NationStates Jolt Archive

If you get them when you're young you don't get them when you're old. If you get them when you're old you don't have young.

Starting to spread across the US.

S'alright everybody, no need to worry.

I'm already vaccinated. Thanks for your concern.

If you get them when you're young you don't get them when you're old. If you get them when you're old you don't have young.

You don't have to get orchitis just because you get the mumps, and even if you do, you don't have to end up sterile because of it.

What kind of third world shithole is America turning into if people aren't getting MMR shots?

What kind of third world shithole is America turning into if people aren't getting MMR shots?

Do we get them here? I didn't think it was endemic.

edit - Oh, it's a rubella shot. I've had that.

Do we get them here? I didn't think it was endemic.

edit - Oh, it's a rubella shot. I've had that.
Measles, Mumps and Rubella. Everyone I know has had one, occasionally you come across a crazy christian fundamentalist who believes they cause polio, thankfully we have laws that say you can be stupid at any time, except where you endanger the lives of your children.

Measles, Mumps and Rubella. Everyone I know has had one, occasionally you come across a crazy christian fundamentalist who believes they cause polio, thankfully we have laws that say you can be stupid at any time, except where you endanger the lives of your children.

Amen. (teehee)

Measles, Mumps and Rubella. Everyone I know has had one, occasionally you come across a crazy christian fundamentalist who believes they cause polio, thankfully we have laws that say you can be stupid at any time, except where you endanger the lives of your children.

In england stupid people stopped using the mmr cos they thought it caused autism. there was no evidence or anything but now several kids have died from measles. autism rates have remained unchanged. the parents of those kids should be charged and not allowed to have more kids.

In england stupid people stopped using the mmr cos they thought it caused autism. there was no evidence or anything but now several kids have died from measles. autism rates have remained unchanged. the parents of those kids should be charged and not allowed to have more kids.
Here here!

In england stupid people stopped using the mmr cos they thought it caused autism. there was no evidence or anything but now several kids have died from measles. autism rates have remained unchanged. the parents of those kids should be charged and not allowed to have more kids.
I agree - the MMR jab is one of the safest and most tested vacinations ever, and there is simply no evidence to link it to autism. I think the parents of any child that dies of measles, a preventable disease for decades, should be charged with criminal negligence.

I agree - the MMR jab is one of the safest and most tested vacinations ever, and there is simply no evidence to link it to autism. I think the parents of any child that dies of measles, a preventable disease for decades, should be charged with criminal negligence.

Or we could just let them get the seperate jabs?

Or we could just let them get the seperate jabs?
Why pay more for no benefits?

I agree - the MMR jab is one of the safest and most tested vacinations ever, and there is simply no evidence to link it to autism. I think the parents of any child that dies of measles, a preventable disease for decades, should be charged with criminal negligence.
Well, most of the hysteria was caused by the tabloid press howling over a flawed statistical study. If you ask me, they would be better targets than parents who were gullible.

Well, most of the hysteria was caused by the tabloid press howling over a flawed statistical study. If you ask me, they would be better targets than parents who were gullible.

The authors of the study have gone out and stated that they were wrong, and that people should get their children vaccinated. Unfortunately, that got very little press.

Why pay more for no benefits?

Why run the risk of an epidemic? The parent has final choice over medical treatment for their child and offering the seperate jabs will probably cost less in the longterm than treating dying children.

Why run the risk of an epidemic? The parent has final choice over medical treatment for their child and offering the seperate jabs will probably cost less in the longterm than treating dying children.
Because there is no risk of an epidemic if they just have the one MMR jab. Why should taxpayers fork out millions of pounds in extra vacination costs because a few parents refuse to accept the clear and indisputable truth?

Medicine should be given on the basis of necessity, not hysteria.

Why run the risk of an epidemic? The parent has final choice over medical treatment for their child and offering the seperate jabs will probably cost less in the longterm than treating dying children.

Except, of course, of the ones that die because they only got the R, and not the MMs, or one M, and not the R and the other M and so on, and so forth. Your suggestion solves nothing, and brings forth more problems. There is no reason to offer a separate vaccine, when the one we have now is safe and effective.

