Mumsnet has not checked the qualifications of anyone posting here. If you have any medical concerns we suggest you consult your GP.

Help me make sense of MMR - hype or theory

(942 Posts)
felicity10 Thu 17-Feb-11 20:53:35

OK, so I've been through a few pages of previous posts, I must be missing something because I can't make sense of it!

DD is 1 and I've had a letter about the vacs from the GP. I've heard about the MMR in the news few years ago and about the link to autism, but I just would really value your views.

Single vacs with no mumps or the MMR? confused Can anyone point me in the direction of key MMR issues?

I just don't want to get to the gp's and then feel like I am getting bullied into having the mmr - it is normally very no nonsense nurses who barely speak english, so will be unlikely to give me a clear answer as to any risks.

I am amazed that we have this lack of clarity in the UK.

Many thanks in advance!

OK so here's a summation of the issue as I see it:

There have been no research studies done that when deeply considered prove MMR is safe for an incredibly tiny percent of the population that some beleive to be at risk for a certain path of autism development. the research quoted as proving it does not in fact focus on the issue.

In the US money ahs been paid to a girl- google hannah poling.

BUT non vaccination comes with a lot of risks too and isn't to be chosen lightly. Measles etc are all nasty diseases on occasion. personally I have given ds4 singles BUT we have a family history of autism; if you don;t then the chances of your child being at riska re minute, there are otehr risk factors adherents to this theory report that do have some basis in science as linked such as parental auto immune disease.

there are no answers, what we do know of course is that no cause for autism has been proven (if anyone tells you there is well I got a Bplus in my MA essay on that alst week PMSL)- and nobody ahs proven MMR causes anything, and indeed measles etc can be nasty- Mum's preganancy before me was lost due to rubella.


go read. All you can do.

felicity10 Thu 17-Feb-11 21:18:18

Thanks Scram, will make a start on the reading.

Is there an argument to have the 12 month boosters separately from the MMR? If I do do the MMR that is!

LivingDead Thu 17-Feb-11 21:39:36

My understanding is that Andrew Wakefield did a study regarding mmr, meaning that a very small sector of the population, those with auto immune problems where at risk from the mmr, ie it could contribute to autism. (This is what I have gathered)

There have been lots of rebuttals/arguments about the validity of the study. It has been misrepresented in the media as "MMR causes Autism", lots of back and forth about Wakefield, "he was in it for the money" etc. God knows what is true.

Tbh I think, mmr is safe as long as vaccines are safe. Lets face it,at the start of life most children have a shit load of vaccines (2,3,4 month ones) these have a greater variety of diseases in them than the mmr, but nobody bleats about those.

I don't get the whole single vaccine thing. If it's the additives that cause autism then you are giving 3x the dose.

If it is the actual measels mumps or rubella vaccine that is dangerous, then don't give it at all.

Some children are sensitive to vaccines and shouldn't be vaccinated, this is obvious. If my children had an auto immune disease I would be wary.

It's the concentration on the mmr I don't understand, when the earlier ones have loads of diseases included, caused a bad reaction in my dd.

mamofK Thu 17-Feb-11 21:50:36

Wakefield's original paper in the Lancet journal has been dismissed as fraudulent research by the General Medical Council. He carried out a "study" on a cohort of 12 children and made up a link between the MMR vaccine, autism and bowel disease. On the other hand, in actual scientific research, the very real dangers associated with catching either measles, mumps or rubella have been well categorised. I actually think Wakefield could be charged with wrongful death in the cases where children died from measles when the parents didn't vaccinate due to their fears and concerns caused by his lies.

LD I thinkWRT to singles people are looking mroe at the spacing issue.

The focus on MMR is purely due to the Wakefield circus i think.

I don;t know if MMR is linked or not; I know we are very far from understanding how genes and the environment interact especially in atypical individuals. DS3 regressed post MMR but DS1 also has ASD and ds4 seems to be showing it too.

mamakk youa re porbably right to take Wakefield oput of the equation in terms of understanding- for a start many disagree with your assessment of what happened but am not an AW specialist.

There still remain many people who watched a post MMR regressin, regardless of MMR.

Reality though is ALL vaccinations have a risk: nursed a child made quadriplegic after a vaccine that wasn't MMR. Which is why people should read everything they can find and make their own conclusions: there is no risk free option.

Normantebbit Thu 17-Feb-11 21:57:18

I recommend you read Bad Science by Ben Goldacre. He makes a devastating critique of all the media hype surrounding MMR, the misleading information, the initial 12 case studies which led to the media circus.

Honestly, read it.

Normantebbit Thu 17-Feb-11 21:58:08

And yes all vaccinations, all medical treatments carry a risk and many are not nearly as well tested and research as MMR.

mamofK Thu 17-Feb-11 22:00:33

@Normantebbit - I LOVE ben goldacre. I especially love his scathing chapter on "Dr"Gillian McKeith - have you ever seen a less likely poster girl for health? She looks like a jaundiced gnome

@ScramVonChubby - I agree, no risk free options in medical care. However, I think people should be weighing up known (and quite common) risks versus very rare and, in many cases, as yet unsubstantiated risks

silverfrog Thu 17-Feb-11 22:02:15


Wakefield did not carry out a study on 12 children.

he reported a case series.

he did not make up the new form of bowel disease that he (and his associates) found. this finding has been replicated time and again around the world.

he did not lie, he did not misrepresent, and most of all, he did not say that mmr causes autism.

LivingDead has it about right - if there is a history of auto-immune disease in the faimily, allergies, hayfever, etc, then I would be very wary.

Richard Halvorsen's book is a good read. sets out the case for each of the vaccines (not just mmr - no axe to grind). he also does consultations if you are so inclined.

Hannah Poling is not the only child who has had a payout in the States - Bailey Banks is another, amongst many others.

Perhaps mamofK- well indeed. And of course Ben goldacre should be on the reading list: not a fan myself but many are.

My own opinion if I may is that MMR does not cause ASD per se but in a very tiny number of people it might trigger a genetic tendency towards the syndrome. there is absolutely non research to back that up (am doing ASd research for uni postgrad) but so far actual research is just at the 'some environmental factors trigger ASd and these might bemany small things'

LivingDead Thu 17-Feb-11 22:07:50

Yes but people happily give the multi-vaccines at 2,3,4 months of age. They surely have more diseases given at the same time than the mmr.

I don't understand the mmr spacing issue,when these vaccines are given as standard, without general uproar.

I honestly think the mmr thing is a media creation. Like I say, more diseases are given over a shorter amount of time at 2,3,4, months. Hardly anybody cares about this, because it hasn't been flagged in the media. It seems that people are quite stupid.

If they are questioning the mmr because 3 diseases are given together, why did they not question the earlier vaccines?

If you are anti any vaccines then fair enough I respect your opinion, but just the mmr, you are a media led sheep.

Sf how amusing to see you here- did we not both exile ourselves? wink

I gave my child the 3 separately for this reason: I am petrified of MMR becuase I had to watch my son become severely autistic after it, and of course I also eliminated many otehr things- such as milk and gluten.

But equally my Mum lost a baby to rubella so something was important as well; it wasn;t easily done, in facct Dh did it in the end because I simply got too upset and indeed he- a science undergrad so not exactly arty farty- was scared as well.

