Andrew Wakefield - MMR

[taper]

The MMR vaccine in the UK has never contained mercury.

[Curmudgeon]

James Barber Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I think way back when the MMR controversy broke

> Mercury was used in the MMR preservative

> formulation used in the UK. It isn't anymore but I

> can't say I'd like the idea of any child being

> injected with any amount of Mercury.

You're thinking of the primary jabs that are given to babies at 2, 3 and 4 months old. Before summer 2004, they contained Thimerosal as a preservative - basically mercury. There was no reason for it and in fact the DTP given at 3 years old as a booster did not contain this preservative.

There was a research study (on mice) that showed that some had difficulty excreting the mercury and that when not excreted normally it moved to the brain. There was some theorising that the DTaP was the problem and that when children reached 13 months + and had additional vaccinations it could be a tipping point.

The government announced in 2004 that they were replacing DTaP with the new 5 in 1 which doesn't include thimerosal - it was an almost instant replacement. However even the week before this announcement the NHS line was that DTP was totally safe for 2 month old babies and there was no need for concern.

[Curmudgeon]

EDmummy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Spin? Not sure about that but the BUPA health

> information website states the following reasons

> for the questions of single jab effectiveness.

>

> - Children would need three times as many

> injections (six in total), which is more

> unpleasant because of the pain from each jab and

> six episodes of possible side-effects.

Yes but they are spaced out and some parents believe that the pain from a jab is minor in the scheme of things.

> - It could mean that fewer children have all the

> necessary vaccinations, increasing the levels of

> measles, mumps and rubella in the UK.

Only true if we're talking about a society where there isn't a large level of concern over a particular vaccination. Promoting vacciation and offering choice is not an extreme solution IMO

> - There may be more delay before being completely

> vaccinated, leaving children at risk of infection

> from the diseases for longer.

True there is a delay but it is preferable to have maximum vaccination and if this is a route that parents choose then they are still allowing their children to be part of the herd immunity, enabling those children who cannot be vaccinated to benefit.

> - Single vaccines aren't licensed in the UK, and

> have not passed the UK's safety and effectiveness

> testing.

Single vaccinations used to be licensed in the UK and they are licenced in many European countries. It does not mean they are not safe and effective just because there has been a decision taken to no longer allow choice.

As a final point I think it is patronising to imply that parents who choose / chose separate vaccinations would not complete the course (I know this wasn't your comment though). Parents who choose this route have generally come to an educated decision and have made a commitment.

[EDmummy]

If you think it is patronising take that up with the BUPA health information website where that information was taken from.

[Curmudgeon]

No point, it's a ubiquitous comment that is oft spouted in these types of discussions. But that doesn't mean that it is based in fact. It is mere supposition IMHO.

People I know who chose to sepvax continued throughout the course. I do not know of anybody who didn't finish the course.

For complete disclosure: my eldest had sepvax as primary innoculations as a toddler and MMR as booster at school age due to our researched concern over a genetic predisposition to auto-immune disorders. My youngest did not have thimerosal in primary jabs due to a 6 week 'discussion' (argument) with GP and had MMR as a toddler and pre-schooler. I have no axe to grind about the whole debate.

[Dulwich Born And Bred]

Ditto Curmudgeon !

My GP has actually surprised me in this case and advised I spread out my son's jabs, and even advised doing the MMR at aged 2 or later. I was spacing them out anyway due to his allergies, the fact he had antibiotics as a newborn and that I have an auto-immune condition.

I think more support should be given to parents who wish to spread them out or give single doses. One size does not fit all. I have a friend whose son is seriously ill after having one of his jabs, and she is working hard with other parents to try and get the Government to suppport parents in spreading out jabs, offering singles and ensuring there are no nasties that could do harm ( mercury/Thimerosal and so forth)

I also do not believe that nature is such that our bodies would have to deal with various viruses/diseases at once ( MMR) and expecting a baby to deal with various strains of viruses injected into them at once is too much IMO, especially since they have so many jabs in the first year, this is a big assault onto their immunity.

You will also find that Andrew Wakefield has admitted that children SHOULD have their jabs BUT have them all spread out throughout the years, these comments have been ignored and instead they are focusing on his studies that was not done properly. As Wakefield has said he had never opposed vaccination or claimed to have proof that MMR was linked to autism.

