to think it's not terribly helpful to keep referring to parents who haven't MMR'd as "whack jobs"...

[MsGillis]

..or morons, or unfit parents, or up there with people who drink and drive?

I appreciate that people have very strong feelings around the subject, but I think that we need to understand that there are a significant number of parents who didn't/haven't vaccinated, not because they are crystal waving nutjobs, but because they are actually scared shitless and paralysed into indecision?

Surely there are ways and means to communicate information, and arrogantly shouting about how one person is right and anyone who disagrees is all kinds of nobhead is not going to be conducive in opening up reasonable dialogue?

So why the anger seeker? The group I have linked to are working on a test that would identify potentially susceptible at risk children before vaccinations are given. I am really struggling to understand why that is a bad thing. Surely this is a good thing? With that test I would know - truly know, rather than have to make an educated guess - the 'best' decision for ds1's siblings.

Thank you raspberry - that's exactly what I am saying.

Some doctors will discuss their views off the record. They aren't allowed to divert from the official goverment recommendations because they will be struck off!

I know a GP who decided not to give one of her children the MMR but she isn't allowed to recommend that to anyone of course.

Doctors are under a great deal of pressure - they try to do their best within the limitations they have.

Lottie,
Of course there are adverse reactions to vaccine, I have never said anything to the contrary.

Cheers.

Well tbh on this thread I have talked about doctors views on my son's condition (great offence seems to have been taken by me reporting that his doctors told us we'll have a better idea of what happened in his case in 10 - 20 years time for example - not sure why - think I was probably making the point we're having to guess at the moment). The immunologist's quotes about staggering vaccinations were made in mainstream media & linked to.

But you don't think it would be a good thing to identify susceptible children in advance magdalen?

saintly

I can't show you evidence and you know I can't as you previously stated you understood that you can't prove a null hypothesis.

You also said you weren't interested in proof. But now you are.

So no I can't show you any evidence that there is no link whatsoever to disprove your theory that a small number of children regress due to mmr.

I can't show you evidence unicorns don't exist either.

sorry about the time it took to respond, I'm looking after a manic toddler and that took me all morning to write

"Some doctors will discuss their views off the record. They aren't allowed to divert from the official goverment recommendations because they will be struck off!"

Eh?

Whensheewas - that wasn't really my question. There's no need to prove any null hypothesis. Research has shown that some children with autism appear to have mitochondrial disorders and/or immune dysfunction. Some researchers working in these fields have stated in mainstream media (that has been linked to) that it may be safer to spread vaccinations out for children in these subgroups. I'm asking you why you think I shouldn't follow their advice. Having children with red flags myself.

I'm not saying you shouldn't follow their advice.

This is what I posted yesterday night
^I don't want you to change your belief that mmr can cause autism in a tiny tiny number of patients.

What I would appreciate is more willingness to admit that so far there is no evidence that this is the case^

I think I have already made it clear that you are entitled to your opinion.

My problem is that you keep saying things like Research has shown that some children with autism appear to have mitochondrial disorders and/or immune dysfunction. Some researchers working in these fields have stated in mainstream media (that has been linked to) that it may be safer to spread vaccinations out for children in these subgroups

Now this may one day be proven (so yes you should avoid immunising your children (as you have already had one child who did not react well to a vaccine - obviously I don't know your circumstances so I'm a big vague on what actually happened))

But at the moment there is no evidence supporting this hypothesis (I'm not trying to write it off I'm just saying there isn't any evidence to support it). I honestly don't know why you can't understand that.

This illness, measles, is largely preventable by vaccination. In the UK we had pretty good vaccine coverage against measles using a combined MMR vaccination.

'Pretty good' is not what is now being reported- the blame for this outbreak is being laid at the door of those 'partially vaccinated' or not at all. I say partially vaccinated because there has been discussion about how the booster is not such but designed for those for whom the vaccine didn't take the first time, and also evidence that those children who have had the single measles vaccine are counted as non-vaccinated.

We had the single measles vaccine before this. No one yet seems to have shown that this was an inferior vaccine.

The only reasons for not offering singles vaccines, seem to be:
cost
it would blow the vaccination schedule to pieces
children would need six vaccines and not two,
it's inconvenient - that comes from the NHS website.

Would a parent with an immuno-compromised child mind who has a real fear that the current schedule could damage their child mind this 'inconvenience'?

