Thread: Should MMR jabs be compulsory?

Originally Posted by bovvy

Originally Posted by jew_unit

This is the current situation and we are due for a measles epidemic in the very neaf future with a lot of dead kids as a result.

So, in the case of those refusing MMR, why not offer JUST the measles vaccine (see my post above)?

* No measles epidemic.
* No compliance problems with 6 jabs to give.

Surely mumps and rubella are pretty harmless to those under puberty?

BUT, they are serious (and possible killers) to those over puberty...and so if you get enough kids carrying these diseases there is a chance of those who have had the vaccine getting a strain. There is no work around on this. Either people get vaccinated, or the disease will rise

This is lifted from another web blog. I find it very very persuasive and wonder why 'someone' in officialdom has not used it to further the cause. We had a small blizzard of publicity over the school exclusion unless immunised proposal. That just raised animosity with me and I am sure it hit others in a negative way that Dahl's effort completely avoids.

Here's Roald Dahl's impassioned plea to get your kids immunized. I live in East London, where we have live measles afflicting otherwise healthy kids who could have been vaccinated against them, but whose parents have been duped by a falsified claim that vaccinations are linked to autism (here's a non-falsified claim: measles leads to permanent disability and even death).

I remember when my daughter got sick and broke out with measle-like spots when she was too young to have had her vaccination against the disease. As I contemplated the possibility that my daughter might be permanently disabled or even killed because gullible people were choosing not to vaccinate their kids, I wanted to start wringing necks.

Dahl had a child die from measles, and he was determined that no other child should die needlessly from fear and ignorance.

Here in Britain, because so many parents refuse, either out of obstinacy or ignorance or fear, to allow their children to be immunised, we still have a hundred thousand cases of measles every year. Out of those, more than 10,000 will suffer side effects of one kind or another. At least 10,000 will develop ear or chest infections. About 20 will die. LET THAT SINK IN. Every year around 20 children will die in Britain from measles. So what about the risks that your children will run from being immunised? They are almost non-existent. Listen to this. In a district of around 300,000 people, there will be only one child every 250 years who will develop serious side effects from measles immunisation! That is about a million to one chance. I should think there would be more chance of your child choking to death on a chocolate bar than of becoming seriously ill from a measles immunisation. So what on earth are you worrying about? It really is almost a crime to allow your child to go unimmunised. The ideal time to have it done is at 13 months, but it is never too late. All school-children who have not yet had a measles immunisation should beg their parents to arrange for them to have one as soon as possible. Incidentally, I dedicated two of my books to Olivia, the fi rst was James and the Giant Peach'. That was when she was still alive. The second was 'The BFG', dedicated to her memory after she had died from measles. You will see her name at the beginning of each of these books. And I know how happy she would be if only she could know that her death had helped to save a good deal of illness and death among other children.

The problem isn't the vaccination for Measles, Mumps and Rubella, the problem is that they are given all together to young babies which causes clear health problems for some. It's too much to give a young baby these three vaccines all at once. It's done this way merely to save money and parents should not be forced to take this risk with their baby. Blair didn't inflict the MMR on his children but had them vaccinated seperately.
It's common sense...a bit like the bizarre idea that mercury in fillings doesn't impact on people's health!

Rubella makes children extremely ill. I was off school for two weeks after my mother found me curled up on the floor, sobbing, vomiting and unable to tolerate daylight.

I would not make MMR compulsory but I would make it, or seperate vaccinations, a legal requirement for entry into the state education system.

I do not care whether someone has religious objections, there is only one reason for non vaccination and that is a medical reason. If your twisted version of God bans vaccination then you can also found your own school and keep away from my kids.

Originally Posted by drain_sniffer

Originally Posted by bovvy

Originally Posted by jew_unit

This is the current situation and we are due for a measles epidemic in the very neaf future with a lot of dead kids as a result.

So, in the case of those refusing MMR, why not offer JUST the measles vaccine (see my post above)?

* No measles epidemic.
* No compliance problems with 6 jabs to give.

