Measles outbreak and MMR vaccinations: live webchat with Department of Health director of immunisation Professor David Salisbury, Tuesday 9 April, 2-3pm

[GeraldineMumsnet]

In light of the measles outbreaks in South Wales and higher than average levels of measles in some areas of England, and concerns reflected in MNers' discussions, we've invited Professor David Salisbury, the government's director of immunisation, back to MN to be our webchat guest tomorrow, Tuesday 9 April, at 2pm.

Please post any questions you have about the MMR vaccine for your children, or yourself, to Professor Salisbury.

Thank you.

Normally they come on and explain if something is deleted because it makes a poster identifiable and tbh it us the posters choice to divuldge info or not.

saintly I will tbh its more mumps I am concerned about with found boys, the eldest two are 13 and almost 11 so at an age where it would not be good to get it. The others are 8,5 and dd is 27mths. I feel she is too young but if in have the other four vaccinated and not her worry about putting her at more risk. And one of the children in ds4's re option class had measles before easter and was in hospital. We are not in an outbreak area.

Its mainly that I reacted badly and have crappy immune system and ds1 reacted badly to the first immunizations so the others haven't has any. My gp was supportive and helped us make an informed choice. We are now with a new go surgery and they haven't been happy at the non vaccinated status so I don't feel they will be great to talk to tbh.

I really hope there is a reasonable explanation. I'm not sure I can stay here if there isn't :(

I have reported an earlier post of mine asking for an explanation so HQ should be aware that some of us are wondering.

Oh that's a shame 5mad. But I do know what you mean - our last GP was brilliant, current ones not so much. Could you request a referral to an immunologist? Is that what they're called? You sound as if you have ago of reason for one.

*a good

Four boys not found.

And yes I might but I can just imagine the eye rolling I will get...

Its a minefield would much rather stick my head in the sand and ignore it but couldn't live with myself if I did

'Hornig found the measles virus in one healthy control and one autistic child! I will read the Bustin chapter now. I found his initial testimony quite comprehensive, but it is a while since I read the Cedillo transcripts..."

It was unfortunately a very small study, and as they admitted a very different group of participants.

Lol at sand sticking - no whatever you decide it has to be something you can live with. That was the best bit of advice I ever got actually - 'you have to do what you can live with'.

I have heard very good reports of inmunologists (is that what they're called - it sounds wrong & I can't goole atm) so it might be worth it if you can bear the eye rolling :)

*immu etc not inmu

Pluserix, the study was well large enough with 25 kids to detect the huge rate of measles virus occurrence that Wakefield and colleagues reported. Bustin's explanation on how samples must have been contaminated are very logical (I do speak PCR though) so the easiest explanation (apart from "it was all a lie") is a laboratory contamination. I read the Bustin article just now and it is not as "lay suitable" as his Cedillo testimony but it says the same thing, maybe read either?

Also very disappointed with the unexplained deletions. Why can we not have an open debate about this matter? Children have been compensated for MMR damage, and many parents feel they have not been listened to, and their children's sudden changes in health after the MMR have been brushed off as coincidence. For this reason I feel very uncomfortable about trusting any data about efficacy or safety. I'm not one for conspiracy theories but too much pharmaceutical money is at stake in this matter for the debate to be open and reasonable, and too many public health decisions are taken based on research funded by those same companies. Please allow an open debate MNHQ

The concept of herd immunity is a total myth, herd immunity has never been scientifically proven nor studied.
How many of the affected in Swansea have been fully vaccinated? The MMR vaccine is unsafe and like all vaccines it is not 100% effective.
If you study the history of childhood diseases you will see quite clearly that the mortality and incidence of these diseases declined by as much as 95% prior to vaccination. This was due to improved sanitation, nutrition etc. I would suggest anyone interested should research Antoine BeChamp and his take on the germ theory.
Also look at the following website, www.informedparent.co.uk, lots of excellent info there.
Whatever you do, ensure you make an informed decision, don't give in to scaremongering.

Where have vaccines posts gone?

