MMR & autism Not just bad science but also falsified

poet123

conradmum wrote: »

Still you refuse to answer the fact that thimerosal was removed from vaccines in the US in 2000 and autism rates have continued to rise, and the fact that MMR was withdrawn from Japan in 1993 with the same effect.

These are the most pertinent facts, but you won't address them.

As to stating that a legal proof is not a scientific proof, thanks for that, but that was not your stance just a few pages back where you continued to repeat your opinion that the word 'causation' meant that the vaccination definitely caused the child's problems, and chided me for saying 'If'.

Please do not refer to me as callous. If I didn't care about the children that are inappropriately remaining unvaccinated I wouldn't even bother to enter these debates. And nowhere have I denied that there are unanswered questions. My only intent is to counter the misinformation and scaremongering that abounds in threads such as this.

I havent refused to answer the question re Thimerosal. if you look at an earlier post I referred to the fact that the component may have been exonerated, but that was not the purpose of my quoting RFK. There are other components of vaccines other than Thimerosal, and as vaccine damage is still being claimed for it would seem that one or more of them may be the trigger or cause.

Nor have I ever said that legal proof is scientific proof. They are clearly two different things. I have said that as payouts have been made and causation attributed after the medical evidence has been reviewed by medical experts, then that suggests there is an issue which needs addressing.

[Deleted User]

Flu vaccines still contain Thimerosal.

poet123

Van1971 wrote: »

Flu vaccines still contain Thimerosal.

Yes, I think one of them does contain trace elements of Thimerosal.

ford_prefect_3

conradmum wrote: »

Can I ask you where you got your information that the reason behind the decision to vaccinate boys against rubella was a cost-saving exercise?

You see, it's quite simple. If you have 50% of the population potentially able to pass on rubella, then you will continue to get rubella in the community. If you have most of the population vaccinated, rubella will be eradicated. Yes, you will get occasional tourists bringing it in from countries without adequate vaccination programmes. But essentially you get far, far less disease.

The WHO stats you give only start at 2000, long after the introduction of MMR, so I'm not clear on the point you're making about the figures.

This sentence doesn't make any sense as it stands:

So despite all the MMR vaccine ups and downs and all the other hoo haa the WHO stats show its made no difference to Rubella(CRS) incidence because the person who needs to be immune is the mother.

Wakefield published in 1998, the peak of measles infection attributed to lower uptake of MMR and the removal of single jabs was 2008 yet in 2008 precisely zero cases of Rubella(CRS) in pregnancy occurred.

Rubella still exists regardless of the vaccination programme, even at times of high vaccination and supposed herd immunity people still catch it but its incredibly rare.

Following on from the Wakefield scare many boys did not have MMR jabs yet the cases of Rubella in pregnancy where at there lowest in that period, the only way to protect future mothers from Rubella is to make sure they are vaccinated.

As to the economics of vaccination, its pretty simple to understand that if you can supply a "vanilla" product to all it will be cheaper than one thats gender specific.

In terms of your explanation re eradication can you then explain why with the lowest levels of uptake of MMR we have had the lowest levels of Rubella in pregnancy?

As for the stats pre 2000, you have to wonder why the UK government havent sent then to the WHO, after all, if they showed a massive decline in R(crs) they would be publishing and pointing at them to show how effective MMR in all genders was.

Its interesting that the stats show 11 cases of R(crs) over 10 years despite the uptake or otherwise of MMR, its actually been a rare issue for a long time, hence why just vaccinating women worked fine for many years.

conradmum

ford_prefect wrote: »

Wakefield published in 1998, the peak of measles infection attributed to lower uptake of MMR and the removal of single jabs was 2008 yet in 2008 precisely zero cases of Rubella(CRS) in pregnancy occurred.

Rubella still exists regardless of the vaccination programme, even at times of high vaccination and supposed herd immunity people still catch it but its incredibly rare.

Following on from the Wakefield scare many boys did not have MMR jabs yet the cases of Rubella in pregnancy where at there lowest in that period, the only way to protect future mothers from Rubella is to make sure they are vaccinated.

As to the economics of vaccination, its pretty simple to understand that if you can supply a "vanilla" product to all it will be cheaper than one thats gender specific.

In terms of your explanation re eradication can you then explain why with the lowest levels of uptake of MMR we have had the lowest levels of Rubella in pregnancy?

As for the stats pre 2000, you have to wonder why the UK government havent sent then to the WHO, after all, if they showed a massive decline in R(crs) they would be publishing and pointing at them to show how effective MMR in all genders was.

Its interesting that the stats show 11 cases of R(crs) over 10 years despite the uptake or otherwise of MMR, its actually been a rare issue for a long time, hence why just vaccinating women worked fine for many years.

You assume there should be a precise correlation between numbers of children vaccinated and numbers of cases of infection. Fluctuations of a few tens of people here and there are completely meaningless when we're talking about hundreds of thousands of vaccinations. There are several factors that influence infection rates other than numbers of vaccinations given.

Basically, what you're saying is that there would be no difference in the numbers of people infected with rubella whether most of the population is vaccinated or whether only 50% is vaccinated. That's nonsense. It's very well known that minimum uptakes are required for all vaccinations to prevent the virus from circulating in a community. This percentage uptake required is never as low as 50%.

You don't even have to have any knowledge of epidemiology to understand that. It's fairly basic maths, based on the number of and frequency of contacts between human beings, with the level of infectiousness of the disease.

I have no idea why the WHO stats do not include rates of rubella infection prior to 2000, but don't let that stop you speculating.

ford_prefect_3

conradmum wrote: »

You assume a there should be a precise correlation between numbers of children vaccinated and numbers of cases of infection. Fluctuations of a few tens of people here and there are completely meaningless when we're talking about hundreds of thousands of vaccinations. There are several factors that influence infection rates other than numbers of vaccinations given.

