I would agree with Stoo that disagreeing with a doctor can be a good thing, and I also have experiences of this, often it can be a good thing to seek a second opinion. However we are not talking about disagreeing with one doctor and seeking a second opinion, we are talking about disagreeing with a whole body of medical opinion.

Stoo, I think you are factually incorrect in implying that there is no difference in effectiveness between the single and triple vaccine (I definitely had mumps as a child and I'm pretty sure I had measles as well). In the year before MMR was introduced, and single vaccines were being used, there were 90000 cases of measles in the UK, leading to 16 deaths (can't remember if I can post links here, got the stat from the BBC anyway).

Regarding the single vaccines... years ago they were about (this i didn't know til my mum told me about them) and there was a measles vaccine. My mum didn't trust it, she said she couldn't put her finger on it but i didn't get it and i got measles... badly. My sister got mumps and my brother got measles but not as badly as i did (I can remember both my siblings being unwell). She (my mum) couldn't explain why she didn't trust it, and she went with her gut instinct.

When i was pregnant with Hannah, my cousins' young daughter caught German Measles at a year old, i'd recently gone to her birthday party. That made me very very scared that i may have been infected and that Hannah could be infected, but routine blood tests done at my booking in which was about the same time, proved that my immunity against Rubella, which i'd gotten as a teenager, was still there and Hannah was fine.

Measles was a childhood disease of the past, and that's where it should stay.

Rightly or wrongly because of scarmongering a lot of parents now feel that the triple vaccination is not safe. Up until this government came into power single vaccinations were still available to all parents of children, once this government came into power in 1997 the Department of Health then changed the guidance, and only MMR was then available. That was a fatal mistake, in 2002 at the height of the scare immunisations were down to 65% in some parts of london. It is not acceptable for this government to say we will give you the triple vaccine or nothing, they are playing with childrens lives.

As for the single injections not being safer, the only evidence I can find for this is that children are at risk of getting the infections while waiting the gap between injections, surely children not having the injections at all is of greater risk?

Up until 1997 any parent could chose bewteen the tirpple vaccine and the single injections, why did the government stop parents from having this choice? why is it that up intil 1997 it was perfectly acceptable for parents to chose but it isn't now? if the single injections were not safe then why could we as parents in 1996 and below chose to have our children vaccinated in this way? and if the single injections arn't safe now then does that mean the health officials that told us to have are children vaccinated with the single measles mumps and rubella were playing with childrens lives? if so why should we now believe the triple vaccine is safe?... because the same officials say so?

---

by Sange
It is not acceptable for this government to say we will give you the triple vaccine or nothing, they are playing with childrens lives.

---

Around 100 countries in the world recommend MMR, none of these gives the option of single vaccines (World Health Organisation).

In Japan, due to a fault in the mumps part of their local vaccine, their MMR vaccination was withdrawn and single jabs introduced. In Japan, between 1993 and 1997, there were 79 deaths from measles, while in this country, widely using MMR, there were none.

How is our government playing with childrens lives?

Anyone who informs themselves of the facts and best information possible, and then chooses not to have their children immunised, is follwing one study (which did not claim to have found a definite link between MMR and autism, and which was described by the judge in a recent high court case as "junk science" ) over a raft of other studies finding no evidence of a link and the views of the vast majority of the medical and scientific community, not just in this country, but around the world. Anyone who does not inform themselves of the facts and best information possible and chooses to base their decision on media scare stories is, in my opinion, not behaving very responsibly.

(Edited by Avenger 03/11/2003 13:18)

---

by Avenger
Stoo, I think you are factually incorrect in implying that there is no difference in effectiveness between the single and triple vaccine (I definitely had mumps as a child and I'm pretty sure I had measles as well). In the year before MMR was introduced, and single vaccines were being used, there were 90000 cases of measles in the UK, leading to 16 deaths (can't remember if I can post links here, got the stat from the BBC anyway).

