MMR thingy.

Hobbes

What do people think about this? Personally I think Blair should fess up and tell the world if his kid took the jab or not, and if not why.

Is there a reason he shouldn't?

For people living in a box

swiss

Mr Blair and his government have always espoused the benefits of the MMR jab, and his government departments have given the vaccination program the thumbs up.

Essentially, parents with concerns about the welfare of their children (because in rare cases the MMR jab can cause 'complications' such as physical disability and mental retardation) are asked to put the 'common good' above their own individual concerns.

Now, when Blair is faced with the same decision - he is facing public scrutiny with a characteristic two-facedness. Parents will look to example set by those who encourage them to take courses of actions that resides uneasily in their consciences.

I, for one believe that Tony Blair did not opt for the triple vaccination program, instead choosing to innoculate his loved one with the safer, but more expensive triple vaccination. It's up to him to tell me otherwise, instead of shielding behind inapplicable allusions to Leo's right to privacy.

Until that time, Mr Blair will face the same questions he has faced from parents asking 'If it's good enough for me why isn't it good enough for you?' I can imagine it would be difficult for him to find an acceptable response.

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

Because let's face it, the MMR vaccine's supposed ills have been blown way out of proportion by the physicians who claimed it causes such detrimental paedeatric effects. The MMR vaccine (Mumps, Measles and Rubella) in its combined form is about as safe as vaccines get, the hype surrounding possible side-effects is as much due to the media's extended coverage of a few isolated cases, as any real risk. If we want to talk about risk, the TB and BCG vaccinations are both far higher risk in terms of serious side-effects than MMR, in fact, the BCG results in keyloid scarring in over 70% of cases (I'm one of them, a particularly nasty type of keratinous scar which can't be removed except by a long and uncertain surgical process, causes intense irritation on contact with water and is generally undesirable cosmetically to look at).

But at the end of the day, the benefits of such combined vaccination vastly outweigh the potential risk. Triple vaccination carries less risk per injection it's true, but greater collective risk- thrice the risk of infection, cross-contamination and pyrocachexia following vaccination accompany it instead. In short, there's no 'best way', merely a cost-benefit analysis. If the PM wants to be carried away by the media hype which was stirred by an incompetent study, then good luck to him, he's well on the way to official GWBIS (George Dubyah Bush Intelligence Status[tm]).

seamus

and remember the last post was made by a Doctor. I got some sort of 3 in one 15 years ago (bless:)) and I'm fine now, I haven't even got that mad scar on the top of my arm I think the media has just enjoyed scaremongering of late, instead of siding with any governments.

mike65

Tony Blair should come clean, and people should have the choice
to give the 3 in 1 or not.


Mike.

Clintons Cat

Isnt there some thing called patient confidentiallity,why should being the child of someone famous deny you the same basic right to privacy as every other child in the country?
As i recall Gummer got rightly roasted by the tabloids for bringing his kids into a public health campaign( beefburgers/BSE)

I know politicians love dragging their kids into the spotlight as and when they feel it serves their purpose...hey Gordon Brown just the other night got the lead feature on the six o clock news for becoming a dad.

What will the media dream up next next? Demanding that Ewan Blair answer if he practices safe sex under the pretext of Aids awareness in the young?

Sand

I agree with Clinton. Its nobodys bussiness but the Blairs. Unless of course you want to set a precedent for breaking doctor-patient confidentiality.

Hobbes

The injections is supposed proven in a goverment report that 18% of children tested came down with Autism.

Now when you have a president who is supposed to have said everyone has to take it but won't say if his kid has or not, I can understand why a lot of people would be pissed off.

What's funny is the argument he put forward. They claimed that if he answered this he would have to answer other things like what his views on teenage drinking is (for example). Isn't that the point of voting the person in?

WhiteWashMan

its the business of the family and no one else.
go out and find something useful to do for god sake and stop making mountains out of molehills.
do you really give a fúck?