Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Measles Outbreak?

1003 replies

MoaningLisa · 27/05/2011 13:56

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?

OP posts:
Gooseberrybushes · 02/06/2011 10:41

" Presumably doctors know about this amazing cochrane report too??"

I've missed a bit but presumably somebody's mentioned that this "study of studies" found that research was inadequate before roll out?

Was somebody going on about rigorous testing earlier?

CurlyGirly2 · 02/06/2011 10:43

Gooseberry- Because people on here are anti-vax, and are vehementally using pseudoscience to say vaccines aren't safe. I'm saying vaccines are safe (as safe as any other licensed medicine) and to trust the established medical community.

silverfrog · 02/06/2011 10:46

yes, gooseberry, it was mentioned. Curly didn't seem to know what the cochrane report was.

when informed.....

.......

etc.

you get the picture.

but hey, why let the facts get in the way of the story?

(I also mentioned that the Hib/MenC combination was not fully trialled and tested before ebing rolled out, and has an (to me) unacceptably high side effect rate of 10%. it is effectively on a large scale clinical trial now - the effectiveness of the vaccine nt being known before roll out. this was interpreted as "being against a life-saving vaccine" )

CurlyGirly2 · 02/06/2011 10:47

You see you can draw parallels with the breastfeeding debate. The vast number of studies show that bf produces a healthier baby, less likely to be hospitalised etc etc

Anti- bf will leap on the very small number of studies that don't show advantage and hail them as 'truth' that there is no advantage to bf.

Same is happening with vaccines.

bubbleymummy · 02/06/2011 10:53

Curly, many people aren't anti-vax they're pro safe vaccines and pro decent research to identify possible contraindications. Many posters have vaccinated their children with singles or have just delayed certain vaccines to space them out etc. You can't group everyone who expresses concerns about the mmr into an 'anti-vax' brigade. Many people are just on her correcting misinformation so that people can make informed decisions without scaremongering from anecdotes and exaggeration of complications.

Gooseberrybushes · 02/06/2011 10:53

Apologies to whoever has already done this

Why do we vaccinate? Measles and to a lesser extent, mumps and rubella, cause serious illness in a small but nonetheless significant minority of those infected.

The same can be said of vaccines. But we have no idea how many people will be affected as research into this has been stymied. Perhaps you think these children don't matter.

Mumps can cause meningitis and deafness, also infertility in boys. Rubella, when passed unwittingly to a pregnant woman, is catastrophic. All of these viruses are transmissible before specific symptoms manifest."

Mumps meningitis is rare, and then rarely dangerous. "Infertility" (as you call it) is more of a threat in adolescents and adults - the age to which mumps is pushed by vaccination.

Herd immunity (the "greater good" many posters disdainfully refer to) prevents widespread outbreaks.

We don't have herd immunity.

All of those naysayers, be grateful that enough people have been sensible and had children vaccinated to make this possible - your unvaccinated children benefit from this.

I don't want anyone to vaccinate on my behalf.

The children who cannot be vaccinated or in whom the vaccine later becomes ineffective (those with compromised immunity such as sufferers of HIV or leukaemia) are the most obvious beneficiaries

The child with leukaemia. We are expected to think about this hypothetical child while thousands of real, damaged children are being denied.

Regarding Wakefield, the main issue I have is that the Lancet saw fit to publish a poorly-designed and unhelpful piece of research.

It was a case study of twelve children and described as an excellent study of its type by Richard Horton. It was not a piece of research into autism.

Autism is on the increase but mainly because we are now more aware of it and know what to look for - and the age at which it becomes apparent is around the age of completion of the MMR, so naturally people will get worried about a link.

Because, just around the time MMR was introduced, health professionals suddenly decided by complete coincidence to start diagnosing thousands more cases of autistic disorder. Before Wakefield even published. They just all decided autism was the new thing. Apparently.

Like my wife, I turn to the Finnish studies - 14 million children studied, and no link found between the triple jab and autism.

Silver dealt with this.

Single vaccines are unhelpful. They have to be spaced, thereby prolonging the vulnerable period to whichever virus is vaccinated against last.

