Measles Outbreak?

[MoaningLisa]

I am sure you have all heard on the news that there has been an outbreak of measles.

Papers, Schools, Hv, Drs are saying if you or your child haven't had the vaccine(s) now would be a good time to get it done.

I cant help but think though that the parents who haven't and wont get their child vaccinated are putting their children at risk.

Aibu to think that its just bloody selfish and very daring to play with their own childs life?

I'm talking about herd immunity to measles - currently we do not have the magic 95% that apparently protects the population. Of course that isn't the case anyway because, as I've mentioned a few times, there are still outbreaks when greater than 95% are vaccinated.

Bruffin, I would love you to link to a thread where I said that. You're lying so I know you won't be able to but I'll not bother holding my breath for an apology from you.

Microserf, thereason the mmr isn't given earlier is because maternal antibodies can still be present and can interfere with the effectiveness of the vaccine. There is talk of it being moved earlier though because, as mentioned earlier, fewer mothers now have naturally acquired immunity to measles and antibodies passed on from a vaccinated mother don't last as long.

Missinglala, please link to where you got your figures from.

Missing, according to this the figures are very different. Risk of death from measles is estimated to be 1 in 8,000 to 1 in 10,000 depending on age. The risk of anaphylactic shock from the vaccine ( which I'm presuming you would consider to be life threatening) is 1 in 100,000. Factor in, as you did earlier, the risk of actually contracting measles in the UK and measles looks like the less risky option. Could you post the link to where your figures came from? They are very different - were you basing the 1 in 1000 death rate on world wide figures which is taking the high fatality rate in developing countries?

bubbs, I'm puzzled.

On your link I see (focussing on the "deaths" line)

Complications
Risk after natural disease 1 in 8000 to 1 in 10000 (depends on age)
Risk after first dose of MMR 0

so how does your link tell you that deaths are higher from MMR than from the disease?

Pigletjohn:"how do you explain the fact that the work has been replicated around the world?"

It isn't a fact, and it isn't true. If you won't accept rational argument, and still claim the fraudulent research has not been discredited, then there is no point in anyone taking you seriously.

There've been links provided on other threads to replication of the research. I think you maybe one of those who don't know enough about it but have made up your mind anyway? Quite common in this debate. Accusations of irrationality are borne of prejudice.

If you care to look back you'll find a thread on "hype or theory" which is full of very salient links.

Andrew Wakefield is a marvellous man. You seem to think he claims to have proved that "MMR causes autism". I think you need to do a little reading around.

"The biggest risk of MMR is that your child will run a fever after having it. This is pretty common for a lot of vaccines. We mums are pretty comfortable with this I think. Your odds of a severe reaction that could be life threatening are 1 in 4,000,0000."

Well some of we mums think this is all patronising nonsense.

andrew wakefield has been struck off register,and discredited

Of course he was struck off - he had to be. Imagine the catastrophic consequences for government and industry if he hadn't been. Why do you think it was a private hearing? Why do you think it dragged on for so long? You can read the evidence and submissions for yourself but I doubt you will.

Read the Cry Shame diaries and Callous Disregard if you're interested.

Like you'll do that in a month of Sundays. You don't want to know: you just want to opine.

No Gooseberrybushes, you are wrong in saying

"You seem to think he claims to have proved that "MMR causes autism".

I was trying (unsuccessfully) to find out what one of his supporters thought she was supporting.

What do you think you're supporting?

So you know one thing? Unfortunately the rest of my post is probably right on the nose.

I support the right to full and complete disclosure of information. I support Andrew Wakefield's thesis and I support the work of Thoughtful House which continues research into this delicate area. I support research which seeks to identify children who may be at risk.

I do not support denialists who don't know enough about it to make a judgment but presume to do so anyway.

you won't answer my question then "What do you think you're supporting?"

Do you think he proved something? What?

I just gave you my answerare you for real?

Yes I am for real. You are a supporter. What is it that you believe he has done? Has he proved a link between a cause and an effect? If so, what is the cause and what is the effect? Won't you say what you believe?

good grief are you a conspiracy theorist too?the govt and gmc silenced and discredit wakefield because he knew the truth etc etc

no

its quite straightforward and the gmc hearing is available online.he breached reasonable practice and acted irresponsibly

He showed that more research was necessary and that it would be wise to wait until more results were in and give vaccines singly until then.

