MMR DROP IN CLINICS ACROSS WALES TOMORROW - please get yours

[Mosschops30]

You can turn up to various venues
Ystrad Mynach Hospital
Belle Vue Surgery Newport
Children's Centre, CRI
Children's Centre, llandough

Don't worry if you're not sure If your dc has had booster, you can still attend.

Please protect all our children

Bumblemummy: do you work for a single jab clinic? Why wouldn't people get vaccinated with MMR as it effective and safe?

The nhs choices website states that one side effect of the mmr that occurs in a small number of cases (1 in 1000) is seizures. This wouldn't make you feel it was safe if it was your child who developed seizures and this is the kind of thing that makes me nervous about it. I've read quite a lot of parents stories about their children continuing to have seizures without a high temperature, therefore not febrile convulsions.

Hugo, you're clearly missing my point. They've been vaccinating millions of children - so the fact that they are now getting themselves vaccinated doesnt really mean much. Unless you think they would happily 'poison' millions of children without a second thought because they aren't the vaccine themselves. It's a strange thing to find reassuring is all.

Jo, it would allow people who would not choose the MMR to be vaccinated against measles. I know you suggested it would undermine confidence in the MMR but if for some reason it did then the single would be available. The single vaccine is available alongside the MMR in other countries without either damaging the other's reputation.

No cherries, I don't :) I thought your question had been answered a few times on other threads you've been on. Not everyone trusts/likes the idea of the MMR for whatever reason (not necessarily anything to do with Wakefield) so they will not get it no matter how many times you want to tell them that it is 'effective and safe'. The single is 'effective and safe' too and they may be happier with that.

So therefore if millions of children have been vacinnated with MMR and the NHS staff are being re-vacinnated with MMR then that means its pretty safe.

And it makes sense to have it instead of loads of single jabs. when i took DD to get hers done it was a bit distressing all round - even the nurse said she didnt like giving jabs to little ones because it broke her heart to make them cry. But the nurse was brilliant - she asked DD 'who are you friends with at nursery?' and whilst DD was thinking of an answer the nurse went JAB JAB and then said 'would you like a lolly??'

If there is a risk of something happening with a vaccine like you say Bumblymummy, then less jabs = less risk. So MMR makes more sense.

I don't think you can say less jabs=less risk.

If you have a vaccination for a single disease and have some sort of reaction then you know which it is. If you have a vaccination for 3/4/5/6 diseases at once and have a reaction then you don't know for certain which it is. It might have only been one element you were reacting to, but you can't be sure.

But people whove been suggesting that the jabs are a problem are saying its because of some kind of preservative, which all the different types of jabs will have.

so if the same preservative is in all the jabs and its the preservative thats the worry and you believe its the preservative thats the problem, its obvious that less jabs = less risk

On this thread, you are the only one who has mentioned preservatives, so I wouldn't necessarily say that this is why people think they are a problem.

Some vaccines use live strains, others are prepared on chick embryos and some people are allergic to eggs. These are all things people worry about.

I've heard other people mention preservatives. are we not allowed to discuss other things??

Threads do usually wander off to other things!

I personally don't know which jabs have which preservatives, but no doubt someone will soon be along to tell us. I suppose yes, if they all had exactly the same, and it was the only concern that people had, then fewer jabs could make sense.

I don't think you can say that all people are worried about the jabs because of preservatives, which your post seemed to imply. There seem to be a range of concerns including the ones I mention.

So, looking at the comments on these vaccine website it seems you either

1. Support mass immunisation of MMR - because you recognise the risk of an adverse outcome from contracting measles / mumps / rubella outweighs the risk of an adverse outcome from the actual vaccine (1:100 000)

Or

1. Campaign against MMR because you don't believe the statistics (govt / pharma conspiracy), can search the millions of scientific papers to find one or two papers to support your claim, or assert your GP is not interested in patient care because they don't listen to your google diagnosis

Adverse outcomes (ie death / severe reactions) will be reported because the child would end up in hospital. You can argue that doctors will refuse to report vaccine as the cause. However, I can't believe a parent who believes a vaccine caused their child's death would remain quiet. And yet we don't hear about these (there is one on the Jabs website, the two HPV "related" deaths have since been discredited)

Science / medicine isn't perfect, science is about challenging paradigms, however, these challenges must be repeatable (wakefields weren't, same for cold fusion) and robust (ie stand up to challenge).

