Advanced search

WEBCHAT GUIDELINES 1. One question per member plus one follow-up. 2. Keep your question brief. 3. Don't moan if your question doesn't get answered. 4. Do be civil/polite. More here.

Measles outbreak and MMR vaccinations: live webchat with Department of Health director of immunisation Professor David Salisbury, Tuesday 9 April, 2-3pm

(357 Posts)
GeraldineMumsnet (MNHQ) Mon 08-Apr-13 16:40:39

In light of the measles outbreaks in South Wales and higher than average levels of measles in some areas of England, and concerns reflected in MNers' discussions, we've invited Professor David Salisbury, the government's director of immunisation, back to MN to be our webchat guest tomorrow, Tuesday 9 April, at 2pm.

Please post any questions you have about the MMR vaccine for your children, or yourself, to Professor Salisbury.

Thank you.

saintlyjimjams Wed 10-Apr-13 15:31:54

There may be a middle way. Will talk to DH (straightest person I know) tonight & MNHQ. It may just be that I decline to do something extra they have requested (& I agreed to last week). It's being associated with the site that I find difficult. Will have a think.

Beachcomber Wed 10-Apr-13 15:49:55

AmandinePoulain it is due to the MMR vaccine being a triple vaccine and the potential for viral interaction and synergy, particularly in a child who has recently had a natural viral infection.

Which is something the government pooh-poohs but which is perfectly scientifically plausible. For example with natural infection measles can be much more serious when it infects a child in the aftermath of chicken pox infection.

There are combined MMR + chicken pox vaccines and they have higher rates of adverse events than the MMR. This is proof that combined vaccines behave differently to well spaced singles and that a heavier and more complex the viral load is not without significance.

I don't know why the British government continues to pretend that combined vaccines do not carry different risks to well spaced singles. It is starting to make them look totally untrustworthy considering the American experience with MMRV.

WouldBeHarrietVane Wed 10-Apr-13 15:53:04

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

WouldBeHarrietVane Wed 10-Apr-13 15:55:32

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

SimLondon Wed 10-Apr-13 15:56:21

re the single jab - i believe that its not the jab itself that is perceved to be safer, more that its less of a hit for the immune system to deal with in one go - google Dr Natasha Campbell Mcbrides explanation on why she thinks that autism or something similar can be triggered in children with vulnerable immune systems.

Beachcomber Wed 10-Apr-13 15:59:04

The rate of convulsions with MMRV was double that of MMR if I remember correctly. This prompted the CDC to stop recommending the MMRV over the MMR. Which was something I suppose, but it should also have prompted very close examination of the viral interaction and synergy in the MMR.

It is just ridiculous for governments to admit on one hand that viral interaction happens with a four in one vaccine but continue to claim that it doesn't (ever ever) in a three in one hmm

Beachcomber Wed 10-Apr-13 16:09:23

WouldBeHarrietVane it is up to doctors to be careful about checking a child is in good health before they vaccinate them. Don't feel bad, it is great that you went for the single.

My doctor happily jabbed my underweight, born prematurely baby who was ill at the time with we didn't know what. I asked him if it was really a good idea or if we should wait until we knew what was wrong with her but he assured me that it was more important that she have her vaccines and gave her DTP and Hep B. She had an averse reaction to that first jab and to the two others that I was stupid enough to let her have and has suffered ill health ever since.

I have spent lonely nights blaming myself in the past but try not to do that any more. I blame the doctor and those who are involved in the current irresponsible vaccine schedule.

hawthornthree Wed 10-Apr-13 16:14:10

Amandine I completely understand your concern.

Jimjams sad

DameSaggarmakersbottomknocker Wed 10-Apr-13 17:05:51

MNHQ - it's pretty ironic when a thread giving information to parents about immunisation results in the loss to the site of the one person from whom many of us have learned most about the subject. If she Saintly decides not to stay MN as a whole and vaccination debate in particular will be the poorer for her loss.

Beachcomber Wed 10-Apr-13 19:31:31

I second what DameSaggarmakersbottomknocker says.

Saintlyjimjams is an invaluable poster, and if I may say so has more to offer this site than the likes of Professor Salisbury, who is after all a politician.

And I would like to repeat my interest in a discussion thread with poster Vaccines, and indeed any other parents who are involved in the MMR medical situation. We are a parenting website after all.

This thread has thoroughly depressed me. Saintlyjimjams and Vaccines - I hope you are ok.

