it makes for extraordinary reading.
We were talking about 'dodgy vaccines' earlier but nobody commented on Merck's falsifying of test results for the efficacy of the mumps element of the MMRII. They admit that the vaccine strain virus has mutated and does not stimulate the rates of immunity to wild mumps virus that they claim to the FDA and the CDC.
This is extraordinary. It also begs the question of how relevant Merck's safety tests are to the current day MMRII if the mumps element has mutated.
Surely the question also has to be asked whether the same could happen or has happened with the rubella and measles elements. (Which is why I linked earlier to a document which cites that the measles element was isolated in 1960. )
Of course there is a media blackout on this story. But I think it is the basis for Dr Wakefield's concern about vaccine failure. Currently we have no way of knowing if there is vaccine failure happening in Wales and of course it is entirely possible that 95% of cases are happening in unvaccinated people. However we certainly we need an investigation into Merck's testing procedures and we need concrete information on whether they are having similar issues with their measles and rubella elements.
Yes, the mumps component of the MMR is the least effective of the three - even with 2 doses. Posters who are quite critical of the lack of singles mumps vaccine for those who are choosing to give singles should probably consider having their own children's immunity tested. Protection wanes over time too - potentially leaving them vulnerable during puberty. Not really the best timing!
Of course there is a media blackout on this story
There may well be. Or it may be that this kind of fact-dense, scientific story is poorly valued and badly covered by the media, which prefer to concentrate on softer, easier features-led articles.
We are very badly served by our media and even education system, as a rule, where stories and issues like vaccination, Wakefield, risk and data analysis, statistics and so on are concerned (with one or two honourable media exceptions). The effect of that is palpable when a difficult issue like the MMR controversy comes up.
I'll admit I'm hopeless. I end up asking my DF (scientist) to help me at least understand the basic maths of these things. Poor man. I expect he hoped coaching me through 'O' level maths would be the end of his trauma.
If you scroll down to page 27 there is mention of a mumps outbreak in 2006 which resulted in 6500 cases in the Mid West in a highly vaccinated population.
There was another outbreak in 2009 of 5000 cases - apparently this reflects the natural 3 year cycle that mumps has.
This led the CDC to consider adding a third MMRII dose to the current schedule - although they don't appear to have taken action on this yet.
Which of course seems like madness (even leaving to one side the issues that Merck was having with its vaccine strain being degraded) - why would you give an extra dose of a triple vaccine in order to try to boost immunity to one disease?
I know that the official line is that vaccines are really really safe (which they may well be for the majority) but surely it is basic common sense and good medicine to not give drugs unnecessarily. I know Merck and the government like to talk about the MMR as though it is one vaccine but it isn't, it is three vaccines in one injection.
I doubt many parents would accept their child being given an extra rubella and measles single vaccine in order to protect against mumps but that is essentially what giving a third MMR would be - a child getting two vaccines it absolutely doesn't need. Still, it has yet to happen and hopefully never will. It does lead one to wonder why the second MMR is given though - is it required for coverage for all three diseases or just one or two? There isn't enough discussion over this aspect of combined vaccines IMO.
There is a thread at the moment where the OP has given her child one dose of the MMR and had their immunity tested. They are immune to measles but not mumps and she is now having to debate whether she should get a second MMR just to cover mumps. It's a ridiculous situation to be in - having to get re-vaccinated against a disease you are already immune to simply because there is no alternative available.
The same thing happens when children actually come down with the disease. All the children who have measles in Wales at the moment are going to be offered and probably given the MMR even though they now have lifelong natural immunity to measles.
Also in the UK vaccination is not compulsory but the government are in effect flouting that by withholding single vaccines. Most people want their child to have a measles vaccine but plenty of people do not want rubella or mumps (or may not need them if the child has already had the disease). By only providing the MMR, the government is forcing people to have vaccines they may otherwise have chosen not to have because it is the only way to protect against measles.
