The MMR Vaccine & Its Alleged Risks

[Anonymous]

I wasn't aware that the MMR included Polio vaccine.

Everyone has to have that sugarcube. And the BCG too.

I thought you were having a go at vaccinations in general (as you were just referring to "jabs" in your post.) Mind, the method for giving the polio vaccine is is a lot less painful than a "jab."

 

[MrSnowman]

Good grief no. The polio and BCG are the best things to happen in modern paediatric medicine.

I just find the over-emphasis on 'you MUST have the MMR' quite disturbing, after latterly reading that GPs are given bonuses for high amounts of MMR jabs given in their clinics.

This whole thing... the path to a completely sterile society with no diseases or any kind of illnesses; I find it to be completely absurd. The overuse of antibiotics has shown us that bacteria can adapt to new stronger forms when their existence is threatened, and everyone knows about viral mutation thanks to SARS now. Who's to say that any of (the relatively harmless) MMR aren't going to undergo a mutation themselves, and come back in a form that IS lethal and cannot be treated? I say we let people get them, get better, and let them carry on existing as they have for millennia.

I don't know if they still do this, but when I had chickenpox in 1986, all my friends mums were calling round with them a lot more than usual, just so they could catch it, and get it over and done with. I wonder how long it'll be before there's a vaccine for that, to prevent unsightly children. It sounds absurd, but mark my words!!:eek!!!!:

 

[Beakmoo]

This whole thing... the path to a completely sterile society with no diseases or any kind of illnesses; I find it to be completely absurd. The overuse of antibiotics has shown us that bacteria can adapt to new stronger forms when their existence is threatened, ...............I say we let people get them, get better, and let them carry on existing as they have for millennia.

I'd just like to point out that getting them and getting better is exactly the same in effect as getting a vaccination (as far as I can make out-someone more brainy may know better). So logically a mutated virus is just as much a threat in both instances.

 

[MrSnowman]

Kind of, but not quite. You see, where a virus can take hold hold, and run its course, there will be little need for it to mutate, as it's thinking "ah, these puny humans are no match for us". However, vaccinate everyone against something, and the virus thinks, "hold on a minute, they're beating us.. it must be time to mutate", thus, the previous vaccination will have no effect on the new strain.

Like I said, it's happening -now- with overuse of antibiotics making nasty bacteria even nastier. It's only a matter of time before it happens with one of the easily communicable common non-lethal virii.

DOOM DOOM!:cross eye

 

[Anonymous]

Chickenpox is an interesting example to choose. After someone "recovers" from chickenpox, the varicella-zoster virus (that caused it) lies dormant in dorsal root ganglia where it can spontaneously reawake to cause shingles in adults. As this isn't a terribly pleasant disease in adults (and it is contagious), perhaps a vaccine would be better after all?

 

[MrSnowman]

It's quite unlikely that they'd bother. Okay, shingles can be excrutiatingly painful, and leave some nasty scars if it pops up on visible areas of the body (I worked with a woman who had a nasty shinlges scab smack bang in the middle of her forehead, and it really did scar badly, the poor woman), but unless it carried a risk of fatality, it's one of those 'don't tinker about, or you might make it worse'. I hark back to the sentiment with antibiotics.

People were taking them for minor sore throats and small chest infections, and now we have the likes of MRSA to contend with. At least with bacteria, you can engineer stuff to kill it, as it's only a bug. But with viruses.. little wraps of DNA on their own little missions. You really -don't- want to be messing about with them. Just leave them be, and it'd be better for everyone.

Saying that, if they could have a mass worldwide program to get rid in one fell swoop a la smallpox, then maybe there would be some justification. But like I mentioned before.. there's never really been a killer on the scale of the pox that had affected people on the pandemic type scale, well apart from bubos, Spanish flu etc.. you know what I mean.. never one so persitant and long living.

Like I said.. leave em be, and let nature take it's course.

 

[Anonymous]

Is there any evidence that vaccination has led to the sort of results that we have seen with anti-biotics?

 

[MrSnowman]

Is there any evidence that vaccination has led to the sort of results that we have seen with anti-biotics?

Well, there this..

