MMR & autism Not just bad science but also falsified

conradmum

ford_prefect wrote: »

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.

So you're saying that the current strategy is only as effective as the previous one? How can that be true? You've said that immunity fails after 15 years max, so all individuals will become susceptible again once they reach 20 years old, at the beginning of their child-bearing age. That must mean the strategy is much less effective than vaccinating children at aged 14.

poet123

We dont really know yet how effective a strategy it is as it was only introduced in 1988, this means that many of those who were first innoculated are only now of child bearing age, and may/may not be still immune. It is random, but many women will get the booster prior to, or even in early pregnancy,so it will be difficult to guage the effectiveness of the MMR. The fact remains that unless a male booster prog existed (which it doesnt) there is no point vaccinating boys.

ford_prefect_3

conradmum wrote: »

So you're saying that the current strategy is only as effective as the previous one? How can that be true? You've said that immunity fails after 15 years max, so all individuals will become susceptible again once they reach 20 years old, at the beginning of their child-bearing age. That must mean the strategy is much less effective than vaccinating children at aged 14.

No, the figure for when immunity may decrease or end is around 20 years. My point throughout this is that giving boys the rubella vaccination is an economic not medical decision by the government and I can see you starting to get to grips with this.

Why do you think the NHS emphasise that all women should be immunized themselves and have checks if they are thinking of conceiving?

They know that herd immunity for rubella doesnt exist, and they know it can wear off hence those guidelines.

You are also correct re the strategy being less effective even with a half life of 20 years that means an increased risk from age 25.

Where do you think the money would be better spent? Making sure all women are protected, monitored and boostered, or giving a jab to boys aged 2?

conradmum

ford_prefect wrote: »

No, the figure for when immunity may decrease or end is around 20 years. My point throughout this is that giving boys the rubella vaccination is an economic not medical decision by the government and I can see you starting to get to grips with this.

Why do you think the NHS emphasise that all women should be immunized themselves and have checks if they are thinking of conceiving?

They know that herd immunity for rubella doesnt exist, and they know it can wear off hence those guidelines.

You are also correct re the strategy being less effective even with a half life of 20 years that means an increased risk from age 25.

Where do you think the money would be better spent? Making sure all women are protected, monitored and boostered, or giving a jab to boys aged 2?

Could you and Poet please get together and agree a figure for duration of rubella immunity?

In fact, this figure is not well-established, as you will see if you read around on the issue.

The Government's strategy to achieve herd immunity is to vaccinate all children, thus preventing the virus from circulating. This has been largely successful, despite low uptake of MMR due to scaremongering. This is shown in all the literature on this subject. This is The National Congential Rubella Surveillance Programme

Or have a look at this from Sense.

Or here:

The introduction of MMR vaccine in October 1988 led to a marked decrease in the incidence of rubella, as the previous policy of selective immunisation had little impact on the circulation of rubella in the community.

The primary aim of rubella vaccination is to protect pregnant women from rubella infection, resultant congenital infection, and fetal damage. This is why UK policy, when the vaccine was originally introduced in 1970, was for selective immunisation of pre-adolescent girls and non-immune women of child bearing age.

However, as this strategy has little impact on the circulation of rubella virus in the community, rubella vaccination was offered to both boys and girls with the introduction of MMR vaccine in 1988. Rubella antigen was also include in the 1994 schools campaign against measles, as MR vaccine, with the specific aim of reducing susceptibility among young men, who may be in close contact with pregnant women.

Even the report you yourself linked to stated that the majority of rubella-affected births post MMR were in women who weren't born in Britain.

Your assertion is that immunologists have advised the Government to rely on women getting their immunity checked before becoming pregnant as a strategy to prevent rubella-damaged births? I find that astounding.

There are two strategies for preventing CRS, as outlined here by the World Health Organisation:

The primary purpose of rubella vaccination is to prevent the occurrence of congenital rubella infection (including congenital rubella syndrome, CRS). Two approaches are recommended for CRS prevention – prevention of CRS only (through immunization of adolescent girls and/or women of childbearing age), and elimination of rubella as well as CRS (through universal vaccination of infants with/without mass campaigns,surveillance, and assuring immunity in women of childbearing age).

