Measles & MMR

VestanPance

Aimless wrote: »

Anyone who believes all vaccines are well tested in advance should look up the rotavirus one in the US...withdrawn after one year.

They are all well tested. Do you even have an idea of how long these trials last and what you need to do to get FDA approval to sell? Please link the scientific journals that say MMR is a risk, because scientific journals are the only valid reference material for this subject.

That doesn't mean the odd one won't slip through with some adverse event, but MMR isn't one of them. The claims made have been laughed out of court. In fact one of the primary reasons for the triple jag was reduced infection rates. Think about it do you think drug companies want to sell you three expensive drugs or just one?

Nada666

Aimless wrote: »

And also, if you read the BBC reports, he did in fact have underlying health issues.

Single vaccines are currently available from some clinics, you have to pay for them though. If you had a severe reaction, then probably best to discuss it with your GP and see what they say?

Duh! That's the bleeding point! Mass immunisation is not for you or me or the ninety-nine percent of people with constitutions that can shrug off the diseases after a miserable week. It is to protect the vulnerable who can be killed and the few who are savaged by complications.

igloo

In the US, they have done numerous tests and the MDs involved are against vaccinating at all! The vaccines have things like aluminum and mercury which stay in your system for life

http://www.naturalnews.com/SpecialReports/VaccinesFullStory/v1/VaccineReport-EN.pdf

heartbreak_star

Aimless wrote: »

I'm sorry, but you also back up yours! Point me to a study proving the MMR provides a better coverage than a single. I'm sick of those who choose single vaccines having to prove every statement while those who do MMR can claim anything they want.

If I were irresponsible, I wouldn't vaccinate, like the idiot they found to put in the paper the other day who refused meningitis vaccines! But making a valid choice to select a different method, based on all the evidence I have read, is not irresponsible! The vaccination nurse at my surgery is quite happy with my choice.

Also, if I insulted all parents who chose the MMR personally, calling them names, I would quite rightly be dealt with by the site.

Here you go.

http://www.hpa.org.uk/Topics/InfectiousDiseases/InfectionsAZ/MMR/GeneralInformation/

Okay, let me put it a more diplomatic way. There is a high degree of irresponsibility and hysteria in trying to promote non-licensed and less effective single vaccines over a triple vaccine that is tested over and above the required levels due to previous incorrect discreditation by someone who used to be a doctor, but who has been struck off due to this, and the surrounding media circus.

That better?

Incidentally, I feel really sorry for the scientists who put so much work into developing MMR. What a kick in the teeth that people believe a fabricated 16-person study over all their years of work.

HBS x

cheepskate_2

VestanPance wrote: »

And reviews are very different today than they where then. The process to get a drug to market is highly complex, including submitting all adverse effects (all drugs have them even over the counter ones). Drug studies need to follow the protocols, regulations and be conducted over an appropriate sample of the market. The vast majority of clinical drug trails fail to see a drug to the market.

Is it..... If you read up on the vaccs then you would see that the NHS withdrew 2 of the 3 mmr vacinations due to a link with aseptic menengitis . These 2 strains had been on the market and used by our NHS for 4 years...........So much for improved regulations and highly complex regulations. I beleive this was just in 1998, but then again maybe your regulations etc have became better since then

notanewuser

igloo wrote: »

In the US, they have done numerous tests and the MDs involved are against vaccinating at all! The vaccines have things like aluminum and mercury which stay in your system for life

http://www.naturalnews.com/SpecialReports/VaccinesFullStory/v1/VaccineReport-EN.pdf

That's absolutely not true.

notanewuser

cheepskate wrote: »

Is it..... If you read up on the vaccs then you would see that the NHS withdrew 2 of the 3 mmr vacinations due to a link with aseptic menengitis . These 2 strains had been on the market and used by our NHS for 4 years...........So much for improved regulations and highly complex regulations. I beleive this was just in 1998, but then again maybe your regulations etc have became better since then

"Just" 1998? As in 15 years ago?!

cheepskate_2

heartbreak_star wrote: »

Here you go.

http://www.hpa.org.uk/Topics/InfectiousDiseases/InfectionsAZ/MMR/GeneralInformation

HBS x

Public Health England................ A really unbiased view, Eh

cheepskate_2

notanewuser wrote: »

"just" 1998? As in 15 years ago?!

1988 ......

heartbreak_star

cheepskate wrote: »

Public Health England................ A really unbiased view, Eh

More unbiased than Natural News or the Daily Fail. The HPA, by the way, have to report all studies unbiased because they'll be shut down if they don't.

Also:

http://www.badscience.net/2013/04/how-vaccine-scares-respect-local-cultural-boundaries/

HBS x