Big Rise in measles - thanks anti-vaccination activists

[jeremyjh1]

What parents actually did in the past would suggest otherwise.

 

 

Well of course money was a factor and quite rightly so. The NHS has finite resources and as such has a responsibility to expend those it gets as responsibly as possible.

 

MMR had a number of major benefits over single vaccines due to it requiring fewer trips to the doctor & therefore less of our medical professionals costly time.

1. An increased proportion of kids getting their full course of vaccines.

2. Reduced cost of the vaccination program freeing up resources for other less essential treatments.

 

If the govt felt the lack of vaccination was a significant threat to the health of the next generation, then you can be sure they would make the funds available.

 

It's all about 'bean-counting' - how many potential cases of autisim/measles/mumps/rhubella may occur if triple vaccine not taken up or if triple vaccine taken up an autism the outcome (in a percentage of the population)?

 

The will have done the math and computed the outcomes and determined that, should there be a lack of take up, this is an acceptable 'risk', though they will spend funds advertising and promoting the need to take up.

 

It would be interesting to see to cost of adevrtising and promoting the take up verses the cost of offering the single dose vaccine.

 

But, don't be fooled, it is purely and simply down to cost and nothing else.

 

The health and welfare of the people of this nation are at the very least second on the list of priorities, behind cost.

[Phanerothyme]

I do not consider the vaccines for measles, mumps and rhubella [sp?] to be dangerous, I feel that the triple vaccine is not fully vindicated and there are unanswered questions concerning is effects.

Don't worry about Plek branding everyone as morons - depending on which thread he's posting, basically if you're not plek, you're a moron.

 

But what unanswered questions are there about the effects of the triple vaccine?

 

There are too many cases of autism that occur around the time when the triple vaccine is administered that fuel my concern.

One case is one too many, but isn't the triple vaccine given around the time that autism is diagnosed if present?

The fact that nothing has been proven does not mean there is no link - it means that none has been found. And is there any chance of one being found?

What has been proven is that the Doctor agitating against the MMR also had a financial interest in single vaccine replacements and that his is the only study ("Fatally flawed" according to the Lancet) that suggests a link (even though the original paper was at pains to point out that no causal link was discovered or implied). Hundreds of other live and records based studies haven't even found the correlation, let alone any evidence of direct cause and effect.

 

No! Absolutely not. The doctor in Sunderland (I forget his name) posted some findings that suggest the possibility of a link and look what happened to him!! Do you think any other doctor will either consider looking in to possible links to the triplle MMR and autisim?

Lots and lots of doctors and pathologists have investigated whether there is a statistical link and whether there is any cause and effect. Every single study has clearly concluded that there is no statistical link and there is no cause and effect.

No, unless they want to see their career be destroyed.

 

And, do you think any doctor would get any funding for such research?

Yes, they have done. Repeatedly, worldwide.

No - the govt say there's no link, so that's it.

No, you're wrong. The government has accepted the clear findings of many many studies which demonstrate no link, no causality

The fact that no link has been established does NOT mean there IS no link, it just means there that no link has been established.

It's not that no link has been established - It has been established that there is no link.

Back to my situation - my eldest son has autism - life is not 'simple', we are faced with many challanges and unusual situations. But, to my wife and I (and our other chidren) this is normal to us.

 

But, given the fear that the triple MMR might have prompted or promoted our eldests condition and knowing how that affects us, but more importantly him, to then take up the potential loaded gun and point it at the head of our second and third born and pull the trigger, fingers crossed, that they would not endure the same, well, sorry, my children are far, far to precious to me for that.

It is fear that you made your decision upon, not knowledge.

As someone else said, and I advocate the same, as a responsible parent, allow me, on the NHS, to have single dose vaccines and I will be there, dilligently and on time.

 

Undoubtably, but thousands wouldn't. And then your children may get infected anyway, in spite of vaccinations, as herd immmunity is compromised.

Deny me that option for a service I pay towards with my taxes, then I am faced with two options:

 

Potentially expose my children to 'getting' autism (a condition with no cure) or exposing my children to measles, mups and rhubella (for which there are treatments and the effects are not always life-threatening nor damaging).

 

Now, put it like that, who is being irresponsible?

 

Well, giving your child any injection at all is potentially exposing them to a lot more than autism by penetrating the sealed circulatory system.

 

The probability of your child contracting a fatal bloodborne diseases from any kind of injection, or MRSA/C.Diff from a hospital or surgery, is much higher than your child acquiring autism from the MMR. But even that risk is low enough for most parents not to mind. Are they being irresponsible too?

[plekhanov]

I am one of those 'irresponsible' parents and I take serious umbrage at being branded as such.

