Rise of measles

[crosstalk]

www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/european-measles-death-toll-hits-37-after-antivax-campaigns-ztmwl9f3q

Just saying

"The inception of a vaccination campaign seems to preclude the assessment of a vaccine through placebo controlled randomised trials on ethical grounds. Far from being unethical, however, such trials are desperately needed and we should invest in them without delay“
BMJ 28 Oct 2006

However some limited placebo trials comparing disease rates in vaccinated and unvaccinated groups have actually shown that the vaccine has no impact, some trials even show more disease in the vaccinated groups; for example the BCG vaccine against tuberculosis was trialed after inconsistencies were found in previous trials.

Consequently in the 1970’s the largest placebo controlled field trial ever carried out on the BCG vaccine was organised, with 260,000 participants, comparing equal sized vaccine and placebo control (non-vaccinated) groups. Not only did the results show no evidence of a protective effect, but slightly more tuberculosis cases appeared in vaccinated than in the equal sized placebo control group.

That was from lancet Jan 12 1980

We can't do anything at all to control, minimise the effects of or, unfortunately, eradicate Donald Trump for instance.
Now you've upset me!

Cath there is however later evidence to show that the BCG has considerable efficacy.

What the decline is a disease that was already declining

Gilead be patient...Trump appears to be slowly but surely shooting himself in the foot. Solving the problem all by himself

What the decline is a disease that was already declining*

• Citation needed. Again.

I also don't see why there isn't a vacine program for rubella for females over 14. Great that all you parents are willing to take the risk for a little baby, how many of you have disabled children that you are left by society to care for. I'm sorry I won't take the risk for society. Herd immunity can be meaintained and increased by having an older girls and women programme for rubella. So why is it not done?

My kids can have measles and mumps vaccines at a young age but they made it so hard to get a single vaccine. They can have rubella when older.

Why did the government make single jabs so hard to get hold off, before drs surgeries could order them in as needed. I know this as my family accessed them that way. At least all the people who aren't anti vaccine but who do want single jabs can access them.

That choice has been taken away and I do think measles being on the increase is partly down to that.

And most of you have been unwilling to read what disclosing actually said, she made it clear she is not anti vaccine but that she refuses to risk her children, albeit a small risk as she perceived the risk of rubella and mumps to be smaller.

How many of you on this thread have checked there own immunity and got themselves vaccinated. You are after all, grown adult women.

As long as the anti vaxxers feel happy that they didn't put their child through the trauma of a vaccination, who cares if they go deaf or blind from mumps? Who cares of they lose a limb or die from meningitis? It doesn't matter obviously.

I hope in future some lawyers take cases for these children to sue their parents for not vaccinating them. If they have no reason for doing so other than 'I know better than scientists' then I hope the kids sue them for it. Probably a case already for this in America by now maybe.

Keenster has a point regarding damage and compensation. Vaccination should never be compulsory unless a society always looks after its most vulnerable, sick and disabled. I'm sorry but we do not in this society and the situation has got worse and worse.

How many on this thread help those with disabled children or would recognise a vaccine damaged child if they saw one? Have you seen the level of compensation and read the court cases where parents battled for 10 years or more to get compensation. The quality of life must have been shocking in those intervening years but who cares. I'm alright jack.

Do you care about the cuts to disabled and sickness benefits as taking the risk with a vaccine means taking a risk in the whole system.

And my mum has cancer and immune suppressed, you know what she keeps herself away as she does not want to get sick. She takes responsibility for herself. I don't think we should be relying on babies taking the responsibility for illnesses like rubella where the risk to them is smaller but the risk to an adult female carrying a baby is obviously higher. The adult female should have the vaccination herself or the parent of a teenager should have the vaccination and there should be a program to this effect.

Same with chicken pox and mumps.

So why is it not done?

Curiously, given you are berating people for not reading, you don’t seem to have read some of the earlier posts addressing this point.

For me, it’s a confused and confusing argument. Is there evidence that the MMR has a higher incidence rate of adverse effects than the single measles and mumps vaccines combined?

Having not seen any evidence supporting that theory I’m unclear why this is perceived as an increased risk. Happy to be proven wrong.

At any rate, in the absence of evidence supporting a greater risk of adverse reactions (and in the absence of single mumps or rubella vaccines being manufactured), I was very happy to have both my boys vaccinated against rubella even if the benefit to them as individuals is negligible.

