'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.

silverfrog;

if the MMR causes autism why hasn't it been stopped?

snowleoard, you said "the risks are much smaller than the risks from the disease being vaccinated against. If not, that should be detected and the vaccination programme stopped"

the important word in the above quote is should. Reactions to vaccines should be detected, but due to the complete panic whenever someone tries to report a reaction to a vaccine, they often aren't.

dd1 reacted to a couple of the jabs she had as a baby. the reactions weren't noted. we were patronised, all but patted on the head and told she would be fine in a couple of days. she is now autistic. how am I meant to take dd2 along for her jabs? knowing that a)she is atincreased risk of reacting, and b) if she does react adversely, we will be on our own. again.

daftpunk, your guess is as good as mine.

In all seriousness, if the governement were to replicate Wakefield's original study (which stated that MMR was safe for the majority, but there is a minority who may be at risk, and more research is needed to identify that minority and devise a safe vaccine for them), then the answers would speak for themselves.

Richard Horton (editor of the Lancet) has stated, at the GMC trial that Wakefiled's study still stands, has not been discredited, and is good science (and he was onthe prosecution side). Yet this is unreported. why?

there are reports that are published that find no link bewteen MMR and autism. these we hear about all the time, but they are not investigating the subset of children which was originally shown to have issues with the MMr. they are investigating the majority who, as was stated originally, have no problem with the jab.

why will the governemnt not fund this one study? if they are so sure they are right, it would kill this argument once and for all. it would also save huge sums of money as they would not need to fund other sudies proving the non-link (which don't actually do that, as I said above), and would also have no need for the huge investment in "MMR is safe" propaganda.

I will never know what damaged my dd1. she was given a number of injections (some of which we expressly asked for her not to be given) at just 3 days old. She was bright and alert (well, as much as a newborn can be ) before them. she had feeding problems, and slept (literally) for a week after them, then was a very fussy and upset baby. She changed, and lost eye contact (yes, she did have eye contact - the first phtot I have of her she is gripping onto my fnger tightly and starig fiercely at me) for many months. But I am damned if I am going to give dd2 (who has a suspected mitochondrial disorder) any jabs until i can trust what I am told by doctors again (they recommend vaccinating dd2 despite the queries over the mitochondrail stuff because "it hasn't been proven that she does have the disorder". No. and it hasn't been proven that she doesn't. It's a risk i am not willing to take, but doctors ridicule me for it.)

Silverfrog

This isnt a topic that I know much about, but if there is a link as onvious to people as you suggest, why wouldnt it be investigated.

It isnt up to the government to fund this sort of research, I suspect the amount of research that is directly government funded must be minimal.

Why are no autism specific organisations funding it? Or the MRC? Or a drug company. Surely there would be big money in proving an MMR/autism link and then selling a safe vaccine that you invent, or even possibly identifying a way of lessening the symptoms of someone already affected.

Why would pharmaceutical companies fund research which could prove that multiple numbers of their products have damaged thousands of children?

Where would the money for independent research come from?

Proof of a link would be catastrophic for manufacturers and governments around the world.

There are a number of small organisations that carry out this research. But some autism charities have links to pharmaceutical companies. This is an area I will have to look into further to find links.

I agree with Silverfrog about the reporting of effects etc. Ds1's medical records state that he "suffered a mild adverse reaction" to the DTP. In reality he stopped breathing - twice. If that's mild then I don't know what would have to happen for it to be taken seriously.

When ds1 stopped breathing after the 1st set, we trusted the medical professionals who assured us that it was a coincidence or perhaps even a reaction to something in the room rather than the vaccine. We agreed to him having the 2nd set under observation in the hospital. Even when it happened again we were initially given the 'reaction to something in the room' line. Fortunately for us, the doctor responsible for ds1's case said that he had seen a similar case elsewhere and that it had been caused by the whooping cough element of the vaccine. He agreed that under no circumstances should ds1 be given the rest of the course of DTP and that he should have the diptheria and tetanus separately. That option is no longer available for ds1 and other children like him. It's now all or nothing, just like the MMR is.

silverfrog;

i am really sorry to hear about your dd, but what injections was she given at 3 days old?

not the MMR?

and i agree with 27, why is this research not being funded by other interested parties.?

If they are so concerned about this 'unprecedented' rise in measles cases then maybe the DoH should make single vaccines easier to access for those that want them. Whether they agree with the science or not there is a lack of confidence in MMR and it's not going to go away in the very near future.

These are individual businesses though, if one thought they could get an advantage over the others I doubt they would hold back.

Wikipedia says that in the US 36% of medical research is government funded. I couldnt find a UK figure.

When impressive circumstantial evidence is presented a child who reached milestones and regressed it continues to be waved away with talk of "coincidence". Adverse events are not recorded. One doctor who took parents seriously was Andrew Wakefield and look what happened to him.

I have read (admittedly on the internet -- so flame me) accounts from parents of autistic children with gut disorders who have problems finding a doctor in Britain who will attempt to treat the gut problem because of the controversy.

erm, have you seen what's happened to wakefield? for publishing something he thought was interesting and needed more investigation?

he has been hounded out of his job and home (now works in the USA).

it is not possible to even suggest that the MMR is unsafe, for even the tiniest minority of children. you are ignored at best, or thought to be a loon.

I have a lovely letter from my dd2's paed, which states very clearly that I am persisting at putting her at risk (amongst other things). He declined to comment on the Hannah Poling case.

