Big Rise in measles - thanks anti-vaccination activists

[Ned Ludd]

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

[jeremyjh1]

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'?

[pathman]

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

 

 

 

.

[Nik Nak]

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

 

 

.

 

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.

[jeremyjh1]

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

 

 

 

.

 

The 'third way' is to offer single-dose measles, mumps and rubella vaccinations on the NHS. And, if the govt want to prevent a complete return to the old days, where parents failed to maintain the 3 jabs plus repeat jabs and when children were getting infected in between jabs - you remember the epidemics? No?

 

Well, if the govt don't want a return to single-dose for all, they could wrap it up in a the same way as they do for free eye tests for those who have a parent in the family with glaucoma [sp].

 

If there is a sibling or blood relative in the family that has autism, then single-dose vaccination will be offered.

 

As it stands, on the NHS, it's MMR or nothing.

 

That's the 'third way'. (Sorry, but I ran out of postcards).

 

As for rates increasing - well, if they are, why is that the govt and health officials still go on record denouncing parents who have not vaccinated as 'irresponsible'?

 

Bit pointless saying that if, in fact, it's not true, eh?

 

So, someone's facts are not quite right - and surely facts can never be incorrect!!

 

As for what is more effective - I would say that vaccination is more effective, full stop. Not single-dose v MMR.

 

The issue is that, without single dose, frightened parents are NOT having their children immunised, thus the effectiveness of the regime is null and void and the cost benefits are equally null and void.

 

As for Japan - as NikNak points out, are the rates increasing because more people are being diagnosed with autism or because more people actually have autism.

 

If you have been involved or exposed to 'autism' then you will know how difficult it is to answer with any clarity and confidence exactly what autism is, let alone what causes it.

 

It's a condition unlike any other - for example, cancer can easily be described, even the variants of it; tb, flu, renal failures and so on. If you step in to the realms of neurological conditions, alzheimers, dementia, paranoia etc., - all these can pretty much easily be defined.

 

Autism, on the other hand, cannot as there are so many different forms and the traits exhibit in a variety of manners - from the extreme, where a sufferring cannot/does not communicate verbally, is completely withdrawn, rocks or has incessant 'ticks', moans or screams, flails their arms and so on, to the milder forms of no eye contact, reactive communication, reliance on routines and patterns, obssessiveness.

 

If you walked in to a room full of autistic people you would see a multitude of different traits and manifestations.

 

I have often said, because medically, autism is still a 'condition' that very little is really known about, compared to say aspergers or turretts, that I see it as a big bucket in a lab where conditions that have no proper label and don't seem to fit with other defined conditions simply get thrown in to.

 

Then, along comes a doctor or professor,picks up some of the stuff from the bucket, does some studies, writes a thesis and, presto 'Wilkins Syndrome' or 'MacKays Condition' is ratified.

 

It's the old saying, when you look hard enough for something, you will always find it, but you will not see everything else until you look for that. Perhaps, in Japan, they're just 'looking' harder now and 'finding' more of what was already there.

 

But, they still are no closer to knowing why.

[back2basics]

The single shots are not available on the NHS. And the NHS has to keep on being evidence based and the evidence is clear, there is no need for single shots. But if you as a parent feel so strongly about the MMR, then pay for the single shots. Done. No further issue. If you really feel it’s a danger, then paying shouldn't be an issue for you.

 

Autism rates went up as diagnosis of mental retardation went down. In perfect unison. People saw diagnosis criteria linking certain groups of children, they created the diagnosis of Autism spectrum and ICD9 code was created and the doctors started diagnosing Autism, as they did they were no longer categorized as mentally retarded.

 

As for not vaccinating being child abuse, I think there is a case there. But there is a wider case. I personally believe that if you are doing something that does not harm anybody else, then go for it. But if it does harm other people, or could harm other people its far worse. That’s what not immunizing your child can do, and no amount of shouting about “facts” changes that.