I have said what I believe. How extraordinary you are.

Do you think he claims to have proved something? Why are you using the word proof if you don't?

How much do you actually know about this? Have you ever read the account of the GMC hearing or any of the research?

It is not straightforward at all, have you read the full account of the hearing?

Absolutely fully signed up conspiracy/cock-up theorist on this one. Too much evidence to think otherwise.

But you carry on thinking what you think. I doubt you'll ever be interested enough to inform yourself fully.

yes ive read the gmc proceedings,and agree with the recommendations
whats your point? they are readily accessible

You have not given a clear reply. What do you mean when you say "I support Andrew Wakefield's thesis?"

Do you mean the first article published in the Lancet of which he was co-author, or do you mean something else?

Do you believe that he has proven a causative link to disease in children? If so, please describe what you believe that link to be.

you concur with the conspiracy theories?well nowt much to say,any opposing pov you will dismiss as well they would say that

hype or theory

here you go - read the links on this and your opinion might be worth something

nb as Leonie so masterfully put it once: - they don't all come from www.imaquack.com

Piglet - I think I've been awfully generous and accurate answering yours whereas you haven't even started to answer mine

why am I not surprised

Isn't it interesting that a woman in Germany who gave the HIV virus to her lovers, was jailed for attempted murder and GBH?

Any chance that the parents of measles carriers and vectors will be similarly charged if anyone they infect become ill / die / lose their hearing. It's a communicable disease and there is a vaccine to prevent its spread.

I know quite a few parents who 'chose' not to immunize their ikkle precious first borns, but seeing them so ill, in the hospital wards, and forever to suffer the effects of measles, made damn sure they immunized their subsequent children. So much for their choosing to opt out of public health measures!

I feel that Wakefield should be imprisoned for his entire life for lying and leading so many people astray, and damaging so many children, and ruining their health because right minded people believed his lies.

Hi Gooseberry, tell me, do you wear a tinfoil hat all the time, or just when you're drinking fluoridated water &

im not going to read some whodunnit conspiracy links
leave that to those who believe that sort of thing.there are plenty out there

No you haven't answered my questions at all.

If you honestly believe you have, then you have lost your grip on reality.

ha ha they aren't whodunnit links, there's a contented happiness here to swim around in ignorance and prejudice

yes I have piglet, and it's your point of view which is starting to seem a little unhinged

anyway here's a little taster of the thread to whet your appetite

*As for the validity of the detection of measles virus in the guts of autistic children with gastrointestinal symptoms by the O'Leary lab used for the Uhlmann paper - well we all know that it has been vindicated by the Hornig paper. in which the O'Leary lab results were entirely consistent with two other labs.

Although the Hornig study failed in the majority to examine children who matched the profile of the children Dr Wakefield's hypothesis concerns, they did include 5 such children in the study. Of these five children - one of them did have measles virus RNA detected in his ileal biopsy sample. That this paper is touted as anything other than evidence that the Uhlmann paper is hugely concerning is ridiculous and unscientific.

We also should know that the expert witness at the Cedillo hearing gave his 'expert opinion' after being paid by the vaccine manufacturer to examine the lab under question. (And his testimony of his opinion can only be considered highly questionable in the light of the Hornig study.)

Why? Just why do people pretend that science/research/studies/evidence (whatever you want to call it), that the findings in the 1998 Lancet paper, and the hypotheses it generated, are not valid, biologically plausible (indeed likely), and ground-breaking for autism sufferers? Indeed why do so many try to pretend that this work does not even exist?

Even the FDA and the IOM now accept that children with what we call 'regressive' autism often present gut problems which are linked to their behaviour and skill level. They are currently fast tracking a drug intended to treat this phenomenon - a drug which directly treats an element that Dr Wakefield has been pointing out for years and indeed mentioned in the 1998 Lancet paper (impaired digestion of certain proteins, the by-products of which affect brain function.*

go on you know you want to

enjoy - it's fun to learn