Is There Anything In Particular
ChatterBank1 min ago
Measles Epidemic
Am I alone in being amazed at the scale of the recent measles epidemic ? Its occurred here in my home town of Swansea, and there appears to be 1000's of children who have been immunised, with 100,000's others around the UK.
Why have the parents not made sure that their kids are properly protected ? The original fuss over the MMR jabs is now a long time ago, having occurred in 1998, and the false reporting has been thoroughly dealt with. So why are the parents of babies born NOW not receiving their jabs ? I would have thought that Doctors, Health Visitors, etc would have been doing their jobs these last few years.
The BBC report today that 1 million kids are going to be targeted in a new campaign ::
http://
That sounds like a huge number to me !
Why have the parents not made sure that their kids are properly protected ? The original fuss over the MMR jabs is now a long time ago, having occurred in 1998, and the false reporting has been thoroughly dealt with. So why are the parents of babies born NOW not receiving their jabs ? I would have thought that Doctors, Health Visitors, etc would have been doing their jobs these last few years.
The BBC report today that 1 million kids are going to be targeted in a new campaign ::
http://
That sounds like a huge number to me !
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by mikey4444. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
The MMR vaccine does not contain Mercury. The MMR vaccine has never contained mercury. No vaccine has ever contained Mercury. Some vaccines, those that came in multi-dose vials, had an additive to prevent microbial growth. That additive was ethylmercury, or thimerosal/thiomersal. To suggest that ethylmercury might cause mercury poisoning is the same as suggesting that common salt, sodium chloride, might cause chlorine poisoning. It confuses an element with a chemical compound.
The paper you reference, on the possible link between arthritic disease and those people who have received a vaccine also points out that those women are at more risk were they to contract the virus itself; Further, it draws several conclusions.
1."Even these 'frequent' associations relate to a relatively small number of patients. Whenever controlled studies of autoimmunity following viral vaccines were undertaken, no evidence of an association was found."
and
2."Very few patients may develop some autoimmune diseases following viral vaccination (in particular - arthropathy, vasculitis, neurological dysfunction and thrombocytopenia). For the overwhelming majority of people, vaccines are safe and no evidence linking viral vaccines with type 1 diabetes, multiple sclerosis (MS) or inflammatory bowel disease can be found."
True, the Urabe strain was used as the Measles component of the MMR until around 1992, when the evidence pointed to a link between that component and a mild, transient viral meningitis - and as soon as that link was demonstrated, a different strain was used, which has gone on to show no problems at all.
Medical science works on evidence of harm. The surveillance system for vaccines is pretty good.If it were only your kids that were being left at risk of developing measles, thats one thing - but by choosing not to vaccinate you are also putting the children of others at risk.
For myself, I believe your calculation of relative harms is wrong, and you downplay the severity and possible harms and consequences of those very childhood diseases that vaccinations are there to prevent.
The paper you reference, on the possible link between arthritic disease and those people who have received a vaccine also points out that those women are at more risk were they to contract the virus itself; Further, it draws several conclusions.
1."Even these 'frequent' associations relate to a relatively small number of patients. Whenever controlled studies of autoimmunity following viral vaccines were undertaken, no evidence of an association was found."
and
2."Very few patients may develop some autoimmune diseases following viral vaccination (in particular - arthropathy, vasculitis, neurological dysfunction and thrombocytopenia). For the overwhelming majority of people, vaccines are safe and no evidence linking viral vaccines with type 1 diabetes, multiple sclerosis (MS) or inflammatory bowel disease can be found."
True, the Urabe strain was used as the Measles component of the MMR until around 1992, when the evidence pointed to a link between that component and a mild, transient viral meningitis - and as soon as that link was demonstrated, a different strain was used, which has gone on to show no problems at all.
Medical science works on evidence of harm. The surveillance system for vaccines is pretty good.If it were only your kids that were being left at risk of developing measles, thats one thing - but by choosing not to vaccinate you are also putting the children of others at risk.
For myself, I believe your calculation of relative harms is wrong, and you downplay the severity and possible harms and consequences of those very childhood diseases that vaccinations are there to prevent.
