MMR-Wakefield at it again

[Ralph]

Nothing to do with cost. The single jabs are not as effective & Andrew Wakefield's claims were completely bogus..

Your completely missing my point, Ralph.

My point is purely about the governments response once the scare broke.

As for you claim that cost had nothing to do with it, you are joking? No idea if the jab was cheaper, but simple logic dictates that the cost of administering the drug was reduced by 66%

You haven't factored in the cost of an increase in preventable childhood illlnesses if the government started routinely offering single jabs instead of the MMR. Single jabs don't work as well, there's no getting round that.

[Hillman avenger]

Quote Hillmans
That's because his reasoning is sound, but I've tried to spell it out to you before and you either can't or won't understand it.
His work has been refuted by SEVENTEEN separate studies. One of the reasons he was struck off was because he failed to follow protocol in his work.
Mass vaccination saves the government money in treating childhood illnesses but costs the lives of individual children and causes brain damage in others.
No they don't.That's the point. And the rise in autism levels is to do with better diagnosis, not MMR.
You speak for the government
No, nothing of the kind. I speak as a parent deploring the foolishness of others.
and I , and Doctor Wakefield ,speak for the dead children and those who will be killed by future vaccination.
I am not aware of any child killed by MMR.
Simple as that really.

Obviously the parents of the kids they killed want to sponsor a doctor who is speaking out to prevent other deaths - preventing other deaths is one of the reasons for suing the bastards responsible for the policy.
[/b]See above. That is not what is happening.

[Ralph]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMR_vaccine_controversy

Interesting reading. How does Andrew Wakefield sleep at night?

[Steve Hunt]

You haven't factored in the cost of an increase in preventable childhood illlnesses if the government started routinely offering single jabs instead of the MMR. Single jabs don't work as well, there's no getting round that.

Ralph - for the 10th time, that is not the point I am trying to make!

3 separate jabs are better than no jabs at all, would you not agree? After all, they served the country pretty well since the 1950's up to that point.

Whatever way you look at it, history now tells us that the failure to offer the 3 jabs as an alternative (when the scare broke) was a mistake.

[Ralph]

You haven't factored in the cost of an increase in preventable childhood illlnesses if the government started routinely offering single jabs instead of the MMR. Single jabs don't work as well, there's no getting round that.

Ralph - for the 10th time, that is not the point I am trying to make!

3 separate jabs are better than no jabs at all, would you not agree? After all, they served the country pretty well since the 1950's up to that point.

Whatever way you look at it, history now tells us that the failure to offer the 3 jabs as an alternative (when the scare broke) was a mistake.

Once you start offering single jabs it would give credence to Andrew Wakefields bogus claims & everyone would opt for the single jabs which aren't as effective. So there'd be a needless rise in preventable diseases.

If the claims of a complete con artist are believed by enough people there's going to be consequences. It's on Andrew Wakefield's conscience. He was the architect of this scare.

[Steve Hunt]

Once you start offering single jabs it would give credence to Andrew Wakefields bogus claims & everyone would opt for the single jabs which aren't as effective. So there'd be a needless rise in preventable diseases.

If the claims of a complete con artist are believed by enough people there's going to be consequences. It's on Andrew Wakefield's conscience. He was the architect of this scare.

BUT THERE HAS BEEN A NEEDLESS RISE IN PREVENTABLE DISEASE, RALPH!!!!

All they had to do was offer the alternative whilst they comprehensively complied evidence to prove Wakefield's claims erroneous.

This is on Wakefield's conscience, I agree. But it should also be on the government's as well. The response was wholly inadequate and the consequences sadly inevitable.

[Ralph]

Once you start offering single jabs it would give credence to Andrew Wakefields bogus claims & everyone would opt for the single jabs which aren't as effective. So there'd be a needless rise in preventable diseases.

If the claims of a complete con artist are believed by enough people there's going to be consequences. It's on Andrew Wakefield's conscience. He was the architect of this scare.

BUT THERE HAS BEEN A NEEDLESS RISE IN PREVENTABLE DISEASE, RALPH!!!!

All they had to do was offer the alternative whilst they comprehensively complied evidence to prove Wakefield's claims erroneous.

This is on Wakefield's conscience, I agree. But it should also be on the government's as well. The response was wholly inadequate and the consequences sadly inevitable.

