Monday, June 15, 2009

MMR (yet again)

Some people seem to have misunderstood the point of my last post on this. I shall assume that it was because I was not clear enough and so shall restate my case—with the following important proviso up front: I was not suggesting that the single jabs replace the MMR. My assumption was that the MMR would continue to be the norm, and that doctors would continue to recommend the MMR jab.

However, for those parents who would not, in any circumstance, countenance the MMR, the single jab should have been made available because some immunity is better than none.

The good Dr Crippen has fisked your humble Devil and has made a very pretty job of it. However by way of reply, I shall repost the comment that I left over there.
John,

As with a number of commenters over at The Kitchen, you seem to have missed the point.

The situation is as follows:
  1. There has been a sharp rise in the incidence of measles, something that you have highlighted yourself, quite frequently.

  2. A good part of parents' refusal to immunise their child is because of the fears over the safety of the MMR jab.

  3. Whether or not the MMR jab is utterly and totally safe is irrelevent: a substantial number of parents believe that it is not, and so have failed to give their child any kind of immunisation.

  4. Hence the sharp rise in the rate of measles.

  5. A rise in the rate of measles is bad for all of us, since the more instances there are of an incubated virus means a higher likelihood of mutation (especially a single-stranded RNA virus like measles): this brings with it a higher likelihood of the emergence of a strain of virus resistant to the vaccine.

  6. For a number of reasons—the long-term health of the child, herd immunity and (6) above—it is a bad thing, for all of us, that a significant proportion of parents did not vaccinate.

  7. I don't see anything in the Sense document that says — from a medical point of view—that a single jab (assuming course completion) is better than none at all.

  8. Therefore, assuming supplies could be found, surely it would be better to offer the single jab in conjunction with the triple—with parents urged to go for the triple for all the reasons outlined by yourself and others—rather than have a lot of unimmunised children running about?

Could you please explain to me, Dr [or anyone else here], why any of the above reasoning is flawed?

DK

P.S.
"Leaving aside the flat-earthers at JABS, it amazes me that intelligent, rational people continue to ignore scientific data."

Really? Right, may I subject you to a quick thought experiment, my dear Crippen—do you think that prions cause BSE?

So, given the above, could anyone else please explain why my reasoning is flawed?

And, please note, I have not said that the MMR is unsafe, only that a significant number of parents believe it to be so.

69 comments:

Boy on a bike said...

Your reasoning is spot on. That's how I viewed it the first time. You'd have to be as thick as two short planks not to have gotten that idea from your first post.

Some is better than none at all. If you have to paint the vaccine pink to make it acceptable to some looney parents, then let's do that - rather than pontificating on that "You must simply accept things as they are", and then wondering why many are refusing to jab their kids.

Boy on a bike said...

By the way, here is a question for those that refuse the MMR:

The UK now has a large sample of kids who have not had the MMR injection. No jabs at all.

How many of them have been diagnosed as autistic?

Anonymous said...

Did you not understand this part of Crippen's post?

Incorrect. Single immunisations would likely have increased the incidence of measles for reasons given above.

Hmm. Well. In fact, the reasons that doctors did not lobby for single immunisations was that they knew that that would not be in the best interests of children and would, in fact, have resulted in more children dying of measles. And the incidence of mumps and rubella would have increased.

wonderfulforhisage said...

Maybe I'm thick or past it or both, but to me what isn't clear from yout argument DK is do you advocate three lots of single jabs covering measles, mumps and rubella or just the single measles jab.

I get the impression that your critics are reading your argument to mean that it would be better to offer a single measles jab or a triple jab. If that is what you mean then I think Dr C. has a point.

Devil's Kitchen said...

wonderful,

I am advocating, of course, a discrete course of vaccination for all three.

I concentrated on measles because that is the particular disease that Crippen, for one, has concentrated on.

Anonymous,

I think that you are simply taking what Crippen wrote as fact, without reading the reasons why.

The reason that I felt I had to clarify about the continuing existence of the MMR is because, as far as I can see, Crippen is assuming that I am advocating the substitution of the MMR with single jabs.

I am not.

The vast majority of parents were happy to give their kids the MMR: we are trying — for the sake of the whole of society — to get those who will not give their kids MMR (for whatever reason) to immunise their kids nevertheless, i.e. by offering a perfectly reasonable alternative to the procedure that they fear.

I don't really understand why this is such a difficult concept to grasp, so I shall say it again. In capitals.

SOME IMMUNITY IS BETTER THAN NONE. For everyone.

Therefore, if offering MMR-sceptical parents a single jab as an alternative to MMR persuades them to immunise their children, that is A Good Thing.

DK

Michael said...

I understand your good intentions DK, but how on earth would you implement your policy?

