To think Andrew Wakefield has blood on his hands for causing so much distrust over the MMR?(1000 Posts)
That's it really. He's caused so much damage with his stupid little study. It was years ago, he was struck off, the study was discredited, but people still don't get the MMR because of it.
"Seeker - what's the point? Many of are asking honest questions which deserve an answer, which are not being given. We have read research, and it's by no means as black and white as it's made out."
The trouble is, you don't like the answers, so you ignore them!
Brilliantly put Currentbuns
La Volcan Urabe was cheaper but it had other benefits ie more efficent coverage.
So you have no idea what the safety data on singles are but quite happy to declare they are safer than mmr?
Again is I said the government balanced up the risks/benefits of Urabe versus the Jeryllin strain, its called having choice
Urabe higher incidents of minor complications but more efficient cover and cheaper to buy.
Jeryllin - less side effects but is less efficient therefore leaving the more of the population open to complications of mumps.
Having followed this thread, I am coming to the conclusion that the fact so many parents of autistic children have clung so determinedly to the hypothesis that their child's autism was "caused" by MMR - despite overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary - is quite simply due to the understandable need for there to have been a "cause."
Having been provided with such a cause - MMR - at a critical time, they have seized upon it so tightly that they are no longer capable of letting it go.
On a psychological level, this is perhaps comforting. It also provides a focus. Now that this "cause" has been recast as the result of a conspiracy, or willful and reckless behaviour by medical professionals, all the better, in a way, because it means that there is a villain in the piece.
It also means that the injury was preventable and can therefore be prevented in others - an empowering thought.
Unfortunately, the wheel of reason keeps churning back to the same unavoidable point - that numerous scientific studies have discounted any link between the autism and the MMR. Furthermore, in pursuing this cause, its proponents have the potential to cause further harm to future children - as yet unborn and unvaccinated.
Seeker - what's the point? Many of are asking honest questions which deserve an answer, which are not being given. We have read research, and it's by no means as black and white as it's made out.
I tend to be very cynical about governments and big pharma. Was MMRII more expensive, so it was only used as the last resort?
seeker i already said that i dont think the stats you want exist.
in either case.
how many children react well to mmr? no one knows because no one is counting.
how many react badly? no one knows because no one is counting.
it seems that like most vaccines, the majority of children are fine. we all just have to jab 'em and see which group our children fall into.
Oh, what's the point?
People. Do proper research- that is read proper, peer reviewed reputable scientific papers, not blogs. Look at the statistics, not the anecdotes. Ask questions. Look at the rate and severity of complications from vaccines against complications from the diseases. Look at the rate of people suffering from these illnesses before and after vaccination became routine. Look at the situation in the developing world. Look at women walking miles and queuing for hours to protect their children from these diseases.
Providing the single vaccine would mean take up would go down- 6 appointments per child rather than 2
In total yes, but what would be wrong with 2 measles injections as babies, followed by 4 (or 2 combined?) at puberty?
But they wouldn't have been wary if they hadn't been mislead in the first place.
With single vaccines you have to have 6 appointments, you are leaving children open to disease for longer so more risks and again affects herd immunity. Will parents actually keep all the appointments? As we can see from these boards there will parents who want to pick and chose which will leave those who cant be vaccinated open to the disease if it is still circulating.
oh and the unsafe vaccines werent withdrawn because a better one was developed. the MMRII already existed at the time.
the unsafe vaccines were withdrawn because they harmed children.
the MMRII is all the government had left (apart from singles)
I suppose this thread will conveniently fill up while beachcomber is hunting for the statistics.
seeker i dont know if the stats you ask for exist. the reason for this being the rather inadequate passive follow up systems which exist.
vaccine damage is a very taboo subject. i discovered this when my child had her bad reactions.
i know there are thousands of families who think their case is good enough to go to court with it.
i believe them and their doctors. what they describe is remarkably similar, the timelines are logical, the children show signs of measles infection and that their squalea are measles virus induced is scientifically both plausible and logical.
i dont think anyone has precise numbers for how many there are. certainly thousands willing to put themselves through years of adverserial litigation.
current figures for asd rates in the us are a worrying 1 in 50. of course noone is claiming that all are vaccine damage. something is going on though and many parents consistently cite mmr.
Providing the single vaccine would mean take up would go down- 6 appointments per child rather than 2.
And think what the conspiracy theorists would make of it.........
That doesn't answer my question Bruffin as to whether singles are less safe.
If public confidence in MMR has been dented for whatever reason, and they wish to offer vaccination for the current measles outbreak, then why not offer a form which the public has confidence in? I suspect that it's a matter of logisitics - that they have so many doses of MMR in stock already.
You have to wonder - are they concerned wholely about the measles outbreak or are they also trying to prove a point?
Going back to the op... I front think you can just blame him, I think the media handling of the MMR/autism and also if vaccine damage per say caused the problems.
The give stance on single vaccines and the distrust people have is understandable tbh.
Drs aren't fallible and there have been all sorts of cover ups re medical situations, just thinking if the bristol heart scandal, in Scotland recently there was an issue to do with the bodies of stillborn babies and their treatment. Non medically you have the hillsborough disaster etc. Its easy to see why people are wary.
There is no evidence whatsoever that singles are safer please back up what you have to say, especially as you are complainng about urabe in one breath, and seem to forget it was often used as a single vaccine.
The extra risks if the urabe strain was a higher risk of asceptic meningitis and febrile convulsions, none of which cause long term damage. It was used because it is more effective than the Jerrylin strain. By using the Jerrylin strain you are leaving more children open to the wild disease, there fore more open to complications. It is a game of weighing up the risks.
Either strain has far less risk than the original diseases, so even the urabe with its higher side effects may affect less children than the jerrylyn which is used now because more children will get mumps, and far more children are affected by deafness, encephylitis by not vaccinating them at all.
"i am gobsmacked at the claim that combined measles vaccines have a good safety record. they dont. they have a bloody appauling one."
lavolcan i know that many of the children in the uk mmr litigation had versions that are now withdrawn.
obviously more recent cases are talking about MMRII.
sieg yes I think it was a mistake not to offer singles.
It is mad bonkers that 300 plus years after Newton we still have a population that value the opinions of their mates, aunties, cousin who knew someone who said it wasn't safe over consensus science but that is the situation we are in! So we have to deal.
bruffin is right that the unsafe versions are still used. they are used on poor children in lesser developed countries. and they have shown themselves to be unsafe there too.
i am gobsmacked at the claim that combined measles vaccines have a good safety record. they dont. they have a bloody appauling one.
they are also not medically justified. we have perfectly good singles.
Ok, will just try saying again that saying over and over that science says something is ok just won't wash in 2013. The Dalkon shield, the high dose oestrogen pill...thalidomide... DDT... lots of people said they were fine too. That's WHY they won't take your word for it now.
If the goal is to prevent the danger of measles, then offer the single vaccine. It's that simple.
Nope. Stats showing that the current MMR is 'dangerous' (your word) will be fine.
Sieglinde, the single measles vaccine was available at the time of the press conference - it was withdrawn afterwards, despite all the media scaremongering about the MMR. Bad move!
This thread is not accepting new messages.
Please login first.