MMR & autism Not just bad science but also falsified

poet123

melancholly wrote: »

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?

For some reason I thought you were male:o

No, you are right unless you take responsibility for checking your own immunity pre pregnancy it probably never would come up. When it was a female only vaccination administered at 14 I remember being told to check that immunity was still current before becoming pregnant.

melancholly

poet123 wrote: »

For some reason I thought you were male:o

not sure how to take that lol

poet123

melancholly wrote: »

not sure how to take that lol

Meant kindly:D subconsciously I always thought I was responding to a male poster! who knows why?

conradmum

ford_prefect wrote: »

"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!

You seem to misunderstand me. The programme that you favour was withdrawn 14 years ago and MMR subtituted, yet it is keeping rates of rubella infection low. Lower, in fact, than the schoolgirl vaccination programme, despite the fact that in some places uptake is much lower than that needed for herd immunity, due to the scaremongering prompted by Wakefield.

I notice you failed to answer most of the other points in my post.

ford_prefect_3

conradmum wrote: »

You seem to misunderstand me. The programme that you favour was withdrawn 14 years ago and MMR subtituted, yet it is keeping rates of rubella infection low. Lower, in fact, than the schoolgirl vaccination programme, despite the fact that in some places uptake is much lower than that needed for herd immunity, due to the scaremongering prompted by Wakefield.

I notice you failed to answer most of the other points in my post.

No I dont misunderstand you at all.

Look at the rate of change in the graph from the introduction of the single vaccination for girls, the compare that to the rate of change with the MMR period, statistically it made no difference.

in 1996 there where a reported 12 cases, thats 12 cases out of how many hundred thousand live births? The difference statistically speaking between a year with 4 live births and 12 out of x hundred thousand is nothing, nada, zip, its not measurable.

We cannot have herd immunity without vaccinating and boosting the entire populus for Rubella due to the half life of the vaccination effect, therefore, unless that is to happen why are we vaccinating boys who are not threatened by the disease when we are not trying to create herd immunity?

If you want to know when the Wakefield scare is going to have an effect you will need to wait another year or so when the girls who didnt have MMR due to the autism fear from about 1991 onwards start getting pregnant, and thats regardless of the current uptake of MMR, those women are not protected and it doesnt matter how many boys are exposed to the ADR risk of a triple jab they dont need the mere fact that so many of us have never been vaccinated means the women who missed out are at risk.

And that is why you only need to vaccinate women if your not going to vaccinate the whole population.

verysillyguy06

conradmum wrote: »

You seem to misunderstand me. The programme that you favour was withdrawn 14 years ago and MMR subtituted, yet it is keeping rates of rubella infection low. Lower, in fact, than the schoolgirl vaccination programme, despite the fact that in some places uptake is much lower than that needed for herd immunity, due to the scaremongering prompted by Wakefield.

I notice you failed to answer most of the other points in my post.

Sorry, I believe that you are wrong about the MMR being taken up less because of mainly Wakefield:




[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]Posted - 03/03/2008 : 18:03:13[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]Hi Elizabeth[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]This link was taken from the Health Protection Agency's website a few years ago.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]www.hpa.org.uk then typed in 'MMR uptake rates 1994'[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]It came up with:[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica][PDF] Vaccine preventable diseases: data generated by the Centre for ...[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]"....depends on high uptake of rubella vaccine among young children, but since 1994 there has been a gradual decline in MMR vaccine uptake rates...."[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]www.hpa.org.uk/.../HPA_protect_health_children/report_breakdowns/part2_vaccine_prevent_diseases.pdf - Similar pages[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]Unfortunately, this link does not connect to the material now.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]JABS was launched in January 1994 following meetings with our own MP Ian McCartney. It was his suggestion that we form an action group because we had collected a number of adverse reactions as parents started to report problems in their children to us.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]http://inquirer.gn.apc.org/jabs.html[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]We had a great deal of press coverage at the time were the issues of the withdrawn vaccines (two of the three original brands were found to cause asceptic meningitis due to the mumps Urabe strain) and the 1994 MR campaign and subsequent adverse reactions to the MR campaign were discussed widely in the media.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]http://inquirer.gn.apc.org/fraud.html[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]http://inquirer.gn.apc.org/gamble.html[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]http://inquirer.gn.apc.org/moxon.html[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]Many of the badly affected children known to JABS had had the withdrawn brands of MMR. Also it is of concern that this problem with the Urabe mumps and neurological complications with the US version of MMR's measles component was known by the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) (see minutes). [Section 5 of JABS briefing note: http://www.jabs.org.uk/pages/mmr-briefing.asp][/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]The licence for the MMR vaccine containing the Urabe strain in Canada was revoked from May 1990. In Japan the MMR vaccine was banned in 1993. A version of this vaccine made by Chiron has since been withdrawn from use in Italy in March 2006.[/FONT]



