in thinking Measles can't be more dangerous now than it was 15 years ago ?

[Onajourney]

Hi

Wondering if there are any GP's out there that can tell me this ?

My eldest child is 15 and I still have his baby books and they say Measles is a mild disease and just to keep their temperature down etc, they liken it to chickenpox. I remember not being worried about it at all when he and his 11 year old brother were small.

Fast forward 14 years and we have a 1 year old who is at "huge risk from this killer disease" according our GP, but I can't understand how it can have changed so much.

Can anyone tell me, is Measles worse now than it was 15 years ago and if so why ?

Thanks

ISNT, I am really interested to read your views about people doing things altruistically for the greater good.

I realise I am in a lucky position - my child has nothing in her health history that would make me think she is unsuitable for vaccination. Having her vaccinated was an easy decision for me, and in my area where vax take-ups are low, it also helps to raise the herd immunity and protect the old, the very young and the sick. Helping these groups IS quite a big factor to me in making vax decisions. In a society we all have responsibilities.

More examples - I will send my DD to the local state primary, even though it's not the best school in the world, because I believe in the state system. I pay my taxes without complaint because I believe in the NHS, education, welfare for those less fortunate. I don't try to dodge these responsibilities by emigrating to a tax haven or removing my child from the state education system, or using private health care. These decisions may not be the 'best' for my DD but they are the right ones for our family.

I think it's sometimes the same with vax - people talk the talk about being responsible members of society and as soon as they see a small (sometimes real but - more often - perceived) threat, they don't translate it into action.

The excuse is 'my kids are the most important thing'. My DD is the most important thing to me too, but principles are important.

Well there are a few of attitudes that I'm now very used to seeing in this sort of discussion.

One is the 'yes dear you believe your child is vaccine damaged but I who has never met your child thinks you are hysterical and deluded.

Then there is the 'but I'm a scientist, I hold those who are not in thinly veiled contempt.

It is a shame because things get polarised and adversarial.

I mean, getting upset about hypothetical damage to hypothetical children is completely hypocritical when you don't give a screw about real children who have suffered real harm.

What if it was a school that had poor OFSTED report? Would you really still send your kid there? You'd be happy about that?

I'm not martyring my kids for anyone else's benefit.

Bttat, I don't think anyone on here would say that they 'don't give a screw' about children who are suffering, I don't think that's fair. In individual cases it's not for anyone on here to judge either way what might have caused damage to a child. Some people here think their child has been vaccine damaged. As Beachcomber says, most of us are not scientists or doctors and anyway, even if we were, none of us have seen Beachcombers children (choosing you as an example BC, sorry ) or diagnosed them or seen their medical records. So we just don't know - we have BC's opinion to go on but beyond that we can to and fro forever and not get anywhere.

This is different from the debate about wider society and what the vast majority of people should be doing re: vax for the greater good.

I have a question for those who vaccinate in part for altruistic principles of the greater good. I took the time to try to carefully answer questions earlier and would really appreciate the same courtesy in return!

I have to tell a background story in order to ask my question, I'll try to be brief.

The MMR currently used in the UK is not the one that was used originally when the triple vaccine was first introduced to the UK. The original vaccine was made by GSK and contained a different strain of mumps virus to the one used now in the MMRII made by Merck.

This original vaccine contained Urabe strain mumps virus. The vaccine had already been used in both Japan and Canada but had to be withdrawn because it caused unacceptably high numbers of cases of mumps meningitis. The manufacturer was aware of the safety problem and was not keen to introduce the vaccine to the UK. The British government went ahead anyway and introduced the vaccine - it caused the same problems in the UK as it had caused in other countries and was withdrawn four years later. Some children were damaged and instigated litigation.

Now without getting into the reasoning behind the decision to introduce this known to be unsafe vaccine (which appear to be financial and protectionist) I would like to ask the following question.

If you, as a parent, had vaccinated your child with this vaccine in part because you say wanted to contribute to rubella herd immunity and your child had been damaged (as was known to have happened) would that change your view on 'social responsibility'?

Would you shrug your shoulders and say 'hey too bad my kid got damaged by the introduction of a vaccine which was known to be unsafe, at least I can comfort myself by knowing I made a social responsible choice'?

Or would you feel angry, disappointed and let down?

Very off-topic now but

ItsGrim: 'What if it was a school that had poor OFSTED report? Would you really still send your kid there? You'd be happy about that? I'm not martyring my kids for anyone else's benefit.'

