Daily Mail U-turn on MMR (astounding hypocrisy)

[Babbity]

How the middle-class MMR refuseniks are putting every child at risk

Has the Mail forgotten their role in this?

Blimey.

(PS quite suprised this hasn't already been posted. I did do a search, but couldn't find anything.]

When you said about motives I assumed you were referring to the companies that offer the singles for money

Well, no one is a fan of preservatives...

I didn't know that MMJ. How can that be Ok?

Mind you I have enough mercury fillings to kill me off probably

Mercury is 'bad' because the body doesn't eliminate it. That is why we now try to keep exposure to a minumum, so that we do not overdose in the 80 years that we are on this planet. However, it is all a balancing of risks - the benefits of mercury (preservative and as a dental amalgam) and the drawbacks.

We used to play with mercury when I was at school. No such fun now.

I'd hold off vaccs totally hearing that, but am afraid he might catch something awful. Every parent's dilemma innit.

'Riven - the (live) oral polio vaccine isn't used any more - the polio component is inactivated in DTP/TP/DTPHib - so can't give you polio. '

My daughter was one of the children who took part in the trials to see whether the inactive polio component and 'new' version of diptheria component provided adequate immunity.

My father was a polio victim and is suffering greatly in later life, which is why I wanted to take part.

"Why should it be different..."

I could answer this and we could debate it forever, but the "why" isn't as important as the simple observation that MMR's effect on immune system is different than the several bacteria found on an old toy. A lot of children show a visible reaction to it, and an unfortunate few are very badly affected by it. MN is full of examples of adverse reactions to MMR, ranging from high fever and convulsions to regressions and permanent damage.

It is not bad science to request further investigation into which children are vulnerable, and it is not parental gullibility or ignorance to refuse giving MMR to our babies until these children are identified.

In fact, it is rational behaviour. As a person of scientific background, you should appreciate this paper on Vaccination and Game Theory. It is not easy reading if you have never studied Game Theory, but the conclusion is easy enough:

"This finding formalizes an argument that has previously been made qualitatively; namely, it is impossible to eradicate a disease through voluntary vaccination when individuals act according to their own interests. In situations where vaccination is perceived to be more risky than contracting the disease (r > 1), one would expect, even without the aid of a model, that no parents would vaccinate their children"

The symptoms of measles, mumps and rubella aren't particularly palatable either.

I had measles (twice), mumps, and rubella so do have an idea about how 'palatable' their symptoms are

Yes, I was quite ill with measles and mumps get, with high fever and aching ears in the case of the latter. Rubella was so mild that I didn't even know I had it until I tested immune when pregnant.

Out of the three, measles is the only one that can potentially be life-threatening. So if you are risk averse, give measles single vaccine to DC. (This is what I did)

Mumps is only really dangerous to post-puberty boys & adult men. So if you have a DS and he still hasn't had mumps by the time he is 9 or so, it would be a good idea to give him single mumps vaccine at that point.

Rubella is not dangerous to anyone except fetuses of non-immune pregnant women. Therefore, the only people who should consider rubella vaccination are girls of childbearing age who have not yet had rubella. A simple routine blood test at school should show who these girls are.

you have it all worked out, cote

"Mumps is only really dangerous to post-puberty boys & adult men." and if you're referring to the risk to their fertility, even then it's extremely rare that it would affect them in this way.

If you would care to point out the 'bad science' in what I have posted, I'm all ears. Eyes, even.

Yes, I was referring to possible (but as you said, very rare) side effect of infertility. It is not a risk for boys. Only a tiny risk if an adult man or a post-puberty boy is exposed to mumps for the first time.

I wondered myself why Rubella is routinely given to all babies when it used to be given to girls at the age of 12/13.

Because the goal is eradication of rubella, sally. As long as boys can still carry the disease, then it is never going to be eradicated. By immunising boys, there is a chance that rubella will disappear forever.

Won't another disease crop up in it's place then?

Give me something to get my teeth into, cote, instead of anecdotes (however close to your heart).

Why, Sally? Is rubella keeping another set of microbes at bay? I don't think it works like that.

Perfectly put believer07

I don't know tbh. I was just asking.

Was that link on Game Theory too complicated for you to get your 'teeth' into?

What I said in last post wasn't even complicated. If your teeth don't even get into what I said there, do you then agree that there is no valid reason to vaccinate all children for two diseases that can only possibly be dangerous for an easily defined subset?