I honestly think anyone who struggles to understand that alcks empathy.

As for media led sheep- that really is funny! media led sheep don;t advocate reseacrh to people, they say ooh no you mustnt becuase some sleb said so.

mamofK Thu 17-Feb-11 22:15:22

@ScramVonChubby - excellent point. There is an emerging branch of study called pharmacogenomics which investigates why some people have adverse reactions to some medications (incl vaccinations) and others don't. It is not a flaw in the medication itself usually, but rather, as you say, an unfortunate combination of many seemingly unrelated factors including a person's individual genetic makeup.

@silverfrog - the man was struck off and his research dismissed as fraudulent. The Lancet withdrew his paper. Why would you believe him and his tiny study rather than the rest of the medical world?

silverfrog Thu 17-Feb-11 22:18:54

I just swore off SN, Scram wink (although not entirely successfully grin). I have been mooching around the rest in a strop ever since grin

nice to see you though.

LivingDead: there is well documented evidence that catching certain diseases within a short frame of time leads to a higher chance of autism. combos like chicken pox and measles in a short space of time, for instance.

it is also well documented that, along with the new form of bowel disease, Wakefield et al found measles strains in the gut tissue samples, where they were certainly not expected to be. this is what lead to his hypothesis re: mmr and the bowel disease.

FWIW, I wouldn't touch any of the new 4/5/6in 1 jabs either.

silverfrog Thu 17-Feb-11 22:22:09

mamaofk: his research wasnot dismissed as fraudulent y anyone who actually counts. Richard Horton described (at the gmc trial, while appearing for the prosecution) the paper (which is still not a study, however much you might like to continue to call it one) as "good science, which still stands"

yes, it was withdrawn form publication in the Lancet - tbh, he couldn't do much else about that. but he (Horton) also, at the same time, said he wished the clock could be turned back, and the paper considered in the light it was presented, without all the media hoo-ha, because it resented a valid scientific point. he supported the findings in the paper.

ladylush Thu 17-Feb-11 22:24:37

We have a history of auto-immune disease on both dh and my side of the family. I wouldn't give the dc MMR. Now that we've just discovered dd has CP I'm not even sure whether she should have the single vaccines.

LivingDead Thu 17-Feb-11 22:26:46

No, media led sheep only question that which has already been questioned by the media.

Why has only the mmr been questioned, when lots of diseases are included at 2/3/4 months old?

Nobody has ever answered me on this question, this vaccine is very loaded, my dd had a massive lump on her leg, was very unwell after this vaccine.

They include more and more with these vaccines, meningitis c etc.

Nobody seems to give a shiny shite, lots of diseases given at once, yet the whole 3 mmr thing, which has actually been tested over a long period of time and seems to be safe.

Every time I have had a child they have added something to the initial vaccines. Or in the case of my latest child added a whole new booster.

Surely at such a young age,these have much more potential to affect development.

mamofK Thu 17-Feb-11 22:30:15

@ladylush - what's CP? excuse my ignorance

LivingDead Thu 17-Feb-11 22:33:07

I must admit though that I have actually given my children all of the relevant vaccines.

But I still do not understand why people concentrate on the mmr.

silverfrog Thu 17-Feb-11 22:36:15

clearly people concentrate on the mmr because of all the media fuss over the last 14 years.

tbh, I don't get it either.

if you are aware of the mmr stuff (and is there anyone who isn't aware of the media storm?), and feel you want to research that more thoroughly, I don't understand why you wouldn't want ot research all jabs more thoroughly.

but that is just me, speaking a ssomeone who did the research, and then was ignored when it came to dd1's injections - the urse went ahead and jabbed her anyway, despite both dh & I saying we did not want it done hmm.

so fat lot of good my research was.

felicity10 Thu 17-Feb-11 22:37:09

LivingDead that is a very good point, DD has had all the vacs up until now, so has had many together in one go.

I'm not meaning to just be a media sheep in questioning MMR in particular, it is just that I've only heard of a scare around MMR and want to understand it more. It was more that I am interested in what might make a child more susceptible to a reaction.

Thank you for all these posts, it may take me a while to go through all the info, but has pointed me in the direction of some good reference material!

ladylush Thu 17-Feb-11 22:38:47

CP is Cerebral Palsy.

Livingdead - I think it's because 1)the link between auto-immune traits and risk of autism
22) many parents feel the DTP is more important as it protects against more than one nasty disease. MMR - only measles is potentially life-threatening.

felicity10 Thu 17-Feb-11 22:39:36

Just to add, I did research the content of the previous vacs, just not the fact that they were given all in one go!

I was particularly concerned by whooping cough one because a childhood friend had it and was damaged in some way, I can't recall the details, but as a result, I didn't have the vac and then guess whooping cough. My mother still has nightmares about that.

feelingsleepy Thu 17-Feb-11 22:47:14

I second the recommendation for the Ben Goldacre book (or go to the Bad Science website - lots of good stuff there).

Useful couple of other sites.

It's an emotive and difficult subject, but try and look at the wider picture, and very real proven danger these diseases pose. In terms of spaced vaccines, I know very little, but have a suspicion there have been studies showing some issues (if only around leaving children unprotected for longer, and the possibility of not completing the course) but can't find the data. Will see if I can dig out a link.


bubbleymummy Thu 17-Feb-11 22:47:57

Only got a few posts in before people start talking about the 'dangers' and 'risks' of Mumps and rubella. Read about the diseases and you will see that they are not. they are usually mild illnesses and in many cases completely asymptomatic. Rubella is dangerous to a developing baby though - tbh this makes vaccinating against it during childhood seem even more risky given that you are less likely to be immune to it by the time you get pregnant! If you acquire natural immunity to it, it lasts for life.

Some people choose not to give the mmr because they don't want to vaccinate against all 3 diseases and would rather that their children have the opportunity to acquire better, natural immunity - it isn't always about the lancet paper which btw was a case series. Look it up so you can see the difference in what is expected from it. Wakefield did not say that the mmr caused autism!

EdwardorEricCantdecide Thu 17-Feb-11 22:58:52

ok her's my POV
<gets ready to be slated>

whilst there has been no causal link proven, i beleive there is a link for some children (obviously not all)

DNephew was saying many words and 2 phrases - Be happy & Beat it - grin before having MMR.
after having it he has literally not said a word since, he is now 7yo, is not potty trained has absolutley no means of communication (didn't even cry when burnt hand on a cooker?!)
he doesn't notice anyone or anything doesnt play with toys etc.

its truly heartbreaking to watch.
for this reason i have given DS seperate jabs and GP said that if mumps doesnt come in by the time he's 4yo he can have triple booster as shouldn't be as much of a risk when he's older.

hope this helps but i understand just how difficult a decision this is.

felicity10 Thu 17-Feb-11 22:59:21

feelingsleepy thanks for the links.

<<dons white coat and reading specs>>

LivingDead Thu 17-Feb-11 23:02:33

I did and will vaccinate with the mmr. I honestly do not see the point of vaccinating seperatly.

LivingDead Thu 17-Feb-11 23:06:49

I'm sorry Edward but I don't believe any causative effect.