"High mutation rates typical of RNA viruses often generate a unique viral population structure consisting of a large number of genetic microvariants. In the case of viral pathogens, this can result in rapid evolution of antiviral resistance or vaccine-escape mutants. We determined a direct estimate of the mutation rate of measles virus, the next likely target for global elimination following poliovirus. In a laboratory tissue culture system, we used the fluctuation test method of estimating mutation rate, which involves screening a large number of independent populations initiated by a small number of viruses each for the presence or absence of a particular single point mutation. The mutation we focused on, which can be screened for phenotypically, confers resistance to a monoclonal antibody (MAb 80-III-B2). The entire H gene of a subset of mutants was sequenced to verify that the resistance phenotype was associated with single point mutations. The epitope conferring MAb resistance was further characterized by Western blot analysis. Based on this approach, measles virus was estimated to have a mutation rate of 9 × 10−5 per base per replication and a genomic mutation rate of 1.43 per replication. The mutation rates we estimated for measles virus are comparable to recent in vitro estimates for both poliovirus and vesicular stomatitis virus. In the field, however, measles virus shows marked genetic stability. We briefly discuss the evolutionary implications of these results."

from http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=103807

and this ...

"'Super-measles' warning

Vaccination is the key to wiping out measles, says an expert

Tougher, vaccine-resistant strains of measles could sweep the world unless more children get vaccinated, says a top scientist.
Dr Claude Muller, from the National Health Laboratory in Luxembourg, told New Scientist magazine that the virus was known to have the ability to mutate rapidly.

Patchy vaccination coverage was likely to encourage the selection and survival of more resistant strains, he said.

The worldwide immunisation programme should be stepped up to knock out resistant strains before they get a foothold, he said.

There are some fears in Britain that measles could re-emerge in areas where measles vaccination uptake is poor, particularly in the inner cities.

We have a window of opportunity. We know this family of viruses mutates readily

Dr Claude Muller, National Health Laboratory, Luxembourg
Here, an outbreak would expose thousands of children to some risk of disability, or, in a very few cases, death.

Worries over the safety of the triple MMR vaccine has been partly blamed for the fall in vaccination rates.

In the first quarter of 1995, there were more than 2,600 notifications of measles in England and Wales, compared to fewer than 500 in the final quarter of 2000.

In fact, only 73 cases of measles were confirmed by laboratory tests in the whole of 2000.

A spokesman for the Public Health Laboratory Service said that vaccine-resistant strains had yet to emerge here.

He said: "Although there is some diversity of strains of measles in the UK, the range is relatively limited.

"If you get measles once here, you are unlikely to get it again."

Significant killer

However, elsewhere in the world, measles remains a significant killer of children - there are almost 1m child deaths a year as a result of the infection.

The World Health Organisation recently set a worldwide target of getting 90% of children immunised against measles virus.

With that target nowhere in sight despite almost overwhelming success in polio vaccination initiatives, the latest target - no less daunting - is to halve measles deaths by 2005.

Dr Muller's team reports that some strains of measles virus circulating in Africa appear to have acquired a considerable level of resistance to the standard measles vaccine in use in the continent.

At least half the immune system antibodies produced inresponse to the vaccine have no effect on these strains.

The scientist is urging the WHO and governments to accelerate vaccination programmes to make sure these strains do not have the chance to develop even more resistance.

"We have a window of opportunity," he said. "We know this family of viruses mutates readily."

Bjorn Melgaard, the head of vaccines at the WHO, said that the new target of halving deaths should be achievable.

"It was deliberately chosen to be feasible. But we may not be able to eradicate measles, and it might not even be worth it to try."
from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1273613.stm

and a zillion other articles. It's just scientific fact. And the BBC article proves my point that unless you go for a smallpox-style worldwide immunisation programme, the virus will eventually re-emerge somewhere like a very angry phoenix.

 

[Anonymous]

Hmmm. Food for thought.

But is it just saying that the virus protein coat has just changed sufficiently that it is no longer recognised by the antibodies trained on the old strain? This has always been the case for flu vaccinations, as the vaccine is changed each year to account for the new dominant strain.

This isn't to playdown the difficulty of creating a new vaccine (and there are many diseases for which successful vaccines have singularly failed to appear.)

 

[MrSnowman]

Well, it can all depend on the extent of the mutation. If you can imagine a lock and key, then the vaccine is the key, and the corresponding lock is on the virii's surface. When mutations occur, the lock has been changed, and the key no longer fits.

What I'm not entirely sure about is whether standard virii have only one lock as it were, or multiple ones. If it's just a single one, then the vaccine can be tinkered with to change, but if it is, as I suspect multiple, then it throws up all sorts of complications, as you can imagine.