Effectively the government is making rubella and mumps vaccines compulsory if one wishes to protect against measles. And of course people are nervous of measles so they go along with it (and indeed become quite attacking over people who don't go along with it because measles frightens people).
The MMR is not one vaccine, it is three vaccines.
Seriously, we really would be better off with NHS-approved singles for the live viral vaccines, wouldn't we? It would improve uptake and quell some reasonable fears. Arguably boys don't need the rubella bit anyway. The measles bit appears to be the most important all round, but also appears to be the component most likely to cause a rare adverse reaction. Why complicate that by giving several other live vaccines at the same time? It is still recommended for singles to be given a month apart to avoid complications, so why on earth is it OK to combine 3 or 4 in one in the MMR shot? And why force children to be exposed to all 3 unnecessarily in cases where a booster to only 1 is needed? Aargh!
EldritchCleavage, I agree with you about us being poorly served by the media.
I don't think it would be that hard to give a simple report on the Merck mumps issue. It is a very political subject though and I bet any newspaper who reported it would be accused of scaremongering about vaccine efficacy/safety and endangering 'the vaccine programme' and children's lives.
I agree Fossilmum. I have just read this on the NHS website;
Is MMR protection lifelong?
The immunity that MMR gives is probably lifelong. We know that people remain immune for at least 30 years against measles, 23 years against rubella and 19 years against mumps.
If in the future evidence shows that immunity is fading, it will be decided whether to offer a further dose of MMR to adults, for example.
Yikes! Especially to 23 years being cited for rubella (not sure I trust the 'probably lifelong'). When do children get their MMR again? What is the average age of motherhood in the UK?
We are creating a vaccine dependent generation which not only will be dependent on booster vaccines for their own sakes, but will also be dependent on others getting vaccinated in order to protect them from waning immunity/vaccine failure. I think denying female children the chance to have natural immunity to rubella is on very dubious ethical ground.
I agree beach. I'm also not sure where the 19 years against mumps comes from. Didn't the investigation into the big outbreaks in 2005/2006 suggest that it waned after around 5/7 years?
Tilder I see your point, and if I thought I could just vaccinate my children with no risk of adverse reaction and that would definitely help protect weaker people with compromised immunity then I would of course go ahead for the greater good.
I have much bigger problems however with the whole concept of mass vaccination and don't believe many of its claims.
I think mother nature has this covered better than the medics. Getting measles in childhood, as we should, confers lifelong immunity and also ensures babies get it through breast milk. Vaxing hampers this process denying many the opportunity to get natural immunity and creating a vaccine dependent society. If suspicions that the efficacy of vaccines wear off turn out to have any substance, then the need to inject more and more crap into our blood will grow.
Also there ARE vaccine damaged children. No-one denies this. The figures about how many are less clear because of dodgy pracitices when it comes to reporting adverse events. I know it's a small number but I'd rather take my chances with the devil I know - measles - rather than the eggy, mercury, virussy liquid which is being mass produced by, and making a fortune for the pharmaceuticals industry.
Sorry Spiderama - big pharma doesn't make that much money from vaccines . Much more money from chronic lifestyle conditions - type 2 diabetes and heart disease in western countries.
And where are these vaccine damaged children? I've been on the Jabs website and on the Australian Vaccine website (both anti vacc) and can't find any - there are a couple of tragic case stories but no causation.
You can also read Ben GOldacre, who's campaigned against Big Pharma and their unethical habits of not publishing adverse drug trial outcomes. BUT Goldacres also supports MMR - so who do you want to believe?
For measles, Mother nature is NOT better - or would you like to have that conversation with the parents of the 70 children in hospital in Swansea with measles complications?
The court document I linked to earlier estimates that the CDC in the US have spent 750 million dollars on buying MMRII vaccines and that the vaccine has brought them 10 billion dollars in worldwide business since the year 2000.
Hardly small change. And that is just for one vaccine and one company.
I have a vaccine damaged child coorong.