If the single jabs are offered, all those parents who only know of MMR from the bad headlines won't even consider it. At the moment most of them are convinced by docs to give the MMR.

I expect the majority of parents would end up taking the "safe" option of the 3 injections. Doctors advice just doesn't match that of a well orchestrated media hoax. People put too much trust in the media.

We'd end up in a situation where the MMR would be all but scrapped, Wakefield et. al will have achieved their goal, and we're all on a slippery slope.

Let one quack discredit legitimate treatment by playing on fear, aided by an inept media, and you only invite someone else to do the same.

What's next? Antibiotics? Anaesthesia? Breast Feeding?

SaltedSlug said...

What Michael Said.

If you gave the option of the single jabs, a percentage of those who up till now had no choice but to have the MMR vaccine, would now have the single jabs instead, and among those people a fair proportion of them would not complete all of the courses for all of the diseases. So herd immunity for each of the diseases would decrease based on how 'important' the parents thought it was, and since there is always someone who brings out the "my irresponsible parents got us to catch everything off each over and it never did me any harm" line, I would speculate that compliance would be all over the fucking place for each vaccine.

Speculation I know, but one need only look at the only country I know of which withdrew from MMR use (Japan) and observe the resultant Mumps epidemic.

(Although I am being a bit disingenuous as that was due to dodgy vaccines; but that's what happens when reject a safe vaccine which is used in over ninety countries and instead pander to ignorance)

Anonymous said...

"And, please note, I have not said that the MMR is unsafe, only that a significant number of parents believe it to be so."


FFS, how much more are you suggesting we as tax payers will have to pay for these feckin idiots?


NS

Budgie said...

Never mind the facts - just slag off the parents who refused MMR. That's really scientific.

The fact is the human body is immensely complicated and we are all different. Some people, for example, have an allergy reaction to some antibiotics. Just because I don't, doesn't mean the adverse reaction is not real.

There is no such thing as "safe" medicine. There are always side effects, some very bad indeed for some people. It is always a trade off.

Henry North London said...

oh for fucks sake What happened before the MMR came out?

I had measles and rubella vaccines as a kid

I caught the mumps off my father a GP when he caught it off a patient when he was 47 years old and I was 13
Even my mother had it at the same time, My father brought it home from a bloody patient.

I had managed to avoid it for 13 years at school

I got the chickenpox when I was 8 and had to have 2 weeks off school

The mumps came in the Easter break.

You lot are mad

Single vaccines would be fine for rubella and measles

Mumps doesnt have long term sequelae in young children thats why you have mumps parties where all the kids get it at the age of 7 or 8 and then no one else has to get it at advanced ages.

You lot are such twats

DK is proposing single vaccines for measles and rubella and theyve been around for years. it is this sodding government that says that the MMR is the "only" vaccine that can be used, that has caused the problem.

SaltedSlug said...

oh for fucks sake What happened before the MMR came out?
More people caught the diseases, and amongst those people more people died or suffered long term damage.

I had measles and rubella vaccines as a kid
Good for you, take a cookie.

Single vaccines would be fine for rubella and measles
Would be, but people can't be trusted to count to fucking six. I blame Labour.

Mumps doesnt have long term sequelae in young children thats why you have mumps parties where all the kids get it at the age of 7 or 8 and then no one else has to get it at advanced ages.

Perhaps, but they can give it to adults (like your dad) who never contracted it as a child and who grew up pre-mumps vaccine. This would include me. It CAN have nasty effect on THOSE people, not limited to brain damage and infertility.

So fuck you, I'm thinking about my balls.

BenS said...

I don't really know about this medical stuff - the stuff I've read says MMR is perfectly safe, so whatever - but this just highlights the tyrannical nature of the NHS.

Don't want to do what the NHS says? Fuck off elsewhere then. Oh, you don't have the money? Tough shit, we'll take your tax and piss all over your kids because you happen to want three separate vaccines.

P.s. DK I think most of us understood you first time round, fortunately. Always good to hammer a point home, however.

Henry North London said...

The main problem with most vaccines is the preservative that they use called thiomersal Its mercury based

You tell me if injecting kids with mercury is a good thing or not?

Lord Elvis of Paisley said...

Listen, here's a fucking dose of reality for the whol lot of you okay???

I am a parent. I have a young child. I do not trust this fucking government. Kay? I weighed up the situation and decided that my child should have the triple jab. BUT!!!!! I do not see why the government could not have given us the option. Measles has been on the increase singe the MMR has been introduced, therefor ther government has lost the argument on the triple jab.

What part of this do you FUCKWITS not understand???

