My only thoughts are on when parents will be given the right to have their babies vaccinated with single injections rather than the multiple one.

Although the article is reasonably balanced, words like "claimed" and "backtracked" are a little leading. If memory serves it would be more accurate to say that the press took a brief summary of the research and blew it out of all proportion, ignoring the experts who complained that the press's presentation of the preliminary results was both inaccurate and imprecise.

The press have a duty of care in presenting complex and important scientific matters to a generally scientifically illiterate public, and this is a duty they fail to satisfy far too often -- for example, several prominent astronomy organisations have advocated that the detection of earth-crossing asteroids not be announced immediately due to the press/public reactions; alas holding the information back for a few extra days then runs the risks of the lunatic fringe screaming about a cover up.

---

by Sange
My only thoughts are on when parents will be given the right to have their babies vaccinated with single injections rather than the multiple one.

---

as far as i'm aware you can get single injections as well, but fewer places offer them on the NHS. although, tbh, i thought the whole thing was a major over reaction to begin with. even if there is a link to autism with the MMR vaccine, the risk is going to be miniscule anyway, very much like taking the pill and the increased risk of breast cancer, even smaller i think, and how many people have stopped taking the pill because of that. i have got way more to say on the matter, but my brain is tired and i can't think, but i will be back.

The so called link will never be proven until it's known for definite what causes autism. That'll probably never happen.

I believe a child should be immunised, whether by single or triple vaccine is up to the parents. They should have the right to choose. Apparently supplies of the single vaccinations are at an all time low.

The original case for the so called link was never replicated. When i first heard about this this morning, i wondered at a case of severe backtracking on the doctor's case.

A measles epidemic is expected this winter. It is NOT the childhood disease of yesteryear. It's not a case of feeling poorly and spotty for a few days and then getting over it, it can kill. There are complications, encephalitis being just one of them.

I believe that the press has to take some responsibility for all of this. It was blown totally out of proportion and scare-mongering an already stressful situation for worried parents trying to make the right choice. Of course you worry that your child could become autistic, but i personally believe that the trait has to be there in the first place for the vaccination to trigger it. As i said, til the cause is finally nailed down, replicated,proven, whatever, no one will know for sure if the vaccination is the factor.

Joel has infantile autism, which means he's always had it. Nothing triggered it. He's had the triple vaccination. I agonised over the MMR for Hannah, i even delayed it, but in the end i had her immunised and it's something that i don't regret.

I could really get on my soap box about this one!

It always strikes me as really irresponsible when the press over-sensationalize a minor health risk that hasn't even been substantiated by the scientific evidence. But then, the media make money out of selling stories, and the more controversial and scary an idea, the more attention it grabs.

This is why I'm now doing a course in science communication with the hope of devloping a career in which I can try to make sure that a balanced, properly-researched viewpoint is available!

One source for a more information on the subject can be found on the Science Museum website. This includes information on hot topics (including MMR) that are featured in the Wellcome wing of the museum.

Hmm... I am always scared of posting on something controversial, so please don't shout at me... however.

My middle brother has allergy-induced autism. All three of us children in my family have become ill after vaccinations (not necessarily MMR) - I've come out best of the lot, only suffering from a shot immune system for years. My littlest brother became diabetic not too long after a vaccination. Middle bro more immediately ended up in a coma after an allergic reaction to a vaccination, which damaged his brain, as well as the subsequent autism.

All of this is the reason that, should I completely lose all sense of reason and have children, I will be more than a little wary of getting them vaccinated - something seems not to agree with our little patch of the gene pool, I don't know...

But there are two points I must note. On the one hand, I despise the simplification of scientific reports in the media, where preliminary evidence of slight risk gets turned into "Killer vaccine in our kids", etc etc.

Yet - I would rather something was reported than, as has been the case in the past (and I know it is getting better) that the medical community closes ranks, says there are no risks whatsoever, and that a concerned mother should stop being a silly little woman and go away (actually said by the consultant paediatrician to my mum, amongst other equally vile things).

Surely there is some middle ground somewhere?

The public truly have a right to know if there is a risk, the level of the risk, and the research should be done in order to asses the risk. As Prof Mirch (one of the professors involved in this) said this morning, nothing is risk free. as well all know, 100% of people who breathe will die I would not withdraw the MMR vaccine out of hand - undoubtedly for the vast majority of those who have it, there is no problem. But it seems it's just tough wossname for those who *do* have a problem - they're pushed from pillar to post, denied a lot of help, dismissed as "over-concerned parent" (comment of a doctor when my mother believed the youngest was showing signs of diabetes. If she hadn't pushed the case, he might have died), as the medical profession close ranks rather than dare to acknowledge that a medication might have some slight risk, a thing that all sensible people knew in the first place. I don't believe that any of the parents whose children have AIA want the vaccine withdrawn utterly - they just want acknowledgement for and help with their problem (recent Private Eye article details alleged incidents of the government doing their best to block any help), and the right of parents to make an informed choice.