Because there is no risk of an epidemic if they just have the one MMR jab. Why should taxpayers fork out millions of pounds in extra vacination costs because a few parents refuse to accept the clear and indisputable truth?

Medicine should be given on the basis of necessity, not hysteria.

Got a source for the costing millions extra?

Got a source for the costing millions extra?
Not to hand. Got one for it not?

Except, of course, of the ones that die because they only got the R, and not the MMs, or one M, and not the R and the other M and so on, and so forth. Your suggestion solves nothing, and brings forth more problems. There is no reason to offer a separate vaccine, when the one we have now is safe and effective.

It may be safe and effective btu some people don't want it because they believe that it carries risks, however misguided their beliefs may be. Like I said, in the UK a parent has the final say over medical care for their children and the triple jab is better than noe at all.

Not to hand. Got one for it not?

I don't have to prove the negative, I'm not arguing the point financially.

It may be safe and effective btu some people don't want it because they believe that it carries risks, however misguided their beliefs may be.
Why should the taxpayer fund 'misguided beliefs'? We have a jab that works perfectly well, and if they don't want to use it, then they can pay the costs. And if the child dies because they don't, then they should face the courts.

The authors of the study have gone out and stated that they were wrong, and that people should get their children vaccinated. Unfortunately, that got very little press.
Found it (http://www.guardian.co.uk/medicine/story/0,,1161551,00.html)
In another article I found the sample size for the initial study was 12 children, 8 of whoms parents believed their problems began with the first MMR jab. Jeez

Oh ho, and:
However, most of his co-authors have made a "retraction of an interpretation" in this week's Lancet. Editor Richard Horton said two weeks ago that Dr Wakefield had failed to declare a "fatal" conflict of interest that, had it been known, would probably have meant the article was not published in that form.
I know this blew over a long time ago, but this is rediculous.

Why should the taxpayer fund 'misguided beliefs'? We have a jab that works perfectly well, and if they don't want to use it, then they can pay the costs. And if the child dies because they don't, then they should face the courts.

So only the rich have the right to do what they think is best for teir child? Or possibly you belive that poor people are too stupid to have an opinion on whether the MMR causes autism?

I don't have to prove the negative, I'm not arguing the point financially.
From http://www.mmrthefacts.nhs.uk/.

"Why are single vaccines not licensed for use in this country? Is it because no application had been made or that they have been found unsafe/inefficient."

There are extant licences for single measles and rubella vaccines in this country, but no manufacturer manufactures single measles nor rubella to this licence. Therefore licensed stocks of measles and rubella vaccine are no longer available. Single mumps has never been licensed in the UK.

Single measles and mumps vaccines which are being imported have no evidence to show that they are either safe or that they work in preventing the disease for which they are intended. In the case of single mumps vaccines, two brands have been banned as one, manufactured using the Urabe strain of mumps virus, was shown to cause aseptic meningitis in a few children, and the other, manufactured using the Rubini strain of mumps virus, because it didn't work.

Another mumps vaccine from the Czech Republic has been suspended from importation because of unusual manufacturing and storage methods not used anywhere in the European Union. In addition there was not any proper scientific evidence to support either its safety or efficacy.

"Is it better to have the MMR in one injection or is it better to have the injections seprately?"

It is much, much better to have MMR rather than separate injections - not least because having them separately leaves children at risk of catching the diseases for long periods of time. In addition the single measles and mumps vaccines which are being used are not licensed in this country. The licensing process of vaccines is designed to ensure that there is evidence from properly conducted scientific studies to demonstrate that they work and that they are safe. For more information on the risks of single vaccines, please see factsheets 3 & 4 of the MMR Factsheets 1 – 4 series at www.mmrthefacts.nhs.uk/library/printable.php

So only the rich have the right to do what they think is best for teir child? Or possibly you belive that poor people are too stupid to have an opinion on whether the MMR causes autism?

People who come to the conclusion that it causes autism, despite there being no shred of evidence for it, and several extremely well-authored studies that show no connection between the two, are stupid. Be they rich or be they poor.

So only the rich have the right to do what they think is best for teir child? Or possibly you belive that poor people are too stupid to have an opinion on whether the MMR causes autism?
We are dealing with medical fact, not hysterical opinion. There is a big gulf between the two.

