I wonder if there's a typical type of person who refuses MMR. Do some people not really understand the potential dangers of having measles?
Hippies and Daily Mail Readers. Opposite ends of the spectrum political spectrum but they all have one thing in common, they're stupid air heads. These people are a ****ing disgrace to human intellect.
The really hilarious thing is that there is a statistically insignificant relationship between having the MMR vaccine and having a lower chance of developing autism.
I wasn't vaccinated against anything except polio and diptheria as a small child. My Mother said that here was quite a lot of speculation in the seventies about the safety of the vaccines for measles, mumps, rubella and whooping cough, so my parents decided against it.
Mind you, what would my Mum know about it, she's just your average namby pamby middle class parent... who holds a medical degree.
And yet turned out she was wrong.
An interesting read:
[url= http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51XNHAp4aJL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU02_.jp g" target="_blank">
i had a vaccination as a child and promptly had a massive seizure and spent the rest of my childhood heavily medicated for epilepsy which has caused me no end of health problems so with all due respect get of the bloody high horse angry man.
Apologies I've not read the whole thread, so don't know if this is redundant, but for those who don't get herd immunity:
[img] 
[/img]
(hotlinked from FB 😉 )
...and here's what a friend of mine who's a nurse in Tassie wrote (I'm sure she won't mind me copying):
This is why we vaccinate. Its got little to do with us! It's about doing our bit to protect those that can't be vaccinated. If you love others particularly tiny babies, vaccinate yourself and your children! Its called Herd immunity, we need you to protect the most vulnerable in the herd! Wake up Tasmania, 2.5 times more whooping cough than the rest of Australia as a direct result of non immunisers! It's not acceptable....
http://www.mamamia.com.au/health-wellbeing/malakais-story-whooping-cough-symptoms-in-babies/
To be fair, the MMR scare has to be put in the context of its time
Its was only a few years after the whole vCJD fiasco, when public trust of government scientists was at pretty much an all time low!
For what its worth - our eldest daughter got separate injections, and has confirmed diagnosis of ASD, and our youngest got MMR, and they are assessing her at the moment...
i had a vaccination as a child and promptly had a massive seizure
I'm sorry about your illness but, respectfully, that doesn't imply a causal link in and of itself. Chances are it would have happened regardless of the vaccine.
IMHO from everything I've read, anyway. You may know different of course, but anecdotes like that just fuel the MMR myth.
and responses like that fuel the resolve of people who think they are being lied to.
go to your doctors pick up a leaflet on vaccinations turn to the back pages and you will find a page that gives advice on what to do if a child has a seizure after the jab .
its the mercury that does it apparently 😕
anyways the whole autism thing is not the only issue in peoples minds is i think what i am getting at.
Its was only a few years after the whole vCJD fiasco
Ah, yes, that well known mass killer. Are you just trying to provide examples of other scare stories?
Geetee ,it is a parents informed choice whether or not to vaccinate their children, who are you to call people cretins
Even if 'Herd Immunity' did work the way its claimed to, you simply cannot acheive the vaccination rates required to completly wipe out a disease. I'll say it again, the biggest group of unvaccinated children are the ones that are too young, followed by the ones that cannot be vaccinated for medical reasons. These groups will always exist and will always be potential carriers and spreaders of the disease. These groups will always be the primary ones that compromise 'Herd Immunity'.
The demonization of the few parents who choose not to vaccinate, is simply a convenient scapegoat, to blind the populace from the fact that actually Human medical science is not capable of completly wiping out diseases (althought to get it as low as 0.003% is pretty good going). How many parents who have vaccinated have actually bothered to read for themselves the packaging insert that came with the vaccine? How many, like nonk has said, have actually bothered to read the leaflet about vaccines from their doctor? Are you content with the levels of mecury in the vaccines? Are you content that they contain material from aborted foetuses?
geetee1972 - If a child does die in Wales, and I sincerly hope one doesn't, it doesn't help either side of this debate at all. Did that child have both MMR jabs, or just one? Did it not have the jab for medical reasons? Was it too young for the jab? Did its parents decide against the jab? Did it have a genetic weakness that made it particularly vulnerable to measles? Too many questions.