 

I have a 13 year old son who has autistic spectrum disorder and his condition came to light AFTER having been given the triple vaccine.

At what age is the first dose of MMR given? At what age do the symptoms of Autism generally become evident?

 

Your child was diagnosed with a distressing condition so you naturally looked back to find the last notably unusual event in their life you could think of and concluded that that event caused the autism. This doesn't necessarily mean it's the case though, you are confusing correlation with causation. It's exactly this kind of mistake that medical research with control groups and so forth is designed to avoid.

 

Because of the age at which the MMR vaccine is given and the age at which autism becomes evident it is only to be expected that such conditions "come to light AFTER having been given the triple vaccine" as before they are given the MMR jab children aren't sufficiently developed to be diagnosed as being within the Autistic spectrum.

 

I have two other children and I have not given them the triple vaccine nor have I gone private - for political and ethical reasons I confess.

It's an odd form of ethics which leads you to unnecessarily risk your and other children's health and even their lives. Even if you fall for the scare stories at least try and get them vaccinated privately.

 

I have sent letters and emails to Liam Donaldson and other learned people regarding this subject, but each time the response has been the same - I am an being irresponsible with the health and well being of my children.

 

I do not agree and I will spell it out.

 

I do not consider the vaccines for measles, mumps and rhubella [sp?] to be dangerous, I feel that the triple vaccine is not fully vindicated and there are unanswered questions concerning is effects.

Unanswered to what standard of proof?

 

There are too many cases of autism that occur around the time when the triple vaccine is administered that fuel my concern.

Again you are confusing correlation with causation. Autism is nearly always diagnosed within a relatively short time period after the MMR jab is typically given regardless of whether or not the children in question have received the jab, as that is the age at which children are sufficiently developed for autism to become evident.

 

The fact that nothing has been proven does not mean there is no link - it means that none has been found. And is there any chance of one being found?

 

No! Absolutely not. The doctor in Sunderland (I forget his name) posted some findings that suggest the possibility of a link and look what happened to him!! Do you think any other doctor will either consider looking in to possible links to the triplle MMR and autisim?

 

No, unless they want to see their career be destroyed.

 

And, do you think any doctor would get any funding for such research?

 

No - the govt say there's no link, so that's it.

You are simply wrong, in no small part thanks to the hysteria promoted by Wakefield's flawed research a great many doctors have received a great deal of funding to specifically search for a link between MMR and autism and found that no such causative link exists. iirc one such study even found that in the USA where they've been using the MMR vaccine for longer than us there was a slight negative correlation, I don't think it was statistically significant though.

 

There is no link.

 

Imagine if, back in the 15th century, the govt of GB or Spain or Portugal had said 'look, there is no land beyond the Atlantic - it's never been found, so it doesn't exist'.

 

America would never have been discovered!!!

If no further research on this issue had been done you might almost have a point. However a huge amount of research has been done, just because you refuse to acknowledge it that doesn't magically mean it doesn't exist.

 

The fact that no link has been established does NOT mean there IS no link, it just means there that no link has been established.

When repeated large scale studies across many nations have found no link it is very strong evidence that there is no link. To deny this is to deny the validity of a great deal of the research which our health care system (which has helped deliver unprecedented live expectancy to us) is based upon.

 

Back to my situation - my eldest son has autism - life is not 'simple', we are faced with many challanges and unusual situations. But, to my wife and I (and our other chidren) this is normal to us.

 

But, given the fear that the triple MMR might have prompted or promoted our eldests condition and knowing how that affects us, but more importantly him, to then take up the potential loaded gun and point it at the head of our second and third born and pull the trigger, fingers crossed, that they would not endure the same, well, sorry, my children are far, far to precious to me for that.

Touching as this appeal to emotion may be it is based upon a nothing more than you mistaking correlation with causation.

 

As someone else said, and I advocate the same, as a responsible parent, allow me, on the NHS, to have single dose vaccines and I will be there, dilligently and on time.

And what of the many thousands who won't be thus further weakening our societies herd immunity?

 

Deny me that option for a service I pay towards with my taxes, then I am faced with two options:

 

Potentially expose my children to 'getting' autism (a condition with no cure) or exposing my children to measles, mups and rhubella (for which there are treatments and the effects are not always life-threatening nor damaging).

 

Now, put it like that, who is being irresponsible?

You are, exhaustive studies carried out by professional researchers across many nations have conclusively shown that there is no link between MMR & autism.

 

As the spokeswoman for the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health is quoted as saying in the article in the OP "Overwhelming scientific evidence shows that the vaccine is safe." In contrast measles, mumps and rubella are the exact opposite of safe.