If I had the choice, or I could have afforded the multiple vaccinations I would not have hesitated in going down this road for my child. Unfortunately, I did not and after doing a LOT of research I decided the risks on the MMR outweighed my kid not having it at all.

The fact is, the government does NOT!!!!! have the right to take this choice away from me as they have done. If there is doubt then the choice SHOULD be available.

The government are cocksuckers supreme in thrall to the pharmaceutical giants who dictate NHS policy in this country and anybody who thinks otherwise is either a think cnut or is incredibly naive. Why the fuck do you think they're getting peopl hooked on nicotine gum at the taxpayers' expense you dumb fucks?

We're being herded, and all of you arguing for the MMR are either sheep or you are part of the corruption. Either way, you're C**TS!!!

SaltedSlug said...

The main problem with most vaccines is the preservative that they use called thiomersal Its mercury based

You tell me if injecting kids with mercury is a good thing or not?


Oh fuck me, here we go.

MMR does not contain thimerosal.

And if it did, would it matter?
No it wouldn't.
It contains a tiny amount of ethyl mercury which is non-accumulative and cannot cross the blood-brain barrier, and is pissed out of the system in short order. As opposed to to Methyl Mercury which is what you used to get in thermometers and which really will ruin your day, and hang around in your system for years.

Also-as I said- the amounts are tiny and you will encounter more heavy metals from the soil your food is grown in.
Thimerosal was removed from vaccines not because of any real health concerns, but because people would not stop banging on about it; as you are proving.

Daniel Jordan said...

Why has this turned into a Scientific debate when it started about the principles of freedom of choice???

All vaccines can potentially have serious side effects for a minority of people, and I would not demand a single one of them to risk their health to secure mine.

So a compromise would seem to be the best solution for all involved.

cabalamat said...

You wouldn't be able to replace MMR with one single jab, you'd have yo use 3 single jabs.

I assume the advantage of doing it all together is it costs less money. If that's the case, then I thnink the NHS should offer single jabs, but only on condition that the parents pay any extra costs associated with them. Alternately, the newspapers and journalists who whipped up the idiotic MMR scare should be forced to pay.

Because I shouldn't have to pay extra taxes to placate idiots who are swayed by woo-mongering nonsense.

And as for homeopathy on the NHS, don't get me started.

SaltedSlug said...

Why has this turned into a Scientific debate when it started about the principles of freedom of choice???


Because the two are linked. My and others on these various related comments threads stance is that the option to choose between separate vaccinations schedules would in and of itself compromise herd immunity, for the reasons described.

Don't get me wrong, I am all for freedom of choice, and would if I had the choice drop the NHS like a hot bag of shit and keep the cash. However, the system we have is what we have and the harmonising of proven vaccination systems might -just might- be one of the few benefits of a centralised health system.

I'm guessing that Elvis up there might disagree.

A N Other said...

Let those who do not want vaccination for whatever reason do so. Surely that is an acceptable position from a libertarian point of view.

However, before making an irrevocable decision, might one suggest that those who so distrust the MMR vaccine look after a child with severe Rubella Syndrome for a week or two?

the a&e charge nurse said...

Freedom of choice - sounds great doesn't it?

So next time I use the NHS I want fluffy red cushions in the waiting room, and a cappuccino (plus extra shot) while I'm waiting to see the doc.

Did I say doc, sorry, I meant Professor - educated at Oxford, or Cambridge, natch.

And I want to be able to the tell the Prof what tablets are best for ME - after all, I pay my taxes so why I should let someone from the gestapo, I mean government, push me around, eh?

Anybody who denies these simple FrrRRReeDOMs is a NuLab stooge, or nazi, which as any serious political commentator knows are both the same thing nowadays.

Anonymous said...

let us just get the DK's reasoning correct.

everyone should be able to have three single vaccinations instead of one joint immunisation.

Of course, vaccines cost money, and tend to have a limited shelf life. The government would have to spend extra money to have the single vaccines available as an option. When you are talking about millions of people, that is not a cheap option.

"Therefore, if offering MMR-sceptical parents a single jab as an alternative to MMR persuades them to immunise their children, that is A Good Thing."

yes, and this is the bit where you have absolutely no evidence base. The doc says "MMR is perfectly safe, but here is the alternative"; lacks credibility, doesn't it ? Oh, and it would cost a mint. Sort of thing where you would justifiably hammer it if the government actually did waste its money.

per

the a&e charge nurse said...

Problem is A N Other it's not the non-immunised child that really suffers (from rubella syndrome), its the foetus he/she infects while in-utero.

Don't forget the infectitious nature of rubella will be catastrophic for some pregnant women even though they may have intended to vaccinate their child once it was old enough.

And this risk is increasing all the time because some parents refuse MMR altogether, while the single vaccine brigade have a higher drop-out rates, perhaps because their children become distressed at the reality of multiple injections?