If the latter policy is ineffective, why does the WHO advocate it?

melancholly

ford_prefect wrote: »

No, the figure for when immunity may decrease or end is around 20 years. My point throughout this is that giving boys the rubella vaccination is an economic not medical decision by the government and I can see you starting to get to grips with this.

Why do you think the NHS emphasise that all women should be immunized themselves and have checks if they are thinking of conceiving?

They know that herd immunity for rubella doesnt exist, and they know it can wear off hence those guidelines.

You are also correct re the strategy being less effective even with a half life of 20 years that means an increased risk from age 25.

Where do you think the money would be better spent? Making sure all women are protected, monitored and boostered, or giving a jab to boys aged 2?

well all decisions on medication in the uk, in terms of guidelines, are made with financial costs taken into account. there is a limited pot of money so that is sensible and not really surprising.

i do disagree that the NHS makes any emphasis on women checking their immunity. quite the opposite. i knew nothing about this and it has never been mentioned.... (not that i'm trying for a baby!), but even on the NHS website it isn't highlighted particularly well (i found some info, but only by looking for it!).

http://www.nhs.uk/Planners/pregnancycareplanner/pages/Pregnancyinfections.aspx
their information implies that if you have had the immunisation as a baby and then a booster, then you're ok. they don't say anything about it wearing off at all.

if they think they're making this clear to women, they are very sadly mistaken! either that, or they aren't anywhere near as concerned about it as you are!

poet123

conradmum wrote: »

Could you and Poet please get together and agree a figure for duration of rubella immunity?

In fact, this figure is not well-established, as you will see if you read around on the issue.

The Government's strategy to achieve herd immunity is to vaccinate all children, thus preventing the virus from circulating. This has been largely successful, despite low uptake of MMR due to scaremongering. This is shown in all the literature on this subject. This is The National Congential Rubella Surveillance Programme

Or have a look at this from Sense.

Or here:

The introduction of MMR vaccine in October 1988 led to a marked decrease in the incidence of rubella, as the previous policy of selective immunisation had little impact on the circulation of rubella in the community.

The primary aim of rubella vaccination is to protect pregnant women from rubella infection, resultant congenital infection, and fetal damage. This is why UK policy, when the vaccine was originally introduced in 1970, was for selective immunisation of pre-adolescent girls and non-immune women of child bearing age.

However, as this strategy has little impact on the circulation of rubella virus in the community, rubella vaccination was offered to both boys and girls with the introduction of MMR vaccine in 1988. Rubella antigen was also include in the 1994 schools campaign against measles, as MR vaccine, with the specific aim of reducing susceptibility among young men, who may be in close contact with pregnant women.

Even the report you yourself linked to stated that the majority of rubella-affected births post MMR were in women who weren't born in Britain.

Your assertion is that immunologists have advised the Government to rely on women getting their immunity checked before becoming pregnant as a strategy to prevent rubella-damaged births? I find that astounding.

There are two strategies for preventing CRS, as outlined here by the World Health Organisation:

The primary purpose of rubella vaccination is to prevent the occurrence of congenital rubella infection (including congenital rubella syndrome, CRS). Two approaches are recommended for CRS prevention – prevention of CRS only (through immunization of adolescent girls and/or women of childbearing age), and elimination of rubella as well as CRS (through universal vaccination of infants with/without mass campaigns,surveillance, and assuring immunity in women of childbearing age).

If the latter policy is ineffective, why does the WHO advocate it?

The length of immunity is not precise, but it is not recognised as a lifelong immunity. Therefore, to vaccinate boys who are never then checked again for immunity is ludicrous. Vaccinating girls is the logical thing to do, as if you get pregnant your immunity is checked at your first ante natal screening and you can then be re immunised if you are not shown to be immune.

Re the WHO, who knows is the answer;) probably for the same reason they use single or monovalent measles vaccines in their mass vaccination progs in developing countries, yet advocate the MMR for developed countries. Makes no sense to me.

ford_prefect_3

conradmum wrote: »

Could you and Poet please get together and agree a figure for duration of rubella immunity?

