Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

laurejon

Why Do The Government Continue To Push The Mmr Jab?

Recommended Posts

Any ideas on why the Government are so dedicated to making sure the MMR jab is used, in favour of individual jabs?

Surely with all the bad press about MMR, it would make sense to allay the public fears and just do them individually.

We are talking seconds to give the three jabs, once in a lifetime, hardly going to cost a fortune in extra labour costs.

I really dont understand why this Government are so insistent on making children have the single jab.

Any ideas?

Bungs from drug companies spring to mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A medical relative (who admittedly supports NuLab, but I've got no reason to suppose she's exaggerating here), makes the following points:

1. The three jabs have to be given several months apart, to prevent the possibility of allergic reaction to the chemicals in which the active ingredient is suspended. This creates the risk that parents will simply forget to make appointments for the second two, and/or that the child will actually get one of the diseases during the intervening periods.

2. The jury is well and truly out over the combined jab/link with autism issue; but there is general consensus that even if one can trigger the other, this is only likely to be the case in an infinitesimally tiny number of patients (i.e. one in millions). In other words, the Government has made a cold-hearted calculation that the lives (and quality of lives) saved by pushing the combined jab will vastly exceed the number of autism cases caused by it, even in a worst case scenario.

There have been precedents. For example, halothane continued to be used as a general anaesthetic agent even after it was widely known that it caused serious (and sometimes fatal) liver damage in a tiny number of patients, because the benefits were judged to outweigh the risk.

Incidentally, the same drug company which makes the combined vaccine also produces the individual ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Any ideas on why the Government are so dedicated to making sure the MMR jab is used, in favour of individual jabs?

Surely with all the bad press about MMR, it would make sense to allay the public fears and just do them individually.

We are talking seconds to give the three jabs, once in a lifetime, hardly going to cost a fortune in extra labour costs.

I really dont understand why this Government are so insistent on making children have the single jab.

Any ideas?

Bungs from drug companies spring to mind.

works out cheaper? one doctors visit instead of three, adding overheads it must

cost the best part of 50 quid in staffing costs when a child goes to the doctors.

500,000 births a year

one jab : 25 Million Quid per year

three jabs : 75 Million Quid per year

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2. The jury is well and truly out over the combined jab/link with autism issue;

The jury is well and truly and firmly IN.

There never was any evidence that MMR causes autism in the first place.

The paper The Lancet inadvisedly chose to publish is a most glaring example of vested interests ever seen in the whole face of the world since Eve asked the snake if those apples tasted nice.

You see, Wakefield had a nice bit of research going into measles virus in the colons of autistic children. Interesting (if you like that kind of thing), but of no relevance to MMR.

At the same time a group of parents were trying to sue the company that makes the MMR jab for giving their children autism (autism is diagnosed at the same age MMR is given, hence the correlation), but the parents lacked any scientific proof that the MMR jab HAD actually caused autism. So they paid Dr Wakefield to testify on their behalf.... (seeing any vested interests yet?)

Wakefield then ctrl+v'd a table into his paper comprising a group of autistic children and what their parents thought caused their autism. Guess which group of parents this was... go on! guess!..... you'll never get it!.... :rolleyes:

Completely apart from the blatant vested interests we see here is the startlingly bad science. The opinions of a group of parents as to what caused their child's autism constitutes no scientific evidence whatsoever. their vested interest notwithstanding.

Taking all this together its amazing that the population didn’t just throw the paper in the bin and laugh at it. Instead we had to have years of scare stories, fear mongering and conspiracy theories, all of which were lapped up a British public that has the scientific literacy of yak dung. Millions of pounds of money was then spent on research showing no link between MMR and autism whatsoever. This money should have gone towards finding cures for cancer and MS instead of pandering to the gutter-tabloid idiot media and the gutter-idiots who read them.

I don’t believe in hell. But if it does exist, I hope there is an especially painful, humiliating and unbearable corner just for Dr. Wakefield.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Though it should be noted that it has been reported that some 50% of all published medical research is ghost-written by the pharma industry.

Evidence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Evidence?

Yes.

I went to search engine. I yype in wordys. I get evidence. You be should be tryin be it.

"50% of medical research ghost written"

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/sto...1101680,00.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/medicine/story/0...,646078,00.html

I have just posted The Observer and Guardian links, because I recognise that lambs cannot cope with information unless it is validated by mainstream newspapers or the government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes.

I went to search engine. I yype in wordys. I get evidence. You be should be tryin be it.

"50% of medical research ghost written"

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/sto...1101680,00.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/medicine/story/0...,646078,00.html

I have just posted The Observer and Guardian links, because I recognise that lambs cannot cope with information unless it is validated by mainstream newspapers or the government.

Thats very interesting Bushy.

Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 354 The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.