Here is avery good item on why NOBODY in the international medical community is advocating single vaccines - but we don't to let scientific evidence get in the way of political dogma, do we?
http://www.thpc.scot.nhs.uk/Health_Protection/MMR/facts.htm

Anonymous said...

"mumps does not have long term sequelae in young children..."

just look at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mumps

Nothing there that says that kids cannot get complications, and that they cannot be severe. In fact, it does list severe side effects.

How can you deal with this level of ignorance/ denial ? How should you respond ? By dressing up the science in astrology, so that people accept it ? Have single jabs, because they are safer ?

this way madness lies.

Mummy x said...

I think your reasoning is spot on, in an ideal world there would be an alternative. How ever I think the out come of your suggestion would, perhaps, not be quite as you see it. Parents are strange creatures. If there was an alternative to MMR in single jab form, every single parent would demand it. Why. I suspect most parents believe that their child is somehow different, more at risk or just more special than everyone elses. Just take the MMR/Autism link. All the parents that are happy to refuse MMR on the grounds of Wakefield's (now de-bunked) theory are in effect saying that they would rather their child suffered a hideous, painful and sometimes deadly childhood disease rather than risk that child possibly, remorely, could end up Austistic. It would appear they are happy to risk blindness, deafness, disability or death as long as their child has no chance of becoming Autistic. Autism has become the medical bogeyman. That has never sat well with me. I reckon a hefty dose of those parents that refuse the MMR are the same that self diagnose their children with every eating disorder under the sun, claim they are allergic to e-numbers and it makes them 'hyper', spoil them rotten then scream for an Autistic Diagnosis anyway when the child turns out to be an utter little shit. I believe that Drs have no choice when it comes to paying the Union. I am under the impression that it is compulsory for Medical registration and insurance (shoot me if I'm wrong). For the record I have 3 rug rats, all of whom had the MMR. My eldest was vaccinated the year the MMR scandel appeared. It was a tough choice to make but I decided that even at worst a live austistic child was better than a dead one.

Mummy x

Mummy x said...

Lord Elvis, just a query, you state

If I had the choice, or I could have afforded the multiple vaccinations I would not have hesitated in going down this road for my child

Single jabs have always been there. You had a year to save up, in fact you had a year and 9 months and although single jabs are pricey we aren't talking thousands. How much do you think these jabs should cost. How much would you have been happy to pay for your child's welfare and your peace of mind.

The fact is, the government does NOT!!!!! have the right to take this choice away from me as they have done. If there is doubt then the choice SHOULD be available.

The government didn't take the choice away from you, you did. You opted for the free MMR when you could have paid for singles. Don't blame the Government for your own decisions.

Mummyx

Fitaloon said...

Have you ever taken a child for a jab?, Have you ever taken a child for a second jab after he had a screaming fit at the first one, have you ever then tried a third and then a fourth and so on. Let me tell you even the second one is a nightmare.
The thought of having three jabs instead of one just makes me want to cringe. Oh and by the way I'm the parent of an autistic kid and Wakefield is the true Devil, the amount of money wasted following up his absolute shite, would have been so much better spent on proper research.
Don't worry you'll get plenty of backing from the lunatic fringe for this shite.

James Higham said...

All the immunization I ever had was followed by illness. The concept needs to be examined in detail and the pharmaceutical companies along with it.

cabalamat said...

The A&E Charge Nurse: "So next time I use the NHS I want fluffy red cushions in the waiting room, and a cappuccino (plus extra shot) while I'm waiting to see the doc."

Fuck that. I want a blow job!

cabalamat said...

Mummy X: "The fact is, the government does NOT!!!!! have the right to take this choice away from me as they have done. If there is doubt then the choice SHOULD be available."

They haven't taken the choice away from you, if you go private you can get single injections done.

I think if the government built a gigantic phasllic statue, it would appease the gods and reduce illness. There is no evidence for this belief whnatsoever, but we cannot be 100.00000000% certain that it is false. Therefore the NHS should spend billions building a 5 mile high giant phallic statue, to please stupid irrational idiots like me.

wildgoose said...

Well I am the father of an autistic child and I don't think his MMR jab had anything to do with it. Which is why my following two children both received the MMR jab as well.

None of which alters the fact that DK is absolutely correct in what he is saying. Let those parents who are frightened by MMR have separate jabs. It will be inconvenient for them and their children, but it's their choice. And it's much better that they get some protection rather the none at they have right now.

Unless of course, it isn't about ensuring people are vaccinated but rather really all about the government showing us plebs that it is in charge and we won't be allowed any say in what it injects into our veins...

the a&e charge nurse said...