EdwardorEricCantdecide Thu 17-Feb-11 23:18:22

as i say there is no causal link thus far however for some children genetics maybe?? it seems to trigger autism.
it also triggered it in my DB although much much less severe than nephew.

and my mum's friends son. who is now 13yo or so and can't go out in public due to panic attacks etc, mum's friend said long before child was showing symptoms that he "changed" immediatly following jab i.e same day.

also just to add nephew went to a nursery and school for autism specifically and only came across 1 little girl with autism so seems to be much more prominent in boys?

if i had a daughter i would consider 3in1 but with a boy id be much more cautious purely due to personal experience.

<disclaimer i dont judge any1 by their decisions as i beleive we're all just trying to do what we think is best, wether its seperate, 3in1, or none at all>

startail Thu 17-Feb-11 23:39:49

I am tempted to shout the HYPE ABOUT MMR IS RUBBISH! OK I've got that off my chest
There are no reliable large trials showing any link to autism.

The trouble is in our protected, safe, western world we still want to do the best to protect our children from the few remaining dangers they face.
Saying no to MMR and preventing your child developing Autism, was something you could do. That all the experts said you were being silly, just made you fight all the harder. Cynical papers joined in and common-sense went out the window.

I also recommend you read Bad Science by Ben Goldacre. or read his web site MMR HOX

bubbleymummy Thu 17-Feb-11 23:42:15

Or maybe you should read the paper itself Startail and see for yourself that it was a case series and it did not say that mmr causes autism!

EdwardorEricCantdecide Thu 17-Feb-11 23:55:38

Startail do you have any experience of autism post MMR?
I have never even read the article from lancet. But would rather put my trust in docors/journalists than politicians
It's fairly obvious that even if there is a link it will never be accepted by any government as cost in damages would be huge.
On another government conspiracy theory whle I'm on a roll is why there is no stock of single mumps? Hasn't been for 2yrs (in Scotland) yet it's same stuff they put in MMR??
We need to be given more choice to do wat we feel is right by our kids.
And not told what to do by government or made to feel bad for the choices we make!

ChunkyPickle Fri 18-Feb-11 00:17:27

A Case series of 12, where children had had the MMR, and had a certain bowel disease.

Given how many children have MMR, it was bound to be the case that there will be crossover.

I could do a case study on one-legged people who have had MMR, but that doesn't mean that MMR causes one-leggedness

MMR is safer than the (mild in most cases, horrific in others) diseases themselves. Look at the stats and you will see.

If it's 3 diseases in one jab that bothers you, by all means pay for the singles, but if it's the preservative that bothers you surely best to go for the all in one (which causes no issue in the vast, vast, vast majority of children)

silverfrog Fri 18-Feb-11 08:16:24

Chunky - if your case series showed that the one-legged peole had lost their leg through something which directly correlated with having the mmr, then there would be an issue...

no one has said that mmr is not safe for the vast majority of people (although the govmt's own Cochrane review - held specifically to quell all the "mmr is unsafe" media jibes concluded that there was not enough safety trial evidence to conclude it was safe - how reassuring hmm)

if, however, you really do think (as you appear to, from your post) that collateral damage to a minortiy of children is all fine and above board because the majority are ok - well, I'm not sure how to answer that. what an extraordinary "I'm alright Jack" attitude.

what wakefield found was a series of parents (and there were many more than the 12 he and colleagues presented in the 1998 paper) who had all noticed onset of autism post mmr. he (and others_ listened, investigated, and wrote up the case series, having found the new form of bowel disease, suggesting that more research was needed to find out a) whether the jab was safe (mmr has a controversial history at best - what with the Urabe strain issues as well) and b) if it was safe for the majority, then how to work out the minority who were/are being affected.

AT NO POINT DID WAKEFIELD SUGGEST NOT TO VACCINATE He is not anti-vaccine, but found something really quite worrying (which has since been replicated around the world, but not in the large studies anti-Wakefielder's cite - those studies do not even begin to look at the issues Wakefield raised, so how they can say theu do not exist is beyond me confused), and on the back of that he recommneded using single jabs (which were available on teh nhs at the time, and for some months after his call for this) while adequate safety studies were carried out.

why the govmt went on to withdraw the singles, when uptake of them was quite high, and it was clear that parents were rejecting the mmr in substantial numbers is a mystery.

but anyway, that aside.

for a minority of children, mmr is not safe. some of the indicators for your child ebing in this minority group would be history of allergy/auto immune/gut diseases inthe family.

'No, media led sheep only question that which has already been questioned by the media.

That wouldn;t be me then, seeing as I got a B+ in my ASD Aetiology essay. I do question what's been looked at in peer reviewed research- and what peer reviewed research, when combined with the expriences of a few of the very many parents I talk to every day, tells me is that there seem to be a lot of different triggers and we have yet to identify them.

Do i think MMR triggered it with harry? no, actually: I think early exposure to the casein protein did, something that is questioned in the same way as MMR by a few and which, combined with gluten, is beginning to show through in research such as that by genius (great name for a researcher, no?)

Now, I am pro vacination: to the extent that somewhere I have a certificate ofr an essay on Jenner I did at college. I know people who ahve survived polio etc. But I think the collaterel damage approach only works at all in we have a society that can help suport those who are unlucky: we don't. We have a society where every penny is rationed, where a 20% cut to disability support is approaching, where MN supports a campaign for a stop to sexual clothing for children (and big plus for that) in thousands yet one for respite gets 47 posts. Where posters advocate no say for anyone dependent on benefits, even when disabled (it's abd form to reference a poster but I could). Where the slightest help at school is hard won and rare- DS1 has a palce at a specialist unit: he needs it, badly. To get that place we had to fight for 2 places wanted by 37 chidlren- and indeed another bunch who were told not to even try.

Collaterel damage and the like isn;t really acceptable IMO but even if it were it would require everyone to have a shared responsibilty for the disabled, the whole rights with responsibility thing- you ahve a right to see an end to vaccine preventable disease IF you are prepared to absorb responsibility for the care of thsoe affected- that doesn;t ahppen. My friend whose DD developed CP? His wife died shortly after and he had tyo give up all his life, career, family etc and move 200 miles to beenar a therapy base: after 13 years they won a hige settlement but by then it was too late- he was too long out of his research field; they'd spent 10 years alone in a horrid council flat......

Now, I was happy to pay for teh singles: and here in Wales the cost isn;t that prohibitive- under £200 each rather than more than double elsewhere. but I cn;t buy mumps becuase they don;t make it. That's my actual huge gripe I guess: if people like me want protection we re forced into one narrow route even if we are willing to pay. I could take a road that covers my own sanity and yet protects everyone else- IF they still made it.

'for some children genetics maybe?? it seems to trigger autism.

We now know that a lot of ASD is genetic (not all- mitochondrial issues can be responsible and there are some interestingc ases around herpes, encephalitis etc) but what we don;t know is the trigger as it does seem to ahve epigenetic origins- as do most genetic issues anyway. By which I mean there is an interaction between environment and genes: so PKU is epigentic because unless phenylalanine is present in the diet it wouldn't be an issue.

