Anti Vaxxers

[Scully]

26 minutes ago, grrclark said:

It’s not altogether surprising though.

I’d quite happily get a jag early doors, i’ve quite willingly eaten and drunk all sorts of stuff all over the world without really having a clue what is in it.  Any number of which might have done me a mischief.

I have to inject myself weekly with a couple of drugs that can do all manners of mischief to myself, but the alternative sucks more.

All manners of bad things might happen every time I leave the house or carry sharp things on the stairs.

If even a fraction of what I read on this forum is true there is a Shamima Begum wannabe hiding around every corner just waiting to blow me up too.

I reckon that after the trials have been done on any vaccine and there have been at least 30,000+ human guinea pigs who walked that path first then the odds are decent, just like they are for everything else.

🙂 I agree. If I have the chance I’ll have it ASAP; I just want to get back to getting on with my life.....not that I’ve stopped really, I just feel hampered by other people’s anxieties.  
 

[7daysinaweek]

@mel b3

That is very true Mel, it is a most disconcerting thing to see a very poorly child and life can hang in the balance. Fortunately deaths are rare and prompt presentation and treatment within hours improves the outcomes.

5 hours ago, grrclark said:

It’s not altogether surprising though.

I’d quite happily get a jag early doors, i’ve quite willingly eaten and drunk all sorts of stuff all over the world without really having a clue what is in it.  Any number of which might have done me a mischief.

I have to inject myself weekly with a couple of drugs that can do all manners of mischief to myself, but the alternative sucks more.

All manners of bad things might happen every time I leave the house or carry sharp things on the stairs.

If even a fraction of what I read on this forum is true there is a Shamima Begum wannabe hiding around every corner just waiting to blow me up too.

I reckon that after the trials have been done on any vaccine and there have been at least 30,000+ human guinea pigs who walked that path first then the odds are decent, just like they are for everything else.

 

5 hours ago, grrclark said:

I find this a really fascinating conversation and it highlights to me that despite the massively increased reservoir of knowledge available to people via the Internet, we simply gravitate towards towards those that share a similar mind.  Instead of having a couple of likemined souls in the local pub, social club or whatever we have access to a much broader group of similar mined people and that is a much more powerful base from which to confirm our biases.

I have prattled on about it on PW before, but we are living through a social revolution.  No different in many ways to the Reformation or Enlightenment periods in respect to the changes to the cultural and belief structures.

I feel in many ways what you say allows for more 'anchoring bias' to be more prevalent. People then rely much more on the first piece of verbal or text information without seeking further information. This is particularly worrying when the information seeker is directed straight to a misinformation source. I am aware that mumsnet has been a major cause for concern in relation to vaccines and neonatal/infant care in the past.

If we stopped to analyse every aspect of our daily lives society would fail very quickly. I suspect what Scully may be referring to is peoples anxieties that are largely driven by the media which to my mind characterise many aspects of the current climate in a disproportionate and pervasive manner. Like yourself and Scully I will be having the vaccine without delay.

 

5 hours ago, Scully said:

🙂 I agree. If I have the chance I’ll have it ASAP; I just want to get back to getting on with my life.....not that I’ve stopped really, I just feel hampered by other people’s anxieties.  
 

 

[hod]

19 hours ago, Vince Green said:

My workmate / near neighbour and his wife had a daughter within a few days of our son being born so they grew up together, went to all the same play groups etc.

Alan and his wife never allowed their daughter to be vaccinated for anything

Only reason the girl never got anything serious/fatal is likely because everyone else is vaccinated.... not doing it is nuts. 

[WalkedUp]

6 hours ago, 7daysinaweek said:

I am aware that mumsnet has been a major cause for concern in relation to vaccines and neonatal/infant care in the past

I would agree to this, and google is to blame. If you search for any common childhood condition mums’net is usually high up the search results. The content is some fool’s utter tripe but given the same status as verified medical advice based upon expert opinion and peer reviewed studies performed over many years. Anyone who uses mumsnet for medical advice is frankly a fool. 

[AVB]

I wasn’t convinced about the MMR vaccine so forked out and had my children vaccinated with the three separate vaccinations. not doing anything is stupid imo. 
 

[TIGHTCHOKE]

7 minutes ago, AVB said:

I wasn’t convinced about the MMR vaccine so forked out and had my children vaccinated with the three separate vaccinations. not doing anything is stupid imo. 
 

Yes, indeed just hoping or relying on everyone else to get their children vaccinated is poor practice.

