MMR & autism Not just bad science but also falsified

ford_prefect_3

conradmum wrote: »

If you read Sense's history of rubella vaccination that I posted earlier, you will see that there was a catch-up programme in 1994:

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.

It's by no means impossible to put the 1996 figures down to what Wakefield did. As your link states, there was an increase in rubella in 1996. Of course the fewer babies received MMR, the more disease was in the community. Why is that so difficult to understand?

If we won't eradicate rubella through vaccination, can you please explain how we have eradicated polio and diptheria?

The catch up programme was aimed at girls if I recall correctly as they where the higher risk group and the single jab programme had ended when they where too old for MMR but pre the age for the single jab.

It is absolutely possible to conclude that the Wakefield inspired scare made no difference as the rates of infection where no different to those seen since 1989, whereas with measles and mumps there where significant infection spikes.

Polio and Diptheria have been eradicated in the UK because the scope of vaccination has been for a longer period, got to more living people in the population and the immunity it conveys is longstanding. All factors that MMR doesnt give for rubella.

You cant eradicate a disease if immunity is transient as it is with rubella, hence the reason why you dont need to vaccinate males for it, it wears off. Unless we had a lifetime booster programme you will never achieve any difference when only 30% of the Male UK population at any one time are vaccinated.

Breast_Cancer_Survivor

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?

I watched a programme on tv the other night 'Is oral sex safe' where they were discussing whether boys should be given the HPV vaccination as well as girls.

Apparently boys can get mouth cancer if they catch the virus.

conradmum

ford_prefect wrote: »

The catch up programme was aimed at girls if I recall correctly as they where the higher risk group and the single jab programme had ended when they where too old for MMR but pre the age for the single jab.

It is absolutely possible to conclude that the Wakefield inspired scare made no difference as the rates of infection where no different to those seen since 1989, whereas with measles and mumps there where significant infection spikes.

Polio and Diptheria have been eradicated in the UK because the scope of vaccination has been for a longer period, got to more living people in the population and the immunity it conveys is longstanding. All factors that MMR doesnt give for rubella.

You cant eradicate a disease if immunity is transient as it is with rubella, hence the reason why you dont need to vaccinate males for it, it wears off. Unless we had a lifetime booster programme you will never achieve any difference when only 30% of the Male UK population at any one time are vaccinated.

So you do agree at least that herd immunity is not a myth? That we have achieved it in many diseases through vaccination?

The catch-up vaccination programme in 1994 was targeted at all children, not just girls.

Furthermore, you're comparing all the rubella-damaged babies across the 1989 - 96 period alike, but your link states that only 4 births during the four years 91 - 95 were in British-born women, while in 1996 alone 10 births were.

You're also, as has already been pointed out, taking the spike in 1996, post-Wakefield, as your marker for the average across those years, which is incorrect.

If we look at later figures, taken from the same journal that you quote from:

However, with the unfounded fear of vaccine related autism and bowel disease, the uptake of the MMR vaccine fell from 92% in 1997 to 80% in 2003, although it was 82.5% in 2005.5 Consequently rubella susceptibility rates among pregnant women in England have risen from 1.35% in 2004 to 3.4% in 2009 (with susceptibility rates of 3.01% in white women, 4.59% in black women, and 6.92% in Chinese women).67 If universal MMR vaccination coverage rates fall below 80%, an increase in congenital rubella syndrome may occur.8

http://www.bmj.com/content/341/bmj.c5246.full

You say that rubella only confers 10/15 years immunity, but on reading around it's apparent that that's by no means certain. What is clear, though, is that despite the withdrawal of schoolgirl vaccination 14 years ago, there has been, by your own admission, no return to the levels of infection we saw before it was introduced. So, even with less than ideal uptake, the MMR is working to a large extent.

eslick

what a long thread, to be honest we didnt give our two the MMR we paid a fortune for single jabs and boosters. A fortune for peace of mind, isnt a lot to pay but could have been so much cheaper if the government had allowed people to opt for single jabs at the time of all of this mess. Single jabs would have cost pennies but the government didnt want children to have them as the combined was done in one go and you needed to have the 3 separate over months. Well I know which I would have preferred and so would the thousands who joined us at each clinic that we went to.

poet123

Rubella immunity can wane in as little as 5 years, and as there is no adult male booster prog it seems pointless to begin with something when there is no facility to carry on with it.

verysillyguy06

Herd immunity is currently seriously at question with the low up-take. Certainly in the UK over the last 10 years the up-take has never reached 90% which would be needed for herd immunity

andrealm

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?

