Jump to content


Big Rise in measles - thanks anti-vaccination activists

Recommended Posts

;4652309']http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/jan/12/autism-screening-health

 

Just a thought for all of you irresponsible and non evidenced based reactionary parents out there. I feel terribly sorry for any parent of an autistic child but MMR was not the cause of your childs condition. :(

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article5683671.ece

 

What I find most heartening about people like you, Matt, is how you 'feel terribly sorry' just after having brandished me an 'irresponsible and non-evidenced based reactionary parent'.

 

And this is why I shut off to what I consider to be bully boy tactics. If you can't convince me with facts, then bully me with insults.

 

Well, consider this before you nail your view to the mast and claim MMR was not the cause of my childs autism.

 

1. Do you know absolutely and without any doubt, what did cause my child's autism?

 

No, then how can you claim MMR did not cause it. You can only claim it based in the evidence thus far, what is currently known and, let's be truthful, your own instinct. After all, science is not, er, an exact science. It is very often guesswork and judgement calls, based on evidence and other factors.

 

2. Penicillin is recognised as wonderful drug, a life-saving, life-presrving drug. Yet my wife is allergic to it. Go figure. Some people have allergies to stuff that others don't and, do you know what, very often no one can actually explain why.

 

3. Peanuts - I love them, although I have recently found I get terrible stomach pains when I eat them. Never did, but do now. For other people, eating peanuts or nuts in general is actually extremely dangerous.

 

Amazing! The little ol' peanut.

 

I suppose it just goes to show that, with all the knowledge and all the tests and all the evidence and all the trials and all the studies, sometimes the human body is just, unfathomable.

 

I have read evidence of possible hereditary genetic defects that could be 'triggered' by an unknown event. I have read that it could be something present in pregnancy - now, that is an interesting one, as I would assume, by the law of averages and the fact that, if MMR cannot possibly ever cause autism, the rule that something in pregancy could and would, therefore, repeat if both donors (mother and father) have further children. Well, I have a 13 year with autism (who had the MMR vaccine - I was a responsible parent back then) and I have two further children, boy and girl, who do not have autism (and did not have the MMR vaccine).

 

And I can assure you that both my partner and I were the sole donors of the sperm and the egg for all 3 of our children.

 

Is that an exact study? No, it is not - but it is a 'study' of sorts that I can refer to for any kind of 'pattern' and it sort of rocks the 'in pregnacy' theory (for, as far as I know, it is still a theory awaiting test results and verification).

 

But listen, if you are going to label me 'irresponsible' and a 'non-evidence-based, reactionary parent' fine, but dont waste you breath telling me how 'terribly you feel for me'.

 

I don't believe you and I certainly do not want your shallow, hollow sympathy.

 

How would you react if I said something like 'you know, I feel for you, you total a*hole!'

 

Because that's precisely how your 'sympathy' comes across to me.

Edited by jeremyjh1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A comment was made the other day that got me thinking over the weekend, about free eye checks and what should or should not be paid for on the NHS.

 

Well, in connection with the topic: Big rise in measles - thanks anti-vaccination activists, I feel compelled to add yet more of a response.

 

Firstly (and I would like to also point out how emotive and disgustingly vehement those in the 'triple is fine' camp are towards those who have a serious concern over the triple [but, sorry to disappoint, we are NOT anti-vaccination - we are seriously concerned about the triple MMR and it's potential side effects).

 

The argument is, once you remove the anger and bitterness, quick simple to understand. And let's forget about Wakefield and his 'study' (which is yet to be fully and completely rubbished) - there was a growing concern before his work that prompted his (and others) to research the possible link.

 

Anyway, to me it's simple; it's about children and immunisation against measles, mumps and rubella. It is NOT about being against vaccinations in general - it is about a specific vaccination and, possibly more widely, it's about multiple vaccinations given in one go.

 

The accusers use the emotive 'you don't care about your children' or, wider 'you are playing with the health of the nation'. Personally - and this will come across as selfish and, well, I suppose it is - I don't care about the health of the nation, I care about the well-being of my children as, I would bet, every responsible and caring parent would.

 

Single-dose vaccination was given in the past and, following whatever tests and studies, it was decided (for financial reasons) to combine the three vaccinations in to one. (Why stop a 3? Why not just immunize every child against every childhood illness in one go. Job done and them in their ivory towers can sleep peacefully?) Hmm. Anyway, any issue for another thread.

 

Now, forgive me if I get this wrong, but is not all medication for any person under the age of 16 free (at the point of need)? Are not eye tests for children free? Are not glasses for children free, if supplied by the NHS?

 

I am accused of being irresponsible, yet I am then told that I can either take the MMR (and stop being stupid), not take the MMR (and we really don't give a hoot what your reasons are as 'we' have already discredited you) or you can pay for the single-dose, if you can afford it and if you can find a doctor willing to do it.

 

Now, the single-dose measles, mumps, rubella vaccines are NOT experimental. Neither are they for adults (who do have to pay for their medicines unless they are exempt due to whatever reasons).