Surely mumps and rubella are pretty harmless to those under puberty?

BUT, they are serious (and possible killers) to those over puberty...and so if you get enough kids carrying these diseases there is a chance of those who have had the vaccine getting a strain. There is no work around on this. Either people get vaccinated, or the disease will rise

Thank you, drain_sniffer.

That is a riddle that has bugged me for years. It has always seemed so straightforward to JUST give measles vaccine to babies and then mumps and rubella vaccines at puberty. I had never considered the "mutation factor" or the question of vaccinated folks not being protected.

Originally Posted by Picasso

The problem isn't the vaccination for Measles, Mumps and Rubella, the problem is that they are given all together to young babies which causes clear health problems for some. It's too much to give a young baby these three vaccines all at once. It's done this way merely to save money and parents should not be forced to take this risk with their baby. Blair didn't inflict the MMR on his children but had them vaccinated seperately.
It's common sense...a bit like the bizarre idea that mercury in fillings doesn't impact on people's health!

of course you have medical evidence to back these claims up?? Or did your mum tell you all this

Originally Posted by Furryturd

Rubella makes children extremely ill. I was off school for two weeks after my mother found me curled up on the floor, sobbing, vomiting and unable to tolerate daylight.

I would not make MMR compulsory but I would make it, or seperate vaccinations, a legal requirement for entry into the state education system.

I do not care whether someone has religious objections, there is only one reason for non vaccination and that is a medical reason. If your twisted version of God bans vaccination then you can also found your own school and keep away from my kids.

If seperate vaccinations were available there would be no problem with uptake.

EDIT: And your symptoms sound very severe for rubella. You sure it was rubella and not meningitis?

Originally Posted by bovvy

Originally Posted by Furryturd

Rubella makes children extremely ill. I was off school for two weeks after my mother found me curled up on the floor, sobbing, vomiting and unable to tolerate daylight.

I would not make MMR compulsory but I would make it, or seperate vaccinations, a legal requirement for entry into the state education system.

I do not care whether someone has religious objections, there is only one reason for non vaccination and that is a medical reason. If your twisted version of God bans vaccination then you can also found your own school and keep away from my kids.

If seperate vaccinations were available there would be no problem with uptake.

Separate vaccinations are available. The problem with this is the time it takes to administer which can cause a lag in the immunisation programme. The MAIN cause of all this issue is the fact that one idiotic Dr with his own agenda conducted a study involving 11 children (a massive amount for a study you would agree - all hand picked by him) that broke into the media and caused widespread and needless panic. His "work" has long been discredited, yet you still get idiots who believe him, much like you still get people who think Gordon Brown is doing a good job.

Originally Posted by drain_sniffer

Separate vaccinations are available. The problem with this is the time it takes to administer which can cause a lag in the immunisation programme.

And doctors are unwilling to give seperate vaccines for that reason.

That was what I meant about JUST giving the measles vaccine in infancy (in my first 2 posts). I had never heard a reason not to take that approach, but, thank you, you have now explained it.

Originally Posted by bovvy

Originally Posted by drain_sniffer

Separate vaccinations are available. The problem with this is the time it takes to administer which can cause a lag in the immunisation programme.

And doctors are unwilling to give seperate vaccines for that reason.

That was what I meant about JUST giving the measles vaccine in infancy (in my first 2 posts). I had never heard a reason not to take that approach, but, thank you, you have now explained it.

Always glad to help :D

Originally Posted by Picasso

The problem isn't the vaccination for Measles, Mumps and Rubella, the problem is that they are given all together to young babies which causes clear health problems for some. It's too much to give a young baby these three vaccines all at once. It's done this way merely to save money and parents should not be forced to take this risk with their baby. Blair didn't inflict the MMR on his children but had them vaccinated seperately.
It's common sense...a bit like the bizarre idea that mercury in fillings doesn't impact on people's health!