"I never made the claim at the time, nor do I still make the claim that MMR is a cause of autism," he said.

"You are conflating the two things. You are conflating the link with autism with the overall review of the vaccine." ]Quote

I have read his research and his interviews and I do not think anyone has really listened to him properly or why he did the ( flawed) study in the first place.

Wakefield Speaks

[taper]

There really is no evidence for the idea of "vaccine overload" with the current vaccines given to children. VO has a sort of bogus layman's logic to it, which organisations such as JABS and clinics who make money out of single jabs are keen to exploit. But it has no basis in science.

As for sympathy for Wakefield, the GMC found him guilty of serious professional misconduct and struck him off the register. Do not trust a word he says.

It really is time this debate moved on from the hugely damaging scare stories about MMR. I thought it had, but the same tired old canards keep appearing on the news and across the web, worrying parents unnecessarily.

[Dulwich Born And Bred]

I definitely believe in vaccine overload, I do not recall anyone coming up to me, my friends, family etc and asking us if our children have suffered anything since their jabs such as skin conditions, among others, so just because their studies proved what they say it proved, does not mean it applies to all of us, has any of YOU been asked if your children have developed anything since having their jabs?!.

No one is saying vaccines should be banned let's get that straight. We are saying MORE choices in how we vaccinates our children, and that is not too much to ask for.

Yes he was struck off, I did not say he deserves pity, but there is more to it than the what the media says, you should know never to trust the media to provide the whole story, it is always someone's opinion, sometimes no one is right.

[taper]

So the science is wrong because no-one has asked for your own personal experience. I don't even know where to start with that. Feel free to make your own decisions based on your own fears and conspiracy theories. But please think twice before expounding them on a public forum. You run the risk of causing unnecessary concern.

[Saffron]

Yep, HH is correct... sometimes no one is right. Wakefield is not the evil genius he was made out to be (he is neither evil, nor a genius). It is a simple case of hubris. Had he been more willing to temper his findings, report his conflicts of interest, and collect and present his data properly in the first place (and shame on the other authors of the paper who didn't pick up on some of this sooner!), then he would not have been crucified in the media. As it stands, it's a shame that the media frenzy this controversy created has led to a general distrust of vaccines both in the Western World and the Third World.

I'm not sure how I feel about vaccine overload. I don't know of any data to say definitely it exists. I also don't know of any data to say definitely it doesn't exist. The jury is still out on this one.

If you think you or someone you know has suffered side-effects from any vaccine, medication, or medical device, you can report this in the UK through the Yellow Card Scheme.

http://yellowcard.mhra.gov.uk/faqs/

[Dulwich Born And Bred]

Excuse me...can you explain again where I am advising the public to abandon the vaccines? A tad paranoid do you not think?

Unlike a lot of people, I don't believe everything I read and see on the TV/Newspaper, if you have travelled you will see that each country feeds their people the information they want via the news, it is normal.

More so because I suffer from recurring severe ear infections and my mother always said when I was a child, everytime I took antibiotics it would set off my ear infections. When I was in hospital with an infection after giving birth to my son, I was advised to have antibiotics, I informed then that it would trigger off an ear infection so could I maybe have something else? They all laughed at me and said antibiotics does not cause ear infections, and they can promise me that it will not set it off. Well, I took it and lo and behold, I had a horrific ear infection that lasted for ages. The moral to this story is just because in their labs and studies it does not seemed to cause ear infections, does not mean it does not cause ear infection, had I been in their studies the outcome would be different....do you get where I am going with this? All of us are different, we all react differently, doing a study on a hundred people in the country might have a different outcome to 100 people in town. What I do not like is people telling me that it is safe and does not cause this that and the other, when they do not personally know this themselves, they are just reading stats and being a parrot for the media. Unless you are personally giving the jabs to all these children yourself and monitoring them afterwards, please do not profess to know what is best for us.

I have seen in all my family members that they all get skin conditions after having their jabs...now logic would tell me there is something to it. No one has austim in my family so personally that is not something I am worried about, I do not know anyone who suffers from austim either. But all this rubbish about a child can safely take 1,000s of vaccines is just that rubbish, my son reacts after one ( not badly but enough) so good luck to anyone to want to test that theory!!