 

The govt hold me up in contempt because of my fears, clearly accuse me (me as in those parents in the same boat as I) of being irresponsible and playing with the health of the nation (oh, and by the way, the 'playing with the health of the nation angle opens up a whole other topic, so don't get me started on that one!!!) and yet they deny us the option of preventing all this 'irresponsibility' because...? Well, probably because they cannot admit defeat or being wrong or they can't back down or God knows.

 

If they were as concerned as they are about it, why not offer the alternative?

 

Surely, the most important issue is to immunise children against measles, mumps and rubella and not 'triple or nothing'. It is not a question of the govt and health advisers are right or Wakefield or whoever is wrong.

 

The fear - rightly or wrongly, justified or otherwise, evidence-based or just emtionally driven - for whatever reason, it is out there, it exists and it doesn't appear to be going away despite all the facts, figures, studies, accusations and insults.

 

You can either shout at the mountain to move or think of an alternative way to get to where you need to go - i.e. as close to 100% vaccination.

 

Fears are irrational - fear of spiders, fear of buttons, fear of open spaces and so on. Yet the fear of the potential after effects of the triple MMR is the one 'fear' that those who do not hold that fear can countenance.

 

For the record, I want my children vaccinated, but I am deeply fearful (having a child with autism) of the triple MMR. I have investigated the option of single vaccinations, but it is not only very hard to find a doctor willing to do this (that I trust - yep, fear again) and it is something that I cannot afford. And for those who say glibly 'but, surely you cannot put a price on the health of your children?' I reply, ok, I vaccinate singularly and I cannot then afford to feed my children properly, exposing them to potential malnutrician.

 

As the accusation was levelled at me in a previous post - would I want the NHS to divert much needed funds away from this or that treatment so as to fund the single dose vaccination, I say 'but it is alright for me to divert far less copious personal funds away from necessary day to day living so that you can sleep soundly in your ivory tower.

 

So, really, what is more important? To me, so the argument goes, it's vaccination. When I hear the arguments and the insults and lack of understanding, it's about money, self-preservation, doing it on the cheap.

 

Or, put it simply, it's all about health at as low a cost as possible (so, it's not actually about health now, is it - not if there was an alternative and there could be an alternative again, but it's too expensive to offer it)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets get one or too things straight, measles is NOT a killer disease. I am fed up with the pro MMR scaremongers trying to brianwash parents into believing that if they do not have the injection their children will die.

 

Yes it is an extremely unpleasant childhood disease.

Yes there CAN be complications in rare cases.

 

But for most children it was a normal part of growing up and childrens immune systems were all the stronger for it. I know because I, like the rest of my generation had it.

 

I'm not advocating non vaccination (mine were vaccinated singly) but i would urge any parent who was unsure, to hang fire and not to be frightened into having something done that they feel uncomfortable with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As to the comment previously about brain activity being linked to the things you put in your stomach being "suspect" what about all these studies showing that children with a healthy diet rich in vitamins, wholegrain etc being more intelligent and better able to concentrate in class than their junkfood fed classmates? What about the effect that changing the eating habits of children has on their concentration? Are you also rubbishing this research? To me this suggests that a link between diet and brain function is a distinct possibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's more than a distinct possibility, diet understandably has massive influence on all physiological functions, including those of the brain.

 

This is supported by many lines of research, in addition to good old common sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
That's an excellent link.

 

:thumbsup:

And here's another one. Does an excellent job of summarising the current situation, and how Wakefield et al were exposed.

 

It's particularly relevant - in light of a more recent publication - to be reminded of the details concerning the PCR experimental procedures:

PCR expert Stephen Bustin testified about the shoddy methods at the laboratory used to do the PCR on the colon biopsies. In brief, the laboratory used was set up such that cross contamination between the plasmids used to maintain the measles virus sequences and the area where the PCR was done. PCR is very sensitive; if there is contaminating plasmid sequence, it is very easy to amplify and detect it even when there is nothing in your samples. Indeed, I've experienced this very problem on occasion in my own lab. Unfortunately, in the case of Wakefield's research, no controls were done to make sure that contamination was detected in the negative controls.

Its [the 2008 paper's] conclusion could not be more strongly worded: "This study provides strong evidence against association of autism with persistent MV RNA in the GI tract or MMR exposure." The authors discuss the fact that their results differ from the original O'Leary-Sheils' study and provide a long list of explanations for the discrepancy, but, surprisingly, exclude differences in experimental technique as the reason. It takes no scientific knowledge at all to realise that the reason for this discrepancy is that O'Leary and Sheils have taken exceptional care over their experimental protocols and improved their expertise so that contamination no longer affects their results. Clearly, O'Leary and Sheils have changed their mind on this subject and the expectation now is that both will publicly retract their 2002 publication.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Parents are not to be blamed for this - the blizzard of conflicting information early in the scare did not allay fears, and it is squarely the fault of the reporting media for ignoring the science and trading on fear, because fear sells papers, whereas scientific abstracts presented in lay terms do not.

