MMR-Wakefield at it again

[Ralph]

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?

Yes but not as effective at preventing diseases as the MMR.

[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?

Yes but not as effective as the MMR. And no reason to believe they're any safer.

Fucking hell, Ralph

Have you read anything I have said in this thread at all?

I really don't think you have

I'm talking about the choices parents faced at the time that the scare broke.

And the Government's response to it.

[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.
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?

If I was in your shoes I likely would have done the same thing. I'd be fucking furious about Andrew Wakefield once I discovered the truth though.

[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?

If I was in your shoes I likely would have done the same thing. I'd be fucking furious about Andrew Wakefield once I discovered the truth.

Thanks mate - we finally got there

And yeah, Wakefield owes me about £600

[Ralph]

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?

Yes but not as effective as the MMR. And no reason to believe they're any safer.

Fucking hell, Ralph

Have you read anything I have said in this thread at all?

I really don't think you have

I'm talking about the choices parents faced at the time that the scare broke.

And the Government's response to it.

The government's response was completely understandable. Not realistic for the government to say the MMR jab is completely safe but here's an alternative if you don't believe us.

You do accept that Andrew Wakefield is a con artist with zero credibility don't you?

[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?

Yes but not as effective as the MMR. And no reason to believe they're any safer.

Fucking hell, Ralph

Have you read anything I have said in this thread at all?

I really don't think you have

I'm talking about the choices parents faced at the time that the scare broke.

And the Government's response to it.

The government's response was completely understandable. Not realistic for the government to say the MMR jab is completely safe but here's an alternative if don't believe us.

You do accept that Andrew Wakefield is a con artist with zero credibility don't you?

Q!. No, the Government should have offered the separate jabs as an alternative whilst the scare was at it's height & it set about comprehensively discrediting his findings.

Q2. Yes - but myself and millions of other parents didn't know that at the time.

[Ralph]

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?

Yes but not as effective as the MMR. And no reason to believe they're any safer.

Fucking hell, Ralph

Have you read anything I have said in this thread at all?

I really don't think you have

I'm talking about the choices parents faced at the time that the scare broke.

And the Government's response to it.

The government's response was completely understandable. Not realistic for the government to say the MMR jab is completely safe but here's an alternative if don't believe us.

You do accept that Andrew Wakefield is a con artist with zero credibility don't you?

Q!. No, the Government should have offered the separate jabs as an alternative whilst the scare was at it's height & it set about comprehensively discrediting his findings.

Q2. Yes - but myself and millions of other parents didn't know that at the time.

If they'd offered the less effective single jabs pretty much everyone would have opted for them instead of the MMR & there would never come a time when they could stop routinely offering them. People would understandbly think - 'if the MMR is safe why offer an alternative? I'm not going to risk it' Not realising the MMR is better than single jabs for a number of reasons.

Once they started offering single jabs routinely again, we'd never get back to a situation where they only offered the more effective MMR.

I understand why you did what you did & can imagine in the same situation I'd have done the same thing. I can also understand why the government didn't want to do anything that would give credence to Wakefield's claims. Offering an alternative would have done exactly that. The government would have acted on the advice the Chief Medical officer gave them.

[Steve Hunt]

If they'd offered the less effective single jabs pretty much everyone would have opted for them instead of the MMR & there would never come a time when they could stop routinely offering them. People would understandbly think - 'if the MMR is safe why offer an alternative? I'm not going to risk it' Not realising the MMR is better than single jabs for a number of reasons.

Once they started offering single jabs routinely again, we'd never get back to a situation where they only offered the more effective MMR.

All of which may well be true.

But the trouble is that by not offering the single jabs, they knowingly condemned children to contracting perfectly preventable diseases, Ralph.

Surely the first care of a government is to ensure the safety of it's citizens? They failed in this regard.

They should have done what I suggested and then re-launched the product once Wakefield's claims were conclusively discredited.

[Ralph]

If they'd offered the less effective single jabs pretty much everyone would have opted for them instead of the MMR & there would never come a time when they could stop routinely offering them. People would understandbly think - 'if the MMR is safe why offer an alternative? I'm not going to risk it' Not realising the MMR is better than single jabs for a number of reasons.

Once they started offering single jabs routinely again, we'd never get back to a situation where they only offered the more effective MMR.

All of which may well be true.

But the trouble is that by not offering the single jabs, they knowingly condemned children to contracting perfectly preventable diseases, Ralph.

Surely the first care of a government is to ensure the safety of it's citizens? They failed in this regard.