I think it's fine if parents want to give in to hysteria, they should be free to go ahead and get the three jabs done privately, they can pay the financial cost themselves. If it's that important to them. It is better than the child losing out completely.

However, if the parents don't get their child fully vaccinated they should be taken to court if their child dies. I think there should be room within current laws to charge them with manslaughter. (I may well be wrong there, but I would be fine with an ammendment to the law to allow this charge!)

In england stupid people stopped using the mmr cos they thought it caused autism. there was no evidence or anything but now several kids have died from measles. autism rates have remained unchanged. the parents of those kids should be charged and not allowed to have more kids.


I was reading yesterday about how drug companies are not interested in pursuing drugs or treatments that you only need take once to rid you of your ills. Instead they'd rather spend on drugs that hold things at bay, that patients need to take for the rest of their lives.

Like a lot of the general fuckupedness of the World it is al about money.

Whats the link you ask, isn't this just an off topic rant?

Hah well okay I'll admit to my likeing for a good rant now and again;) Yet there is a link and a perpose both, behind this post.

In the UK a few years ago there was a big deal with MMR jabs maybe causing Autism. There was a tenues argument about the number of case of Aultism growing.

What went largly unoticed at this time though, was the same is true for the number of cases of ADHD growing. In reality cases of neither Autlism, nor ADHD were growing but the diagnosies methods for both changed. So more and more unrealted problems or just mere children being full life and youth, where being called Autism or ADHD. This was pushed by the drug companies in a cynical attempt to grow the uptake of drugs for both conditions and thus make their compaies richer.

As a direct result of this lots more then the normal amounts deaths through measles have occoured in this country in the last 4 years. Are drug companies responsible for this? Is the propencity for huge multinational companies to regard making money more important than anything else to blame?

Well of course all that I have typed above can be subjectively agreed on or dismised, but i know what I belive, what about you?

People who come to the conclusion that it causes autism, despite there being no shred of evidence for it, and several extremely well-authored studies that show no connection between the two, are stupid. Be they rich or be they poor.

Tell you what, I'll even add some anecdotal evidence to support your views. I was a child before the MMR and had the tripple jabs instead in 1984. I later caught all three of the diseases I was supposed to be immune to through the course of my childhood.

None of this changes the fact that getting the triple jab is better than getting no immunisation at all. Over time peoples opinion can be changed with help from the media but in the short term the Government should be looking after its people rather than exposing them to what could become a very dangerous situation. A little extra money spent by the NHS on the triple jabs is well worth it if it saves lives.

Tell you what, I'll even add some anecdotal evidence to support your views. I was a child before the MMR and had the tripple jabs instead in 1984. I later caught all three of the diseases I was supposed to be immune to through the course of my childhood.

None of this changes the fact that getting the triple jab is better than getting no immunisation at all. Over time peoples opinion can be changed with help from the media but in the short term the Government should be looking after its people rather than exposing them to what could become a very dangerous situation. A little extra money spent by the NHS on the triple jabs is well worth it if it saves lives.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10806526&postcount=25

It doesn't seem to save lives. The MMR is vastly superior.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10806526&postcount=25

It doesn't seem to save lives. The MMR is vastly superior.

No - not through the NHS. There is no source of single licensed measles or mumps vaccine in the UK, but there are some private clinics offering single vaccines.

These vaccines have not been licensed, which means that there has not been any British testing on their safety or on how well they work.

The single vaccines being offered privately do not give such high antibodies as the strain in MMR, although there is no evidence to show that it doesn't give adequate protection against the disease.

There were also concerns about two types of mumps vaccine being offered by private clinics. The first was manufactured from the Urabe strain of mumps which has a type of viral meningitis as a side effect, and the second was a Swiss made vaccine (using the Rubini strain of mumps virus) which gives children poor protection against the disease.

Both of these vaccines are no longer available in the UK.

http://www.mmrthefacts.nhs.uk/library/canchild.php

Fass, you seem to be arguing against a position I don't hold. Let me make it simple. I believe in the MMR, I believe that it offers the best protection against the diseases it is supposed to prevent. I don't believe it causes autism.