 

The real light for me (disclosure: my wife and I started a school for children on the spectrum) as somebody who though Mercury (not vaccines) has a role in some forms of autism, was the hearing in the U.S. MMR is given to children with aids or HIV. An auto immune disorder. There are no higher rates of autism in this cohort than any other, which means Autism is not an immune response, which is the basic hypothesis of the anti-vaccine people.

[jeremyjh1]

The single shots are not available on the NHS. And the NHS has to keep on being evidence based and the evidence is clear, there is no need for single shots. But if you as a parent feel so strongly about the MMR, then pay for the single shots. Done. No further issue. If you really feel it’s a danger, then paying shouldn't be an issue for you.

 

 

I cannot afford to pay - what do you popose I do then? (Considering I am causing the 'herd immunity' to be jeopardised and I am being criticised as being 'irresponsible'.

 

It's not that simple, despite how you make it out to be. The world is not black and white.

 

I suppose it goes much deeper - what is the NHS for? To provide healthcare for the nation? To provide the cheapest form of healthcare for the nation?

 

Is it a case of 'look, we can't afford to make you better, but if you want to spend your own money (again!), then job done'.

 

'Oh, you can't afford it? Oh, well, er.. Next.'

 

 

Autism rates went up as diagnosis of mental retardation went down. In perfect unison. People saw diagnosis criteria linking certain groups of children, they created the diagnosis of Autism spectrum and ICD9 code was created and the doctors started diagnosing Autism, as they did they were no longer categorized as mentally retarded.

 

 

Your point being? As I read it, from your post, the numbers did not increase or decrease, just the diagnosis was different - a bit like the issue not so long ago about the crime numbers. It wasn't that the overall crime numbers altered, it was just that certain crimes were 're-classified'.

 

Sorry, I don't really see your point here.

 

 

As for not vaccinating being child abuse, I think there is a case there. But there is a wider case. I personally believe that if you are doing something that does not harm anybody else, then go for it. But if it does harm other people, or could harm other people its far worse. That’s what not immunizing your child can do, and no amount of shouting about “facts” changes that.

 

The real light for me (disclosure: my wife and I started a school for children on the spectrum) as somebody who though Mercury (not vaccines) has a role in some forms of autism, was the hearing in the U.S. MMR is given to children with aids or HIV. An auto immune disorder. There are no higher rates of autism in this cohort than any other, which means Autism is not an immune response, which is the basic hypothesis of the anti-vaccine people.

 

It may well have been the case, initially, following Wakefields report. But I think it has, for many, moved well beyond that.

 

For me, personally, it has moved on the level of no medical professional has been able to comprehensively determine the root cause of the condition. Theories range from genetic, neurological, immune deficiency, to 'thats how nature made them'.

 

When the cause of any condition is not able to be determined, how can anyone possible be confident that this or that is not the cause? Or that, say, the MMR or other multiple vaccinations, do not have some involvement in the cause (say, in individual cases, as a trigger).

 

Until someone publishes a report that almost completely determines that the cause of autism is 'this' (whatever 'this' is), then we're all just speculating as to what may or may not be somehow connected to it.

 

The human body, genetically or neurologically, is such a complex structure and, medically, we know about 10% or thereabouts of how all the 'parts' interact with one another, at this moment in time, we are all very much scrapping around in a dark room looking for answers.

 

But, not vaccinating whatsoever is wrong. Not choosing certain vaccinations, with reason (justified or otherwise) needs to be understood and there needs to be a means of dealing with that, especially if it puts others at risk.

 

And to say, despite what you fear about MMR, you can either have it on the NHS or you can pay for it private (if you can find a doctor willing to do so) and if you can't pay for it (and not everyone has the financial means to do so, you'll be surprised to know), then tough, you irresponsible parent.

 

I'm sorry, but eventhough I understand the need of the NHS to be cost effective, I also understand the ethos that it should, when confronted with 'herd' situations and potential effects to the 'herd', that it must consider all the options to preserve the 'herd'.

 

Ultimately, it is not about MMR v single dose - it's about vaccinate or not.

