'Unprecedented' rise in measles

[27]

link

The BBC this morning have a story about an unprecedented rise in measles cases over the last year.
I'll C+P to save you clicking the link

----------

There is an "unprecedented increase" in measles cases in England and Wales, experts report.

Data from the Health Protection Agency showed there were 1,217 cases of measles from January to November 2008.

And 75% of the 115 cases diagnosed in November were outside the traditional hotspot of London - in the north west, west midlands and south east.

The HPA's Dr Mary Ramsay said the rise in cases was due to "relatively low" MMR uptake over the past decade.

TW you have come in for it quite unnecessarily. It was pretty brave of you to post as much detail as you have. The response to your posting has changed my opinion of some of the responders.

anyone know about this? we are being watched!

stuffitllama

Yesterday you had mentioned reports of teenagers developing autism after the MMR - could you give more detail on that?

I read about it on the JABS website. In particular a 15-year-old who regressed. I will try to find som emore information.

It's good to know these discussions are helping in some way

"the postings on Mumsnet suggested that parents were keen to act in socially considerate ways as long as the risk to their own child seemed proportionate."

Does that still sum up the views here?

I like this bit too "well balanced messages that explain that vaccination can be beneficial for others as well as their own children could still be appropriate ? as long as they do not cross the boundary between ethically acceptable attempts to persuade on the basis of appeals to reason and ethically dubious attempts to manipulate people by playing on their emotions."

MMR campaigns constantly cross the boundary into 'ethically dubious attempts to manipulate people by playing on their emotions." They imply that 'YOUR CHILDREN MAY DIE OF MEASLES IF YOU DON'T VACCINATE! OTHER PEOPLE'S CHILDREN WITH CANCER MAY DIE AND IT WILL BE YOUR FAULT!'

We are being studied in order that policy may be manipulated. Herd immunity bothers you? OK we'll play up herd immunity. Getting to know a bit much about the immune system? OK we'll fund a few studies to show that it's all genetic.

think a little to the policymakers is in order.

That is simply a factua; argument. If they were playing to emotions they would say somehting like, 'how would you feel if children died of measles beause you were too selfish to get your child vaccinated' and imply that you were 'wrong'. That is very different to stating facts.

SIM, why do ytou think people are out to con you? This is where people seem to be confusing skepticism with cynicism. A cynic see's the worst in everthing and breeds apathy and contempt. Skepticism is an activity that drives you to be better informed and make the best choices for you based on all the evidence available.

Thanks for the lecture MT but am not frightfully interested. You are edging rather close to the predictable "hysterical paranoia" accusation.

It is clear from the paper that public discussions are monitored and from this conclusions may be drawn which could be used to develop and manipulate policy to encourage vaccine take up.

You are naive, MT. Have you never had a friend who worked in marketing or advertising? Never met anyone who has devised a health story for the purposes of selling a product? Advertising disguised as news. Studies are frequently more frequently that you can imagine, apparently designed to produce the result required by the people who commissioned it. Do you believe that pharmaceutical companies are the altruistic exception to this habit?

You can't be that naive. You must know -- it's just the way things are.

Am very interested to see this at the end of the conclusion: "Policy makers should also strive to be more explicit about what is being done to provide practical support to those harmed by vaccines."

Fantastic. Can't see it forming part of their vaccination campaign though - "MMR will cause absolutely no harm to your child, but if it does..."

27 I assume that genetics are a factor in autism because genetics play a role in all the illnesses we get really don't they.

I just think that there are other factors which are currently being neglected by much of the medical community despite many parents of autistic children's requests to have them examined.

Why for example does my vaccine damaged daughter suffer from many of the gut issues/intolerances that many autistic children have and yet she is not autistic? Why have many of the biomedical therapies that have helped autistic children also helped my daughter? Is it her genetics that meant that she didn't become autistic as the result of vaccine damage or is it because she was damaged by the DTP and not the MMR?

Who knows. But when you are looking at figures like 1 child in 88 being on the spectrum in the UK and 1 in 66 in the US then you know you can't waste too much time arseing around looking at genetics. You need to figure out what the environmental trigger is and remove it 'cos you can't change people's genetic make up.

Policywonk did you take a look at the House of Commons brief I linked to earlier describing some of the activities of the IoP and Wessely?