[JohnfromUK]

20 hours ago, chrisjpainter said:

Nothing makes me more angry than anti vaxxers. Generally I'm quite happy to dismiss conspiracy theorists and let them get on with it. You wanna believe in lizard people, aliens in Roswell, Reds under the bed, Kim Jung Un's dead/kidnapped by the CIA, fine. If you want to believe phoney treatments and the healing power of crystals, whatever. But when you start to endanger your own kids and the vulnerable people around you, because of idiot beliefs based on false science, that's when I struggle to control myself. Irresponsible, dangerous and stupid.

/\  THIS

I'm happy to volunteer for the early queue.

[discobob]

27 minutes ago, AVB said:

I wasn’t convinced about the MMR vaccine so forked out and had my children vaccinated with the three separate vaccinations. not doing anything is stupid imo. 

We done the same - My wife's former job before we had children brought her into regular contact with autistic children and their families - late 90's early 00's and there were quite a few that pinned it down to having the MMR jab and these were well educated people, indeed wealthy as well. No smoke without fire and all that. We have also heard the same from people that we know as well.

A couple of years ago, some forms came home from school for some jabs - my wife read it but didn't get round to signing them and asked me to do it. It transpired that the letter on the front had only mentioned 3 jabs, but there was 4 forms - the fourth being MMR. I just signed them all. The lad was 13/14 at the time - and had the jab in school and my wife was distraught. So has our youngest now as he has gone through that age as well. 

In relation to the MMR, why hasn't the government  over the years come out and given the concerned parents (rightly or wrongly) the option to have the individual jabs - at a cost. The price of the individual jabs through a private provider will exclude many poorer families (this also includes getting to the clinics x number of times) who then won't have any immunity full stop??

 

[grrclark]

3 minutes ago, discobob said:

We done the same - My wife's former job before we had children brought her into regular contact with autistic children and their families - late 90's early 00's and there were quite a few that pinned it down to having the MMR jab and these were well educated people, indeed wealthy as well. No smoke without fire and all that. We have also heard the same from people that we know as well.

A couple of years ago, some forms came home from school for some jabs - my wife read it but didn't get round to signing them and asked me to do it. It transpired that the letter on the front had only mentioned 3 jabs, but there was 4 forms - the fourth being MMR. I just signed them all. The lad was 13/14 at the time - and had the jab in school and my wife was distraught. So has our youngest now as he has gone through that age as well. 

In relation to the MMR, why hasn't the government  over the years come out and given the concerned parents (rightly or wrongly) the option to have the individual jabs - at a cost. The price of the individual jabs through a private provider will exclude many poorer families (this also includes getting to the clinics x number of times) who then won't have any immunity full stop??

 

Because if they offer this as a sop to those who believe the misinformation peddled it gives more weight to the misinformation.

[discobob]

1 minute ago, grrclark said:

Because if they offer this as a sop to those who believe the misinformation peddled it gives more weight to the misinformation.

Like they did with masks in public???😷😁

This isn't something that has just gone away - this has been going on for years now - our eldest is 17 and it predates him by a number of years.....

[7daysinaweek]

34 minutes ago, grrclark said:

Because if they offer this as a sop to those who believe the misinformation peddled it gives more weight to the misinformation.

You beat me to it grr

Also separate MMR vaccines that are offered by private clinics in the uk do not have a marketing authorisation and are given 'off licence'

Consenting to have the separate MMR separate from a private clinic is puts the child at increased risks. Firstly the separate vaccines are unlicensed in the UK, this is what we term as 'off label' they do not have a marketing authorisation for the UK which means they have no safety and efficacy checks. (pre and post marketing surveillance) Legally the manufacturer is extremely unlikely to be liable from any harm resulting from the 'off label' vaccine unless there is proven to be a manufacturing defect arising that resulted in harm.

Also the recipient and wider herding are at risk from other forms of illness from the break period between the vaccines.

 

Is the vaccine safe?

There are now a large number of studies that show no evidence at all of any link between the MMR vaccine and autism. Autism is a developmental disorder which is usually diagnosed in pre-school children. The original research which suggested a link has now been discredited. The National Autistic Society in the UK  has issued a statement saying that ‘there is no link between autism and the MMR vaccine’.