There's some intresting stuff out there on meds used to reduce fever causing issues with the immune system- now it would be easy to hypothesise that as vaccinations cause a peak in temperatrure as a standard reaction, and that medics often advocate administering meds to combat this even before the 3 month age, that could cause a crossover with vaccinations BUT as temeperature is also dangerous, you'd still be stuck trying to decide between avoiding meds for temp or the intial jab anyway, if you were ASD risk averse.

I would like to repeat though that I have never advocated anyone to not have the MMR or any other jab. I only advocate people read widely as possible before deciding. Advocating that is right in EVERY issue.

bubbleymummy Sat 19-Feb-11 16:29:17

Scram - why do you think temperatures are dangerous? They are the body's way of fighting off illness and are part of its natural response. The NICE guidelines don't recommend treating a fever unless it is causing discomfort. Unfortunately many people feel the need to do 'something' when their child is ill so they reach for the paracetemol/ibuprofen even though the child doesn't actually need it. I think people feel like that by bringing the temperature down they are making the child better but the illness is still there - all you have done is taken away one of the body's defenses.

rightpissedoff Sat 19-Feb-11 16:36:16

The large trials designed to prove there's no link don't do any such thing.

There probably is a link, for some children.

Too much evidence out there for me to take the risk anyway.

Impressive how many people can say without seeing any damaged children, before or after their vaccines or their damage, or their medical notes, or their doctors, or their parents, or their health visitors, that they can diagnose through the power of tinterweb that these children weren't damaged by vaccines.

Now that's a talent.

rightpissedoff Sat 19-Feb-11 16:37:14

"We now know that a lot of ASD is genetic"

it's equally likely that vulnerability to vaccine ingredients is genetic

Bubbley raised temperatures above a certain level are dangerous, hyperpyrexia causes brain damage.

rightpissedoff absolutely; but I would guesstimate that for a child to develop asd after a vaccine tehre would need to be a rare mix og genes interplaying.

sausagerolemodel Sat 19-Feb-11 21:01:31

FACT: MMR is entirely safe for the vast majority of people who take it (and there is no evidence to prove that it isn't safe for everyone in terms of ASD, leading me on to

FACT: Their is absolutely no evidence to show that there is a link between MMR and ASD. (the most recent in many many many trials was published yesterday)

FACT: Large scale clinical trials have shown no statistically significant risks associated with the vaccine

FACT: Its really easy to be emotionally swayed by vocal individuals who refuse to believe that the issues their children suffer from are NOT related to vaccine damage*, but who do you trust - a sample size of one strident person who may or ,may not have any medical or scientific training or credentials? or the objectively collated data from a clinical trial of thousands and thousands of people?

**the same people who campaigned for years insisting that MMR and ASD were linked, despite mounting evidence to the contrary, now think that it must be a much smaller subset of genetically predisposed children who are affected by it. Unfortunately this subset is so small that it won't show up in clinical trials. Convenient. What this means, statistically speaking, is that there is as much chance of it being a complete coincidence that their child got sick after the injection as there is that its a real association. Either way, its such a tiny chance the injection is clearly still the safer option.

FACT: Not all vaccines are entirely safe and their is such a thing as vaccine damage, It is extremely rare and it is clear that the benefits outweigh the risks hugely if you look at the figures

FACT: those who claim that these diseases are not really that bad almost invariably refer to the same anti-vaccination scare-mongery website graphs which are wilfully misrepresented to make it look like the vaccines don't work. They do this for example by taking the graph of a long time period (say over the century) and point and say "look deaths were falling anyway! it wasn't anything to do with the vaccine". Its just not understanding the data and being too easily swayed by some Herbert wilfully misrepresenting it.

Most of the anti-vaccination sites spout scientific garbage whilst sounding scientifically literate.

If you are considering not vaccinating, you might want to have a little look here. _Count/Home.html

Jenny McCarthy has been instrumental in instilling fear into the US population about the vaccine regime and this is the result.

The vaccines threads on this forum tend to be dominated by people who do have reservations and or children/family affected, and therefore please be aware that you will get a very skewed result from asking this question. This is because most people who have vaccinated and don't have kids with ASD don't feel the need/desire to come and fight a big fight about it. Strength of feeling and number of posts does not equate with scientific truth.

FACT I ahve done none of thsoe things

All SF and I ever advocate is people go read themselves. Everyone who comes onto this section of the board has a strong view. Although mine is just never amke a medical decision without reading and learning first. Always served me well, that.

bubbleymummy Sat 19-Feb-11 22:11:24

Scram, it is prolonged fevers above that level that can be dangerous. The hypothalamus does not normally allow our body temperature to reach the danger level of 107-108 degrees F that (if it stays at that level for some time) could cause damage unless it has somehow been compromised e.g by sunstroke or poisoning. Typically fevers do not reach as high as 41.5 - even without meditating. People seem to think that the fever will just keep going up and up unless they do something to stop it which just isn't the case.

sausage " Its just not understanding the data and being too easily swayed by some Herbert wilfully misrepresenting it."

Can you explain the data for us then please? I have seen those charts so I'm interested to see how the number of deaths declining prior to the introduction of vaccines could be interpreted in a different way. Is there another chart that shows something different?

bubbleymummy Sat 19-Feb-11 22:12:55

Sigh - meditating = medicating. stupid auto correct!

sausagerolemodel Sat 19-Feb-11 23:27:36

Scram I delberately didn't name any names, but I think you know that my general observation is true.

I'd love to know why it is that you are sceptical about the contents of peer reviewed journals, but happy to be allowed to be swayed by entirely subjective personal testimony? One of these things provides generally reliable testimony based on repeatable findings (and where they are not repeatable, because they are wrong, or fradulent - see Wakefield et al, they soon get rubbished). The other is subjective anecdotel evidence which is not supported by the heavy weight of evidence. Can you appreciate that anecdotal evidence is weak evidence, even if its powerful emotionally?

And, since you said you didn't do do any of things I mentioned; "J'accuse"

because the paragraph I quote below is nonsensical, All it says in amongst that big load of jargon is "ASD may have inherited and non inherited features" So why mention all that bollocks and science speak, if not to make you look like you have more authority on the subject than you do?

We now know that a lot of ASD is genetic (not all- mitochondrial issues can be responsible and there are some interestingc ases around herpes, encephalitis etc) but what we don;t know is the trigger as it does seem to ahve epigenetic origins- as do most genetic issues anyway. By which I mean there is an interaction between environment and genes: so PKU is epigentic because unless phenylalanine is present in the diet it wouldn't be an issue.

Bubbley - just going to collect some info. Will be back later or in the morning


rightpissedoff Sun 20-Feb-11 00:02:10

"FACT: Their is absolutely no evidence to show that there is a link between MMR and ASD. (the most recent in many many many trials was published yesterday)"

Very far from being a fact, this is bolleaux. I would go so far as to say, utter bolleaux.

rightpissedoff Sun 20-Feb-11 00:03:33

actually quite a lot of what sausage wrote wasn't worth the type I just spent reading it

hey ho

sausagerolemodel Sun 20-Feb-11 00:51:36

Just a quick example

Please look at this graph

Measles mortality in the UK showing not just the downward trend since the turn of the century but the massive spikes and variability that occurred with outbreaks. .png

Of course death rates were going down due to improved sanitation, hygiene and antibiotics coming along from 1935 onwards, and thankfully death from diseases of all kinds declined a great deal last century. But remember this is deaths, there is still a huge amount of disability (deafness/blindness/braindamage) caused by measles even when its not fatal. Healthcare improvement stopped so many people dying from it - but we didn't stop people getting it it, so it was important to control outbreaks as well.

