to be cross my ds has measles because other parents didn't vaccinate their children

[snickersnack]

He's 11 months old, poor little thing . Fortunately he's going to be ok - he got off quite lightly, I think - but it was scary and he was really poorly for a day or so. Spent 10 hours in A&E yesterday while he had chest x-rays, blood tests, IV fluids etc. Now we're just waiting to see if his sister,who's 2, gets it - she's had one dose of MMR already so fingers crossed she's immune.

We live in an area where immunisation rates are among the lowest in the country. Now I have to go and tell all parents of the other babies he's met recently that their children might be at risk as well...

For what it's worth I don't think there is a government conspiracy. Partly because the government is incapable of organising one and partly because most of them won't be that evil. (miserable, selfish, greedy little w**rs, but not irredeemably evil)

If someone reported to the PM that MMR was certainly dangerous to lots of people I'm sure he'd put a stop to it.

What he will have is conflicting opinions and he is working from his own set of priorities.

He might well think "it's borderline at best and the loss of confidence in vaccines might do more harm than keeping quiet about the whole thing"

Certainly if the PM announced tomorrow a full investigation into the MMR then vaccinations would come virtually to a halt.

But that doesn't mean we should blindly follow the government's orders over this. We have our own priorities.

I have only read a little of this thread so apologies if repeating something that has been said.

I firmly belive in vaccinations and have had both my boys done with everything apart from MMR (ds 2 to little at the mo)
I know someone who is convinced her 18 year old son was fine until he had the MMR and is now severely autistic. She also believes in vacccinations and has had her 2 daughters vaccinated but chosen to have the separate vaccinations. She paid for those privately. I have since had Ds 1 vaccinated but waited until he was just 4. This was I know definately if there is a problem as his persoanlity is already formed as is his language. Other prblemms may arise as he gets older but he shows no signs of autism at all.

What I would like to know is why can't we have a choice? Those that want the MMR, have it and have it on the NHS. Those that want the single vaccinations, have them but have them done through the NHS and then ask parents to pay/contibute/have free (related to benefits recieved so no one misses out)

I don't understand why the government isn't just happy to have children vaccinated rather than not at all due to fears, however real or not, of the possible damage they may do to their children. Why can't we just have the single vaccinations?

I know you're all ging to slate me now but I actually wanted to vaccinate my child against these terrible illnesses, and I do realise this is also for the good of our society. I just didn't want the combined vaccination...

(For all your information my ds 1 had his 1st MMR at 4 and will have the second boost in 2 months -3 months after his first jab)

Been away so have only just caught up on all the discussion over the weekend. I get the feeling that neither side is going to change the opinions of the other about vaccinations. I find it a little difficult (probably somewhat like Suey) that most of the points against vaccinations seem to be backed up by discussion articles rather than actual hard research. If there is hard research out there I would like to read it (yes, I'm another one who feels it is better to read the actual papers rather than the comments).

Thank you ladylush for your kind words. I agree with you that one of the difficulties in all this is the lack of open discussion of information and a tendancy to brand concerned voices as mavericks or conspiracy theorists (a well known propagandist technique). However a lot of relevant data is accessible but there is so much to take into consideration and a lot of the info is very technical so takes time for laypeople to dissect. By laypeople I mean anyone who is not a specialist in the relevant medical fields, I do not mean anyone who is simply not a medical professional.

Ruty, I've seen the 7% figure cited before. Do you know what the original source is? I would be very interested to read it in its actual context. If you look at Dr Wakefield's comments on the Thoughtful House website, he describes autism as a 'national emergency' (he is refering to the US situation). I don't see how we can have accurate figures about how many people may or may not be affected in the current climate of denial and the subsequent lack of clinical investigation of autistic children. Anyway even if only a relatively small number of autism cases may have MMR as a factor surely we need open discussion on why that may be in order to prevent further cases. To not do so is to declare current and future cases as dispensible in order to protect the vaccination programme of the population as a whole. Surely this is unethical. It certainly goes against the democratic right to informed consent.

