---

by Avenger
(quotes)

*More children would die using a regime of single jabs than a regime of combined jabs. Supported by the available evidence.

*There are no extra risks associated with the combined jabs, other than those also associated with the single jabs. Supported by the available evidence.

No logical argument for the "right to choice" of single jabs can go ahead without convincing evidence against at least one of those two statements. I've yet to see any.

---

Earlier this year parents of more than 1,000 children were advised to have the MMR because their single jabs given at clinics in Sheffield and Elstree, Hertfordshire, were not administered as per manufacturers' recommendations.

So the same people who operated the ineffectual regime are now responsible for operating the new and super improved regime? The Doctor made the mistake, not the drug.

What have other parents done?

Many have opted not to get their children vaccinated but coverage was falling before the 1998 watershed. In early 1995, 92.5% of children under two were having the triple jab, still below the 95% that is deemed necessary for "herd immunity".

By the end of 1998, the figure had dipped well below 90%. The refusal of Tony Blair to say whether his son Leo had had the triple jab in 2002 had little apparent effect on a gradual decline in take-up, but from last mid-summer the drop in immunisation rates has been steep: down from over 84% to 79% to the end of last June .

I think that is without a shadow of a doubt conclusive evidence that the triple vaccine isn't more effective than the single, because people are voting with their feet and opting not to have it done. How can any vaccine be effective if people won't take it? Surely the only logical conclusion would be to offer what the people regard as safe.

The triple vaccine could be a pancea for all ills, but if it isn't adopted it's useless.

When did politicians join Tangent, all this backtracking. You ask a simple question and they don't half waffle on!!

---

by Bee
Um. That is true. But surely some people will forget the follow up jab if you apply that logic. Is there something in the triple jab that makes people remember, whilst this ingredient is missing in the single jabs

---

Just the fact that there is more of them to forget I think. If you assume a certain number of people starting the course (either triple or single vaccines), some will miss the second jab (this will be the same number for each presumably) However the MMR course is now finished, while people having the single jabs have four further occasions on which some will miss out.

---

by TNT
I think that is without a shadow of a doubt conclusive evidence that the triple vaccine isn't more effective than the single, because people are voting with their feet and opting not to have it done. How can any vaccine be effective if people won't take it? Surely the only logical conclusion would be to offer what the people regard as safe.

The triple vaccine could be a pancea for all ills, but if it isn't adopted it's useless.

---

This is the best argument yet for the "right to choose" I think. The precedent it would set worries me a lot though, effectively you are asking the Department of Health to follow a course of action that they know not to be the "best" one, because of people's perceptions, rather than any actual facts. Those who are quick to condemn the government should reflect on the responsibility of making that decision and the consequences that would come from that - I wouldn't like to be the person doing it.

I would prefer to see more effort towards providing parents with the facts and promoting vaccination, but maybe you are right and the perception of the triple vaccine is too tainted now. If so, the media bears a lot of responsibility for that, for the sensational reporting of the issue.

---

by TNT
When did politicians join Tangent, all this backtracking. You ask a simple question and they don't half waffle on!!

---

I don't think there was any backtracking. Waffle yes....

I've only had time to scan updates on this very briefly, so apologies if I've repeated anyone. Just a quick note to say that antibiotics are not effective against viral infections. Antivirals can be used, but they are more recent developments, and thus more expensive to produce. Natural antibiotics are produced by fungi to prevent colonisation by bacteria, and this is how penicillin was discovered.

Any disease which induces high fever is dangerous, and has the potential to affect the brain and senses such as sight. And remember the fuss about small numbers of cases of viral meningitis? My cousin has recently been diagnosed with autism (he's already in his 20s, but his behavioural problems were not diagnosed as autism until recently). My aunt said his personality changed and problems started after he suffered meningitis at the age of 3 or 4.

I personally fear the return of diseases such as measles.