#MMR Shit Storm ahoy!

A mother whose son suffered severe brain damage after he was given the controversial MMR vaccine as a baby has been awarded £90,000 compensation.

The judgment is the first of its kind to be revealed since concerns were raised about the safety of the triple jab.

From the Daily Mail. Six facts;

  1. This is a tragedy and the long fight this family has faced deserves publication.
  2. However, we know that no medical procedure is without risk, including vaccination, even if in aggregate it is a good procedure.
  3. We know that there is no significant link between the MMR vaccine and autism.
  4. In this case we know it was in fact epilepsy, not autism, which presented following the vaccination.
  5. We also know that The Daily Mail are scaremongering bastards keen to take advantage of any vulnerable individual to push an agenda.
  6. Nadine Dorries MP for mid-Narnia is involved saying “If an independent panel has reached the conclusion that there has been a link between the MMR vaccine and the brain damage suffered by this boy in this case, then it is fair to assume that there could be as many as thousands of children and parents in the same position. There should be full and easy access to all documentation relating to the judgment for any parent or professional to read and assess.”

Five questions;

  1. Are there any new scientific developments in this case to merit the reopening the “debate” on MMR, given the the suffering already caused in increased Measles, Mumps and Rubella cases?
  2. If the MMR jab remains proven relatively safe (and no new research has been presented suggesting otherwise), is the above story merely the abuse of an anecdotal evidence?
  3. Has advantage been taken of this family’s tragic story push an anti-vaccine agenda?
  4. Couldn’t this have been a story about the difficulty in negotiating the legal system surrounding vaccinations rather than a quasi hatchet job on the MMR Vaccine?
  5. If The Daily Mail are merely pushing an agenda, as it appears, what has made them choose this particular campaign?

I would suggest “no,” “yes,” “yes,” “yes,” and “because they market themselves to a bunch of moralising fuckwits who use science when it seems to suit them (Wakefield) and insult it when it doesn’t (all subsequent research on MMR and autism).”

Any alternative answers anyone would like to submit, as I readily admit I have not had a chance to read the judgement of look at the medical records?