Below is a list of studies and their findings. Click on the links to view the abstracts (summaries) of the scientific papers:

• A Danish study of over 650,000 children found no increased risk for autism after MMR vaccination (Hviid et al., 2019 )
• An analysis of studies involving over 1 million children found no relationship between vaccination and autism. There was no evidence of a link between the MMR vaccine and autism development in children, and the study also found no evidence of a link between thiomersal and autism development (Taylor et al., 2014 ).
• There is no increased incidence of autism in children vaccinated with MMR compared with unvaccinated children (Farrington et al., 2001 ; Madsen and Vestergaard, 2004 ).
• There is no clustering of the onset of symptoms of autism in the period following MMR vaccination (Taylor et al., 1999 ; Mäkelä et al., 2002 ).
• The increase in the reported incidence of autism preceded the use of MMR in the UK (Taylor et al., 1999 ).
• The incidence of autism continued to rise after 1993 in Japan despite withdrawal of MMR (Honda et al., 2005 )
• There is no correlation between the rate of autism and MMR vaccine coverage in either the UK (Kaye et al., 2001 ) or the USA (Dales et al., 2001 )
• There is no difference between the proportion of children with a regressive form of autism (i.e. who appear to develop normally but then lose speech and social skills between around 15 and 30 months) who develop autism having had MMR compared with those who develop autism without vaccination (Fombonne and Chakrabarti, 2001 ; Taylor et al., 2002 ).
• There is no difference between the proportion of children developing autism having had MMR who have associated bowel symptoms compared with those who develop autism without vaccination (Fombonne and Chakrabarti, 2001 ; Taylor et al., 2002 )
• No vaccine virus can be detected in children with autism using the most sensitive methods available (Afzal et al., 2006 ; D’Souza et al., 2006 ).

The MMR vaccine is given later than some of the other vaccines in the UK schedule because it works better then. In the short film below, Professor Octavio Ramilo explains why this is. In other countries the vaccine may be given at 9 months. The MMR vaccine can safely be given to babies younger than this, especially if there is a measles outbreak.

 

 

Page last updated: 

Tuesday, July 2

Edited July 29, 2020 by 7daysinaweek

[discobob]

@7daysinaweek Isn't there a booster jab for MMR?

There is a rhetoric attached to it all that is quite unsettling - remember there are lies, damn lies and statistics!! After all, 95% of all women prefer x brand of shampoo (of a sample of 67 people 😉) 

I am not saying your wrong, and indeed I am not saying I am right - but people have concerns (as I put above - rightly or wrongly) and some sort of mitigation would, albeit not perfectly taking into account what you put, increase the immunity in the population

Edited July 29, 2020 by discobob
typo

[grrclark]

Putting in place 'mitigation' is tantamount to saying that there is substance to the antivaxxer argument.  The answer is not to try to softly placate those who peddle the misinformation, the answer is to call them out as being wholly wrong.

If anybody still claims there is a link between MMR and autism then they're entirely wrong and they need to be told that. No pussyfooting around people for fear of sparing their feelings or pandering to the 'everyone is entitled to their opinion', they are wrong.  The rhetoric around it is misguided and wrong, and quite frankly irresponsibly dangerous.

This is massively different to soft polling of people for a shampoo asking if it makes your hair feel soft, it is rigorous peer reviewed objective scientific study over millions of people. To suggest that the studies referenced above are akin to lies, damned lies and statistics is massively ignorant.

 

 

[treetree]

3 hours ago, AVB said:

I wasn’t convinced about the MMR vaccine so forked out and had my children vaccinated with the three separate vaccinations. not doing anything is stupid imo. 
 

And this is the quick win that would solve many of the issues. I don't claim any knowledge on the subject, but giving this cocktail in one go, presumably for cost reasons, seems unnecessary.

[grrclark]

13 minutes ago, treetree said:

And this is the quick win that would solve many of the issues. I don't claim any knowledge on the subject, but giving this cocktail in one go, presumably for cost reasons, seems unnecessary.

Without having a go at you personaly, this is the sort of comment that is typical in the discussion of vaccines.

A statement that you have no knowledge of the subject, yet you profess what the answer should be on the basis of a presumption that you have made despite having no knowledge on the subject.

People who absolutely understand the subject and have been involved in studies and trials over 20+ years say that a combined jab is safe and the way to do it, but that huge factual body of evidence is dismissed and instead a quick win based on absolutely no substance or any understanding at all is advocated.

Edited July 29, 2020 by grrclark

[Gordon R]

There are a fair number of decent posts, but with all due respect to Scully, grrclark, chrisjpainter and others, 7daysinaweek has provided the most detailed posts.

I have read the posts with interest, as a vaccine may soon be on offer. I will be near the front of the queue.

[discobob]

1 hour ago, grrclark said:

Putting in place 'mitigation' is tantamount to saying that there is substance to the antivaxxer argument.  The answer is not to try to softly placate those who peddle the misinformation, the answer is to call them out as being wholly wrong.