I also believe that we live in a free society and that parents have ultimate say over the care of their children and as such the triple vaccine should be offered as some parents are unwilling to allow their children to have the MMR and some protection is better than none.

Fass, you seem to be arguing against a position I don't hold. Let me make it simple. I believe in the MMR, I believe that it offers the best protection against the diseases it is supposed to prevent. I don't believe it causes autism.

I also believe that we live in a free society and that parents have ultimate say over the care of their children and as such the triple vaccine should be offered as some parents are unwilling to allow their children to have the MMR and some protection is better than none.

So you want to offer the untested, and thus unsafe, to placate the ignorance of some instead of remedying it? Even when we do in fact have something safe and (cost-)effective?

Because there is no risk of an epidemic if they just have the one MMR jab. Why should taxpayers fork out millions of pounds in extra vacination costs because a few parents refuse to accept the clear and indisputable truth?

Medicine should be given on the basis of necessity, not hysteria.

I hear this line of reasoning a lot. why should taxpayers fork out millions of pound yadada blahablarrgh etc...

We all pay taxes, we all pay a set amount of taxes, our taxes will change or not when the goverment decides. We do not pay extra taxes when a situation like this arrives, whats this line of reasoning about then?

As for deciding what our tax money goes on, well the answer to that is everything that the state deiceds it is responsible for. So if you don't want to pay tax for our health service, or for our prison service, or to keep the roads clean, or to police our streets, or so that our goverment can wage war on other countires or whatever then don't pay tax period.

If of course you take this option then also don't be supprised if you end up in jail being supported by my tax £.

I think it's fine if parents want to give in to hysteria, they should be free to go ahead and get the three jabs done privately, they can pay the financial cost themselves. If it's that important to them. It is better than the child losing out completely.

However, if the parents don't get their child fully vaccinated they should be taken to court if their child dies. I think there should be room within current laws to charge them with manslaughter. (I may well be wrong there, but I would be fine with an ammendment to the law to allow this charge!)

That's a slippery road and one that endangers human rights. What about omega3 oils. Current thinking says it is very good for the growing brain, and helpfull in children with symptoms of ADHD. For both of these reasons my children have this fish oli forced upon them.

Now what about those neglective parents that don't do this. Could they be charged if they have stupid kids?

I fully agree with people having the MMR and personaly feel that parents who don't do this are foolish. However for these people there is no other reason apart from moneytery, that seperate jabs cannot be supplied.

I also feel that Christianity is a foolsih religion, and I have a personal dislike for cheese that is not strong. I have no right though to punish Christians for their foolishness, nor lovers of weak and tastless cheese, nor foolish parents who deny their children the MMR.

So you want to offer the untested, and thus unsafe, to placate the ignorance of some instead of remedying it? Even when we do in fact have something safe and (cost-)effective?

As I said earlier, with the help of the media, these views can be changed but it won't happen overnight.

As to the unsafe bit, all the site says is that they are unlicensed in the UK, this doesn't mean the haven't been tested and found safe elsewhere.

As I said earlier, with the help of the media, these views can be changed but it won't happen overnight.

Sending dual signals is not going to cure ignorance.

As to the unsafe bit, all the site says is that they are unlicensed in the UK, this doesn't mean the haven't been tested and found safe elsewhere.

It also says that several of them have shown to have side-effects, or be quite ineffective.

Sending dual signals is not going to cure ignorance.

So I am to assume you prefer sick and dying kids to the possibility the some people may remain ignorant?



It also says that several of them have shown to have side-effects, or be quite ineffective.

Aspirin has side-effects, should we prevent people using that? As to the ineffective bit, some protection is better than none where the parent is totally unwilling to accept the MMR.

So I am to assume you prefer sick and dying kids to the possibility the some people may remain ignorant?

The separate vaccines are going to give us that anyway. As I said, your suggestion is a very, very poor solution.

Aspirin has side-effects, should we prevent people using that?

Had Aspirin been discovered today, it never would have been made available over the counter. Its side-effects would have been found unacceptable.

As to the ineffective bit, some protection is better than none where the parent is totally unwilling to accept the MMR.