It comes down to what I alluded to before though really. Are they really going to go all out to destroy a non-lethal virus that has existed in pandemic form since time immemorial? In fact, it's wrong to call it a pandemic. It's more like the common cold really, almost an 'indiginous' Earth disease.

I'm amazed that people consider MM+R to be a danger on the same scale as polio or TB, when realistically, they're on the same level as a -really- bad dose of flu i.e. the person -could- die, but with proper care in unusual situations (weakness, existing dangerous conditions etc), they should be ok. It's awful that they put the frighteners on parents to get these vaccinations, just because there seems to be a cash incentive behind it. And to be honest, they can say as much as they want that the MMR vaccine doesn't cause autism, but when you see the children who literally changed overnight after having had it, it speaks volumes. Far more than ropey statistics produced by Government/pharmaceutical company sponsored research.

 

[Anonymous]

The world health organisation gives the following relative figures for measles complicaytions vs vaccine risk.

Otitis media
risk after disease 7–9%
risk after vaccination 0

Pneumonia
risk after disease 1-6%
risk after vaccination 0

Diarrhoea
risk after disease 6%
risk after vaccination 0

Post-infect encephalomyelitis
risk after disease 0.5–1 per 1,000
risk after vaccination 1 per 1,000,000

SSPE
risk after disease 1 per 100 000
risk after vaccination 0

Thrombocytopenia
risk after disease ?
risk after vaccination 1 per 30,000

Death
risk after disease 0.1-1 per 1000 (5-15% in developing world)
risk after vaccination 0

Regarding autism and IBD

In recent years, researchers have hypothesized that measles vaccine may be associated with inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD), including Crohn’s Disease (Ekbom et al., 1990; Wakefield et al., 1993; Ekbom et al., 1994; Thompson et al., 1995; Wakefield et al., 1995; Ekbom et al., 1996). One research group speculated that measles vaccine could be related to the development of IBD and autism (Wakefield et al., 1998). Within the scientific community, concerns have been raised about the methodological limitations in the studies upon which these hypotheses are based (Patriarca & Beeler, 1995; Farrington & Miller, 1995; MacDonald, 1995; Miller & Renton, 1995; Chen & DeStefano, 1998). Other research does not support these hypothesized associations (Liu et al., 1995; Iizuka et al., 1995; Feeney et al., 1997; Haga et al., 1996). There is no evidence to indicate an association between MMR vaccine and IBD or autism. The alleged associations between measles vaccination and Crohn’s disease and autism are based upon weak science and have been refuted by a large volume of scientifically sound work (Duclos & Ward, 1998).

Their view regarding the MMR itself (as opposed to the separate jabs) is

In many countries, children typically receive a combination vaccine that contains either the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) or measles and rubella (MR) antigens. The combination vaccine produces an immunological response equal to that of the single antigen shots (Decker & Edwards, 1999). A recent study compared the reactogenicity and immunogenicity of two MMR vaccines produced by two manufacturers (Usonis et al., 1999). The researchers found differences in the incidence of localized reactions (pain, redness and swelling at the injection site) among the vaccines that were most likely the result of varying pH levels. The safety and immunogenicity of these vaccines appears to be similar.

Mild adverse events
When combination vaccines (MR or MMR) are used, mild reactions are similar to those described above. The use of MR can result in mild lymphadenopathy, urticaria, rash, malaise, sore throat, fever, headache, dizziness, nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea, polyneuritis, arthralgia and arthritis.
Fever is the most common reaction reported following MMR vaccination. Approximately 5–15% of children develop a temperature of 103 degF within 12 days of vaccination (CDC, 1998). In most cases, these reactions are coincidental, with fever found in less than 2% on days 8–9 after vaccination in a placebo-controlled trial (Peltola & Heinonen, 1986). Measles vaccination also causes a rash to occur in approximately 2% of vaccine recipients. The rash typically occurs 7–10 days after vaccination and lasts 2 days. On rare occasions, transient lymphadenopathy and parotitis have also been reported following administration of MMR vaccine (CDC, 1998).

Severe adverse events
The type and rate of severe adverse reactions do not differ significantly from the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine reactions described separately.

http://www.who.int/vaccines-diseases/safety/infobank/mmrnew.doc

 

[Anonymous]

Aside wise i was astounded the hear that in USA its contructively compusory to have the MMR....No MMR no school, No school 0 fine or prison!!!!!!!... of course u have the choice to send to private school... as ever the poor dont get a choice, just a stick to beat them...