---

But that's how the vaccinations work sometimes, they give you a small amount of whatever illness so that your body can produce the antibodies on it's own, quite often you will get a mild attack of the illness, but then that's it. Your body can then produce the antibodies which ward off the illness in future.

Have you ever had either again? I'm willing to bet the answer is no..

Figures can be massaged to suit whichever line the editor wants it to, and on their own are fairly meaningless without going into much greater detail.

Also, "The Department of Health does not collect data on the use of the single measles vaccine, so any children who received it will not be covered in these statistics."

Without proper unbiased evidence the case for and against can never be properly argued.


For a good counterpoint - http://www.jabs.org.uk/ has some interesting information, especially this:

---

Any debate on vaccine damage will have Department of Health officials quoting the massive number of doses given to children in the United States. What is never stated by UK officials is that in the US they have a National Vaccine Compensation Programme. In the last 10 years this programme has paid out over $1 billion in payments to vaccine damaged children of which a 14% share has been paid out for MMR or its components. The drug companies have to contribute to the programme and up to August 1997 they had to pay an excise tax on each dose using a risk-based formula. The DTP and MMR were taxed at $4.56 and $4.44, polio vaccines at $0.29 and DT (diphtheria/tetanus) vaccines at $0.06. This must surely give an indication of which vaccines carry the highest risk of a serious adverse reaction. The US administration will not pay out compensation because of unfounded scare stories. In the US two American parent research organisations, Autism Research Institute and Cure Autism Now Foundation, have recently joined with the National Vaccine Information Centre in calling for independent studies conducted by non-governmental researchers into the possible link between vaccines and autism.

---

(Edited by Stoo 03/11/2003 13:24)

---

by Avenger
(quotes)

Around 100 countries in the world recommend MMR, none of these gives the option of single vaccines (World Health Organisation).

---

Well most of these countries I think you will find do offer single jabs, and produce single vaccines. If not how come I can go to France and get my child vaccinated in singular doses?

---

How is our government playing with childrens lives?

---

Because warrented or not parents arnt having their children vaccinated, as I previously stated up until this government came into power we as parents had a choice of how we had our children vaccinated, this government took that right away, Parents arnt saying they dont want their children vaccinated they just want the same choice they had before.

Someone once said "If you take away our right of choice, you can expect extreme resistance"

Surely the best and safest way to deal with this situation is to allow single injections? or does it really all boil down to cost?





(Edited by Sange 03/11/2003 13:45)

---

by Stoo
Have you ever had either again? I'm willing to bet the answer is no..

Figures can be massaged to suit whichever line the editor wants it to, and on their own are fairly meaningless without going into much greater detail.

Also, "The Department of Health does not collect data on the use of the single measles vaccine, so any children who received it will not be covered in these statistics."

Without proper unbiased evidence the case for and against can never be properly argued.

---

No, I did not have either disease again, but not really the point. The point is that, when single jabs were used, people regularly contacted the diseases in question and, occasionally died from them. After the triple vaccine was introduced this did not happen.

The website linked by Stoo is interesting although, on my reading (and contrary to what they claim) seems to be fairly anti-vaccination altogether. I checked the website for the US National Vaccination Injury Compensation Programme (yes I do have too much spare time on my hands today) - the key point in the section quoted by Stoo is "MMR or its components". This covers not just the MMR triple jab, but any combination of single jabs too. Again, you might use this evidence to argue against vaccination per se, but not against the MMR jab in particular especially as, obviously, none of this compensation has been paid to anyone claiming to have autism as a result of the jab. I also checked the CDC (Centre for Disease Control) Immunisation Info website and they are emphatic that the risk of non-immunisation is far greater than the risk of any reaction to the jabs. They also not only state that there is no extra risk in multiple immunisations being given at once, but say that it is preferable that as many as possible be given at the same time (they mentioned research into combining MMR with the Chicken Pox vaccine going on now).

