Parents in Britain do not trust the government’s pronouncements on MMR and autism in part because the government has lied to us about other matters like Weapons of Mass Destruction.
I got an even bigger surprise when I clicked the google ad next door offering single jabs. While offering single jabs Manchester Independent Family Doctors are at pains to point out that they,
“understand the difficulty encountered by parents in deciding whether or not to have their child vaccinated with the MMR vaccine as recommended by the department of health. The weight of evidence supporting the safety of MMR is now rather large. The evidence in support of a link between MMR and Autism or Inflammatory Bowel Disease is very weak. We hope the research summary below will help parents reach an informed decision on choosing how their child will be vaccinated.”
They go on to describe 9 pro MMR studies and 4 anti MMR studies, three by Wakefield et al. and one by O’Leary.
Then, a final surprise. They add a footnote
“In March 2004, 10 co-authors of Dr Wakefield’s original paper published in the Lancet retracted their support for the original findings.”
My initial thought was what a good lot they are. They offer single vaccines to parents who would otherwise refuse to vaccinate while doing their best to persuade you that the MMR is safe. But can you have it both ways? What about the parents who cannot afford their private clinic but still refuse the MMR, in part because they see middle class parents queuing up foir the single jabs and think there must be something to the MMR/autism connection after all.
Doctors are trained to make clinical judgements. It is their job. If MMR is the best option how ethical is it to take money from parents while providing a second best option for their children? I am not having a swipe here. This is a difficult question and one that will arise more and more as patients dispute professional matters with clinicians.