They should have done what I suggested and then re-launched the product once Wakefield's claims were conclusively discredited.

Why would they want to do that? Don't say cost, because preventing disease is the cheapest option, even if you think the Chief Medical officer etc were that cynical. .

[Steve Hunt]

Why would they want to do that? Don't say cost, because preventing disease is the cheapest option, even if you think the Chief Medical officer etc were that cynical. .

An increase in these diseases was the inevitable outcome of not offering the triple jab whilst the scare was at it's height, Ralph.

This is not me asserting a contentious view. History has sadly proven this to be true.

You didn't need Mystic Meg to know that worried parents would rather take the risk of not having vaccinations at all than possibly inflict autism on their kids.

You can spin this as much as you like, my friend. But failure to re-offer the triple jab as an alternative at the height of the scare was a national disgrace that has directly led to children contracting these diseases. .

[Ralph]

Why would they want to do that? Don't say cost, because preventing disease is the cheapest option, even if you think the Chief Medical officer etc were that cynical. .

An increase in these diseases was the inevitable outcome of not offering the triple jab whilst the scare was at it's height, Ralph.

This is not me asserting a contentious view. History has sadly proven this to be true.

You didn't need Mystic Meg to know that worried parents would rather take the risk of not having vaccinations at all than possibly inflict autism on their kids.

You can spin this as much as you like, my friend. But failure to re-offer the triple jab as an alternative at the height of the scare was a national disgrace that has directly led to children contracting these diseases. .

We can't know what would have happened if they'd started offering the less safe single jabs as a matter of routine. All history has provern is that Andrew Wakefield's bogus research led to kids getting preventable diseases. If people have suffered or died as a consequence it's entirely his fault. It's not like he just made an innocent mistake. He's still pushing this nonsense to this day. He's completely unrepentant.

If offering single jabs led to children who would have otherwise had the MMR having single jabs that would have led to a rise in preventable diseases also. The government can't point to the evidence that shows the MMR jab is perfectly safe & offer an alternative at the same time. It would be a mixed message that would lead to more people believing the MMR wasn't safe.

What should the government do if some crank/con artist announces tomorrow the flu jab isn't safe & is believed?

[Steve Hunt]

Why would they want to do that? Don't say cost, because preventing disease is the cheapest option, even if you think the Chief Medical officer etc were that cynical. .

An increase in these diseases was the inevitable outcome of not offering the triple jab whilst the scare was at it's height, Ralph.

This is not me asserting a contentious view. History has sadly proven this to be true.

You didn't need Mystic Meg to know that worried parents would rather take the risk of not having vaccinations at all than possibly inflict autism on their kids.

You can spin this as much as you like, my friend. But failure to re-offer the triple jab as an alternative at the height of the scare was a national disgrace that has directly led to children contracting these diseases. .

We can't know what would have happened if they'd started offering the less safe single jabs as a matter of routine.

Given my own personal experiences at the time, I reckon it would ave been taken up by a lot of parents who did not trust the MMR jab, Ralph.

Which would have been far preferable to leaving kids unvaccinated.

[Steve Hunt]

What should the government do if some crank/con artist announces tomorrow the flu jab isn't safe & is believed?

Offer a tried and trusted alternative until the time when they can CONCLUSIVELY disprove the claims of those denouncing it.

[Ralph]

What should the government do if some crank/con artist announces tomorrow the flu jab isn't safe & is believed?

Offer a tried and trusted alternative until the time when they can CONCLUSIVELY disprove the claims of those denouncing it.

Ignore the crank, the flu jab is completely safe but here's a less effective alternative to use while we CONCLUSIVELY prove what we already know i.e. this research is a load of bollocks.

BTW

I don't remember lots of doctors saying what the government was doing regarding the MMR scare was outrageous. If my memory is correct the general consensus was that the best way forward was to try & persuade unsure parents the MMR jab was safe. I can understand why parents weren't persuaded. The blame for that rests squarely on the shoulders of Andrew Wakefield & other anti vaxxers IMO.

[Steve Hunt]

What should the government do if some crank/con artist announces tomorrow the flu jab isn't safe & is believed?

Offer a tried and trusted alternative until the time when they can CONCLUSIVELY disprove the claims of those denouncing it.

Ignore the crank, the flu jab is completely safe but here's a less effective alternative to use while we CONCLUSIVELY prove what we already know i.e. this research is a load of bollocks.

Ralph. This story was huge at the time.

And I mean huge. Up to these claims, Wakefield had been well respected and worked at The Royal Free Hospital.

The press were all over it. This wasn't some bloke operating from his shed.