Their ignorance is not going to be cured if we offer them a poor way out.

The separate vaccines are going to give us that anyway. As I said, your suggestion is a very, very poor solution.

Give me a better one that doesn't infringe on the rights of parents.

Had Aspirin been discovered today, it never would have been made available over the counter. Its side-effects would have been found unacceptable.


HAhahhahhahh hahahhahah go ahead and open up your medicine cabinet, take out at random any three differant medications and read about the active ingredients, and the side effects.

All drugs have side effects most of which I personly would call unaceptable, but we accept them for the benifits they bring, and are prepared to take the risks of any side effects.

Really go ahead and do what I suggest, see how many medicines effect your bowles as a side effect.

HAhahhahhahh hahahhahah go ahead and open up your medicine cabinet, take out at random any three differant medications and read about the active ingredients, and the side effects.

All drugs have side effects most of which I personly would call unaceptable, but we accept them for the benifits they bring, and are prepared to take the risks of any side effects.

Really go ahead and do what I suggest, see how many medicines effect your bowles as a side effect.

Diarrhoea is a little different from internal bleeding.

Btw, Fass is a doctor. ;)

HAhahhahhahh hahahhahah go ahead and open up your medicine cabinet, take out at random any three differant medications and read about the active ingredients, and the side effects.

All drugs have side effects most of which I personly would call unaceptable, but we accept them for the benifits they bring, and are prepared to take the risks of any side effects.

Do not attempt to lecture me on basic pharmacology. For something given and most often taken as a pain medication against very minor aches and pains, the side-effects are unacceptable by modern standard. Just 'cause you give chemo to people with cancer, doesn't mean you give it to people with warts. Medicine is always risk versus benefit. Giving something with as many serious side-effects as Aspirin for a simple headache is quite indefensible seen in what little one gains from it compared to, for instance, paracetamol, while giving it in much, much lower doses as a thrombocyte-inhibiting anti-coagulant as part of either primary or secondary cardiovascular injury prevention is quite justified.

So, yes, giving Aspirin for minor aches and pains is silly, and never would have been approved. Nor would it have been made available over the counter, outside the reach of the supervision of a physician.

Really go ahead and do what I suggest, see how many medicines effect your bowles as a side effect.

Go ahead. Do get a grasp of basic pharmacology and medicine before you open your yap.

Give me a better one that doesn't infringe on the rights of parents.

Education. It's worked before. It will work again. It will not work if we undermine it, though.

Education. It's worked before. It will work again. It will not work if we undermine it, though.

I'm talking short term here, 20 years down the line noone will care about this storm in a teacup but right now children are being put at risk so unless you advocate Clockwork Orange style indoctrination for parents education won't work quickly enough. People can be very pigheaded when it comes to the welfare of their children.

I'm talking short term here, 20 years down the line noone will care about this storm in a teacup but right now children are being put at risk so unless you advocate Clockwork Orange style indoctrination for parents education won't work quickly enough. People can be very pigheaded when it comes to the welfare of their children.
So your solution is to give them a more expensive, unlicenced, ineffective treatment that doesn't actually protect the children properly anyway but sends the message that MMR isn't safe?

Do not attempt to lecture me on basic pharmacology. For something given and most often taken as a pain medication against very minor aches and pains, the side-effects are unacceptable by modern standard. Just 'cause you give chemo to people with cancer, doesn't mean you give it to people with warts. Medicine is always risk versus benefit. Giving something with as many serious side-effects as Aspirin for a simple headache is quite indefensible seen in what little one gains from it compared to, for instance, paracetamol, while giving it in much, much lower doses as an thrombocyte-inhibiting anti-coagulant as part of either primary or secondary cardiovascular injury prevention is quite justified.

So, yes, giving Aspirin for minor aches and pains is silly, and never would have been approved. Nor would it have been given over the counter.



Go ahead. Do get a grasp of basic pharmacology and medicine before you open your yap.


Heheh soooo I understand your a Doctor

So then it would be prudent of me to belive and take on board what you say, and I shall, you being more expert in that filed than I.

However if you can answer me this one question. If Asprin is so bad, and would not be approved nowadays, why then is it still freely avaliable, and not even on prescription? Why have we, the non doctors of the World, not had a re-education program to warn us of the dangers of this drug?

