MMR vacine

[gasbanni]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...court-case-reignite-controversial-debate.html

To give a baby three viruses to fight at once in my view is ridiculous, one at a time over a period of time no problem to me, We didn't give our kids it because we thought it was too risky.


So many parents say their kids changed after the vaccine is enough to convince me its dodgy, just because the link between autism and the mmr vaccine hasn't been found doesn't mean there isn't one.


"Crucially, it came after Antonio Barboni, a doctor of forensic medicine and appointed by the judge to independently advise the court, wrote a report saying that ‘in the absence of any other pre-existing conditions’ it is a ‘reasonable scientific probability’ that Valentino’s autism can be ‘traced back to the administration of the MMR vaccine . . . by the health authority’.

Dr Barboni’s findings were endorsed by two other eminent doctors who examined Valentino, investigated his medical background, and gave evidence to the court hearing. " that's certainly going to set the cat amongst the pigeons !

 

[JohnD]

We didn't give our kids it because we had read some unsubsubstantiated and untrue rumours in newspapers.

as a result of the article countless numbers of parents in Britain refused to let their children have the jab, and cases of measles — which is very occasionally fatal — went up significantly.

Our business is selling newspapers, it's none of our concern is we spread fear and panic and cause more kids to suffer from preventable disease, by printing untrue stories

Much more here http://www.badscience.net/2010/01/the-wakefield-mmr-verdict/

Or if you want a laugh at the stunningly bad Daily Mail's record on made-up and untrue health stories that keep its readers buying the paper, see http://kill-or-cure.heroku.com/ Just look at he Aspirin section!

 

[Mw Roofline]

You can bypass the NHS and have Measles and Rubella 6 monthly apart, privately. Mumps is virtually non existent so not a great need for it.

 

[joe-90]

The guy behind the scare was struck off the medical register.

 

[noseall]

It is irresponsible of parents to deny their children the MMR jab.

Allowing your gullibility to stand in the way of your childs' health is bordering on neglect.

 

[streaker99]

It is irresponsible of parents to deny their children the MMR jab.

Allowing your gullibility to stand in the way of your childs' health is bordering on neglect.

Rubbish. My daughter was pressganged into the HPV programme. Despite Cervirax only having a very limited time out in the field it was chosen as the HPV virus vaccine of choice because it was cheaper than Gardisil. Gardisil covers four strains whereas cervirax only covered two.
I filled in the form last year informing the school I did not want my daughter to have the cervirax jab.
On the administration day I got a call from my daughter in tears at school as she had been called in and lined up with everyone else.
I rang the school nurse immediately and explained my position.
As it happens I was right to wait as the Govt has in fact switched to Gardasil.

My daughter can now happily go for the Gardisil jab with my blessing.

Just as an aside. These drugs are so new into service there is no known protection period , ie It is commonly believed that they will only protect for five years.

I won't go into the argument of giving 13 yr olds protection from sexually transmitted viruses as that is a whole other issue other than to say there are some places and parents who dont have 13 yr old daughters with a mad desire to have sex and screw up their lives and join the benefits bandwagon. Obviously another Londoncentric policy pushed out to the whole country.

The original choice of cervirax over gardasil was made because the government tried to spec a cut down version of the vaccine which gardasil did not want to participate in ie cervirax does x y and z quote us for an equivalent gardasil product.

Gardasil refused to enter the tendering process on that basis as it did not want to water down its product that covered more strains than cervirax and also protected against genital warts which cervirax did not.

The government has now decided that because cervirax does not offer the same protection it should be considerably cheaper than gardasil for the difference in costs to be worthwhile. The differemce in costs between the two vaccines ahs been calculated to prove that even though ggardasil is more expensive its extra benefits outweigh the costs.

So there we are just as with MMR being a triple vaccine in one to save costs so cervirax was a money saving issue.

I am not against measles or mumps or german measles being vaccinated against or indeed HPV but I refuse to believe it is correct to take risks with your childs health when someone has made a penny pinching decision with a poorer probable outcome.

 

[JohnD]

I won't go into the argument of giving 13 yr olds protection from sexually transmitted viruses as that is a whole other issue other than to say there are some places and parents who dont have 13 yr old daughters with a mad desire to have sex and screw up their lives and join the benefits bandwagon. Obviously another Londoncentric policy pushed out to the whole country.

Every mother in the world was a 13-year old girl once. If you think that your daughter will never ever have sex then you are living in a world of fantasy.

Protecting them from HPV gives protection from one common form of cancer in later life.

 

[EddieM]

Why are only girls given the HPV vaccine, would it not be best to give boys the vaccine too? (yes i am fully aware boys don't have cervix's!!)

 

[streaker99]

Why are only girls given the HPV vaccine, would it not be best to give boys the vaccine too? (yes i am fully aware boys don't have cervix's!!)

Thats in the pipeline - the current programme has 13yr olds first then a catchup programme for older girls up to 18 then boys will also come along.

 

[pred]

Why are only girls given the HPV vaccine, would it not be best to give boys the vaccine too? (yes i am fully aware boys don't have cervix's!!)

Reminds me of the joke about the wench that grew up in a convent, the abbot visited one day and when she saw his manhood she said, when do i get one of those??

 

[streaker99]

I won't go into the argument of giving 13 yr olds protection from sexually transmitted viruses as that is a whole other issue other than to say there are some places and parents who dont have 13 yr old daughters with a mad desire to have sex and screw up their lives and join the benefits bandwagon. Obviously another Londoncentric policy pushed out to the whole country.

Every mother in the world was a 13-year old girl once. If you think that your daughter will never ever have sex then you are living in a world of fantasy.

Protecting them from HPV gives protection from one common form of cancer in later life.

This is a solution based on pandering to the lowest common denominator.

As long as doctors prescribe the pill to 13 year olds then everyone will need these vaccinations.

Whats wrong with using condoms?

Its pure social laziness allowing kids to dictate policies

 

[pred]

Couldn't find one big enough.

 

[JohnD]

As long as doctors prescribe the pill to 13 year olds then everyone will need these vaccinations.

you are evading my point.

If I travel to Africa, I start my anti-malarials before I go.

I was vaccinated against smallpox before I got it. I was given the Polio vaccine before there was an outbreak.

The reason for inoculating youngsters is so that they will be immune to the infection before they are at risk.

Every mother in the world was a 13-year-old girl once.

(almost) Every mother in the world has had sex at least once

(almost) Every mother in the world has had a risk of exposure to HPV.

The inoculation will give them some protection against infection and the resultant risk of a common form of cancer.

And you are talking as if this is a scheme for encouraging under-age promiscuity

 

[joe-90]

Why are only girls given the HPV vaccine, would it not be best to give boys the vaccine too? (yes i am fully aware boys don't have cervix's!!)

Thats in the pipeline -

Yup. Give them a jab in the 'pipeline'. Ouch!

 

[ellal]

Having been through the 'shall we, shan't we' debate regarding giving our kids the vaccine we went for it..

This was after a lot of research, including taking advice from abroad...

IMO, this whole controversy could have been contained by a simple statement from a certain Tony Blair!

His refusal to say whether Leo had been given it or not stoked the public angst. It wouldn't have set a precedant to answer like he claims, and I reckon it's just another debacle he is responsible for!