OK, So I Lied...

More on vaccines.

I have taken no small pleasure in following the recent skirmishes over MMR, and vaccinations in general. I enjoy a good debate, but must confess to occasionally being driven to distraction by what I have found.

I am continually frustrated by the terribly closed minded attitudes I have encountered among those with feet firmly planted in the ant-vacc lobby. I suspect they feel the same about those of us who are pro-vacc.

We both cling to our evidence, and both are ready to deny the strength of the other's claims.

Fair enough. History is full of such claim and counter claim. What disappoints me is that, to my mind, the pro-vacc 'evidence' meets certain arbitrary criteria that define the strength of evidence, and the anti-vacc material does not.

To which, the anti-vacc lobby cry "foul"; the evidence is fake, it's a conspiracy.

Playing Devil's Advocate, if that were so, might not their evidence also be fake? Might the Hero of the anti-vacc lobby, Wakefield, be, in fact a liar of the highest order?

No; they will not allow it.

One rule for the goose, and another for the gander.

I am also slightly disappointed by the regularity that debate turns to name calling, or nonsense verse:

"Oho!' said the pot to the kettle;
"You are dirty and ugly and black!
Sure no one would think you were metal,
Except when you're given a crack."

"Not so! not so! kettle said to the pot;
" 'Tis your own
dirty image you see;
For I am so clean -without blemish or blot-
That your blackness is mirrored in me"

This is a reply, out of context lifted from JABS. They seem to have a great number of regular contributors, mostly specialising in selective interpretation of facts - tho in the interest of fairness, I mean selective in that it differs from my interpretation - and 'clever' insults. By all means, pay them a visit. Paranoia strikes deep, and all that...

As a counterpoint, may I recommend JABSLoonies. I enjoy this blog, recently discovered, immensly, tho, again, in the interests of fairness, this is largely because I agree with the author. And it's funny.

The debate rages on...

My current tuppence worth:

I had measles, mumps and rubella as a child. Yes, I'm fine, thanks for asking. But I still remember them, and they were shit. I did not enjoy them one iota; why would you wanna put anyone through that?

If, as has been claimed, MMR cause autism, why has there not been a decline in autism cases in line with the rise in measles cases and decreased uptake of MMR vaccination?

Why, as so many commenters claim, when vaccinated children get one of these diseases, do they not stop and consider how the disease has come to be prevalent in the community at all.The fact that vaccinated individuals can still fall ill is not news, but claims that because they do, vaccination doesn't work seems only to shore up the idea that vaccination doesn't work if people don't get vaccinated. You don't seriously expect me to believe that the disease is only prevalent in the vaccinated, do you?

Anyone?

Anyone?

Bueller?

Seriously, if any of my readers have strong beliefs re: MMR and autism, why have cases not gone down with the fall in MMR uptake?

If I Opened My Heart, There'd Be No Room For Air...

Back On Nights...

Maybe some good news in the personal life of Shroom....

However, what is really cranking my handle at the moment is the ongoing furore about MMR. For those of you disinterested, check here, or thereabouts. I am almost incandescent with rage; however, some of my anger makes me seem decidedly right wing. So what follows is mostly rant, based on some small professional knowledge, but mostly bile.

You have been warned.

Vaccines. Named after the humble cow (vacca) by Pasteur, in honour of Jenner and his work with cowpox. Jenner noticed that milkmaids, while oft afflicted with cowpox, rarely, if ever contracted the far more deadly smallpox. So he experimented, by inoculating healthy subjects with pus from cowpox pustules. The rest, as they say is history. Contemporary records show that people were against such odd behaviour, even then - cartoons depict subjects sprouting small cattle from the inoculations. Fortunately, science held sway.

Does it work? There hasn't been a recorded case of smallpox since the late 70s.

When I was a little Shroom, there weren't so many vaccines about. I had measles, mumps and rubella. It was encouraged, as was chickenpox. If any of you know anyone who has had chickenpox as an adult, you'll know why it's better to have it as a nipper.

Enter MMR. An all in one vaccine to prevent these diseases. Why bother? I had 'em, you probably had 'em... so what?

Because these diseases kill people. Not many, but that ain't much comfort if yours is one of 'em.

And then doubt was cast on the safety of the vaccine. The 'evidence' produced was seized upon by the ever rabid media - in this country at least- and hundreds and thousands of parents voted with their feet. And their children's health.

The problem here is that, as doctors, we have a duty to do what is right for our patients; and if that includes breaking the news that a widely used medication is unsafe, so be it. If I thought the man at the centre of this whole mess was acting in what he genuinely believed was the public good, I'd be less scathing. But I don't think he was.

His research was shonky, and his practices questionable to say the least. And yet the establishment failed in it's duty; the checks and balances, designed to prevent this failed. Medical research is under the cosh a little at the mo', cos it turns out people fudge their research. Well, colour me taken aback. This has always gone on - Mendel almost certainly faked his all too perfect results, and the Thalidomide team hedged theirs in an attempt to prove safety that was to have disastrous consequences.

But now the idea is out there, and there are a number of people who will never be convinced of the wrong-ness of this charlatan's research. Any other evidence will be dismissed as Government cover up; we're back to pictures of cows sprouting from forearms.

But how far can a Government go to enforce the health of a nation? If parents don't want to vaccinate their kids, however ill advised I may think it, can we force them?

Maybe not, but it makes it that much harder to sympathise with the mother who's child is critically ill with pertussis (something I've never seen before either), who explains they decided not to get the kids jabbed after reading the Daily Mail.

By all means make an informed choice, but for Christ's sake, make sure it really is informed.