---

by Sange
Well most of these countries I think you will find do offer single jabs, and produce single vaccines. If not how come I can go to France and get my child vaccinated in singular doses?

---

You can get the single jabs in this country if you are prepared to pay for them. As in France, they are not licensed or recommended by the Government. I think, in Ftance, they will occasionally give the single measles vaccine to a very young child (before the age they would recieve MMR) if there is a danger of an outbreak though.

---

by Sange
Because warrented or not parents arnt having their children vaccinated, as I previously stated up until this government came into power we as parents had a choice of how we had our children vaccinated, this government took that right away

---

I don't think you can have it both ways here. On one hand you argue that parents should have responsibility for decisions about their children. On the other hand you say that if parents choose to ignore all the evidence and not get their children vaccinated, it is the governments fault.

Once again, there is no avidence that the MMR combined jab causes any more side effects than the single vaccines. There is evidence that using single vaccines rather than a combined jab causes more people to die of the diseases than using the combined jab. It is the respnsibility of the government to ensure that the most effective medical procedures are followed, which is what our government, in common with the US governement and many around the world are doing.

---

by Avenger

I don't think you can have it both ways here. On one hand you argue that parents should have responsibility for decisions about their children. On the other hand you say that if parents choose to ignore all the evidence and not get their children vaccinated, it is the governments fault.

---

Parents are making informed decisions though, do you really believe a parent that decides not to have their child vaccinated hasn't looked into all the evidence? These parents are airing on the side of caution, rightly or wrongly. Why can't the government just offer a choice?

---

Avenger
Are you really suggesting that politicians should be allowed to overule doctors about what medicines are most effective?

Unless you believe that every responsible parent should get a PHD in medicine:

which was described by the judge in a recent high court case as "junk science"

---

So let me get this straight, politicians shouldn't be allowed to overule what doctors say, ordinary parents shouldn't be allowed to overrule what doctors say because they haven't got a PHD, but a High Court Judge, who is appointed throught the political process can? (What happens if that same judge is also a parent?)

So some people who haven't got PHD's can't argue, but others who haven't can?????

---

Avenger
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:

Yes, the information is that the safest and most effective way of immunising against MMR is the triple vaccine

---

Isn't that rather contradictory?

Isn't life experience coupled with knowledge part of the essential learning experience? Aren't these theories constantly proved wrong? Any branch of science has almost an equal number of detractors as it has its supporters. Albert Einstein didn't believe in quantum physics, one of the greatest thinkers of the 20th century. So there is plenty of scope for mistakes from even the most knowledgable.

When I am unwell the Doctor asks me what I think is wrong with me. His investigation reveals I have some unknown virus, because there is "something" going round, and yet I am to trust with absolute conviction the same Doctor who tells me that MMR is completely safe?

Perhaps the safest option is to give me a choice, which I believe this whole debate has been about. The right to choose?

The original MMR/Autism/Crohns research was conducted with a very small, closely knit control group {source: The Nursing Times}. It is therefore possible that although the rate of Autism and Crohns Disease were higher, other environmental causes could have been a factor.

Both of my children have received the MMR vaccination, with no ill-effects. While I sympathise deeply with families of children who have suffered after having the vaccination, I still maintain that the small potential risk is outweighed by the effectiveness of the vaccination program.

While Mumps and Rubella are not fatal, they can still have serious consequences for other people exposed to them (particularly pregnant women). Most diseases are communicable before they show symptoms (much like chickenpox - once you have the spots, you're not infectious)Could you, in all conscience, allow an infected child to put a stranger's unborn child, or their fertility, at risk?

Measles is a very serious disease. The Department of Health state the following:

One in 15 cases of measles display complications... icluding encephalitis in one in 5000 cases. Of those cases, 15% are fatal, with 20 - 40% of cases presenting residual neurological damage. Electro-encephalographic changes have also been evident in non-complicated cases.

Although one in 500 isn't a high number, if cases of measles begin to escalate this could be a high risk.

