hi all,
just a question and wondered what parents thought about it,
my daughter is due her single mmr vaccine, and the manufacturers have halted production on the mumps vaccine, i have read up on the immunisations, and they have said that if your child has already been given the first dose when a baby, 80% of children will of built up an immunity to mumps, the 2nd dose is given to the 20% that may not of built up an immunity to it, i was just wondering if there were any parents or health professionals that have a view on what is the best course of action, i read that you can have a blood test done to see how your childs immunity is to the mumps virus but i am now a little confused if not scared as to what to do next!!!
Laylaxx:confused::confused:
sorry didnt mention that my little girl is due her booster, as already had the 1st single mmr when she was about 18 months
Laylaxx;)
Hi Layla
Yours is an interesting question. And a fairly contravercial subject.
My kids are grown up now, which makes me a bit older than you and I can only give you my experience. Only you can decide what's best for your children.
When I was a little girl, when one kid had measles or any other childhood illness, the mum would invite all the neighbourhood kids round for a party, so that everyone got whatever it was and it was over and done with. No, it wasn't very comfortable for a couple of weeks, but then it was over and we all got better and went on with our lives.
The result is I was never afraid when my kids got sick. I expected it and invited my friends' kids round so they could get it over with ... some took me up on the offer, some didn't.
My oldest daughter had MMR when it was just introduced, just before she started school. It was a single immunisation at that time. Then they found that kids got measles, mumps and rubella anyway and so they introduced a booster.
Vaccination is something of an issue right now. My kids got the immunisations for the real killers - dyptheria, polio, etc - not whooping cough, though. After my daughter had had her MMR, I began to think differently, do some research and make decisions based on that, rather than what I was told.
And that's what I recommend you do. Do some research about this - google MMR ... and you might like to go to the site [url]What Doctors Don't Tell You[/url] for some information on vaccines, generally or to [url]Dr Mercola[/url]. But don't just go there - google, get all the angles and make an informed choice.
Fx
Layla- I agree with everything that Fiona's said but you really need to form your own opinion- no-one can decide for you- not even the doctors- what to do about vaccinations. Don't be scared- the chances are your child(ren) will stay fit and well, whatever you do. I don't think any of us really knows the 'truth' about vaccinations, their risks and advantages. You just have to follow your convictions and have confidence that your children will be fine! HTH Hom
hi all,
just thought i would let parents know, my daughter is due her mmr single vaccines, but due to mumps being unavailable, if your child had the first vaccinations and is due thier booster, they can have a blood test done that looks at the antibodies and tells whether they are immune from the virus the first time round, the child will not have to have the remaining two injections, unforunately its not available on the nhs as was not the single injections, so the blood test is expensive as but at least parents would have some sort of worry lifted,
thought i would just share that info.
Laylaxx;)
I agree, I believe that childhood illnesses are there for a reason.. to strenghten your childs ability to deal and overcome diseases, and build their immune system. There is a lot of controversy about the MMR and the first court case has already been won from parents of an autistic child. Andrew Wakefield's findings have since been confirmed by independent researchers. So it is really worth researching this issue.
Personally i'd rather have mumps than a vaccine for my son, as the vaccine side-effects are too horrendous to contemplate.
and the first court case has already been won from parents of an autistic child. Andrew Wakefield's findings have since been confirmed by independent researchers.
Hello Maya. Colleagues of mine were discussing this a few days ago, but I was unable to contribute to the conversation because I know very little about it. One of them did say that the Wakefield findings were found to be rubbish. I'd love to have a link to the findings you refer to above, if you have it - because I wasn't entirely convinced that my (very much loved and respected!) colleague was completely sure of his facts on that one [i.e. his body language seemed to be betraying him].
Thanks!
Ava x
Andrew Wakefield's findings have since been confirmed by independent researchers. So it is really worth researching this issue.
Where do you get your facts from?
There are is far more published research supporting the safety of the MMR jab.
As for Andrew Wakefield, here is the General Medical Council's outcome:
[DLMURL] http://www.gmc-uk.org/Wakefield_SPM_and_SANCTION.pdf_32595267.pdf [/DLMURL]
Myarka.