Hee hee, cabalamat - how could I have overlooked the fertility clinic?

John East said...

I tend to agree with your desire for freedom to choose on this issue, but I can see a couple of problems with it.

Firstly, offering the single vaccine would presumably cost me, the taxpayer, money. If, as now appears to be the case, MMR deniers have been proven wrong, then why should my taxes support their obduracy?

The second and more important problem I have with your stance is that it only applies to this one specific case where two vaccine options are available. More generally, only one vaccine is available to tackle a specific disease. If looney parents influenced by stupid ideas then refused vaccination (fans of alternative medicine and Jehovah witnesses spring to mind) should they also be indulged?

Anonymous said...

Fitaloon -

Spot on. The millions of research dollars spent refuting the pile of bollocks spouted by Wakefield et al could have been spent much better on looking for the REAL causes of autism. Autism research has been set back 10 years at least. Scandalous.

Henry Crun said...

Hmmmm, Crippen resorts to the "rational people" argument.

There are "rational" people who believe in Scientology, and "rational" people who think that a rise in CO2 causes climate change.

That scientists either willingly falsify data or unwittlingly lie in order to obtain grant funding, is it any wonder that rational folk no longer take the word of scientists as read?

Sue said...

I'm fed up with this debate too. What this boils down to is the parents right to choose.

Our children do not belong to the state or to the righteous who think we should be happy injecting them with chemicals compulsorily.

Leave our children alone, after all, if the vaccine does turn out to be a danger to some of them, are you going to spend 365 days a year looking after them?

My kids belong to me, they are my responsibility. The choice is mine!

the a&e charge nurse said...

Sue said ......... "My kids belong to me, they are my responsibility. The choice is mine!".

If a non-immunised child infects a pregnant mother with rubella resulting in a lifelong health problem for the baby - whose responsibility is that?

Ahh, but your kid is OK - now I'm beginning to understand.

SaltedSlug said...

if it were just your kids who it concerned, Sue, I'd have no problem with you and others like you compromising their health because you think that bad old Big Farmer fella is out to get you. But the problem is (as the Nurse just said) it isn't. If enough people fail to vaccinate their kids, the following will happen:

a) kids who can't be vaccinated because of a medical condition (eg. leukaemia) will be vulnerable

b) babies who can't be vaccinated for being too young will be vulnerable (see the recent whooping cough outbreaks in Australia due to poor vaccination take-up - at least one dead baby directly because of it)

c)Kids who HAVE been vaccinated will be compromised because Vaccines are imperfect and require herd immunity over a given threshold

d) Vulnerable adults (e.g pregnant women) could be infected, with horrible implications.

It is not just your kid; it is a group effort. It's all horribly socialist in nature but there it is.

Ivor Bigot said...

Ah, MMR, always gets a reaction. Including my rather alcohol-fueled wayward comment last time round. :-)

The problem I have with triples is the JABS nutters will hold that up as admission of guilt: "Aha! So if MMR is safe, why are you even offering the triple?" You just can't win with attention-seeking cretins like that.

IB

assegai mike said...

The I Am a Parent argument is no argument at all. Baby P's parents can make the same claim, after all. In fact, in my experience, many people I know who were once rational and stable turned into idiots on becoming parents. I am not a parent. My taxes have to cover all of this, MMR or single jabs. Totally happy to cover MMR, but you want single jabs, you pay. And if you do neither, you get prosecuted for child neglect. In this country you're compelled to take better care of your pet than your child, so why not?

"It's all horribly socialist in nature but there it is." Couldn't agree more, Mr S Slug.

bewick said...

Well now. When I was a kid the ONLY vaccinations available were for diptheria and later polio.

So I, and virtually everyone I knew eventually contracted measles, chickenpox, rubella (German Measles), the obvious whooping cough, and a version of Scarlet Fever (Scarlet Ena?)

My first memory of such an illness was when I was four and I had measles. Fortunately it WAS caught in time (everyone then could diagnose - the Doc only confirmed).
Fortunately I didn't go blind but my eyesight WAS affected - AND I actually remember (60 years ago) being confined to bed and being very ill - as I was with all the others. So STOP the bullshit and use MMR - OR pay for the privilege of 3 separate jabs otherwise you commit your kids to potentially being VERY ill. MOST current parents have never seen most of these illnesses because they'd been eradicated (or almost) before even THEY were born.
I did encounter a bloke just a few years ago who hadn't been immunised and got mumps. His balls were massively swollen and he was in REAL pain!
A few years ago I had a yellow fever jab and was told I'd be ill for a few days. I wasn't - so everyone IS different.

Anonymous said...

The pro mmr crowd on here are not actually concerned with the welfare of people and never have been. This is all about being right rather than being about getting as many people immunised as possible.