Is there any argument for leaving the MMR until later, as I've heard a few times on here? If this is something people do, can they please explain to me why this would be and how it might be safer to do this?

I ask as a genuine question.

does anyone know if the single vaccines before mmr were known to cause any probs, why did they change to mmr?

Has anyone heard from MNHQ why the majority of Vaccines posts have been deleted?

It is an emotive topic, but one that we are all entitled to have our opinions on.

Explanation please MNHQ.

slatternly - some models for the development of autism are 'time sensitive' so in other words there are critical periods of development (of the brain) where an environmental factor may have an effect, which might not be seen with exposure during a different developmental periods. These are models though so there isn't necessarily much evidence yet.

Leaving the MMR later does increase slightly the success of the measles component. It used to be given at 15-18 months and there is some evidence that it works slightly better at that stage. Although as more mothers now have vaccine induced immunity rather than infection induced immunity maternal antibodies are less likely to interfere with the infant's immune system (this is what usually causes the vaccine failure) and so 13 months is perhaps more likely to be effective.

I personally was never convinced by the move to 13 months from 15 months as the papers I have read don't really back this move up, but it may have been because babies were starting to be infected in higher numbers. It's the sort of question it would have been interesting to have answered today. It is a difficult one to get right as increasing the likelihood of the vaccine working by giving it later also increases the risk of having a susceptible baby without any immunity for longer.

I think vaccines is more entitled than most to have an opinion on the MMR as she identified herself as being a Lancet-12 mother. Shame MNHQ haven't provided an explanation. I didn't see her being rude or abusive.

I still really want to believe there is a reasonable explanation though, so maybe the absence of one is due to night shift taking over.

What is Lancet 12? I've Googled but it's quite unclear

Thank you saintly

The "Lancet 12" were the children in the original Wakefield publication. So one of the mothers was on the thread (being polite and non-abusive). She identified herself as such and shared her story (politely). Now all her posts have been deleted.

There may be a reasonable explanation.

Hi all,

We have a couple of new posters who are posting with links on a single issue and under normal circs, posts would be removed when reported and this has been done on this occasion in good faith.

However, we can see how this could be viewed as being a little over zealous, apologies. We are certainly not trying to silence critics.

did you actually read any of the posts, and wonder whether deleting them would be seen as silencing people with valid experience (I won't say critics because, tbh, it was a personal account borne out of experience)

I would not find it odd that a poster would be moved to join to ask questions of a guest such as David Salisbury. especially if they had questions such as the ones Vaccines posed.

weak explanation, imo.

"Pluserix, the study was well large enough with 25 kids to detect the huge rate of measles virus occurrence that Wakefield and colleagues reported. Bustin's explanation on how samples must have been contaminated are very logical (I do speak PCR though) so the easiest explanation (apart from "it was all a lie") is a laboratory contamination. I read the Bustin article just now and it is not as "lay suitable" as his Cedillo testimony but it says the same thing, maybe read either?"

No, the authors themselves did not claim this (passage I quoted), while demonstrating plausibility of the original findings (their findings including the two positive ones replicated across three laboratories), even endorsing them. It is obviously not the case that Wakefield had ever posited that this was sole cause of autism, but there might be a significant sub-group - the Royal Free team were locating many such patients.

I don't think there's much point in touting reputation (Bustin good, Wakefield bad etc.), the issue is just not resolved because it is a political hot potato.

Incidentally, since people go on about Wakefield making money it emerges from the Cedillo transcript that Bustin had received £225,000 in expert fees for the case before he got to the US.

@silverfrog

did you actually read any of the posts, and wonder whether deleting them would be seen as silencing people with valid experience (I won't say critics because, tbh, it was a personal account borne out of experience)

I would not find it odd that a poster would be moved to join to ask questions of a guest such as David Salisbury. especially if they had questions such as the ones Vaccines posed.

weak explanation, imo.

Yes you are right Silverfrog - it was an honest mistake but it was a bit kneejerk. Will see about getting those personal stories reinstated. Apologies once more. (Am really in the doghouse today)