Leo Blair's MMR

[Ems]

Do you think Tony and Cherie should reveal to us whether or not Leo has had his MMR? There is alot of debate about this at the mo, (not just in the Daily Mail!!) It is such a controversial issue, and for our Prime Minister to have a MMR age baby ........

Well I think this is a really blurry (technical term!) issue. I also heard part of a very heated discussion on the Today programme this morning between a minister (didn't hear who) and John Humphreys as to whether she had let her children have the jab and she also refused to say. Part of me thought, well why should she tell him, it's a private issue to do with her children and the other part of me thought if as a government they think the MMR jab is fine (and they have got very involved in this issue), why are they worried about telling us unless they haven't let their children have the jab..It's that 'do as I say, not as I do'thing about this government. I don't think it would matter if they gave parents a choice over whether to have the jabs singly or not, but they don't.

I think if Leo had had the jab, big Tone would be going on about it big time. Another cover up. R.

I agree Rhiannon, he should be shouting it from the rooftops if he had. I dont like the silence. I now think it is important for us to know whether he has or not.

He is providing us with all the information as to why we should, and how dangerous it is if we dont have it etc etc.

Can you IMAGINE what would happen if they said they had decided against it, there would be absolute uproar with parents, politicians, medical profession etc. Perhaps he had the individual jabs, in which case it should also be available easily for the rest of us.

I agree, the fact that the Blairs are keeping quiet about this can only make you think that Leo hasn't had the MMR jab (or had them separately) and they know that if they admit to this, there will be public uproar, and quite rightly so. I for one, would be really p**d off, as I have had all my 3 done. If it turns out that there is a risk to childrens' health which the Government knows about, but is covering up ('Mad cow disease' springs to mind) I dread to think what would happen!

My son had his MMR last January and I have to say that since then I have become increasingly concerned about the growing amount of evidence which suggests that there may well be a link with autism in some children. I have now reached the stage where I don't want my son to have the booster MMR but would rather that he had each vaccine separately. I would also be much more reluctant to let my next baby receive the MMR.
As a mother I am very interested to know whether or not Leo Blair had his MMR. Afterall we all know about Euan's homework and the Blairs are more than happy to pose for "happy family" shots when it suits their purposes. I appreciate the family's desire for privacy but that never stops old Tone when he wants to tell us how he used to play the guitar along to Beatles songs. Rather private information given out simply to promote the PM's "man of the people" image!!

I think ALL MPs who have small children should be obliged to divulge which immunisations they have had. They can't cry privacy over this - the public is entitled to know - like the register of members' interests.

My kids have all had MMR but I have not let any of them have a booster; my 19-yr-old was born in New York and she had it as a 14-month-old there. (It had been used there for years.)

We left shortly afterwards so I don't KNOW if they give boosters but I don't think so, which is why I've refused to have them here. Probably illogical!

message withdrawn

Ha ha so witty, this isnt about wanting medical deails etc etc. This is an issue that is going on within the government and the population at the moment. Here is a man, who has ALL the information on hand, everything - all the bits and pieces they keep to themselves, and from that he is making his decision. We dont and will never have all that information, we are being told by our government to immunise our children.

If our prime minister has decided not to give the MMR to Leo, based on the given knowledge, then it really isnt fair on the rest of us.

Should Cherie tell us if she has smear tests every three years?
While I agree it would be great support for the MMR for Mr Blair to tell us his baby son has had the triple vaccine,( that's if he has!) I think his family's healthcare is a private matter.

I think in this case we are entitled to know whether Leo has had the MMR. Because the govt has a view on MMR and is exhorting us to take it up it should be seen to be abiding by its own rules. Interestingly, on the radio today, Julia Thingie, the MP who has a baby, said that last week some MPs were happy to tell the press whether their children have had MMR. Since then, they have been told not to divulge MMR information about their children - which is rather suspicious, to me.

You're all big on conspiracy theories, aren't you?!??!?

That's because British govt is one big conspiracy!

All I can say is that if little Leo hasn't had his MMR then I hope to goodness he doesn't get measles, mumps or rubella - and having been recently pregnant, Cherie should be aware how important it is for pregnant women not to come into contact with rubella.