Sure there are people out there that are not that intelligent and are worried about vaccines when there really is no need, but they have been fed so many scare stories by the msm and hmg that they really do not know what to believe.
Obesity figures fiddled, passive smoking hyped, binge drinking exaggerated. The list is endless.

HMG reap what you sow.

Bald headed John

cabalamat said...

anonymous: "The pro mmr crowd on here are not actually concerned with the welfare of people and never have been."

Fuck off, idiot.

Anonymous said...

DK. You are logically correct. And putting it simply all the people that disagree with you are cunts who obviously do not understand logic and are incapable of debate.

You hear that? You're all cunts. And whether you are fucking Drs, Nurses, fucking saint francis of fucking Assisi, I don't give a fuck. You are all cunts. YOU DO NOT OWN OUR CHILDREN. (And you can expect a lot more of this after Balls' latest bullshit).

Once again the Government tries to lay claim to our children. Once again they should be told to FUCK OFF. They are not the property of the state. We are not the property of the state, we own ourselves, and we own our children until they are old enough to take the rights and responsibilities of being an adult person, at which point they own themselves.

A&E Nurse your 'selfish' dig at Sue is _irrelevent_. Sue is quite correct. Our children are OURS. NOT YOURS. F. U. C. K. O. F. F.


Z

SaltedSlug said...

We understand the logic of what DK is saying, and have tried -at length- to show why we think his logic is flawed; to wit - his idea would cause a lesser uptake overall than the 'some better than none' scenario he detailed.

Didn't think it was that hard to keep up with, really.

You thick cunts.

Anonymous said...

“The Court found that Bailey would not have suffered this delay but for the administration of the MMR vaccine…a proximate sequence of cause and effect leading inexorably from vaccination to PDD [Autism].”

http://gnn.tv/headlines/19763/Vaccine_Court_Autism_Debate_Continues

SaltedSlug said...

There is no autism 'debate' there is only idiots. In fucking droves.

Sue said...

I still maintain these are MY children. What else are YOU going to decide I have to inject in my kids? What else will I be forced to subject my children to if I don´t have sole responsibility for them?

Even the rights of parents who decide to teach their children at home is being eroded. Children (without our permission) are being entered onto a giant database.

With the lies this government feeds us, I don´t trust any of you, scientists, doctors, politicians, social workers, police and the righteous.

No, I don´t care about anyone else. Any mother will tell you, her children come first. I am not responsible for anyone else or their children!

SaltedSlug said...

No one is forcing you to do anything.

We're telling you why you should vaccinate your kids and about the wider concerns, and why we think not doing so is irresponsible.

Like you say: your kids, your choices.
Whatever.

Just don't say you weren't warned.

Henry North London said...

The British Medical Association and Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain had previously recommended against general mumps vaccination, changing that recommendation in 1987. In 1988 it became United Kingdom government policy to introduce mass child mumps vaccination programmes with the MMR vaccine, and MMR vaccine is now routinely administered in the UK.

The above is from wikipedia

Government policy.... are the keywords

This is the real problem The government interfering It would be the fault of the EU

Guess who makes these vaccines and is the parent group of Movianto which makes the vaccines that we have in Britain

Celesio is a leading international company which covers the spectrum of pharmaceutical trade and pharmaceutical-related services. The group is active in 14 countries and employs around 38,000 people in its three divisions Patient and Consumer Solutions, Pharmacy Solutions and Manufacturer Solutions. Over 2,300 of Celesio’s own pharmacies, as part of Patient and Consumer Solutions, serve over 550,000 customers in seven countries every day. In its wholesale activities, which are part of Pharmacy Solutions, around 120 wholesale branches deliver to over 35,000 pharmacies in twelve European countries – day in, day out. In the Manufacturer Solutions division, Celesio offers pharmaceutical manufacturers logistics and distribution solutions and supports them in sales and marketing.
Celesio AG

Neckartalstrasse 155
70376 Stuttgart
Germany
Telephone: +49 (0)711.5001-00
Telefax: +49 (0)711.5001-400
E-Mail: service@celesio.com

Call me cynical but thats almost a monopoly supplier...

JuliaM said...

"Unless of course, it isn't about ensuring people are vaccinated but rather really all about the government showing us plebs that it is in charge..."

Spot on!

JuliaM said...

An d you cn alwas tell when the authoriatarians are losing, when they break out the insults to intelligence and the profanity.

Tell me, Salted Slug, is it hard to type when you appear to be having a temper tantrum at the same time?

And if the people who point out that single jabs are at least better than nothing are 'thick cunts', what does that make people who keep recommending something that is shown to be failing to the point that there may be health risks?

SaltedSlug said...