 

You are letting the fear of an imaginary risk which almost certainly doesn't even exist expose your and all other children to a real danger that unquestionably does exist, if that's not irresponsible nothing is.

[plekhanov]

If the govt felt the lack of vaccination was a significant threat to the health of the next generation, then you can be sure they would make the funds available.

 

It's all about 'bean-counting' - how many potential cases of autisim/measles/mumps/rhubella may occur if triple vaccine not taken up or if triple vaccine taken up an autism the outcome (in a percentage of the population)?

Once again there is zero reliable evidence that the MMR vaccine causes autism and a huge amount of evidence that it doesn't. The cost to the NHS "if triple vaccine taken up an autism the outcome" (sic) is zero, zilch, nada, nothing as the MMR vaccine doesn't cause autism.

 

The will have done the math and computed the outcomes and determined that, should there be a lack of take up, this is an acceptable 'risk', though they will spend funds advertising and promoting the need to take up.

 

It would be interesting to see to cost of adevrtising and promoting the take up verses the cost of offering the single dose vaccine.

 

But, don't be fooled, it is purely and simply down to cost and nothing else.

 

The health and welfare of the people of this nation are at the very least second on the list of priorities, behind cost.

At base the 'health and welfare of the people of this nation' is an issue of cost atleast when it comes to the provision of medical services all of which cost money.

 

Every penny that the NHS spends upon vaccination programs is a penny taken away from other programs.

 

As such your demand that the NHS spends significantly more than necessary on expensive single vaccines which in turn are very expensive to administer is a demand that the NHS deprive other patients of care.

[LibertyBell]

Cases have actually fallen in this area.

 

Link

 

Seems we are a bit of an anomaly.

[quisquose]

Today's Times:

 

MMR doctor Andrew Wakefield fixed data on autism.

 

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

 

From the blog of PZ Myers:

 

Will this revelation matter? Not one bit. The anti-vaxers have ignored all the evidence that they are wrong so far, so one more demonstration that one of the primary promulgators of this nonsense was an outright fraud won't change a thing, I'm afraid. This is still a clear-cut case where delusions can kill.

[plekhanov]

Today's Times:

 

MMR doctor Andrew Wakefield fixed data on autism.

 

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

 

From the blog of PZ Myers:

An extended article detailing just how extensive this manipulation of the data was can be found here.

 

The first, in the Lancet tables, concerned the first child in the paper: Child One, from Cottesmore, Leicestershire. He was 3½ years old and the son of an air force pilot. In November 1995, his parents had been devastated after receiving a diagnosis of autism.

 

“Mr and Mrs [One]’s most recent concern is that the MMR vaccination given to their son may be responsible,” their GP told the hospital in a letter.

 

In the paper this claim would be adopted, with Wakefield and his team reporting that Child One’s parents said “behavioural symptoms” started “one week” after he received the MMR.

 

The boy’s medical records reveal a subtly different story, one familiar to mothers and fathers of autistic children. At the age of 9½ months, 10 weeks before his jab, his mother had become worried that he did not hear properly: the classic first symptom presented by sufferers of autism.

Child One was among the eight reported with the apparent sudden onset of the condition. So was the next child to be admitted.

 

This was Child Two, an eight-year-old boy from Peter-borough, Cambridgeshire, diagnosed with regressive autism, which, according to the Lancet paper, started “two weeks” after his jab.

 

However, this child’s medical records, backed by numerous specialist assessments, said his problems began three to five months later.

The difference between 14 days and a few months is significant, according to experts. Autism usually reveals itself in the second year of life, when the vaccine is routinely given. If there was no sudden onset after the MMR injection, as claimed for the “syndrome”, the condition could be ascribed to a conventional pattern.

 

More apparent anomalies lurked among the following 10 children, as they arrived at the Royal Free hospital between September 1996 and February 1997.

 

Only one was a girl, Child Eight, aged 3, from Whitley Bay, Tyne & Wear. She was reported in the journal as having suffered a brain injury “two weeks” after MMR.

 

Her medical records did not support this. Before she was admitted, she had been seen by local specialists, and her GP told the Royal Free of “significant concerns about her development some months before she had her MMR”.

Child Six, aged 5, and Child Seven, aged 3, were said to have been diagnosed with regressive autism, with an onset of symptoms “one week” and “24 hours” after the jab respectively.

 

But medical records show that neither boy was “previously normal”, as the Lancet article described all the children, and that both had already been hospitalised with brain problems before their MMR.

 

Child Six received his vaccine at the age of 14 months, but had twice previously been admitted with fits.

Those are just some highlights the article goes into much more depth, do bear in mind this study only covered 12 children.

 

Dr Wakefield has a lot to answer for.