Party line. It's pretty unhelpful to say all or nothing, when it means a lot of people will go for the "nothing".

I've seen people seriously unwell with measles in my clinical practice.

There are thousands of mothers who've seen their children seriously unwell after vaccinations.

My senior colleagues are old enough to remember the days when it was rife (one of them has a permanent squint thanks to the disease).

Some children have permanent brain damage and some have died thanks to the vaccine.

Every medical professional I know (and they are many) is strongly in favour of MMR.

Well perhaps they should do a little more reading. How much time do you spend on vaccination in med school? Half a week? One lecture?

To not have the jabs is to put at risk the lives of your child and other children.

To have the jabs is the put at risk the life of your child.

I'm very glad to say our son has completed his MMR

I'm very happy for you.

and I sleep better knowing this in the presence of the current outbreak, which has claimed lives and will continue to do so.

many of vaccinated children.

CurlyGirly2 · 02/06/2011 10:54

Silverfrog, do you want to believe that your life experience counts more than the infectious disease doctor? The medical training he has been though? The medical experience?

No, best belittle his white coat- after all, you can google can't you?

Is that all you have to challenge him with?

silverfrog · 02/06/2011 10:54

curly - do you actually want ot comment on those studies? because oyu seem to be trying to avoid it.

tell me why I shoud listen to MrSquidgy, as an infectious diseases expert, when he:

wildy misquotes and overinflates a report he is trying to claim disproves a link between mmr/autism
doesn't seem to know a few basic facts about the common infectious diseases he is talking about

you seem to want ot gloss over these issues?

and have you read any of the minority reports you are trying to dismiss? can you tell me what you have against them?

silverfrog · 02/06/2011 10:56

curly - I have never belittled MrSquidgy's white coat. not sure what oyu are on about there, tbh.

yes, I can google. (as, I assume can you, and MrSquidgy, and indeed squidgy herself). I can also then read the studies being talked about - and I have pointed out why MrSquidgy was wrong to assume what he did form his reading of that study.

please do tell me why what I said was wrong (wrt the Finnish study)

Gooseberrybushes · 02/06/2011 10:57

Because people on here are anti-vax

really? who?

and are vehementally using pseudoscience

really? which bit is pseudoscience? - oh sorry I forgot - you don't read the studies do you - you didn't even know what the Cochrane report was

I'm saying vaccines are safe (as safe as any other licensed medicine)

how do you know? you don't

and to trust the established medical community.

when they deny the existence of vaccine damaged chiildren, fail to file reports of vaccine damage, quote flawed studies, quote flawed epidemiological statistics?

it's hard curly to think for oneself but people ought to - we've moved on from "take the red pill, take the yellow pill"

Gooseberrybushes · 02/06/2011 10:58

I've mentioned his white coat. More in the sense that, you just seem to bow down to it. Nothing wrong with having a white coat tho -- it's when you see it and go all wobbly in the brain that it's a bit worrying.

silverfrog · 02/06/2011 10:58

as for "is that all you have to challenge him with"

ROAR

i, erm, pointed out that in fact the study he refers to did not examine what he says it examined. not as many people (whre he got 14 million form I have NO idea!), nor in its conclusion re: mmr - the author of the study is on record as saying it cannot be used ot determine this - I think the author might know a little better than MrSquidgy what her report shold be used for, don't you?

Gooseberrybushes · 02/06/2011 11:00

Actually it would be nice if Mr Squidgy came back. At least he was someone who reads research papers and if you give him evidence he might be able to look at it and say actually, this cohort is this and that cohort is the other, and you might actually be able to have a proper conversation.

You know the links, that we've published, he would be able to actually read them and talk about them and it might be incredibly interesting.

bubbleymummy · 02/06/2011 11:06

Curly, do you not think a doctor of infectious diseases should know about potential complications of things like mumps? Did you not see him backtracking from 'mumps causes sterility' to 'actually it doesn't but it causes otchitis which can, in a very small number of cases reduce sperm count. Very reassuring!

CurlyGirly2 · 02/06/2011 11:06

Silverfrog, I am not trained to interpret medical studies - I'll leave that to the professionals. That's what they are there for.

