Measles & MMR

Aimless

heartbreak_star wrote: »

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

Again I'm sorry, but on first skim I've found at least one error in that information. The makers of the rubella vaccine themselves state it does not require a booster! And if I choose seperate rubella and measles, given the recommended distance apart, my child will be at least as protected as an MMR child within 12 weeks.

I would never tell anyone not to MMR, I believe it is a personal choice, and perfectly fine for a majority of people. On the other hand, I don't believe in providing misinformation about single vaccines, or demonising those who choose a perfectly safe, but alternative route. I'm not advocating homeopathic cures or any nonsense like that, these are established vaccines produced by proper companies.

Person_one

VestanPance wrote: »

Nurses aren't scientists, or even doctors. They know nothing about drug studies. Even doctors in the UK will have little more than limited knowledge of these.

Um...not all of us know nothing, thanks.

Nurses training more recently will have had to learn about RCTs and evidence based medicine in great depth in order to qualify.

VestanPance

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

No actually the were withdrawn due to better drugs coming to market, which will always be the case. Plus no drug caries zero risk of an averse event.

Even the example you used earlier was a 1 in 12000 showing of said adverse event. That's still fairly low yield for any drug, withdrawal will depend on what exactly that adverse event is. As far as MMR stands your increase of an adverse event occuring is higher with single jabs. It's the main reasoning for the triple.

notanewuser

cheepskate wrote: »

1988 ......

25 years ago.

You're right. Nothing's changed since then.

Aimless

Nada666 wrote: »

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.

No, I'm afraid you've missed my point. It has been reported as if he was a perfectly healthy adult, unless you read in detail, leaving my local surgery inundated with calls from worried people thinking they or their children are likely to die. We're not even in an outbreak area, and people are panicked. I don't think that's fair or helpful.

And with that I'm out, I respect your choices, most of you probably won't respect mine, so probably little point in continuing.

igloo

Aimless wrote: »

Again I'm sorry, but on first skim I've found at least one error in that information. The makers of the rubella vaccine themselves state it does not require a booster! And if I choose seperate rubella and measles, given the recommended distance apart, my child will be at least as protected as an MMR child within 12 weeks.

I would never tell anyone not to MMR, I believe it is a personal choice, and perfectly fine for a majority of people. On the other hand, I don't believe in providing misinformation about single vaccines, or demonising those who choose a perfectly safe, but alternative route. I'm not advocating homeopathic cures or any nonsense like that, these are established vaccines produced by proper companies.

I too disagree with it. I quote:-


'' All the evidence suggests that uptake is in fact poorer with single vaccines than with the MMR, and so with single vaccines fewer children would be protected. ''

Uptake is poorer as it isn't free.

If single vaccines were free like MMR then they would have a true indication on 'uptake'

Person_one

More of us have 'underlying health problems' than you might think.

I seem like a perfectly healthy young(ish) adult, but I have asthma and a family history of more severe auto-immune conditions. There are lots like me who aren't the stereotypical idea of vulnerable but could really do without a dose of measles.

There's a huge false sense of security about some of these illnesses.

heartbreak_star

It's not that is doesn't require a booster - it doesn't always require one, I believe. I'd have to double check when I get a chance.

The single vaccines are unlicensed and therefore not as safe as MMR. They are not a safe, alternative route.

http://www.healthpromotionagency.org.uk/Resources/parentschild/MMR/pdfs/Q%20&%20A%20Paper%20-%20MMR.doc.pdf

Another interesting article.

HBS x

VestanPance

Person_one wrote: »

Um...not all of us know nothing, thanks.

Nurses training more recently will have had to learn about RCTs and evidence based medicine in great depth in order to qualify.

Nurses may have general knowledge of drug administration. They have no knowledge of clinical trails (unless they happen to participate in one, which even then would given then nothing more than a simple understanding) and even then they wouldn't know the protocol for the study, or how to review a scientific journal. Although the majority of the population couldn't review a scientific journal. It's not something outside those outside scientific academic subjects are ever taught to do, which is why journalist are horrifically bad at reporting science articles.

Person_one

VestanPance wrote: »

Nurses may have general knowledge of drug administration. They have no knowledge of clinical trails (unless they happen to participate in one, which even then would given then nothing more than a simple understanding) and even then they wouldn't know the protocol for the study, or how to review a scientific journal. Although the majority of the population couldn't review a scientific journal. It's not something outside those outside scientific academic subjects are ever taught to do, which is why journalist are horrifically bad at reporting science articles.

Unless you're a nurse or are involved in nurse education, please don't make assumptions, because you're wrong.