In a sign that the message is starting to get through about the danger of measles, seven out of ten parents believe parents who do not vaccinate their children with MMR are being irresponsible, according to a new ComRes/ITV poll.
In a sign that the message is starting to get through about the dangers associated with measles, seven out of ten parents believe parents who do not vaccinate their children with MMR are being irresponsible, according to a new ComRes/ITV poll.
Of those questioned, just 16 per cent disagreed and 13 per cent were not sure.
Eight in ten (83 per cent) also considered the MMR triple vaccination to be a safe way to protect children against Measles, Mumps and Rubella. A small minority (5 per cent) continued to view the MMR vaccine as unsafe. This is around 2.4 million British adults.
A large majority (85 per cent) of the British public said they supported the campaign to give a million teenagers the MMR vaccine while only 5 per cent disagree and 9 per cent do not know.
Public opinion is divided, however, over whether school children not vaccinated with MMR should be refused admission to state schools to protect other children. 37 per cent agree children not vaccinated with MMR should be refused admission to state schools while 43 per cent disagree and 20 per cent don’t know.
Left Foot Forward has previously looked at the media’s shameful role in the MMR scandal here, here and here.
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
13 Responses to “Parents who don’t vaccinate their children with MMR ‘irresponsible’, say 7 in 10 parents”
RedKev
Oh Yes, we’ve all heard the “irresponsibility” argument before – many times . However, on average I would say, those questioning the validity of the MMR vaccine have probably researched this subject far more than the average person who blindly follows “information” presented on NHS sites.
Medical Science is a multibillion $ industry, It has proven on numerous occasions to be very selective with its findings . SO LET ME MAKE THIS VERY CLEAR – Those refusing MMR DO NOT reject good science – we demand it. We also demand all research is free from corporate and governmental interference. Until we have proper, open debates and more research into the massive increase in rates of autism etc , no one will convince me of MMR safety. Without such transparency how can you be 100% confident?
Alec
I wouldn’t. How can any worthwhile research take one to a conclusion based “not on bad science but deliberate fraud”?
What continues to gast my flabber is that Wakefield’s original paper – you know, the one with falsiified data and which didn’t confirm he was taking funding from pressure groups – said summat to the effect that there wasn’t a statistical links between incidence of MMR and autism.
I’ll repeat that. It. Admitted. There. Was. No. Statistical. Link.
Alas, being an academic fraud isn’t illegal. But, if he – and, anyone else – could be shown to have sought funding or balanced accounting books on this fraud and so on, I’d be for going all Al Capone on them.
There are questions BtL here which I’d be interested to hear your responses to.
As for the sigh of desperation that parents should have a “choice” in the matter, I’ll offer them a deal… don’t vaccinate if you wish. Just forget about sending your kids to State school with other kids whose parents don’t want them exposed.
~alec
sackcloth and ashes
‘I would say, those questioning the validity of the MMR vaccine have probably researched this subject far more than the average person who blindly follows “information” presented on NHS sites’.
Really? Does their ‘research’ take into account the fact that the only source to claim a link between MMR and autism not only fabricated his work (which in any case was not independently verified by other medical specialists), but had a financial interest in promoting an alternative vaccine which he had patented?
Does it take into account that in order to manufacture the ‘evidence’ for his ‘research’ the doctor in question conducted tests on children (lumbar punctures, barium meals etc) which violated the basic principles of paediatrics, and which were not approved by the Research Ethics Committee at his own hospital.
Does it take into account the fact that Andrew Wakefield is a fucking amoral liar, and that no reputable medic is prepared to defend his research, or his methods?
Alec
Sheesh, I’d forgotten about the ‘unapproved’ invasive treatments. I’ve witnessed them, and they aint pleasant on anyone of any age.
Sod the Al Capone approach, why was GBH not investigated?
~alec
Autismum
‘I would say, those questioning the validity of the MMR vaccine have probably researched this subject far more than the average person who blindly follows “information” presented on NHS sites’.
I would say anyone who claims to have done thorough and extensive research on the safety of MMR and rejects it clearly couldn’t have understood what they read.