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 ........

I know this kind of post will only get me into trouble, but 5,873 children were seriously injured and 206 were killed in road accidents in 1998 and I'm under much more pressure to vaccinate my kids than to put them in car seats. (I do use car seats, obviously, and my kids have had all their vaccines up to now, but I'm starting to wonder about the effect of vaccines generally on childrens' immune systems. Also, while I loathe and despise conspiracy theories, the pharmaceuticals industry is a powerful lobbying force)

Am I missing something? To my knowledge, it isn't compulsory to have MMR in this country. For all those conspiracy theorists, what about just about every other country in the world which gives the combined MMR? Must be a very big conspiracy indeed.

I must be missing something too. It is the LAW to have your children restrained in the car. How much more "pressure " could there be?
It is not the law to have your kids vaccinated. I don't get the analogy.

No, it isn't compulsory to have the MMR jab - but the pressure to do so is intense. A friend of mine who is a GP told me that fund holding (I think that is the correct term) surgeries get a very large cash bonus if they manage to vaccinate a large percentage of the children on their books. (Not sure what that percentage is). At one surgery he worked at briefly he was shocked to find that parents who had decided not to have their children vaccinated where being struck off and made to change doctors - thus ensuring that the quota was reached. (Apparently GP's no longer have to give a reason for doing so). It was the same for their flu jab quota too.

Apologies for spelling errors - should have checked last message before pressing post!

I think "pressure" is a very emotive term in this context, when what is presumeably meant is parents are strongly advised/recommended to have the Jab. And why not? The links with autism are unsubstantiated. The benefits of immunity from diseases (which could kill) are unquestionable.
However parents still have the right to refuse the vaccination and that's fine. ( I hope they appreciate the decision of most other parents to get their kids vaccinated so that their own unvaccinated offspring will benefit from herd immunity)
If a parent goes against the strong advice/pressure, call it what you will, of their healthcare professional what is so awful about the doctor not wishing to treat them? Why should a doctor have on his/her list a patient who does not respect his/her professional advice? Why would such a patient want to be on the list of a GP whose advice they disagreed with?
If a friend decided not to vaccinate her kids I would NEVER argue with her. It is too personal and emotive an issue and one where you are likely to make up your own mind and not change it. But if the same friend started moaning about being removed from her GPs list I would certainly defend the GP.
The increase in funding when targets are reached does appear to muddy the issue a bit, but the DOH has no hidden agenda. It wants to promote the health of the nation.What possible other reason could there be?

IMO, the Blairs have the right to their privacy on this one. Why should I care whether they've had Leo done or not? I'd imagine they've done the same as I have - read the relevant medical bumph (as handed out by my practice nurse) and talked to people who might know something about it and then made a personal decision. That's up to them as parents, not politicians.
And let's not be naive about this triple/single issue - it's OK for concerned articulate parents who will trot off to the surgery regularly for vaccination but if you allow single jabs, there is no doubt whatsoever that children will start to slip through the net for one or other illness. Parents move, forget, don't care ... As a government, they have to work on the 'greatest good for the greatest number' theory, particularly with a public health issue which depends on keeping numbers up. And that has to mean triple jabs - get them in and out once, as young as poss so they're still in touch, and get them all done. (I have no knowledge of whether this is policy, but it's common sense.)
And apart from all else, any MP is entitled to their own personal opinion regardless of policy. Technically, surely Tony could disagree and Cherie be dead worried, but if the public health advice they have to go on says 'tell the nation to vaccinate' that's what they have to endorse. The job and the person are not indivisible.
As I say, I really don't need them to make my decision for me.

I have mixed feelings about MMR. I'm somewhat sceptical about all this 'killer disease' stuff that the govt is now putting out. Some doctors have said that as these illnesses become almost 'folk memories' the govt has demonised them. Measles is obviously the most serious of the illnesses but today, with better antibiotics etc it would no longer be a fatal disease anyway. My two older childen just had the one measles jab, as that was the only one available 25 years ago. They both had german measles and mumps, as did almost all their friends. I never heard of any child being particularly ill with either disease, although, as with any illness, it was a nuisance. I do have a friend with a DD who has suffered what is probably vaccine damage, though.

What concerns me about my daughters, who had MMR, is the growing evidence that the rubella vaccine does not impart lifelong immunity, unlike the disease itself. It seems the protection can wear off and by the time they reach their child-bearing years, have no immunity left, thus exposing them to the possibilty of catching rubella when pg.

Another issue which worries me is that when my boys were small, one jag of measles was deemed sufficient, yet now, two are required. What's changed? I certainly haven't been told.