I don't think we should be relying on babies taking the responsibility for illnesses like rubella where the risk to them is smaller but the risk to an adult female carrying a baby is obviously higher.

That’s a reasoned argument - not one I agree with, but reasonable.

If an increased risk exists from MMR vs single measles and mumps vaccines.

Does it?

the risk with a vaccine means taking a risk in the whole system.

Taking a risk with measles means taking a much greater risk in the whole system.

I’m sorry, that’s a rubbish argument.

Funnily enough flirtygirl YES i personally have had my own immunity checked. For me it makes no sense to make sure my kids are immune when i then pose a risk to them myself.

YES i have for many years worked with children with additional needs - i have come across 2 in my time that had AN because of vaccine damage. I've also come across kids with AN as a result of illnesses that are vaccinated against. Funnily enough none of them were vaccinated...and conversation with many of the parents often led to 'they weren't vaccinated because...but now their siblings are'

It is sad that your mum feels she has to keep herself to herself because other people's imo selfish actions means she is constantly at risk. Does that not piss you off? So basically anybody who is vulnerable has to hide away because we have lost the 'community' vibe within society? If that's where we are heading i'm pretty ashamed to be part of it.

flirtygirl

What kind of compensation do those who catch vaccine preventable diseases from the unvaccinated get? The ones who suffer serious side effects- deafness, blindness, impaired cognitive function, encephalitis, death?

I don't disagree at all that the government should look after those who suffer vaccine damage. But it seems a little hypocritical to say there's an "I'm alright jack" approach when that is literally what anti vaxxers are saying to the immune compromised or very young babies. I'm alright jack, my kids are healthy, I don't give a shit if yours die.

There are far more diseases in society that we can't immunise against. Even the common cold can be a risk for someone who is immune-suppressed and lots of people won't even know they are going down with a cold until they have it, and then they still go to work and therefore out and about in trains/buses/generally around towns/offices because they'll get sacked if they don't.

So I think if you are immune-suppressed, you do need to take care of yourself. It simply isn't realistic or even possible to ask anyone who has any sort of illness or is incubating one to stay at home.

As well as increasing confidence in immunisations we need to be having a serious word with employers over their ridiculous sick policies where they treat sickness as a disciplinary matter.

MairyHole i agree...the 'im alrite jack' attitude most certainly isn't coming from the pro-vaccine camp

You're right running, there are plenty of things people can catch that we don't immunise against. But it would make the list smaller if people were immunised against the ones we can fight.

Expecting someone to stay home before they know they are sick is ridiculous, of course it is. But expecting someone with a long term auto immune illness for example to avoid people is also ridiculous, surely? I don't understand why people won't help aleviate that risk...especially when the risk of vaccine damage is lower than the risk of catching certain illnesses

...especially when the risk of vaccine damage is lower than the risk of catching certain illnesses

For many people this isn't the case. I had a severe vaccine reaction. My uncle had a severe reaction to a different vaccine. My older dd has suspected vaccine reaction (severe anxiety and tics which started "coincidentally" post vaccination after months of high temps) so the risk to my younger dd is higher than the risk of her catching every disease that is vaccinated against.

"there are many, many reasons for being immunocompromised and actually the numbers are far greater than most people think. It isn't just cancer, there are many folk who suffer with auto immune disorders, chrohns disease, colitis, psoriasis, rheumatoid arthritis to name a few."

Autoimmune diseases are the very opposite of immunodeficiency - they literally mean that the immune system works "too much", destroying the body's own elements.

If you are trying to talk about people with an autoimmune disease who are undergoing immune suppressant drug treatment, that increases their chances of opportunistic infections (herpes etc). They will not annihilate the T & B cells produced by the body in response to an infection or vaccine (= immunity) like chemotherapy does.

"when the risk of vaccine damage is lower than the risk of catching certain illnesses"

You confuse Risk with Probability.

Probability of catching mumps for example is higher than that of vaccine damage BUT probability of permanent damage is near 0 if you catch mumps as a child whereas it's 100% in case of vaccine damage.

Therefore Risk of vaccine damage can be seen as significantly higher than that of carching mumps.

I’m just going to leave this here:

In the country I live, the state vaccination programme includes a single measles vaccine but not the MMR...which is on the private schedule (as well as the single measles vaccine)...there is currently a mumps outbreak at our school...there have been some very sick kids and a couple of teachers..so far..I have a 10 month old and am panicking as she’s not old enough to have her MMR vaccine yet...