M, M, and R - Mothering Forums

 
Thread Tools
#1 of 5 Old 04-02-2014, 06:40 PM - Thread Starter
 
Turquesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 6,933
Mentioned: 119 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1300 Post(s)
This isn't intended to be a debate thread, but I'll see how it plays out.

My understanding is that in his paper, Andrew Wakefield suggested that in certain vulnerable children, the trivalent MMR vaccine may be responsible for symptoms of autism. He therefore believed that pending further investigation into the matter, monovalent alternatives should be offered.

Could anybody fill me in on some history? Why WERE monovalent vaccines taken off the market? Precisely what was the rationale behind this decision? Didn't this occur shortly after the Wakefield paper . . . or no? If so, wouldn't that be about the WORST time to stop offering this option to parents?

However misguided or not you think these concerned parents were, wouldn't more of them have vaccinated their children monovalently for measles had they had that option? So should the drug companies, and not Wakefield, shoulder the blame for the decline in measles vaccination in the U.K. and subsequent outbreaks? Didn't these corporations, and the physicians and policy-makers supporting them, sort of shoot themselves in the foot by taking this choice away from parents?

I'm not going to state any of the above as actual argument unless and until I have my facts straight. So would somebody kindly fill me in?
Chicharronita and Taximom5 like this.

“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines.” - Marcia Angell, M.D., former NEJM Editor
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Private Parts are Private Property!
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Turquesa is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#2 of 5 Old 04-03-2014, 10:37 AM
 
samaxtics's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,446
Mentioned: 61 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1060 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turquesa View Post

This isn't intended to be a debate thread, but I'll see how it plays out.

My understanding is that in his paper (actually it was AW and twelve colleagues that published that paper but he is primarily the whipping boy),
Andrew Wakefield suggested that in certain vulnerable children, the trivalent MMR vaccine may be responsible for symptoms of autism. ( The paper describes clinical findings in 12 children with ASD occurring with inflammation of the large intestine.  The parents of 8 children associated the symptoms with the MMR. The paper states that "we did not prove an association between measles, mumps and rubella vaccine and the syndrome described" and that "further investigations are needed to examine this syndrome and its possible relation to the vaccine. ) 
He therefore believed that pending further investigation into the matter, monovalent alternatives should be offered. (I believe this was at the press conference for the paper and not in the paper itself.)

Could anybody fill me in on some history? Why WERE monovalent vaccines taken off the market? Precisely what was the rationale behind this decision? Didn't this occur shortly after the Wakefield paper . . . or no? If so, wouldn't that be about the WORST time to stop offering this option to parents? (The monovalent vaccines were taken off the market in 1999.  This is at odds as to what the policy was in 1988 "For children whose parents refuse MMR vaccine, single antigen measles will be available.”  Here is a link to a good overview of the history: http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/2009/01/13/secret-british-mmr-vaccine-files-forced-open-by-legal-action/

However misguided or not you think these concerned parents were, wouldn't more of them have vaccinated their children monovalently for measles had they had that option? So should the drug companies, and not Wakefield, shoulder the blame for the decline in measles vaccination in the U.K. and subsequent outbreaks? (Actually I think the government is to blame.  The government decided to use the MMR containing the Urabe Strain back in the late 1980's knowing that it was banned in Canada and Japan as a result of adverse events. They would have probably continued to use it but the manufactures decided to stop making it. So even long before Wakefield, the confidence in the MMR was low. Of course the pharma company was indemnified so the government would have to foot the bill for the damages.)     
Didn't these corporations, and the physicians and policy-makers supporting them, sort of shoot themselves in the foot by taking this choice away from parents?  If the true goal was to vaccinate as many people possible against measles, they would have kept the monovalent vaccines. I really don't blame the manufacturers because profit is their end game and if the demand was put forth, the supply would follow.  But I think the government stopped the monovalent vaccines to hide the rate of injury by the MMR. 