So vaccines debate - group of vehement anti-vaxxers on the Internet, spouting conspiracies, a small number is studies, and google.

Versus- the WHO, HPA and established medical opinion, based on huge number of medical studies , all referenced, published and peer reviewed.

ANY study can be criticised, none are PERFECT. As I said before, I put my trust in the professional bodies rather than mumsnetters googling scientific studies and interpreting them themselves. Which is a verydifficult thing to do.

Anyone not putting their their trust, overall (yes there are mistakes) in the medical establishment are simply conspiracy theorists.

Further reading: Snake Oil by John Diamond.

bubbleymummy · 02/06/2011 11:07

Orchitis *

silverfrog · 02/06/2011 11:12

curly, believe me - you do not need to be trained ot read medical studies. especially if that training leads you to make the errors that MrSquidgy did!

you just need to read them through, and see what you think - try it Smile you never now, you might learn something.

it is all very well putting your trust in people - but when the doctors and the government continue to push a vaccine which a review (commissioned by the government) found to have not had adequate safety trials, well - do you not find that odd?

even if you can get past the fact they introduced it in the first place without adequate safety trials - why would they continue to use it when it was pointed out to them that no conclusion could be drawn on its safety? and recommendations were made for further research, and proper safety trials?

are you really saying that they shudl continue to use it in the face of official guidance like that?

CurlyGirly2 · 02/06/2011 11:15

Oh bubbly, do you think you 'won' against the good doctor?

He quoted one study, you quoted another? Or something like that. Yawn.

Perhaps you should enter the medical profession and put them all straight?

After all you anti- vaxxers are clearly seeing the whole picture which has been missed by the entire medical estaishment.........

Gooseberrybushes · 02/06/2011 11:15

Curly: what you have there is a reason for making your own choice. What you most certainly don't have is a reason to pour scorn or ridicule on those who make a different choice, or to dismiss them as conspiracy theorists. You admit your ignorance - that's fine for you. But you shouldn't be doling out advice to other people, accompanied by these wild and hysterical judgements about their motices.

You have enough info for your own decision, and you are most welcome to it. Don't presume to tell anyone else what to do please.

Gooseberrybushes · 02/06/2011 11:16

Curly - his study is flawed - deeply flawed. The AUTHORS OF THE STUDY say it wasn't designed to study the relationship between MMR and autism. He back tracked himself on mumps.

Hello? anyone home?

bubbleymummy · 02/06/2011 11:17

Sigh, she continues to label anyone who questions the safety of the MMR vaccine as a conspiracy theorist and an anti-vaxxer. Even official government reports highlighting inadequate safety trials - are they part of the conspiracy too?

Btw, what is your opinion of doctors who question the safety of certain vaccines and the vaccine schedule? Eg Dr Richard Halvorsen. He's fully qualified and knows how to read research papers too. He also, fwiw, knows the actual risks and complications of mumps.

exoticfruits · 02/06/2011 11:18

I shouldn't keep 'feeding them' Curly and I should take my own advice!
I think I need 100 lines
I will not comment
I will not comment
I will not comment
..................

I nominate PaisleyLeaf as the wisest poster on MN.

CurlyGirly2 · 02/06/2011 11:19

Silverfrog, I'm sure if someone had amundsen to, they could easily come on and critique your studies. Any study can be criticised, I am not trained to do so, and I don't have time to read enough of ALL the studies on the subject to get the big picture. Do you?

Or do you JUST want me to read the study that YOU found that supports your argument? Ah.....

CurlyGirly2 · 02/06/2011 11:21
  • a mind to not Amundsen damn autocorrect
silverfrog · 02/06/2011 11:23

curly, tbh I'd like you to read anyhting at all, for yourself, and not hide behind what other people say. take some responsibility for your choices, and your argument.

exotic: that is all you can say? no comment on the fact that the Squidgys were referring to a study that doesn't examine mmr/autism? no commnet on the drop in th esmallpox vaccinaiton rate? no comment on anythign at all except what other posters who agree with you say?

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.