Nkf, the idea that there is no real increase in the level of autism in the population has now been discarded. Even those who played a part in creating this therory (such as the infamous Eric Fombonne) now admit that improved diagnosis cannot explain away the huge numbers of children on the ASD in the US in particular. There is published research on this. No doubt there are many medical professionals who still think that the improved diagnosis idea holds water but they are not up to date with current thinking. Autism is increasing in very concerning numbers, all evidence points to an environmental trigger. Inconvenient though it may be, the fact is, that currently the science available presents only one substantial credible candiadate for this trigger in the form of DTP and MMR vaccines combined with eythl mercury (thimerosal) preservative. If you know of an alternative candidate I would be interested to read about it.

I agree with muppetgirl that the government should provide single vaccines on request. They only have themselves to blame for the current decreased uptake in measles vaccination. I think this is a PR move that has gone wrong. Instead of reassuring people about MMR it has lead to a loss of public confidence. To offer single vaccines would be an admission that MMR is under question. To do this would mean that they would have to then examine MMR properly and under public scrutiny. Actually I think single vaccines should be available anyway. I would prefer for my (girl) children to catch rubella when they are young in order for them to aquire the superior immunity offered by natural infection. I don't want them to be vaccinated against rubella unless they need to be as teenagers in order to protect their future children. I think I should have the right to informed consent and choice on this important matter. Research shows that the old policy of vaccinating teenage girls offered better protection against CRS in the general population than the current use of MMR in infants does. I linked to some information about this in a previous post. Also for anyone really concerned about the dangers of measles, single vaccines perform better both in terms of efficacy and safety. If you really perceive this disease as a threat to your children then you should demand the right to single vaccines and the better protection they offer and refuse to accept the current government imposed choice of MMR or nothing.

Fleximum I agree with you that it is important to read the original work. I do however think that comments and expert analysis are particularly useful in understanding epidemiological studies. If you want to read some of the published science this page is useful. Generation Rescue and their sister site PutChidrenFirst are both run by parent groups. Even if you disagree with them the sites are interesting as they have gathered together much of the relevant published science and transcripts of government meetings, i.e. primary sources.

Here is a link to their copy of the original 1998 Lancet by Wakefield et al. I'm sure there are many on this thread who have read it but considering some of the odd criticisms of it posted here maybe we need to refresh our memories about what was actually said in the paper as opposed to what the media made out the authors claimed.

Sttuftillama and Cote there is lots to consider re HPV vaccination, it probably deserves a thread of its owwn.

I think it is interesting what fleximum says about how how neither 'side' is going to convince the other. I'm not trying to convince anyone, I think everybody should make their own judgement. However to make a valid judgement (as opposed to just having a personal opinion) one has to assess the evidence and read the research. There is lots of it.

I care deeply about this issue as I'm sure is obvious from my insistence in posting on this thread! Just for the record, I do not feel strongly because my children are autistic or have been damaged by MMR. My eldest daughter was damaged by DPT and she is not autistic although she does share some of the gut issues that we see in many autistic children.

Just read Dr Wakefields original article in the lancet (Thanks Beachcomber for the link) and I'm rofl at whoever the people were who said "not very well written". I suspect they must have meant the Daily Mail comic book version.

Only another doctor could really judge that article and I'm sure they'd have had more specific comments than 'not very good'

I am not qualified and can only follow it in a general way. I do note that he only proposes vaccination as a possible factor and doesn't make wild claims at all that I can see.

The description of how a gut problem could affect behaviour was clear enough that I could follow it.

I don't believe it's proof of anything, but it doesn't claim to be. It should have been step one in a series of studies and might have been if not for the governments decision that denial was more cost effective.

exactly Greyriverside. It was one step that should have been in a series of studies, incomplete on its own. And Richard Horton, editor of the Lancet, praised the original paper as a sound piece of research.

Beachcomber, the 7% of all autism cases has been asserted since Wakefield's paper, i'd have to look up some of yurt's posts in archives to be more specific. However, Wakefield always said it was a small subset of children who may be at risk.

exactly Greyriverside. It was one step that should have been in a series of studies, incomplete on its own. And Richard Horton, editor of the Lancet, praised the original paper as a sound piece of research.

