http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/talking_point/newsid_1802000/1802192.stm
| Saturday, 15 June, 2002, 11:44 GMT 12:44
UK
MMR: Are you reassured the vaccine is safe?
The most in-depth analysis to date has cleared the controversial MMR
vaccine of any link to autism or bowel disease.
The researchers say their findings provide clear reassurance for patients and health professionals that the combined jab for measles, mumps and rubella is safe. There has been a sharp drop in the number of parents prepared to give their children the MMR vaccination because they're worried about a possible link with autism and inflammatory bowel disease. But a team led by Dr Anna Donald and Dr Vivek Muthu have examined research into MMR from 180 countries around the world and now claim the vaccine is completely safe. Are you reassured about the safety of the MMR vaccine? Has the latest evidence changed your mind? Would you give your child the vaccine?
As a non-parent I thought little of
the problems facing parents over issues such as MMR. However, when my
cousin had her daughter it was brought home to me the horrors that parents
go through in making these decisions. I am so relieved that I do not have
to make the decisions that my cousin had to, because I would certainly not
know who to believe - the majority of the medical profession or the media.
As a scientist I have to accept the findings of the vast majority of
sound research that says the vaccine is safe, and reject the findings of
the small number of unsound studies that say it isn't. I concede that you
cannot prove a negative but no one as yet as proved (in research that is
not flawed) that there is a link. The increase in cases of autism can be
explained by increased diagnosis combined with unknown environmental
factors. No one has proved that the single vaccines are any safer, they
may even cause other problems, and the diseases themselves are certainly
more dangerous, I don't see any choice but to opt for MMR
Being on the "circuit" of other parents of children with autism, it is staggering how many educated (not stupid) parents saw overnight changes in behaviour in their children following the MMR vaccination. They are going by what they witnessed and they are not where the "new" research is looking. The latest research is once again a review of existing studies and doesn't dig further or conduct its own research. One of today's newspapers quoted a Department of Health spokesperson as
saying this was important research but that parents should make informed
choices and that it was not for the DOH to preach - reading between the
lines this statement is staggering. The Government spent £3million on an
advertising preaching campaign last year (money which could have been
spent on looking at the causes of autism). Why the change in tactics from
preaching to non-committal comments? This leads me to mistrust official
policy even more. Can someone please fund research into the near epidemic
increasing prevalence of autism - it's not simply better diagnosis. As a health care professional in the learning disability field, I have
cared for more individuals known to be brain damaged by the effects of
measles and rubella than I care to count. This has reduced considerably
since the introduction of the MMR. Autism is almost certainly a
multi-factorial disorder, and huge progress is being made, both in its
detection and in interventions to minimise the impact upon those affected.
The human genome project offers us substantial hope in understanding the
many pre and post-natal events which may trigger the disorder in some
individuals, one of which may be vaccination of some kind. I was happy to
have my own child vaccinated. While we continue to wonder about the MMR there will be parents of
autistic children who will blame themselves for having their child
vaccinated. My daughter was not vaccinated, she is autistic, my sister's
child was vaccinated and is autistic. I worry about the blame that parents
feel after finding that they have an autistic child, and have regret about
the vaccination. The truth is we just don't know, and I personally feel
that no matter how many "studies" are completed, will we ever trust the
MMR? There has to be a genetic link, and we are not helping parents or
children by blindly blaming the MMR. ... Like there was no link between beef and BSE. I find it difficult to
accept anything that comes from government experts with their hidden
agendas. That's why my child has had the single measles jab.
I believe the vaccine shouldn't be
pushed so hard - I caught measles aged nine and I'm glad! It's a
relatively harmless disease that a healthy immune system has no problem
fighting off. The money and the skills of the people involved in these
studies would be better used elsewhere in the NHS, helping people with
problems that they can't recover from naturally. My brother lost hearing in one hear through mumps and was lucky not to
become entirely deaf. It's all about weighing risks. We decided to give
MMR to our daughter, without any ill effect. Should we have another child,
we will do the same again. All vaccines carry some risks, as acknowledged by the manufacturers and
the government's own vaccine damage compensation scheme. So let's have an
adult debate that recognises risks exist and put in place a compensation
scheme that generously compensates the children who sacrifice their health
for the greater good. Experts from both sides of the debate can find research that backs them
up and discredits their opponents. The sensible thing would be for these
experts to define what criteria needs to be met for it to be considered
safe and then they should jointly perform the tests and examine the
results together. It's not that complicated to do a proper job on this.