If anybody still claims there is a link between MMR and autism then they're entirely wrong and they need to be told that. No pussyfooting around people for fear of sparing their feelings or pandering to the 'everyone is entitled to their opinion', they are wrong.  The rhetoric around it is misguided and wrong, and quite frankly irresponsibly dangerous.

This is massively different to soft polling of people for a shampoo asking if it makes your hair feel soft, it is rigorous peer reviewed objective scientific study over millions of people. To suggest that the studies referenced above are akin to lies, damned lies and statistics is massively ignorant.

 

 

Just taking the first one that was listed above - The Denmark study was funded by the Danish Government and Novo Nordisk Foundation which in turn has massively invested in a lot of Pharma companies

https://www.novoholdings.dk/investments/

These companies may have nothing to do with MMR - I don't know and I am not going to research them - I am just saying that things are not cut and dried

As for Data - I have worked in Data for 20 years and tbh it shows your naivety when you don't think that it couldn't go on 😞 again - not saying that it did - just putting the other side across. I also say this as somebody who has a brother who was affected by thalidomide although quite minor to some others!! 

[grrclark]

37 minutes ago, discobob said:

Just taking the first one that was listed above - The Denmark study was funded by the Danish Government and Novo Nordisk Foundation which in turn has massively invested in a lot of Pharma companies

https://www.novoholdings.dk/investments/

These companies may have nothing to do with MMR - I don't know and I am not going to research them - I am just saying that things are not cut and dried

As for Data - I have worked in Data for 20 years and tbh it shows your naivety when you don't think that it couldn't go on 😞 again - not saying that it did - just putting the other side across. I also say this as somebody who has a brother who was affected by thalidomide although quite minor to some others!! 

I am not so naive as to think that there are not agenda driven studies and misrepresentation, however when the overwhelming body of evidence is examined by multiple credible expert resources over a number of years with a sample size of millions and they all come up with the same conclusion then I am inclined to favour that.

Is it surprising in anyway at all that an investment firm in pharmaceutical science would fund research into pharmaceutical science?

This is another of the myths surrounding vaccines that needs robust challenge.  The hypothesis from the anti-vaxxers is that of course it is all self interest by the pharma' companies to do research that supports their claims and so therefor it cannot be believed, in fact more than not to be believed it is used as evidence of precisely why the vaccine is unsafe.

The whole point of impartial scientific peer review is that the body of work is made available to those without a conflict of interest to ensure that it is not partial.

That is why it is wholly absurd that the information linked to by 7diaw that has been peer reviewed by impartial experts should still be challenged by the agenda led inexpert, even more absurd is that people are still content to listen to the inexpert people.

I am genuinely sorry that your brother was affected by thalidomide.  Thankfully lessons were learned from that scandal and resulted in various acts of legislation internationally to help ensure that testing is now far more rigorous and with far greater protections.

[discobob]

6 minutes ago, grrclark said:

I am genuinely sorry that your brother was affected by thalidomide.  Thankfully lessons were learned from that scandal and resulted in various acts of legislation internationally to help ensure that testing is now far more rigorous and with far greater protections.

Thanks - he has never let it bother him, he was a joiner when he left school (after turning down a football apprenticeship), and is now a senior manager in a rail company - but I don't hold that against him  except for when the trains are messed up!!!

[AVB]

4 hours ago, 7daysinaweek said:

You beat me to it grr

Also separate MMR vaccines that are offered by private clinics in the uk do not have a marketing authorisation and are given 'off licence'

Consenting to have the separate MMR separate from a private clinic is puts the child at increased risks. Firstly the separate vaccines are unlicensed in the UK, this is what we term as 'off label' they do not have a marketing authorisation for the UK which means they have no safety and efficacy checks. (pre and post marketing surveillance) Legally the manufacturer is extremely unlikely to be liable from any harm resulting from the 'off label' vaccine unless there is proven to be a manufacturing defect arising that resulted in harm.

Also the recipient and wider herding are at risk from other forms of illness from the break period between the vaccines.

 

Is the vaccine safe?

There are now a large number of studies that show no evidence at all of any link between the MMR vaccine and autism. Autism is a developmental disorder which is usually diagnosed in pre-school children. The original research which suggested a link has now been discredited. The National Autistic Society in the UK  has issued a statement saying that ‘there is no link between autism and the MMR vaccine’.