Here's the same data on a graph from the Rosemary Cottage Natural Health Centre - it implies that the vaccine was unnecessary and made no difference to the general level of health/mortality e/MMRgraph.JPG

Wow - why would you vaccinate when there are practically no deaths from it anyway? Well that's where that graph is misleading:

If we take the very same data and zoom in a bit to the time period we are interested in (1968 onwards) you can see a distinct drop after vaccines are brought in. (US and UK data shown) uk.png

On this scale you can clearly see that actually there is still a fair bit of death and disability going on at the bottom of the scale, albeit less (thank goodness) than a century previously.

In 1961 just before the first measles vaccine was brought in, there were 800,000 cases of measles and 152 deaths. (I'm assuming these are 152 children that the Rosemary Cottage Clinic think were insignificant and not worthy of saving)

The year before MMR came in there were still 16 deaths. After the MMR vaccine, this has dropped again with no more than 1 death a year and many years no deaths at all since 2000. But outbreaks are on the increase again precisely because of the drop in uptake of MMR.

** actual measles death figures here 1195733835814

This is just one example - the anti-vaccination graphs have been demolished more comprehensively by other people if you want to read more try these -part-i-introduction/


rightpissedoff Sun 20-Feb-11 12:31:17

I can't be bothered to look at your links. I've been told so many lies about this over the years, there's no reason to trust anything someone like you writes. For example, you've managed at leastone and I'm sure if I read that long post I would find some more, but it's not even that I've got better things to do, it just bores me, going through stuff and picking holes in it and finding the flaws for the million zillionth time. Then the lies and the flaws that are pointed out are never addressed or admitted to, the propaganda machine just moves on to more half truths and lies.

Of course, should any trusting mum believe a word of your rubbish, have their child vaccinated and then watch him or her slide into regression the next day, you'd just say it was "coincidence", and "there's no evidence" they're connected, as would the doctor, and every one else that poor mum had trusted. What a load of old bollocks.

'I'd love to know why it is that you are sceptical about the contents of peer reviewed journals, but happy to be allowed to be swayed by entirely subjective personal testimony

I am not

But whilst iw ould say the peer reviewed trials probaly do say that MMR is safe for teh vast majority, anyone who reads them regualrly knows that teh desiign of these trials is not set up to pick up tiny subgroups: indeed, an margin of non conformity of fisning is acceptable within the statistical analysis, especially when delaing with alrge trials, and could easily mask such a group.

And as yet we don't ahve methods of identifying those members of tiny subgroups at a stage where outcomes could be followed, even if they did agin ethical approval (and who would give that? Assumig a science background for yourself, you would know that nerging a theoretically at risk group into a test group and then following them would be refused ethics clearance- certainly by my own uni anyway).

I would love to see far more work done on these small subgroups, and I would like to see better record keeping- I know for a fact that ds3's file does not say regressed after MMR, causal or not, because the Paed refused to listen to that bit.

Why do I listen to individual cases? becuase there is no research method in the world that picks up individual cases, and there is absolutely no reason why a aprent saying X should not be believed for their child: listening to that does not prove the same happened to anyone else after all, just repsonding on a cse basis, acknowedging teh variable (eg the paracetamol research I emntioned earlier). If we started lsitening to the very many parents saying this and designed some research that actually did look at the tiny subgroup insofar as it is definable (history of bowel issues, parental autoimmune disorders) then we might get real answers either way. Which is surely the best of all? Will it happen? Do you think the Government could afford it if somethingw ere shown? i don't, tbh. I dobnt it's the causal factor but they would be silly if they haven't considered ittbh, and what researcher would wish to be the one that found the fact that bankrupted the NHS? not me!

bubbleymummy Sun 20-Feb-11 14:59:39

Thank you for the links sausage. Just wanted to say a few things now - will have to come back later to finish!

For a start the graphs that you refer too initially show different time periods. One could argue that the second graph (the zoomed in one) is misleading because it only shows cases from 1940 when, as shown in the first graph, there had been a huge decline at the start of the century already. This obviously occurred without any vaccine (or even widespread use of antibiotics!) Why choose the 1940s to start the second graph? Perhaps because there was another peak in the early 40s - visible in the first graph - probably due to the second world war - health/living conditions etc. and this makes the decrease in cases look more extreme- although if you look at the first graph you can see that it is nothing in comparison to what had already happened!

Also, considering that antibiotics use began to increase in the 1940s - some of the decline in measles fatality needs to be attributed to them because most measles deaths are due to secondary infections such as pneumonia - which obviously has a much better survival rate with antibiotics!

bubbleymummy Sun 20-Feb-11 15:00:25

see what happens when i rush! Too = to

bubbleymummy Sun 20-Feb-11 15:26:36

Back sooner than I thought!

The second graph states 'measles vaccine licensed(1968)' just as the cases start to drop off - this makes it look like all of a sudden there is a drop as soon as the vaccine comes on the scene BUT how long was it between when the vaccine was licensed to when it was in use AND how long before a significant number of the population had been vaccinated in order to actually make a difference? Perhaps this was just another of the natural 'troughs' that can be seen throughout the century. If you look at the HPA figures there was another 'peak' in 1970 - actually one could again question the misleading position of the arrow in the second chart - it makes it look as if the decline starts after the vaccine when in fact, the vaccine was licensed 2 years before the peak!

Even after the introduction of the vaccine there were still significant outbreaks with numbers greater than or equal to some years before the vaccine. (early 70s '78, '79) The main difference is the number of deaths in these instances - even though there have been some large outbreaks, the fatality figures are much lower than they were. This can not be attributed to the vaccine.

I think its is a bit misguided to think that the graphs have been 'demolished'. I'm not sure how that is even possible to be honest! The people who you linked to are interpreting the information in a different way but are no more qualified to do so and, it would seem, just as likely to mislead in the way they present their information!

rightpissedoff Sun 20-Feb-11 16:45:47

Excellent points bubbley.

sausagerolemodel Sun 20-Feb-11 23:53:13

Bubbley -er the whole point I was making was that the graphs use different time points. I said previously, death rates were in decline from Victorian times and of course antibiotics played a huge role in that.

Measles however, was not going to eradicate itself. The year before the vaccine there were 150+ deaths.

And to answer your second post. Vaccination is effective within a few weeks, so its an erroneous suggestion that the drop in cases immediately following vaccination coming in was "too soon".

As regards "demolition" if you look at some of the anti-vaxx sites they have literally made data up (last link). Data wasn't available one year, so they just decided they would insert their own.

As concerns the Rosemary Cottage being "no more qualified to interpret the data than I am" - I beg to differ. But if one of them also does happen to have a PhD in Infectious Diseases, please ask them to bring the argument here.

RightPissedOff: "I'd LOVE to see the peer reviewed journal paper showing the link between ASD and MMR - please do post a link.

PS Have you ever heard of Occam's Razor?

seeker Mon 21-Feb-11 00:00:31

And unfortunately, the time in a child''s life when autistic tendencies are beginning to be noticable is also the time - around 18 months - when the MMR vaccine is routinely given.