I think a survey should be done after vaccinations to see if there is a link to any of these disorders in children.

I have seen the change and heartache my friend goes through with her son after one of his jabs ( it was not the MMR) she still believes in the vaccinations BUT not all in one go.

So again...if people want singles, they should have singles. If people want to wait 6 months, they should be supported.

What would you prefer? Avoiding the whole vaccinations altogether?!

[Curmudgeon]

I have not seen any reliable evidence for either side of the vaccine overload argument and would love someone to point me in the direction.

I am inclined to not believe in it despite personal experience of my youngest developing pneumonia 10 days post first MMR. The A&E Paeds were more interested in saying its nothing to do with MMR (which I hadn't mooted) than actually treating her at one point - and that made me furious at the time I recall.

[Saffron]

Speaking purely hypothetically, it would seem that vaccine overload must at some point be a possibility. Paracelsus, the father of modern toxicology, said that all things are toxins; there is nothing that is not a toxin; dose alone determines toxicity. So -- hypothetically -- there must come a point after X number of simultaneous immunizations where the induced effect of the vaccine becomes toxic on some level. And -- hypothetically -- pharmacogenomics would suggest that different individuals, by the nature of their different genomes, will express differential risk.

How these hypotheses come into play in the general public at the current level of vaccine administration is an unknown quantity. As it stands, the MMR appears to be a safe and effective immunization for most people. More should be done to understand what constitutes a risk and to identify at risk individuals, so that they could be offered the choice of single vaccines.

It's not wrong to express concern and to bring pressure for more and better research. Although, in the current economic climate, there's unlikely to be much support for this financially... ah but that's probably another thread.

[taper]

The WHO on overload here -

http://www.who.int/vaccine_safety/topics/immune_overload/en/index.html

conclusion: The review conducted by the Committee did not find evidence to support the hypothesis of immune overload involving vaccines as currently used. However, the Committee recognized that despite the absence of evidence, some parents continue to fear such effects and that surveillance of non-specific adverse effects following vaccination should continue.

[Curmudgeon]

That does not seem conclusive though Taper - when you drill down there is no evidence either way. There is a survey of medical records for hospital admission due to bacterial infections within 3 months of MMR. And yet hospitals and medics do not report on these admissions as a matter of course.

I do find it interesting that there is recognition of parental and societal concerns and even that many physicians delay MMR and DTP amidst concerns of overload. Surely this would lead to real research programmes (not just epidemiological reviews) and the promotion of choice.

I also note the reduction in confered immunity by batching vaccines together.

In 10 years there remains a widespread, if incorrect, belief that there is something to be concerned about. If our aim is to have herd immunity then why is there no choice - surely by promoting choice we would increase vaccination rates so the question is not "should I vaccinate" but "which method of vaccination am I happiest with"

[Dulwich Born And Bred]

The body, especially the skin is a good outlet for rejecting anything foreign in the body, so I think that babies with eczema after having their jabs is a side effect of the body dealing with the vaccinations. I would like more research into this.

This is a good read:

HOW IT ALL WORKS

Vaccinations are usually effective in preventing an individual from manifesting a particular illness, but they do not improve the overall strength or health of the individual nor of the immune system. Instead, vaccinations modify the reactivity of the immune system, decreasing acute discharging inflammatory reactions and increasing the tendency to chronic allergic and auto-immune reactions.

[antijen]

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAndBenefits/BenefitsTaxCreditsAndOtherSupport/Disabledpeople/DG_10018714

Above is link to the vaccine damage website, I cant remember the figures but through the freedom of info act, a couple of years ago there was over 5,000 claimants, appr. 1 fifth were successful.

I wouldn't put my trust in the world health organisation, who argued thimeresol was safe.

Absolutely agree Heidi Hi, individuality can be a great teacher but unfortunately, as you've experienced, they don't listen.

My main concern, especially with the recent pandemics, that the choice will be taken away from us as individuals.

I also think people are entitled to decide (especially childrens vaccines) whether or not they wish to use them.

[taper]

Heidi - Philp Incao is a notorious quack and AIDs denialist. You cannot trust anything he says. It is not a "good read".