Below is a list of studies and their findings. Click on the links to view the abstracts (summaries) of the scientific papers:

• A Danish study of over 650,000 children found no increased risk for autism after MMR vaccination (Hviid et al., 2019 )
• An analysis of studies involving over 1 million children found no relationship between vaccination and autism. There was no evidence of a link between the MMR vaccine and autism development in children, and the study also found no evidence of a link between thiomersal and autism development (Taylor et al., 2014 ).
• There is no increased incidence of autism in children vaccinated with MMR compared with unvaccinated children (Farrington et al., 2001 ; Madsen and Vestergaard, 2004 ).
• There is no clustering of the onset of symptoms of autism in the period following MMR vaccination (Taylor et al., 1999 ; Mäkelä et al., 2002 ).
• The increase in the reported incidence of autism preceded the use of MMR in the UK (Taylor et al., 1999 ).
• The incidence of autism continued to rise after 1993 in Japan despite withdrawal of MMR (Honda et al., 2005 )
• There is no correlation between the rate of autism and MMR vaccine coverage in either the UK (Kaye et al., 2001 ) or the USA (Dales et al., 2001 )
• There is no difference between the proportion of children with a regressive form of autism (i.e. who appear to develop normally but then lose speech and social skills between around 15 and 30 months) who develop autism having had MMR compared with those who develop autism without vaccination (Fombonne and Chakrabarti, 2001 ; Taylor et al., 2002 ).
• There is no difference between the proportion of children developing autism having had MMR who have associated bowel symptoms compared with those who develop autism without vaccination (Fombonne and Chakrabarti, 2001 ; Taylor et al., 2002 )
• No vaccine virus can be detected in children with autism using the most sensitive methods available (Afzal et al., 2006 ; D’Souza et al., 2006 ).

The MMR vaccine is given later than some of the other vaccines in the UK schedule because it works better then. In the short film below, Professor Octavio Ramilo explains why this is. In other countries the vaccine may be given at 9 months. The MMR vaccine can safely be given to babies younger than this, especially if there is a measles outbreak.

 

 

Page last updated: 

Tuesday, July 2

It wasn’t offered by a private clinic but by my GP. The only difference being that if cost me, iirc, a couple of hundred. So are you saying that my GP was breaking the rules? And if it wasn’t as effective why did she offer it? 

[Scully]

6 hours ago, AVB said:

I wasn’t convinced about the MMR vaccine so forked out and had my children vaccinated with the three separate vaccinations. not doing anything is stupid imo. 
 

We had the 3 in 1 MMR vaccine, although I wasn’t happy about it.

Blair, as PM at the time, could have allayed many parents anxieties at the time by telling the population that his youngest had also had the 3 in 1 vaccine, but he repeatedly failed to answer interviewers questions ( namely J. Young on his Radio 2 programme ) when asked if his youngest had in fact had the 3 in 1 or 3 separate injections. 

[serrac]

1 hour ago, grrclark said:

This is another of the myths surrounding vaccines that needs robust challenge.  The hypothesis from the anti-vaxxers is that of course it is all self interest by the pharma' companies to do research that supports their claims and so therefor it cannot be believed, in fact more than not to be believed it is used as evidence of precisely why the vaccine is unsafe.

The whole point of impartial scientific peer review is that the body of work is made available to those without a conflict of interest to ensure that it is not partial.

 

It seems the editors of the Lancet might have some some issues with that statement:

https://vaccineimpact.com/2020/editors-of-the-lancet-and-the-new-england-journal-of-medicine-pharmaceutical-companies-are-so-financially-powerful-they-pressure-us-to-accept-papers/

In a videotaped interview on May 24, 2020, Dr. Douste-Blazy provided insight into how a series of negative hydroxychloroquine studies got published in prestigious medical journals.

He revealed that at a recent Chatham House top secret, closed door meeting attended by experts only, the editors of both, The Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine expressed their exasperation citing the pressures put on them by pharmaceutical companies.

He states that each of the editors used the word “criminal” to describe the erosion of science.

He quotes Dr. Richard Horton who bemoaned the current state of science:

“If this continues, we are not going to be able to publish any more clinical research data because pharmaceutical companies are so financially powerful; they are able to pressure us to accept papers that are apparently methodologically perfect, but their conclusion is what pharmaceutical companies want.”

 

[grrclark]

2 hours ago, serrac said:

It seems the editors of the Lancet might have some some issues with that statement:

https://vaccineimpact.com/2020/editors-of-the-lancet-and-the-new-england-journal-of-medicine-pharmaceutical-companies-are-so-financially-powerful-they-pressure-us-to-accept-papers/

— Snipped to save space —

I have no doubt that pressure will be applied in some cases as some will seek to subvert the process.