Where ever did you hear that? Which state, as I can assure you there is no Federal law mandating innoculations. And at the state level you can be a "conscientious objector" and simply state that your personal beliefs require that your child remain free of immunizations.

For the record, it is now generally acknowledged in the US in the "alternate medicine" community that a true immune reaction from contracting and surviving a disease such as measles is very different from the false "immunity" (really just the presence of detectable levels of antibodies) that a shot gives. There are many levels of the bodies reactions to a viral infection that generate a true immune response, one of which is a fever, which does not happen (generally) with a shot. The bodies creation of antibodies is only part of the whole picture.

Things are changing, even in the allopathic medical community. One thing doctors are now telling parents here in the US is: don't drug a child for a few degrees of fever from colds or flu; try to cool the fever with a popsicle or a cool wet washcloth, and remember that a fever is part of the body's natural defense system, which if continually short-circuited can stop functioning properly.

Something that has not been examined by the medical community in detail is the statistical correlation between the rise in immunizations and the rise in immunodefieciency diseases like AIDs. HIV has been around a long time, but the generations that have had widespread immunizations are the ones hardest hit.

Sorry if someone else mentioned that.

 

[Anonymous]

I don't know if they still do this, but when I had chickenpox in 1986, all my friends mums were calling round with them a lot more than usual, just so they could catch it, and get it over and done with. I wonder how long it'll be before there's a vaccine for that, to prevent unsightly children. It sounds absurd, but mark my words!!:eek!!!!:

There is a chickenpox vaccine. It's administered to 4-6 year olds. At least it is in the US. And few parents (even ones who object to MMR) object to it because of the strong mutability of the herpes virus, and the latency factor that whatisname mentioned.

 

[Anonymous]

Well, it can all depend on the extent of the mutation. If you can imagine a lock and key, then the vaccine is the key, and the corresponding lock is on the virii's surface. When mutations occur, the lock has been changed, and the key no longer fits.

What I'm not entirely sure about is whether standard virii have only one lock as it were, or multiple ones. If it's just a single one, then the vaccine can be tinkered with to change, but if it is, as I suspect multiple, then it throws up all sorts of complications, as you can imagine.

My understanding was that you just need some sort of unique identifier in the protein coat that surrounds the viral RNA. The immune response really just needs to be able to recognise a bit of "hostile" protein in order to get going. (I know this from bitter experience as my immune system feels decidely paranoid about bits of cashew nut protein. )

If the virus mutates so that the protein coat has changed sufficiently that the vaccine trained immune system doesn't immediately recognise it, won't you just get a "normal" immune response? i.e. the vaccine won't be up to much, but the human body should still have more or less the same chances as before of fending it off? My reading of the quotes that you quoted (there has got to be a better way to say that ) was that eventually we woudl expect a virus to mutate such that the vaccine wouldn't work, not that the immune system couldn't cope.

And to be honest, they can say as much as they want that the MMR vaccine doesn't cause autism, but when you see the children who literally changed overnight after having had it, it speaks volumes. Far more than ropey statistics produced by Government/pharmaceutical company sponsored research.

I had though that onset of autism occurs at more or less the same time that the MMR is given, hence a coincidence is understandable.

The journal "Vaccine" has published an article (1) from the United Kingdom that uses a self-controlled case series method to examine the age at diagnosis of autism compared with age at administration of one or two doses of MMR vaccine and the age at diagnosis of autism for children who received no MMR vaccine. There was statistically no difference between the groups. "In all instances, the relative incidence is not significantly different from 1, indicating no association between vaccination and autism in the subsequent risk period." The authors go on to say their results do not support the hypothesis that MMR or measles containing vaccines cause autism at any time after vaccination. These findings further strengthen a similar study by the same authors published in 1999 (2).

http://www.who.int/vaccines-diseases/safety/hottop/mmrstatement.shtml

 

[Anonymous]

I'm very sorry but I'm too impatient to read ALL the posts and some of the earlier ones I HAVE to reply to.