Or

1. Do neither of the above, but ask for more information before making a decision.

But asking for more information is a crime, it seems. As is finding that the above poster's comments are oversimplistic and patronising

Either you
1 support mass immunisation
2 campaign against it

Either way, you ask for advice from your GP, not google (which is promotes results on the basis of advertising and clicks, NOT reliability or accuracy)

Or 4, suggest that if people have concerns (for whatever reason) that they consider have single vaccines and think that singles should still be available on the NHS.

I don't really see people campaigning against the MMR. As much as you'd like to put this into your two little boxes (why?) it just isn't going to happen.

But you're telling people not to get MMR Bumblymummy. Aren't you??

you keep saying theres problems with it - so you must not want people to get it surely?

"I don't really see people campaiging against the MMR"

Umm - Andrew Wakefield et al
Jabs, Whale, Australian Vaccination Network

They will say their remit is to give you "choice", but really they are "merchants of doubt" "keeping the controversy alive" by spreading doubt and confusion after a scientific consensus had been reached

It's the basic strategy

• the pro smoking lobby (e.g. Forest)
• climate change skeptics

Again - you either

1. support vaccination
2. lobby against it

either way you seek medical advice, not google advice

No, I'm not.

Where have I said not to get it or that there are problems with it? I've just been pointing out that singles are available as an alternative if you're concerned for whatever reason.

Can I summarise as follows, bumble?

1. Introducing singles might increase or decrease vaccination rates. It would cost money which would have to be cut from elsewhere in the NHS budget. It would lead to an increase in known side effects of vaccinations.

2.Some unknown, but probably small, number of people want single vaccines because of ideas they have harvested on the internet or from friends/family/strangers. These ideas are comprehensively contradicted by the very substantial body of available research. This research might be flawed in some, as yet to be defined, way. New research might alter current views.

3.Singles should be introduced.

1. and 2. seem pretty much beyond discussion, though you might not like my wording. If you really conclude 3. from 1. and 2., we have very very different values. This much I doubt.

Alternatively you are against MMR ,singles and ,to a first approximation, vaccinations in general. You are cynically advocating singles in the hope of showing pro-vaxers in a bad light: they claim to want vaccination, at the same time of denying people fair vaccination choice. Hopefully, you now realise that the analysis underlying your attempted smear is parochial, superficial and naive.

btw, which countries did you have in mind for offering singles in parallel with MMR. It has already been mentioned upthread, or possibly on another recent thread, that this is not the case in France.

I still disagree with you coorong - MMR is not the only option so just because some people aren't getting the MMR does not mean that they are not supporting vaccination or are lobbying against it.

What if singles arent available Bumblymummy?
Some people cant afford them or they cant get them where they live. And some people trust single vaccinnes less because they are older and require more visits to the nurse.

when the choice is MMR or nothing, then what? Waht do you think they should do then???

Bubbleyummy - on the Australian Vaccination (which is anti vaccine and promotes Jabs and Whale) website you can post one of two photos -

one of a vaccine damaged baby - which is tragic
or
an unvaccinated healthy baby.

However, you can't post a picture of a healthy vaccinated baby -

Again

1. you either support mass vaccination (againts a range of diseases)

or

1. you campaign against it (by sowing seeds of doubt)

Jo, We'll just have to agree to disagree :) As someone has already pointed out, if the alternative to the MMR is someone not being vaccinated and that person ends up in hospital then that stay alone would more than have covered their single vaccines.

Some people genuinely can't have the MMR and I think you're being a bit dismissive to think that this information comes from the Internet and friends and family rather than medical professionals. I know two people in real life who were advised to have singles by their doctors (and no, these doctors weren't running single vaccine clinics and trying to make money off them before you suggest it!) there are many others in similar circumstances in MN.

Suggesting singles make someone anti-vaccine? [Hmm] That's some strange conspiracy thinking you've got going on there.

The single measles vaccine is available in France. Children still get vaccinated with MMR - they don't all run for the single measles vaccine just because it is available.

bumbleymummy Wed 24-Apr-13 10:13:33
Jo, We'll just have to agree to disagree

Didn't understand that.

Does it mean that 1,2 and 3 are all wrong?

I don't have a problem with single vaccines being made available on the NHS by prescription for children who are medically unable to have the full MMR, however, I do disagree with them being made available so that parents who don't fancy the idea of the MMR for unscientific reasons can have their concerns validated.