[back2basics]

I cannot afford to pay - what do you popose I do then? (Considering I am causing the 'herd immunity' to be jeopardised and I am being criticised as being 'irresponsible'.

 

It's not that simple, despite how you make it out to be. The world is not black and white.

 

I suppose it goes much deeper - what is the NHS for? To provide healthcare for the nation? To provide the cheapest form of healthcare for the nation?

 

Is it a case of 'look, we can't afford to make you better, but if you want to spend your own money (again!), then job done'.

 

'Oh, you can't afford it? Oh, well, er.. Next.'

 

 

 

Your point being? As I read it, from your post, the numbers did not increase or decrease, just the diagnosis was different - a bit like the issue not so long ago about the crime numbers. It wasn't that the overall crime numbers altered, it was just that certain crimes were 're-classified'.

 

Sorry, I don't really see your point here.

 

 

 

It may well have been the case, initially, following Wakefields report. But I think it has, for many, moved well beyond that.

 

For me, personally, it has moved on the level of no medical professional has been able to comprehensively determine the root cause of the condition. Theories range from genetic, neurological, immune deficiency, to 'thats how nature made them'.

 

When the cause of any condition is not able to be determined, how can anyone possible be confident that this or that is not the cause? Or that, say, the MMR or other multiple vaccinations, do not have some involvement in the cause (say, in individual cases, as a trigger).

 

Until someone publishes a report that almost completely determines that the cause of autism is 'this' (whatever 'this' is), then we're all just speculating as to what may or may not be somehow connected to it.

 

The human body, genetically or neurologically, is such a complex structure and, medically, we know about 10% or thereabouts of how all the 'parts' interact with one another, at this moment in time, we are all very much scrapping around in a dark room looking for answers.

 

But, not vaccinating whatsoever is wrong. Not choosing certain vaccinations, with reason (justified or otherwise) needs to be understood and there needs to be a means of dealing with that, especially if it puts others at risk.

 

And to say, despite what you fear about MMR, you can either have it on the NHS or you can pay for it private (if you can find a doctor willing to do so) and if you can't pay for it (and not everyone has the financial means to do so, you'll be surprised to know), then tough, you irresponsible parent.

 

I'm sorry, but eventhough I understand the need of the NHS to be cost effective, I also understand the ethos that it should, when confronted with 'herd' situations and potential effects to the 'herd', that it must consider all the options to preserve the 'herd'.

 

Ultimately, it is not about MMR v single dose - it's about vaccinate or not.

 

Ok so this is a new one. It’s about vaccinate or not? That a new one on me. So your just saying vaccines of any kind are the issue? Based on what?

 

Autism is not a single problem. It’s a single diagnosis as it’s a broad stroke. causation for a child Aspergers is probably completely different to other children on the spectrum. We just have a single ICD9 code as we really don't understand the differences yet, other than they share certain diagnosis criteria.

 

So if you are looking for causation for Autism or, lets say, all forms of cancer before taking action, then don't hold your breath. It’s not a good argument to say until they know, I will continue along my ways. If you truly believe that take up smoking 50 packs a day as we are unsure of the links between smoking and cancer.

 

The issue with the NHS offering single jabs is not one of cost. Its evidence. Single shots could easily be offered, but why? There are no reasons. No matter what some believe about vaccines, all studies point to multi-vaccination not only being safe, but being safer than a single and prolonged vaccination period.

 

I hear you on the costs, but seriously a child’s life may depend on it. I am for single vaccines to be available free on the NHS, but it will not stop people not vaccinating their children. As you said some people are just paranoid about vaccines. So its not going to fix the problem, only some form of punishment is going to work to get us back to herd immunity.

 

Anybody believing there is a link to MMR should do themselves and children all over the country a favor (that I believe they owe society) and read the Autism omnibus hearings in America. Both sides of this "debate" had a chance to put forward their evidence. The results were stunningly one sided as the anti-vaccine experts were shown to be frauds and fools.