Beachcomber, the 7% of all autism cases has been asserted since Wakefield's paper, i'd have to look up some of yurt's posts in archives to be more specific. However, Wakefield always said it was a small subset of children who may be at risk.

I just realized Qally has done a runner

Come in, call people ignorant and stupid, then run away when you realize you are out of your depth. Very intelligent debate strategy

So long, Qally. Hope to see you soon on another MMR thread.

Qally said what she had to say and said it well, she's got no need to continue contributing to a "debate" which at this stage has become the province of a few impassioned people who no amount of scientific evidence is going to swayy.
She apologised for being a bit irate but no one has graciously accepted that apology, people have just continued to heap abuse on her. Good for you Qally, I thought your posts were excellent

Especially the part where she said she wanted to batter people.

Wow - I've been without internet access for a few days and this post is still going strong! Thank you everyone for all your comments and wishes for ds's recovery (he's a lot better now ) - very interesting reading and lots of things to think about. I was particularly interested in the point about wild measles exposure vs. exposure through the vaccine - we're going to have to decide whether to give him his MMR or just the single vaccines for rubella and mumps so that's something to bear in mind.

I was cross when I posted first - my baby was ill and I was furious. He'd have had his MMR in a couple of months so the timing was poor. But I've calmed down and don't blame anyone really - just one of those things and I don't know where he caught it so could have been an immunised child, could have been a child who was too young for the MMR, could have been an older unimmunised child.

On balance, I do still think that vaccinating is the responsible thing to do - my children come first, of course they do, but I would hate to have to look another mother in the face and know my child had given her child something that could have been avoided. But I do understand that there are lots of reasons why people don't vaccinate and that few people make that decision lightly. I'm so sorry for all of you who have children or relatives harmed by vaccines or by these horrible diseases. Thank you for all your thoughts on this.

ROFL at mrsshakleton

You must have missed the parts where she tried to answer re Game Theory, failed miserably... and ran.

A lesser person may have called her a silly twat who failed Econ 101

Godspeed Qally. Hope to catch you on another thread. (Pun totally intended).

So glad your ds is better snicker. And thanks for your post.
But do you thing he needs to have a measles vaccine now he has had measles? Just a thought (and not a facetious one at that..)

Well that's my worry, stuffitllama. I asked our GP and she looked horrified and said "why don't you just give him the MMR?"...of course I can see why she would say this, she's got financial incentives to meet her target. But then I think if I was happy for the others to have the MMR then why shouldn't he, as I don't, personally, think it is unsafe? Why would I put him through 2 jabs when he could have just the one? No idea where to get impartial advice on this from someone without an axe to grind...apart from here obviously .

At lot of people have recommended the Halvorsen book .. I haven't read it.. but along the same lines, for "impartial" I have tried to read material by "conventionally trained" doctors, scientists etc who have gone over to the dark side after seeing the damage done. We know they have seen it from both angles. Trained one way, and changed their minds. Hope you find what you are looking for.

snicker - I am happy to hear your DS is feeling better.

As I said before, he might not be immune to measles even though he had measles. I had measles twice, once at 9 months and then aged 7. Apparently, body doesn't form immunity under a certain age - I think it was 10 or 12 months, you should check this.

In your place, I would wait a few months and give him single mumps vaccine. There is no reason to rush with his rubella vaccination, even if you insist on vaccinating him against rubella (I wouldn't).

Gosh I'm pleased to have missed this.

snickersack - vitamin A is a good treatment for measles - you don't need too much, but when your baby has measles some doses of cod liver oil will help (if you can get it into him).

Glad some people have recommended Halvorsen's book (have barely skimmed thread, but saw his name mentioned).