People understandably casing around for reasons have a ready made hook to hanf the diagnosis on. Sad but true.

rightpissedoff Mon 21-Feb-11 00:01:19

Yes -- I'm afraid it works against you.

Have a little think about it.

Large numbers of people report regression in their children after vaccination.

Large rise in ASD disorders since vaccination introduced.

Simplest answer? That there is a link.

It takes a very large stretch of reason to say the simplest answer is that although we don't know the cause, we know it's not vaccination.

I don't think you understand Occam's Razor tbh.

rightpissedoff Mon 21-Feb-11 00:03:57

"And unfortunately, the time in a child''s life when autistic tendencies are beginning to be noticable is also the time - around 18 months - when the MMR vaccine is routinely given."

It's also a coincidence that we first began to be told this is when MMR was introduced at 18 months. It's also interesting that the time has moved forward to 12-14 months since the vaccination was moved forward.

How people can believe this crap I don't know.

It's like short term memory loss. "Oh everyone's always known this". Er -- no, we haven't.

rightpissedoff Mon 21-Feb-11 00:08:26

oh the joy of wiki

Occam's razor (or Ockham's razor[1]), often expressed in Latin as the lex parsimoniae, translating to law of parsimony, law of economy or law of succinctness, is a principle that generally recommends selecting the competing hypothesis that makes the fewest new assumptions, when the hypotheses are equal in other respects.[2] For instance, they must both sufficiently explain available data in the first place.

Your theories don't even explain the available data, let alone tend towards the simplest explanation.

Best avoid this one in future.

sausagerolemodel Mon 21-Feb-11 00:13:05

RPO - you really need to read the literature. If there was a link - then the analysis of the hundreds of thousands of cases in which NO link has been found, would have found it. In the meantime, how about a look at the developing world which has no vaccination schedule is doing?

18 deaths an hour. Thats 3 dead kids since I last posted.

[slow hand clap]

sausagerolemodel Mon 21-Feb-11 00:14:32

Oh and as for your clever C&P - the vaccine fits perfectly with the data :-)

rightpissedoff Mon 21-Feb-11 00:16:47

Oh don't worry, I've read lots of literature, and I'm quite convinced that the main epidemiological studies prove nothing at all. It's not even that hard to pull them apart. You don't need to go to some crappy website. I've done it on threads before and it's pretty unanswerable.

Nice piece of scare-mongering, from someone who really doesn't seem to care a very great deal about the number of children killed and destroyed by vaccines. You airily deny their existence. Well done you -- you must be so proud of yourself.

My lip would curl if it could be arsed.

rightpissedoff Mon 21-Feb-11 00:18:14

I'm afraid it doesn't, and just saying so doesn't make it so. Your side does do that an awful lot -- you just say something loud enough and long enough, and never mind whether it's true or not.

rightpissedoff Mon 21-Feb-11 00:21:05

It's true you've been successful. An epidemic of autistic and ASD children appears out of nowhere and people actually believe there's such a thing as a genetic autism epidemic hmm or we just didn't notice thirty years ago hmm hmm or thousands and thousands of parents have succumbed to mass hysteria and paranoia hmm] hmm hmm.

Know why this sticks around? Because people keep seeing it happen.

bubbleymummy Mon 21-Feb-11 00:24:05

"Measles however, was not going to eradicate itself. The year before the vaccine there were 150+ deaths. "

Well the vaccine hasn't eradicated it either - in fact it has done much less to eradicate it!

If you assume that the vaccine was introduced the year that the license was passed - 1968 (was it? Why did they bother saying license passed then - why not just say vaccine introduced?) then according to the HPA chart there were 99 deaths the year before (not 150+). There were also 45 deaths in 1954, 28 deaths in 1956, 31 deaths in 1960 so it wasn't like there was a hugely dramatic drop that never would have happened without the vaccine - there was a downward trend happening anyway.

There was also a rise after the measles vaccine was introduced (the arrow on the chart is misleading here) - so if it was introduced in 1968 and worked within a few weeks then how would you explain that?

I didn't actually say that RC were in no better position to interpret the data than YOU ( i haven't a clue what your qualifications are) - I said that the sites that you linked to weren't - the first one's disclaimer said that he was not medical or a scientist - he was just interpreting the data - just the same as you or I could do. So again, it's just another person's opinion to add into the mix.

sausagerolemodel Mon 21-Feb-11 00:25:39

So please post the data on children killed by the MMR

As you seem to think I care so little about children, you presumably, think that the 150 that died the year before the vaccine came in were expendable?

Have you heard of transference? You seem to be accusing me of all of the things that the anti-vaccination campaign is guilty of……

I note that you haven't ACTUALLY posted any data yet to support your claims. I'd still love to see it. (if it exists). Yet you make claims that I am talking rubbish and then say "you just say something loud enough and long enough, and never mind whether it's true or not."

I have data. Do you?

bubbleymummy Mon 21-Feb-11 00:26:54

sausage, it isn't really an accurate comparison to make between a developing country without a vaccine schedule and the UK. You've already said that improved sanitation and healthcare made a huge difference at the start of the last century without any help from vaccines. Developing countries do not have that available to them.

bubbleymummy Mon 21-Feb-11 00:29:33

sausage - just to correct you again - there were 99 deaths the year before the vaccine was introduced (According to the HPA figures you linked to)

cityangel Mon 21-Feb-11 00:32:20

FYI - if you choose to get individual jabs, Mumps is not currently available as has not been for 2 years +

sausagerolemodel Mon 21-Feb-11 00:49:55

I will respond to this - only because i feel the need to expose the moon-landing-conspiracy-theory bollocks that seems to pervade the anti-vaccination campaign.

1. Your statement "Well the vaccine hasn't eradicated it either - in fact it has done much less to eradicate it!" actually made me feel a bit sick - why? Because we WERE on the road to eradication before the Wakefield bollocks and people stopped vaccinating. Now that has gone backwards. I can back this up with as much data as you like. (look at the WHO website about the eradication campaign if you don't believe me)

Why are you even bothering to worry about whether the wording about whether a licence was passed, introduced whatever? It became available, if you prefer that term. (the only reason you questioned it was to raise doubt where none need exist)

This is a typical conspiracy theorist type argument to try and find a chink in the armour rather than face up to the fact that the weight of evidence is firmly stacked against them. It doesn't matter what term or year you prefer, the fact is that the vaccine works. (Why they chose to use the word licenced, I don't know, but I rather suspect it was some academic whom it didn't occur to that some future twonk would attempt to re-imagine it in a sinister fashion.

>>> There were also 45 deaths in 1954, 28 deaths in 1956, 31 deaths in 1960 so it wasn't like there was a hugely dramatic drop that never would have happened without the vaccine - there was a downward trend happening anyway.

>>> biscuit do I have to explain this in small words?

If you could take that raw data (available), extrapolate it and prove to me that there WASNT a statistically significant drop in the measles cases after the vaccine was brought in I will buy you a packet of biscuits.

I already said there was a downward trend. When the trend hit YOUR "rock bottom" it was still killing many kids every year. (like you said "45 deaths in 1954, 28 deaths in 1956, 31 deaths in 1960") - but on the graph you like, its practically nothing, so hey!