Another argument on Today this morning was that parents giving single vaccines were more likely to forget to follow up on the others, which would lead to a rise in Rubella cases, which can cause serious problems in pregnant women. My irritation at slight professional arrogance aside (parents/laymen aren't scrupulous enough to be trusted with this) - is it me, or aren't we also re-immunised against Rubella at about 14?? I'd be intrigued to know a) does this mean that initial Rubella vaccine doesn't work? and b) couldn't we just have the age 14 rubella jab?

I know that measles kills, I am not that naive. Does anyone know when the MMR vaccine came into being?? Because I know that I have had in my childhood - measles, mumps, german measles (rubella) and whooping cough. It's a wonder I'm still here...

I'm sorry for such a long and rambling post. I'm afraid this whole issue upsets me deeply - the vaccinations we had as children have devastated the lives and health of my whole family, directly and indirectly, and I wish we could just acknowledge, discuss, and deal with problems like intelligent adults.

This is a very depressing "debate". (And how I use the term loosely.) I think we've gone from one extreme to the other. It used to be trust the establisment without question, and now it's hold everything suspect however tenuous the evidence may be.

What none of the reductivist ranting in the tabloids faced upto was that there is no certainty in medicine, only a balance of risks. At the moment, it seems to me that the risk from measles, mumps and rubella massively outweighs an unproven hypothesis that the vaccination which prevents them may cause autism. This is a ruthless balance of risk to subject parents to, at the least they should be able to navigate it without hysterics from both sides ringing shrilly in their ears.

Bee *hugs* sweetie. I have a friend whose son has allergy induced autism.

I think with the hoo-ha over the vaccination, the word "autism" was mentioned and parents pannicked for want of a better description. They don't want their child to become autistic, however the risk, which is understandable. It wouldn't matter what percentage the risk is. You should see the looks and hear the comments that i get when Joel kicks off majorly. Something along the lines of "i'm glad that's not me"... makes me mad, because it wasn't like i had a choice in the matter... but i digress.

It's the same with most vaccinations. When the diptheria/whooping cough/pertussis one was introduced, there was a massive panic about the vaccine brain damaging children.. i remember reading a lot of press about children being damaged by that one, i think it was the whooping cough vaccine that was the culprit in that one (and i may be wrong, but i think i read something about a damaged batch of the vaccine being to blame for that one? )

And the Rubella vaccination for teenage girls was withdrawn after the introduction of the MMR, as it was considered unnecessary because the girl would get the immunisation at the time of the MMR instead of in her teens ( I remember this because i asked my health visitor when Hannah got her MMR)



(Edited by Keenangel 01/11/2003 11:07)

(Edited by Keenangel 01/11/2003 11:07)

---

by Keenangel
It's not a case of feeling poorly and spotty for a few days and then getting over it, it can kill.

---

Yes, measels can kill, but that's only in very rare circumstances now. Medicine is evolving and doctors should be able to spot a case of measels a mile off from the distinctive rash, fever etc. it produces history, sypmtoms and signs that are so specific that the diagnosis can be made clinically, without the need to wait for tests. Children only die from measels now if they are not seen by a doctor or are immunocomprimised in some way. it is very esily treated by simple antibiotics, even in the immunocomprimised child. this also is true for mumps and rubella, although they are very much less likely to kill than measels.

Still i don't feel that this is in anyway a reason not to be vaccinated. as Byron said, it's very much a balance of risks, and i feel not having the vaccination on the account of an unproven risk is not worth the risk of the diseases themselves.

I have been told by one of my lecturers that the generation of young children and infants who have not been vaccinated against measels, mumps and rubella will be at an age when they are most likely to contract the diseases when i start my rotations as a house officer. children not being vaccinated has a huge knock on effect with the NHS which is why i do feel that parents should have the option of the single vaccine, even if it is more costly to the NHS in the short term. but i still feel that the triple vaccine is ok to use as the unproven risk of autism is very small.

I'm not sure that I agree with the "parents should have the right to choose" argument.

The triple vaccine is agreed by a very large majority of doctors to be safer and more effective than single vaccines and there have been a lot of studies looking into a link between the vaccine and autism that have found no evidence at all of a link.