[DLMURL] http://www.gmc-uk.org/Wakefield_SPM_...f_32595267.pdf [/DLMURL]
Yes, that's the one my colleague referred to: he said it came out a few months ago from the GMC.
Ava x
Wakefield's conduct was found to be inappropriate, the GMC said nothing about his findings. He is still writing papers, very good ones, but nobody will publish them now.
As for immunity, there is no proven correlation between antibodies and immunity. When a disease has no vaccine (eg HIV/AIDS), antibodies are supposedly proof of infection. When there is a vaccine, apparently it means confirmed protection from infection - which is it? Nobody knows. Try getting your doctor to explain the relationship and the inconsistencies.
Then there are plenty of things that we can be immune to without showing antibodies, and vice-versa. It's a fallacy that immunity is all about whether or not you have anitbodies and nothing else.
So when it is claimed a vaccine has shown to be protective, what this means is that the vaccine has been shown to produce antibodies. It does not mean they have tested the actual protection in the face of exposure to disease. It's a big fat assumption that antibodies say it all, they do not.
Furthermore, they do not test vaccines in randomised controlled trials against inert placebo. They only test them against other substances that will create an immune reaction, eg older vaccines. When a vaccine was last tested against placebo in an RCT, 250,000 test subjects were tested, half with BCG (TB vaccine), half with true placebo. Those who were vaccinated were more likely to get sick with TB than the placebo group. Some countries therefore banned BCG, others, including Britain, did not. Since then this kind of study has not been done on any vaccine. Go figure.
There is plenty of findings and research available on the negative side-effects of vaccines.. from GI disease, autism spectrum disorders, auto-immune disorders, SIDS, it really isn't hard to find. It stands to reason why Andrew Wakefield was made a ridicule of by the BMJ, and it had nothing to do with parents concerns, just follow the money.. Where would we be if he 'officially' was proven correct? That was never going to be allowed to happen. At the end of the day, until there is independent research done on vaccines, we can forget about fair trials.
A recent article I read, put it like this:
Public confidence in the safety of vaccines is at risk until safety studies are performed that are required by law, ethics, and science. NAA calls for a vaccinated vs. non-vaccinated study comparing all health outcomes including autism. The CDC is in charge of vaccine safety, owns patents to vaccines (according to a UPI Investigative Report from 2003) and is in charge of promoting vaccines. The public should demand that vaccine safety be taken away from an agency with such conflicts and support HR#1973, the Vaccine Safety and Public Confidence Assurance Act."
Here's some links you may find interesting:
If you're on facebook, I recommend VINE (Vaccine information network)
I did a lot of research on vaccinations when I was pregnant with my first child and decided not to vaccinate at all. Vaccination does not prevent disease, it only increases profit and decreases our immune systems. I turned to homeopathy and herbal medicine instead and my children, now 10 & 8 years old are extremely healthy. They have had some of the childhood diseases and I have never been fearful of them catching anything. They have always had a good diet and never had any pharmaceutical medication. They are both as strong as oxes and suffer far less illness than most of their classmates, most of whom seem to be on antibiotics for most of the winter.
Dr Wakefield's conduct was found to be inappropriate because he was challenging a product made by huge pharmaceutical companies and if his findings were proved to be correct, it would have had a huge impact on their profits and in turn affected the kickbacks received by doctors. His findings would NEVER have been allowed to be shown as sound. It's interesting that none of the parents of the children that he treated testified against him and most of them came forward to speak on his behalf.
I would advise anyone to read some of Viera Scheibner's findings as she has done some very interesting work in Australia.
... just follow the money..
From Wakefield's hearing:
In February 1996 Dr Wakefield agreed to act as an expert in respect of MMR litigation. In relation to the Legal Aid Board (LAB), the Panel found that Dr Wakefield accepted monies totalling £50,000 procured through Mr Barr, the Claimants’ solicitor to pursue research.
