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.]

Depends what your public health goal is. If it is eradication, for the benefit of your subset, then you need to go for the whole population.

Why do you think the human race should eradicate rubella, a disease so mild that a lot of people don't even notice it?

How exactly do you think rubella will be eradicated through MMR, given that most of the world (including Russia and most of Africa) doesn't even use this particular vaccine?

The point about rubella is that it is not a mild illness to the embryo of a susceptible mother. That is the whole point of eradicating rubella. The ethics of compulsory arm-twisting vaccination are dodgy because you are asking people to be vaccinated for the benefit of others (the unborn) - it is altruistic rather than selfish.

There is no point in getting stroppy with me, Cote. I am the just the monkey, not the organ grinder. I am just explaining that rationale as I see it, from an objective point of view.

scienceteacher I think you need to read some of the peer reviewed papers before pronouncing single jabs less effective. Studies have shown them to be more effective (although for measles some of that increase in efficacy may come from the timing of the jab). Monovalent mumps is clearly more effective. Just do a search on pubmed.

I'm all ears about the motivations of those suggesting single jabs (i assume you mean Wakefield).. I hope you haven't bought into the Brian Deer claptrap - a long plough through reports on the GMC hearing answer all his supposed challenges. In many cases with the refutals being provided by the 'opposition'.

No-one has ever asked me whether ds2 and ds3 are vaccinated, so I'm not sure how anyone would know they're not. I kind of think that's the business of us and (to a lesser extent) their doctors. Their doctors have to date been supportive.

incidentally ds1 caught rubella from a vaccinated child - whilst he didn't pass it onto anyone (mother of vaccinated child assumed incorrectly her child couldn't have rubella because he'd had the vaccination. We knew ds1 had been exposed and stayed in).

I don't need to read anything, mrs turnip. My children are all fully vaccinated to the max of both the UK and USA recommendations. I am content.

The point is that you can't eradicate anything through MMR, a vaccine that is not in use in most of the world. Do you intend to bar a billion Chinese from traveling into the UK? What about Russians? No MMR there, either. Ditto Turks, most Asians and Africans.

Now you are repeating what I said: That rubella is only ever dangerous to the fetus of non-immune pregnant woman.

What you don't get is that vaccinating the entire human race is a very inefficient, not to mention unreasonable, way of protecting that fetus. All you need to do is test pre-pubescent girls and vaccinate those who are not immune.

They managed with smallpox. It is not an impossible goal.

I was suggesting you read more in order to stop making incorrect statements, that's all.

It's an impossible goal for something like mumps as the vaccine is not effective enough. (completely overestimated how effective it was before introduction) and now they're totally stuffed up because adults get it as immunity wears off. So rather than being a childhood illness (in children it's asymptomatic in a third of cases and mild in almost all the rest) it's now changing into an adult illness.

Do you have a problem with English comprehension?

Smallpox vaccination was a global effort.

MMR is not in use in most of the world - China, Russia, most of Africa, most of Asia don't have MMR.

Please don't make me say all this again.

touche, turnip

Just a warning is not to listen to the last freak that you talked to

Maybe MMR should be a global effort then.

Don't take your anger out on me, cote

similar to hib. Introduced to great fanfare of 'one jab for life' then whoops it was found to last less than 2 years hence the booster. It was usual to develop hib immunity by 5, gawd knows what will happen now. Lets hope the new introduced booster does the lifelong job.

should be more* of a global effort, baby steps and all.

Wey, hey for cynicism, turnip!

scienceteacher, I read peer reviewed papers. And attend international autism conferences. You seem to have mistaken me for someone else.

Or are you disagreeing about the mumps single vaccine efficacy? It even says that mumps vaccine effectiveness was originally overestimated on the dept of health website (although they haven't quoted the papers showing a really low rate).

I don't doubt that vaccinations have done some wonderful things at a population level. But that doesn't make them above scrutiny.

Why do people go on about the MMR so much wrt to bombarding the immune system, but not the injections given at 2/3/4 months where there are several vaccines given at once,not just 3?

Dd had an awful reaction to these jabs but not a sausage with the MMR. This has always puzzled me, or is it just that no really adverse reactions have occured with these vaccines?

Anyway, global MMR wouldn't work. Mumps effectiveness is not high enough, nor is rubella. Measles is more effective but measles is so virulent that the vaccine isn't effective enough to eradicate measles. There have been outbreaks in 100% vaccinated populations (search on pub med - there's a paper with a title similar to that).

Of course doesn't mean that people shouldn't choose to vaccinate against measles, but does suggest that there may be other more effective ways to increase global health than chase the impossible.

Because, BLD, it is a red herring. The body is very able to deal with a bombardment of microbes - everything we eat, touch, breathe - every minute of every day.

oh plenty of people do blackletter. Just not in the media so much in the UK. In the states there was more of a hoohah over the thimerosal that used to be in the DTP than there ever was over (thimerosal free) MMR. I do know plenty of people who have refused vaccinations for subsequent children following reactions from the early jabs.

I'm not 'angry', just as I'm not 'stroppy'. This is not about me, but your feeble grasp on the facts.

Let's take it slowly.

Now that you have learned that MMR is not a global effort, and in fact isn't used in most of the world, do you understand that eradication is not the goal in its administration by the NHS?

Difference between a pathogenic microbe and a random non pathogenic microbe.

Anyway the MMR theory relates to a particular subset of children. Not any old random child. Yes take a random child and almost certainly they will shrug off the MMR with barely a second glance. The issue isn't about those children.

But eradication is a world goal (WHO?) Why on earth would the NHS be at odds with the WHO?

Really, there is no reason to be so cynical (nad consequently, condescending).

I have btw sat in a room full of researchers talking about the immune system and autism (in many cases of autism the immune system is very unusual- google MIND or university of california davis, they're doing lots of work on the immune system and autism) and heard a number mention the dreaded vaccinations in various forms as potential triggers for various different pathways. There are other suggestions for a role for vaccinations (and natural viral infections) triggering autism that just Wakefield's. This work is being carried out by people who would be broadly in favour of vaccination (as is Wakefield) they're just interested in their subgroup.

The jury is still very much out in the scientific community, despite whatever you've read. Probably like everything to do with autism it will turn out to be incredibly complex. But then 'autism' is many things - not just one disorder- so not surprising really.

If you are being intentionally difficult, please stop. It's getting late in my time zone.

Eradication is obviously not a "world goal", since there is no global MMR vaccination. How many different ways can I say this?

Cross your fingers and pray for a miracle. That is your only chance of eradicating rubella with no MMR in China, Russia, most of Asia, Africa, etc.

Is lifelong immunity rather than pursuing eradication not preferable? After all, the majority would be fine after catching measles, mumps and rubella. This is the argument used for vaccines - that it's ok for the majority therefore you are irresponsible not to vaccinate.

Has our immune system not evolved to cope with various diseases just as it has to cope with all the germs that it encounters every day? Is it not part of having an immune system?