Steve. Why won't you accept that the single jabs are not as effective as the MMR & if they were offered routinely would have also led to a needless rise in preventable disease.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/the ... SApp_Other

Once Andrew Wakefield's nonsense started being believed & people stopped getting their kids immunised there was no magic solution.

[paolo]

anti vaxers unite

[Ralph]

Once you start offering single jabs it would give credence to Andrew Wakefields bogus claims & everyone would opt for the single jabs which aren't as effective. So there'd be a needless rise in preventable diseases.

If the claims of a complete con artist are believed by enough people there's going to be consequences. It's on Andrew Wakefield's conscience. He was the architect of this scare.

BUT THERE HAS BEEN A NEEDLESS RISE IN PREVENTABLE DISEASE, RALPH!!!!

All they had to do was offer the alternative whilst they comprehensively complied evidence to prove Wakefield's claims erroneous.

This is on Wakefield's conscience, I agree. But it should also be on the government's as well. The response was wholly inadequate and the consequences sadly inevitable.

I disagree. The government were put in an impossible situation where all options were bad. BTW the decision wouldn't have been taken by a politician it would have been the Chief Medical Officer.

[Steve Hunt]

Once you start offering single jabs it would give credence to Andrew Wakefields bogus claims & everyone would opt for the single jabs which aren't as effective. So there'd be a needless rise in preventable diseases.

If the claims of a complete con artist are believed by enough people there's going to be consequences. It's on Andrew Wakefield's conscience. He was the architect of this scare.

BUT THERE HAS BEEN A NEEDLESS RISE IN PREVENTABLE DISEASE, RALPH!!!!

All they had to do was offer the alternative whilst they comprehensively complied evidence to prove Wakefield's claims erroneous.

This is on Wakefield's conscience, I agree. But it should also be on the government's as well. The response was wholly inadequate and the consequences sadly inevitable.

Steve. Why won't you accept that the single jabs are not as effective as the MMR & if they were offered routinely would have also led to a needless rise in preventable disease.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/the ... SApp_Other

Once Andrew Wakefield's nonsense claims started being believed & people stopped getting their kids immunised there was no magic solution.

Ralph, this is the last time I'm going to say this.

It is not about what I, you or anyone else accepts. Personally, I think Wakefield was wrong. But I didn't know that for sure at the time. Neither did millions of other parents in my position. We all went to school with children suffering from the consequences of their mothers taking thalidomide, I'm sure. That was once hailed as a miracle drug. Plus we had the PM & his wife refusing to confirm if their own child had MMR jab.

The scare had broken. It couldn't be simply tucked under the carpet. Parents like myself had a choice to make. A choice that (we thought at the time) could have potentially life affecting consequences for our children.

I was not prepared to potentially play God with my girls lives. I sourced and paid for three separate jabs. The same jabs that had been offered to children since the 1950's and had led to a steady decline in measles, mumps and rubella. Are you suggesting that these jabs are worse than taking than none at all?

This option should have been offered to concerned parents whilst the authorities comprehensively complied evidence to disprove Wakefield's claims - as is now the case.

The Government's response is denying this alternative has led to parents (either unable to afford the three jabs or by then wholly suspicious of the whole vaccination programme) to not having their kids vaccinated at all. Hence the subsequent rise in these diseases.

You contend that by offering the 3 jabs the Government would have given credence to Wakefield. But I ask you, what is more important? Giving a quack a bit of extra time whilst you thoroughly discredit his findings or allowing kids to contract preventable diseases?

[Steve Hunt]

Once you start offering single jabs it would give credence to Andrew Wakefields bogus claims & everyone would opt for the single jabs which aren't as effective. So there'd be a needless rise in preventable diseases.

If the claims of a complete con artist are believed by enough people there's going to be consequences. It's on Andrew Wakefield's conscience. He was the architect of this scare.

BUT THERE HAS BEEN A NEEDLESS RISE IN PREVENTABLE DISEASE, RALPH!!!!

All they had to do was offer the alternative whilst they comprehensively complied evidence to prove Wakefield's claims erroneous.

This is on Wakefield's conscience, I agree. But it should also be on the government's as well. The response was wholly inadequate and the consequences sadly inevitable.

I disagree. The government were put in an impossible situation where all options were bad..

Indeed.

But the option they chose (by refusing the three separate jabs as an alternative) was only ever going to have one outcome, Ralph.

A subsequent rise in these diseases.