The diseases are awful - killers - and I am grateful that I have the opportunity to protect my child from these illnesses. He had the MMR jab, and will have the booster. There are many things in life that can disable or kill our kids and statistically, it is not going to be the MMR jab. This discussion comes up time and time again. There is no evidence to support the theory that there is a link between MMR and autism and all that is happening is that we are frightening parents into not protecting their children and risk seeing these diseases rise to epidemic proportions again.

I personally believe the cases of autistic children are rising simply because we are better at recognising the signs and getting these children the vital help they need at an earlier age.

If Tony and Cherie chose not to have Leo immunised then that is their choice, but one I believe not made in the best interests of their child and other people they come into contact with.

Well I think that if we were free to ask any GP to give MMR jabs and boosters either together, separately, at a later age - whatever we preferred, then the Blairs would have a right to remain silent.

Because we are not free to do this, (unless you hunt down a private clinic) due to lots of government pressure, Tony Blair, as the head of the government, should reassure us that Leo is towing the party line.

As Rhiannon and others say, no news is bad news.

I understand that it is far more expensive to give the jabs separately, but separate jabs lower the risks. Is this correct? Is money at the heart of this, rather than a research cover-up?

What growing amount of evidence that there is a link between MMR and autism? If you look in the medical literature there are an increasing number of big studies showing no evidence of a link. Apart from the initial report by Wakefield there is no other evidence that I am aware of, except for anecdotal cases in the press. Why is nobody interested in the negative findings of a number of studies which have looked at thousands of children? Wakefield's report is just that, not a proper study but a description of 12 cases of children with behavioural abnormalities or bowel disease. Only 9 of them actually had autism and the conclusion is that in 8 of 12 cases the parents felt that the onset of symptoms was related to MMR. In other cases parents attributed symptoms to measles infection itself or to ear infection. These were all cases where the parents had sought him out, they are therefore highly selected cases and no attempt was made to compare them with controls. The suggestion is made at the end of the paper that there may possibly be a link but that they cannot prove it. The idea that single vaccines may be an alternative strategy is also suggested but with no data at all to back this up. There?s no evidence that single vaccines are safer, in fact it is thought that they may be less effective, have higher rates of side effects that are associated with vaccination such as encephalitis and leave children exposed to the risk of infection for longer.

Of course, I don't know if there is a link but that is pretty much all that there is to suggest that there might be. The incidence of autism is increasing but it's not clear whether this is due to increased awareness and improved diagnosis. Certainly, none of the epidemiological studies conducted recently have shown an increase related to increased uptake of vaccination.

Sorry to go on about this, I'm not trying to tell you what to do but just voicing my amazement that so many people are prepared to believe what is essentially the unsubstantiated opinion of one person and not to believe a mounting body of scientific evidence against the idea. Remember that as vaccination rates fall in the community there will be more cases of these infections to which a child may be exposed. I know it?s difficult not to feel anxious about this but I have tried to look at both sides of the argument before making my descision about this.

The point is, most of us here couldn't give a monkeys about the Blairs' private lives, as we're too busy getting on with our own. Infact, whether or not Leo had or had not had his MMR had never even crossed my mind. But now the question has been raised, it is the Blairs who have turned it into an issue by refusing to comment. It can't help but make you think 'what do they know which we don't?'

I can't help feeling that the whole MMR issue is somehow linked to class. There seems to be a 'trend' among predominantly middle class parents to either forgo the MMR altogether or go for the more expensive and difficult to organise single jabs. Perhaps this has a lot to do with why the Blairs haven't had it done - because lets face it, they clearly haven't.

I have to say I think its very irresponsible not to have it done and that the Blairs could have helped the health of the nation enormously if they publicised Leo's jab.

As a former civil servant who worked in Dept Health I am amazed at the willingness to believe that the Blairs would have extra information that is being withheld. This only happens when a piece of research hasn't been evaluated properly and to release it prematurely might cause an unncessary panic - and even then it would quite likely get leaked. The only other times there is "extra" information is when there's been a cock up and its lost in the system or the medics have withheld it from ministers. Anyone who has worked in Whitehall will tell you cockups are very much more common than conspiracy.

There is a massive volume of evidence that MMR is safer than not having it. The Government's advisers say that single vaccines are more dangerous for children. That is why the Government can't ethically provide them, its not a question of money.

