BBC: MMR is safe

[hazlinh]

bbc story

Hmmm methinks this is very relevant;
"If we could have a proper monitoring system where any reaction is collected and scrutinised we might get to the base of whether there is a link or not,"

Just reminds me the nurse at my GP's yelled at me and told me there was nothing dangerous about the dtp.....

message withdrawn

It would be interesting to see just how many children who have had a bad reaction to vaccines (not just autism and MMR) actually have a proper record of it made in their medical notes. When ds1 had his first bad reaction to DTP it was noted in his records as "a mild adverse reaction". Mild??? He stopped breathing FFS! Anyone reading those notes would probably assume he'd just had a bit of a fever or a little rash.

Why did they look at records and not children?

Our GP refused to note down any reaction to the MMR jab even though DD was quite poorly for days afterwards. I took her to the doctors/nurses several times over the following two weeks and she lost lots of weight but they refused to make a link. In the end I found one of the HV who agreed that it most probably was the MMR - but no record.

Looking at this objectively, isn't it really the case that the improved diagnosis of autism has coincided with the increase in uptake of the MMR jab? If you look objectively at all the studies around the world, there is no proven link between MMR and autism.

My older brother, who is now in his 40s, has autism but we did not now this until a few years ago and MMR was not around when he was a child. As a child, the doctors could not tell my parents what was wrong with him because they simply did not know. Similarly, my younger brother has mild dyslexia but when he was a child, nobody really knew about this condition and we just thought he was slow, which he isn't.

Keep away from the hysteria and just look at the naked facts. The fact is children are now more at risk from measles, mumps and rubella because of the low vaccination uptake than they are at developing autism. Nobody knows why autism develops but putting children at risk because of misinformation is irresponsible. I will never understand why people who are rational most of the time completely lose all sense of proportion with regards to this issue.

Uhu - if you look back at previous threads on MN you'll see that there are a number of very educated very well informed people that have studied many of the original research papers into MMR (not the subsequent reports about them) and reached their conclusion that MMR is not safe. I'm not going to speak for them but be careful about making statements like;
" Keep away from the hysteria and just look at the naked facts"

Uhu, the reason people get hysterical about this issue is because when they ask for real information and real research, they get an hysterical reaction from the medical and political establishment. They get studies like this one, which are carried out by a government-funded body, being presented to the public as if it is indpendent and therefore reliable research. And when as a mother you ask for information about vaccinations in general, you get hysteria from GP's and HV's. I've never been hysterical about vaccinations, but some of the medical experts I've met can certainly be described as hysterical. People just want unbiased, factual, real, independently researched information. That is not hysterical.

Whilst I realise that the vaccinations can cause horrible reactions in children and I wholly sympathise with parents and children who have suffered this, this story is about the link between the MMR vaccination and autism.

How mant studies is it going to take (in other countries as well as in the UK) to convince people that there is no link between the two.

We have one or two studies on a few children saying that there is a link and dozens of studies done on thousands of children saying there isn't. I'm with the thousands.

The government can't win. Our natural scepticism makes us disbelieve what they tell us about this as "spin", yet we demand clarity and information to make a choice. No wonder they don't say anything. I know many of you are anti-injections but I am firmly anti-potentially fatal diseases that could affect 100's of children, especially when you consider the highly infectious nature of some of these diseases. I'm sorry but I saw the results of too many of these diseases as a child which thankfully are now extremely rare. The benefits far far far outweigh the dangers.

Tin hat on and sandbags at the ready for the incoming barrage!

I have just read a book called Vaccines are they really safe and effective? More for the American market granted, however in it I found a graph/research that was lifted from the National Vaccine Information center.
"A survey in seven states revealed that only 28 out of 159 doctors said they made a report to the government when a child suffers a serious health problem following any vaccination.2002.
Ok, not very reassuring is it? 82 per cent fail to acknowledge and report a problem.

message withdrawn

message withdrawn

message withdrawn

goodkate - the reason I mentioned reactions to other immunisations is that this particular study looked at the medical records of the children involved. This relies on those records being accurate which, as some of us have found out, is not always the case.

FWIW I don't believe the MMR had anything to do with my ds1's autism but there is enough anecdotal evidence out there to convince me that SOMETHING is happening to certain children. I also cringe everytime I hear the argument that parents just didn't notice before that their child was autistic.

All of the reported cases have been looked at by an independent body - the Medicines Control Agency/CSM is independent and collects data on adverse reactions to all drugs and reviews all of them, in detail, on a weekly basis. Anything that is not clear is followed up with the reporting doctor for further information.

An MMR Working Party was set up (years ago!) to look at all Andrew Wakefield's cases and others that had been sent in separately and no link was found - this has been done over and over again.

The adverse reactions to, and safety of, MMR are reviewed in the same way that the safety of every other drug on the market is reviewed so what I don't understand is why everyone is happy to accept the CSMs judgement on the safety of all the other drugs that they and their children are exposed to but not this one?