The choice of single vaccinations as opposed to the combined one should be a parents right, but as suppliers are reporting stock problems due to increased demands, this is not always possible. The cost to the health service also has to be a factor, which is why some health services introduced a charge for parents requesting the single vaccines.

I for one would urge any parent to have their children vaccinated, one way or the other. Whether you still distrust MMR is your own decision to make, but taking an "I had this illness as a child and I'm still here" attitude is both socially irresponsible and neglectful of your duty to protect your child from unneccesary suffering.

(Edited by Kate 03/11/2003 17:22)

---

by Kate
..but taking an "I had this illness as a child and I'm still here" attitude is both socially irresponsible and neglectful of your duty to protect your child from unneccesary suffering.

---

No, that's just silly, but I don't think that is the issue here, as we all agree that immunisation is a good thing and should be done as soon as possible to make sure that these diseases stay in the past.
The main sticking point is that an alternative does exist, but the government and health authorities seem to be taking an MMR or nothing attitude which is pretty hard to fathom.

Yes, it is available in some places, but other places are refusing to supply it. I personally don't buy the supply problems excuse, the single vaccines are all freely available on the continent, so therefore, they should be freely available here too.

---

by Stoo
The main sticking point is that an alternative does exist, but the government and health authorities seem to be taking an MMR or nothing attitude which is pretty hard to fathom.

---

If the single vaccines were indeed allowing 90,000 cases of measles a year, it seems more than fathomable!

---

by TNT
Isn't life experience coupled with knowledge part of the essential learning experience? Aren't these theories constantly proved wrong? Any branch of science has almost an equal number of detractors as it has its supporters. Albert Einstein didn't believe in quantum physics, one of the greatest thinkers of the 20th century. So there is plenty of scope for mistakes from even the most knowledgable.

---

Yes. In fact I'm pretty sure I said something similar earlier. In the future they will probably sneer at us for injecting ourselves with diseases in attempt to prevent the same diseases, when we could have just made a few simple alterations to our genes. None of that means that it is logical to go against the majority view of scientists and medical experts, that has been tested in a number of studies, for no reason other than a slight feeling of unease that you might have.

---

by TNT
Perhaps the safest option is to give me a choice, which I believe this whole debate has been about. The right to choose?

---

How would it be safer? Doctors are not always right. Science is not always right. They would be right more times than you would though...

---

by Stoo
No, that's just silly, but I don't think that is the issue here, as we all agree that immunisation is a good thing and should be done as soon as possible to make sure that these diseases stay in the past.

---

See the thing is, immunisation does have proven possible side effects, as your mention of the National Vaccination Injury Compensation Programme in the US showed earlier. And I think that the anti-immunisation argument is actually more logical than what you are arguing. I think they're wrong, but more logical. You are not disagreeing that the triple vaccine is more effective (more people died from measles here when we were using single vaccines, they still die in Japan) and you do not appear to be disagreeing with all the major health authorities in the world that there is no proof of any risk attached to a triple jab, that aren't presented equally by single jabs. So what you are effictively arguing is that parents should have the "right to choose" between one pattern of vaccination with certain known side effects and one less effective pattern of vaccination with the same known side effects. Why? In all other areas we expect our doctors to have the most effective modern medicines and to treat us with them. I wouldn't expect to go to the doctor and be told that "you have the right to choose between this medicine which has been developed in the last 20 years which is pretty effective, and this one which we used to use in the 70's, it's not as good as the other one though.."

---

by Byron
(quotes)
If the single vaccines were indeed allowing 90,000 cases of measles a year, it seems more than fathomable!

---

"The Department of Health does not collect data on the use of the single measles vaccine, so any children who received it will not be covered in these statistics."

If there are no stats on the vaccinated, how do you know that those 90,000 were indeed vaccinated with anything?

---

by Stoo
If there are no stats on the vaccinated, how do you know that those 90,000 were indeed vaccinated with anything?