In fact, this figure is not well-established, as you will see if you read around on the issue.

The Government's strategy to achieve herd immunity is to vaccinate all children, thus preventing the virus from circulating. This has been largely successful, despite low uptake of MMR due to scaremongering. This is shown in all the literature on this subject. This is The National Congential Rubella Surveillance Programme

Or have a look at this from Sense.

Or here:

The introduction of MMR vaccine in October 1988 led to a marked decrease in the incidence of rubella, as the previous policy of selective immunisation had little impact on the circulation of rubella in the community.

The primary aim of rubella vaccination is to protect pregnant women from rubella infection, resultant congenital infection, and fetal damage. This is why UK policy, when the vaccine was originally introduced in 1970, was for selective immunisation of pre-adolescent girls and non-immune women of child bearing age.

However, as this strategy has little impact on the circulation of rubella virus in the community, rubella vaccination was offered to both boys and girls with the introduction of MMR vaccine in 1988. Rubella antigen was also include in the 1994 schools campaign against measles, as MR vaccine, with the specific aim of reducing susceptibility among young men, who may be in close contact with pregnant women.

Even the report you yourself linked to stated that the majority of rubella-affected births post MMR were in women who weren't born in Britain.

Your assertion is that immunologists have advised the Government to rely on women getting their immunity checked before becoming pregnant as a strategy to prevent rubella-damaged births? I find that astounding.

There are two strategies for preventing CRS, as outlined here by the World Health Organisation:

The primary purpose of rubella vaccination is to prevent the occurrence of congenital rubella infection (including congenital rubella syndrome, CRS). Two approaches are recommended for CRS prevention – prevention of CRS only (through immunization of adolescent girls and/or women of childbearing age), and elimination of rubella as well as CRS (through universal vaccination of infants with/without mass campaigns,surveillance, and assuring immunity in women of childbearing age).

If the latter policy is ineffective, why does the WHO advocate it?

Did you actually read your last paragraph before you posted it?

The WHO guidelines are exactly what I have been saying and you have been ignoring!

So the WHO agree you can either mass vaccinate women and/or eliminate Rubella itself.

Can you explain how we are eliminating Rubella in the "herd" of 65 million people in the UK if all males over the age of 18 are unlikely to have been vaccinated. Alongside many women over the age of 55 and any others who have lost immunity over time?

To eradicate Rubella in the UK would require mass vaccination of 90% of the population and we dont do that. Nor do we monitor anyone except women once pregnant or offer boosters unless requested.

As for this:

"Your assertion is that immunologists have advised the Government to rely on women getting their immunity checked before becoming pregnant as a strategy to prevent rubella-damaged births? I find that astounding."

NO, its the advice from the NHS as posted on there website and linked to earlier in this thread.

http://www.nhs.uk/chq/Pages/1104.aspx?CategoryID=54&SubCategoryID=137

Top of the google search for rubella pregnancy advice nhs

Why do you find women taking responsibility for there own health and the health of the unborn child "astounding"?

We dont have herd immunity and thanks to travel we have disease movements all over the place, only an idiot would rely on everyone else being vaccinated to protect themselves!

conradmum

ford_prefect wrote: »

Did you actually read your last paragraph before you posted it?

The WHO guidelines are exactly what I have been saying and you have been ignoring!

So the WHO agree you can either mass vaccinate women and/or eliminate Rubella itself.

Can you explain how we are eliminating Rubella in the "herd" of 65 million people in the UK if all males over the age of 18 are unlikely to have been vaccinated. Alongside many women over the age of 55 and any others who have lost immunity over time?

To eradicate Rubella in the UK would require mass vaccination of 90% of the population and we dont do that. Nor do we monitor anyone except women once pregnant or offer boosters unless requested.

Sorry, you don't make much sense here. On the one hand you agree that the Government is following a WHO-recommended strategy, then you go on to say that it's ineffective.

