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!

Actually I didn't say that herd immunity was a myth. I said it was a term that was first coined to describe what happens in populations exposed to natural infection.

I'm not very keen on Herd Immunity Arguments in favour of ignoring science or evidence which demonstrates a vaccine to be dangerous for a sector of the population.

Anyway, we can discuss herd immunity all we like but it actually isn't very relevant to the MMR is it?

Reasons why;

Perfectly good single measles vaccine exists.

Perfectly good single rubella vaccine exists.

Mumps vaccine known to be not very effective when used singly and there is no reason to think (the same) vaccine works any better as a combined.

Mumps not notifiable disease nor considered worth vaccinating against.

Ergo - herd immunity irrelevant to justifying use of MMR unless one is making arguments along the line of 'a bit of collateral damage is okeydokey by me (as as long as I'm not affected) so I don't really give much of a shit about who really benefits from which vaccines and when they benefit from them.'

Frankly, I find that argument tedious and disgusting in equal measures.

And really, when one thinks about it the whole concept of the MMR is on very very dodgy ground ethically.

Amazing how many people will defend it without actually thinking about what they are defending - an unethical and unnecessary combined vaccine.

And really, when one thinks about it the whole concept of the MMR is on very very dodgy ground ethically.

Amazing how many people will defend it without actually thinking about what they are defending - an unethical and unnecessary combined vaccine.

Definitely worth saying twice Beach.

I might have said "herd immunity is a myth" but I would have meant "herd immunity in a vaccinated population" is a myth. I mean, it's me, so of course I would.

S - You haven't read or thought about it or you wouldn't think it was mumbo-jumbo. So.. you aren't really engaging in any meaningful way. I think you're going to have to calm down a bit and probably still apologise, and do some reading, tbh.

Believe it or not Beach but I agree with you.

Herd immunity exists, it's real and it allows us to eradicate a disease without vaccinating 100% of the population.

Is that a reason to vaccinate your child if the vaccine is dangerous? No, it's not. I wouldn't sacrifice my own child for the greater good and wouldn't expect anyone else to do so.

The point is, as always, the counter-factual. I don't see the evidence that not vaccinating (especially in the absence of herd immunity and with modern vaccines) is safer than vaccinating for most diseases - including for autistic children. (I don't know your specific case or the screening that could or could not have been done btw.). As I showed earlier, a screening programme cannot work for something like autism.

As it happens, I'm not completely dismissive of the idea of the immune system somehow being associated with autism. No, I don't fully understand the science behind it. I would hazard a guess that you don't either - it's very complicated and a very specialized area. And there's so much we don't understand about autism and how it develops. But, again, the counterfactual has not been shown to be less risky so based on the current state of play, it's a less risky option to vaccinate unless you belong to a certain, pre-identified group such as those with serious egg allergies for some vaccines.

Something interesting there.

"unless you belong to a certain, pre-identified group such as those with serious egg allergies for some vaccines."

So you should avoid them if you're in a risk group. But what if we don't know what the risk groups are? We plainly don't, for children are still being damaged. What do we do then?

Very good point gooseberry. What do you do if you don't know what your risk is? Because you also don't know if you're going to be the unlucky one who suffers complications from measles. The counterfactual also carries risk.

That's a different question.

One question is: how do you know if you are in a known risk group?

My question was: what if you don't even know what the risk groups are?

If you advise not to be vaccinated if in a known risk group, what do you suggest is done about unknown risk groups?

If you don't know what your a priori risk is, then you can only assume that you have the same risk as the population whose characteristics you share.

And you also need to consider the risks of the counter-factual (which includes the lowered risk of exposure due to herd immunity so not sure why you wouldn't want to says it's a myth).

Maybe later research will allow us to accurately pinpoint and predict the very small number of children (and adults of course) who do react badly to vaccines or for whom the risk of the vaccine outweighs the risk of disease. We know some and it would be good to know the others. And I do agree that since vaccination is a universal programme and a public as well as private good, there is an ethical imperative to do so even if the greater good would benefit from research into other areas.

But, as it stands at the moment, no screening programme can work - the numbers are too small, the potential screening criteria too vague and the evidence isn't there to even support implementing such a programme (you may argue over the last point, shall we agree to compromise over conflicting evidence that there is even a plausible explanation for the suggested effect?).

"Maybe later research will allow us to accurately pinpoint and predict the very small number of children (and adults of course) who do react badly to vaccines or for whom the risk of the vaccine outweighs the risk of disease."

Why "later" research?

What kind of research would you like to see?

Why do you recommend that people in a risk group not be vaccinated, but recommend against screening to find out who is in a risk group?

But the MMR vaccine is not just a measles vaccine.

It always seems to come down to measles for the gung-ho grab 'em and jab 'em crowd.

No child in the UK needs to have the MMR in order to be protected against measles.

There is no need to calculate if a child is more at risk from the MMR or measles.

What there is a need for, is the UK government to bring back the singles measles vaccine.

We also need them at some point to face the fact that the MMR (in its varied guises - which one are we on now? I know they call it the MMRII, for marketing reasons, but it really is version number 3 or 4 depending on how you look at it) has a bad safety record and that it was just never a good idea.

The world as we know it will not come to an end and children will not die or be damaged by doing the above.

Children will continue to be damaged (either by the MMR or by not being vaccinated against measles) by not doing the above (and some people will not have to admit that they fucked up).

Seems like an easy choice to me, for anyone with any morals that is.