[Suffragette1]

Around 150 children die from road traffic accidents each year ... NOW.

 

This many deaths from measles has not been seen since the 1950s.

 

Deaths were reduced to around 20 to 30 children per year until 1989 when MMR got it down to single figures.

 

Yes MMR is great, but measles is not the biggest killer around.

 

And more people die from horse riding accidents per year than from ecstacy use.

 

It's not just the risk of dying from measles, it's the greater risk of disability following measles complications. Furthermore, it's not just measles but the other aspects of the immunisation: rubella which if contracted by a pregnant woman can cause severe feotl abnormalities during the first trimester or pregnancy and can also cause a form a menigitis, and mumps which can lead to infertility in males.

[jeremyjh1]

Once again there is zero reliable evidence that the MMR vaccine causes autism and a huge amount of evidence that it doesn't. The cost to the NHS "if triple vaccine taken up an autism the outcome" (sic) is zero, zilch, nada, nothing as the MMR vaccine doesn't cause autism.

 

 

At base the 'health and welfare of the people of this nation' is an issue of cost atleast when it comes to the provision of medical services all of which cost money.

 

Every penny that the NHS spends upon vaccination programs is a penny taken away from other programs.

 

As such your demand that the NHS spends significantly more than necessary on expensive single vaccines which in turn are very expensive to administer is a demand that the NHS deprive other patients of care.

 

Your last point is very, very controversial as there are plenty of cases where money is NOT being spent on this or that medicine or drug, but is being spent elsewhere within the NHS and NOT on patient care. So, please Plek, do NOT use that old chestnut as an argument. I have worked in the past closely with the NHS and you would be amazed to discover that, just before budget applications are put in how many offices etc., are suddenly decorated or have new furniture. Or, there were cases where a hospital would order stock that would equate to their entire years usage, all on sale or return and, yep, you've guessed it, a couple of months AFTER the budgets were set, the stock was 'returned' as a clerical error or something.

 

As for your other points - it's amazing, actually, how vehement you and your ilk appear to get when confronted with, yes, a concerned parent such as I. I have an opposing viewand I am labelled as 'irresponsible', I am cast as someone who is putting the entire health of the nation at risk and so on - it's akin to majority 'mob rule'. If you cannot convince me of the argument with facts and figures - and I will reiterate this again, the fact that no link has been found does NOT mean there is no link; America existed BEFORE it was found, we just didn't know it!

 

If you cannot convince me with your facts and figures, then the next step is to somply discredit me - much like the doctor in Sunderland.

 

It's an age old tactic - discredit me and my ilk to the extent that no one listens to them or takes them seriously.

 

Whether you wish to say that my insistence in having single dose vaccines is to costly or would divert funds away from other, more important health care, the simple fact of the matter is, there was/is the option of a single dose vaccine regime, but the govt opt to offer me just two choices.

 

Triple dose - and all that that may (or may not) entail.

 

Or nothing.

 

Or, pay for it privately (on top of paying for the NHS through taxation).

 

Now, you can stand there and call me all the names under the sun, you can criticse me for playing with the health of other children, but, and I agree, it may well be fear (but not wholly unfounded or irrational, despite what your agenda forces you to believe and does not allow you to concede). Still, the fear is there, I am living with the effects of autism (which, unless you experience the effects of this condition 24/7, then forgive me for ignoring much of what you say) and if there is any chance that there is either a link with MMR and autism or, perhaps, within my own family the is a genetic disposition to the triple vaccine that could cause autism, then I choose to defer and watch closely the health of my other children for the signs of measlse, mumps or rhubella and would be immediately down the doctor's to get it dealt with.

 

I have spent the last decade being criticised and accused by the majority mob who are so entrenched in their position that they cannot for a single second see how my 'irresponsible' attitude is actually, the complete opposite and rather than call me names to discredit me, perhaps they should consider a different approach - like offering an alternative.

 

You know, listen, we're not saying the triple is dangerous, we're not saying that there might be link found eventually, but we understand your concerns and we realise that, no matter how much bully-boy tactics we bring to bear, many will still refuse to vaccinate unless single dose is offered, so in cases where there is autism in the immediate or near family, the single dose will be offered.

 

It's called compromise - and that would be acting responsibly, don't you think?

 

No, actually, I don't think you ever would. You're too dug in and to concede now would be considered, by you, an admission of failure and I do not think you can do that to yourself.

[quisquose]

... but the govt opt to offer me just two choices.

 

Triple dose - and all that that may (or may not) entail.

 

Or nothing.

 

Or, pay for it privately

 

And this is where you and I differ, those three choices may not seem like compromise to you, but they do seem like a fair compromise to me.