You are correct of course diareehrea(however you spell it) as a side effect may well be worth the risk of the medication. I belive though that I made the point that all medication has side effects most of which I personaly would call unaceptable, but which we deem acceptable for their benifits.

As to getting a basic grasp of pharmacolgy and medicine, sorry did my comments not show that?

So your solution is to give them a more expensive, unlicenced, ineffective treatment that doesn't actually protect the children properly anyway but sends the message that MMR isn't safe?

I was asking for a better solution, so far all you have done is say parents not getting MMR = teh bads. Why don't you come up with something constructive that stays within the laws and freedoms of the UK. I'll be more than happy to alter my position if you can provide me with a better alternative.

I was asking for a better solution, so far all you have done is say parents not getting MMR = teh bads. Why don't you come up with something constructive that stays within the laws and freedoms of the UK. I'll be more than happy to alter my position if you can provide me with a better alternative.
Fass has - you educate them. You have dismissed this as unworkable, not us.

Any other solution, including allowing them to have triple vacinations, sends the signal that MMR is not safe and so undermines any education programme. In addition to this, the fact that single vacinations are not as effective means that you still risk children dying from preventable diseases; this is if they have any vacination at all. That is a crime.

Giving in to unfounded hysteria is never a good thing. The facts say one thing, and if the parents opinions say another, then they should be held accountable for risking their children's lives.

Fass has - you educate them. You have dismissed this as unworkable, not us.

Any other solution, including allowing them to have triple vacinations, sends the signal that MMR is not safe and so undermines any education programme. In addition to this, the fact that single vacinations are not as effective means that you still risk children dying from preventable diseases; this is if they have any vacination at all. That is a crime.

Giving in to unfounded hysteria is never a good thing. The facts say one thing, and if the parents opinions say another, then they should be held accountable for risking their children's lives.

The "educate them" solution doesn't work. And I can prove it, we are having this discussion. The UK government has been try to educate parents about MMR ever since the Lancet article in 1998 and after 8 years parents still question the safety of the innoculation. One of the main problem with the attempt to teach people may be the fact that virtually no-one trusts a word the Labour government says on any subject, never mind something as important as their kids.

This is why I dismiss education as a solution but if you can provide evidence to the contrary then I'll listen.

Heheh soooo I understand your a Doctor

So then it would be prudent of me to belive and take on board what you say, and I shall, you being more expert in that filed than I.

However if you can answer me this one question. If Asprin is so bad, and would not be approved nowadays, why then is it still freely avaliable, and not even on prescription? Why have we, the non doctors of the World, not had a re-education program to warn us of the dangers of this drug?

If I got my way, it would be pulled from the open market. In fact, in Sweden it is very rare to find someone eating Aspirin for simple aches and pains not part of a large rheumatoid syndrome, as we have had education campaignes that have made people move away from acetysalisylic acid and to paracetamol or ibuprofen or any other safer option. My local pharmacy doesn't even stock it as over the counter, but just as an anti-coagulant, and even then you need a prescription to get it.

Why it isn't like that in your country, well, I cannot answer. It should be like that.

You are correct of course diareehrea(however you spell it) as a side effect may well be worth the risk of the medication.

The primary side-effect one is worried about with Aspirin is bleeding. All the way from ulcers, to cerebral haemorrhage.

I belive though that I made the point that all medication has side effects most of which I personaly would call unaceptable, but which we deem acceptable for their benifits.

Again, you have to look at what you're treating. Giving someone morphine against a common headache is quite effective, but is it acceptable seeing as morphine is addictive and also a respiratory suppressant (not to mention the many other side-effects it has)? Of course not. Giving it to someone with terminal cancer suffering of excruciating pain due to bone metastases? Yes. The gains there outweigh the risks.

As to getting a basic grasp of pharmacolgy and medicine, sorry did my comments not show that?

No, they quite frankly don't.

Fass has - you educate them. You have dismissed this as unworkable, not us.