One thing which needs to be said, and hasn't been noted yet in this exchange of views, is the fact that these immunisations are not given to children until after their first birthday. This cannot help but leave the under-ones open to infections. Only if the older children are immunised can the babies be protected. If your older children are not safe from measles, they may catch it and pass it on to your very tiny baby who may be extremely ill.
If vaccination were a personal decision that had no consequence for the wider community I would relectuantly have to agree with you that it is "your choice". But vaccination, or lack of it, has known consequences for the entire community. And that suddenly makes a decision that is based on misinformation becomes potentially dangerous. Even at the height of the MMR scare national uptake was still fairly high (80% at the lowest, according to http://
If more people make the same decision as you - well, more people did. And we have seen the consequences. A sharp rise in measles cases in the UK, and and least one death in Swansea attributed to measles, and a few others in Ireland in a similar outbreak in 2000.
The consequences of such a decision are never confined to just you and your children. I'm sorry that you have made that decision, and cannot understand it at all. There is no medical or scientific evidence to support your position whatsoever.
If more people make the same decision as you - well, more people did. And we have seen the consequences. A sharp rise in measles cases in the UK, and and least one death in Swansea attributed to measles, and a few others in Ireland in a similar outbreak in 2000.
The consequences of such a decision are never confined to just you and your children. I'm sorry that you have made that decision, and cannot understand it at all. There is no medical or scientific evidence to support your position whatsoever.
Canary/Fred
\\\\Calm down, measles is rarely fatal. I, and millons of my generation, had it as kids and survived unscathed in the days before immunisation. \\
Rarely fatal....yes. Unscathed? depends what you mean.
Middle ear disease, nerve deafness and encephalitis are well know and well documented complications of measles and may necessitate a life long treatment which could in the early stages affect the education and development of a child.
You two were lucky.
\\\\Calm down, measles is rarely fatal. I, and millons of my generation, had it as kids and survived unscathed in the days before immunisation. \\
Rarely fatal....yes. Unscathed? depends what you mean.
Middle ear disease, nerve deafness and encephalitis are well know and well documented complications of measles and may necessitate a life long treatment which could in the early stages affect the education and development of a child.
You two were lucky.
The WHO estimates 158,00 deaths World wide due to measles in 2011.
"About 15% of women who receive the rubella vaccine or MMR will develop acute arthritis or swelling of the joints. This condition is usually very short-lived"
I advise you to read this, it may not change your mind, it may however give you the option to weigh the risks with a more informed opininon (not mine)
http://
"About 15% of women who receive the rubella vaccine or MMR will develop acute arthritis or swelling of the joints. This condition is usually very short-lived"
I advise you to read this, it may not change your mind, it may however give you the option to weigh the risks with a more informed opininon (not mine)
http://
Interesting thread this - people quoting the vaccination propaganda and others quoting the anti-vaccination propaganda. The Lancet published the findings of Andrew Wakefield and thousands of parents declined the vaccine because of that report and GlaxoSmithkline suffered because of it. 20 years later, that report is dismissed and proved wrong but who commissioned that investigation? The British Medical Board or big drugs manufacturers? Get your child vaccinated you owe it to your child and are being selfish as you are putting all children at risk!! At risk of what?? An illness that has fatal effects on 0.3% of those who contract it, 95% of these deaths occurring in third world countries with low health care infrastructures (World Health Org.) The media have jumped on this like they did with the Swine Flu and people are panicking. Its measles not the bubonic plague.
sebhfhion Wakefield was published in the Lancet. He was co-signed by I think 12 others , who then withdrew, their support as did the Lancet who published a re-traction.
Why because it was found that Wakefield lied, it was found that Wakefied took money from the drug companies to come to the conclusions it did, using a group of just 12.
Prior to Wakefield the MMR was in common usage, it took an awful lot of time and money, for accredited testing to prove that there was no danger.
3 in a thousand to die when they don't have to. I don't think thats accepatble, but then their not you kids
Why because it was found that Wakefield lied, it was found that Wakefied took money from the drug companies to come to the conclusions it did, using a group of just 12.