Yes ItsGrim, our local school does not have a good Ofsted, but middle class parents abandoning the local state primary doesn't help anybody, esp not those people who for whatever reason are stuck with that school. We think it's better to send your kid there, get involved, get on the PTA, start trying to make some changes(Cameron's 'Big Society' idea iirc). I would rather do this. And this is not 'martyring' my child thanks very much (middle class kids do well more or less wherever they go to school due to all the other influences in their lives) - it's just putting my and DHs principles into action. You can't 'in principle' support a meritocracy and then change your mind the instant you have kids.

Similarly one woman I know, no reason not to vax her child, just doesn't fancy the idea of her DD having a needle put in her but - nevermind she tells me - everyone else will do it and her DD will be covered by the herd immunity .

Beachcomber I want to answer your question. I would feel angry and let down - very much so. Anyone would. I don't think anyone is trying to belittle your experience

the analogy is let down novicemama when you say that you believe your child will do just as well in that school. And you yourself can have some input into that. If you believed the school would damage your child, or if your witnessed that happening and could do nothing about it, I suspect you would take your child out.

Novicemama I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you are not in any way suggesting that I 'believe' or am 'of the opinion' that my daughter reacted badly to a vaccine and suffers health consequences as a result.

I say this because I encounter this attitude quite often (see pats on head post above).

Thank you for your reply novicemama.

My daughter did not receive the vaccine in question although she did receive a DTP vaccine that was subsequently withdrawn in France where we live (for exactly the type of reaction my DD had).

I'm just making the point that I think it is unethical for a government or society to expect acts of social responsibility from infants when not every effort is made to ensure that the safest possible vaccines are offered, that side effects are monitored scrupulously and parents are listened to and their concerns investigated transparently, impartially and thoroughly.

@backtotalkaboutthis: I quoted verbatim part of the paper's discussion, so that anyone can see that the authors themselves came to the conclusion that the rise in incidence was due to improved skills in recognising autism. Who are you - or Whale for that matter - to hi-jack their results and layer a totally different interpretation upon it? You linked to the study as if it conveyed something adverse about the high MMR coverage in Finland and an association with autism. I am pointing out that this study says nothing about that at all, and any such inference you found on Whale needs a lot more objective backup than exists at the moment.

Unfortunately I have to tell you that the Whale website is in no way 'prestigious' nor highly regarded, if quality of scientific analysis is the criterion. Are you suggesting it is some kind of high-calibre peer-reviewed publication organisation, with scientists queueing up for their work to be published there?

@Beachcomber: You and I have debated strongly about many things in a recent past and I have always asked you to at least read and analyse the full papers rather than shower us with summaries and abstracts. It is the starting point for realising that nothing is as it seems in these abstracts - which are often designed to provoke a response and catch people's eye - and it is essential for anyone who wants to discuss things in scientific terms. For your information, I do not hold anyone in 'contempt', but occasionally challenge people who use 'science' when it suits their argument, yet ignore it and condemn qualified scientists as unfeeling when it doesn't.

Well I guess I'm kinda disobedient that way - perhaps because I have been lied to and patronised by qualified scientists a few times too many. I've also repeatedly witnessed their head in the sand attitude to anything they don't want to hear. Seems a bit hypocritical to accuse other people of ignoring science that doesn't suit them.

No shit - Wakefield has been saying this for years. I wonder if these guys will be struck off too

Eureka with bells on - he's been saying this for years too

Oh and this is one of the most cringe worthy patronising statements I have ever seen.

"Unfortunately I have to tell you that the Whale website is in no way 'prestigious' nor highly regarded, if quality of scientific analysis is the criterion. Are you suggesting it is some kind of high-calibre peer-reviewed publication organisation, with scientists queueing up for their work to be published there?"

I think you misread the post in question and have taken backtotalkaboutthis for a simpleton on the basis of your misreading.

I'm not trying to pick on you or pick a fight with you but this is exactly the sort of attitude that has people losing faith in the house of cards vaccine programme at a rate of noughts.

Parents are not stupid and science, scientists and the government only alienate us by treating us as semi illiterate simpletons.

Thanks Beach. "Unfortunately I have to tell you that the Whale website is in no way 'prestigious' nor highly regarded, if quality of scientific analysis is the criterion. Are you suggesting it is some kind of high-calibre peer-reviewed publication organisation, with scientists queueing up for their work to be published there?"

I meant the journal, of course. The website by which it's accessed which is not one I bookmark or have even looked at for years was the first up when I googled for a quick reference. It's pretty clear -- I can't believe you deliberately misunderstood for a cheap crack but then, it's always possible.