The virus is most likely to be spread amongst children. By vaccinating all children the virus is prevented from circulating in the community. In the past, older mothers were most likely to catch rubella because they caught it from their children. This is why the WHO recommend vaccination of children as a strategy to prevent CRS (congential rubella syndrome).

ford_prefect wrote: »

As for this:

"Your assertion is that immunologists have advised the Government to rely on women getting their immunity checked before becoming pregnant as a strategy to prevent rubella-damaged births? I find that astounding."

NO, its the advice from the NHS as posted on there website and linked to earlier in this thread.

http://www.nhs.uk/chq/Pages/1104.aspx?CategoryID=54&SubCategoryID=137

Top of the google search for rubella pregnancy advice nhs

You seem to have missed my point. There is nothing in that link that states that the Government is relying on women to check their immunity before trying to conceive as a national rubella-prevention programme.

ford_prefect wrote: »

Why do you find women taking responsibility for there own health and the health of the unborn child "astounding"?

We dont have herd immunity and thanks to travel we have disease movements all over the place, only an idiot would rely on everyone else being vaccinated to protect themselves!

Our government is implementing the latter programme suggested by the WHO, where there is universal vaccination of infants and vaccination of women of childbearing age - hence the NHS advice, rubella screening of pregnant women and post-partum vaccination. Why you think the WHO would recommend a rubella vaccination programme that's ineffective is beyond me.

I notice that you don't address the other links I gave that directly contradict everything you've said regarding the effectiveness of the MMR programme in tackling rubella, links to independent, non-governmental organisations.

Can I ask what qualifications and experience you have to have formed your conclusions about rubella vaccinations? Or is this just something you've read on an anti-vaccination website somewhere and decided it must be true?

cheepskate_2

I;ve not read all 17 pages, so excuse me if i repeat what someone else has said.

My exp was that i did not get my child mmr for a few reasons. this is my choice and so it should be, exactly the same as my day to day life with my child where i take choices and decisions for them ..

A parent shouldnt be told do this or you have nothing. This is a very controlling way to do it. We should have had choices. I was prepared to go private to get individual vaccs for the 2 vacs my son needed(going by gov )3 rd one i decided he did not need as applied to females, so really if every female got vacs for Rhubella , problem solved.

Anyway i could not get info from health visitor etc about single jabs, where to safetly get them and there was then info that they were not effective etc. so decided not to vacs, baring in mind that computers were not what they are now. I got so much pressure from HV to get mmr and there was no way she was going to discuss single jabs as mmr was safe and i was putting my child live in danger if he did not get it and she went down the route that there could be dangers with single vaccs not good quality etc - end of-

Point im trying to make is people are being forced to have a mmr, the gov is not giving clear adivce on alternatives, by not allowing choice it forces a parent to either take up the mmr or opt out. Why in this day and age are we not given alternatives with good clear advice if we choose to go this route.

poet123

conradmum wrote: »

Sorry, you don't make much sense here. On the one hand you agree that the Government is following a WHO-recommended strategy, then you go on to say that it's ineffective.

The virus is most likely to be spread amongst children. By vaccinating all children the virus is prevented from circulating in the community. In the past, older mothers were most likely to catch rubella because they caught it from their children. This is why the WHO recommend vaccination of children as a strategy to prevent CRS (congential rubella syndrome).



You seem to have missed my point. There is nothing in that link that states that the Government is relying on women to check their immunity before trying to conceive as a national rubella-prevention programme.



Our government is implementing the latter programme suggested by the WHO, where there is universal vaccination of infants and vaccination of women of childbearing age - hence the NHS advice, rubella screening of pregnant women and post-partum vaccination. Why you think the WHO would recommend a rubella vaccination programme that's ineffective is beyond me.

I notice that you don't address the other links I gave that directly contradict everything you've said regarding the effectiveness of the MMR programme in tackling rubella, links to independent, non-governmental organisations.

Can I ask what qualifications and experience you have to have formed your conclusions about rubella vaccinations? Or is this just something you've read on an anti-vaccination website somewhere and decided it must be true?

Do you really not see the fact that males have no further boosters as significant? How can herd immunity be maintained, it is simply not possible, so why begin a vaccination prog that is pointless?