Any other solution, including allowing them to have triple vacinations, sends the signal that MMR is not safe and so undermines any education programme. In addition to this, the fact that single vacinations are not as effective means that you still risk children dying from preventable diseases; this is if they have any vacination at all. That is a crime.

Giving in to unfounded hysteria is never a good thing. The facts say one thing, and if the parents opinions say another, then they should be held accountable for risking their children's lives.


Yeah but we can make facts say anything, show me these facts and I'll bet I can get some expert to claim the opposite is true. So then it is a question on which 'fact' to belive.

Education though is a great answer for lots of lifes ills. Hehh at least maybe that way we can all make an informed choice huh!

Yeah but we can make facts say anything, show me these facts and I'll bet I can get some expert to claim the opposite is true. So then it is a question on which 'fact' to belive.

Peer-review. Learn what it is. You seem to know very little about medicine, it seems.

Giving in to unfounded hysteria is never a good thing. The facts say one thing, and if the parents opinions say another, then they should be held accountable for risking their children's lives.

Sorry, I just re-read your post and noticed this.

You have to be very carful with this train of thought as any legislation brought in to enforce this view won't last 5 minutes when held up to the right to freedom of religion. Jehovahs' Witnesses don't allow lifesaving blood transfusions for their children and their right to refuse is protected by law.

If I got my way, it would be pulled from the open market. In fact, in Sweden it is very rare to find someone eating Aspirin for simple aches and pains not part of a large rheumatoid syndrome, as we have had education campaignes that have made people move away from acetysalisylic acid and to paracetamol or ibuprofen or any other safer option. My local pharmacy doesn't even stock it as over the counter, but just as an anti-coagulant, and even then you need a prescription to get it.

Why it isn't like that in your country, well, I cannot answer. It should be like that.



The primary side-effect one is worried about with Aspirin is bleeding. All the way from ulcers, to cerebral haemorrhage.



Again, you have to look at what you're treating. Giving someone morphine against a common headache is quite effective, but is it acceptable seeing as morphine is addictive and also a respiratory suppressant (not to mention the many other side-effects it has)? Of course not. Giving it to someone with terminal cancer suffering of excruciating pain due to bone metastases? Yes. The gains there outweigh the risks.



No, they quite frankly don't.


Heh fine then I guess; one thing though.
You said:

'Medicine is always risk versus benefit'

Whislt I said:


'all medication has side effects most of which I personaly would call unaceptable, but which we deem acceptable for their benifits.'

I don't know about you but it looks to me that we actualy said the same thing.

Yeah you are right though, I only know as much about medicine as any other man my age not trained to be a Dr. And so do not bother to read the peer reviewed data that is easily avaliable to me as all of them long medical words just sorta bugger me brain up.
:)

Heh fine then I guess; one thing though.
You said:

'Medicine is always risk versus benefit'

Whislt I said:


'all medication has side effects most of which I personaly would call unaceptable, but which we deem acceptable for their benifits.'

No, what you said was "HAhahhahhahh hahahhahah go ahead and open up your medicine cabinet, take out at random any three differant medications and read about the active ingredients, and the side effects." Of course they have side-effects. By modern standards, Aspirin would not have been made avalaible without prescription to treat aches and pains.

I don't know about you but it looks to me that we actualy said the same thing.

You seemed to be arguing, in quite the infantile way, I might add, that since other drugs have side-effects, this particular one's should be overlooked.

Yeah you are right though, I only know as much about medicine as any other man my age not trained to be a Dr. And so do not bother to read the peer reviewed data that is easily avaliable to me as all of them long medical words just sorta bugger me brain up.
:)

http://www.m-w.com

Hahah aahhhhh Dr,

I conseed, thanks for the link, and you are correct my initial response to your post about asprin was infantile. Hehe I can be like at times and can't help laffing offten at the percived stupidity of others but offten at myself. So for that and for any insult to you applogise!

Babies get MMR shots. Nothing to be scared about, unless you're one of those nuts that doesn't believe in vaccinating your kids. I have a family like that on my caseload...their two daughters have gotten no immunizations, they only eat organic food, they only get holistic treatments for sicknesses, they don't go to the doctor, they don't associate with other children, and their parents are home-schooling them. I hope I don't meet the girls when they're older...no telling what they'll be like. If they're still alive.