---

To clarify, I don't *think* that there is any argument that the actual vaccination contained in the single jabs doesn't work as well as that contained within the triple jab. So there is no reason to suppose that those 90000 had already recieved a measles vaccine.

The reason why more cases of measles were seen under a regime of single jabs were, as I understand it:

(1) If the vaccinations are given over a longer period of time rather than altogether, there is obviously a longer period when the child is unprotected.

(2) If the vaccinations are given as a course of 6 jabs (single shots) rather than 2 jabs (triple vaccine), experience shows that there will be more children who do not complete the course of treatment, and therefore are not properly protected.

The argument was that the regime of single jab vaccines is less effective, not the vaccines themselves. That is supported by the figures showing that people were catching measles when we were following that regime and not when we were following the triple jab regime.

---

by Avenger
(quotes)

To clarify, I don't *think* that there is any argument that the actual vaccination contained in the single jabs doesn't work as well as that contained within the triple jab. So there is no reason to suppose that those 90000 had already recieved a measles vaccine.

The reason why more cases of measles were seen under a regime of single jabs were, as I understand it:

(1) If the vaccinations are given over a longer period of time rather than altogether, there is obviously a longer period when the child is unprotected.

(2) If the vaccinations are given as a course of 6 jabs (single shots) rather than 2 jabs (triple vaccine), experience shows that there will be more children who do not complete the course of treatment, and therefore are not properly protected.

The argument was that the regime of single jab vaccines is less effective, not the vaccines themselves. That is supported by the figures showing that people were catching measles when we were following that regime and not when we were following the triple jab regime.

---

But as far as I am aware if we as it seems here only are being concerend with measles then to actually vaccinate a child for measles takes two jabs with the single vaccine and two jabs with the triple vaccine, if we only compare one vaccine then why would parents forget to have the second injection when the child is between 3-5 anymore than they would forget to have the tripple injection when they are between 3-5?

I also feel as a parent that if I had pushed and pushed and wanted the single vaccines I'm sure I wouldnt be forgetting all the treatment required,is it being based on the facts that parents are stupid?

With the mmr you are sent a reminder when your child needs the second injection as I am sure you would be when your child needed the second single injection, maybe I could understand the stance that "why put your child through having 6 injections rather than two" more than being told that the single vaccinations arnt "safe" or "don't work as well" as that simple isn't the case.


(Edited by Sange 04/11/2003 13:57)

---

Avenger
Stoo, I think you are factually incorrect in implying that there is no difference in effectiveness between the single and triple vaccine

---

---

Avenger
Which is that the MMR vaccine is more effective in protecting against the three diseases

---

---

Avenger
To clarify, I don't *think* that there is any argument that the actual vaccination contained in the single jabs doesn't work as well as that contained within the triple jab.

---

So can you please explain to me why you feel parents shouldn't have the choice? cause I have got totaly confused now as to the reasons why you are against the single injections

---

by Avenger
The argument was that the regime of single jab vaccines is less effective, not the vaccines themselves. That is supported by the figures showing that people were catching measles when we were following that regime and not when we were following the triple jab regime.

---

*More children would die using a regime of single jabs than a regime of combined jabs. Supported by the available evidence.

*There are no extra risks associated with the combined jabs, other than those also associated with the single jabs. Supported by the available evidence.

No logical argument for the "right to choice" of single jabs can go ahead without convincing evidence against at least one of those two statements. I've yet to see any.


(Edited by Avenger 04/11/2003 16:06)

---

by Sange
I also feel as a parent that if I had pushed and pushed and wanted the single vaccines I'm sure I wouldnt be forgetting all the treatment required,is it being based on the facts that parents are stupid?

---

I'm sure you wouldn't. The figures show that some will though.

---

by Avenger
I'm sure you wouldn't. The figures show that some will though.

---

Um. That is true. But surely some people will forget the follow up jab if you apply that logic. Is there something in the triple jab that makes people remember, whilst this ingredient is missing in the single jabs