AmandinePoulain Wed 10-Apr-13 20:27:01

Beach I wouldn't describe him as a politician - he works for the Dept of Health but that doesn't mean he's a member of a political party; nor is he elected confused. I think that his opinion is very valuable, and valid at the present time. I don't mean to insult anyone but I would trust his opinion far more than an unqualified anonymous forum poster to be honest; however that doesn't mean that I think that other poster's views are invalid - but then that's the nature of debate.

WouldBeHarrietVane Wed 10-Apr-13 20:30:42

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Beachcomber Wed 10-Apr-13 20:41:09

AmandinePoulain, of course Professor Salisbury is a politician.

The Department of Health is not some airy fairy organisation with a deep desire to look after our babies. Unfortunately.

The DOH is worth megabucks.

If Professor Salisbury only had our children's interest at heart, why did he contribute to the introduction of the Urabe strain MMR vaccines to the UK? Vaccines which had been proven to be unsafe in Canada? Vaccines which were withdrawn (eventually) in the UK once they were seen to have been as dangerous for UK children as they were for Canadian children?

You don't have to be an MP to be a politician.

I am being very polite about Professor Salisbury when I refer to him as a politician BTW.

bruffin Wed 10-Apr-13 21:11:25

Can we please stop with this conspiracy nonsense about the Urabe strain

It was used because it was more effective than the jerrilynn strain. There is a far greater risk of encephylitis from mumps itself as well as deafness.
The risk had to be weighed up with more children catching mumps and open to the complications or less children catching mumps and maybe a slightly higher risk of asceptic meningitis which normally does not have lasting side effects and a slightly higher risk of febrile convulsions which are again harmless (my family has gefs+ for at least 4 generations so i do know a lot about them) . Prior to immunization mumps was the leading cause of deafness and is also linked to diabetes type 1.
Urabe is still used in many countries around the world and many clinics supplying single vaccines in the past used the Urabe strain.

WouldBeHarrietVane Wed 10-Apr-13 21:18:47

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

CatherinaJTV Wed 10-Apr-13 21:18:57

I second what DameSaggarmakersbottomknocker says.

I third it - as much as we "fought" on the vaccines board, I very much value saintly's input and hope she will stay!

bruffin Wed 10-Apr-13 21:21:12

[[ info on Urabe strain compared to jeryllyn and rubini]]

bruffin Wed 10-Apr-13 21:24:21

proper link

AmandinePoulain Wed 10-Apr-13 21:39:24

Thanks for that link bruffin.

The conspiracy theories surrounding vaccines are what usually puts me off debates like this. I just cannot believe that a highly qualified paediatrician and immunologist would knowingly put millions of children at risk of significant harm just to save face confused. I've no doubt that there are children that have suffered adverse effects from vaccination but the potential for harm is surely far greater from the diseases that we are protecting our children from, which is why both of my children are fully vaccinated.

WouldBeHarrietVane Wed 10-Apr-13 21:47:28

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

hawthornthree Wed 10-Apr-13 22:04:23

I don't doubt for a moment that DS believes he is doing the right thing ethically, and of course, without vaccination there would undoubtedly be more deaths from measles and other vaccination preventable illnesses. Public health have made that decision - that the benefit from vaccinations, from a public heath point of view, vastly outweighs any theoretical risks that might affect a very small number of children, far smaller than would be affected if there was a nationwide measles epidemic.

However, this very small number of children, who may be susceptible to some sort of vaccination issue, should not be ignored, and neither should there parents. To do so, even with the goal of protecting other children through vaccination coverage, is unethical, and so is stifling any future research that might reveal more about these issues.

hawthornthree Wed 10-Apr-13 22:04:58

public health officials have made that decision I mean.

hawthornthree Wed 10-Apr-13 22:05:40

their parents <goes to bed>

slatternlymother Thu 11-Apr-13 08:10:28

Well said wouldbe we are in the same boat ourselves with DS. I need unbiased information which presents the facts to me.

I've raised my concerns with the doctors, who just shrugged them off and tied themselves up in knots; in the same breath we needed to source a difference vaccine for DS because he is allergic to eggs, then next thing it's 'oh no it's actually dpt we need to worry about, just jab him with mmr, he'll be fine'. It frightened me they didn't appear to have their facts straight and I'm too afraid to go back and give him multiple jabs (family history as well). Instead, I'll give him singular vaccines at my own expense.

They wouldn't even give him the jabs I was concerned about (for damn good reasons) in hospital, so they could monitor his reaction for a few hours after.

I just felt they didn't take me, or my valid concerns seriously at all. So I can't take the NHS seriously.

slatternlymother Thu 11-Apr-13 08:12:06

Can't take the NHS seriously in this respect, I might add. I just don't think they have the time or resources and in some cases, experience, to help the minority out with vaccines.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

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

Register now