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'll take my chances with the vaccines."

That's fair enough curlygirl2. But do not, like some of the other pro-vaxers on this thread, fall into the trap of going around saying that vaccines are safe just because it was safe in your own experience, and for the questionable party-line justification that "its safe because the government deemed it so". Tobacco is another issue which should get people wondering if the government is really all out to protect the general public, or if they make decisions motivated by profit and greed.

Curly - you're forgetting antibiotics too my dear :)

Silverfrog, the government has never admitted any trials showing up any safety issues with the mmr have they? - isn't that why they withdrew the singles, because they insisted the mmr was safe? I have only ever heard ministers insisting it is safe.

If the government admits (as you say) that it's safety trials were wholly inadequate, then why are parents having such a job convincing the medical establishment of adverse effects - surely that is carte blanche?

Or is it that safety trials having flaws does not mean the mmr itself is not safe? If that trial had thrown up anything why hasn't it been withdrawn?

Or is that the conspiracy?

Oh, but Bubbly, you already know I love antibiotics don't you? They just don't love me.

you don't even know what the Cochrane report is, do you curly?

you're just going by the reporting you see on tv/in the papers?

and you think you know about vaccines and their safety/efficacy?

blimey.

Victorian times were pretty bad - and an example of life pre-vaccination. Nasty childhood diseases rife, killing an awful lot of children - who have all been forgotten on this thread - and replaced by talk of the sacrificial lambs of vaccination.

Well I am here to remember the children who died of all those horrific diseases pre-vaccination. Children's lives were very very fragile 100 years ago. Check out the WHO info - sanitation and improvements in medicine in general, but in particular vaccinations have changed our lives for the better.

I don't remember actually offering any heretics up for stoning - however, society does surely have to decide on the 'greater good' for it's population?

so, just to cut to the chase, curly - you think collateral damage is ok, and no further research is needed to work out why some children are damaged by the current uk vaccine schedule?

yes or no.

Curly - you're forgetting antibiotics again my dear. You can't look back to death ratesin Victorian times and attribute the difference entirely to vaccines. What about things like scarlet fever that were killing people back then? No vaccine for that!

But Silverfrog, I don't understand your argument here - you're saying the Cochrane report showed safety trials for MMR were wholly inadequate? So why hasn't it been withdrawn? WHy are parents still struggling to get MMR adverse affects recognised? You told me that they were?

Science is fallable - I don't believe everything I see on tv or read in the papers at all.

But I do believe in the WHO. They endorse the MMR's safety and efficacy.

very good questions, curly.

go ask your mp.

yes, the cochrane report concluded inadequate safety trials and research.

yes, you cannot report an adverse reaction to (any jab but especially) mmr easily.

yet, the gov insists on ploughing forward with it.

so, ask away - see wht answer you get.

anyway.

collateral damage - yes or no?

"I believe they are tested and safe for the vast majority."

Great, but who is in the minority? As long as parents don't know, there is the risk of vaccine damage and where perceived risk of vaccine is greater than the risk of actually having the disease, many people will not vaccinate their children. That is fact.

Also re polio - are you aware that in 99% of cases it is a mild disease with very few symptoms? Probably not. Only 1% of polio cases are paralytic polio and the majority of those result in temporary paralysis.

I have never said I don't agree with further research - but I don't believe there is any worldwide conspiracy STOPPING further research either. I don't believe for one second that Andrew Wakefield had any scientific proof of an autism link with MMR. I believe the findings of the GMC - and that he was rightly struck off.

Bubbly, antibiotics was covered in 'improvements in modern medicine'. Love the antibiotics I told you. Saved millions, as has vaccination.

I'm a firm believer in scientific research- after all we wouldn't have any of our marvellous modern medicines with it would we? - but you know as the vast majority of scientists with true knowledge of vaccination and MMR believe in it's safety I will trust in them.

Authors' conclusions
The design and reporting of safety outcomes in MMR vaccine studies, both pre- and post-marketing, are largely inadequate. The evidence of adverse events following immunisation with MMR cannot be separated from its role in preventing the target diseases.

Copied and pasted word for word from the Cochrane review curlygirl.

"I don't believe there is any worldwide conspiracy STOPPING further research either."

No need for any conspiracy. After seeing Wakefield's crucifixion, no scientist in his right mind will touch a study testing vaccine damage.

so you don't believe that autistic enterocolitis exists?

that is all Wakefield found. and said he thought there might be a link with the mmr, and that further research was needed.

that research has never been doen - all the sutdies that followed did not look at the right sub group, ignored lots of parameters etc etc. their conclusions are not valid wrt Wakefield's hypothesis. they didn't even begin to look at his hypothesis, let alone test it or disprove it.

the cochrane review said the research was inadequate, yet nothing has been done to address this.

and still the governemnt push the vaccine - and you think this is a good idea?

But this is where I came in isn't it? The small risk of an adverse reaction to vaccines is outweighed by the benefits of vaccination - to the individual and top society. The risk of adverse reaction is not as high as the risk of the disease itself - this view is endorsed by the WHO and the HPA, who I refuse to believe are all under the evil wing of the big pharmaceuticals.

What about the minority? What about any minority adverse reaction to any medicine? Every medical intervention has side effects - Do we stop the majority benefitting?

And with that philisophical question I have to leave it for now, because I am going out. So lack of response does not mean I have no answer! It means I'm not here!

Oh and I may be a drop in the ocean on this thread - but the WHO, the majority of scientists, HPA, and modern medicine are all over here with me. Vaccination makes sense in the vast majority of cases.

*to society

ok, thanks. so yuor answer to the colateral damage question is yes.

you think it is ok that a small percentage of people are damaged, as long as it is for the Greater Good.

how lovely.

"you think it is ok that a small percentage of people are damaged, as long as it is for the Greater Good"

So the 6 people who have died in europe from measles this year are not colaterol damage from those chosing not to vaccinate for no good reason ( i am not talking about people who cannot be vaccinated because of medical reasons).

"thirty-three countries in the WHO European Region are also experiencing higher number of outbreaks. There have been 6 reported deaths from the virus, 360 cases of severe pneumonia and 12 cases of encephalitis that has not occurred in the U.S. Ten thousand cases have been reported in Europe from January to April, 2011."

that is a death rate of 1 in 1666
and serious complication rate of 1 in 26

given the study you linked to earlier, bruffin, which showed a 30% infection rate amongst those who had been vaccinated - I am not sure you can lay the blame for those deaths at the door of people who were not vaccinated.

I am neither for or against vaccines but I am for informed choice. The pro-vaccine mob on this thread are reminding me of hecklers. Comments have been posted re: research, the pro's comment you are picking holes, surely this is called analysing the evidence and drawing conclusions.

It is obvious that Wakefield NEVER said that MMR caused Autism but that more research needed to be carried out. Throughout history there have been many incidences of the medical profession being WRONG. FGS Dr Ignaz Semmelweis was ridiculed by his peers for suggesting that handwashing could prevent the deaths of labouring women. I could go on and on and on there are many instances.

FACT- Vaccines do cause damage to some children, does MMR cause autism not proven yet. All my children have been vaccinated but if I knew then what I know now I would have gone for the single jabs.

May I take a quick straw poll?

Those of you who do not vaccinate-let's take the MMR for example.

Have any of your children had Measles, Mumps or Rubella?

DC are not vaccinated against mumps, rubella, and Hep B.

DS had rubella, aged only 4 months. It was so mild that we barely noticed it. DD didn't catch it from him, unfortunately.

I'll go next;

Ds hasn't had his MMR or his 13 month boosters.

He hasn't caught anything untoward.