If I cannot even have a sensible discussion with him about it, why on earth would I blindly take his advice? (I am quite happy to listen to sensible discussion, i just don't like the "safe for all" message. It isn't.)

if the government had spent even a fraction of what it has spent on shoring up the increasingly dodgy-looking MMR (mumps efficacy rates anyone? is there an explanationfor why those most at risk of mumps are student heading off to university now, when they were all MMR'd (introduced in 1989 I believe) as there was no question as to it's safety then?) on "disproving" this apparently ridiculous claim (of not being safe for all) then there would be no problem - faith in the MMR would be restored and rates of uptake would increase again.

But while all this avoiding the issue goes on, then I'm not taking somebody's word for it, when they won't take family medical history into account.

the research is being funded in the US, but not here. Wakefield is still doing research in the US.

daftpunk, no dd1 wasn't given the MMR at that time. we lived abroad, and without searching out her medical records, i couldn't possibly list them all.

typhoid was there, and TB, and hep B. alongside other run of the mill baby jabs.

my position on jabs is that the are all not as safe as they are made out to be. dd2 is completely unvaccinated, and will remain so until I can be sure that she will not be damged.

strangely, even thoguh my GP agrees totally with why I have not vaccinated dd2, we are still sent MMR reminders constantly. they are happy that she hasn't been given any other jab, but are very keen to see that she gets the MMR

The research is being done in the US.

A child has been compensated for developing autism after vaccination. There are thousands of other children awaiting a decision.

My cautionary tale of horror: we had dd given single vaccines at our own expense for Measles, mumps and rubella, and also the boosters.

Took her to GP surgery for the DTP booster. The nurse GAVE her the MMR booster at the same time WITHOUT ASKING FOR MY CONSENT! Ths is possibly the most angry I've ever been in my entire life. Don't think she did it to thwart my inconvenient stance. She just didn't ask.

Am glad to say dd is now fine.

As for Wakefield, maybe you guys have seen The Insider? Tobacco company hides research linking smoking with cancer? There are very powerful vested interests here. Barely a doctor doing research isn't in hock to pharmaceuticals. Imagine how much the drug guys would have to pay out if the link with autism was established... all that expensive care... Point is that Wakefield's hypothesis hasn't been disproven, and as long as it hasn't, I chgoose the single vaccines.

stuffit - my gp is reluctant to take dd1's bowel issues seriously (and by connection, dd2's - even though she has not had MMR and is NT so far)

he is very sypathetic about symptoms etc, but cannot suggest a way to help either of them.

so no interest in finding out what they might react to, or even how serious the issue might be (dd1 is not great at telling us about pain. she can sya she is in pain, but we cannot tell how serious it is)

I agree with others that have asked why research isn't ongoing into this? I'm not dismissive of the idea that a small minority of children are badly affected by vaccinnes including the MMR. I had to really grit my teeth when I had ds vaccinated thats for sure.

However, I find it hard to believe that the government and health professionals would knowingly choose to put children at risk. Some politicians are twats admittedly but they aren't all bad surely? Ditto the health profession.

Maybe I'm just naieve but I genuinely believe that they think MMR is the safest option. I can see why pharma companies wouldn't be up for funding reseach into alternatives but someone must be surely?

The whole thing is very troubling.

Silverfrog - I am a very pro MMR GP but I would go back again to your GP and get your first child seen again with their bowel issues. Autistic children very commonly have bowel issues (a bit like IBS: diarrhoea, "intolerance" type symptoms) and any decent paediatrician - but especially one who specialises in autism/allergy - whould be able to help. Dr Mike Tettenborn (cons paed) at the Frimley Children's Centre is particularly hot on this if you're anywhere near him. I can also get you a contact on the south coast, though for the moment I've forgotten his name.

Who, peanut, who?

RachePache - thanks

all I get form my gp is "yu obviously know more about this than me, so i'm not sure how I can help you"

this has been in answer to:

help with dietary issues (have already had dd1 Sunderland tested, and would have liked info on balanced diet minus gluten and dairy)

info on medications (no flavourings or sweetners for dd1 - she reacts to everyhting) and also as to whether tablets have been bulked out with dairy

help finding a paed to take dd2's issues seriously (he really did sit there and say I had to do the research and find someone myself, and then he would happily write a referral. because lists of docs specialising in autism related mitochondrial disorders are sooo easy to come by)

dd1 is doing ok (as is dd2), but it wold be nice to have someone onside. It can get a little overwhelming at times, doing it all on your own

agree with saggars: the government has resisited so many calls to make single vaccinations available and therefore has only itself to blame if the measles outbreak is a result of MMR fear.

both my dds had sep vaxes; we had the money. How many other parents DON'T have the money? they are £100 a shot and rising.

When I was trying for dd1 we had just moved area and I registered with a new GP practice. They tested me for rubella immunity - I was immune. However I was glibly informed I would have to have the full MMR if I hadn't been. That makes me really angry.

because donnie, if they made single vaccines available they would be admitting there might be some truth in the MMR/autism link....when there isn't.

wasabipeanut

There is a book by John Diamond called "Snake Oil" That has a good (and very funny) chapter where he talks about conspiracy theories in medicine

daftpunk - have you read about Hannah Poling? She regressed into autism following MMR

It has been admitted that MMR is not safe for all.

There has been a judgemnet.

all that remains is to thrash out how many more people have been affected.

none of this has been reported clearly in the UK can't think why not