TimmyR Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 Any anti MMR people should read this before subjecting the nation to an increased risk of measles and mumps. The whole MMR thing was a hoax stirred up by the media. To sumarise: There is no proof of a link between MMR and autism!!!!! It was based on nonsense data from unreliable sources. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DIVA Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 Any anti MMR people should read this before subjecting the nation to an increased risk of measles and mumps. The whole MMR thing was a hoax stirred up by the media. To sumarise: There is no proof of a link between MMR and autism!!!!! It was based on nonsense data from unreliable sources. Just began to read the article in your link, but as soon as I read this.. "The MMR and autism scare, for example, is practically non-existent outside Britain" I decided for myself that the article is not reliable, or interested in the truth, as only this morning on TV there was a Dr from the US talking about the major decrease in numbers of parents taking up the MMR vaccine in the US because of their belief that it might have links to autism. It was interesting though that in the US the focus was more on the authorities being able to prove that there were no links, rather than concerned parents having to prove there was! Have you given it a thought that in harrassing concerned parents, perhaps your energies are being directed at the wrong people? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeremyjh1 Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 Any anti MMR people should read this before subjecting the nation to an increased risk of measles and mumps. The whole MMR thing was a hoax stirred up by the media. To sumarise: There is no proof of a link between MMR and autism!!!!! It was based on nonsense data from unreliable sources. Timmy - my situation. Two sons - 13 and 9 One had MMR, one did not. One has autism (had MMR) the other does not. Parents of both sons the same. For me, it's gone beyond Wakefield and the 'hoax' - I have my own, albeit rudimentary and highly unscientific 'study', which, on the surface of it, contradicts all the causation theories for autism. One of the problems I think people who want those that fear the MMR jab to have it is that they assume those fears are singular, based purely on Wakefield or the 'hoax' and that simple facts or denunciation will have the desired effect - i.e. to get scared parents to get their children immunised with MMR. If you treat them as a whole you will fail to understand the individual reasons. And if you fail to understand the individual reasons, you will consistently fail to combat or address those fears and you will consistently fail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saxondale Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 Any anti MMR people ............ you including me in that group? in case you havnt been reading I refused the MMR for mine and it was NOTHING to do with autism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeremyjh1 Posted February 14, 2009 Share Posted February 14, 2009 you including me in that group? in case you havnt been reading I refused the MMR for mine and it was NOTHING to do with autism. Be careful saxon - you might make timmy consider different reasons for not doing something rather than assuming there is just one (stupid, irresponsible, dumb, pathetic) reason that can either be 'corrected' by overwhelming facts, figures or evidence or by simply bullying or threatening. I don't think timmy actually gives a damn about your reasons why - or anyone else's for that matter. He has already made up his mind about you - funnily, he did so before he even knew you existed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conker2 Posted February 14, 2009 Share Posted February 14, 2009 The tone of the anti-MMR posters does give the impression that they have seized onto the idea and would not let it go for any reason. I wonder if there is any evidence or argument that would ever convince them, however strong or well-founded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeremyjh1 Posted February 14, 2009 Share Posted February 14, 2009 The tone of the anti-MMR posters does give the impression that they have seized onto the idea and would not let it go for any reason. I wonder if there is any evidence or argument that would ever convince them, however strong or well-founded. The problem, conker, is that those who are 'pro-mmr' assume those who are anti-mmr are anti for precisely the same reason. Which, if they listened to the concerns they would know that it is not as simple as that. Because the 'pro' think it IS that simple, their approach to 'solving' the problem is equally as simple. Additionally, they see the issue as being something far wider than it is - i.e. it is a problem with vaccination in general. There have been comments such as 'you're too emotionally involved to debate with' or the classic, repeated mantra 'but the evidence backs up the safety argument'. As the situation appears always to fall on to simplistic terms, here's one from the so-called 'anti' lobby (although, again, it is too simplistic to label those who have not immunised their children as 'anti-mmr' - we are concerned, we are fearful, we have worries on a personal level, but we are not necessarily 'anti-mmr'). In simple terms - it is not about trying to convince the 'anti' mob with facts or figures. It's not about trying to bully or pressure them with name calling or scare mongering or even finger-pointing, saying 'for the good of the nation' and so forth). It's a question of alternatives. Or, even more simply, it's how to increase the up take to achieve the 95% 'herd immunity'. Seems it's a question of MMR or 'bust'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suffragette1 Posted February 14, 2009 Share Posted February 14, 2009 The problem, conker, is that those who are 'pro-mmr' assume those who are anti-mmr are anti for precisely the same reason. Which, if they listened to the concerns they would know that it is not as simple as that. Because the 'pro' think it IS that simple, their approach to 'solving' the problem is equally as simple. Additionally, they see the issue as being something far wider than it is - i.e. it is a problem with vaccination in general. There have been comments such as 'you're too emotionally involved to debate with' or the classic, repeated mantra 'but the evidence backs up the safety argument'. As the situation appears always to fall on to simplistic terms, here's one from the so-called 'anti' lobby (although, again, it is too simplistic to label those who have not immunised their children as 'anti-mmr' - we are concerned, we are fearful, we have worries on a personal level, but we are not necessarily 'anti-mmr'). In simple terms - it is not about trying to convince the 'anti' mob with facts or figures. It's not about trying to bully or pressure them with name calling or scare mongering or even finger-pointing, saying 'for the good of the nation' and so forth). It's a question of alternatives. Or, even more simply, it's how to increase the up take to achieve the 95% 'herd immunity'. Seems it's a question of MMR or 'bust'. There is a risk with all vaccines, no vaccine is 100% safe as everyone reacts differently, the same way as everyone reacts differently to a virus. Why do some contract measles and develop only a rash and have mild temperatures and others will have febrile convulsions, complications and encephalitis? The same applies to other viruses, from the common cold to HIV. Ultimately, life is all about risk management, weighing up risks and basing decisions on what information is available to us at the time. Some people are risk averse, others not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeremyjh1 Posted February 14, 2009 Share Posted February 14, 2009 There is a risk with all vaccines, no vaccine is 100% safe as everyone reacts differently, the same way as everyone reacts differently to a virus. Why do some contract measles and develop only a rash and have mild temperatures and others will have febrile convulsions, complications and encephalitis? The same applies to other viruses, from the common cold to HIV. Ultimately, life is all about risk management, weighing up risks and basing decisions on what information is available to us at the time. Some people are risk averse, others not. And some have valid reasons for being less inclined to take future risks based on past events. But ultimately, that doesn't matter to the 'herd'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suffragette1 Posted February 14, 2009 Share Posted February 14, 2009 And some have valid reasons for being less inclined to take future risks based on past events. But ultimately, that doesn't matter to the 'herd'. Absolutely and if my eldest has recated badly to any of his vaccinations, then obviously I wouldn't have had him have any further ones nor would I have had my daughter vaccinated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.