An d(sic) you cn(sic) alwas(sic) tell when the authoriatarians(sic) are losing, when they break out the insults to intelligence and the profanity.

Tell me, Salted Slug, is it hard to type when you appear to be having a temper tantrum at the same time?


Not as hard as you, apparently.
Nah, was responding in kind in as few syllables as possible to the various anonymongs as they surfaced.

Authoritarian? Funny, I don't remember telling anyone to obey, I was telling them why they're wrong.

And there isn't any argument to lose here. I've said why I disagree with DK, and all you lot have done is crank out the same Doctors=HMG=huge-fucking-conspiracy-and-not-at-all-to-do-with-the-establish-science line.

JuliaM said...

"Not as hard as you, apparently."

Laptop keyboard, actually.

Obviously, it distracted you sufficiently that you had no answer for my 'so what does that make people who...' query, for which I can only apologise.

Can you answer it now?

"And there isn't any argument to lose here. I've said why I disagree with DK, and all you lot have done is crank out the same Doctors=HMG=huge-fucking-conspiracy-and-not-at-all-to-do-with-the-establish-science line."

Then you clearly haven't read (or understood) my comments on this and the other thread: I have no quarrel with the science! If I had kids, they'd have the MMR.

But I respect the rights of those not convinced to choose single jabs if they wish.

And the utter headbanging futility of trying to hector them into the MMR by alternately patronising them as stupid, or threatening them with loss of school access is merely creating more problems.

Remind me again - what's the definition of insanity? I don't think it's only rejecting the medical wisdom of the moment as regards MMR.

Is it?

Born Every Minute said...

Well, first, to all those people concerned about MMR, a WARNING.

Using the internet causes cancer. A bloke funded by campaigners trying to sue the ISPs said so, and managed to get a paper published in the same journal that did the "6 billion killed by Bushitler's troops in Iraq" paper. GET OFF THE INTERNET NOW! The government say the internet is perfectly safe and all the above is rubbish, which frankly just proves it.

I mean it. Get off now this instant and don't EVER come back. DANGER! DANGER! RUN FOR YOUR LIFE!!!

.

.

.

Still here?

Right. The argument, as has been pointed out repeatedly, is that if you offer people the choice of a nice fried steak full of saturated fats or starving, many people will eat the steak, a few will starve. If you offer people the choice of a nice fried steak, salad, or starving, you'll get fewer people starve, but also a lot fewer people eating the healthy steak. Overall, nutrition will be reduced, life will be less enjoyable.

The second point to make is that at no point was the choice denied, because you could always get the single jabs by going private. The private clinics made a lot of money doing so.

They'll also sell you fridge magnets and heavily diluted tap water for treating serious diseases. I call it "Natural Selection".

The market provides what the people want, the NHS makes itself unpopular and more likely to be privatised - what's not to like?

the a&e charge nurse said...

DK said ......... So, given the above, could anyone else please explain why my reasoning is flawed?

Single vaccines are;
*less effective due to drop out/missed injections.
*more expensive.
*more time consuming.
*greater pain inflicted, for no good reason.
*greater danger to the herd due to patchy uptake.

Oh, and it encourages consumer fuckwittery, thus diverting valuable time and resources away from those with real rather than imagined medical problems.

SaltedSlug said...

@JuliaM Fair enough, neck duly wound in. I thought I'd answered, but I shall take another stab at it.

Starting position:
People aren't using MMR because they believe it is somehow dangerous to their kids. This is down to a combination of bad government comms, red-top hysteria, nutty websites etc etc. -we all agree about this part.

DK and your good self think that if parents had the additional choice of single jabs, this would've filled in the gaps by at least a bit. Something being better than nothing, this is considered a Good thing. I agree it would be a at least a better thing.

My problem is that I don't think that would work. Here's why:

1. MMR would be undermined amongst even it's 'normal' users because "why would there be an alternative if it was safe?" Proportionally more would use single jabs then just the original abstainers. Which leads me to:

2. Single jabs aren't as good as a triple because you need six of them instead of two, when there are real problems getting people to comply with two as it is. So just following the existing compliance problem along into the new vaccine schedule exacerbates the issues we already have. I would predict therefore overall herd immunity would drop , particularly within diseases which aren't considered "all that bad". Also the single vaccination route has practically no epidemiological data to back it, compared to MMR.

Finally 3. It's not like the singles are/were unavailable is it? If parents were really that bothered about MMR but wanted some kind of vaccination it's not too much to assume that they would have stumped up the £300 to make it happen is it? Unless they really couldn't afford it - and I know I rarely have that much spare cash at any given moment- I would speculate that these people wouldn't have vaccinated anyway, regardless of the jab on offer. Now why would that be? Religious grounds, put-off by scaremongering websites, conspiratorial suspicion, downright laziness, there could be all manner of reasons for it.