Confirmed by our doctor when I rushed into his surgery with my daughter's leg doubled in size with a hard red swollen hot area and a lump at the site of injection and my daughter unconscious. She came to 6 hours later and screamed for hours and then didn't stop crying (unless she was asleep) for weeks afterwards. She went on to become very ill with immune system issues, multiple allergies (at one point she could only eat 7 foods), digestive problems, failure to thrive, severe eczema and a whole host of other issues.
Our doctor has no doubt that she reacted to her DTP vaccine. (She reacted three times with the reaction I describe above being the worst and final one).
I can assure you that there are quite a lot of us about.
Getting measles in childhood, as we should, confers lifelong immunity and also ensures babies get it through breast milk.
Measles immunity is not passed through breast milk (past 2 weeks after birth).
Beachcomber, it's upsetting to hear your daughter had an adverse reaction to a vaccination, I hope she is on the road to a full recovery and healthy life. I think most families, have at some stage, had various health problems and adverse outcomes to deal with. I won't bore you with my list.
BUT. The overwhelming evidence, stats and data point to vaccines saving lives by preventing disease spread and mitigating effects.
As for vaccine market share - google diabetes costs - here are some nice figures from Wikinvest.
The Global Market for Diabetes Management accounted for USD 40 billion in 2010 - that's 40 BILLION in one year. It is estimated that the total market for diabetes products and related care is worth $92 billion in the U.S.
Doesn't immunity pass through the placenta and last about 9 months or so? I thought that was why the first MMR is given at about 12 months (used to be 13 months).
A few more parents here here Coroong.
I'm not sure what the relevance is of diabetes costs.
Beachcomber, it's upsetting to hear your daughter had an adverse reaction to a vaccination, I hope she is on the road to a full recovery and healthy life.
She isn't (we are just out of hospital again) but thanks all the same. As you say, we all have our various health issues within our families and of course there are loads of other ways to have problems than through vaccines. I don't doubt that the majority of children cope well with vaccines, but not all of them do. Which is why my position is that we should never give an unnecessary vaccination and should never be complacent. My daughter was given Hep B vaccines by a rather jab happy doctor and knowing what we do now we are very angry about that - she didn't need them and they may have contributed to her adverse reaction to DTP.
Yes vaccines do a pretty good job of reducuing levels of infectious disease and that is a good thing. However I don't think enough is done to identify children who are at risk of not coping with vaccines, especially multiples. Balance is what is needed - and I think the obsessions with 'herd immunity' and disease eradication sway that balance into a place where we no longer proceed with caution and treat vaccines as the potent drugs they are. We are also reluctant to recognise vaccine damage/adverse events as they 'taint' the image of vaccines and lead to loss of confidence in 'the programme'. And that, is inadmissible.
dangerous twat man wants locking up.
You can't beat having a scapegoat
Some figures for Sanofi Pasteur who have around 25% of the world's vaccine market;
Sanofi pasteur - 2009 net sales: 3,483 millions (+9.2% over 2008)
Staff: more than 12,500 employees
More than 1.6 billion doses of vaccines produced yearly to immunize more than 500 million people in the world
Largest product range available, against 20 infectious diseases
A global presence
More than 1 million invested every day in R&D
So no, not as big a business as diabetes treatments but like I say, hardly short change.
On passive immunity - it seems to be a complex issue with breastfeeding playing a role but the major factor being whether mothers have had measles themselves or have been vaccinated against the disease.
The serological survey of 138 infants aged 8 months and 138 mothers having had protective titers of specific antibodies to measles during pregnancy was made. The study revealed that passively transferred antibodies to measles circulated in infants for a longer time and were detected more frequently under the conditions of breast feeding by mothers having had measles (up to 93.7% of infants). In artificially fed infants, born of mothers having had no measles, but previously vaccinated against this infection, antibodies to measles were detected in rather rare cases (only in 7.3%). In infants, artificially fed, but born of mothers having had measles, the level of antibodies to measles was practically unchanged (81.6%).
Join the discussion
Please login first.