Quizzes & Puzzles6 mins ago
mmr single jab doctor
I wonder can anyone help me, I have just seen on the news that a Dr Pugh who ran single vaccine mmr jab clinics is to go to court for misconduct. Well one of my girls was one of his patients and when this all came out I tried repeatedly to contact the centre to no avail and I have never received a letter of apology from him as it states in the interview. My daughter had 3 single vaccines by him and none of them were active so not only did she have to go through the jabs she then had to have numerous blood tests to see if they had taken ! they had not so she was therefore not immune from mmr. I cant begin to tell you how angry and upset we were, not about the cost just the fact that as a first time mum you are nervous about what to do for the best and i feel my baby girl was put in a possibly life threatening situation especially as a friend of mine had mumps and still was in contact with her. Has any one else had this experience of this con man and if so have you had any contact from the company? I know it was probably my fault for not trusting the triple jab but i thought I was doing my best for her.
Many Thanks
Many Thanks
Answers
1 to 10 of 10
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by FUZZYBEE. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
This situation highlights perfectly to me that so many parents did not get this into perspective and effectively gave the unscrupulous the opportunity to con the gullible. Honestly the chances of any problems with MMR are more than the chances of riding 2 up on the lochness monster with Elvis waving a winning lottery ticket. But that's enough for people to go to all sorts of hysterical measures, for example buying DIY vaccines out of the back of a car in a pub car park. Now do you not think that the chance of the vaccines being at best effective and at worse dangerous from a charletan doctor are worse than the MMR jab? Not to mention actually getting the diseases in question. Do you not think that the child is being put at greater risk by it's misfortune to have stupid parents? Puts it into persepctive doesn't it?
Loosehead, i think you are being too harsh here.
The parents that are 'stupid' as you so put it are those that refuse to have their child vaccinated for any reason other than 'just because i dont want to'
Fuzzybee did what she thought was the right thing for her daughter and was ripped off by this so called doctor. many parents paid for seperate vaccines and were not conned, adn many parents continue to go down this route.
Fuzzy, i wish you well in your search for answers
The parents that are 'stupid' as you so put it are those that refuse to have their child vaccinated for any reason other than 'just because i dont want to'
Fuzzybee did what she thought was the right thing for her daughter and was ripped off by this so called doctor. many parents paid for seperate vaccines and were not conned, adn many parents continue to go down this route.
Fuzzy, i wish you well in your search for answers
"Honestly the chances of any problems with MMR are more than the chances of riding 2 up on the lochness monster with Elvis waving a winning lottery ticket."
The reason that a lot of parents didn't take the MMR jab is because there was a link to autism.
coincidentally, what was the news last week? - up to 1 in 100 (yes 100) children are now thought to have autism. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/5174144.stm
Compare that to measles, mumps or rubella:
Measles: The most severe complication of measles - occurring in only one in 100,000 cases - is a slowly-progressive brain infection which does not normally show until some time after the original infection, and eventually causes seizures and death.
Mumps: Mumps does not usually cause serious long term problems, the acute symptoms, such as severe swelling of the salivary glands under the jaw bone, can be very uncomfortable.
Rubella: Many people with rubella have few or no symptoms, and only about half of the people who have the disease get a rash.
However, if a pregnant woman gets rubella during the first three months of pregnancy, her baby is at risk of having serious birth defects or dying.
Better get down the bookies and double check those odds!
The reason that a lot of parents didn't take the MMR jab is because there was a link to autism.
coincidentally, what was the news last week? - up to 1 in 100 (yes 100) children are now thought to have autism. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/5174144.stm
Compare that to measles, mumps or rubella:
Measles: The most severe complication of measles - occurring in only one in 100,000 cases - is a slowly-progressive brain infection which does not normally show until some time after the original infection, and eventually causes seizures and death.
Mumps: Mumps does not usually cause serious long term problems, the acute symptoms, such as severe swelling of the salivary glands under the jaw bone, can be very uncomfortable.
Rubella: Many people with rubella have few or no symptoms, and only about half of the people who have the disease get a rash.
However, if a pregnant woman gets rubella during the first three months of pregnancy, her baby is at risk of having serious birth defects or dying.
Better get down the bookies and double check those odds!
Im sorry to hear that fuzzy, but the doctors who originally claimed the link have almost all backed down again now but this seems to still be causing worry amongst parents, myself included. It does explain your fear of the triple vaccine though and your choice of individual vaccines. As i said before the parents that are putting their children at risk deliberately are the ones in the wrong. I once witnessed a discussion where a mother said, in regards to needing 90% of children vaccinated to cover those poor children who for medical reasons cant have the jabs, 'the world has done nothing to protect my children, so why should do anything for the world?' I was amazed by her selfishness.
