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.]

Grim, that view assumes that you are happy with the consequences of the various illnesses..
Not many people are, nowadays.

I have a couple of genuine (and possibly dumb ass) questions - when thinking about single vaccines, I was put off by reading they were preserved in mercury & so would be giving HeatedJunior 3x doses which might in itself be dangerous. Is that no longer/never been the case?

I buy into the argument of the greater good which is why mine are vaccinated (my hb would totally agree with scienceteacher), protecting those who are vulnerable, such as the immunosuppressed. Yet actually I do wonder whether there is a trade-off? For instance there is a rise in auto-immune conditions and allergies, is that because our immune systems have been played around with as children? (sorry for the non-scientific jargon!) or maybe , to give another example, how one disease can protect against another, e.g. sickle cell sufferers are resistant to malaria.

Well it is true that measles is devastating to new communities and relatively benign to ours because of many years of co-evolution.

It's something that can't be suggested though. Measles does have a high morbidity and can have profound effects (my Mum is deaf in one ear from measles- and not it's a complicated issue because the last time I said anything to her about ds2 and ds3 and measles vaccination she said and I quote 'don't you vaccinate those children' - having of course sent me merrily off with ds1 ). More is known about measles treatments now (IV retinol being the one of choice - certainly for the malnourished- and quite probably for the well nourished)

Personally I do worry abut lack of early adult booster. 20% of measles cases are in adults now. Is that because of vaccination immunity wearing off?? Perhaps. Is anyone looking? But I think that would be a step too far for most.

This has been an interesting thread and I have enjoyed reading it. However I feel I have to stand up to Science teacher who has been relentlessly polite and patient in the face of undeservd aggression and, yes, condescension.

I know people have strong feelings about this topic and that has come through in the posts so far, but perhaps not in the most constructive way possible

Heated, I don't know much about the theories behind vaccinations and autoimmune diseases.

Is there causality?

Are there epidemiological links?

But what we do have to square is the direct consequences of the actual diseases (eg encephalitis, deafness, etc) vs the perceived consequences of the vaccines.

No they're not preserved in mercury. They can't be as they're live vaccines.

Greater good fine, providing a) yours isn't the one affected (and if they are- perhaps worth thinking twice before going for the siblings who share 50% of the genes) b) there's a good compensation arrangement in place (their isn't- for example if your child does from a vaccine before the age of 2 you get nothing, zilch, and if they live but need lifelong care you get a woefully inadequate amount).

Yes interesting questions about autoimmunity etc. It's not well understood. Lots and lots of interesting stuff about autoimmunity and guts and gut flora. There was a good general paper on autoimmunity and guts in Gut journal (high impact factor journal) published at the end of 2006 (Nov I think). Weirdly it was very like Wakefield's hypothesis!

scienceteacher has been quite rude to me I feel. I didn't particularly appreciate being told I must talk to freaks.

there isn't and dies of course.

I need an edit facility for typos.

"Grim, that view assumes that you are happy with the consequences of the various illnesses..
Not many people are, nowadays."

Nor are people happy with what they perceive to be the consequences of vaccination not least the dismissal of their experiences as purely 'anecdoctal'.

To not admit (as U.S. courts have done) that vaccines can and do damage people merely adds to the anti vaccine camp. Nothing is infallible.

What scienceteacher has been is amazingly resistant to facts.

And no, I didn't appreciate being called 'stroppy' and angry, among other things.

You would hope a "science teacher" would have researched the facts before forming opinions, and would be able to discuss the issue at hand without personal attacks, but hey, not many people are who they say they are on the internet.

Hypocrisy in the Daily Mail??

Never(!) You're kiddking?

Hmm, well, we'll let the facts speak for themselves.

We have. And you have not so far come up with any real response.

You seem to have learned that the goal in MMR administration is not eradication, though. Which is a start.

Well I've stuck to quoting from peer reviewed journals, and conference papers (not so vigorous, but hey they're not going to have the crystal healers presenting) which aren't necessarily 'facts' I agree but I suspect they demonstrate the complexity of the situation.

The govt's own latest stats say that 80% of those infected with measles recently in England and Walee were unvaccinated.

So 20% were. That's 1 in 5. That contradicts all their other propaganda.

Plus the belief in herd immunity has no scientific proof. It's a myth - more propaganda. Prove it. Yes, thought so, you can't.

If folks believe in vaccination then why are they so worried about letting their kids mix with the great unwashed unvaccinated!!!

I think this thread explains the dilemma so many parents experience. Govt and official health bodies in this country, and abroad, say that the MMR is safe, yet there are so many parents we read about in the press (certainly I've read posts by MN members) who know or suspect their children have been vaccine-damaged. It's hard to refute what they've experienced and then I wonder if there is some 'cover-up' or refusal to admit a hard-truth: that some children should never have the MMR - but of course the Q is which children? There is that uncomfortable feeling of Russian roulette with your children's health. Trying to access impartial information feels impossible.