It is just blatantly showing that you think people are stupid by trying to make them accept a triple vaccine (with a bad safety record) by threatening them with one disease.

I think the very fact that the UK government is holding the population to ransom by withdrawing the single vaccine, is enough to seriously doubt their motives and integrity.

Seems pretty obvious really.

It is obvious.

No, gooseberry. Screening can't be done. The criteria are too vague. You'd end up with way too many false positives (or false negative if you push the criteria the other way) who would then be exposed to disease when the vaccine is perfectly fine for them. And this is even assuming that the evidence is there to support what you're suggesting.

I'm just leaving open the possibility that later research will show that there are certain children who we can predict will react. I doubt it though but we learn all the time.

Beach, measles is the one that worries me the most (and pertussis). Because they are highly contagious, they're very like to return if vax goes down (measles is currently endemic in London) and the chances of serious complications is high. There is no evidence that the single measles vaccine is safer so the NHS isn't obliged to offer it. Maybe it could despite the lack of evidence? I don't know. It'd be kind of hard to justify imo but I can see an argument that at least you'd get a higher % of kids vaxed against measles.

I know that I couldn't get the chicken pox vaccine on the NHS. Not because it's not safe but because of the cost of treating shingles in the elderly. If you demand the single measles vaccine, by the same logic I'm entitled to the chicken pox vaccine. There's more evidence to suggest my children are safer with the CP vaccine than there is with the single measles vaccine vs the mmr but I accept that the NHS, at the population level, has made a decision not to roll it out. Are the children who will die from chicken pox and its complication (admittedly a very small number but real all the same) therefore collateral damage of shingles in the elderly?

"shall we agree to compromise over conflicting evidence that there is even a plausible explanation for the suggested effect?"

No. You can compromise: I will not.

The absence of any other convincing, or even plausible, explaination is significant. There is no "conflicting" evidence of an alternative plausible explanation. So no, I can't compromise on that.

You still need to apologise in my view.

Their constant refusal to examine the children thought to be damaged, or allow their parents to present evidence, and speak out, speaks volumes too.

As does the fact that people who should know better, endorse nonsense made up or twisted by Brian Deer.

As does the fact that the Legal Aid for the MMR litigation was pulled by someone with a massive conflict of interest.

As does that fact that a number of people who were involved in introducing the known to be dangerous Urabe MMR are some of the main players in the defence of the current version of the MMR.

As does the fact that these people keep claiming that epidemiology can tell us anything about what has happened to the children thought to be damaged when anyone with half a brain can see that it is utter twaddle.

As does the fact......ach, I'm bored now, it's all been said before.

"Screening can't be done."

What do you think is the solution to this problem?

"The criteria are too vague."

What do you think is the solution to this problem?

You are offering a vague possibility that some research, some time, might offer some thing?

No. Research now, please. Acknowledgement that research is required. Abandonment of dismissal and ridicule of events.

Yeah it's gone. Same old same old.

It has indeed all been said before.

The vaccines have been studied and studied ad infinitum. In particular the MMR.

If there was an effect, beyond a possibly VERY small group, we'd have seen it. We haven't. In numerous studies. The findings have been replicated using different populations and different methods.

And gooseberry, you've just demonstrated the fact that you haven't examined any other evidence other than that which confirms your pre-existing bias.

No, currently, there is no reason to start a screening programme. None whatsoever. Even if the evidence was there you couldn't do it, so even more so if it's not. Learn some epidemiology. It's simple maths.

Yawn, it's getting boring again. Back to conspiracies and mumbo-jumbo.

"There is no evidence that the single measles vaccine is safer so the NHS isn't obliged to offer it."

What, not even the thousands of children who reacted badly to the MMR? Do they not count as evidence?

Attitudes like this are inexcusable given the science available which plainly shows that these children have suffered from an environmental insult of viral origin - and that the origin of that virus is vaccine strain measles virus.

Particularly when we know that children exposed to measles, mumps or rubella in the wild in an atypical fashion with close temporal relationship, present conditions almost identical to those found in children who have reacted badly to a vaccine which exposes them to these three viruses in a aytpical fashion with a closer temporal relationship.

Couldn't really get much clearer for anybody interested in what has really happened to these thousands of children.

Saying we don't know what has happened to these children but we do know what hasn't happened, isn't really going to cut it.

How about those who keep saying 'they don't know what has happened', shut up and stop persecuting those who do know?

"Yawn, it's getting boring again. Back to conspiracies and mumbo-jumbo."

NO - back to thousands of very sick children.

"The vaccines have been studied and studied ad infinitum. In particular the MMR.

If there was an effect, beyond a possibly VERY small group, we'd have seen it. We haven't. In numerous studies. The findings have been replicated using different populations and different methods."

See now this is a very weird way to go about doing science.

We appear to have a 'needle in a haystack' type problem here.

In other words; a not very high percentage of children have been reported reacting badly to MMR. The problem, rather, is that the bad reaction is devastating for those in which it manifests.

So the children who do not react are the haystack and the children who do react the needles within that haystack if you will.

If you wanted to find out what was going on with the 'needles' would you?

a) Examine the 'needles'.

b) Examine the haystack and the pitchfork used to build it and then be all pleased because you can claim 'shore don't seem to be a lot of needles around here and this here pitchfork works fine'.

Would you then think it was just dandy for you to say 'don't know what happened to them there needles but I shore know what didn't'.

No, I didn't think so.