To think Andrew Wakefield has blood on his hands for causing so much distrust over the MMR?

[chicaguapa]

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.

"Don't give me a leaflet telling me a vaccine is 100% safe - that insults my intelligence- no vaccine is"

Nobody would ever give you such a leaflet.

Less likely maybe seeker but not impossible - bit of a circular argument really. If you believe that it's unlikely to be measles because of the vaccine but the reason you think the vaccine is so effective is because you are less likely to diagnose measles if the child is vaccinated. I'm not saying that it is always the case - if it was, then we would never get any cases of measles in vaccinated children - which we obviously do. It is worrying though to read about people bringing their children to their GP with measles-like symptoms and being told that its unlikely simply because they've had the MMR - no tests or anything.

Beachcomber - I am equally clutching my sides at the idea that counting the number of children being hauled through litigation in the US is any indication whatsoever of actual, real cases of vaccine damage.

Well, as I said, any doctor doing that would be breaking the law. And liable to a fine.

ICBNEG are you suggesting that when a child develops measles encephalitis combined with measles rash and the detection of measled antibodies, after having a measles vaccine, that we should hunt really hard for an explanation of their condition which excludes their recent exposure to measles virus?

how bizarre and illogical!

I don't think anyone said that, did they?

In fact, everybody from all camps are agreeing that the MMR has potential complications- sometimes devastating ones. No need to make that argument again! Not even big Pharma says that.

"am actually laughing at the idea that MMR vaccines do not have a bad safety record when two versions of this triple vaccone have already been withdrawn"

Again instead of repeat the scaremongering headlines, have you ever bothered reading the facts evaluation of urabe strain versus Jerillyn

Any doctor not reporting measles would be, but if they don't think they have it (because they've been vaccinated) then they aren't.

Bruffin - I did look at your links, which of course refer to the risk to the foetus, which we all know, and risks of complications of mumps, which we know. They then go on to mention problems with young adult males getting mumps.

It talks about the risks of rubella damage now being reduced. What it doesn't say is what if the policy of giving the single rubella vaccine to boys at the same time would have been. Would we have seen the same reduction? We don't know.

It talks about 'a great deal of evidence' that it would lead to delays, missed appointments and delayed take up of rubella vaccination. In this case it doesn't link to any studies, so it's not possible to evaluate the statement. Protection from rubella is a valid concern, so why not address that issue?

It talks about the reduction in rubella births - what it doesn't talk about is how many terminations there would have been for rubella exposure - you would need those figures too to get a complete picture.

So, on the basis of those links, no, I personally don't see a case for vaccinating babies against rubella. I do see a need for a proper public health campaign to get women to check their rubella status once they become sexually active, in case they get pregnant, and in case they are not immune. I don't see that campaign happening. I see a case for offering young adult males protection against mumps. I don't see that happening either.

right so we all agree that the measles virus can cause brain damage.

just not the sort of brain damage that any child with an ASD diagnosis presents.

okkaaaaay.

especially if their exposure was through a vaccine.

righto.

No, measles or suspected measles have to be reported. And measles is pretty characteristic. A doctor who said "this characteristic measles rash and other symptoms can't be measles because the child has been vaccinated" wouldn't be coming near a child of mine again.

Stats please, beachcomber.

What if they aren't 'suspecting' it because they have been vaccinated? As has been the case for several people over in Children's health - not just for measles - rubella and mumps too.

you know what intrigues me is why it is so very very important to people to cling to the idea that triple viral vaccines like mmr are safe.

i understand a fear of measles but we have a perfectly good single vaccine which has a good efficacy record.

it bewilders me. there is no need for mmr. it has a bad safety record, there are legal disputes over it in several countries (italy recently awarded a case), it was found by the cochrane review to have inadequate safety testing and yet so much of the general public continue to defend it.

very puzzling.

mind you i remember the day i realised that mmr was a dangerous vaccine and i was pretty shaken up. it just seemed so unbelivable. and yet cases keep bring won and the eye witness accounts of children reacting badly continue to mount.

i believe we are living through one of the biggest medical scandals of all time and it is hideous to accept that such things can happen but denial isnt going to help anyone.

La Volcan it does say somewhere that when they relied on a single vaccines at puberty there were still quite a number of cases of CRS it wasnt until MMR came about that CRS was virtually eliminated.

However, the real breakthrough came in 1988 when MMR was introduced for all children. This reduced rubella births by a further 90% - there were 447 congenital rubella births between 1971 and 1980 and 38 between 1991 and 2000

seeker - unfortunately I no longer have the leaflet - maybe just in Scotland??? or even just our GP? It didn't say outright '100% safe' but that was the impression you were supposed to get from it ...maybe 'clever' sneaky wording ...
IIRC was on yellow paper and it was a paragraph at the top of a page - I had more or less decided to give DD1 MMR and then I got that leaflet - I read that paragraph ...it made me feel so uncomfortable that I had doubts again ...which is my main point of how badly the government handled it...

"What if they aren't 'suspecting' it because they have been vaccinated?"

As I said, any doctor who ignored the characteristic symptoms of measles because the child concerned had been vaccinated wouldn't come anywhere near my child again.

Stats please, beachcomber.

the NHS website is pretty clear about the risks unlucky

NHS MMR

Yes, Bruffin, I read the piece you bolded. As you will see if you read back to my post, I questioned it. They didn't offer the single rubella vaccine to boys at the same age that they were offering to girls. They made two changes at once. Do we know which reduced CRS? Was it offering it to boys or was it offering to babies? From the basis of information given there I would say that we don't know.

the italian case is very intersting because the judge actually agrees with doctors that the child developed autism as a result of his bad reaction to the mmr.

Beachcomber,
What utterly baffles me is why people like you cling to this idea that the MMR is so unsafe when this flies in the face of the overwhelming scientific evidence to date. Why you choose to cling to the sort of nonsense spouted by the Huffpo, why you ignore the very clear scientific consensus, why you cite examples of cases of vaccine damage as if this demonstrates anything other than the fact that some children (a tiny minority) have been awarded damages (cases like Emily Moller, see my post above). Your "patron saint" Wakefield has been shown to be fraudulent, unethical and irresponsible (to use just a few of the many adjectives avaiable) and you resort to anecdote and unsubstantiated claims to try and make your "case".
That's the actual puzzle here.
Cheers.

buffin - I was talking about what was put out in 2002-3ish...when DD1 was due the MMR...

The judge in the italian case quoted Wakefield as if it was valid research, which is why it is being appealed. The judgement also basically said, we cant find another cause therefore we will blame MMR, as if blame has to be placed somewhere.