A Conversation for The MMR Vaccine

Links

Post 21

Rho

Leopardskinfynn,

Vaccines work by causing the body's natural defences to come into play. This way, the body is prepared for infection by the wild form of the disease. The form of the viruses in the vaccine are specifically weakened (attenuated) so as to minimise the risk of them causing any harm - it's far, far less dangerous to have these viruses injected than to be infected by the wild form of the disease.

RhoMuNuQ


Links

Post 22

Leopardskinfynn... sexy mama

Thank you for the information RhoMuNuQ........

but what I meant was that injecting a virus straight into the body is potentially harmful to a developing immune system - the pathogen has entered straight into the body and has not been 'filtered' through the usual route of the respiratory system, and the body then finds itself having to go into overdrive to deal with the 'invader', attenuated or not attenuated.

My point being that combining vaccinations may just be too much for some indiviuals?


Links

Post 23

Mina

I'd much prefer for my son to take his chances with the disease, than a laboratory manipulated one. His immune system is already busy attacking his own body, and has done since he first had cows milk when he was 6 weeks old. I do consider artificially introducing a disease into a childs body is not the best thing to do. If I'd known his problems were a food allergy, he wouldn't have had the other injections either.

Saying that doing what is best for the majority of children is right isn't something that I agree with either. Children are individuals, and shouldn't be treated as a 'majority', or a minority.


Links

Post 24

Rho

Leopardskinfynn,

My opinion is that combining vaccines results in more children being vaccinated, as the parents would be less likely to forget to have their child vaccinated with one or more of the vaccines. I cannot see how attenuated viruses could overload an immune system or, if this does happen, why this hasn't ever been detected.

===

Mina,

> I'd much prefer for my son to take his chances with the disease, than a laboratory manipulated one. His immune system is already busy attacking his own body, and has done since he first had cows milk when he was 6 weeks old. I do consider artificially introducing a disease into a childs body is not the best thing to do. If I'd known his problems were a food allergy, he wouldn't have had the other injections either.

In my opinion, the laboratory-manipulated virus is far safer the natural form of the virus - the laboratory has specifically *weakened* the virus to make it so. If your son is allergic to the medium in which the virus is stored, that's a different matter. In that case, it may well be that he'd be badly affected by the vaccine and so shouldn't receive it, but this isn't the case for the majority of children, who aren't allergic to the vaccine.

> Saying that doing what is best for the majority of children is right isn't something that I agree with either. Children are individuals, and shouldn't be treated as a 'majority', or a minority.

I agree that children are individuals. However, if not vaccinating results in hundreds / thousands of children catching a disease, with a significant proportion of these children suffering permanent problems or being killed by the disease while the alternative - vaccinating - results in far fewer children suffering autism (especially when there is no proven link of the vaccine to autism), I for one would be entirely in favour of vaccination.

It should be remembered that the largest scientific study carried out in Denmark found no link of the MMR vaccine to autism and that the apparent rise in incidence of autism began before the MMR vaccine was widely introduced. In my opinion, this rise in autism is due to better recognition by doctors of the condition - in the past, children with autism would have been labelled 'Mentally Defective', along with other children suffering from different conditions.

===

RhoMuNuQ


Links

Post 25

Galaxy Babe - eclectic editor

I hear all the time that a "small percentage" of children will have problems after the vaccine.

BUT when it is *your* child, it isn't a small percentage.

It's 100%.


Links

Post 26

Rho

The way I look at it is like this:

There are two guns pointing at your child's head and you *have* to fire one. In each gun is exactly one bullet, but in the first gun there are 1,000,000 slots for a bullet; in the second there are 1,000. Since you have to fire one gun, which do you fire?

RhoMuNuQ


Links

Post 27

Galaxy Babe - eclectic editor

B*llocks.

You don't put a gun to your child's head, even metaphorically.

If I'd been given all the fats when I took my 13-month old baby in to be vaccinated, I would never have allowed it.

You have no concept of the guilt I live with, that I *allowed* this to be given to my child.
His life is ruined, and so is mine.

All my older kids had measles with no ill-effects.
They all had separate innoculations.

Why didn't you mention that Tony Blair's family doesn't trust the MMR vaccine?


Links

Post 28

Leopardskinfynn... sexy mama

You haven't ruined your son's life GB, you mustn't blame yourself for not being in possession of all the facts back then.
smiley - cuddle


Links

Post 29

Galaxy Babe - eclectic editor

Thankssmiley - cuddlesmiley - smooch


Links

Post 30

Rho

Archangel Galaxy Babe,

> B*llocks.

Please don't be rude in your postings - you've asked some questions; I'm answering them politely, giving my understanding of the principles involved in vaccination.

> You don't put a gun to your child's head, even metaphorically.

I'm afraid I must disagree - vaccinating a child always carries some risks; I believe, and have evidence to support my viewpoint, that not vaccinating a child carries greater risks. It can be thought of as having to fire one of two guns at your child's head, with one gun far less likely to kill the child.

> If I'd been given all the facts when I took my 13-month old baby in to be vaccinated, I would never have allowed it.

It is, of course, entirely your decision as to whether or not to vaccinate your child. I have a differing viewpoint, which you don't have to agree with, but I'm here presenting my viewpoint as you asked me to do.