Here's a few positions about MMR's(and, for that matter, many other vaccines)that ya'll seem to have forgotten:
One is that not everyone who doesn't have their kid(s) get the MMR isn't some paranoid nut-nay, for their are many who are ignorant, completely idiotic and foolish yuppies who feel that as mumps, measles, and rubella are "extinct"(or, at least, "practically extinct")in their native nations, and since it's highly unlikely that their children will ever go to a 3rd world country where they still exist, they don't need to have their children go through the "trauma" of having the shot.:headbang: This viewpoint is apparently quite common here in the U.S. as it has had more than one news segment devoted to it. Bunch of nuts are almost deserving a Darwin award, IMO(or atleast a Dunce hat).
Another(and slightly more valid viewpoint, albeit not always accurate)is in regards to 2 things:How old is this vaccine? How is it made? While I'm not certain if the same can be said for MMR, in some cases(like with polio), the vaccine being recieved can be around 50 years old. I don't know about the rest of you, but a logical question that forms in my mind is: Does it still work? Another is: If it still works, how well does it work? And another: Being so old, has it changed at all(in regards to side-effects); if so, how? The other part(How is it made?)mainly has to do with the manufacturing of new vaccines. Again, while I can't say for certain that this applies to MMR, I have heard this applied to other vaccines. As time goes on, the methods of manufacturing change, and while this can often be a good thing, (supposedly)in the case of vaccines, this can also be a bad thing. According to some, the drug companies are now putting in hormones(estrogen, testosterone, etc.) and other "stuff" into these vaccines with little regard to the side-effects that this may cause(or perhaps with lots of consideration-remember, their first and foremost priority is not to help people get well, but to make money for themselves). Of course, this may just be the same kind of hooey as those who claim that MMR will give them polio or autism or whatever, but since no real investigation(to my knowledge)has been held to see if this claim is true or not, it does make one wonder. Then again, it can easily be argued that if hormone-filled meat and meat by-products "doesn't hurt anybody" then neither will hormone filled vaccines.
Fass, since you're our resident doctor person(any other doctor people can answer, too-it's just Fass seems to be the main one participating in this thread[I think]), has any of the aforementioned stuff above ever been brought to either your own or a colleague's attention? Also, I don't suppose you happen to be able to provide a link concerning the dangers of aspirin? Especially in comparison to generic "tylenol"(pain-relievers that don't always use aspirin)brands. I have a relative who seems to think(in the most basic of terms)that aspirin is "good" and that the generic stuff is "bad". Something to do with not knowing what ingredients are in the generics, yet somehow knowing what is in aspirin(and knowing that they are "good"). :confused: I don't understand his viewpoint, either. It may simply be cultural programming.

I am a little scared, there have been cases in my state (I think about 9) but I have some weird thing where the MMR vaccine doesn't work on me, I had it twice when I was a kid, and then once in highschool, and once with each pregnancy, for some reason when they do my blood work, it says I am "non-immune" and they assume that I haven't had the shot, even though I can prove that I have had it at least 5 times, they give it to me again. I am more worried about my girls, they said once that if the shot doesn't work on me, that it might not work on them, and since they have auto immune disorders, getting the mumps might not be a great experience for them.

If you get them when you're young you don't get them when you're old. If you get them when you're old you don't have young.

Starting to spread across the US.

well, i don't live in the us, i don't think it would be a huge loss if i didn't reproduce, i've had the MMR vaccine anyway and i haven't yet been diagnosed as autistic. overall mumps doesn't bother me all that much. is it life threatening?

is it life threatening?
it can be.

well, i don't live in the us, i don't think it would be a huge loss if i didn't reproduce, i've had the MMR vaccine anyway and i haven't yet been diagnosed as autistic. overall mumps doesn't bother me all that much. is it life threatening?
It can be but very seldom is. Usually like a bad cold with swollen saliva glands making the face look like a balloon. It's usually a childhood disease and seems to have little residual effect if contracted at that age. The biggest problem is for men who get it after puberty. In some (not all) of those cases it lowers fertility. There is a shot that is given to most youth. But if it is given to a young child it takes at least a second shot to gain adult immunity.