Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

News

BBC: MMR is safe

158 replies

hazlinh · 10/09/2004 03:41

bbc story

OP posts:
edam · 10/09/2004 16:36

Goodkate, almost everyone on this thread, including me, agrees that vaccination is overwhelmingly a good thing for almost all kids. We were disputing those parts of your posts which were patronising and debating the points with which we disagree ? making logical, informed points and citing decent evidence to set against your points.

Heathcliffscathy · 10/09/2004 16:38

yeah jimjams, that big piece of news kind of got lost...really glad for ds2...

p.s. i think that there is an arguement for saying that children may possibly be worse off vaccinated (see my previous post) and think there should be more research in this area.

Twiglett · 10/09/2004 16:40

message withdrawn

Twiglett · 10/09/2004 16:45

message withdrawn

frogs · 10/09/2004 16:49

Glad to see this has calmed down a bit.

Yes, Jimjams, I would have been mightily irritated if my child had a known risk factor for a particular adverse reaction which we had not been informed about it. In fact that may even have been the case, as we have a family history of autoimmune disease, which I understand may put a child at higher risk. I haven't looked further into that specific question as the vaccines have already been given now with no apparent ill-effect.

The reason I weighed in to support goodkate is because I get annoyed by an anti-vaccination consensus in which saying that vaccination is LIKELY TO BE safe for MOST people MOST of the time turns you into someone who hires out their children for scientific experiments before handing them over to be Tony Blair's teatime snack.

I haven't conducted a study of the amount of media space devoted to one viewpoint or the other, so I won't comment on that, except to say that I found myself having to swallow hard before taking my children for the MMR, despite my rational conviction as a scientist that any risks were outweighed by the benefits.

Ultimately science as filtered through the lens of the media, politics or business tends to be presented in stark black or white, whereas 'real' science is all about shades of grey.

suedonim · 10/09/2004 16:57

Don't want to hijack this thread, Jimjams, but .

aloha · 10/09/2004 17:00

It's also easy to say that anyone who thinks the government and pharmaceutical companies have been less than honest and altruistic about vaccination and side-effects is 'anti-vaccination'. How come if I'm anti-vaccination that my son is fully vaccinated, except for mumps, which I would happily give him, if the government ('pro-vaccination') would allow the single vaccine into the country. I feel utterly betrayed that I was conned into letting him be injected with a deadly poison with known adverse affects on the human brain (hey, guess what they symptoms of mercury poisoning look like? Yup, autism) by the UK medical and political establishement, long after American Academy of Paediatrics flagged up their members' concerns and called for mercury to be removed from vaccines. This sort of thing is not conducive to building trust in parents. We know for a fact that politicians and pharmaceutical companies lie to us. Our children our the most precious things in our lives, and totally reliant on us to make the best decision for them. Being 'anti-vaccination' is nothing to do with it - nobody here is 'anti-vaccination'. I agree with Jimjams. For most children most vaccinations are safe. What makes me suspicious is the political line that all vaccinations are safe for all children in any combination. I don't believe that for a moment.

goodkate · 10/09/2004 17:14

I'm flouncing. I've done nothing today and the house looks like a dogs dinner.

i'm sorry i've offended anyone. I got more heated and argumentative than I wanted to be. Believe it or not I am usually more rational and level headed than this. In fact I'm quite flexible to everyting said today. Any patronising was totally unintentional and i don't think i explained what I meant very well. I was actually trying to look at things from point of view of those less fortunate. I should avoid this thread really as it brings out this mad woman in me. And I always argue with the same people which having just returned to Mumsnet I don't really want to do!

Until next time that is

Jimjams · 10/09/2004 17:15

IN the interest of a balanced debate. There was as paper that showed that thimerosil was safe- in 1930 something and all the recipients died. Now that's a piece of research I really want to track down. Can anyone find it for me?

goodkate · 10/09/2004 17:16

God can you imagine the goverment saying something like that?

aloha · 10/09/2004 17:17

It is hard on the net to get shades of meaning over. We probably do agree about most things. And I'm sure we all hate politicians!

hmb · 10/09/2004 17:20

Totaly off topic, and haven't had time to read all the thread. In a light hearted tone for Friday. I dream about my house looking like a dog's dinner!

And wonderful news about both you dss Jimjams, I'm so glad!

fuzzywuzzy · 10/09/2004 17:49

Someone remind me did Leo Blair have the mmr did our honest and truthfull governemnt see fit to tell us yea or nay???

Heathcliffscathy · 10/09/2004 18:12

bbc report on six o'clock news, never seen more propagandised drivel in my life...so completely and utterly one sided: mmr is now absolutely proved to have no link with autism, so you can be sure that you can vaccinate your child safely...like a govt pamphlet.

on a side note: six o'clock news really is as patronisingly twaddlish as deadringers would suggest isn't it?

Jimjams · 10/09/2004 18:20

ah the bbc post hutton methinks.

goodkate · 10/09/2004 18:48

Hmmm but the BBC tells the truth on everything doesn't it. They can't lie can they?

Tinker · 10/09/2004 19:38

BBc news is still nowhere near as bad as ITV 'news' with all its mawkish sentimentality

Uhu · 10/09/2004 20:23

Out of interest does anyone know if the number of children diagnosed with autism has declined in correlation with the decrease in MMR vaccinations? I personally don't think it has.

Twiglett · 10/09/2004 20:24

message withdrawn

Twiglett · 10/09/2004 20:30

message withdrawn

Uhu · 10/09/2004 20:30

I don't suppose you know the % and absolute figures?

Twiglett · 10/09/2004 21:13

message withdrawn

Jimjams · 10/09/2004 22:13

Twiglett is right- can look back and find the figures- but not now am off to bed.

There would never be any correlation with the rate of autism and the MMR- the numbers affected (7% of autism cases) are far too small. No-one believes that MMR is responsible for the big rise anymore. Initially it was not clear how many children had been affected, but it is fairly clear now that it is a specific subgroup of the autism population.

Twiglett · 10/09/2004 22:15

message withdrawn

Chandra · 10/09/2004 22:29

Jimjams, I'm so happy to hear the news about your DS

Swipe left for the next trending thread