Dr Wakefield admitted that the funding subsequently provided by the Legal Aid Board had not been needed for these items because these costs were borne by the National Health Service as the patients were being admitted as NHS patients.The Panel found that Dr Wakefield had a duty to disclose this information to the Legal Aid Board via Mr Barr. It was dishonest and misleading of him not to have done so. The Panel concluded that his intention to mislead the Legal Aid Board was sufficient on its own to amount to serious professional misconduct.
The Panel also found that in respect of £25,000 of LAB monies, Dr Wakefield caused or permitted it to be used for purposes other than those for which he said it was needed and for which it had been granted. In doing so he was in breach of his duties in relation to the managing of, and accounting for, funds.
Yep, following the money ;).
Unfortunately it's sad that someone who is responsible for such misconduct is seen as a saint by some.
Myarka
Interview with Dr Wakefield:
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/04/10/wakefield-interview.aspx
Links at the bottom to research 🙂
Interview with Dr Wakefield:
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/04/10/wakefield-interview.aspxLinks at the bottom to research 🙂
Hi Suzanne
This is one of the most interesting and telling interviews I have ever listened to. Thank you so much for pointing out this link.
How the GMC, media and other medics have obviously not read the information presented and certainly not understood what Dr Wakefield was doing nor his conclusions - even timescales weren't checked. He is at last free to put his side of the story. It is appalling the way he has been treated - one of the foremost research paediatric gastroenterologists in the world has been lost to this country by the ignorance and incompetance of 'those in charge'.
Do not believe all that is printed in the newspapers - or what the pharmaceutical companies put out.
Please take time to watch this interview. Sorry Myarka - I disagree completely with the conclusions of the GMC - as i do with their judgement on Dr Sarah Myhill.
It has to be parental 'informed' choice.
I wasn't so lucky because I wasn't given any facts much to my regret.
As a new parent, I thought it was the right thing to do.
I greatly admire Dr Wakefield.
Our daughter is autistic, I must stress there were some subtle signs prior to MMR
*but little did I know that all the other vaccines at that time contained mercury*
Way too much to document here but she changed within days of that MMR jab.
She regressed, became completely silent and very violent.
That's a real shame Louisa, sorry to hear that.
Here's a link to some more background on the MMR, including Brian Deer and the parents voices:
If you actually want the fact into how much research has be carried out into the MMR vaccine, look here:
I think it's so sad, that the likes of Wakefield are idolised, when all they've done is create an environment for greater suffering.
Myarka.
Myarka, I find on the contrary. I'm not sure if you have watched any of the clips but originally the parents who went to Andrew Wakefield for help were given it and their cases thoroughly investigated with care. Wakefield, alongside several others, alerted the medical profession of their findings. There has never been a single complaint from any of the parents of children that he treated, only praise. The (unfounded) allegations came from Brian Deer a 'medical journalist' who is discussed in the link above and his pharamacutical connections. The parents statement supporting Andrew Wakefield and his associates can be found here:
The connections between autism and the inflammatory bowel disease have, since 1998, become a common acceptance within the medical profession. It was Wakefield who discovered this. In the Lancet article he clearly states that he does not directly associate the MMR with the conditions that he has seen, but that it required further studies (which of course, never happened). The actual paper can be found here:
[DLMURL] http://www.generationrescue.org/pdf/wakefield2.pdf [/DLMURL]
The MMR/autism research is still in the hands of the big pharma and the multimillion dollar industry. If only non-pharma sponsered, independent research was encouraged and published, I'm sure it would be quite a different story as we would no longer have these 'conflict of interests'.
I don't understand what you mean when you say he has "created an environment for greater suffering"?? for whom? certainly not for me. The whole story has only backed up what I instinctively feel about vaccines: injecting toxins & live viruses etc bypassing the body's natural defenses directly into the bloodstream will not do anyone any favours in the long run. It completely goes against the body's natural intelligence and incredible abilities at self-healing. The body's immune system should be tested from time to time in the form of childhood diseases in order to challenge it at and make it strong. "It's not the seed it's the soil".