I was given MMR as a baby and had a violent fit and my mum thought my brain was fried for sure (she'd already lost my twin whilst pregnant with us) and made sure that I knew all of my options when I had my son as she's a nurse and she knows exactly what kind of techniques nurses and doctors use to get your 'consent' without you actually realising you are giving it (it makes life easier and quicker to say,'now if you could just roll up his sleeve and we'll put a dab of alcohol just here...' rather than 'do we have your permission to give your baby an injection right now?' Afterall, you might say no if you stopped and thought about it for a few minutes). My Uncle on my father's side has Autism so I can't say I wasn't concerned. And I'd also caught Measles when I was five years old and came out unscathed. Luckily you have to book an MMR vaccine so there wasn't so much of this rather than a persistent pressure to book it, or should they just go ahead and book it and 'we'll let you know the time', etc. Did I know the dangers to my own and to everyone elses children? Did I really want to run that risk, especially on behalf of others? Luckily my health visitor was attached to a homeopathic clinic and she actually ASKED me what I wanted to do instead of telling me I really ought to get it done. I told her how scared I was about it all and she was fantastic. She told me that in some peoples opinion the statistics are skewed to make people have the MMR. The children catching these diseases carries risks but the MMR risks are seen as much lower in comparison. But she pointed out that those were the figures of children who'd actually CAUGHT something against the MMR risks and that the figures of children to catch these diseases was very small indeed. This meant that the risks of leaving your child unimmunized and it catching something and then it leaving your child with a disability was in fact lower than the figures of children who'd had problems with the MMR. She was very supportive and realised that a lot of new mothers feel unsure of themselves and can get bulldozed into decisions they're told they ought to be making without knowing all of the medical facts against their own health backgrounds. Another thing she told me was that I was perfectly entitled to let him have the MMR when he was much older if that's what I'd prefer. I did. She told me that the reason why they inject this stuff into babies so young is that a lot of mothers are more mobile these days and leave their doctor's clinic and therefore they lose track of these half-immunised children and therefore have a population ineffectively immunised. She also told me that the benefits of bombarding a young baby's immune system with all of these at once was questionable. I waited until my child's third to fourth year before giving him his three lots of immunisations and he's had no ill effects.

He's a strapping lad but I'd no confidence when he was a baby. You get this scrap of a thing that looks at YOU to care for it and you have to take it to people who have no emotional interest or attachment to your 'genetic everything' and let them stick needles into it before it can walk so that other people feel better about it. No Way! My husband was adopted so God knows what kind of genetic time-bombs we were looking at, let alone MY side, and EVERY TIME I was the one going,' hang on, have you looked at my notes? Are you entirely sure about this with my history?' And they'd look vaguely at you saying 'well, statistically...' but that's what it's all about isn't it? Targets and statistics? These clinics have to show that they are meeting these targets so who do you think they're going to listen to when one lone mother says 'erm...'

Sorry about all that. It's a subject hotly debated between myself and my in-laws and various other medical people I've met down the years and nothing has changed my opinion. I know that immunisations are the best idea but I just don't think they see you as individuals when it comes to MMR, they just want to get you onto their 'done' lists. It's a very personal opinion, and probably totally disjointed with this thread because I just had to respond to the ones I read earlier in the thread. If all this has been covered then at least it was a cathartic experience.

Edit - All I can say is that if you're not happy about giving your kid the MMR and you can't afford to have them done singly then just wait until you think they're strong enough to handle it - say three before they start Nursery school. The only time my kid was sick was when he started nursery and caught every one of 30 different cold-strains swarming round at the place.

But I must say that it is truly terrifying to think that if I'd let him have the MMR very young and something had happened and he'd developed Autism then every single person reading this thread would put it down to the fact that it's already in my family and probably would have happened to him anyway. Makes you think.

 

[Anonymous]

I'm very sorry but I'm too impatient to read ALL the posts and some of the earlier ones I HAVE to reply to.

I was given MMR as a baby and had a violent fit and my mum thought my brain was fried for sure (she'd already lost my twin whilst pregnant with us) and made sure that I knew all of my options when I had my son as she's a nurse

Chant, are you sure that you were given MMR, as this was introduced to the UK in 1988, is normally given (according to WHO guidelines) when the child is 12-15 months old, which would make you ~16 years of age?

