h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Entry: The Anti-MMR Movement - A2084267
Author: leo mckern [space for random exotic word juxtaposition generator] - U534308

Updated version to take into account recent developments

Are you updating an edited entry?

...and if so, what's its 'A' number?

Having had a lurk around, I think this is a re-submission of the same entry:

F1696262?thread=356813

That's the previous PR thread.

Leo: I was embroiled with vaccine-manufacturers for years (well, my solicitors were) until it got to court and the Judge threw out the case because "it had no chance of winning".

I don't feel qualified to comment here, without sounding biased, because I believe my son was damaged by the MMR - but with all the research I have done, I now believe it is the mercury derivative, thimerosal, which did the damage.

I can't see this entry making it into the Guide, as one of the conditions is, it has to be balanced.



Galaxy Babe

Ref 2 legs' comment on the other thread,

' the combined effect of all three together provides a greater chance of having an adaquate, strong immune respone to each which produces memory lymphocytes capible of providing long term protection against the infective agents; this is the main reason, as I understood it for not having three seperate vacinations'

Whilst what he saysa is true, I didn't think this was the Govts main rationale for a combined vaccine. I thought that their main rationale was that there was more chance of a child receiving the full course (of 3 vaccines) for each disease if they were combined. i.e. 3 trips to the 'quack' rather than nine.

I still wonder whether there is some similar situation to Gulf War Syndrome, where some people hypothesise that this is due to overload of the immune sysrtem due to the combined effect of several vaccines etc etc being given vclose together.

How ridiculous! You're one of the people who had a case constructed by Dr Wakefield who submitted a study whilst being funded by Legal Aid and you have the cheek to say this article isn't balanced?

No doubt you are a member of JABS?

The idea that MMR causes autism has been well and truly buried!

This has been the major problem of the MMR scare, that journalists, used to dealing with politics and educated in the arts, have presented both sides of the argument as equally valid and given equal airtime to both the campaigners and the medical profession. This in turn has confused the public who believed there was good evidence for MMR causing harm.

This is of course not the case. You talk about "balance". Well the anti-MMR lobby has a very weak case which all but the most determined have dismissed. On the one hand they say cases of autism have increased massively, then they say that MMR only causes some cases of autism such that epidemiology will not pick up the increased rate. Well which is it? One or the other? I think I will add that to my piece.

BTW I'm not sure if this was on the national news last week, or just on our local news, but students in the Bournemouth area are being offered 'mumps' jabs because there is an increased incidence of mumps - due to the reduced uptake of MMR vaccine. (Thinks... is this SINGLE mumps vaccine they're being offered? Wish I'd paid a little more attention now!)

This has happened in a number of colleges/universities. Often they are given MMR since very little single mumps vaccine is licensed in this country (this is interpreted as a conspiracy by the anti-MMR lobby naturally rather than the continuous reassessment of products the anti-MMR lobby asks for) and production of vaccine cannot be wound up instantly due to the means of manufacture.

Hi, leo!

I've always been very sceptical of the anti-MMR movement, and never felt there was enough scientific evidence to justify any change.

Nevertheless, I feel that the entry *is* unbalanced at the moment--the tone of the long section where you quote the JABS messageboard comes across as totally exasperated, with a "look-how-stupid-these-people-are" message. Quoting others for the purpose of fair comment is one thing--extended quoting with the intent of ridicule goes a bit too far, especially when it's in a potentially much more permanent form.

Azara

Yes I should probably shorten it - although some direct quotes will still be useful. Damned by their own foolish words!

*coughs*

Strange how badly he reacted to my comments, yet Azara says the same thing and he agrees with her?

You have to admit that being involved in litigation means your opinion cannot be considered unbiased. Considering my article exposes the illogical thinking behind the MMR scare you of course wouldn't agree with it.

Would you care to read post 4 again?

Not really - why should I?

Your entry seems very biased towards the 'anti-MMR campainers are fools' side of the debate - sentences like "The position of anti-MMR campaigners is that there is no need for a vaccine for common childhood diseases and point to the rapidly growing incidence of autism occurring after MMR inoculation." don't help. I thought most anti-MMR campaigners thought that innoculations were necessary, but that they should be given separatly. There are only a few people who don't believe that we need any innoculations at all.

How is that biased exactly? Science isn't like politics - there's two points of view that should be treated equally. Separate vaccines never made any sense - AS MY ARTICLE POINTS OUT.

The anti-MMR argument has been sunk well and truly.

Have you not heard of anti-MMR campaigners having "measles parties" - should have been locked up for child abuse IMO?

leo,
I think you've been quite rude to Galaxy Babe: she said herself in post 4 "I don't feel qualified to comment here, without sounding biased,..." and clearly didn't want to debate the whole matter.

The only comment she made was the general one that the entry was unbalanced, which is the same comment that I made. So I think there was no reason to be so cross about it: you complain that JABS won't tolerate any critical comments from the opposing side, and then you do the same thing yourself.

Azara

I welcome critical comments - point out a problem with the article please. Whether or not you think it is biased is a MATTER OF OPINION. I have presented the facts.