I don’t pretend for a moment that the pharmaceutical companies are without fault.

However the fact that you can cite that article does suggest that there is still an ability to push back on corporate pressures.

It also illustrates why rigorous independent peer review is so important.

[7daysinaweek]

10 hours ago, discobob said:

@7daysinaweek Isn't there a booster jab for MMR?

There is a rhetoric attached to it all that is quite unsettling - remember there are lies, damn lies and statistics!! After all, 95% of all women prefer x brand of shampoo (of a sample of 67 people 😉) 

I am not saying your wrong, and indeed I am not saying I am right - but people have concerns (as I put above - rightly or wrongly) and some sort of mitigation would, albeit not perfectly taking into account what you put, increase the immunity in the population

Hi Bob

babies are given the 6 in 1 vaccine by 4 months which covers dip,tet,polio, pertussis, hep b and influenza type b. Then at 1 year ist MMR, (measles, mumps rubella which covers for several strains most commonly ABCW&Y. Men B is the most prevalent cause of menigoccocal  bacterial meningitis resulting in around 90% of cases, babies are given MEN B  monovalent vaccine at 8,16 weeks then one more at one year alongside ist MMR which covers the other strains) then 4 in 1 pre school booster at 3 years and 4 months and this has dip,tet,pertussis ,polio in it which increases immunity further. 2nd MMR is given at the same time. These are not 'booster' jabs but the standard immunological course which gives cover for the most of the pathogenic virulent primary strains of menigococcol ,there are around 20 different strains for the whole of adult life.

There is a vaccine which is the MenACWY vaccine which was introduced in September 2015 which was developed in response to the increases in prevalence of menigococcal W strain infections from 2010 on wards. This has been partly aimed at provision of head immunity to all other ages of society as mass immunising of adolescents against MEN W provides shielding herd immunity to the rest of us 'older bugggars' 

It is administered at school years 9-10 (13-15 year olds) years and can also be up taken by any person born after September 1996 up to the age of 25 who was eligible for MenAcwy but missed the school vaccine.

MenAcwy is also given as a travel prophylaxis for high risk areas of the globe.

There are no licensed mumps or rubella vaccination in the uk as a single vaccination, currently only the trivalent MMR and it must be borne in mind that menigitis can be caused also by mumps and rubella and all carry a morbidity and mortality risk. Current mortality rates for bacterial menigitis are 10%.

@AVB

Your gp likely moved to issue the private prescription on the influence from yourself as you had 'concerns' about the trivalent MMR and for other possible reasons that this may have been offered as part of a private part of the business and not the GMS contract with its nhs patients.There may have been a clinical indicator at the time that influenced the gps decision or a total different reason for which I cannot comment.

I do not know how old your children are and I am speaking from the pre and short post era of the Andrew Wakefield fraudulent and bias 98 study which resulted in much damage to public health which from the autism links that has since been debunked. The study was ethically and scientifically flawed. MMr came to the uk in 88 and prior to that there was a licensed single vaccine for measles and there was no vaccine at all for mumps. Off licence prescribing in the distant past did not have the plethora of governance and medicolegal accountability that it has today and practices such as this were more common and the governance procedures that surround the marketing authorisation and licences are a lot more developed now.

As you are the childs parent, it was your parental responsibility to consent for your child up until the age that the child may be termed as being 'gillick competent.' As the parent the decision sits with you to provide the consent to immunise and a gp cannot consent for your child. It is up to the gp who holds the overall accountability to provide the empirical based evidence information and for you as a parent to make the choice on the immunisation to have or not. Currently imported single vaccines have not had sufficient testing in several aspects of efficacy and safety so this voids terms in their license within the uk and they do not have pre and post marketing use surveillance undertook by the MHRA. A prescriber can can decide to issue a private prescription for single vaccines however as previously stated there are risks associated with this and as the private prescriber this increases their accountability and risk in relation to the risk to the recipient.

The description of a 'unlicensed medicine' in describing medicines that are used outside of there terms of licence or have no licensed use for the Uk for all medicines and medical devices. (not just vaccines)Usual practice is that a prescriber should prescribe the medication in accordance with its terms of license. However, a prescriber can choose to prescribe unlicensed medicines and this may be necessary given certain circumstances.

Firstly and foremost there is no licensed medicine that meets the patients needs. 

The patient is a child and only medicine that would meet the childs need is licensed for adults.

The licensed medicine for a child would not meet a 'specific childs' needs but a similar medicine that is prescribed for an adult would.

The dosage specified for a licensed medicine would not meet the patients needs.