Basically, what you're saying is that there would be no difference in the numbers of people infected with rubella whether most of the population is vaccinated or whether only 50% is vaccinated. That's nonsense. It's very well known that minimum uptakes are required for all vaccinations to prevent the virus from circulating in a community. This percentage uptake required is never as low as 50%.

You don't even have to have any knowledge of epidemiology to understand that. It's fairly basic maths, based on the number of and frequency of contacts between human beings, with the level of infectiousness of the disease.

I have no idea why the WHO stats do not include rates of rubella infection prior to 2000, but don't let that stop you speculating.

You are confusing two issues, one is herd immunity and the other is personal protection.

The NHS advice to women is to make sure they are vaccinated against Rubella and to check that they are still immune because it doesnt last forever. The mere fact it doesnt last forever means that you dont have herd immunity unless you have boosters throughout your life.

And thats where the whole argument for giving boys a rubella vaccination falls down, its an un needed medical intervention. The argument that the health of every male should be risked to protect the odd female who cannot be vaccinated is a red herring as well.

If as you say its nonsense that if you only vaccinated women the incidence of Rubella in pregnancy would rise how do you come to that conclusion, only women get pregnant and therefore if they are all vaccinated they wont get R(CRS) will they?

poet123

The obvious thing that causes a problem is that few males would have a Rubella booster after receiving the initial vacs there is no initative for this, therefore as the immunity wanes, ( it is not lifelong protection) and is not boosted in the male, the possibility of herd immunity goes with it.

All women who intend to get pregnant are advised to check their immunity and if in doubt have a booster.

Rubella is not a disease that needs or can rely on herd immunity women have to be responsible for their own immunity with this disease.

I agree that vaccination of males for Rubella is unecessary as it is unlikely to be topped up, so why bother at all?

conradmum

History of rubella immunisation


Prior to immunisation the rubella virus circulated freely amongst the population, with the UK experiencing regular epidemics. It occurred commonly in children and more than 80% of adults showed some evidence of catching the disease at some point (Morgan Capner et al, 1988).

Before vaccination was introduced in the early 1970’s it is estimated that 200 - 300 infants were born with Congenital Rubella Syndrome in each non-epidemic year in the UK; many more were born in epidemic years.

Sense was established in 1955 by two mum’s whose children had been damaged by rubella. They wanted to support each other and warn others of the dangers of rubella.

An Australian, Dr Gregg, in 1941 first identified the link between rubella and congenital damage in children. Since then many worked on ways to protect pregnant women. The vaccine was developed during the 1960s and a rubella vaccine was licensed in the UK in 1970; it was offered to schoolgirls aged 11 - 14. This was extended in 1972 to women of childbearing age and women after pregnancy who had been screened for rubella susceptibility during pregnancy.
In 1971 the National Congenital Rubella Surveillance Programme was established to monitor how well vaccination was protecting pregnant women.

During the 1970s and 1980s cases of rubella in pregnancy continued to occur, albeit at a reduced rate. Often susceptible women acquired the rubella infection from their own or their friends’ children.

In 1988 MMR was introduced for all children. The aim of this universal immunisation was to stop rubella circulating among children so they could not pass it on to pregnant women. This mass immunisation with MMR has been a success story.There are now only a handful of rubella births and terminations each year.

In 1994 there was a mass measles and rubella vaccination to catch those who had not been eligible for MMR (they were too old when it was introduced) and who had missed out on the single rubella jab.

In 1996 the school-girl programme of a single rubella vaccine was ended, and the second dose of MMR pre-school was introduced.

http://www.sense.org.uk/what_is_deafblindness/rubella_mmr/vaccination/immunisation_history

poet123

Surely it can only be passed onto pregnant women if they themselves are unvaccinated? If all girls were vaccinated and regular boosters given, and immunity checked prior to pregnancy then there would be no issue.

I certainly had the vaccination and also had my immunity checked prior to pregnancy. Why should males have an unecessary vaccine to protect others? how far do you take this?

ford_prefect_3

poet123 wrote: »

Surely it can only be passed onto pregnant women if they themselves are unvaccinated? If all girls were vaccinated and regular boosters given, and immunity checked prior to pregnancy then there would be no issue.

I certainly had the vaccination and also had my immunity checked prior to pregnancy. Why should males have an unecessary vaccine to protect others? how far do you take this?

And thats the whole problem, MMR in children only stops children passing Rubella around, anyone older can be a carrier so the bottom line is that women must take responsibility.

Even the NHS say that!

You also have to look at the cost benefit analysis on economic cost of babies with CRS versus the costs of ADR in children through excessive vaccination and the cost of vaccination overall.

Rubella in pregnancy fell dramatically from 1970 onwards even without vaccinating males as this BMJ short summary shows

http://www.bmj.com/content/318/7186/769.full

The graph is pretty poor but what it does highlight is that since the Rubella vaccine was introduced in the early 70's incidences of Rubella in pregnancy have fallen.

In 1988 MMR came into play in the UK and we see that rate of decline actually decreases and becomes flatter, so despite the wholesale mass vaccination of boys and girls with MMR its made almost no difference.

And thats for two reasons, the first is that its not only kids that carry and spread the disease and secondly those that have been vaccinated do lose immunity.

If giving everyone MMR had made a huge statistical difference over the old approach of single jabs and the schoolgirl programme on rubella we would be seeing all sorts of studies to back that but they are not forthcoming for the simple reason they show statistically no difference.