 

So a parent who reads something in a paper and then goes against the advice of their GP is not at all to blame?

 

Treatment can be forced on children whose parents disagree. There are ethical standards there, for let’s say blood transfusions.

 

When it can cause problems for other children, aren’t the ethical ramifications greater?

 

Obvious the media are guilty as charged, but they do not make the final decision.

 

Personally I think the way forward is no public school for kids that are not immunized. Its only fair on the other kids and parents. There are single shots available to everybody, there are no excuses.

Edited by back2basics

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A couple of medical mavericks start a scare with no scientific basis whatsoever. One makes a profit from his scaremongering.

The media whip up such a level of hysteria that some parents shut their ears to every bit of sensible medical and scientific advice given, over and over again, even years later and we end up with a Measles epidemic.

 

I can understand how after the BSE scare in which the Government was complicit in its' homicidal advice to the public, that there is a distrust of officialdom but this was completely different.

Wordwide, experts were advising that this triple vaccine was perfectly safe and some know-alls chose not to listen........... Blair could have helped by revealing whether his kids had taken the jab much earlier than he did.

So who to blame?

Wakefield

The Media

Blair

The Parents

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question - what is more important; immunising children against measles, mumps and rubella or the triple vaccine MMR?

 

It's really quite simple when you strip away all the facts and fears.

 

Despite all the facts; despite all the 'bullying' of worried parents, immunisation against measles, mumps and rubella is still falling or too low to be effective.

 

So, what's the solution?

 

More facts?

 

More condemnations?

 

Or, a 'third way'?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Question - what is more important; immunising children against measles, mumps and rubella or the triple vaccine MMR?

 

It's really quite simple when you strip away all the facts and fears.

 

Despite all the facts; despite all the 'bullying' of worried parents, immunisation against measles, mumps and rubella is still falling or too low to be effective.

 

So, what's the solution?

 

More facts?

 

More condemnations?

 

Or, a 'third way'?

 

well since about 2004 when the fraud was initially exposed immunisation rates have been increasing. so the dramatic fall was entirely due to the fraudulent 'research'followed by the irresponsible media.

 

is there a need for a 'third way'? what would it be? answers on a postcard please.

 

clearly the responsibility for our health service is to get immunisation rates up above the rate required to achieve 'herd immunity' or better still eradicate the diseases entirely. is the MMR about saving cost, or better achieving the immunisation target? I have to say, given the almost religious nature of the MMR criticism and the fact our beloved HMG has chucked £'unknown into the NHS anyway, I have to conclude that MMR is a genuine effort to increase the effectiveness of the MMR vaccination effort.

 

there can't be a third way. either MMR or single jabs is the best method, and there can be no compromise. providing optional single jabs in an MMR provision, or vice verse, would be a disaster to the overall effectiveness of any regime.

 

Japan started to provide single jabs (and single jabs only) after problems with their choice of substandard MMR, and the MMR critics were quick to point out that there was no falling off of immunisation rates. but that was Japan with it's obedient society, without the inherent problems in the multicultural UK.

 

of course the MMR critics have been suspiciously silent about the benefits of Japan's single jab regime since it has become clear that their rates of autism have actually gone up since the MMR was phased out. mmmm :huh:

 

 

 

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
well since about 2004 when the fraud was initially exposed immunisation rates have been increasing. so the dramatic fall was entirely due to the fraudulent 'research'followed by the irresponsible media.

 

is there a need for a 'third way'? what would it be? answers on a postcard please.

 

clearly the responsibility for our health service is to get immunisation rates up above the rate required to achieve 'herd immunity' or better still eradicate the diseases entirely. is the MMR about saving cost, or better achieving the immunisation target? I have to say, given the almost religious nature of the MMR criticism and the fact our beloved HMG has chucked £'unknown into the NHS anyway, I have to conclude that MMR is a genuine effort to increase the effectiveness of the MMR vaccination effort.

 

there can't be a third way. either MMR or single jabs is the best method, and there can be no compromise. providing optional single jabs in an MMR provision, or vice verse, would be a disaster to the overall effectiveness of any regime.

 

Japan started to provide single jabs (and single jabs only) after problems with their choice of substandard MMR, and the MMR critics were quick to point out that there was no falling off of immunisation rates. but that was Japan with it's obedient society, without the inherent problems in the multicultural UK.

 

of course the MMR critics have been suspiciously silent about the benefits of Japan's single jab regime since it has become clear that their rates of autism have actually gone up since the MMR was phased out. mmmm :huh:

 

 

.

 

Now thats another fantastic area for debate, have the rates of Autism actually gone up or are more people just being categorised as autistic? I've worked for Action for Autism (formerly Thorne House Services for Autism) and many of the clients I worked with (while displaying autistic tendencies) were not actually autistic. Doctors tend to diagnose autism when they are unable to diagnose anything else in many cases and always seem to have done so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.