If parents are to make a decision that flys in the face of all that expert opinion, in what basis will they make that?

Vaccinations are for a common as well as an individual good, we don't let parents choose whether their children recieve education. Sometimes people who know best must be allowed to make the decisions.

We do allow parents to choose *how* their children recieve their education, though.

I've yet to see any group calling for an end to vaccination, just the single vaccines. There may yet be a public health argument for forcing parents to vaccinate their children; but as with making anything cumpulsory that should be an absolute last resort. And I can't see it happening since any government that tried to impose it would be commiting electoral suicide.

I'm sorry but I feel the Government are playing a deadly game with uk childrens lives,by refusing to reintroduce the single measles, mumps and rubella vaccines. The result of this is that fewer children in the UK are being Immunized. Parents are traveling to France to have their children vaccinated or paying very high fees to obtain them at the few supplied clinics in the UK.

Surely yeiding to this reasonable request we have a win win situation, parents can decide what is best for their child, an increase of the vaccination uptake. The results will be better protection for all against measles mumps and rubella.

[quote]by lil_miss
(quotes)

Yes, measels can kill, but that's only in very rare circumstances now. Medicine is evolving and doctors should be able to spot a case of measels a mile off from the distinctive rash, fever etc. it produces history, sypmtoms and signs that are so specific that the diagnosis can be made clinically, without the need to wait for tests. Children only die from measels now if they are not seen by a doctor or are immunocomprimised in some way. it is very esily treated by simple antibiotics, even in the immunocomprimised child. this also is true for mumps and rubella, although they are very much less likely to kill than measels.


I still wouldn't be prepared to find out... it's the same as the MMR supposedly linking to autism... no one knows for sure. The child may be poorly and spotty and recover, the child may go on to develop more severe symptoms and God forbid, not. A lot of parents are under the impression that measles is a case of the former, some don't seek medical attention. And would antibiotics really work?, i thought measles was a viral thing?.

(Edited by Keenangel 01/11/2003 21:14)

---

by Sange
I'm sorry but I feel the Government are playing a deadly game with uk childrens lives,by refusing to reintroduce the single measles, mumps and rubella vaccines. The result of this is that fewer children in the UK are being Immunized. Parents are traveling to France to have their children vaccinated or paying very high fees to obtain them at the few supplied clinics in the UK.

Surely yeiding to this reasonable request we have a win win situation, parents can decide what is best for their child, an increase of the vaccination uptake. The results will be better protection for all against measles mumps and rubella.

---

Again, the government is following the advice of the vast majority of the people who have the most knowledge on the subject. Which is that the MMR vaccine is more effective in protecting against the three diseases and that there is no evidence of any link with autism at all. Are you really suggesting that politicians should be allowed to overule doctors about what medicines are most effective? And again, how are parents going to decide what is best for their children? I don't see how any decision against what the experts say is best can be logical.

---

by Keenangel
And would antibiotics really work?, i thought measles was a viral thing?

---

You're right, measels is caused by a virus, but antibiotics are affective against bacteria, viruses, fungi, protazoa, worms... anything that causes infection. And yes, antibiotics are effective if the correct one is prescribed. I've looked it up in my textbook and antibiotics are only needed if secondary infection occurs, which isn't the case for many patients. Treatment is usually supportive, as in keeping the fever down, plenty of fluids, and pain killers if necessary. It is up to the parents to recognise that the child is unwell and know the signs of measels. i'm sure not many parents wouldn't go to the doctor if their child had a fever and a rash due to the fear of meningitis.

again, i'll say that this is no reason not to get immunised against measels, mumps and rubella. and i've also looked up about the single vaccines. they are no more effective that the triple vaccine.

A la "The Matrix", the problem is choice.
Parents feel that they are being denied that choice, and quite rightly feel upset about that.

Many (if not all) of us were vaccinated using the individual shots, and here we are today with no problems. Well, none from having individual injections as opposed to the triple MMR jab anyway.

The old saying "If it was good enough for us, then it's good enough for them" would seem to apply, and the government bullying and using scare tactics isn't going to help anyone.

---

by Avenger
(quotes)

Again, the government is following the advice of the vast majority of the people who have the most knowledge on the subject. Which is that the MMR vaccine is more effective in protecting against the three diseases and that there is no evidence of any link with autism at all. Are you really suggesting that politicians should be allowed to overule doctors about what medicines are most effective? And again, how are parents going to decide what is best for their children? I don't see how any decision against what the experts say is best can be logical.

