You have posted 2 articles from a sight called “What doctors Don’t Tell You”. Again, I suspect the most important skill that you can learn here is how to research information effectively.
That is not to say that there is not interesting material in these articles. The first accurately reports that Japan banned the MMR in 1993 because the strain of Mumps used was too virulent.
The UK also banned this MMR but instead replaced it with a less virulent version and did not have the problems experienced in Japan – you will note that in all cases the country responded by ensuring the populations safety, shows the controls work. No cover-up, no denial, no big pharma corruption - just fixing the problem as soon as its identified.
Perhaps the most interesting thing about this is this study http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/118735419/HTMLSTART
Which shows that the banning of MMR had no impact on autism rates. Again be clear – MMR does not cause Autism.
The second article quotes the underlying study at the bottom – here is the link
. It would be better if you could have posted this and or read it first as it would have made your post look more convincing and would have helped you understand the issue.
The basic premise is fair though – a strain of mumps exists against which the vaccine is not effective unless a further booster is given. Based on this info, what is the best response?
a)Remove the vaccine and expose all members of the population to all possible strains of mumps (as well as other diseases).
b)Administer a booster to the population
c)Research the new strain, develop your vaccine and introduce it to the population.
I would suggest that b and c are the better alternatives. This is also the recommendation of your links paper which states
I have not the time to demolish every link you post, I am desperately trying to get across the value of not just going to a conspiracy website and taking their opinion at face value – read the underlying studies and see what it actually says!
Maybe they will agree with you position and if they do, it will strengthen your case immensely. If you post links to sites like wwdty.com or interviews with playboy chicks it makes your argument look weak – mainly because it is weak. If you cannot find a credible source for your data, it is unlikely to be credible data. Spend the extra 2 minutes it takes to read the source info.
“A more effective mumps vaccine or changes in vaccine policy <additional boosters> may be needed to avert future outbreaks and achieve the elimination of mumps.”