I refused the booster MMR because the clinic wanted to immunise against four other illnesses at the same time. I felt that to hit the system with seven different diseases at once was just too much. In any case, just because you decide not to have MMR today doesn't mean you've shut the stable door. You can always go back tomorrow and have it done, if you think it's the best course of action at that time.

Inkpen, the problem is that the "people who might know something about it" that the Blairs can chat to are very different to the ones that you or I might have access to. There is a fundamental difference between popping down to your surgery and having a chat with your practice nurse, and picking up the phone and having a one to one with the head of the NHS. No, I don't need the Blairs to make my mind up for me - I had my ds vaccinated months ago - but their silence gives the impression, rightly or wrongly, that they may not have done what TB's government is urging us to do. This has lead on to the "what do they know that we don't" conspiracy which, in turn, will surely lead on to a decrease in vaccinations. Hardly the desired result.

message withdrawn

I'm very sorry to hear about your mother's first child, Robinw, that indeed is very sad.
Having looked at the Hebs site, it confirms my views, that measles can be serious while complications in the others are very rare indeed and can now be avoided by the better care available. It also enhances my concerns that my DDs will find themselves unprotected by the rubella vaccine when they come to have children.

I found this statement from theRoyal College of General Practioners which sums it up for me. It's interesting that it points up that unease about MMR is evident even amongst parents who choose to have the vaccine. After the BSE debacle, people find it hard to put their faith in government. I think the only way out of the MMR impasse is for the govt to commission some totally independent research.

I truly want to believe that MMR and indeed, everything else I do with my children, is safe....I just have a nagging fear about this one.

No, I'm not talking about the difference between a practice nurse (who in any case is darn good) and the head of the NHS. I'm talking about reading the scientific journals which we all have access to and, in my case, because I'm not of a practical turn of mind, talking to a friend who is - to help me understand the technicalities of risk assessment (eg. whether the risk on vaccination is greater than the risk if the illness is contracted). It's only the same sort of decision we all made when pregnant - scans/tests/amnios etc. There are no certainties; it's all down to a balance of probability. I still feel that we all have to take responsibility for our own decisions and toddlers should not be used as political footballs. Specially by the Daily Mail.

message withdrawn

It's not surprising that many parents, including those who choose to go with MMR, remain anxious about it. They - we - are surely heavily influenced by a combination of media hysteria around this issue, and a greatly reduced trust in the govt around public health matters.

But all this proves is that parents are anxious - it doesn't mean their anxiety is called-for. Evidence-based medical practice can draw on a vast amount of data, accumulated world-wide, to reassure parents that there is nothing beyond Andrew Wakefield's original, tiny, and scientifically questionable study to suggest a link between MMR and autism. Putting vast amounts of money into researching this hypothetical link would surely be counter-productive, causing more uncertainty.

On the other hand, there is plenty of room for research into the causes of autism, and that should surely be a priority.

message withdrawn

Maybe the reason that people are so worried about the MMR is the fact that the original version of this vaccine was supposedly safe as houses and was eventually withdrawn because of health risks. I have met a woman whose child died as a direct result of this original vaccine - and she eventually managed to get this acknowledged by the NHS, but only after years of trauma

There is actually more evidence out there than just Andrew Wakefield's to suggest a possible link between MMR & the rise in cases of Autism. Very unfortunately I do not have the article in front of me which gives the details of the other studies but there have been other trials in America & I think Ireland. It is also worth bearing in mind that the studies showing no link are in many cases carried out by the companies who actually manufacture the vaccine.
I would never want any child to be exposed to the potentially fatal risks of Measles and the sometimes serious consequences of Mumps & Rubella and my ds was given the first MMR jab. However, I am really concerned that there could be a link and I am worried about the way that public debate does not seem to be encouraged by the Government.
Autism is a devastating illness for families and I cannot help but feel concerned that I may be putting my children at unnecessary risk with every dose of MMR.
Of course the Blairs have a right to privacy but surely it would be reassuring to "the people" (as we are popularly referred to) to hear Teflon Tone say that he is so confident in the safety of the MMR that he would be happy for any of his children to receive it. Hardly an invasion of his privacy!

Bugsy, I'd be really interested to know which studies you have been looking at as I have just done another medline search and can't find them. Also, none of the studies I have read have been drug-company sponsored.

I found this on the World Health Organisation site and thought it might be a useful contribution, being a global overview from an more impartial source. (I have just previewed this and there is a winking face - no idea how that got there, I just copied and pasted. It's quite cute though!)

RECENT CONCERNS REGARDING MMR VACCINE

Drs A Wakefield and SM Montgomery have published an article in Adverse Drug Reaction and Toxicologica Reviews ("Measles, mumps, rubella vaccine: Through a glass darkly" suggesting that the MMR vaccines were licensed prematurely. Dr Wakefield has previously published articles describing the reputed association between measles infection, measles vaccine and Crohn's Disease and autism. While his present article reviews the overall situation and his earlier work, it does not provide any new data.