 

[Anonymous]

oops, beg your pardon. My mother told me that it was three immunisation shots 'in one' given to me when i was born in Vanuatu(English/French colony near Fiji) in 1972. As the MMR is the same I always call it MMR because i can't remember which shots i was given. My mum is a nurse and always gives the technical names but I know I had a terrible reaction to it that put my mother off giving me anything else. As a consequence we lived in Brazil in the middle seventies with no Malaria or Diptheria or any other medication or immunisations in case anything similar happened. I have three other brothers and sisters who lived in the tropics without catching anything nasty at all. Funnily enough my mum thinks the same about Malaria and its anti-malarial drugs as some of you guys think about AIDS and those pills- a cure that's as bad as the disease and who's to tell which you've actually got? And we used to be eaten alive by mossies when we lived on the Amazon and my Dad lived in Kenya for 14 yrs. Perhaps we're just lucky but my parents are paranoid androids who think there might be something more to it! They still don't have shots now whenever they travel and are still fit and healthy in their seventies - still travelling too, they're in New Zealand for a month this time!!!

 

[Melf]

mmr jabs

judges have ruled that two young girls have to have the single mmr jab by law cos their father took the mother of his childrens to court to force her to let his children have the jabs
the mother didnt want the girls to have the single jab

any comments?

 

[Anonymous]

the whole MMr thing is a mine field.... (harry's had it tho) but the fathers are paying towards their children...so its a "No taxation without representation" thing.....(btw in the Land of the free, u cant get ur kids into public (mainstreem in US)school without it... so its a way of forceing the poor to have it for the benifit of the rich realy)

 

[Anonymous]

If no one has mentioned it, the DPT vaccination is probably more suspect than the MMR. DPT is regularly administered during the same time frame and has a MUCH higher incidence of observable adverse reactions. Per the CDC:

Whole-cell DTP vaccines are commonly associated with several local adverse events (e.g., erythema, swelling, and pain at the injection site), fever, and other mild systemic events (e.g., drowsiness, fretfulness, and anorexia) (5,6). More severe systemic events (e.g., convulsions {with or without fever} and hypotonic hyporesponsive episodes) occur less frequently (ratio of one case to 1,750 doses administered) among children who receive whole-cell DTP vaccine (5). Acute encephalopathy occurs even more rarely (ratio of 0-10.5 cases to one million doses administered) (7). Experts disagree on whether whole-cell pertussis vaccine causes lasting brain damage, but agree that if the vaccine causes such damage it does so only rarely (7).

Lutz, I'd say this would be the most likely suspect in your daughter's reaction, rather than MMR. Why? Well you mentioned lack of responsivemness and inability to eat. And I know that very young children generally get the shots all at the same time.

DPT has a much larger number of documented bad responses than the MMR.

 

[Anonymous]

I'm sure you probably know what you're talking about and are medical or something but I thought I'd throw this in anyway...

all kids are less responsive and suffer a lack of appetite when they're 'off'. Whether they've had a shot or are coming down with a cold, or are very tired...it's just so general I don't know how you can base anything on symptoms like that.

Forgive me if I've missed something and am talking hogwash.

 

[Anonymous]

DPT has a much larger number of documented bad responses than the MMR.

Just wondering as 'Mini Haarp' is due for her DPT in a few weeks - why the mainstream press haven't haven't picked up on this ?

 

[rynner2]

Bump! 2 MMR threads merged.

Here's a new story which might be of interest:

A study of mercury levels in the baby hair of children who were later diagnosed with autism has produced startling results. The babies had far lower levels of mercury in their hair than other infants, leading to speculation that autistic children either do not absorb mercury or, more likely, cannot excrete it.

The results will be seized upon by parents who blame vaccines containing the mercury-based preservative thimerosal for their children's autism, some of whom are suing health authorities in the US and Canada. (The MMR vaccine that some accuse of triggering autism, despite a lack of credible evidence, does not contain mercury.)

But while the study's findings support the theory that some children have a genetic fault that makes them far more susceptible to mercury poisoning, the results certainly do not prove this, or that thimerosal is involved.

The difference in mercury levels in hair may be a sign of a more general problem in dealing with metals or it could simply be an anomaly that reveals little about what is happening elsewhere in the body.

But if the results are confirmed, the conclusions of studies looking at the safety of low levels of mercury (New Scientist print edition, 14 June) could also be called into question. Many of these studies relied on mercury levels in hair as a measure of exposure.


First cuttings


Autism experts say the findings are intriguing, but all emphasise the need for further studies. Although the findings are to be published in a peer-reviewed journal, some critics say the results are rather too striking, and point out that the researchers who did the work all believe that thimerosal is to blame for autism.

