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?

DS had rubella at 4 months, by the way. I noticed it by chance because I had just read an article about its symptoms (red behind the ears and low fever for a day, then spots two days later that pass within 24 hours). He didn't suffer at all.

Comparing it to chicken pox, I know what the more difficult & dangerous disease is. Why don't we vaccinate against chicken pox?

And it was one of UN's aims to have world peace.

Cote - I completely agree. In the Times on Saturday, there was a doctor giving his opinion on why mmr should be done, and then went on to explain the risk of measles - err isn't he missing something there? If the gvt was serious about getting the max number of dc immunised against measles they could, by offering the single measles vaccine, or at least not making it only the most determined who can now get hold of it. And, as you say, off the other vacines appropriately. But in this country, the asumption is that we are all dumbasses ( who can;t be trsuted, incidentally to have plugs in our bathrooms, unlike in other countries where adults are expected to have a basic level of intellingence and responsibility)
Tell poepel the real reasons behind the mmr, but let them decide for themselves if they want their babies vaccinated against mumps and rubella as babies, or have those jabs later.

Because rubella can cause devastating birth defects. They want to minimise the risk of this to pregnant women. It is a serious risk. Research showed a large increase in rubella related defects when the whole mmr avoidance issue kicked in during the 90s.

But the risk is not to the child receiving the vaccine - that is where the dishonesty lies. Tell the parents the truth! 'This will not directly benefit your child, but is for the greater good'. Then leave it up to the parents to decide. Anything less is pure dishonesty, and part of the reason why people have lost respect for, and trust in, health 'professionals'. Of course people want to eradicate dieases that will haem potential future babies but to lie to them is unethical and unacceptable, and ultimately counter-productive - poeple are not stupid and if the wool is pulled over their eyes very blatantly they will resist future attempts to dupe them.

MrsGuyOfGisbourne - the NHS leaflet on vaccines I received, and also the NHS birth to five book the health visitor gave me, both clearly state that rubella is usually mild and can go unnoticed in children, but that it is very serious for unborn babies.

They're not pretending that the rubella bit of the MMR will directly benefit the child (although if your child is a girl and gets the vaccine, I'd argue that it will directly benefit her in the future if she gets pregnant).

The leaflet / birth to five book gives brief descriptions of all diseases currently vaccinated against, and I believe these publications are given to all new parents in the UK. If a parent chooses not to read this freely provided information, it's unfair of them to then claim that they were 'lied to' and that no one told them rubella is usually only harmful to unborn babies.

And health professionals can't force children to be vaccinated without the parents consent.

Wot cote said. My unvaccinated children are only 'at risk' because the population has been artificially interfered with and the opportunity for contact and the development of natural immunity whilst a child has been eroded!

Absolutely starlight before we had vaccination programmes and people were 'interfered with' no one ever died of disease

Of course some people died moss. But 'high risk' and 'vulnerable' groups could and should be screened for, as in the flu vacs etc.

Smallpox, diptheria, whooping cough, polio and measles all killed plenty of children, and caused life long disability in plenty more for the rest of their lives, before vaccinations were available.

Starlight, perhaps you could explain what you mean by 'artificially interfered with'?

Time to pack up, the antivaxers are out.

Agreed pointythings.

How odd, when my brother and I had our childhood jabs in Italy 20 odd years ago we had mumps, and rubella separately(I had to get all my vaccine notes off of my mum when I moved GPs).

No measles jabs then - had it done later in England.

I have seen research that shows many of the illnesses that there are now vaccines for, were already in sharp decline BEFORE vaccinations for them began.

There is a wealth of information from The Informed Parent, with research and articles from all over the world.

Hope you're not making any assumptions Pointy

MrsGuy - rubella vaccine is an advantage to your child as they avoid an unpleasant illness (wasn't around when I was a kid and I remember German Measles, as we called it, being quite miserable). More importantly it stops your child causing grave damage to you (if you are p/g) or someone else. My best friend at school was deaf in one ear and had heart damage as a result of her Mother contracting rubella during pregnancy.

"rubella vaccine is an advantage to your child as they avoid an unpleasant illness"

Rubella is very very mild. A cold is more unpleasant. Chicken pox is much more unpleasant and lasts far longer than rubella.

"They're not pretending that the rubella bit of the MMR will directly benefit the child..."

So why exactly should my 1 year old baby bear the responsibility for an unvaccinated mum? Should she not be responsible for the safety of her unborn child?

And why should my 1 year old baby boy be vaccinated for rubella at all?

"... (although if your child is a girl and gets the vaccine, I'd argue that it will directly benefit her in the future if she gets pregnant)."

You seem to be under the impression that a vaccine at age 1 will protect a girl when she is pregnant at age 20. It won't. These girls will have to have boosters through their lives, never completely sure if they are completely immune (vaccines don't confer 100% immunity).

The better choice for DD is to have rubella as a child and be immune all her life.

Could I ask who tested your dd, lizard? Did you have to go private? I'm really hoping my dds have had it and are immune for life.

Most people didn't catch rubella as, a child, why do you think there were so many cases of congenital rubella. In the last big epidemic in the us in the early, there were 10s of thousands of miscarriages and still births due to rubella.
I actually caught rubella from my mother in 75 a few weeks before I was due to have the vaccine myself at the age of 13. My mother had got to 37 years of age without getting it.

so? It's still an advantage to be healthy instead of ill. Your child may be lucky enough to barely notice rubella, but you couldn't possibly know that was going to be the case in advance.

" lucky enough to barely notice rubella, but you couldn't possibly know that was going to be the case in advance"

Err yes you can. Because rubella is an extremely mild disease for children. For everyone, actually, except fetuses of non-immune mothers.

Seriously, put aside the fear mongering and at least recognise that.

Banging head against a brick wall,
You are not guaranteed to get it as a child, do you think all those cases of crs are due to young teenage pregnancies.

I would also point there are other viruses that are very similar to rubella and unless you have had immunity checked you cannot guarantee that you have had rubella.