I believe Andrew Wakefield is a saint, and I wish there were many more of him brave enough to stand by his findings for the welfare of others, shame on the GMC for this witchhunt as it will only serve to prevent studies that highlight any criticism of vaccine damage in future, as it is i'm sure intended. I feel for the parents of these children and for future ones, of their suffering and saddened by the denial of this. Especially since the vaccine schedule is now at an all time high for the very young, and still with no research done into the accumulative effects of vaccines.
I quote Dr Peter Fletcher, former Chief Scientific Officer for the department of Health (responsible for vaccine safety) "The refusal of the government to evaluate the risks of MMR properly will make one of the greatest scandals in medical history. There are very powerful people in positions of great authority who have staked their reputations on the safety of MMR and they are willing to do almost ANYTHING to protect themselves"
It's worth scratching the surface on this topic, but we may have to agree to disagree.
I think it's so sad, that the likes of Wakefield are idolised, when all they've done is create an environment for greater suffering.
Yes, those pesky messengers, all they do is bring bad news!
It's worth scratching the surface on this topic, but we may have to agree to disagree.
Absolutely 🙂
Might be worth reading the judges ruling in the libal case against channel 4 ;).
According to the [url]Washington Post[/url], Wakefield and his associates predict they could make more than $43 million a year from their diagnostic kits.
How is that different to the big pharma?
Myarka.
How is that different to the big pharma?
...um, several orders of magnitude and investment capital setting the direction?
Absolutely 🙂
Might be worth reading the judges ruling in the libal case against channel 4 ;).
According to the [url]Washington Post[/url], Wakefield and his associates predict they could make more than $43 million a year from their diagnostic kits.
How is that different to the big pharma?
Myarka.
As ever, the media cherry pick their point of view and print that - the Washington Post article is reporting what Wakefield's detractor, Brian Deer has reported.
As a paediatric gastroenterologist, Wakefield noticed a link between those with bowel problems, MMR and autism. We must be thankful that he did, in order to make people aware of the results of interfereing with the immune system by giving infants so many vaccines at once - 9 different ones now!
What I heard from the interview with Wakefield, and what is/was put out by the media bear little resemblence to each other. The BMA is very firmly in the hands of Big Pharma who will do anything to protect their profits.
It is well worth looking at Wakefield's interview with Dr Mercola - here's [url]the link [/url]again.
Not only that, it seems the mumps vaccine only gives temporary cover for a few years, so those who have been vaccinated are now getting the illness as adults when it can be far more serious, especially for men. Is that a good idea?
And they are now trying to instigate a vaccine for chickenpox. Those who have had it are now going down with shingles as teenagers. Shingles is normally a problem for older adults - not children. And for most chickenpox is an inconvenience in childhood - chickenpox parties were the norm when I was young!
I believe vaccines are not the panacea they are cracked up to be. I agonised considerably over our grandchildren being vaccinated with MMR, and insisted they waited until they were absolutely well before having the jab. Fortunately they were OK, but think of the consequences if they were not - and I grieve for all the families who have had their children damaged by inappropriate medical intervention.
The BMA is very firmly in the hands of Big Pharma who will do anything to protect their profits.
It doesn't matter if that is true of not, but what is fact is the way that Wakefield conducted his study. That has been proved to be unethical, and that's why the majority of doctors that worked with Wakefield withdrew there support.
As for clinical research, for more has gone into MMR than any other vaccine. This is sad, because the funds could have been better used for other research.
BTW, where the vaccine is most effective, the big Pharma actually get in the way. Try talking to some aid workers about their experiences of vaccines and how they change lives.
We have the choice, but many don't.
Myarka.
It doesn't matter if that is true of not, but what is fact is the way that Wakefield conducted his study. That has been proved to be unethical, and that's why the majority of doctors that worked with Wakefield withdrew there support..
If we're on the subject of what matters, I'd say that what matter is whether there is any truth in the notion that vaccination can be a causative factor in chronic disease. The GMC enquiry and tribunal of Wakefield sidestepped that entirely.
How many times do we need to repeat this? As usual, when the pertinent questions are asked the subject gets drawn back onto GMC findings of an individual and ends with an emotive argument, all of which is irrelevant to the scientific question of vaccine effectiveness and safety.