The patients required the medicine in a formulation that is not specified on the licence. 

Where a suitable licensed medication that meets the patient need is not available.

The prescribing is part of 'approved research program.'

The above I have written is not exhaustive!

Secondly prescribing unlicensed medicines the prescriber must:

satisfy themselves that there is sufficient evidence and experience of using the medicine that demonstrates that it is safe.

Accept responsibility for the prescribing, monitoring and overseeing of the patients care and any follow up monitoring.

Keep contemporaneous records that clearly reflect your prescribing unlicensed decisions and why the common practice route has not been followed and documented that the medication has been given unlicensed.

Must ensure that your patient , parent or carer has been given sufficient information in order for them to make a informed decision.

For single use vaccines  parents must be informed of exactly what the unlicensed medication offers.

The country of testing , when and what were the safety ,and efficacy results of the vaccine and how their child will be followed up for post surveillance.

 

Some medicines are prescribed off licence quite commonly and I do it myself from time to time as per the clinical indication and need, however there are medicines that will not enter that sphere as the risks to the patient are outweighed. In relation of MMR it has a safe and established marketing authorisation that meets the inclusion criteria for vaccination in public health above all others.

It may not always be appropriate in some circumstances to bring to light the issue of licencing such as in the use of medicine in a emergency situation and some aspects of palliative care. 

The excerpts below from nhs .gov most current:

7diaw

Single vaccines for measles, mumps and rubella are not available on the NHS and are not recommended.

Combined vaccines like the MMR vaccine are safe and help to reduce the number of injections your child needs.

The benefits include:

• avoiding any delay between injections that could risk illness
• reducing discomfort for your child
• reducing the number of appointments needed

Some private clinics in the UK offer single vaccines against measles, mumps and rubella, but these vaccines are unlicensed. This means there are no checks on their safety and effectiveness. The NHS does not keep a list of private clinics.

 

Potency and toxicity

Single vaccines imported into this country haven’t been independently tested for potency and toxicity. We have evidence that some of the single vaccines are less effective or less safe than MMR.

Unlike MMR, where the evidence shows no link, no study has been conducted to look at single vaccines and either autism or bowel disease. In fact, there’s no reason to think that single vaccines would be less likely to cause autism or bowel disease than MMR.

Parents are asking for single vaccines as they’re scared by the unfounded stories they’ve heard and read about MMR, not because there is any evidence that single vaccines are any safer.

 

Edited July 29, 2020 by 7daysinaweek

[AVB]

2 hours ago, 7daysinaweek said:

Hi Bob

babies are given the 6 in 1 vaccine by 4 months which covers dip,tet,polio, pertussis, hep b and influenza type b. Then at 1 year ist MMR, (measles, mumps rubella which covers for several strains most commonly ABCW&Y. Men B is the most prevalent cause of menigoccocal  bacterial meningitis resulting in around 90% of cases, babies are given MEN B  monovalent vaccine at 8,16 weeks then one more at one year alongside ist MMR which covers the other strains) then 4 in 1 pre school booster at 3 years and 4 months and this has dip,tet,pertussis ,polio in it which increases immunity further. 2nd MMR is given at the same time. These are not 'booster' jabs but the standard immunological course which gives cover for the most of the pathogenic virulent primary strains of menigococcol ,there are around 20 different strains for the whole of adult life.

There is a vaccine which is the MenACWY vaccine which was introduced in September 2015 which was developed in response to the increases in prevalence of menigococcal W strain infections from 2010 on wards. This has been partly aimed at provision of head immunity to all other ages of society as mass immunising of adolescents against MEN W provides shielding herd immunity to the rest of us 'older bugggars' 

It is administered at school years 9-10 (13-15 year olds) years and can also be up taken by any person born after September 1996 up to the age of 25 who was eligible for MenAcwy but missed the school vaccine.

MenAcwy is also given as a travel prophylaxis for high risk areas of the globe.

There are no licensed mumps or rubella vaccination in the uk as a single vaccination, currently only the trivalent MMR and it must be borne in mind that menigitis can be caused also by mumps and rubella and all carry a morbidity and mortality risk. Current mortality rates for bacterial menigitis are 10%.

@AVB

Your gp likely moved to issue the private prescription on the influence from yourself as you had 'concerns' about the trivalent MMR and for other possible reasons that this may have been offered as part of a private part of the business and not the GMS contract with its nhs patients.There may have been a clinical indicator at the time that influenced the gps decision or a total different reason for which I cannot comment.