Well the outcome of all of this is....... I was sent to a fabulous lady to discuss what should happen next regarding vaccinating my little one and she didn't talk down to me at all and she said that without being disrespectful to me or other Mums, our age group with children ( i was 31 then) have no memory of quite how bad measles and mumps can actually be because obvioulsy the vaccines have almost eradicated it but she said from her experience of being a nurse in the 60'S AND 70's they were absolutely dreadful diseases and were commonly fatal too. But because we don't hear of them anymore parents assume a drop of calpol will sort it out without actually thinking that they are actually serious.
Thank you for your time in replying
Thank you for your time in replying
Good point at the end there, FUZZYBEE. Many parents are of the age group where they will not have encountered a serious incidence of mumps or measles, and the potentially serious consequences of these diseases.
Thus, when the whole MMR argument broke, the triple jab was perceived to be a greater risk than the diseases themselves, simply because they had not experienced it.
The issue was not helped by the all-to-common fault of the media's misleading reporting, and selective statistics. A Research Paper is published, then gets summarised in a journal (such as, say, The Lancet.) This may be summarised further by the New Scientist when a grubby hack picks it off the news-stand and then reports it in two lines and a scaremongering headline.
The story vic refers to is a case in point. I read a few versions of this story, and some reported in big headlines "1 in 100 Has Autism!" without even referring to its previous incidence rate. If you have nothing to compare it with, then it is meaningless!
Other reports mentioned that this "1 in 100" is much higher than 20 years ago, and concluded that it was "proof that the MMR causes autism".
Finally, other reports, thankfully, mentioned that 1. the figure was an upper estimate and 2. quoted the part of the report that stated "...it was unclear whether [the higher estimate of 1 in 100] was due to better diagnosis or increased incidence."
In other words, they didn't know if this increased figure was a real increase (through cause unknown), or whether it was due to increased diagnostic capability (ie. can be diagnosed at an earlier age, and at lower levels of manifestation - 20 years ago, a child may have been dismissed as "a bit of a dreamer" or "a bit exciteable", where now, it would be classed as a mild case of autism.)
Thus, when the whole MMR argument broke, the triple jab was perceived to be a greater risk than the diseases themselves, simply because they had not experienced it.
The issue was not helped by the all-to-common fault of the media's misleading reporting, and selective statistics. A Research Paper is published, then gets summarised in a journal (such as, say, The Lancet.) This may be summarised further by the New Scientist when a grubby hack picks it off the news-stand and then reports it in two lines and a scaremongering headline.
The story vic refers to is a case in point. I read a few versions of this story, and some reported in big headlines "1 in 100 Has Autism!" without even referring to its previous incidence rate. If you have nothing to compare it with, then it is meaningless!
Other reports mentioned that this "1 in 100" is much higher than 20 years ago, and concluded that it was "proof that the MMR causes autism".
Finally, other reports, thankfully, mentioned that 1. the figure was an upper estimate and 2. quoted the part of the report that stated "...it was unclear whether [the higher estimate of 1 in 100] was due to better diagnosis or increased incidence."
In other words, they didn't know if this increased figure was a real increase (through cause unknown), or whether it was due to increased diagnostic capability (ie. can be diagnosed at an earlier age, and at lower levels of manifestation - 20 years ago, a child may have been dismissed as "a bit of a dreamer" or "a bit exciteable", where now, it would be classed as a mild case of autism.)
I'm with Loosehead all the way and not just because its one of the funniest answers I've read in ages! And I am a parent. And, of course, my kids had the MMR jab. For the same reasons that every day I strap them in a 4-wheeled contraption capable of 130mph and take them out onto the death traps they call roads. Life is full of risks. Get some perspective and worry about the big ones.
It's nice to know that you are on such an intellectual level that you will only comment on the answers that make you laugh!!!!! I am glad you find my worries hysterical !!
There is no need for people to make accusations about other peoples parenting skills or lack of. I believe every parent with the exception of very few does the best they can for their child and I am one of them, at least I tried to vaccinate my daughter rather than not at all. I obviously would not have taken her had I thought he were not reputable you however, cannot see that. And I am interested to know what your definition is of the "big ones", it does not come much bigger than your childs health.
There is no need for people to make accusations about other peoples parenting skills or lack of. I believe every parent with the exception of very few does the best they can for their child and I am one of them, at least I tried to vaccinate my daughter rather than not at all. I obviously would not have taken her had I thought he were not reputable you however, cannot see that. And I am interested to know what your definition is of the "big ones", it does not come much bigger than your childs health.
1 to 10 of 10
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles12 mins ago
Crosswords14 mins ago
ChatterBank23 mins ago
Is Farage Labours Secret Weapon ?.
Politics23 mins ago