WHO has noted that other scientists have not been able to reproduce the results claimed by Dr Wakefield and his team regarding measles virus in the gut. His published observations regarding the onset of autism following administration of MMR vaccine do not meet the scientific criteria required to suggest that the vaccine is the cause. Other studies not cited by Dr Wakefield find no link with autism or Crohn's disease.

WHO Position

WHO strongly endorses the use of MMR (measles, mumps and rubella) vaccine on the grounds of its convincing record of safety and efficacy.

The combination vaccine is recommended rather than monovalent presentation when available and the disease burden justifies its use.

There has been no new scientific evidence that would suggest impaired safety of MMR. On the contrary, all results from vaccine trials published reaffirm the high safety and efficacy of MMR vaccine.

Background

Measles is a major killer of children mainly in developing countries, accounting for approximately 875 000 deaths each year. However, recent outbreaks in industrialized countries have highlighted the importance of improving measles immunization coverage throughout the world. Congenital Rubella Syndrome is an important cause of deafness, blindness and mental retardation. It is estimated that more than 100 000 cases of congenital rubella syndrome occur each year worldwide. Mumps is an acute infectious disease. Although the disease is mild, up to 10% of patients can develop aseptic meningitis: a less common but more serious complication is encephalitis, which can result in death or disability.

These three communicable diseases could be easily prevented through immunization.

Smew, I can't think of many parents who would argue with the last line of your post - I certainly didn't want my son to be at risk of catching, or passing on, measles, mumps or rubella. I just felt that I should have the right to opt to have these immunisations given separately, on the NHS.
The Dublin studies were either at the Dublin Women's Hospital or the Sacred Heart, I can't remember which. The lead researcher there has also been the subject of a media whispering campaign designed to imply that he is a single-issue campaigner whose motivation is suspect.
Private Eye readers here may have noticed that the circumstances surrounding Andrew Wakefield's dismissal from the Royal Free have been attracting some comment and discussion in the medical profession.
I am not in a position to judge whether Dr Wakefield and his colleagues in Dublin are balanced in their approach, and I still can't really decide if the MMR vaccine is safe or not. I researched the issue widely before opting to give my son single-dose immunisations (at Direct Health 2000 in SE London, and they were brilliant), and I came to the conclusion that the MMR issue has become totally politicised over the past 10 years. I don't trust the DoH and the pharmaceutical company line any more than I conclusively believe the triple vaccine causes autism.
Bugsy, if you live in London, you may be interested to know that DH2000 will do a blood test on your child to check for MMR immunity and offer a pre-school booster only if any of the original immunisations did not take. Why should one have a booster otherwise?
Sorry, long post. But a subject that concerns me greatly.

Not my words but WHO's - the part of the message beyond "RECENT CONCERNS REGARDING MMR VACCINE" was all copied from the WHO website.

Where is the Dublin paper published - I'd like to read it?

Smew, sorry, I should have made myself clearer, I know it was WHO's wording not yours. But I find the assumption made by large organisations that if you are concerned about the safety of MMR, then you are de facto anti-immunisation, a bit annoying.
I have been digging around for the Dublin research and although I can't find the paper itself on the web I can confirm that the author was Professor John O'Leary of the Coombe Women's Hospital in Dublin. It looks like he and Dr Wakefield have collaborated on research into the possible links between the measles virus and Crohn's Disease and autism, and refereed each other's research.
Putting MMR and vaccine and safety into Google provides a link to a lot of sites, both pro and anti the vaccine, but not all that many provide full-text medical journal articles, presumably for copyright reasons.

The study is by the Dublin Women's Hospital and has yet to be published. This is a quote from a website about it.

"Yet to be published is a study in Dublin, which is said to have found measles RNA, which could only have been produced by the measles virus, in the gut of autistic children and not in the gut of others without autism. " The study involved, I think, 25 children with autism and 25 without.

I also offer this comment from an American medical journal reporting their congressional hearing

Until scientists explore these possibilities, the fact remains that every large study of the MMR-autism connection refutes a causal link. But none of them offer 100% reassurance. "No epidemiology could prove that the vaccine never causes autism," said Britain's Miller. "Proof of a negative is impossible."

So it isn't possible to prove the vaccine never causes autism but it is possible to show that unvaccinated children sometimes suffer severe problems. Surely the issue should be not "is the vaccine safe" but "is it safer than the alternative".

That would explain the lack of a reference for an actual study, Wendym, thanks for the info.