---

Ah I see trust the professionals? Those with the most altruistic of motives?
There are a couple of things that worry me about that:

Thalidomide, was hailed as a "wonder drug" that provided a "safe, sound sleep".
Thalidomide was a sedative that was found to be effective when given to pregnant women to combat many of the symptoms associated with morning sickness. It was not realized that Thalidomide molecules could cross the placental wall affecting the foetus until it was too late.
Thalidomide was a catastrophic drug with tragic side effects. Not only did a percentage of the population experience the effects of peripheral neuritis, a devastating and sometimes irreversible side effect, but Thalidomide became notorious as the killer and disabler of thousands of babies.
When Thalidomide was taken during pregnancy (particularly during a specific window of time in the first trimester), it caused startling birth malformations, and death to babies. Any part of the foetus that was in development at the time of ingestion could be affected.
For those babies who survived, birth defects included: deafness, blindness, disfigurement, cleft palate, many other internal disabilities, and of course the disabilities most associated with Thalidomide: phocomelia.
The numbers vary from source to source as no proper census was ever taken, but it has been claimed that there were between ten and twenty thousand babies born disabled as a consequence of the drug Thalidomide. There are approximately 5,000 survivors alive today, around the world. Never counted and never to be known, are the numbers of babies miscarried, or stillborn, let alone the number of family members and parents who have suffered over the years.

Didn't the so called experts say, don't be silly it's perfectly safe?

Haven't the medical community made enormous leaps into 22nd century science? I believe that they are now advocating once again the use of leeches.

Who are these faceless "Professionals"?
Dr Harold Shipman?
Shipman, 57, was jailed for life in 2000 for the murders of 15 women patients. Later the inquiry into his crimes decided he had killed at least 215 of his patients in Hyde and Todmorden, West Yorkshire.

Maybe an extreme example, but then any child would in theory be immunised by a single Doctor? I don't believe that we are given all the information to make the informed decisions as parents. A Balance of risks, I'm afraid that being the parent of a one daughter doesn't leave me any room for a balance of risks, if I make a mistake it could have life changing conmsequences. I haven't another to get the next decision right about.

I believe it's purely and simply a question of economics, politicians playing with the proletariate as pawns in a chess game. Why isn't there a simple choice between single and multpile vaccinations? Surely we all want whats best for our children, and while there is still some doubt, let the people who have to deal with the consequences make the decisions.

Right I'm finished rambling. I shall now go and lie down again and keep taking the tablets!!

Doctors are not always right. Some of them are even bad people. Medicine is a science and science, contrary to what a lot of people seem to believe, consists of a range of constantly evolving theories, not a list of factual certainties.

---

by TNT
I don't believe that we are given all the information to make the informed decisions as parents. A Balance of risks, I'm afraid that being the parent of a one daughter doesn't leave me any room for a balance of risks, if I make a mistake it could have life changing conmsequences. I haven't another to get the next decision right about.

---

Yes, the information is that the safest and most effective way of immunising against MMR is the triple vaccine. Again, the question that no-one has yet answered, what is the alternative to following this advice? If, as you suggest, there was a choice between single and triple vaccines, how would parents choose? Toss a coin? If they were making the informed choice you suggest, they would have to go with the triple vaccine, as that is what the available evidence suggests to be best. Unless you believe that every responsible parent should get a PHD in medicine, set up their own laboratory, and carry out their own extensive research?

Another question for those disagreeing. A child is sick, the parent takes them to a doctor. The doctor examines the child and based on his years of training and practical experience, identifies what he believes the problem to be and proscribes some medicine to treat it. The parent returns home and says "ah well, that's what the doctor says, and it seems that a majority of other doctors would agree, but I've decided not to give my child this medicine". Would you believe that to be a responsible step? If not, what is the difference?

Disagreeing with a doctor isn't the issue at all here, in fact disagreeing with a doctor can be quite healthy in fact.
My Mother kept insisting that a doctor's decision about my sister as a baby was wrong, she knew something wasn't right, but the doctor's kept dismissing it as being "an anxious mother". Eventually someone listened and it was determined that she actually had several different allergies and fairly severe asthema(sp?).

The very fact that most of us were immunised with the single vaccinations and are here, and haven't contracted measles, mumps, or rubella would suggest that the triple vaccine is nothing more than a cost-cutting measure.

The whole problem as I mentioned before, is the denial of choice - Parents already know of an alternative's existance - they were immunised with it themselves, and they know it works, so the choice is actually between what they know is a safe method and one that possibly isn't.