[Hillman avenger]

Once you start offering single jabs it would give credence to Andrew Wakefields bogus claims & everyone would opt for the single jabs which aren't as effective. So there'd be a needless rise in preventable diseases.

If the claims of a complete con artist are believed by enough people there's going to be consequences. It's on Andrew Wakefield's conscience. He was the architect of this scare.

BUT THERE HAS BEEN A NEEDLESS RISE IN PREVENTABLE DISEASE, RALPH!!!!

All they had to do was offer the alternative whilst they comprehensively complied evidence to prove Wakefield's claims erroneous.
The thing is, Steve, they thought they HAD compiled conclusive evidence. They probably underestimated the likelihood of parents hearing the original assertion and then not knowing it had been comprehensively refuted.
Certainly for any parent now to still resist MMR is playing with the lives of their child and other peoples' children.
It doesn't help that Trump has joined in. He has no grasp of the issues,and the logic, as is also demonstrated by his dismissal of climate change.
Meanwhile the charity in the US supporting him is funding his lush lifestyle in Texas. He must be medicine's David Icke.
This is on Wakefield's conscience, I agree. But it should also be on the government's as well. The response was wholly inadequate and the consequences sadly inevitable.

[Ralph]

Once you start offering single jabs it would give credence to Andrew Wakefields bogus claims & everyone would opt for the single jabs which aren't as effective. So there'd be a needless rise in preventable diseases.

If the claims of a complete con artist are believed by enough people there's going to be consequences. It's on Andrew Wakefield's conscience. He was the architect of this scare.

BUT THERE HAS BEEN A NEEDLESS RISE IN PREVENTABLE DISEASE, RALPH!!!!

All they had to do was offer the alternative whilst they comprehensively complied evidence to prove Wakefield's claims erroneous.

This is on Wakefield's conscience, I agree. But it should also be on the government's as well. The response was wholly inadequate and the consequences sadly inevitable.

I disagree. The government were put in an impossible situation where all options were bad..

Indeed.

But the option they chose (by refusing the three separate jabs as an alternative) was only ever going to have one outcome, Ralph.

A subsequent rise in these diseases.

Routinely offering the single jabs would have only led to one outcome - a rise in preventable diseases. Why won't you accept that?

Single jabs are better than nothing but not as effective as the MMR. If the government started offering single jabs nobody would touch the MMR jab with a barge pole. It would have given credence to Wakefield's claims. So children would be getting a less a effective vaccination for no good reason.

[Steve Hunt]

Once you start offering single jabs it would give credence to Andrew Wakefields bogus claims & everyone would opt for the single jabs which aren't as effective. So there'd be a needless rise in preventable diseases.

If the claims of a complete con artist are believed by enough people there's going to be consequences. It's on Andrew Wakefield's conscience. He was the architect of this scare.

BUT THERE HAS BEEN A NEEDLESS RISE IN PREVENTABLE DISEASE, RALPH!!!!

All they had to do was offer the alternative whilst they comprehensively complied evidence to prove Wakefield's claims erroneous.
The thing is, Steve, they thought they HAD compiled conclusive evidence. They probably underestimated the likelihood of parents hearing the original assertion and then not knowing it had been comprehensively refuted.
Certainly for any parent now to still resist MMR is playing with the lives of their child and other peoples' children.
It doesn't help that Trump has joined in. He has no grasp of the issues,and the logic, as is also demonstrated by his dismissal of climate change.
Meanwhile the charity in the US supporting him is funding his lush lifestyle in Texas. He must be medicine's David Icke.
This is on Wakefield's conscience, I agree. But it should also be on the government's as well. The response was wholly inadequate and the consequences sadly inevitable.

Hillman, you state that 'they thought they HAD compiled conclusive evidence.'

That's not how I recall it. Every other documentary on TV at the time was making claim and counter claim.

Some of the press (The Mail, I think) backed Wakefield.

Parents were given conflicting information on a daily basis. Plus we had the Blair's refusal to comment and memories of thalidomide to contend with.

I know your children are older than mine, Hillman. But, be honest, what would you have done?

[Steve Hunt]

Routinely offering the single jabs would have only led to one outcome - a rise in preventable diseases. Why won't you accept that?

I accept that, Ralph. But that's exactly what happened by refusing the old jabs as an alternative.

Will you accept that the old jabs were/are better than no jabs at all?