This is not as black and white as people are trying to make out. To call non-vaccinating parents 'cretins' and 'a **** disgrace to human intellect' is in itself disgracefully cretinous, because these parents have probably done a lot more reading and research around the subject than those that just blindly accept what the government and NHS tells them. *And breath*
and responses like that fuel the resolve of people who think they are being lied to.
I meant no offence, just that "x happened then y happened" doesn't automatically mean "x caused y."
I'll look into your comments before responding, if that's ok.
Geetee ,it is a parents informed choice whether or not to vaccinate their children, who are you to call people cretins
It's their choice, certainly. Whether it's "informed" or not appears to be a matter of debate.
gt, udder etc, lots of chicken pox going around down our way too, one of my daughter's friends and cases at her nursery so worth keeping an eye
gt healing vibes to your little lad
Its was only a few years after the whole vCJD fiascoAh, yes, that well known mass killer. Are you just trying to provide examples of other scare stories?
I rather think that the point was not the number of cases of vCJD, but the fact that the government of the day had stated, absolutely categorically, that there was no risk whatsoever to humans from eating meat from BSE infected animals, when it turned out that there was, in fact, a risk. I'm not sure that people can be blamed for bearing that case in mind when the government of the day stated that there was no risk from the MMR vaccine.
indeed!
[img] 
[/img]
you simply cannot acheive the vaccination rates required to completly wipe out a disease
How many polio cases do you hear of these days? Globally you may be right, but we can get bloody close, and we can wipe some out within a given community.
Are you content with the levels of mecury in the vaccines?
Yes. Read up on the "thiomersal controversy."
Are you content that they contain material from aborted foetuses?
Yes, because they don't. Vaccines are cultivated in human cells which were originally grown from foetal stem cells back in the 60s, but they don't "contain material from aborted foetuses" any more than homeopathic remedies contain an active ingredient. The human cells used in every single vaccine today, the world over, are reproduced from cultures derived from just two abortions.
You could argue whether it's morally just to save billions of lives by using cells from two unborn children forty years ago, but that's a whole other argument. Seems to me to be a pretty noble thing to do, plenty of organ donors in the world, and they typically only save one or two lives.
This won't be liked/agreed with.
I think that as a race humans need less vaccinations and more people who can naturally come through such epidemic problems.
Much rather lose a percentage of the population and carry forward with a naturally strong (without vaccines) race.
Less like running down an ever narrowing alley..
My twopence worth
Here. kja78, you'll like this, it was written by a "Christian scientist." It explains it far better than I just did.
http://www.drwile.com/lnkpages/render.asp?vac_abortion
Even if 'Herd Immunity' did work the way its claimed to, you simply cannot acheive the vaccination rates required to completly wipe out a disease.
There be weasel words here. Just because you appear not to understand how herd immunity works, doesn't mean it's not working. There's a nice picture I posted up there which might help you. Why don't you have a look at that and come back and explain to me why it's wrong?
I'll say it again, the biggest group of unvaccinated children are the ones that are too young, followed by the ones that cannot be vaccinated for medical reasons. These groups will always exist and will always be potential carriers and spreaders of the disease. These groups will always be the primary ones that compromise 'Herd Immunity'.
It's quite bizarre. The reasons you propose for herd immunity being a waste of time are the very reasons why it's important. Though I'd question your numbers anyway - from the BBC report, 1 in 6 children in the Swansea area have never had the MMR vaccine, meaning that by far the largest group without resistance are those who's parents elected for them to be carriers. Even using the 1 in 10 figure for the whole of Wales, that's still more children who's parents have chosen not to have resistance than the number of children too young.
I rather think that the point was not the number of cases of vCJD, but the fact that the government of the day had stated, absolutely categorically, that there was no risk whatsoever to humans from eating meat from BSE infected animals, when it turned out that there was, in fact, a risk.
Indeed. Thousands of people die each year from diseases related to eating red meat. How ridiculous of the government to state that there is no risk to eating beef.
IMO Pharmaceutical companies will do anything for profit. Incentivising GPs to give jabs being one of them.
Do I trust my GP? Do I ****!
GPs are up there with bankers as upstanding members of society. Patients = £
you simply cannot achieve the vaccination rates required to completely wipe out a disease
Google [url= http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1940479 ]Hib and Finland[/url]. Not just disease, but carriage of the bacteria has been virtually eliminated from a country. And don't get me started on Smallpox...