I'll presume to predict the question you've asked elsewhere: What to do about it? And my impotent answer is: fucked if I know; I'm just another intermong.

Historically though, people took vaccinations for granted right up until the next horrible epidemic came along to focus their minds. I'm not expecting this to change.

This has taking me ages, so someone nimbler and more succinct has probably already got a response in before me.
I hate that.

SaltedSlug said...

True enough. Every fucker got in first.

Anonymous said...

Had single vaccines been made available, it would have been represented by the anti-vax, JABS and Wakefield loons as evidence that the government accepted there could be a problem with MMR.

The outcome would have been a disaster.

The idea of allowing some nonentity doctor, on the payroll of a lawyer, determine national vaccination policy is an absurdity.

SaltedSlug said...

That Anonymous chap is a right fickle bastard

Budgie said...

The pro-MMR brigade seem to have a touching belief that we have reached the acme of scientific medical knowledge right about now.

They're obviously not old enough to have seen the regular cycles in NHS medicine. Today's orthodoxy gives way to tomorrow's uncertainty and the day after's revisionism.

The government/NHS are far worse with their fads than 'looney parents' because they are ever so certain and far more powerful.

Anonymous said...

Salted slug..

a well thought out post.
However, the current way of doing things is failing. That is the fact that people keep forgetting.
What DK and some others of us are saying is that the message is not getting through, try another way. That as we know is not the way of authoritarians is it?
They would rather push on with their own agenda regardless of the cost.
Because the cost is never theirs to bear.

Bald headed John.

JuliaM said...

"MMR would be undermined amongst even it's 'normal' users because "why would there be an alternative if it was safe?""

I'm not sure that's true for a significant number of the current MMR users, who must be well aware of the controversy.

"Single jabs aren't as good as a triple because you need six of them instead of two, when there are real problems getting people to comply with two as it is."

Indeed, but ifg it scooped up a large enough percentage of the ones currently not vaccinating, it might still be worth it.

"It's not like the singles are/were unavailable is it?"

No, they are available if you go private. However, this is merely serving to further feed the 'govt doing things on the cheap for us minions and not the rich!' attitude. Remember the fuss over Leo Blair?

"I'll presume to predict the question you've asked elsewhere: What to do about it? And my impotent answer is: fucked if I know; I'm just another intermong."

And yet, we can all see that the current approach isn't working, and that the suggestions of coercion being made will made things exponentially worse.

Why can't they?

"That Anonymous chap is a right fickle bastard"

*sigh* Indeed. C'mon, guys, just make up a fake name, ok?

the a&e charge nurse said...

Bald headed John said ....... What DK and some others of us are saying is that the message is not getting through.

Ahh, how could we have overlooked peoples capacity for stupidity?

On one hand we a have dodgy study done by a Canadian surgeon (Wakefield) involving 12 children saying there IS a link between the triple vaccine and autism.
And on the other a decade of published studies by the international scientific community (including meta-analysis) saying there is no evidence for a link.

Yes, I can see why that message might find difficulty in getting through.

Born Every Minute said...

Seems to me there are three separate questions.

1. Is the MMR scare stupid?
Yes.

2. Is allowing the single-jabs alternative stupid?
Yes.

3. Do people have a right to be stupid?
Yes. But we don't have to help them do it.

Henry Crun said...

Ben Goldacre has written about the MMR "scare" in his book Bad Science. Here's a link to a posting on his blog:

Sue said...

"Back in the not so distant past Morgan was hired to push a drug responsible for widespread deaths and crippling illness. Ortho Biotech, a division of Johnson & Johnson, retained Morgan Allen Moore in 2001 to push its anaemia drug, Eprex. Eprex is currently being investigated by the FDA because of the high number of patients who have suffered strokes and died as a consequence of taking the drug"

From Guido TODAY. Pharmaceutical companies are a corrupt bunch of greedy businessmen.

SaltedSlug said...

Best of luck finding a vaccine not made by one, then.

Umbongo said...

Analogous to the MMR controversy is that over fluoridation. Of course, you can always buy bottled water but that alternative is not available to everyone who objects to compulsory preventative medication. The objections to fluoridation have rather more grounding in science than that to MMR (as gathered by this group). However, I don't doubt that the supporters of "government knows best" on this thread and others will rally to the compulsory flouridation cause. Meanwhile, why would anyone trust this talking rectum on anything let alone his demand that we drink whatever he decides to add to our drinking water.

Born Every Minute said...

Umbongo,

Tooth decay isn't contagious, so you aren't harming anyone else by not taking it up, so society has no business coercing it.