Sunshine7

Ah, the dreaded mumps. The truth is that mumps is (usually) such a mild ilness in childhood that most many doctors can't understand why we even vaccinate against it. There was a mumps vaccine available long before the MMR came on the scene, but it wasn't used as routine precisely because it's such a mild ilness. Rubella is also a mild illness for children but it can have devastating effects on a fetus if a pregnant woman with no immunity were to catch it. Does it make sense to vaccinate all babies in case of this, risking the possible side effects, or would it be more like sense to make sure all women / girls at childbearing age are vaccinated IF they don't already have natural immunity from having the disease as a child?

Thats the thing about these childhood diseases - they are supposed to be exactly that, childhood. Vaccination has pushed up the age that people contract these diseases and that's where we run into problems. (I am talking about childhood diseases by the way, quite aside from malevolent diseases).

With the single MMR vaccines there is, what is in my opinion, scaremongering with regards to leaving the children exposed to these terrible diseases for longer. Perhaps, and again this is just my own opinion, if parents decide that they do want to vaccinate then go ahead with the measles vaccine first and don't worry too much that tere isn't going to be a mumps vaccine available to complete the course. If your child then as a teenager still hasn't contracted mumps then maybe that is the time to think about vaccinating and by then their immune system will be mature as well and more able to deal with the vaccine.

Ozzidoc

1. There is no issue with MMR. (Feel free to do a search on BE for MMR. It has been debated very thoroughly and intelligently. Notwithstanding my thoughts that colour TVs cause autism)

2. The single vaccines aren't supplied because there is limited published evidence that they work (from memory one Japanese study), and also they increase the risk of the child/person getting the infection due to the longer period of time it takes for the child to be "fully" covered...if that makes sense.

Ozzidoc

Nope. It's supposed to NOT contain the active ingredient.

jillandsi

I don't agree with you I'm afraid, whenever anybody asks UK doctors about concerns regarding the MMR vaccine they are handed the Government literature on the subject, they aren't given any of the opposing information and in many cases are treated as if they are stupid/hysterical middle class people who should just shut up and do as they are told, which unfortuately just makes most parents who have concerns turn around and walk out.

It has been reported from many doctors that they have given their child single vaccines as they too have concerns however they are not allowed to go against Government recommendations in front of patients given the fact that they are employed and paid for by the Government.

I don't understand how there can be limited published evidence that single vaccines work when that is what we were all given prior to the MMR. As for the often mis-leading quote that the child is exposed to getting the diseases for longer by going the single vaccine route due to them having to leave 6-8 weeks in between each of the three vaccines as opposed to getting them all in one shot at 15 months, that is simply not true according to my knowledge.
I was informed that the first dose of MMR frequently does not give any coverage as the viruses combat against each other and lose their effectiveness and that the reason children need the second pre-school booster is to ensure that all of those children are then covered.
However by giving the vaccines seperately this ensures full coverage from day one and the children do not need a pre-school booster as there is no need for a safety net, going off this then my children were actually vaccinated before a lot of others and the gaps in between each vaccine means very little when other children have no protection until they are 4 years anyway.

Jillian

Japonica

Please contact the Global Polio Eradication Initiative and tell them that they don't know how to read either. Thanks...and that they're misleading poor, stupid parents like us with their inaccurate information.

http://www.polioeradication.org/vaccines.asp

Also, Dr.Vincent Racaniello, microbiologist, wrote:

http://202.54.104.236/intranet/eip/i...sion_bull3.pdf

As for pertussis, we do not only vaccinate children here. Recently, there has been a push to vaccinate all adults with the campaign "Do it for your baby." The media tells parents that they must vaccinate themselves to help prevent the spread of pertussis but when you go and dig a bit further, you get a different story.

As for reading and interpreting "correctly," sure, what I read and decide is worth further investigation is a lot different coming from me than from a doctor who had part of his training sponsored by drug companies, who receives incentives from drug companies, who endorses vaccines based on the recommendations of panel members linked to drug companies, based on studies funded by, what, drug companies. Guess I don't have the right perspective that's for sure. I suppose I need to swallow absolutely everything fed to me by doctors, government, and pharma and just shut up and not ask questions. Wow, freedom is a great thing. When did we all move to China?

Ozzidoc

I respect your right to have your opinions however I disagree with you.

Firstly, Refer to my earlier posts regarding "How to read a paper" and the curriculum changes which occurred post-mmr scandal.

There are many, many doctors practicing who graduated before the Wakefield-induced furore, whom have never had any training in how to analytically appraise research papers.