I'm not going to state any of the above as actual argument unless and until I have my facts straight. So would somebody kindly fill me in?
samaxtics is online now  
#3 of 5 Old 04-03-2014, 11:51 AM
 
nukuspot's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,338
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I have always wondered this exact same question. Thanks for asking!

Midwife mama bellycast.gif to DD1 bouncy.gif (4.5) and DD2 h20homebirth.gif (1.5)
nukuspot is offline  
#4 of 5 Old 04-03-2014, 06:27 PM - Thread Starter
 
Turquesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 6,933
Mentioned: 119 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1300 Post(s)
Well, I found my answers. Sort of.

Here's Merck's official 2009 statement announcing the suspension of monovalent vaccines.
http://www.breakspearmedical.com/files/documents/monovalentMessage.pdf

"The combination vaccine M-M-R®II is recommended by the ACIP, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), and the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP), and is preferred over the monovalent vaccines because it eliminates the need for 3 separate injections and reduces the chance of delays in helping protect against any of these potentially serious diseases."

Here's a really interesting one from a 2009 AAP newsletter: http://aapnews.aappublications.org/content/30/12/9.1.extract

"Mark Feinberg, M.D., Ph.D., vice president of medical affiars in Merck's division of vaccines and infectious diseases, indicated on Oct. 21 that his company had heard from numerous organizations, including the AAP Committee on Infectious Diseases (COID), requesting that these monovalent vaccines not be reintroduced."

"Studies have confirmed that combination vaccines improve overall vaccine compliance. COID was very concerned that availability of monovalent measles, mumps, and rubella vaccines would increase the number of at-risk children by enabling parents to elect to spread out immunization with these component vaccines due to misinformation and concerns with no scientific basis."

So there you have it. They did this to take alternative scheduling choices away from parents. My hypothesis? In numerous vaccine-hesitant parents, they have prevented any vaccine scheduling at all. When forced to choose between all or nothing, parents may very well be opting for nothing.

The irony hurts. I'm left to wonder how much higher that measles vaccination rate would be monovalent vaccines were available. Way to shoot yourselves in the foot, AAP. eyesroll.gif
japonica, dinahx, nia82 and 4 others like this.

“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines.” - Marcia Angell, M.D., former NEJM Editor
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Private Parts are Private Property!
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Turquesa is offline  
#5 of 5 Old 04-04-2014, 08:05 AM
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,933
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Which leads me to believe the whole debate is in no way about children nor humans, but merely a power play.

 

Also, there were sources that said it is more expensive to make a combination MMR over single doses. I have no problem with Merck making money, not at all, and actually welcome if they'd resume the single vaccines. I would have chosen a single measles after the age of two before our Europe trips but instead did nothing until 4.8a/28 months. The monovalent shots also compel me to do the ones for which titers are low (which is to be expected with mumps, and rubella only should be available for all moms with low titers!).

nia82 is offline  
Reply


User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off

Online Users: 15,802

68 members and 15,734 guests
agentofchaos , BethanyJoy16 , cadence.clair , ccknox , cillian , cloa513 , contactmaya , CricketVS , DahliaRW , Dear_Rosemary , Edden Burrow , emmy526 , esg , ian'smommaya , Indy317 , junipermuse , katelove , kathymuggle , Kelleybug , LiLStar , LLM21 , mama24-7 , mamabear0314 , Marisa James , mckittre , MeepyCat , meredithfp , midnight mom , mintapatalk , Mirzam , mkat , MnMtm , Mom2M&K&baby , moominmamma , MylittleTiger , NaturallyKait , newmamalizzy , oaksie68 , oldsmom , pokeyac , RollerCoasterMama , rubelin , samaxtics , SchoolmarmDE , serenbat , shantimama , Shmootzi , siennaflower , slammerkin , Springshowers , t2009 , thankful85 , transpecos , verticalscope , zebra15
Most users ever online was 449,755, 06-25-2014 at 12:21 PM.