Prior to Wakefield the MMR was in common usage, it took an awful lot of time and money, for accredited testing to prove that there was no danger.
3 in a thousand to die when they don't have to. I don't think thats accepatble, but then their not you kids
@seb - How can offering the facts and the evidence from the studies be "pro-vaccine"propaganda?
Your attitude amazes me. There are some serious consequences of a measles infection - read sqads post, above.
It did not take 20 years to refute Wakefields paper. His other authors had their names removed from it, and then the Lancet finally pulled it after 12 years. And the study itself was a case study only, and consisted of just 12 kids. To extrapolate from that, as Wakefield did - not in his study, but on camera - that their was a link between autism and the MMR vaccine was unethical. Not to mention Wakefields carrying out invasive investigations on these kids without getting permission from the Royal Frees own ethics committee. Never mind that the kids were referred into him from a lawyer instigating a class action in the US and paid Wakefield half a million. Never mind the huge conflict of interest, in that Wakefield had a commercial interest in scaring people off the MMR - he had patented a Measles vaccine of his own.
As to who commissioned the investigation by the GMC, which resulted in Wakefield being struck off- that was the GMC - unless you are going to persist with this absurd conspiracy theory that the GMC are entirely in thrall to "Big Pharma" - Who incidentally can make a lot more money out of long term drugs that people need daily for years than they ever can from making vaccines.
Your attitude amazes me. There are some serious consequences of a measles infection - read sqads post, above.
It did not take 20 years to refute Wakefields paper. His other authors had their names removed from it, and then the Lancet finally pulled it after 12 years. And the study itself was a case study only, and consisted of just 12 kids. To extrapolate from that, as Wakefield did - not in his study, but on camera - that their was a link between autism and the MMR vaccine was unethical. Not to mention Wakefields carrying out invasive investigations on these kids without getting permission from the Royal Frees own ethics committee. Never mind that the kids were referred into him from a lawyer instigating a class action in the US and paid Wakefield half a million. Never mind the huge conflict of interest, in that Wakefield had a commercial interest in scaring people off the MMR - he had patented a Measles vaccine of his own.
As to who commissioned the investigation by the GMC, which resulted in Wakefield being struck off- that was the GMC - unless you are going to persist with this absurd conspiracy theory that the GMC are entirely in thrall to "Big Pharma" - Who incidentally can make a lot more money out of long term drugs that people need daily for years than they ever can from making vaccines.
To Lazygun : my attitude amazes you ...glad to be of service. ;-) You seem to be 'amazed' and 'disappointed' at anyone who does not agree with you. You believe all the propaganda you like as it will no doubt change again in a few years time then it will be others turn to be amazed and disappointed . Are you old enough to remember Thalidomide ? Would you have been one of those people encouraging women to swallow the pills because Medical professionals say they are safe?
Lazygun: Then that proves you don't read others contributions on the thread. i was quoting username davethedog (13.59) second paragraph
quote: Why because it was found that Wakefield lied, it was found that Wakefied took money from the drug companies to come to the conclusions it did, using a group of just 12.
quote: Why because it was found that Wakefield lied, it was found that Wakefied took money from the drug companies to come to the conclusions it did, using a group of just 12.
I believe that the "drugs companies" paying Wakefield were those trying to promote single vaccines as opposed to the triple MMR jab. Suddenly it starts making more sense that his study would damage MMR.
I don't "fall for the pro-vaccination propaganda". Take a glance at the world around you, for the last 200 years or so that we have had vaccination. The overall effect has been overwhelmingly positive, as we have wiped out two diseases completely and are closed to eradicating several others. Diseases, mind, that were deadly. That's not propaganda, that's called fact.
I don't "fall for the pro-vaccination propaganda". Take a glance at the world around you, for the last 200 years or so that we have had vaccination. The overall effect has been overwhelmingly positive, as we have wiped out two diseases completely and are closed to eradicating several others. Diseases, mind, that were deadly. That's not propaganda, that's called fact.
Latest Posts
How it Works7 mins ago
Crosswords18 mins ago
ChatterBank25 mins ago
News30 mins ago
Phrases & Sayings34 mins ago