As I have said, if you think measles would have eradicated itself - just look to the oooh, 6 kids now, that have died FROM MEASLES in the small space of time that you have been trying to tell me that the vaccine is bollocks.

rightpissedoff Mon 21-Feb-11 00:49:56

I have Occam's Razor. Your job is to prove it. So far you've failed.

rightpissedoff Mon 21-Feb-11 00:53:17

And what about asthma, killing 1400 people every year and condemning even more to chronic disease, and the WHO acknowledged fact that measles incidence is linked to lower asthma prevalence? That's 1400 deaths.

What about diagnosis of "measles type illness" if you've been vaccinated, happily not adding to the figures?

rightpissedoff Mon 21-Feb-11 00:53:59

Moon-landing? No -- a lot of people have a lot more sense than you that's all.

rightpissedoff Mon 21-Feb-11 00:55:30

You are soooooooooo credulous.

sausagerolemodel Mon 21-Feb-11 01:07:05

No you don't "have" Occam's Razor. It would say that there is no link between ASD and MMR, not least because no one has a credible theory (do you?) of what that link might be or what the pathological mechanisms are.

Oh look. You're wrong. Here's the paper that says that MMR actually PROTECTS people from getting asthma, but it was only based on the tiny sample of, oh, eight hundred thousand people, so, you know, it could be wrong...

If you do have data to the contrary, PLEASE do post it here, as I note that you are yet to link to a single item of data which backs up your point of view.

bubbleymummy Mon 21-Feb-11 01:15:16

Sausage, the data from the HPA website actually shows that measles cases continued to decrease from 1998 (the year the lancet paper was published) except for slight increases every 3/4 years - the typical pattern that was occurring prior to that - so I'm not rely sure what you are trying to blame Wakefield for there.

Regarding the wording, I was genuinely curious and wondered exactly when the vaccine was released because of it. It's a bit hazy because it may very well have been released the year it was licensed or it may have been released later. Do you know either way?

Ummm- I'm not sure where I've said that it hit 'rock bottom' I was simply pointing out that even before the measles vaccine was introduced the number of deaths was rapidly declining. From several hundred cases at the start of the 1940s to 30-40 cases is a more dramatic decrease than what occurred after the vaccine. Can you prove that the downward trend would not have continued if the vaccine had not been introduced? There's really no way of knowing.

Your final comment once again refers to developing countries that do not have the benefits of sanitation, nutrition and healthcare that we do. You have already admitted that these things made a dramatic difference in the UK so why do you think it is an accurate comparison?

Sorry sausage but you haven't managed to disprove anything...

bubbleymummy Mon 21-Feb-11 01:16:29

Rely = really

rightpissedoff Mon 21-Feb-11 01:17:12

Yes, I certainly do have Occam's Razor: of course.

Large numbers of people report regression after vaccination. Large rise in ASD since vaccination. No credible alternative explanation for rise in ASD.

Which bit of that don't you understand?

And that Oxford study -- that would be like the Japanese study that "proved" that MMR protects against autism?

If it wasn't so tragic it would be funny.

rightpissedoff Mon 21-Feb-11 01:21:35

"as I note that you are yet to link to a "single item of data which backs up your point of view".

nor am I going to

this will never go away because the children won't go away, and you can't do a damn thing about it -- though you might wish them away, or wish that people were too stupid to believe the evidence all around them

your epi studies are worthless -- I bet you haven't even looked at them closely yourself

the headline is enough for people who want ever so much for it to be true

rightpissedoff Mon 21-Feb-11 02:02:23

Here's some evidence for you.

Child 1 regresses after vaccination. Child 1 fails to appear in peer reviewed journal. Post your response to that.

Here's some more.

Children 2-2000 regress after vaccination. Children fail to appear in peer-reviewed journal. Post your response to that.

All credible explanations welcome.

seeker Mon 21-Feb-11 08:25:39

That's not evidence - it's anecdote.

rightpissedoff Mon 21-Feb-11 08:32:22

I'm afraid it is evidence Seeker. It's just not proof. It's especially evidence when it involves testimony from a number of different sources, clinical, sub-clinical, videographic and developmental milestones met, recorded and regressed from.

Large amounts of evidence published in peer reviewed journals is nothing of the sort, and a lot of peer reviewed MMR epidemiological research is rubbish deeply misleading -- well, completely wrong really.

Do you deny their existence Seeker? I dare you to type the words: these are just stories and it didn't happen.

If you can, I have a question -- how the hell did you become so omniscient?

silverfrog Mon 21-Feb-11 08:32:34

Seeker: "And unfortunately, the time in a child''s life when autistic tendencies are beginning to be noticable is also the time - around 18 months - when the MMR vaccine is routinely given.

People understandably casing around for reasons have a ready made hook to hanf the diagnosis on. Sad but true."

what complete and utter bollocks.

is the same true now, of children who regress when mmr is given at 13 months?

is it true when children regress at 4 (yes, it has happened) - are you still going to say "oh, that is the time autistic tendencies become apparent"

honestly. do some reading on this.

<and btw, a child regressing at 18 months - if you still want to hang onto that myth - one day walking, talking, possibly starting toilet trainng, and then the next starts to lose all skills and becomes a screaming wailing ball of fury, with little communication, regresses in toileting etc - this is just the parents "beginning to notice", is it? have some compassion, and listen to what parents say about this.>

rightpissedoff Mon 21-Feb-11 08:34:48

I'm afraid I can't accept your post as a credible explanation.

"They are just stories" really doesn't do it for me. On what grounds do you dismiss the regression evidence? Got any actual grounds as opposed to an airy, oh, someone might just have made all that up?

Of course you haven't, it's just something you keep hearing without any clue what it means.

rightpissedoff Mon 21-Feb-11 08:37:18

"walking, talking, starting toilet trainng, and then the next starts to lose all skills and becomes a screaming wailing ball of fury, with little communication, regresses in toileting etc - this is just the parents "beginning to notice", is it?"

oh silver, they're just fairy stories remember, these children are just the figments of someone's imagination

silverfrog Mon 21-Feb-11 08:43:42

yeah, it would be funny, if I didn't have a vaccine damaged child.

what is also intriguing about this, is that if you even begin to think Wakefield et al are right (hypothetically speaking - you know, once you have that child that really wasn't vaccine damaged, no sirree), and then treat said hypothetical child as though they were vaccine damaged - treat the gut, avoid stuff that is known to be an issue in vacine damaged children, etc - they improve

<that, of course, is just more anecdotal evidence, though - so, it is anecdotal that the children were NT in the first place, and anecdotal that they regressed, and yet more anecdotal evidence that they then improve when following protocols recommended by Wakefield et al. whole lot of anecdotes there>

silverfrog Mon 21-Feb-11 08:46:49

oh, and seeker, fwiw, I don't need a hook to hang dd1's dx on.