IMO Pharmaceutical companies will do anything for profit. Incentivising GPs to give jabs being one of them.Do I trust my GP? Do I ****!
Whilst that may be true, it has zero bearing on the efficacy of vaccination.
You might want to have a look here, I think it'd be relevant to your interests. http://www.alltrials.net/ In fact, everyone should, and sign the petition, it's Important.
you simply cannot acheive the vaccination rates required to completly wipe out a disease
smallpox
you simply cannot acheive the vaccination rates required to completly wipe out a disease
smallpox
Better still, catch cowpox like I did in 1994, and no smallpox vaccine is required. 😆
OP, hope your baba gets better soon. It's very easy to feel frustrated and useless when you child is unwell. They are tough little creatures though.
Cougar - Moderator
The human cells used in every single vaccine today, the world over, are reproduced from cultures derived from just two abortions.
I hope that link isn't your proof for the above statement. The only apparent prevention is federal law (or good old fashion normal law), which only comes into play when i/you/they are caught.
I doubt that pharmaceutical companies make much out of vaccines, except new ones that are still on patent, like flu jabs?
someone I know tried to rubbish the herd immunity theory by giving tetanus as an example.....
just noticed on that Gummer pic - the burger's hanging so far out of the bottom of the bun that he probably didn't eat any actual burger at all
😐
[b]Chipsngravy[/b]
As a GP (and thanks for your kind words... 😉 )
I can tell you that from a financial point of view we would love to be able to walk away from Child immunisations tomorrow. We only even get the money (paid retrospectively) to pay our staff to give them if we hit targets which are getting tighter, and are impossible in many areas of the country. Two new imms are going to be aded to the regime soon, the reimbursement isn't going up at all.
The kids jabs are centrally supplied, we never meet people from the companies involved, we don't purchase them or get any incentivisation from the manufacturers.
But don't let facts get in the way... 😆
I meant no offence, just that "x happened then y happened" doesn't automatically mean "x caused y."
non taken cougar.
@stoatsbrother "targets" "reimbursement", to me these words suggest that one way or another GPs have a financial arrangement of sorts with drug companies. Whilst this arrangement is in place I'm afraid I cannot trust the motives of GPs. Their sole concern should be patient welfare. Not "targets".
As a GP please understand this is about trust. Detach yourself from a financial arrangement with the drug companies and that is a step in the right direction. Maybe then I'll develop some trust.
Personally my wife and I have chosen not to give our kids any jabs. I'm grateful that we have the freedom to opt out. Making this decision has not come without difficulties, particularly from our GP. I was stonewalled when I "dared" to ask questions about immunisation and my concerns about it. I realise that my wife and I are now viewed as nutters by our GP and his colleagues. All because I wanted (dared) to ask some questions.
As for the suggestion of forcing people to be immunised. An infringement of civil liberties. Very wrong.
@Cougar, thanks for the link. Signed.
I hope that link isn't your proof for the above statement.
No, it was just the first thing I found to try and back up what I thought I knew anyway.
@Cougar, thanks for the link. Signed.
Excellent, thank you.
Start of with the fact that all our children are immunised and Wakefield and his media supporters have a lot to answer for. However...
- Implicit trust in the medical profession or pharmaceutical companies is not my thing. Both have abused the trust placed in them. Thalidomide and the ongoing misuse of the Liverpool Care Pathway are reasonable examples
- I don't believe that any parent should be forced into any medical intervention for their child unless there is an immediate threat to the life of the child
Just my point of view though...
Implicit trust in the medical profession or pharmaceutical companies is not my thing. Both have abused the trust placed in them. Thalidomide and the ongoing misuse of the Liverpool Care Pathway are reasonable examples
So would you rather trust journalists? Unfortunately for you, it's such a specialised area that you have no choice.
And thalidomide is not a vald example really, I wish people would stop banging on about it. It was a mistake, not an abuse of trust. It's like saying air travel is dangerous and citing Comet as an example.
I don't believe that any parent should be forced into any medical intervention for their child unless there is an immediate threat to the life of the child
Well this measles scare is a good example of why they should. The wasn't an immediate threat to health from measles, now there is. Statisticaly, several kids are likely to die from this outbreak, which is caused by people not immunising and exercising their poorly informed choice. If you immunise, diseases can be controlled or even eradicated. This is a good thing.