> You have no concept of the guilt I live with, that I *allowed* this to be given to my child. His life is ruined, and so is mine.

I'm terribly sorry that this has happened to your child. However, I personally don't believe that the MMR vaccine is to blame. It is a tragedy that your child's life is ruined, but I don't believe you should feel guilty about allowing the vaccination.

> All my older kids had measles with no ill-effects. They all had separate innoculations.

This is why I am not in favour of single jabs - your children all caught measles, which accounts for one million deaths of children under five every year. That none of your children who caught measles died is fortunate, but, based on the experience of a handful of children, the decision as to whether all children should or should not be vaccinated cannot be made. A study of 537,303 children is enough to base an informed decision on, and this study found no link between the MMR vaccine and autism.

> Why didn't you mention that Tony Blair's family doesn't trust the MMR vaccine?

I answered in post 19: "A parent's personal decision on whether or not their child should be vaccinated is, in my opinion, irrelevant. In this age science is based on statistics and reliable statistics are quoted extensively in the article. Objective mathematical facts are true evidence; anectodes are not." I also omitted from the article, for the same reason, that I personally knew a child whose parents decided not to have vaccinated with the MMR vaccine. That child a few months later caught measles and died. He's now buried a few miles from where I live. How must his mother feel now?

RhoMuNuQ


Links

Post 31

Galaxy Babe - eclectic editor

Like any mother who has been bereaved, of course.smiley - rose
Having vaccinations doesn't prevent anyone getting a disease. It merely limits the strength of it. If the child had had the MMR he might have still caught measles, but I doubt he'd have died. Or, he could have become asthmatic, had a convulsion, and died.

I'm unsubscribing now, because this is taking too muh out of me.

I'm going to spend my whole weekend, looking after an autistic boy whom even a foster family trained for special needs, will not take, to give me respite {since last May}.

What are *you* going to do with your weekend?

Don't bother to answer - just think about it.


Links

Post 32

Rho

> I'm unsubscribing now, because this is taking too muh out of me

That was never my intention - I was just trying to put defend my point of view that the MMR vaccine did not cause autism. smiley - erm

smiley - sadface
RhoMuNuQ


Links

Post 33

PaulBateman

I'm going to stop the attack on Blair now. Criticise him on something else. There's plenty of things out at the moment.

The truth is this:

Tony Blair is Prime-Minister. His life is public. His children are not PM and their lives, including the medical status of his children, are private. He did not say that Leo would not have the vaccine. He basically said that it was none of your business. Later on he had to give in and did say that his son had received the MMR vasccine to stop the sort of reaction that's going on in this forum. Except people, including myself until I was corrected by my wife-to-be (who's a highly trained clinical immunologist and is probably the best person to make any comments about the MMR vaccine - and hopefully will soon though wedding arrangements are taken priority in our little lives), had forgotten that.

Mainly because it's not what the press and the public want to hear. People want a boogieman to blame in the first place. And the PM supporting the public opinion makes him a champion of what is an unproven cause. And people like to have a powerful ally.

Hitting out at a vaccine is easy. Understanding why autism and autistic spectrum disorders is on the increase is far more complicated and requires a lot more time. In law the accused to presumed innocent until proven guilty. The MMR vaccine is far from being proved guilty despite what people may think.


Links

Post 34

Math - Playing Devil's Advocate

I may be wrong, it has been a while since I read the report I had on MMR vaccines, but I do seem to recall the Danish study gave a proportion of the children a placebo, and a proportion the vaccine. However if I recall correctly six months later the study was concluded and the proportion that recieved the placebo was then given the vaccine, which may well have been too short a period. Also note unless I'm much mistaken the study wasn't set to look for this specificaly, but was a more general study for side effects. As such (assuming my recollection correct) I don't take this report into account and it was the center peice to the discrediting of Dr Wakefield.

Math


Links

Post 35

amdsweb

I get so worried by the fact that people think that MMR is linked to autism or related disorders.

Measles is a _nasty_ thing to have. Even uncomplicated measles is miserable.
1:1000 children who have measles will have encephalitis (with a 10% mortality rate).
A small amount of people develop subacute sclerosing panencephalitis. This is uniformly fatal, and is a long, slow, horrific way to die.
Other fatal complications of measles include pneumonitis secondary bacterial infections.

Children do not get the MMR until 12 months of age.
If I have a child that dies from measles caught from a child whose parents refused the MMR jab for their child, I _will_ take out a civil action for manslaughter.

Similarly if my pregnant partner catches rubella from a child whose parents refused the MMR jab for their child and my baby is born with congenital abnormalities due to rubella, I _will_ make sure that I crucify you in the courts.

Don't suggest that individual jabs are a good substitute - they aren't. They have to be given a month apart which leads to prolonged periods of susceptibility to the remaining bugs not vaccinated against.

Don't suggest that its OK if your child doesn't get the MMR because other kids will be having it - we are already losing herd immunity because of that attitude.

Please read the facts about MMR carefully. Look at the vast body of evidence that backs up the safety of MMR. Get your child immunised. You may just save his/her life and the lives of others too young to have the vaccine.

I'm sorry if this offends but I feel very strongly about this. Wakefield and JABS have a lot to answer for. JMHO.


Key: Complain about this post