Heated- exactly - but the good thing is that research is being done - you won't be told about it, but it's going ahead. In the main because parent autism bodies in the States have become very wealthy so they are able to attract really high profile researchers to examine the questions they want answered.

Autism Speaks for example (although controversial as an organisation at times) is funding a fair bit of research into various aspects of autism and vaccinations.

and this research group, which again was originally parent funded. Again looking at research questions that parents want funded.

whatnot If folks believe in vaccination then why are they so worried about letting their kids mix with the great unwashed unvaccinated!

I am pro vaccination, and I am worried when my too-young-for-vaccinations child has to mix with unvaccinated older children. Once my children had their first MMR I breathed a huge sigh of relief, as I knew that there was a good chance (90%+) that they will never suffer from M/M/R.

scienceteacher I admire your persistence, but I have learnt that it's largely pointless to argue with those who are utterly convinced that MMR/vaccinations in general are dangerous. Those who have a scientific background and particularly those who have postgrad training in epidemiology and who therefore understand both the scope and the limitations of clinical trials, and the concepts of numbers needed to harm, RCTS/cohort studies vs case-control etc - are almost without exception pro vaccination. Just today I spent some time with friends, both scientists, who have a son who is autistic. They happily (and indeed with some relief) vaccinated their second child with MMR, as they, like me, are happy to accede to the worldwide scientific consensus on the MMR's safety.

As I've stated above, however, despite my feelings which are staunchly pro vaccination, I remain convinced that if parents want to refuse to vaccinate, or go for single vaccines, then that must be their idividual choice (but I do not believe that the NHS should fund alternatives in these cases).

Suffer from rubella? Rubella often goes unnoticed in children.

Mumps is can be symptomless too or often very mild.

Measles can be complicated.

I don't believe that rubella and mumps are big killers. And I simply won't give my children what I see as an unnecessary vaccination until they are 12 or so. I'll think about the measles vaccine.

If something untoward does happen as a result of the vaccine, you think the medical establishment would help me? Nope, it would be dismissed as a coincidence.

Chicken pox can be fatal in adults who have not caught the infection in childhood. I don't really know where I stand on it being introduced as part of the childhood vaccination programme though.
I was given the chicken pox vaccine and massive doses of anti-viral drugs when DS caught chicken pox because I was not immune. I got chicken pox and was absolutely covered but had a milder dose in that I felt reasonably well throughout - I had "missed the boat" in terms of the vaccine which has to be given within a few days of exposure but the anti-virals did their job and I am now immune thankfully.

As for MMR I did a lot of reading before immunising DS but got it done in the end becuause I just couldn't find anything to suggest that he would not be fine with it. Some of the anti MMR studies were very dubious in my opinion. Wild measles doesn't produce such an effective immune response as the MMR strain. DS was and remains fine.
Mumps rarely kills but was a leading cause of viral meningitis in children prior to vaccination - and yes I am aware that viral meningitis is often "better" than bacterial meningitis. Rubella is well known to cause problems for the babies of non-immune pregnant women and I can see the public health reasoning for people to be vaccinated whether they be male or female.

HOWEVER - I subscribe to the view that every parent has to make their own decision with regard to vaccination and no matter what studies are wheeled out they will not be convinced. I made the decision to give the MMR to my DS - another parent may decide differently and that's their prerogative.

It is also worth bearing in mind with regard to "overloading the immune system" theory that you expose a child to far more antigens every time someone sneezes in their vicinity than in all the antigens given in the ENTIRE immunisation programme but nobody argues that sneezing near a child causes autism.

That does NOT mean that I don't believe somebody who thinks that their child is damaged by vaccine - simply that I don't believe it was caused by overloading the immune system.

Am off now . Enjoy the discussion folks.

[JP wanders off and reminds herself NEVER to get into the MMR discussions - it all gets too stressful and opinionated]

"it's largely pointless to argue with those who are utterly convinced that MMR/vaccinations in general are dangerous"

You have misunderstood what is being said here.

I don't think vaccinations are dangerous in general. I don't even think MMR is dangerous for the vast majority of children.

However, it seems that a small percentage of children are gravely and irrevocably damaged by MMR. And until that small subset is identified, it is entirely rational for parents to decide against vaccinating their babies with MMR - especially since two out of these three diseases are not even particularly dangerous to children.

You can hold the view that all those parents are deluded, poor souls who have to blame their DC's misfortune on MMR, and the doctors who support them are all crooks.

Personally, I am not prepared to dismiss obviously intelligent & articulate people like jimjam/yurt and pagwatch who have very seriously researched this field as ignorant and emotional mums who blame MMR because they just don't know any better.