I do not know how old your children are and I am speaking from the pre and short post era of the Andrew Wakefield fraudulent and bias 98 study which resulted in much damage to public health which from the autism links that has since been debunked. The study was ethically and scientifically flawed. MMr came to the uk in 88 and prior to that there was a licensed single vaccine for measles and there was no vaccine at all for mumps. Off licence prescribing in the distant past did not have the plethora of governance and medicolegal accountability that it has today and practices such as this were more common and the governance procedures that surround the marketing authorisation and licences are a lot more developed now.

As you are the childs parent, it was your parental responsibility to consent for your child up until the age that the child may be termed as being 'gillick competent.' As the parent the decision sits with you to provide the consent to immunise and a gp cannot consent for your child. It is up to the gp who holds the overall accountability to provide the empirical based evidence information and for you as a parent to make the choice on the immunisation to have or not. Currently imported single vaccines have not had sufficient testing in several aspects of efficacy and safety so this voids terms in their license within the uk and they do not have pre and post marketing use surveillance undertook by the MHRA. A prescriber can can decide to issue a private prescription for single vaccines however as previously stated there are risks associated with this and as the private prescriber this increases their accountability and risk in relation to the risk to the recipient.

The description of a 'unlicensed medicine' in describing medicines that are used outside of there terms of licence or have no licensed use for the Uk for all medicines and medical devices. (not just vaccines)Usual practice is that a prescriber should prescribe the medication in accordance with its terms of license. However, a prescriber can choose to prescribe unlicensed medicines and this may be necessary given certain circumstances.

Firstly and foremost there is no licensed medicine that meets the patients needs. 

The patient is a child and only medicine that would meet the childs need is licensed for adults.

The licensed medicine for a child would not meet a 'specific childs' needs but a similar medicine that is prescribed for an adult would.

The dosage specified for a licensed medicine would not meet the patients needs.

The patients required the medicine in a formulation that is not specified on the licence. 

Where a suitable licensed medication that meets the patient need is not available.

The prescribing is part of 'approved research program.'

The above I have written is not exhaustive!

Secondly prescribing unlicensed medicines the prescriber must:

satisfy themselves that there is sufficient evidence and experience of using the medicine that demonstrates that it is safe.

Accept responsibility for the prescribing, monitoring and overseeing of the patients care and any follow up monitoring.

Keep contemporaneous records that clearly reflect your prescribing unlicensed decisions and why the common practice route has not been followed and documented that the medication has been given unlicensed.

Must ensure that your patient , parent or carer has been given sufficient information in order for them to make a informed decision.

For single use vaccines  parents must be informed of exactly what the unlicensed medication offers.

The country of testing , when and what were the safety ,and efficacy results of the vaccine and how their child will be followed up for post surveillance.

 

Some medicines are prescribed off licence quite commonly and I do it myself from time to time as per the clinical indication and need, however there are medicines that will not enter that sphere as the risks to the patient are outweighed. In relation of MMR it has a safe and established marketing authorisation that meets the inclusion criteria for vaccination in public health above all others.

It may not always be appropriate in some circumstances to bring to light the issue of licencing such as in the use of medicine in a emergency situation and some aspects of palliative care. 

The excerpts below from nhs .gov most current:

7diaw

Single vaccines for measles, mumps and rubella are not available on the NHS and are not recommended.

Combined vaccines like the MMR vaccine are safe and help to reduce the number of injections your child needs.

The benefits include:

• avoiding any delay between injections that could risk illness
• reducing discomfort for your child
• reducing the number of appointments needed

Some private clinics in the UK offer single vaccines against measles, mumps and rubella, but these vaccines are unlicensed. This means there are no checks on their safety and effectiveness. The NHS does not keep a list of private clinics.

 

Potency and toxicity

Single vaccines imported into this country haven’t been independently tested for potency and toxicity. We have evidence that some of the single vaccines are less effective or less safe than MMR.

Unlike MMR, where the evidence shows no link, no study has been conducted to look at single vaccines and either autism or bowel disease. In fact, there’s no reason to think that single vaccines would be less likely to cause autism or bowel disease than MMR.

Parents are asking for single vaccines as they’re scared by the unfounded stories they’ve heard and read about MMR, not because there is any evidence that single vaccines are any safer.

 

Thank you for your comprehensive response. This was 15/16 years ago and therefore I am not 100% certain of the details but I think the conversation went along the lines of the following:

Me: “I’m a bit concerned about this MMR vaccination. What options are there?”

GP: “you can have separate inoculations, give me £200 and I’ll sort it out for you”. 
 

sounds like things are bit different now!