Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
General health

Mumsnet doesn't verify the qualifications of users. If you have medical concerns, please consult a healthcare professional.

Original poster

MMR again!! Baby Leo had Singles!!

129 replies

pfer · 08/11/2005 07:44

Anyone else catch the paper headlines on TV this morning. Allegedly a Doctor has told them that baby Leo had the single jabs. If this is true I feel a little decieved.

I'd always make my own choice anyway but for Tony to say quite categorically that it's safe then go for the other option.......hmmmm

OP posts:
SoupDragon · 08/11/2005 07:59

Who gives a damn?? Their child, their choice. They still had to pay.

And, quite frankly, if a doctor has been leaking this sort of stuff to the press, he should be struck off.

Original poster
pfer · 08/11/2005 08:03

Soupy, bit dubious isn't it? After all if the doc has leaked then they'll know who it was and he's out of a job. Silly arse. Like we agree it's your own choice. Just after all he's said if the report is right then he's been a bit 2 faced - not really about the MMR actually, just don't like him in general.. , but if he's fibbed about this he's obviously fibbed about other stuff

OP posts:
Twiglett · 08/11/2005 08:04

at surprise that Tony Blair would fib

Iraq anyone??

suzywong · 08/11/2005 08:05

tell it like it is, Soupy

Original poster
pfer · 08/11/2005 08:05

bit of a git really isn't he

OP posts:
SoupDragon · 08/11/2005 08:13

I haven't actually seen the headlines (and can't be ar$ed to look tbh )

Where has he fibbed though? He never said what Leo had, just that the MMR was safe. Apart from anything else, there are 2 parents involved and I assume they made whatever decision they made together and as parents not a politician and his wife. FWIW, personally I think the MMR is safe (or at least no less safe than any other multiple vaccine) but I still considered singles for DS2 on a "what if..." kind of basis. He had the MMR because I was too lazy and short of time to sort out singles but I was happy for him to have it...

harpsichordcarrier · 08/11/2005 08:13

hold on, AFAIK Tony Blair has never commented on whether Leo has had the MMR or single vaccines. His line has always been that it is a private matter.
which, IMO, it is.
I am prepared to be corrected on this but that's my recollection.

SoupDragon · 08/11/2005 08:14

As for the doctor leaking the story - it's hardly a reliable source IMO. I'd be more worried that a doctor who could betray patient confidentiality in this manner is in a position of trust and responsibility. And the patient's confidentiality he has breached is not that of Tony Blair, it is that of Leo.

SoupDragon · 08/11/2005 08:15

That was my recollection too, HC.

Pruni · 08/11/2005 08:15

Message withdrawn

ruty · 08/11/2005 08:28

but if Leo blair had gut problems and had singles [IF] and Tony blair and his government is not prepared to protect other vulnerable children by acknowledging a minority need to be identified and protected, this in my opinion is callous and corrupt. Surprised there is more criticism of the doctor here than Blair's hypocrisy.

Fauve · 08/11/2005 08:35

I think it's the same as David Cameron's alleged drug-taking in the past. If Leo had had the MMR, they would just have said so; and there would have been no rumours to the contrary. The fact that Blair refused to confirm or deny indicates that Leo probably didn't have the MMR. I've always wondered about royal kids given that royals are so heavily into homeopathy.

ruty · 08/11/2005 08:37

the difference is the royals don't make policy. Blair may have protected his own child whilt knowing there is the possibilty others will be damaged.

Original poster
pfer · 08/11/2005 09:13

Even though DS1 had the MMR and is find, I don't think it's right for DS2 on mothers instinct and am going to pay for singles. I've always thought that as he wouldn't say Leo had had the MMR then he hadn't. It's a parents choice and it's usually private. What makes this a little different is that he's the PM and he's been harping on telling everyone how safe it is and that everyone should give it to their kids and now it appears there's the distinct possibility that for some reason the Blairs have chosen the single jabs. If there are some risks to specific groups of children then surely all children should be tested to see if they are at risk before being given the jab. It's a bit hypocritical of him is this is true, that's all I'm saying.

OP posts:
Furball · 08/11/2005 09:17

I agree with pfer that fine he has as much right as us to do what he likes for his child vaccination wise, BUT it's a bit bloody crap if he then diverts from his 'how safe it is blah blah blah' My Dh says it doesn't make any difference, I think it does, if TB doesn't have the confidence to give MMR then who does? And what message is that then giving to us?

(DS had singles BTW)

Original poster
pfer · 08/11/2005 09:19

Furball - Exactly!

OP posts:
baka · 08/11/2005 09:20

Wonder if Leo hhad thimersoal free jabs too. Because quite frankly if he did, having listened to a dept of health spokeswoman crap on about how safe putting a neurotoxin into jabs is and how any risk is theoretical I would quite happily smash Tony Blair in the face.

I would feel the same if my child had been damaged by MMR following Tony's assertion that it was perfectly safe. Sure he can do what he wants, but he needs to put his money where his mouth is or make sure that everyone knows that he isn't [prepared to do what he is telling everyone else to do.

Mind you its like the guy in the States who was responsible for ensuring that thimerosal remained in jabs but who said privately in a meeting to discuss it that he would be ensuring his grandchildren didn't receive thimerosal containsing jabs, The minutes of the meeting were released.

Original poster
pfer · 08/11/2005 09:22

baka - sorry, I'm really stupid, what's this thimerasol stuff?

OP posts:
SleepyJess · 08/11/2005 09:23

He's not a baby - he's 5.

Original poster
pfer · 08/11/2005 09:24

Eh?

OP posts:
Original poster
pfer · 08/11/2005 09:25

Get it now, but he was a baby when he'd have had the jabs / jabs wasn't he? Anyway, that was just the papers headline.

OP posts:
SleepyJess · 08/11/2005 09:25

Sorry - you were meaning when he was a baby he had the single jabs, clearly. Ignore me!

Original poster
pfer · 08/11/2005 09:25

ok

OP posts:
Original poster
pfer · 08/11/2005 09:31

baka, ignore the last question. have now looked it up. surely if they think there's even the slightest possibility that there's a risk in these drugs then we should, as parents, be made aware?

OP posts:
baka · 08/11/2005 09:34

Its in the baby jabs pfer (dtps)- or was- was removed at the end of last year. The UK was very slow in removing it. Had no need to be in there (it costs slightly more to make a jab without it) and is a mercury based preservative. It was removed after a paper was published last year showing that some genetic backgrounds may be more at risk of neurological damage following thimerosal exposure.

We believe that thimerosal played a big role in ds1's severe autism (given our family history blah blah blah). The coincerns about thimerosal have been aired for a while- it was removed from jabs in Oz in 1999 for example. TB will possibly have known about the potential thimerosal autism link as Cherie is quite up on all that sort of stuff, and there is autism in the family

I do think that someone in TB's position should practice what theY PREACH