MMR back in the headlines - Italian Court rules it WAS cause of boys Autism

[doradoo]

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2160054/MMR-A-mothers-victory-The-vast-majority-doctors-say-link-triple-jab-autism-Italian-court-case-reignite-controversial-debate.html - sorry for DM link....

This is surely going to reignite the debate around the jab - fwiw my DCs were vaccinated with VMMR (with chicken pox too as we're not in the UK) - but I was concerned about the jab having heard / seen the reporting surrounding it.

So is the court right - and what does it mean for the UK and parents here who believe that MMR damaged their children?

Wouldn't that article indicate that the papers are more rather than less likely to print the story then?
I was interested to know why they didn't leap upon it

Probably feel it's old news now given what has happened over recent years. It could still be picked up I guess. Just think the article interesting in showing how it was covered by the press and how it snowballed.

It is an interesting viewpoint and one I have not heard. I don't agree with his conclusions but I do think he raises and interesting issue about the calibre of journos covering the story, and for sure that had a big impact on the public perception and mis interpretation of data.

The way the DM in particular used the story is interesting. They have a clear anti NHS stance and use anything to support this.

Yes, the papers are always going to put their swing on it, depending on their values. What I don't understand is how come it isn't such a big deal. Surely it's a huge deal that a court has assessed the evidence and come down in the way it has. Has that ever happened before? Is it just the fact that people think it will be overturned on appeal?
I just find it weird that it's barely been reported good or bad

Just think it's been done here. After all that happened maybe the press feel they don't want to raise it all again.

Do I sound a bit 'conspiracy theory' if I think it has got to be a bit politically motivated?

In what way? Genuinely interested.

Well I suppose as the gov stance is that they want herd immunity and the press plus Wakefield etc threatened and lowered that, it would be in the interests of the gov to influence the papers to play down reports such as this? Or maybe they are just waiting to see the outcome of any appeal, to have a stronger story?

I think you are bang on, mincey.

I think most newspapers are very, very cautious about reporting anything that might question the safety of MMR now.

Isn't the bad science guy, the son of a CEO of a pharmaceutical company or something?

No he isn't.

Not according to wiki no. He's genuinely a doctor who gets pissed off at pseudoscience. He made an unfortunate remark about MMR when he blamed 'stupid mothers' or words to that effect for the fuss but apart from that I know no ill of him.

"That is why there is now the recommendation to give paracetomol or ibuprofen following vaccines to regulate the temperature."

There is no such recommendation. In fact, giving antipyretics can reduce the effectiveness of vaccines, particularly if given before administration.

"Well I suppose as the gov stance is that they want herd immunity and the press plus Wakefield etc threatened and lowered that, it would be in the interests of the gov to influence the papers to play down reports such as this? Or maybe they are just waiting to see the outcome of any appeal, to have a stronger story?"

Lowered herd immunity meant that more children got measles, mumps and rubella.

Mumps can cause, in boys, in fertility.

Measles can cause deafness, meningitis and death.

The government doesn't want herd immunity just because. It is because children used to and still die of these preventable diseases.

Yes, I am aware of that fact
I am also aware that a percentage of children are more susceptible to vaccine damage than others
Do we ignore that fact to achieve herd immunity ?

MMR is safe for the vast majority of children but NOT all of them. That's not good enough for me and I have gone for single vaccines
same here.
It is unscientific with any intervention to say that anything is 'safe' withou exception or qualification and I resent being treated like an idiot by 'health professionals' patronise parents by trying to kid them, because they assume parents can;t be trusted.
Feel for those Italian parents

My sister's an LD nurse and works with adults, some of whom have it documented on their notes that they are vaccine damaged. Herd immunity is a great concept except for those who suffer as a result. And it probably does work well for the whole population, as in fewer people will be damaged as a result of vaccination than would be damaged by the disease. Bit of a bugger for those who are damaged, though. And a bit of a tricky decision for a parent who has no way of knowing whether their child will be the one in 100,000 or 10,000 who will be vaccine damaged.

If I had a history of auto-immune disease in my familiy, I'd be very cautious about MMR. As it is I got ds singles initially (following research and consultation with colleagues who are expert reviewers of medical evidence and said the safety studies weren't sufficient) but by the time the booster came around, I felt confident that he was not vulnerable, and he had the booster. My decisions are not hugely evidence-based or right for anyone else, just me judging what seemed to be the best option for my son, with the smallest consequences for anyone else (e.g. I was determined he would have rubella because I would hate to think my decision for my child had harmed anyone else).

"Lowered herd immunity meant that more children got measles, mumps and rubella"

So? What seems to be the problem with children getting rubella - a routine childhood disease so mild and quick that most people don't even notice that their children have had it?

Rubella is only dangerous for fetuses whose mothers have it for the first time when pregnant. Why can't we test girls at age 12 and vaccinate those who aren't immune?

And mumps - it doesn't cause sterility in children, only in pubescents and adults. Why can't we test boys at age, say, 7 and vaccinate those who aren't immune?

If you leave it alone, children will have these diseases early and be immune forever, just like with chicken pox. We can always test children at a later age and vaccinate then if necessary.

Exactly what Cote said.

Because the aim of vaccine is to eventually eradicate the disease, as they did with measles in america until it was imported again.
Both Rubella and Mumps can cause other problems in smaller children ie mumps causes encephylitis and deafness, rubella epidemics comes in waves years apart and not easy to catch as a child, hence the number of cases of Congenital rubella syndrome before we vaccinated against rubella

[[http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=13164&page=106 lots of information here on the disease and safety of the vaccines that prevent them

lots of information here on the disease and safety of the vaccines that prevent them

"Because the aim of vaccine is to eventually eradicate the disease"

That is a silly and unrealistic aim, considering MMR is not obligatory, is not done in many parts of the world, long incubation periods when disease is still infectious, and air travel is now so cheap that hundreds of thousands travel between various cities around the globe every day.

I don't think that's the aim of vaccination, by the way.

Mass vaccination is done because its cost is much less (especially when three-in-one like MMR) than large scale economic costs of outbreaks and parents staying home to look after sick children.

It was one of the Who's aims to eradicate measles.