Generally at some stage mention of dead children comes into it, usually the fault of anyone who questions the official line.
How many times do we need to repeat this? As usual, when the pertinent questions are asked the subject gets drawn back onto GMC findings of an individual and ends with an emotive argument, all of which is irrelevant to the scientific question of vaccine effectiveness and safety.
The GMC findings are very important, because Wakefield's conduct was found to be dishonest, and therefore throws doubt on his ability to conduct reliable research.
Since then many studies have been undertaken into the effects of the MMR vaccine, and they have found it safe.
But what I do find is that in addition to the barriers put up by the big pharma, now the EU, and the consequence of Wakefield, children die.
Again the official line is of little importance, but all humans are of equal value. Sorry you want to omit dead children from this debate, but that's what happens when the rich west puts its "I'm alright right jack" coat on.
We are very unlikely to agree on this. Many think the big pharma is the bad boy out there. But I believe who exploit health for their own gain are as bad as each other.
Myarka.
Yet again doing everything to avoid talking about the substantive issue, whilst twisting my words.
I never said dead children didn't matter, I said they are supposed to exist to bolster an argument, but no proof is offered.
Moreover, it is a circular argument:
1) they are supposed to exist because people have been deterred from vaccination.
2) deterring people from vaccination is supposed to be more harmful that being vaccinated, because of the trail of dead children.
3) therefore there must be dead children
4) therefore vaccine abstension must be bad.
Well, sooner or later this logic ceases to hold itself up without external reference.
Let's see how listening to Wakefield affects life-expectancy, from an empirical study, shall we? Scientists and lay people have been calling for this kind of study comparing vaccinated and unvaccinate populations, but it is never done. Why? Because of the supposition of harm from vaccine abstension: the result has already been decided.
But if you want to bring ethics, honesty and dead children into this: GSK killed 12 children in a vaccine trial in Argentina - and didn't even stop the trial!! Are you seriously saying Wakefield's findings are invalidated against this kind of benchmark? The proving of vaccination has a history littered with disastrous outbreaks and villages wiped out. That doesn't disprove all vaccination, it just shows that there can be many a slip on the road to the truth: what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
It's misleading to suggest that more recent research ALL contradicts the Wakefield hypothesis. Only if you dismiss certain data as bad science because you do not like its findings. There is good science on this, and there is still a case to discuss.
The other circular argument is that credible scientists don't accept there is evidence of a link between chronic disease and vaccination, which when you look more closely depends dismissing anyone who considers such a link as not a very credible scientist.
You will note, I am not arguing for or against vaccination, I am arguing for an honest and well-intentioned search for the truth and an attempt to address valid concerns properly.
However, there is only so long that the discussion can continue at this level: telling parents they are wrong about this, because no parent has ever been right about this: saying that the important questions are settled when many do not accept that they are: steering the discussion onto emotive territory: falsely claiming the scientific high ground because of one's preferred theory: assuming that anyone who is cautious about vaccination must be against it on principle, whereas anyone who accepts it is scientific.
We see these attempts at sleight-of-hand all the time, but they only do harm to the credibility of the 'pro'vaccination argument.
Here's the latest. Documents emerge proving Dr Andrew Wakefield innocent; BMJ and Brian Deer caught misrepresenting the facts.
Learn more:
Correct me if I'm wrong, and I just went through all the documents, but it seems this is between Wakefield and the BMJ and Deer, not Wakefield and the GMC.
So I'm not sure what this changes, other than showing the press for its poor quality reporting.
I'm sure time will tell, and this will be something that will rumble on for years as it has done so already.
Myarka.
Well the BMJ article was what sparked the MMR question, its withdrawal was the event that threw the spotlight onto Wakefield. And Wakefield's integrity as a medic was the public interest question that led to the need for a GMC tribunal.
I haven't seen the court transcripts, but the question we should be asking is how much did the GMC rely on the evidence of the BMJ now mentioned?
To spell it out, without this evidence that now seems highly dubious, perhaps there would have been no tribunal, and the story in the press would still be about MMR and not about Wakefield.
How this can be seen as irrelevant is utterly beyond me.