I'd also recommend reading the CryShame hearing diaries. CryShame does have an agenda, so certainly can't be claimed to be neutral but the hearing diaries are currently the only way to find out what is going on at the GMC trial day by day. When the trial started I thought Wakefield, Murch and Walker-Smith were stuffed, I was sure they would be picked up on something with such a long list of charges (and having spent the last 2 weeks trying to get the answer to a very simple ethics problem and failing miserably I was pretty sure they'd be able to pick up on something technical if they needed to). Now I'm not so sure. I can't imagine that they'll be allowed to be let off because politically that would be disastrous but the reports from the hearing make it difficult to see exactly what the defendants are going to be picked up on. From Richard Horton (editor of the Lancet, no friend of Wakefield's) saying the Lancet paper was excellent science and still stands, to the unravelling of the financial issues (money was not paid to Wakefield personally as has been claimed) to what seems to be a lot of evidence that the doctors acted entirely reasonably throughout.

You need a spare day, but if you really want to find out the story behind the headlines (well some of it, the families involved - i.e. the supposed 'victims' were not allowed to give evidence, although some GP's did) it's worth a read.

If anyone ever tells you it's an easy and black and white decision to make they're lying. The more you know the harder it gets. Following the US payment for MMR damage to a girl diagnosed with a mitochondrial disorder (and originally autism) lots has been written about the incidence of mitochondrial disorders in autism- the truth is no-one knows. They can be hard to diagnose, especially in the UK where it often takes years to get through all the genetic tests -if you ever get offered them.

Yes the risk overall is very small, but some children are at a much higher risk. It's identifying them that's important. I knew when ds2 and ds3 were born that they were at a far higher risk of autism (think its something like 1 in 20 - think about the panic attack that that sort of result would induce in someone having a nuchal fold screen- then remember that ds1 is affected far more profoundly by his autism than any of the people I've so far met with Down's Syndrome are affected by their condition). We took a decision when ds2 and ds3 were born to be very careful with things that could affect their immune system and their gut. Vaccinations were included in that list (and remain so). We never say an outright no to anything, but we don't have the luxury of assuming that everything will be fine. Either way. Disease versus vaccination. A true rock and hard place for us. We lost the certainty of an independent future for our children when ds1 regressed and lost his speech.

I don't expect anyone else to necessarily make our decisions (not sure what ours is long term anyway), but likewise I don't really expect to be criticised when most people have no idea of the realities of profound autism. Or of the fear that a sibling might regress.

Wow. Agree with MrsShackleton - there have been some extremely ungracious responses on here to Qally's apology. (Actually, apologies.) You might all know a lot about the science, but some of you are sadly lacking in courtesy.

My DS2 had mumps 2 months after having the MMR.

DD1 didn't get the measles jab because she was allergic to egg and our GP refused to give it to her. When MMR came in she wasn't allowed that either. I think she finally got the MMR when she was about 10. She didn't catch mumps from DS2.

snickersnack-my older 2 dc had the MMR,back before any of the controversy,i ummed and ahhhed about ds2 getting it but didnt really do much research.it was only the thing with dd2 having the Hib vaccination that caused me to look into it all.what i am trying to say is just because your other 2 dc have had it,doesnt mean you have to let your ds have it.do what you feel is best fot him.

i think the pro-vaxers on this thread have been far ruder than the anti, on the whole. I am kind of in the middle of the debate, I don't agree with either side entirely, but that is my opinion of the thread.

The thing is though that not only was Qually rude, engaging in personal attack and had obviously not read the thread before pounding in with her extreme opinions but she is spreading misinformation. She makes bold statements about the risk of mercury preservative and the superiority of MMR over singles; both these ideas are just plain incorrect. I note her failure to link to evidence to back up her claims.

She admits that she dodged her rubella vaccine as a teenager and now expects every infant in the UK to be vaccinated with a vaccine that has a questionable safety record and has been criticised for its poor safety trials by the governments own experts in order to protect her. Unbelieveably she then has the gall to attack others for their lack of social responsibility!

I have said it before on this thread and I will say it again. If you want to use the social responsibilty argument to back up your opinions please remember that vaccinating teenage girls with rubella as and when required offers better protection for the population as a whole against CRS than vaccinating infants with MMR does. This policy has the added benefit of giving a maximum number of women the opportunity to aquire the superior immunity offered by natural infection and to pass that immunity on to their babies during pregnancy and breastfeeding in order to protect babies in the vulnerable first year of life. Not to be dismissed surely? Don't those unborn babies deserve that or are they not counted in the social responsibility argument. Does it only refer to social responsibilty for ME and MY generation?