The review fails to ask the right
question: not "Is MMR safe?" with the accent on "Yes" but "What has
damaged these children?" My response as a father of two vaccine-damaged
children and as a spokesperson for Jabs is this: it is only a review which
looks at existing published studies. The Autistic Entercolitis syndrome is
a new syndrome, therefore how can one find evidence when there are no past
studies? Until the government commissions complete independent clinical
research of damaged children, it will be a matter of old research being
resurrected with false reassurances that there really isn't a problem. The link between autism and MMR has developed the status of a religion:
the anti-vaccine lobby simply believe that the link is there, in much the
same way that people believe in God. Mere evidence is not going to change
that. It is patronising to come up with this sort of review as an answer to
parental fears. One thing would resolve this debate: fresh, conclusive,
unbiased research. The government wants parents to be responsible for
their children - please equip us to be so with more than propaganda. There is a grave reluctance amongst parents, and others, to accept
assurances offered by the government over the safety of the MMR triple
vaccine. This reluctance was also evident during the BSE crisis and in
relation to GM foods. I think the issue to be examined is source
credibility and trustworthiness.
It is good news that researchers have
found no link between MMR and autism but the research cannot end there.
Parents will not be reassured until a valid reason for the sharp rise in
cases of autism is found. The finger of suspicion has been pointed at MMR.
Without any alternative suspect it will stay there. Safe is a relative term in the healthcare field. One must weigh the
benefits vs the possible side effects. In the case of MMR, its usage in
millions of patients in many countries has proved its safety. How can the authors of this latest report claim that it proves
anything, if, as they claim, the research that it reviews is flawed? Such
an approach only demonstrates they found the current evidence for the
MMR/autism link hypothesis unpersuasive. So, it's safe again is it? Verified safe by a set of DoH doctors. Are
these the same doctors who are the shareholders of the company that
manufacturers this vaccine then I wonder? After all, as long as the drug
company is profitable, what does it really matter if my son becomes
autistic? Sorry Mr Blair, the damage is done.
The original so-called research that
'proved' a problem with MMR does not stand up to scrutiny by anyone other
than the media and a few stupid parents who believe what they see in
print. The rise in autism is acknowledged to be in a large part due to
better and different ways of diagnosis. To Barry P: I would really need a lobotomy before I could fully digest
and accept the official arguments for the MMR vaccine. Today's parents are
smarter, better-educated and more ready to challenge the official line -
based on common sense, rather than rebellion - so the "as the doctor
orders" principle does not automatically work any more. Barry P: My wife and I are highly qualified scientists, who also have
an autistic child (typical stupid parents). This latest 'proof' is just
re-analysis of already released research - which can be legitimately
criticised for not looking for (rare) long-term reactions between autism
and measles vaccination. Statistically, vaccination is clearly a sensible
approach, but ignoring a possible, rare side-effect with devastating
consequences is not the answer to parents' concerns. Why doesn't the
government fund research that investigates the real cause of the apparent
rise, rather than repeating the current simplistic mantra? That way the
majority can be protected from nfectious diseases, and alternative
approaches / treatments can be provided for the children susceptible to
side-effects.
If the vaccine is so safe, when will
Tony confirm that Leo has had the jab? By refusing to comment it seems
like he has something to hide - and if the Prime Minister is refusing the
jab that his government is trying to force on everyone else, why should
anyone believe it is safe? No one believes the government any more, especially when business
interests are put on the line. The reason the MMR is being pushed as safe
is to save money for the drug companies who have invested in a product and
want to see a profit. It is unfair, and immoral, to take the decision away
from parents how they will protect their children. There is overwhelming evidence this vaccine is safe. In my opinion, it
is far more likely that the rise is autism and other similar childhood
problems are down to women who refuse to breastfeed (for whatever reason),
as well as smoking, drinking, poor diet and taking medicines, which may
have unknown, but subtle, side effects on unborn children. The care of a
baby needs to start way before it is born!!! I have always been happy that the vaccine is safe and both my children
have had it without ill effects. For some reason, having an autistic child
seems instantly to make someone into a qualified epidemiologist and
statistician. Anyone with a sick child has my sympathy but I prefer to
make decisions about my children's health based upon the opinions of those
with more substantive qualifications. Another look at the old research... why doesn't someone look at the
autistic children for a change? Chris Chitty blames drinking, smoking,
poor diet and not breastfeeding. Not guilty of any of this but my child is
still autistic and perhaps Steve Harrison would like to try and find
someone with "more substantive qualifications" who is not biased by
government policy or payment bonuses for reaching vaccination targets? The
truth will only become clear when someone is allowed to carry out unbiased
research and does not have their hands tied. |
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.