Help me make sense of MMR - hype or theory

[felicity10]

OK, so I've been through a few pages of previous posts, I must be missing something because I can't make sense of it!

DD is 1 and I've had a letter about the vacs from the GP. I've heard about the MMR in the news few years ago and about the link to autism, but I just would really value your views.

Single vacs with no mumps or the MMR? Can anyone point me in the direction of key MMR issues?

I just don't want to get to the gp's and then feel like I am getting bullied into having the mmr - it is normally very no nonsense nurses who barely speak english, so will be unlikely to give me a clear answer as to any risks.

I am amazed that we have this lack of clarity in the UK.

Many thanks in advance!

You are fantastic Leonie!!

What scale are we using to measure safety? How can something be more than 100% safe? How are we defining safe?

Of course it can't TCNY. It's irrational and doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

has anyone experienced / heard of any serious side effects or risks after single measles vaccine?

Still irrational.

How about if your daughter (god forbid) got bitten by a dog in an area where rabies is endemic. Dog isn't caught.

Really? Why not? Is your daughter unwell following the bite? Do you know for sure that she has been exposed to the bite?

And I think the distinction you are trying to make is between pre exposure and post exposure prophylaxis. But the point is that you don't know if your daughter has been exposed to the rabies virus. But you do know that the rabies vaccine isn't 100% safe - it's actually one of the most unpleasant vaccines.

Pi is irrational in a rather specific and technical way. i is not imaginary in the common sense of the word.

I CAN'T let 1000%, 110% etc. go I'm afraid - it's just TOO "I'm a WINNER Sir Alan" fat tie numerical illiteracy ;)

Stata: I htink every single one of us who is here and who is a non-vaxxer has said that the situation is continuously monitored and the decision is taken as the best that can be taken at that point in time.

I know I have certainly said that if there is ever a situation where dd2 is more at risk form NOT having the vaccine than she is form having it, then of course she would have it.

but, as Leonie says, that is an unlikely scenario.

it is all about risk assessment, which is of course a moveable feast.

kalo12, do you mean other than the inflammatory bowel disease/autism theories?

No. The point is that you will be vaccinating a healthy child with a prophylactic vaccine that is not 100% safe. That's why your assertion that a vaccine be 100% safe is totally ridiculous. It all depends on the severity of the disease. The reason you would vaccinate your daughter, even if the chances were that the dog/bat/fox whatever didn't have rabies (and, what, you never take them out the UK?) is that rabies is a shit awful disease, you won't take your chances with your immune system and because vaccines work. All the rest is down to exaggeration of risk and downsizing of the benefit.

My goodness. You lot really are a crowd of playground bullies.

Leonie - It is not possible to do a trial big enough to confirm something without a shadow of a doubt. That would involve a trial the same size as the immunisation program as you would have to try it on everyone you were going to use it on.

And we may not like it but their is always risk, there is always more research you can do and their are always cost/benefits to doing more research versus delivering the benefits of the research.

These judgements aren't always made correctly. That doesn't mean that the benefits don't outweight the costs.

And I wasn't picking apart semantics, it was arithmetic and vocabulary.