'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.

cote, they have he MMRV in America aleady - it has caused some problems and the US authorities took the unusual step of saying that there was no benefit to having the MMRV as opposed to the MMR and varicella separately. this is a safetly cop out - basically they don't want to advocate the MMRV too strongly because there have been quite a few probs with it.

thimerasol never in MMR and no longer in infant jabs. i'd go for singles in your shoes
traceybath.

because of the history silverfrog; if the government felt it had to introduce single vaccines (and what would they say the reasons were?) that would lead to a lack of confidence in the MMR...do you not see what i'm saying.

i mean thimerosal

wel they took thimerosal out of infant jabs, and made OPV into IPV, all the whilst saying 'the previous jabs were perfectly safe but...'

FairLady< I agree. But that has lead to this ridiculous rearguard action, because god forbid the MMR should be found to be damaging in any way - the payouts will end up costing far more.

ruty, I know . I have lost count of the number of times doctors have tried to save me form myself (and of course, save my dds from me!). dd2's current paed has stated I am negleting her needs by keeping her on a low fat diet. She is dairy-free due to gluten and casein insensitivities, and of course calories can only come from dairy foods

froginmythroat;

i could of had single vaccines, (fortunately i could afford them)...but i trust the health professionals & went with the MMR.

someone mentioned Mike Tettenborn at Frimley Hospital earlier on thread. He really is the guy to see about gluten/dairy and the gut silverfrog if you're anywhere near there...

I actually think it might be helpful at this point if the UK govt discontinued MMR and switched to single vaccinations (though that isn't ideal as it's more jabs and more distress for the child, and of course leaves longer for vatching diseases) - because then we could see once and for all if MMR causes autism or anything else. We could compare autism figures before and after the switch and see if there was any difference and this debate could be put to bed.

Of course that is exactly what happened in Japan and there was no difference - autism continued to rise along the exact same curve as before (suggesting the rise is caused by other factors).

catching arrgh why don't I preview

daftpunk - why do you do what your GP says rather than read original research? GPs are not experts - they aren't supposed to be.

but daftpunk, you said earlier:

who would go with the MMR then, risk takers?

because that's how i'd see it....

"oh we have the single vaccines for the more discerning parent..but we still offer the MMR for those who throw caution to the wind"...

why would your view change just because you were not paying for the singles? I really am mystified by this.

If you could have had the singles, but didn't, as you think the MMr is fine - why would that view change because the gov were offering both the singles and MMR? And why would the majority of people's views change on this?

I think the majority (possibly after an initial reaction) would stick with the MMR. Less hassle, less pain fo rchildren ( imo, but then I'm comparing the pain of 3 jabs with the pain of gut issues and autism) etc.

snowleopar when they did that study in Japan, they administered the 3 seperate jabs on the same day instead of spaced out - same as giving MMR, so the comparison was not valid.

snowleopard - we would never be able to 'compare figures' because figures are usually misrepresented anyway.....so that we see only what fits the government's agenda.

well electra, i kinda expect him to know a bit more about medicine than i do.... crazy of me i know...

snowleopard...I think what really is needed is independent research and research into riskfactors and determining which factors will increase risk of vaccine damage...iykwim!
Btw, my children all have had the MRR, and for us that was the right decision (as far as I can tell).
But some people like Cote, Jimjam, et al really have opened my eyes to possible vaccine risks and they obviously have done there research very well.

My own theory is, that most children will be perfectly fine having the mrr, but that some children will have adverse reactions and I can understand why therefore some parents find the risk of having the mrr to big to take...

must admit, I distrust Doctors etc...to a certain extent...

my gp was shocked when i told him dd1 was autistic.

so not only did he not notice - dd1 was non-verbal, and very clearly autistic - but he had also failed to read reports from her paed.

why on earth would I think he had read all the latest research on jabs, if he can't even keep up to date on his own patients?

Singles should be available anyway because some parents disagree with the public health madness that is vaccinating infant girls for rubella and infant boys for mumps.

Japan study flawed and dubious due to conflict of interest issues.

I asked once if the antiD jab contains mercury and no-one in the maternity unit was able to tell me.

The nurse who originally came to inject me initially thought I was a total loon for suggesting that it might be a possibility. She didn't have a clue what I was talking about.

because silverfrog, the government would only introduce single vaccines after consultations with every heath organistion known to man.

Beachcomber - My obstetrician told me that anti-D wasnt a blood product

GPs are just not in a position to give the latest, up to date information - it isn't their job to do that. It isn't their fault - their role in to be a first port of call for any problems one may encounter. To be fair, some are very very good. But they usually won't have read original research papers on, for example the Wakefield stuff - and why would they?