Ruty if you do find the context of the 7% figure I'd be very interested, I like to see things in their context. Thanks.

Snickersnack glad to hear your wee one is doing ok. Perhaps you could have your DC's immunity tested to see if he requires measles vaccination?

Mrsshackleton you seem to think that some of us here are guilty of ignoring solid science that demonstrates that there is no MMR/autism link. Could you link to the information that you think provides that evidence because despite 4 years of reading everything I can get my hands on, I haven't come across a solid, impartial, unflawed piece of work that comes close to doing so. Even the government's official jury in the form of the Cochrane Review has not been able to make such a claim despite cherry picking the evidence they reviewed. I have however read a substantial body of evidence that not only points to MMR/vaccination as a major factor but explains how the phenomenon functions and has clinically detected and examined physical manifestations of the process. There is published peer reviewed science on this and no doubt there would be even more if it wasn't so hard to get funding and carrying out such work didn't carry professional risk for the people involved.

If people want to deny the possibility of MMR/vaccination link then to be convincing they will need to offer an alternative explanation for the increasing numbers of autistic children and the fact that the timing of the increase corresponds to increases in required vaccines (in the US). Please not the discredited, flawed but much touted 'improved diagnosis' theory. See here for some uncomforable truths about the prevelence of ASD in the US. These figures need explained.

Yurt1 (hi) mentions the CryShame GMC commentary. It is excellent, I linked to it before but I'll repeat it here. www.cryshame.co.uk/

Greyriverside I know what you mean re the Lancet paper. I don't know whether to laugh or cry at some of the criticisms of it (not just here but in RL). The spinning of this whole debate in the press could provide excellent material for media studies.

I think perhaps a summary of what seems to have been discussed might be in order for people coming in late or trying to use these discussions as a basis for decision making about their own children:

1. Some people are concerned about childhood immunisations in general and the MMR in particular.
2. The concerns are many and varied, but the most common one seems to be that of autism.
3. One paper, written by Dr Andrew Wakefield suggested a link between certain gut diseases, the MMR and autism. It looked at a very small group of affected children.
4. No further good quality studies seem to have been done looking at this link and its implications to the general population. There are other papers and vast amounts of discussion about this on the internet and there are multiple links on this discussion thread to those.
5. There have been a number of large population based studies which have so far shown no link between the MMR and autism. The quality of these studies have been debated at length on this thread.
6. The current UK position is that the MMR is safe and that single jabs expose children to a longer period without immunity to these diseases. Single jabs are available privately only and the going rate seems to be around £130 per shot.

I hope everyone feels this is a fair summary. I could go on but I thought this got the gist of it. To declare my interests so you can be aware of any bias; I am a medic and had both my children vaccinated. I have yet to see any evidence showing a clear problem with the uk vaccination programme but I am aware that is not the majority view on this thread.

I would slightly change number 5. The population based studies are fine in what they set out to do. That is they tested whether the rise in autism rates could be accounted for by MMR. They have shown that MMR is safe for the majority of children. What they haven't begun to look at is Wakefield's hypothesis - that a particular subset of children with autism and ulcerated guts had their condition triggered by the MMR. They've tested a completely different hypothesis and then said that Wakefield was wrong. Which is (imo) bizarre. Unfortunately their testing the wrong hypothesis is not reported by the media.

The studies themselves say this quite clearly. Taylor et al for example says something like 'this is not to say that some children may suffer a rare idiosyncratic response to the MMR'. Which is Wakefield's theory.

The 'roughly 10% figure' is generally from unpublished data - the MMR children have other differences which seem to be found about 10% of the time when looking at autism. 7% comes from Lathe's book: Autism the brain and the environment - he is not anti vaccination- he developed a rabies vaccination for example, but after reviewing various evidence/data came up with the 7% figure. It ties in broadly with figures I was given pre his book publication when talking to various other independent researchers. Not published though and not the sort of data that is readily available. If you child has autism and an ulcerated gut chances are the NHS will no longer find it - so unless you pay you may well not know.