It's a difficult issue I know and I've had to make the decision myself for my own children (who have all had the MMR) but I suppose I'm in the fortunate position of having worked closely with those involved at the MCA where I was head of the Drug Alert Unit in the Pharmacovigilance Unit for 5 years and sat on CSM meetings.

Just to clarify as well, CSM members who have 'an interest' in a pharma company that markets a drug being discussed in a meeting, has to declare that interest and leave the room. They take no part in any decision being made.

Actually, MMR aside, the statistical risk of a child developing autism is much higher than the risk of a similarly serious damage from mumps or rubella, and probably measles too.

And we were told for so long that there was nothing risky about injecting mercury into tiny babies (or not even told that there was mercury in them) that is it surprising that many of us are sceptical about other aspects of vaccination, particularly multiple vaccination.

Why take the chance? because not inoculating spreads disease - its about more than our own ds/dd. my bf's goddaughter is blind because of a 60% non-innoculation rate in her area and her contracting measles while 6 months old from someone who'd got it from someone's dd etc etc. I really feel for people who believe MMR has hurt their child in this way but there is NO clinical proof and there is plenty of the effects of the diseases in question. Whats next? don't innoculate against TB?

Also I think its interesting that people don't trust govt studies - the alternative are studies by P&G or Pfizer, lawyers representing interest groups or whoever. Someone has to fund research.

With a much more mobile world community diseases that are rare here are being brought back into the environment - adult whooping cough anyone? I got it 2 years ago, am healthy and had no idea I was associating with anyone with any illness - prob got it on the bus. Too right I innoculated DS against it, just was sure to read the papers myself and make the decision based on what I read not what the panic was saying.

(back in my box now)

It also is aggravating to suggest that "very educated very well informed people" can make a better decision than those that rely on common sense. I find it highly patronising.

Lets apply some common sense.

Scenario 1. Stop vaccinations altogether. Return of diseases. Lots of children will end up disabled, scarred or dying because they have caught, mumps, measles, rubella, whooping cough, polio etc. etc. This is not hysteria. This is fact based on what we have experienced in the past before mass immunisation was introduced.

Scenario 2. Continue vaccinating and research and improving. Pharmacuetical companies want to make big fat profits. They plough billions into research to make their products better, safer and more effective. Governments and independent bodies are continually trialing them. No system is ever perfect, mistakes will be made and some people will be affected. However this number is tiny compared to the amount of people who benefit from good health and medicine throughout the majority of their lives.

I'm not a super brain but I think I have enough commom noggin to look at the big world wide picture.

Babies who have been vaccinated still get these diseases though?

I have comman sense. my family is vaccinated for the flu on a yearly basis as the flu almost killed my dh.

But my dd2 still hasnt had her MMR. why? becuase atm i dont feel her general health is good enough to deal with a jab.

Oh dear, here we go again... agree very much with coppertop, how can they clain they can monitor how safe is the vacine if they don't keep records? DS had reactions to evey DTP ranging from his first body wide eczema flare to a week with 41 fever, in all ocassions we were told it was probably teething or a virus and were sent home with a bottle of calpol. (no single record taken about a possible link with the vacines, if they don't keep records about DTP reaction how would they keep them for MMR? after all they are treying to convince the world that the thing is completely safe at any expense (even at children's expense!)

Mistress Mary, yes they do, but in a softer version, I was fully vacinated and have got every single one of the diseases (excep. whooping cough) as a child

and polio!

Goodkate, it's not as simple as 'pharma cos want to make their products safer'. Sadly, they don't always, they want to hush up any negative studies ? look at GSK and Seroxat. GSK hid research that showed that Seroxat was causing people to commit suicide. And the researchers colluded with them. GSK knew this drug had desperately serious side effects in some, not all, patients, although it was helpful for others. Instead of admitting there was a problem and allowing docs and patients to weigh up risk and benefit and monitor individual patients carefully, they hid the bad news and pushed for a licence extension to children - even though it was pretty clear it was young people on Seroxat who were at high risk of increased or new suicidal feelings. They also denied there was any withdrawal syndrome, and villified any researchers who suggested there was. They hid documents, skewed publication, used every trick in the book to deny the very serious problems with this drug. They left patients addicted to their drug without any help because prescribers refused to believe withdrawal existed because that's the information they got from GSK and from the Royal College of Psychiatrists, to their shame.
Drug companies are not altruistic, they are concerned with market share. The ABPI admits that drug companies need to bring something like three new molecules to market every year to survive. Hence the proliferation of 'me too' drugs.
Drugs companies do produce thousands of medicines that are effective, safe, necessary and even life-saving used properly (I take one every day). But they are not altruistic, and they are quite prepared to put people's health or life at risk if admitting the truth threatens their profits.