 

There will be discussion on what cause to take, but really if you are thinking about not vaccinating your child you owe society to be informed, so at least take the time to read this in full.

 

Here is a direct link :

ftp://autism.uscfc.uscourts.gov/autism/cedillo.html

[jeremyjh1]

Ok so this is a new one. It’s about vaccinate or not? That a new one on me. So your just saying vaccines of any kind are the issue? Based on what?

 

 

There are two similar threads going and I was confused as to which one this was - the MMR one or the 'no vaccination is a form of child abuse'.

 

I think you're missing the point of I am just not making it clearly enough.

 

In the case of MMR (and ONLY in the case of MMR - as that is the topic of this thread and it is really the only vaccination that many people feel concerned about). In the case of MMR the question IS a simple one;

 

MMR or nothing.

 

Or, vaccinate or don't.

 

If the option is to pay for single dose, but people cannot afford it or cannot find a doctor willing to do it. Then it really is very simple.

 

They choose and are choosing not to vaccinate, because the only option is MMR -which they have concerns over.

 

So, in simple terms, what IS more important - that parents vaccinate their children with the triple MMR or that they vaccinate their children (against measles, mumps and rubella)?

 

It seems, from the govt and medical profession standpoint the important issue is the integrity of the MMR vaccination - cost is not the issue and preserving the 'herd immunity' is not the issue or they would say 'how do we get the take up rate to increase if facts and figures and threats and condemnation do not work?'

 

Autism is not a single problem. It’s a single diagnosis as it’s a broad stroke. causation for a child Aspergers is probably completely different to other children on the spectrum. We just have a single ICD9 code as we really don't understand the differences yet, other than they share certain diagnosis criteria.

 

So if you are looking for causation for Autism or, lets say, all forms of cancer before taking action, then don't hold your breath. It’s not a good argument to say until they know, I will continue along my ways. If you truly believe that take up smoking 50 packs a day as we are unsure of the links between smoking and cancer.

 

 

I know autism is not a single 'problem' - it's a catch all for many, as yet, unspecified or undefined 'conditions' that have similar, core traits. I have an autistic son who is 13 - I do know from personal experience.

 

Your 'smoking' example, sadly, doesn't hold water. I was a smoker for 20 odd years and in all that time the govt and the medical profession made me painfully aware of the link between smoking and cancer.

 

Or, are saying they lied? Or falsified the evidence to suit their own ends?

 

The causes of many cancers are known and many have treatment regimes (how successful these are or not is for another debate).

 

The causes of autism are not known and, I would say, nowhere near being known.

 

If you ask anyone if smoking causes cancer, I would say almost all would say yes and more likely because they have been conditioned by govt and medical facts.

 

Now, if you turn it around and say is smoking the ONLY cause of cancer - that's a different question, and not one you asked or posed.

 

 

The issue with the NHS offering single jabs is not one of cost. Its evidence. Single shots could easily be offered, but why? There are no reasons. No matter what some believe about vaccines, all studies point to multi-vaccination not only being safe, but being safer than a single and prolonged vaccination period.

 

 

I disagree (about it not being one of cost), but I think we'll have to disagree in that one. Whenever the debate is raised, the 'cost effectiveness' of a triple vaccination versus single-dose is always mentioned.

 

But, and I do not dispute that there is evidence and that there are enough facts and figures, and that this debate has been heard and this outcome has been published (I have read them all - I am informed).

 

With all that 'weight' of evidence, the fact is that as a society, the take up, we are told, is still far too low - so, people are still not taking MMR.

 

Why? The evidence says it's safe. Debates have concluded it's safe. Studies thus far have shown it is safe.

 

But the up take is still too low.

 

Why? And, more importantly, what can be done.

 

How do you or anyone propose that, when all said and done, the fears that exist in the minds of parents re MMR are not completely assuaged by all the facts and evidence and the condemnation and the plea to their philanthropic nature, how else can the take up rate be improved?

