Talk:MMR vaccine

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Hex4's edit[edit]

On another less pseudoscientific note the French government is a big proponent of those vaccines, to the point of forcing people to vaccinate 3 year old children twice at a full dose, of which the second dose is only serves to vaccinate the 5%-10% who would not have been immunized when the first dose came along. Some parents found it irresponsible of the French government to do so and claim that this extreme mentality allows room for severe complications and diseases within children that would not have occurred if the government cared enough to invest in doctors that analyze whether or not the kid became immune after it was vaccinated for the first time. — Unsigned, by: Hex4 / talk / contribs

Got any citations to a scientific journal? Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 04:30, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Hex's study: — Unsigned, by: Hex4 / talk / contribs

Read the abstract, Hex4 initially appears correct. Feel free to add that to the article! Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 01:15, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
What does that abstract have to do with French 3 year olds getting vaccinated twice? First, they don't get vaccinated twice at 3, they get their first MMR at about 12 months and another 6 months later. Second, two MMR's are not unusual. That's what the CDC recommends. That's what Germany and the UK do, for example. I didn't search for other countries schedules, but you can, if you like. The point of multiple rounds is to ensure that as many as possible of the people who will get an immune response actually do even if almost all the response happens early. Gardasil, for example, is a 3-shot sequence even though 95%+ of the response happens after just 2 shots. Finally, the assay to test for MMR immune response is not cheap, >$100 at one place. So, yeah, it might sound excessive to have two shots, but it's what has been determined to have the best benefit for the cost. MarmotHead (talk) 20:52, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks though. With all those studies about vaccinations it becomes difficult to separate the trees from the bushes. Hex4 (talk 10:41, 9 september 2016

A distinction[edit]

should be made between those who incorrectly claim a link between MMR and autism and those who want infants to have three separate vaccinations 'so as not to overload their immune systems' who can merely be seen as over-cautious. (talk) 13:45, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

That's true. But those parents are incautious, even. There's no benefit to waiting. The parents who have their children take all the vaccines as directed by medical science are, in reality, the cautious ones. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:38, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
They perceive themselves as rightfully cautious though. I looked in the article and I don't see a explicit lack of distinction either. You think the "overload the immune system" scare originated from the MMR-autism "link", or they're even related (overloading immune system means autism!!1!), or maybe that's not a substantial portion of the population? --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 20:31, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Are they not distinct - if you-as-adult were told that you needed three vaccinations and could have them together or separated by 'several days', and no immediate prospect of encountering those diseases (or needle phobia), which would you prefer? (talk) 22:49, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
I would say three together since it lessens the amount of doctor visits and minimizes risk of exposure of diseases overall, but my question is: are those two a bit too related? Because a lot of times, people refuse vaccinations (usually all-at-once packages or no vaccines at all) because of autism AND 'immune system' scares. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 23:22, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
One is based upon a mis-presentation, the other is a preference even if based on a diffused and possibly acknowledged as slightly irrational sense that 'all at once may cause problems in some people and I do not wish to be one of those (but I will have all the vaccines etc and do not think they will cause problems). (talk) 11:17, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
and 'given the choice' is possibly the key distinction (we all have preferences with regards to certain potential risk-causers - eg 'fewer food additives'). (talk) 11:40, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
I added a bit of nuance with the word "delayed" (since taking in three separate vaccinations is what I consider a delay) in addition to outright denial. I suppose that covers that. If not, let me know. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 15:56, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

How common are the three diseases in question - which might well have an impact upon preferences? Being immunised against these diseases is necessary - but the impression one gets is that TB seems to be more in the news (and possibly Polio A). (talk) 22:40, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Any reason for a seperate article[edit]

Given that this article is a stub, is it necessary for this article to be split from the main vaccine article?—チーズバーガー • めん Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 00:41, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, we do have other vaccine articles. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 02:07, 18 March 2017 (UTC)