Personally my wife and I have chosen not to give our kids any jabs.
Are you therefore happy to be part of this problem rather than its solution?
Incidentally, from where do you get your information to make these decisions about immunisation? The internet? Books? Newspapers?
Just because someone is paid for doing something doesn't make it wrong. Teachers are paid to teach, police are paid to look after us etc. If the govt is paying doctors per jab, then that's not the doctors' fault. Plus it's not that outrageous to be paid per job anyway. Although I would prefer it in principle if doctors were employed by the govt directly on a yearly salary, I think.
Anyone care to fill me in on why they're not? Or are they?
Implicit trust in the medical profession or pharmaceutical companies is not my thing. Both have abused the trust placed in them. Thalidomide and the ongoing misuse of the Liverpool Care Pathway are reasonable examples
As molgrips says, what choice do you have? Unless you have access to, and the understanding of, the published research etc... then you aren't going to be able to make an informed decision, you have to rely on what someone else is telling you.
I agree with molgrips on the second point too. A parents' choice on whether to immunize their kids doesn't only have an impact on their kids but others also.
Personally my wife and I have chosen not to give our kids any jabs.
Are you therefore happy to be part of this problem rather than its solution?
And to be held responsible if your child is the direct cause of another dying when you could have done something to try prevent it ever happening?
a bit less confused on all this:
argument goes - some parents choose not to vaccinate and reason is probably that they wish to protect their children - their fears may be irrational and data is a little confusing (label as cretins)
argument goes - you wish to protect your child but only way to do it is to compel others to act in a way they don't want to - their fears may be irrational and the data is a little confusing (label as good socialists)
And thalidomide is not a vald example really, I wish people would stop banging on about it. It was a mistake, not an abuse of trust. It's like saying air travel is dangerous and citing Comet as an example.
As I said earlier a better example would be gulf war syndrome which involved "safe" vaccines taken together that resulted in multiple health issues the existence of which were then denied by the powers that be .
I'm not sure that people can be blamed for bearing that case in mind when the government of the day stated that there was no risk from the MMR vaccine.
All that proved was that governments are stupid and not scientists. They had no right to make the claim about beef.
However it's not only the government that's saying this about immunisation. It's a long studied topic, and this scare has been going on for years, not just some sudden health crisis like BSE was.
Easy to condemn parents now, but my daughter was a baby when all the MMR vaccine scare came out and certainly made th decision harder. decision
When I was a kid the vast majority had measles and mumps along with chickenpox, just seen as one of those things that you caught and got over
@stoatsbrother "targets" "reimbursement", to me these words suggest that one way or another GPs have a financial arrangement of sorts with drug companies. Whilst this arrangement is in place I'm afraid I cannot trust the motives of GPs. Their sole concern should be patient welfare. Not "targets"
No they don't. The government wants as many people as possible to be vaccinated, in order to avoid children dying which is generally seen as a bad thing (morally and politically), it is the government who pays GPs to vaccinate, not the drug companies. The purpose of vaccination targets is to increase patient welfare plain and simple.
If your conspiracy theory was true, if drug companies wanted to encourage more use of their vaccines, then surely they'd be encouraging use of the more expensive single vaccines? Whilst drug companies are obviously evil in tons of ways for which there is really good evidence, they certainly aren't stupid, so the chances are that in this case they aren't being evil (not to mention that they don't pay doctors to give vaccines, did I mention that already).
As a GP please understand this is about trust. Detach yourself from a financial arrangement with the drug companies and that is a step in the right direction. Maybe then I'll develop some trust.
They don't get paid by drug companies to administer vaccines, so do you trust them yet? Seriously though - if you think that you've found out lots of information, and considered vaccination carefully, yet you don't even know who is paying these supposed 'bribes' to the doctor and aren't able to understand what the purpose of vaccination targets is for, and still believe things that are obviously untrue, I wonder what even more crazy stuff people who haven't considered vaccination carefully might believe.
The relationship between the NHS and drug companies is a complex one though and isn't just the complete conspiracy theory thing of being in the pocket of drug companies - there is obviously some stuff where drug companies do well out of the NHS, but on other things they do quite badly, like the NHS price bargaining for drugs means that a lot of drugs are much cheaper here than in Europe (and massively cheaper than in the USA, but drugs are all ludicrously expensive over there).