Utter bollocks and not supported by any clinical evidence. The body, even that of a baby comes into contact with hundreds of pathogens each day and this, like having three vaccines in one does not cause the immune system to be overloaded. The administration of three vaccines in one is not done to save money, its done to save lives. Giving single vaccines means more trips to the GP and greatly increases the likelihood of missing some doses. If the three in one MMR is a problem then what about the primary baby immunisations given at two, three and four months providing protection against Diphtheria, Tetanus, Polio, Whooping cough and Hib. Also given at similar times are Men C and pnuemoccal vaccines so if all these can be given safely why is MMR a problem?
Blair (rightly) refused to say if his kids had MMR to protect their privacy, it is not known if they had seperate or combined doses.

Edited to add I don't believe compulsory MMR should be introduced, its unethical to do so. The way forward is to win the scientific debate with your population and improve vaccine uptake. Its also important for parents to realise that two doses of MMR are required to induce immunity to measles, one dose gives only about 90% protection.

Those saying that mumps is harmless and doesn't need vaccinating against obviously don't consider a 15% rate of testicular atrophy in boys suffering from the disease - with some cases leading to total infertility.

How many women decide to have more children while their other children are under the age of 5? Those women whose children are not vaccinated against Rubella at 13 months then run the risk of providing their unvaccinated child with a seriously disabled sibling if that child contracts rubella.

Give a young baby a measles injection and they have to wait a month before they can get their next injection for mumps. That means they are unprotected against mumps and rubella for a month. Give them the mumps vaccine and you have to wait another month before the rubella meaning no protection for that period. Give them the triple at one go and it is all finished.
1 GP says it might cause autism, 500 say it doesn't so they believe the 1 GP? Bit silly, really.
Also, nurses are pretty hard pushed to fit everyone in to get the triple vac done on time, three jabs would triple their work each time so a lot of kids would, inevitably, be missed. If 90% of the population isn't vaccinated, any of these strains could infect the others as the risks go up. So why not make it compulsory before getting free, state education? If that happened, I reckon the government would have to offer individual vaccines to allay the fears (rightly or wrongly) of those who object to the triple vac but, hey, at least everyone would be vaccinated then.
These vaccines have been around for decades. I remember the 50s when lots of kids missed loads of school time with measles and one of the lads in my class died. Thankfully, we are not at that stage yet but it is making a comeback as the uptake is now less than 80% which will affect many more kids.
Rubella can be very dangerous, especially for girls over puberty. It can cause pre-natal deaths if contracted by a pregnant woman and used to lead to deformities and mental retardation. (Also known as German measles).
Mumps can be dangerous, especially in an adult as it can cause breathing difficulties and oxygen deprivation. It is making a comeback especially among teenagers and young adults.

I do not believe that MMR should be compulsory. Mostly because I do not think that giving the three types of vaccine in one go is good for young children when their immune system is not strong enough to deal with it.
Then there is the question of what is next, MMR now and then a drugs company with a new (not tested as well as it could be, but we had to keep the costs down) wonder drug successfully lobbies our wonderfully objective and impartial MPs for a good backhander and a non-executive (but paid) seat on the board to require their drug to be forcibly administered to all children. Think about the causes of 'Gulf War Syndrome' or Thalidomide.
I may have my tin foil hat on but these things need to be thought about.

I will now get back on the conspiracy bus.

Originally Posted by bovvy

Originally Posted by Furryturd

Rubella makes children extremely ill. I was off school for two weeks after my mother found me curled up on the floor, sobbing, vomiting and unable to tolerate daylight.

I would not make MMR compulsory but I would make it, or seperate vaccinations, a legal requirement for entry into the state education system.

I do not care whether someone has religious objections, there is only one reason for non vaccination and that is a medical reason. If your twisted version of God bans vaccination then you can also found your own school and keep away from my kids.

If seperate vaccinations were available there would be no problem with uptake.

EDIT: And your symptoms sound very severe for rubella. You sure it was rubella and not meningitis?

It was assumed to be meningitis untill the rash appeared, the rash did not behave like meningitis. It was severe but if all the kids had been vaccinated in those days I would not have had to go through a serius illness.