MMR and Reckless Parents

Comments

1. 

   April 21, 2006

   dearieme

   When the MMR scare began, I naturally assumed it was just ordinary bollox-science. Then the P.M. added his essence-of-shiftiness and I began to wonder. I still think it was probably all routine twaddle, but I do have some sympathy for muddled mums. And, in simple terms of saving lives, why didn’t the NHS offer single separate injections to the worried?

   Reply
2. 

   April 21, 2006

   Anthony

   Dearieme,
   The MMR scare is complete twaddle. The fact that Blair has been involved in the debate should not affect your opinion, although I admit that in today’s climate if Blair said “man is incapable of unaided flight” there would be a significant number of Guardian readers found dead at the bottom of tall buildings the next morning wearing “Bliar” T-shirts.
   The epidemiological link with autism does not exist and the virological work that Wakefield based his claims has been discredited.
   I agree with Mick that this is a strange piece for The Times, who have been generally good with MMR (as is their scientific reporting in general).
   As for the single vaccines, here are some things I wrote a few years ago that still hold true:
   “correspondents also question the safety of giving three vaccines in combination, yet evidence suggests that multiple vaccines do not overwhelm young infants’ immune systems. In fact, infants have the ability to deal with up to 10,000 antigens at a time and modern vaccination schedules actually expose children to fewer antigens now than they did in the 1960s”
   http://www.pharmj.com/Editorial/20020323/comment/lett05.html#2
   And:
   “The Department of Health’s policy towards MMR is based on current scientific advice. If the Government were to ignore scientific advice this would be a truly regressive step. There is evidence that the provision of single vaccines may reduce uptake, thereby increasing the prevalence of measles. In addition some polls already show concerns are not limited to MMR, with 4 per cent of parents with young children not wishing to inoculate their children against mumps, measles or rub-ella by either single vaccines or use of MMR. Changing government policy for short-term political gain, rather than because of scientific evidence, would be seen by some as a tacit admission that a link between autism and measles vaccine exists, when no evidence supports such a risk.
   Partnership is needed with parents and the public in putting across the safety and importance of the MMR vaccine, but the consideration of NHS provision of single vaccines needs to be seen as a public health issue.”
   http://www.pharmj.com/Editorial/20020427/comment/lett06.html#2

   Reply
3. 

   April 22, 2006

   dearieme

   Thank you, Anthony. May I demur on one point? “If the Government were to ignore scientific advice ..”: I can see that scientific advice on the safety of MMR is crucial, but I can’t see what the phrase might mean in the context of offering separate vaccinations, because that policy would be concerned with placating fears, however irrational, in hopes of saving lives. “Science” has essentially nothing to do with that; it would be a political judgement/guess as to how to get out of a pickle with minimum casualties. After all, “There is evidence that the provision of single vaccines may reduce uptake, thereby increasing the prevalence of measles” might be outweighed by the absence of taking any vaccines increasing the prevalence of measles.

   Reply
4. 

   April 22, 2006

   Anthony

   “Science” has essentially nothing to do with that; it would be a political judgement/guess as to how to get out of a pickle with minimum casualties.
   Guess? That’s why we have public health scientists. They advise the government scientifically about these issues. I’m not sure having politicians second guessing heads of vaccination and public health experts is a wise step. We don’t expect that with bird flu, and didn’t want it with BSE – so why with MMR? Remember following the introduction of MMR vaccine notifications of measles fell progressively to the lowest levels since records began. The best thing Edwina Currie ever did.

   See this:

   On a warm autumn morning in 1988 a group of nursery age children gathered at the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre in central London for a special event. As they munched apples and bananas and the floor beneath them became covered in discarded peel, Edwina Currie, the Tory Health Minister, walked to the rostrum to announce one of the most important changes in child health policy for a decade. The triple vaccine, MMR, would be offered to parents.
   Scientists had been warning the Department of Health for more than a year that the measles epidemics periodically sweeping the country could only get worse. In some years in the Eighties more than 80,000 children caught the disease, more than 100 of them died and thousands were left with damaged hearing and eyesight.
   The single measles vaccination used then simply was not working, with take-up rates too low to create the crucial ‘herd immunity’. How could take-up rates be increased? The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation said allowing children to have more than one inoculation per jab would increase participation. Parents would not have to make multiple journeys to clinics. Currie agreed.
   http://observer.guardian.co.uk/focus/story/0,,647858,00.html

   Reply
5. 

   April 24, 2006

   KevinG

   Anthony
   “The fact that Blair has been involved in the debate should not affect your opinion, although I admit that in today’s climate if Blair said “man is incapable of unaided flight” there would be a significant number of Guardian readers found dead at the bottom of tall buildings the next morning wearing “Bliar” T-shirts.”
   Fantastic! Thank you.

   Reply