The team leader, Louisiana doctor Amy Holmes, in fact set out to try to prove that autistic children had been exposed to high levels of mercury. She obtained baby hair from parents who had kept the first cuttings and sent off a few samples for analysis. To her surprise, mercury levels were low.

Holmes has now done a bigger study, comparing mercury levels in first baby haircuts from 94 autistic children with those of 45 other children. The mean level in the baby hair of children later diagnosed as autistic was 0.47 parts per million, compared with 3.63 ppm in the others, the team found - nearly nine-tenths lower.

What is more, the more severe the autism, the lower the mercury levels. The mean levels of children with mild, moderate and severe autism were 0.79, 0.46 and 0.21 ppm respectively.

(My emphasis.) Full story

 

[Anonymous]

It's interesting. My uncle's mother, however, lived inland and rarely ate fish and didn't have fillings and they lived a rural lifestyle and he still developed autism. (He's a savant - Calendar, quite rare I believe) But what explains normal autism might be extra to the cases we are seeing today 'triggered' (?) by MMR or Thimerosol, granted -

Still...It's vague though, isn't it?

And why so specific about babies 'first-cut' hair?

Some parents I've known didn't cut their child's hair until two years old, some cut their babies hair at 2 months (she was told it would encourage a thick growth of hair) ...unless they mean they tested the end segment ONLY.

..but then most kids break off the ends of their hair by rubbing it on carpet, sofa's, prams...

Am I being picky or does it seem that it's all a bit unscientific to say they tested the 'first-cut hair'? How could they judge that the segment of a hair tested was comparable/identicle to another autistic child's segment of a hair and to another one in the control group? Why 'first-cut' from parents who'd saved it rather than just cutting a snippet from the kid now?

And who's funding all these people to come to these conclusions???...I'm reading Michael Moore at the moment and am starting to get nervous about authoritative statements or findings such as these! It's like the recent study that found that passive smoking doesn't cause Lung-cancer done by researchers paid by the Tobacco Industry when key litigations claims are about to open the flood gates on their dammed-up trillions.

I mean really! As a parent with your one and only perfect bundle how can you possibly judge who's telling you the truth? My uncle is a very sweet and special man but he's had some scrapes where they've tried to institutionalise him and he's a big strong man who can hurt you if you disturb his routine and he gets upset and frightened because he doesn't know you'd just like to help him with the dishes, etc. and I wouldn't wish the life my Auntie's taken on willingly on anyone if there was a chance it could be avoided altogether. He's the spit of my dad and when you see the two of them together it really makes you think about what kind of life he might have had if things had been different. Noone will know what caused my Uncle to develop autism but if anyone has any doubts about MMR they should be allowed to turn it down - and not have a judge overturn the decision because he thinks it's in the best interests of the child - though in those two recent cases I'd say the children were older than the onset age and therefore it was less likely to trigger something.


Phew. What a rant. Sorry. I'm glad I delayed until mine was three and a half anyway and its just my personal opinion. As I said earlier, if it had triggered autism no one would have blamed the MMR based on my family history and that's just tragic.

Can anyone tell me where MMR was first made and who now manufactures it? Or holds the patent for it, etc? I know the stuff we use is made in this country but aren't the profits going to American Corporations or something? Or have I been watching too much Quincy?

 

[Anonymous]

Noone will know what caused my Uncle to develop autism but if anyone has any doubts about MMR they should be allowed to turn it down - and not have a judge overturn the decision because he thinks it's in the best interests of the child - though in those two recent cases I'd say the children were older than the onset age and therefore it was less likely to trigger something.

I think that the situation was a little more complicated because, IIRC, the case was brought by the fathers of the children involved (who wanted the children to have the MMR), so there was also a parenting issue as well.

It's still a little odd though.

 

[rynner2]

MMR row expert urges jab take-up

A huge drop in the number of children having the MMR vaccination has left the UK on the verge of a major measles outbreak, a leading specialist has warned.
Dr Simon Murch was involved in the original research that led to fears among some parents that the combined measles, mumps and rubella jab was linked to autism.

He has consistently said there is no proven link between the jab and autism and now, writing in the Lancet, he has warned that MMR uptake as low as 60% in some areas is leaving British children vulnerable to disease.

There should be around 95% coverage in order for the maximum protection for children.

Report author

Dr Murch's warning comes after Scottish health officials said the incidence of suspected or confirmed mumps cases rose by 27%, rubella by 22% and measles by 18% in children under 15 over the past 18 months.