Secondly, your understanding of how immunisation works is not quite correct. The immunisation schedule is designed to induce immunity, which is based on cell memory. It is not that the first shot does not work, it is introducing the body to the antigen and providing the first part of the process. The remainder of the immunisations are effectively booster shots, which confer longterm immunity.

jillandsi

I understand what you're saying with regards to your first point however a lot of my concerns over the MMR and other vaccines are not to do with the interpretation of research papers as I feel that a lot of the time parts of the research can be used in isolation to support either camp, also the research can be done in such a way as to direct the results for the press i.e. if you want to disprove that the mumps and rubella vaccines clash and cause issues such as Dr Wakefield was suggesting, then surely you can do tests which prove the MMR is safe but not look at that one point. So yes the results prove MMR is safe based on what they specifically tested for and can be published as such to the mass media whilst at the same time not disproving Dr Wakefield's origonal thoughts at all (but leading the general public to believe that they have).

With regards to your second point how come I had been told that my children would not need a pre-school booster, surely they would also need a booster even though they had single vaccines in order to get long-term immunity.

Disclaimer:
I am just a mum and a Day Nursery Owner/Nursery Nurse and so I only have as much knowledge as I can find the time to get, I am certainly not as knowledgable/educated as a lot of the posters on this thread seem to be. So although I have my opinions and thoughts I may well turn out to be mis-informed and for these reasons I am finding this thread very informative and am open to changing my mind.

Jillian

chocciecake

my trust in doctors is limited anyway, as one stupid clown left me with skin cancer for a few years after belittling me for wasting his time coming in about a patch of dry skin that i had done research on and believed to be skin cancer...
seems i was right and he was wrong!
he didn't know diddly about skin cancer and refused to consider i may have it, even though i had all the risk factors and was presenting wth it....
i could cite numerous examples of doctors thinking they know better than patient and who turn out to be wrong ,to the patients detriment, so I CHOOSE to do my own research now ,in addition to doctors advice and make my choices on mine and my families health,as too many people just trust what their doctor says, and are often maimed or die as a result .
for example, how many doctors brushed jade goody off before they found her cancer???

you are welcome to do what you choose, as am i, without judgement.

Ozzidoc

I'm sorry that you have had bad experiences, and that your initially concerns were not addressed. That's pretty much unforgivable in my books. Did you confront the first doctor when your cancer was confirmed? That GP/medic clearly has some areas for development, as do we all... no one is perfect.

WRT Jade Goody....I understand that her presenting complaint was abdominal pain. Cervical cancer is NOT the first thing that comes to mind when someone presents that way, particularly in an <30 year old. Many other diagnoses would be more likely. (Even TB could be higher on my list, depending on her other signs and symptoms.)

Do you really think that she was simply brushed off? I suspect that she was fully and appropriately investigated each time she presented with her symptoms. Believe it or not, most doctors do want to give the best possible care to the patient that they have in front of them, and in a hospital situation there are numerous physicians involved. I cant remember the details regarding her cervical smears.

In Australia these are done annually, but there are good arguments for having this screening test every two or three years. (The transition from pre-cancer to cancerous changes is slow, and many women with pre-cancerous changes self-revert to normal. Many women find the test invasive and would prefer to have it less often.) My personal belief is that having annual smears decreases the chance of having a missed positive smear....if that makes sense. I'm all for evidence-based medicine...I really don't know if there is much evidence for this...my irrational fear ...

Rob12paws

One word - PRICELESS!!!

Rob12paws

While we're on the subject of vaccination, I'm going to throw this into the pot for anyone who might be interested.

http://www.dogsadversereactions.com/...ineDamage.html

hereshoping

I will say it again- the properties of a compound are totally different to the properties of the element, and your body treats them as such. To take the example I mentioned earlier Chlorine and Sodium make up table salt. Chlorine gas is poisonous, Sodium metal react violently with water. Your body, which is to a large degree water, does not react violently with salt, not is it poisoned by it. Your body does treat compounds differently to the elements.

You seem confused about what the immune system actually is, we do have some bariers to pathogens entering our body but we also have immune responses within our blood and lymphatic system - this is how we get well again once pathogens have entered and made us ill.

They did remember that when the vaccines were made, the amounts are scaled down for babies. You don't need 17 times as much liquid when you're an adult though, only proportonally more active ingredient.

viviennef

Now dogs - more my thing. I am not anti vaccination but we have a different protocol

>>http://www.naturalvetcompany.com/pet...es/archives/15

Certain breeds of dogs are very prone to vaccination side effects.

Ozzidoc - I know that you say that MMR is not anything to worry about, and as I say I am not anti vaccination however my little girl had a very noticeable reaction to the vaccination. They think that it was more to do with the way her immune system reacts to stimuli. Whatever way, the doctors treating her including a neurologist etc acknowledge that the connection is there and that it is not advisable to repeat this with any further dose - also chicken pox vaccine they felt would be better avoided.

Vivienne

hereshoping

I know I'm not ozzidoc but I'm sure he wouldn't mind me saying that when he said there was nothing wrong with MMR he was refering to the autism controversy. It is of course possible for individuals to have adverse reactions to vacciens and therefore be treated differently based on their individual circumstance.

northernbird

ozzidoc is a girlie