Some parents are advised not to give their children a vaccine because of the family medical history. Suppose Leo was one of them? Would anyone believe it, even if their doctor said so? (I have no idea if the Blairs have had any of their children vaccinated and wouldn?t say even if I knew they had). If he has had his vaccine will it really make any difference to people who will not trust the accumulated weight of scientific evidence?

The papers who call for an answer now would have been the first to criticise if the Blairs had chosen to make their decision public. Since they can't win either way they may as well preserve their child's privacy.

I whole heartedly agree ChannelNo5 !

Thank you smew & Wendym for writing what I'd have liked to, but couldn't. (Do you take ages composing your posts, or do you just talk that coherently?) I'd love to believe that the Blairs' decision to keep silent was based on a principled stance to protect their family's privacy, but given how much he exploits them on other occasions, I'm cynical.

ChanelNo5, I repeat what you said, dont give a hoot about Blairs, until their refusal to comment on this issue. Makes you think.

This thread isnt about MMR, for and against, we KNOW there is evidence saying it is the best thing for our children and protecting the children around us.

So WHY doesnt Tone say, "precisely nation, that is why I too have had Leo jabbed", as opposed to keeping stum (when we hear so much about other aspects of their private lives) and fuelling speculation in an already fuelled debate.

I dont think he is helping a very bad and messy situation.

This is from the Guardian website today:

"Downing Street is fearful that such a disclosure would lead to further demands for intimate details about ministers' family health policies - ranging from safe sex practices for their teenage children to the toxic shock controversy surrounding tampons.
Ministers cite the public horror when John Gummer, the then Tory agriculture minister, publicly fed his daughter a beefburger to show that he believed British beef to be safe.
One minister said: 'You start off answering questions about your kid's immunisation record and you end up with the spectacle of ministers feeding beefburgers to their kids in front of the TV cameras.'"

The "reasoning" behind the first paragraph is completely specious. (Parents of small children want to know about this one thing, with good reason, and that's all.)

I don't remember public horror about the Gummer incident, except for the way he rammed the burger into the child's mouth. At least he had the courage of his convictions!

The third paragraph is just pathetic.

The "thin end of the wedge" argument is an excuse to get out of revealing what they have done - or not done. The Great British Public may be wrong to worry about the potential risks of letting their children have MMR, but they are worried, and would be reassured somewhat if they knew that the PM and his wife were happy to let their son have it. I don't see where cervical smears, toxic shock or teenage sex fit into this situation, except as a let-out for slithery politicians.

Yes, thanks smew and Wendym for articulating what I would like to have said - but lacked the statistics to do so.

This is not a question of privacy. This is a question of practicing what you preach. (remember the conservatives and their "family values"?). Millions of pounds of our money has been spent promoting this innoculation as safe. That money will have been wasted if TB and his colleagues refuse to answer because their silence suggests they are backing the jab in word only. If the Government had deliberately set out to start an innoculation crisis they couldn't have done a better job. Nor do I think the press are to blame for this - for once someone has asked the right question.
Choosing to give my son the MMR jab was the most difficult decision I have so far faced as a parent. We have a right to know whether those in the know are doing likewise. I appreciate the "privacy precedent" but I can think of no other personal health issue that so demands an answer. (Frankly I couldn't give a flying xxxx if Cherie has regular smear tests as, to my knowledge, they have never been linked, rightly or wrongly, to autism). Think about it. All it would take is an almighty "yes" from the labour benches and they would never have to advertise MMR again. It would save the nation a fortune and we could be spared that bloody awful advert with the baby on the edge of a cliff about to be eaten by lions.

Interesting anecdote related to this thread. When the MMR vaccine was launched in Scotland ( must have been in about 1988?) I was a student and the press launch happened to be held in a Glasgow health centre where I was to attend classes that day. Classes were cancelled but we had to stay and watch the excitement. The names won't mean much to you if you are not from Scotland, but the news presenter was Viv Lumsden and the politician was Michael Forsythe. ( , but he was quite a big wig) One of the press pack asked Mr. Forsythe if his children had been vaccinated with the new vaccine, and he was caught completely off guard ( there was no controversy over it at this point as far as I am aware) and replied "my wife deals with that side of things". We all thought it was really funny - he obviously genuinely did not even know if his kids had been vaccinated!