Dr Murch, of the centre for paediatric gastroenterology at the Royal Free Hospital in London, was one of the authors of a 1998 paper published in the Lancet which looked the connection between inflammatory bowel disease and autistic disorders.

The paper found a connection between bowel problems and autism but did not conclude that MMR was connected to this.

However, one of Dr Murch's co-authors, Dr Andrew Wakefield, sparked a storm when he went on to raise fears of a link between the combined jab and autism, and recommended the use of single measles, mumps and rubella vaccines instead.

While Dr Murch's name was on the original Lancet paper, he has always advocated continuing with MMR jabs.

Writing in this week's Lancet, Dr Murch states that there is unequivocal evidence supporting the safety of the MMR vaccine.

"No other vaccine has ever been studied in such depth, and the evidence for its overall safety is comprehensive.

He adds: "That any reports that characteristic gut inflammation in autistic children are reported in the media as supporting the idea that MMR is causative is deeply frustrating, since it is simply not so.

"I and my colleagues have seen similar intestinal changes in children with no history of regression, in unvaccinated children, and in children whose first autistic symptoms clearly predated MMR administration."

'Worrying issue'

He says several genes implicated in autism were expressed in the intestine and immune system, and this could be why autistic children have these problems.

Dr Murch adds: "MMR immunisation, which should be an easy decision, has become a worrying issue for many British parents.

"Although this situation reflects in part a broader mistrust of official pronouncements, and has been fuelled by media campaigning, it is founded on the misinformed perception that there is ongoing scientific uncertainty.

"There is now unequivocal evidence that MMR is not a risk factor for autism - this statement is not spin or medical conspiracy, but reflects an unprecedented volume of medical study on a worldwide basis.

"By any rational standards of risk/ benefit calculation, it is an illogical and potentially dangerous mistake for parents to be prepared to take their children in a car on the motorway or in an aeroplane on holiday, but not to protect them with the MMR vaccine.

"An unprotected child is not only at personal danger, but represents a potential hazard to others, including unborn children. Unless vaccine uptake improves rapidly, major measles epidemics are likely in the UK this winter."

 

[Bullseye]

I heard the chap talking on the radio, he didnt say that the MMR was safe, he said that "It was no more dangerous than any other vaccine". Which is typical "political" talk that makes it sound safe but , read the line carefully and you will understand!.

 

[Anonymous]

But doesn't "It was no more dangerous than any other vaccine" also imply that no other vaccines are safer?

The row hasn't been "all vaccinations are dangerous" vs "all vaccinations are safe". The two positions taken up in the row were "the MMR is more dangerous than the seperate jabs" vs. "the MMR is at least as safe as the seperate jabs."

I'm afraid that I can't see the "political" bit in what he said.

 

[Anonymous]

MMR

(apogies cant find MMR thread...move this about if u want mods!)

When we were agoniseing about harrys MMR...(he eventuly had it after advice form out doc)... now the doctor who started it or at least fueled it seems to have been caught out abit...
"The doctor at the heart of the controversy over the MMR vaccine was today accused of “mixing spin and science” by the Government’s Chief Medical Officer."
http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=2564620


our Doc said that the guy was in his opinion a bit dodgy as his data wasnt made avible. And no one could see how he came to his conclusions and he and his doctor mates hadnt seen an increase in Autisum that the guy predicted.

what do u rekon?.. cover up ..or coruption?

 

[brianellwood]

The guy didn't declare his interest in advising on legal claims by parents in suspected damage by mmr vacc, which he obviously should have done. I don't think that this invalidates his reseach, but is a breach in ethics. Obviously, the govt. are very worried about the falling take-up in the vaccine, a discredit of the research would obviously help them, and legality is on their side in this matter. We also had to decide whether our boys would be vaccinated, and eventually went ahead, however I would have preferred a choice with separate jabs. It seems to me (although without any medical knowledge in the matter) that it could be possible to overstimulate the immune system with 'cocktails' of vaccine, and thereby cause problems. Isn't this the debate with gulf syndrome?
Vaccination against diseases which can become very serious in adulthood is obviously wise, though there may be sense in the feeling that we sterilise (supposedly with 99% success ) our kitchens etc. and so don't become immune to minor bugs, excluding, of course, things like salmonella, e-coli etc.
Sadly we are always likely to find children with undetected allergies to things even as simple as aspirin, penicillin etc. Maybe this side needs more research? Any medics out there?