MMR Again

Former Member

wheresmyplacebo wrote: »

and thalidomide has a use to this day in treating leprosy (in people where a tetrogenic(harmful to limb growth) drug won't affect them)

its also used to help with graft vs host disease in tranplant patients very strictly controlled though obviously

Former Member

Kermit wrote: »

Of course, I may be being too cynical and it might be pure coincidence that leukaemia in childhood is about ten times more prevalent around Sellafield than it is in general society. The Government studies certainly claim that.

Corrolation is no proof of causality. However, if you accept such "proof," then you might be interested to know that the cases of autism in children went up in Japan after they switched to the single jabs.

Former Member

I'm With Stupid wrote: »

Corrolation is no proof of causality. However, if you accept such "proof," then you might be interested to know that the cases of autism in children went up in Japan after they switched to the single jabs.

i posted this earlier, autism went up during time period when mr was bought in, but continued to rise afterwards, when they switched to single jabs, so there are other explanations for it

Former Member

I'm With Stupid wrote: »

Corrolation is no proof of causality.

Indeed. There's another correlation that fits to Sellafield to do with a change in population.

Former Member

diddlybop wrote: »

its also used to help with graft vs host disease in tranplant patients very strictly controlled though obviously

Interestingly enough, I have just done a drug project about an analogue of thalidomide, being used to treat multiple myeloma. None of the PCTs in the area will fund it though, I think the cost is something like £61,000 per patient.

Former Member

Kermit wrote: »

the Government protest about MMR far far too much to be trusted.

Possibly because they are right...

I'd be happier if the Government allowed the single jabs, though, because I do think there is something in it. Private Eye thinks so too.

So, you'd be happier for a less effective treatment to be offered on the NHS - even though it would cost more and fewer children would be covered?

Former Member

MORE children would be covered, because youd get people that would otherwise not have the jabs getting it done. The single jabs should be offered as an alternative.
I still think most people would go for the MMR because most people are OK with what the government say, plus noone likes taking their children for jabs usually and will do one jab rather than three if thats an option, but youll have plenty of people who will say if they dont have the choice, then they wont have anything.

At least if you have the single jabs, then youre more likely to get people vaccinating against measles, even if they dont get the mumps and rubella done, and measles is the most important thing.

Former Member

SuzyCreamcheese wrote: »

MORE children would be covered, because youd get people that would otherwise not have the jabs getting it done. The single jabs should be offered as an alternative.
I still think most people would go for the MMR because most people are OK with what the government say, plus noone likes taking their children for jabs usually and will do one jab rather than three if thats an option, but youll have plenty of people who will say if they dont have the choice, then they wont have anything.

At least if you have the single jabs, then youre more likely to get people vaccinating against measles, even if they dont get the mumps and rubella done, and measles is the most important thing.

mumps and rubella vaccines are equally important, especially rubella as the people it protects can't have it ie unborn children

Former Member

theyre nowhere near as important.

Rubella is dangerous for pregnant women, thats why they always used to give the rubella jab at around age 11 to girls. Less time for immunity to wear off as its just being given at the start of puberty and its only vaccinating the people that need it