[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]In the months and years before Dr Wakefield's Feb '98 report was published, I believe, many people started to reject the combined MMR vaccine. We emphasised at the time (as we still do) that any concerned parents faced with a new vaccine decision could consider single dose vaccines as an alternative if they were worried.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]Jackie[/FONT]



I took this of this website and is quite interesting really

http://www.jabs.org.uk/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1268

http://jdc325.wordpress.com/2010/11/26/mmr-vaccination-%E2%80%93-still-underachieving-on-a-massive-scale/


another opinion on why the up-take is not only low due to Wakefield

conradmum

ford_prefect wrote: »

No I dont misunderstand you at all.

Look at the rate of change in the graph from the introduction of the single vaccination for girls, the compare that to the rate of change with the MMR period, statistically it made no difference.

in 1996 there where a reported 12 cases, thats 12 cases out of how many hundred thousand live births? The difference statistically speaking between a year with 4 live births and 12 out of x hundred thousand is nothing, nada, zip, its not measurable.

We cannot have herd immunity without vaccinating and boosting the entire populus for Rubella due to the half life of the vaccination effect, therefore, unless that is to happen why are we vaccinating boys who are not threatened by the disease when we are not trying to create herd immunity?

If you want to know when the Wakefield scare is going to have an effect you will need to wait another year or so when the girls who didnt have MMR due to the autism fear from about 1991 onwards start getting pregnant, and thats regardless of the current uptake of MMR, those women are not protected and it doesnt matter how many boys are exposed to the ADR risk of a triple jab they dont need the mere fact that so many of us have never been vaccinated means the women who missed out are at risk.

And that is why you only need to vaccinate women if your not going to vaccinate the whole population.

So what you're saying is that the Government is knowingly implementing a strategy that is completely ineffective and is fully aware that we will see a return to the high numbers of rubella-damaged babies that we saw before the schoolgirl vaccination programme?

conradmum

verysillyguy06 wrote: »

Sorry, I believe that you are wrong about the MMR being taken up less because of mainly Wakefield:

I've no doubt that there must have been finger-pointing to the MMR before Wakefield's report, otherwise he wouldn't have been paid to conduct his research in that area. To be honest, VSG, I don't think this is worth quibbling over. Wakefield's report did do a huge amount of damage too.

verysillyguy06

conradmum wrote: »

I've no doubt that there must have been finger-pointing to the MMR before Wakefield's report, otherwise he wouldn't have been paid to conduct his research in that area. To be honest, VSG, I don't think this is worth quibbling over. Wakefield's report did do a huge amount of damage too.

Fair point

ford_prefect_3

conradmum wrote: »

So what you're saying is that the Government is knowingly implementing a strategy that is completely ineffective and is fully aware that we will see a return to the high numbers of rubella-damaged babies that we saw before the schoolgirl vaccination programme?

NO!

Pre MMR all girls got the Rubella vaccination, boys did not.

By the time MMR was phased in and single jabs removed R(crs) was at a very low level.

MMR has not done anything to improve the figures, the line pedalled by the goverment about exposure in the home being reduced if all boys are vaccinated is baseless, if it where the case why did the pre MMR figures reach the level they did? It also forgets the lack of a booster programme and the vast number of people in the community who havent been vaccinated.

We do not have herd immunity to Rubella as we dont vaccinate the whole population or offer boosters.

Triple jabs have side effects and carry a risk, as do all vaccinations, as we arent aiming for herd immunity and the evidence shows that the important person to be vaccinated are the women the only reason boys get MMR and not MM or single jabs is cost saving due to economies of scale, nothing more. The girls must be immunized for Rubella, its cheaper to buy an all in one in bulk so everyone gets one despite there being no real evidence that vaccinating boys made any significant difference.

If the goverment only vaccinated girls and had a booster programme for them we would see no increase in the levels of R(crs) as was shown by the girls only programme and maybe even a decrease.