I'm not suggesting that all of science is in the pay of pharma/corporatism but certainly some of it is. Pharma funds a lot of research that gets done and there is a far too cosy relationship between the government and the health industry.

The Science Minister in Blair's government was Lord Sainsbury for goodness sake. You don't get much more corporate than him.

I'm not suggesting that Goldacre is in the pay of pharma exactly. I'm saying that he is a research fellow at the IoP which is an institution that works to an agenda, and has worked to mislabel environmental illnesses as psychiatric in the past, creating untold harm in doing so. Effectively the IoP gets large sums of money from industry. Goldacre does not reveal this connection in his writing and presents himself as an independant journalist. This is a lie. He also lies in his writing and spreads misinformation. I find it odd that he won an industry funded award for 'Best Science 'Writing' for an article that was based an flawed corporate funded studies and which was full of misinformation and which just happened to defend a corporate product. I find it hard to believe that Goldacre's crappy article which was based on studies which have since become a source of ridicule was really the best science writing that particular year.

Nowhere have I said that I believe that all the writers who win this award are pharma stooges. I just believe that Goldacre is in the realm of vaccine damage and alternative medicine.

By the way his forum encourages their posters to come and troll on a support website for parents of vaccine damaged children. I have had one of the posters tell me that my daughter's damage was all in my head on this support forum. Bad Science posters link to Jabs threads and take the piss out of them. This behaviour is sick and contemptible. Goldacre allows this to happen on his forum and therefore is responsible for this mocking of sick children and their parents.

Thumbwitch I believe you and understand why you don't want to identify yourself.

Pagwatch I can only guess how painful these threads are. Your contributions are so important though.

Monkeytrousers I have read a document that describes how to use marketing techniques to um, market vaccines. It was a bit of an eye opener, will try to find a link.

IIRC it assumed that most parents are a bit thick and to keep the language at a certain level and leave out the science 'cos we probably would't get it/don't need to know.

Have also read something about how vaccines are now getting zappy consumer friendly names like 'Gardasil' because it makes people assume that they are being injected with a single vaccine/antigen when in fact there are several.

So what? Marketing isn't immoral. Do your research on the pros and cons by all means. Be skeptical, not cynical.

No, MT, you be sceptical. You live in a bubble.

Really Monkeytrousers? You don't think it's immoral to keep marketing (and add marketing spin) a jab which an increasing number of parents are concerned about?

To keep marketing this jab (with increased spin) whilst ignoring the ever-deafening calls for studies into which subset of children may be susceptible to damage?

LOL SIM.

No SF, I don't think it's immoral. And studies are ongoing.

Of course marketing isn't immoral per se.

Marketing health procedures for minors whilst being economical with the truth is ethically dubious though.

I think the health service has a moral duty to respect the right to informed consent but then I'm cynical.

I also think the health service's funding would be better spent in screening for children susceptible to vaccine damage rather than on advertising for the products responsible for that damage.

I don't want marketing and advertising from my health service. I want impartial information.

Doesn't soudn cynical to me. That sounds perfect;ly reasonable.

Sadly, studies aren't ongoing. Not ones to find out which children might be susceptible to damage.

Impartial information would suit me just fine too, Beachcomber.

Instead I get doctors insisting dd2 is fine, despite blood works that suggest otherwise.

I get doctors insiting dd2 should be vaccinated despite her autistic gut profile.

I have docotrs telling me that biomed interventions do not work for autism (despite evidence to the contrary in front of my eyes)

Well I guess we'll just keep pushing that vaccine whilst we're waiting for the results of those ongoing studies eh?

If it does turn out that the studies show that MMR has an unacceptable side effect then at least those who were damaged whilst we were waiting for the results will have the comfort of knowing that they are suffering in the name of the greater good and that they have filled their social responsibility role.

Oh but wait a minute the studies do exist which show MMR to be dangerous. Shit, wait are we waiting for then?

what not wait.

Too much waiting going on already.

I would prefer that the NHS spent a bit more money on finding out why my son reacted as he did and a little less sending me reminders that DD is behind in her vaccination schedule.

I am able to resist the marketing but I would love some of you to experience how accepting and reasonable the NHS is when you attend with a child who hasn't had the MMR - with something really related - like a broken arm .
I literally have to say 'excuse me - is this relevant' three or four times most visits. Ho hum