Studies which purport to vindicate MMR or any other vaccine, rarely, if ever, do so.  This is because what is not done are long-term studies which compare the NEVER vaccinated to the vaccinated.  In other words, such studies neither have a control group, nor look for delayed reactions to vaccines.  Instead, they invariably compare those getting the studied vaccine to those who either got a different vaccine, or the same vaccine less recently, or merely study under-reported adverse incidence comparing it to nothing, and say there is no evidence that the vaccines cause damage. - SM

 

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,56-2002062671,00.html

 

THURSDAY FEBRUARY 07 2002

 

Leading article

 

Injection of sanity

 

Ministers must keep up the struggle against MMR hysteria

 

Children given the MMR vaccine do not face an increased risk of autism. Those with autism are no more likely to have had the MMR vaccination than anyone else. The rise in diagnosed autism cases predated its introduction and the rise continued even when vaccine uptake remained constant. These are the conclusions of studies from around the world conducted by independent and reputable medical researchers. On these findings the debate about the safety of the MMR vaccine should be based. The rest is unsupported allegation, tragic but unrepresentative anecdote and scaremongering.

Yet across the media and in Parliament science is being pushed aside. The Government is being urged to prefer the musings of concerned writers to the mass of carefully compiled evidence that the concerns are groundless. Many parents, unsure which way to turn, are concluding that it might be safer to leave their children unvaccinated or to pay for them to be given single, separate vaccines for measles, mumps and rubella.

Immunisation rates in this country are already dangerously low, far below the World Health Organisation’s recommended rate. Recent media coverage will doubtless drive it lower. The point may arrive when the Government feels it has no alternative but to give in to public pressure and allow the NHS to administer single vaccines, rather than leave very large numbers unvaccinated. If this happens, those who have orchestrated the campaign will ring their bells. They will be wrong.

Having a child injected with the single vaccines involves six separate visits to the doctor. To make any sense of the idea that such vaccines are preferable to a triple vaccine, a long gap must be left between each injection. A large number of children will miss vaccinations and remain vulnerable to disease for a longer period. Parents of boys will often not bother with the rubella vaccine. The success of MMR has been such that people have almost forgotten the diseases it protects against.

Already, because many countries have poor vaccination programmes, a million children die each year from measles.

The campaign for single vaccines will lead directly to children in this country dying, to babies born with terrible defects and infants left brain-damaged after measles or deaf after mumps. Those who make these consequences more likely are not likely to be those that suffer.

Some parents reply that they would rather take some of these risks than risk autism. This would be understandable if that were the choice they faced. The scien- tific work suggests that it is not. Indeed, while there is overwhelming evidence that the MMR is safe, single vaccines imported into this country have not been independently tested for potency and toxicity.

In the years after the BSE disaster it is easy to find an audience whenever doubt is cast on anything said by an expert. It is also easy to find anecdotes or to draw wild conclusions from tiny fragments of research. Modern medicine is necessarily based on the judgment of experts and the careful interpretation of comprehensive studies. It has its faults, but it has proved superior to trying to cure disease by using a ducking stool to find witches.

 

 

 

Copyright 2002 Times Newspapers Ltd. This service is provided on Times Newspapers' standard terms and conditions. To inquire about a licence to reproduce material from The Times, visit the Syndication website.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ALL INFORMATION, DATA, AND MATERIAL CONTAINED, PRESENTED, OR PROVIDED HERE IS FOR GENERAL INFORMATION PURPOSES ONLY AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS REFLECTING THE KNOWLEDGE OR OPINIONS OF THE PUBLISHER, AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED OR INTENDED AS PROVIDING MEDICAL OR LEGAL ADVICE.  THE DECISION WHETHER OR NOT TO VACCINATE IS AN IMPORTANT AND COMPLEX ISSUE AND SHOULD BE MADE BY YOU, AND YOU ALONE, IN CONSULTATION WITH YOUR HEALTH CARE PROVIDER.