Curmudgeon - There is clear evidence that the hypothesis of vaccine overload in relation to current vacccination programmes is not supported by any of the available evidence. What do you mean by "either way"? You're not looking for evidence to prove a negative are you? As for choice, you have it: mmr on the NHS, single vaccines privately or don't vaccinate.

Antijen - no one says vaccines are risk free. But the benefits far outweigh the risks. So "people are entitled to decide (especially childrens vaccines) whether or not they wish to use them." is straw man: people do have the choice.

[Dulwich Born And Bred]

Taper, plenty more about the role of Th1/Th2 on lots of websites including wikipedia, just because he is a 'Quack' when it comes to some things does not mean he does not know how the body works, the immune system is very complex, and there is no way the medical profession knows how it work completely, thus they cannot say it does not cause any knock on problems ( auto-immune disorders) if they know everything about the immune system I think we would have cures for these disorders but alas, most literature will confirm the immune system is highly complex.

[Curmudgeon]

taper Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

> Curmudgeon - There is clear evidence that the

> hypothesis of vaccine overload in relation to

> current vacccination programmes is not supported

> by any of the available evidence. What do you

> mean by "either way"? You're not looking for

> evidence to prove a negative are you? As for

> choice, you have it: mmr on the NHS, single

> vaccines privately or don't vaccinate.

>

where is this evidence though - point me in the direction where studies have been done, rather than statistical analysis as I have issues with the level of reporting in this country (I have huge doubts over the validity of many epidemiological studies as should anybody who has ever worked with statistics)

I think the 'choice' of going private is open to the few only and it should be open to all

[Curmudgeon]

I'm begining to sound like I'm anti-MMR and vaccination ... may I stress that I am not.

[Dulwich Born And Bred]

On this site you are either for and against, if you question the MMR or any vaccinations, they think you are against it. It is a crime on this forum to ask questions when it comes to vaccinations. Like you my son has been vaccinated though not on the NHS timescales but on our timescale with support from my GP. As a concerned parent who wants to do the very best by the most precious thing in my life, my son, I like to question everything , more so when it comes to his health and possible long term problems. I really do not see the issue in more researches, and more options. At least we are taking an interest.

Science also changes with time and more information, you can see that in past treatments/advice that no longer apply today.

We have more vaccinations now than we ever did...is it a crime to ask what the possible problems this may cause in the future and if there are ways of preventing these problems?

[taper]

Curmudgeon - not sure what evidence you're looking for, but this study seems pretty comprehensive and goes well beyong epidemilogy -

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/109/1/124

It concludes: "Current studies do not support the hypothesis that multiple vaccines overwhelm, weaken, or "use up" the immune system. On the contrary, young infants have an enormous capacity to respond to multiple vaccines, as well as to the many other challenges present in the environment. By providing protection against a number of bacterial and viral pathogens, vaccines prevent the "weakening" of the immune system and consequent secondary bacterial infections occasionally caused by natural infection"

So "young infants have an enormous capacity to respond to multiple vaccines."

Heidi - it's not a crime, but the saftey or otherwise of MMR in has been subject to more studies about its safety than any other vaccine. The crime is the irresponsibility of the media in particular in fanning the flames of parental concern where there really is minimal risk

[antijen]

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/150804/Fury-at-vaccine-scandalFury-at-vaccine-scandalFury-at-vaccine-scandalFury-at-vaccine-scandalFury-at-vaccine-scandalFury-at-vaccine-scandalFury-at-vaccine-scandalFury-at-vaccine-scandalFury-at-vaccine-scandalFury-at-vaccine-scandalFury-at-vaccine-scandal#

Taper; As you can see by the link, many feel a choice is not there. I sympathise with people who's career not only takes away

this choice away but they themselves feel damaged by the vaccines.

[Curmudgeon]

Thank you Taper - I look forward to reading through that and the referenced materials. May I reiterate what I said at 11.05am yesterday I am inclined to disbelieve in the concept of vaccine overload despite personal experience.

On quick scanning of the abstract though it does reinforce my belief that there should be an individualistic approach to vaccination, specifically those with family histories of auto-immune disorders and other contradicted conditions - I still don't understand why brief family histories cannot be used in the vaccination programme and choice allowed (apart from the budgetary concerns of course) . I do feel this individualised is important both in terms of inferred immunity and short and long-term side effects to vaccines.