LaVolcan

"The only reasons for not offering singles vaccines, seem to be:
cost
it would blow the vaccination schedule to pieces
children would need six vaccines and not two,
it's inconvenient - that comes from the NHS website."

Aren't the reasons not good enough for you? The vax schedule blown to pieces actually means that the vaccination rates would get even worse - putting more people at risk. That's a fecking good reason.

With regards to dismissing cost as a reason against singles - which services would you like to see cut in order to make up for the cost?

With regards to dismissing cost as a reason against singles - which services would you like to see cut in order to make up for the cost?

Well how about trying to find out which auto-immune children are contra-indicated for the current vaccine schedule, and hence don't regress, don't need multiple hospital visits, don't need special schooling, don't need attendance allowance.

Oh sorry, that of course won't make a ha'porth of difference because silly me, we know that if a parent thinks their child has regressed due to a vaccine, it's just a co-incidence, they would have regressed any way, so it wouldn't save any costs.

Less contentiously possibly charge drunks for A&E services?

I notice in your list of reasons you can't point to the evidence which says that a single measles vaccine is less safe.

La Volcan

Single vaccines are less safe than MMR because they leave children vulnerable to disease for longer.

Single vaccines imported into this country have not been independently tested for potency and toxicity - we have evidence that some of the single vaccines are less effective or less safe than MMR.

This and a lot more can be found on the HPA website

And why they don't use a test, which doesn't exist to find those children? Possibly because it doesn't exist?

lavolan nhs policy is based on evidence. As there is no evidence that vaccines cause regression the nhs can't develop a policy to exclude these children from the vaccination schedule.

The will be exceptions to the vaccination schedule. For example most children are not vaccinated against chicken pox but the advice for siblings of an immunocomprimised child is that those siblings should be vaccinated to try and protect that child.

I completely agree with widow cost, disruption to vaccine schedule and inconvenience are all valid reasons to use mmr rather than singles.

I'm sorry when - I should have been clearer. There is a growing body of evidence that some individuals with autism have mitochondrial disorders and/or immune dysfunction. I can link to papers if you would like (or have a quick search of pubmed). This is not controversial - these differences exist, there's no may about it - what is not yet well understood is their role in the development of the disorder (or ongoing problems). But clearly there is enough evidence for researchers to feel confident enough to suggest spacing as a sensible approach in mainstream media. I don't suppose they've considered the convenience factor.

So if a parent refuses the MMR this would make a single more safe, because it would leave the child less exposed to that one disease?

Some of the singles vaccines are made in France by the same firm making the multiple standard. Are we to assume that their standards are less rigourous?

Could you point out on the HPA website where it specifically says that 'the single measles was found to be less safe', or possibly 'the singles measles vaccine was found to offer only 50% protection and so was withdrawn' or similar.

A test may not exist at present. IMO I hope they can develop a simple heel prick test.

What happened to first do no harm btw? When did convenience become more important?

As there is no evidence that vaccines cause regression the nhs can't develop a policy to exclude these children from the vaccination schedule.

What do you say to those parents who are convinced that their child was vaccine damaged? You're making it up; it would have happened anyway?

A better approach might be to say, let's try and find out what did cause the problem and as saintly for one says, there is evidence that such individuals might have mitochondrial disorders.

Single vaccines are not less effective than MMR.

When the government talks about efficacy of MMR, they are referring only to the fact that when looking at the population as a whole, there is less risk for people to forget to come back for vaccines and boosters when they have to come to two appointments instead of 6. That is true. I have no issue with that. But that has nothing to do with how well the vaccines actually work and how well they convey immunity.

The single vaccine used against measles is often rouvax. To say that this vaccine does not work or that it gives less protection against measles than MMR is absolute bolleaux. Obviously if you wish to pay for singles, you do need to make sure that you are going to a reputable practitioner, but there are still some good ones who will show evidence of where they have sourced the vaccines they use and that they were stored according to the manufacturer's instructions throughout before it was used.

Raspberry, there are loads of studies, many cited on here, that have looked for cases of regression linked to MMR and none have been found.

seeker - they have looked at a population level. None have been designed to pick up a small effect. That work has not been done.

Both MMR and rouvax are effective. Rouvax slightly more so.

evidence that rouvax is slightly more effective than MMR in providing immunity to measles