 

Answer - maintain the integrity of the MMR, keep throwing out the facts and call them irresponsible.

 

If you need to go around a mountain, do you think that telling it move, shouting at it to move or calling it names will make it move?

 

Eventually, if you want to get to the other side, you have to try something else.

 

If 'herd immunity' was so important, the govt would be consider different ways of circumventing the mountain. So, one 'reason' why single dose vaccines could be offered again would be attempt to improve the immunity of the 'herd'.

 

 

I hear you on the costs, but seriously a child’s life may depend on it. I am for single vaccines to be available free on the NHS, but it will not stop people not vaccinating their children. As you said some people are just paranoid about vaccines. So its not going to fix the problem, only some form of punishment is going to work to get us back to herd immunity.

 

 

I did the 'socially responsible' thing with my eldest son - he has autism.

 

And since then, access to the 'social' care side of things has been nothing but a bloody battle from day one. It is only now, after ten years, that we feel somewhat happy with where things are. We have another potential battle looming, when he reaches 16 and is legally entitled to say he does not wish to go to school. But, for now, we avoid most of the potential battles - the system beat us down.

 

And you say some form of punishment - how can you punish me? Imprison me - deprive my children of their father because he felt he was doing the right thing, by them? I'm all for social responsibility, but primary responsibility is to my children. If there is any chance that I believe any action I take or agree to would or could, knowingly or I suspect could harm them in any way, I don't do it. Period.

 

What if, in years to come, it is discovered that a gene or a group of genes exist in, say, 1 in a thousand children and more so in the case of males born of the same parents, that reacted to the MMR vaccine causing the onset of the autistic condition and, because of my social responsibility and knowing I already had a child with autism, I had been swayed by facts and public opinion at the time to do the social responsible thing, do you think that would any comfort to me knowing the 'herd' was safe, but I had 'given' my other son autism?

 

 

Anybody believing there is a link to MMR should do themselves and children all over the country a favor (that I believe they owe society) and read the Autism omnibus hearings in America. Both sides of this "debate" had a chance to put forward their evidence. The results were stunningly one sided as the anti-vaccine experts were shown to be frauds and fools.

 

There will be discussion on what cause to take, but really if you are thinking about not vaccinating your child you owe society to be informed, so at least take the time to read this in full.

 

Here is a direct link :

ftp://autism.uscfc.uscourts.gov/autism/cedillo.html

 

 

That still does not alter the fact that, for me, my eldest son, who had MMR has autism, and my younger son, who did not have MMR, does not have autistic spectrum disorder.

 

And one of the 'theories' is genetic mutation inheritence!

 

And please, stop referring to them as 'anti-vaccine' theorists - they are 'anti-MMR' if anything.

[Nik Nak]

As Jeremy said, ONE of the theories. There are many theories about possible causes of Autism, my personal favorite is the inheritance of a genetic mutation requiring a trigger (explaining how a child who will develop Autism in the future can progress normally up until a certain point then suddenly seem to regress - i saw this with my youngest brother). As yet no study that I have ever read has disproved this, especially since as yet they have not located the exact gene which causes Autism (personally I think it could be a whole group of them with the order of the group determining the severity of the condition) it would also be impossible to determine what the trigger is. This means that it is entirely plausible for the trigger to be the MMR jab, or possibly a preservative used in it (interestingly enough a certain preservative was removed from the jab a few years ago...) or possibly even something as trivial as a cold virus mutation. If this is the case then even children with a compromised immune system would be perfectly safe having the MMR jab or being exposed to whatever triggers Autism UNLESS their genetic make-up contained the gene or group of genes which would react with this trigger.

 

There are only 2 ways to conclusively prove that the MMR vaccine with 100% certainty does not cause Autism, 1 would be to locate the gene or group of genes responsible and conclude tests with a group of people who were identified as carrying this gene and the other would be to invent time travel and go back in time and not vaccinate Jeremy's son / my brother or any other child with Autism to see if they still developed the condition. I wonder which is more likely to happen first...