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!

I've questioned attribution. C'est tout.

TCNY - did the benefits outweigh the costs when MMR1 was introduced?

when it was known to have an unacceptably high rate of reactions and damage?

was that a fair decision? well made, and hey, it's all just luck anyway, isn't it?

was it ok to introduce that vaccine, instead of one that cost more (bearing in mind there wa s aperfectly good set of single vaccines available), knowing that too many people were going to have their lives ruined?

No dissent in the ranks I see.

Not one country in the world has single measles vaccine instead of the MMR. Are they ALL corrupt?

StarlightMcKenzie - The question then is if we are taking a Utilitarian or a Kantian view of ethics. I tend to a fairly strict Utilitarianism.

And if the NHS gives single measles vaccines then I want the chicken pox vaccine on the NHS. Personal chocie after all.

Huh? Was that for me?

silverfrog - Without going into evidence, or defining unacceptable etc. if the damage that was done as a result of the problems with single vaccines (mainly lower take up as more appointments so less immunity, and the consequences of that and the expense of it that means you can't do other things) is greater than the damage from the expected rate of damage and reactions from MMR1 then yes, it was the right decision.

Ah, OK. Joining in the bullying I see. You're all just upset because you try to browbeat everyone else into silence with your pseudo-science mumbo jumbo. Everything is 'offensive' apart from the truly offensive stuff by St Andy. Everything is goading - except all the personal attacks throughout the thread which you can't see since mumsnet pulled them all along with all the libel.

Did you see the way RPO attacked sausage up the thread?

I apologised for a snide comment I did make about working as you can see. It's not what I think. THere was no other goading.

What about your little jibe 'Do you have shares in big pharma'. How charming.

The trouble is that you're all so emotionally invested in this that you just get so angry that people don't see the light.

You as plural as in the hysteria around the fact that I questioned attribution (not of any one particular individual, mind, that was not what I said, people just decided that it was them). Attribution bias exists. It's a fact. I have no reason to believe that the mumsnet population is different and I stand by that assertion however offensive anyone may decided to find it.

StatlightMcKenzie - You kind of do, as one system of ethics looks at the consequences of any given decision, and the other considers there to be ethical rules that are more important than the consequences of the actions.

Damnit this Justice: A Citizen's Guide to the 21st Century isn't on iPlayer any more :(

The lectures he did are though - here they are very good.

God no, I don't have sympathy for Claire Khaw - I blocked her long ago on facebook so I'm not going to listen to her trolling now.

It's not anger starlight. i just honestly and seriously don't get it. I really don't. The Wakefield conspiracy stuff. Woah. It's so out there that the fact that rational people can really believe it is quite astounding. I guess it's because I don't meet people like this in rl. I'm actually people even think this way.

If you were saying, let's improve patient safety, let's do better, let's hold big pharma more accountable - I'd be behind you 100%. I agree. Big pharma does do shitty things.

Or if you said 'you know what, there's some stuff in the research that suggests x,y,z. Nothing's proven and it's just a suggestion and I know it's pretty unlikely but I'd still rather not vax as the risk may possibly be higher. But I'll encourage everyone else who doesn't have those concerns to vax so we make sure herd immunity stays up and my kid is protected.' I personally would think that makes sense even if I didn't agree with the interpretation of the research. But that's not what's coming across. I get a distinctly more alarmist message.

But it's a huge huge step from that to what you are saying. And the way that you all support one another makes you into one entity. That's why I was asking if you agree with Leonie. Do you really agree with her? because she is a true anti-vaxer, and if you agree with her, then how do you differ?

"What brings us together is our insight into the flaws in your arguments and nothing more."

Ugh. I thought you might be more rational. But you're also just in to point scoring as well. Fine. Your insight brings you together against the rest of the scientific community.

I agree Wakefield is a red herring.