I'm afraid we are all entitled to ask questions and raise doubts when after a rapid uptake in vaccination there is a rapid and marked increase in autism and bowel conditions. Is increased diagnosis the only explanation? Of course not. It's the only one you are prepared to accept however.

It's dreadful that all that is being asked for is more research and one is just met with blank denial. It's not necessary. We don't know the cause but we know what doesn't cause it. I cannot imagine how people can conflate that ignorance but absolute certainty in the same thought.

At a political and corporate level I believe Beach is absolutely right to ascribe it to policy and financial protectiveness. At the individual level, including among the "scientific" community, I believe it can only be ascribed to a profound emotional attachment to the vaccination principle.

I think there is a pretty big emotional attachment to authority as well.

I'm amazed by how resistant people are even to the straightforward idea that triple vaccines are a different challenge to an infants immune system than single vaccines.

We know that when the chicken pox vaccine was added to the MMR to make the MMRV the rate of adverse events increased (seizures are one example which doubled). Yet time and time again you will hear people pooh poohing this notion. (Probably due to the questionable influence of Dr Offit and his ridiculous hypothetical 10,00 antigens. Or was it 100,00? Not that it matters because both figures are stupid when extrapolated to a real life vaccination situation).

Actually I used to like whale a lot after I became interested in this. It has some great authoritative links. It was mn that put me off a. because there was no need for it -- plenty of new updated links here and b. because people scorn any ref. to it. There are some great links there though.

Like that graph I found: Musukebba if you dispute it, you find a graph that shows something different. Can you? If the figures are different, the graph will be out there and very easily accessed by you I'm sure. Go ahead.

I agree Beach. I found myself thinking the word "sheep" today and squashed it as ungenerous. Probably unjustified too, but definitely ungenerous.

Sorry meant 10,000 and 100,000. Would hate to mislead anybody on what the good doctor asserted.

ISNT I like you too and enjoyed your posts on the lefties threads immensely.

In a way I share your concern that people are losing confidence in the vaccine programme.

I just think that people have very very valid reasons for this loss of confidence. The safety data is inadequate, there are too many conflicts of interest within the industry, the regulatory bodies and organisations like WHO. Safety concerns are not properly investigated and so much information is massaged and manipulated. Doctors are threatened and intimidated when they raise concerns. Parents are told they are hysterical and stupid when they raise concerns. Declaring suspected adverse events 'coincidence' or of 'unknown natural causes' without a scientific explanation is not good enough and, quite rightly, makes people feel wary.

We can't go on like this - the whole system needs a huge overhaul.

Just look at what is happening with the HPV vaccines - this is textbook medical scandal stuff from beginning to end. There are some very angry teenage girls and mothers who are starting to speak out about this - they are being treated with the same patronising contempt as those who speak out on autism.

Parents of children with autism are 'looking for something to blame' and teenage girls are 'hysterical' when they tell their story of what happened to them after vaccination and present very solid science to boot.

Ok - I thought I had seen just about everything but this really does take the .

The FDA is fast tracking a drug which may be of benefit to children with autism because it helps them digest protein. (Casein free/gluten free diet anyone??)

In an amazing turnabout (now that there is a potential profit treatment) it would appear that mainstream medicene has suspected a link between autism and the gut 'for years'

abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/health&id=7353260

clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00881452?term=NCT00881452&rank=1

So at the same time as the doctor who first brought the relationship between autism/the gut/impaired protein digestion to public attention is being struck off, the FDA is validating his findings.

There is a pattern here, now that Wakefield is supposedly out of the picture, his work is going to be hijacked and used to generate profit by the very people who have vilified him.

Whilst any treatment that may help the suffering of these children is welcome, this sort of blatant hypocrisy is hugely cynical and utterly despicable. This is double speak on the part of the scientific community.

They are going to 'discover' that many children with autism have impaired meythlation which is helped by supplementing with vitamin B12 no doubt in not very long.

In the meantime they are erasing Wakefield's published studies from public record so that people can't go back and check up and what he said and when.

www.nature.com/ajg/journal/v105/n5/full/ajg2010149a.html

I was just about to post that if this drug turns out to be a type of digestive enzyme then I will eat a fucking hat - and then I read this.

Many parents have been giving their children digestive enzymes for years. These are the hysterical, conspiracy theorist, looking for someone to blame nutter parents remember.

This is not a scientific discovery. Parents have known this for a long time and have been ridiculed for saying exactly what this 'discovery' illustrates.

Makes you wonder what else these stoopid non scientist parents are right about.