In an ideal world, all women would have their immunity checked before becoming pregnant, but not all pregnancies are planned. Even when using contraception carefully, there is a small chance of pregnancy. Should all women of child bearing age be checking their immunity on a weekly basis, just to make sure it hasn't worn off?

I had my rubella jab more than 15 years before I was pregnant with my second child and was still immune, so I'm not sure that 10-15 years is the absolute max. Apparently most pregnant women are found to be immune, yet I imagine many would not have had a booster since they were 13, so perhaps in some cases immunity can last for 20 years or more.

poet123

andrealm wrote: »

In an ideal world, all women would have their immunity checked before becoming pregnant, but not all pregnancies are planned. Even when using contraception carefully, there is a small chance of pregnancy. Should all women of child bearing age be checking their immunity on a weekly basis, just to make sure it hasn't worn off?

I had my rubella jab more than 15 years before I was pregnant with my second child and was still immune, so I'm not sure that 10-15 years is the absolute max. Apparently most pregnant women are found to be immune, yet I imagine many would not have had a booster since they were 13, so perhaps in some cases immunity can last for 20 years or more.

No it is not always the max, but perhaps more the norm, the point is it is not lifelong as some other vacs are, (namely the ones mentioned as having been eradicated) and so, because males do not top up their vaccines, the oft mentioned herd immunity will not occur.

melancholly

is it standard to check immunity to rubella? i know occ health has checked it for me for most things (i think also chicken pox, but i honestly can't remember if rubella was on the list), but this is completely new to me that it's likely to have run out just at time when i might be more concerned (i.e. at an age to have children). if i didn't work somewhere that required occ health screening, presumably it would never come up?

ford_prefect_3

conradmum wrote: »

So you do agree at least that herd immunity is not a myth? That we have achieved it in many diseases through vaccination?

The catch-up vaccination programme in 1994 was targeted at all children, not just girls.

Furthermore, you're comparing all the rubella-damaged babies across the 1989 - 96 period alike, but your link states that only 4 births during the four years 91 - 95 were in British-born women, while in 1996 alone 10 births were.

You're also, as has already been pointed out, taking the spike in 1996, post-Wakefield, as your marker for the average across those years, which is incorrect.

If we look at later figures, taken from the same journal that you quote from:

However, with the unfounded fear of vaccine related autism and bowel disease, the uptake of the MMR vaccine fell from 92% in 1997 to 80% in 2003, although it was 82.5% in 2005.5 Consequently rubella susceptibility rates among pregnant women in England have risen from 1.35% in 2004 to 3.4% in 2009 (with susceptibility rates of 3.01% in white women, 4.59% in black women, and 6.92% in Chinese women).67 If universal MMR vaccination coverage rates fall below 80%, an increase in congenital rubella syndrome may occur.8

http://www.bmj.com/content/341/bmj.c5246.full

You say that rubella only confers 10/15 years immunity, but on reading around it's apparent that that's by no means certain. What is clear, though, is that despite the withdrawal of schoolgirl vaccination 14 years ago, there has been, by your own admission, no return to the levels of infection we saw before it was introduced. So, even with less than ideal uptake, the MMR is working to a large extent.

No, herd immunity for Rubella is a myth, for the reasons explained, it wears off and there is no booster programme. Its accepted in the world of epidimiology that you need a coverage in excess of 80% to get herd immunity throughout the population.

Allowing for the immunity to be transient at twenty years then any male over 22 can be considered as not part of the innoculated group, thats why giving boys the rubella component of MMR makes no difference and hence why boys health should not be risked with a vaccination that confers no benefit to them or the wider population.

"What is clear, though, is that despite the withdrawal of schoolgirl vaccination 14 years ago, there has been, by your own admission, no return to the levels of infection we saw before it was introduced."

Which proves my point! Pre MMR all girls where vaccinated and the levels of R(crs) dropped to the same level they are at now despite MMR being introduced and all those boys subjected to it. Thank you for finally realising that giving boys the R component of MMR makes no difference! Jeez that was a painful journey!