<she was not initially damaged by mmr, btw>

what I do need to do is understand what happened, in order to help her. if I, as you do (form your luxurious position of not having to research this so that your child can have a pain-free life), dismissed the vaccine link, as the doctors (on the whole) want me to do, then dd1 would still probably be non-verbal, self-injuring, and stimming her little life away.

but, by daring to believe, I have helped her. a lot. and been told I am wasting both time and money in doing so, and had my results dismissed as coincidnece and anecdote. gets fucking boring being told that, you know.

seeker Mon 21-Feb-11 08:52:32

Of course I don;t deny that there are children whit autism, and children who regress. Of course I think it a ghastly situation for anyone to be in. I just think tht the vaccine damage hypothesis is a red herring - and is absorbing huge amouts of energy and money would be best applied to credible research into the issue, or in providing more support for families.

I don;t know why people seem to think that if you don;t believe in vaccine triggered autism regression, you don't believe in autism regression at all.

Lots of people saying "I think this is what happened to my child" is not the same as proper evidence.

sausagerolemodel Mon 21-Feb-11 08:53:08

DD2 ate honey roasted carrots for dinner last night.

DD2 woke 3 times during the night.

Carrots must therefore disturb sleep patterns in toddlers.

Should we ban carrots? (Or honey? Or perhaps dinner?)

If we repeated the roast carrot eating experiment on tens of thousands of children and found that many of them (and I mean by that a statistically significant amount**) didn't sleep after eating carrots then perhaps it would be an idea to look into this.

However, as there are quite a lot toddlers who would have a disturbed sleep pattern one night simply because they are, well, toddlers, we would have to ensure that the carrots were having an additional affect if we wanted to ban carrots.

There are around 3 million under-4s in this country. I am not sure whether you are suggesting that 2000 of them have (what does children "2-2000" mean?) "regressed after vaccine" - either way, there are lots of illnesses which become apparent in seemingly "healthy" children as they are developing from babies into toddlers and then children.

Babies are not just "mini adults" they have developmental biology all to themselves. If something goes wrong in this complex development, it may not be evident until they are maturing into children. This can still be a sudden change. This can (and often does) happen at the same age as vaccinations happen.

Just because an observation of regression is made in the same time-frame as a vaccination does not mean the vaccine is to blame - only large controlled studies can prove a link like that. If the link was a big one, or a clear one, it would become obvious very quickly. Yet study after study after study has shown that there is no such link when you look at a half-decent sized sample.

**statistical significance a mathematical way of separating real events from events that could be expected to happen by chance. In any population of 3 million, some kids are going to regress anyway. What the studies have shown is that there is no significant difference in the numbers who regress in vaccinated groups of kids compared to unvaccinated groups of kids.


silverfrog Mon 21-Feb-11 09:01:02

however, lots of people saying "I think this is what happened to my child", coupled with clinical investigations which found a new form of bowel disease, onset post mmr, is enough for a proper study to be carried out.

and, apart form Wakefield and a few colleagues continuing the work (which has and is being carried out, but due to the general witch-hunting agenda of the media at large, what most people would consider to be "proper" journals (and I use that term very loosely following the BMJ's shocking articles based on nothing but lies and speculation) do not publish them.), apart form that, this has not been doen.

you can all jump up and down and shout as loud as you like that it has, but it hasn't.

most of the mainstream studies go out of their way to not include anyone that could possibly be int he subgroup Wakefiled identified - and if you're not looking in the right place, you are not going to find anything.

seeker: what do you think happens, then? (and, please, don't jsut answer with "I don't know. I haven't been in that position. it must be very temptin g to find somethign to blame, and all the other rot).

but, take a child (hell, take a few thousand!) - development all fine. health all fine. has mmr (at whatever age - so none of the "that's when you notice shite. honestly, the symptoms that develop are not ones that could have been overlooked before), and bingo - regression. with gut damage. a child who happily ate everything, now self restricts to a few feeds. and has constant diarrhoea. a child who was talking stops. a child who was happy screams constantly, avoids human contact, and cannot communicate in any form.

and the common factor between thses children? mmr. Fact.

silverfrog Mon 21-Feb-11 09:02:33

sausagerolemodel - there has not been a study of unvaccinated children. lots of people are calling for one, actually, but it has never been carried out.

seeker Mon 21-Feb-11 09:13:51

How many children did this happen to, silverfrog?

And what do you mean by "a proper study'?

seeker Mon 21-Feb-11 09:18:09

ANd there have been studies and papars concluding that there is no link - there was one published in "Pediatrics" in 2006, i think.

Wakefied's study of 12 has been disredited, and has not been replicated.

silverfrog Mon 21-Feb-11 09:25:31

yes, seeker, thre have been studies concluding no link. they have consistently ignored the very hypothesis Wakefield set out, and have gone out of their way to not include the sub group he identified.

Wakefield's work has been replicated, around the world (as I said earlier - do some reading. and not just Bad Science and Brian Deer-inspired junk)

"a proper study" is one which looks at the hypothesis that has been set out. not one which ignores it, and looks the other way, and then declares loudly that (as well we all know) that mmr is safe for the majority. good good. now, what about the minority?

Wakefield's case series (NOT a study, never was, never will be, however many times it is mis-quoted) has NOT been discredited. it still stands. one of his biggest detractors said of it "good science, which still stands" and that he wished it could be considered without the whole media circus, as it raised an important point, which deserved to be investigated.

as to how many children? funnily enough, i don't hold the records hmm/ I personally (in RL) know of 4. granted I move in different circles to you, but that is a large number for me to know, given (and you'll have to take htis on trust) my circle of acquaintances is not that large.

the hypothesis is up to 7% of ASD cases. ASD dx now stands at 1 in 64 children in the UK. That number just keeps growing, in frightening proportions.

seeker Mon 21-Feb-11 09:40:49

"Wakefield's work has been replicated, around the world "

Has it?


seeker Mon 21-Feb-11 09:44:45

Was there a significant dip in ASD diagnoses to correspond with the dsignificant dip in MMR take up?

""a proper study" is one which looks at the hypothesis that has been set out. not one which ignores it, and looks the other way, and then declares loudly that (as well we all know) that mmr is safe for the majority. good good. now, what about the minority?"

I thought a proper study is one which does not look at any hypothesis but which looks at the the facts.

ariane5 Mon 21-Feb-11 09:46:06

I have 3 children and they have not had the mmr (have had all other vaccinations).

I simply cannot bring myself to get it done a big part of it is the negative publicity surrounding the mmr when dd1 was small, also they all have underlying health issues and ds and dd2 have severe egg allergy (gp says they would have to be vaccinated in hospital)

Every time i go the the gp about anything they remind me that mine are the only children at the surgery not vaccinated.

Iam in a terrible muddle as to what to do, its a very hard decision.I can really sympathise OP.

silverfrog Mon 21-Feb-11 09:51:08

tbh, seeker, if you did not know that Wakefields work has been replicated, then you clearly know not a lot about htis whole debate. yet you still think it ok to dismiss what people say regarding their children hmm

will find some links in a while - sorry, am on wrong computer.

<snort> at your thoughts that studies do not look at hypotheses. so, they all just start up without a focus, and miraculously end up examing mmr/ASD? (or whatever they do focus on).


noddyholder Mon 21-Feb-11 09:54:01

From what I have read there are no more cases of autism per population since the MMR has been introduced but there have been cases where parents have seen a direct affect on their childs development following the vaccination.I don't think anyone can ever really know.As someone said all medical treatment comes with risk

seeker Mon 21-Feb-11 09:56:44

I have been unfailingly polite. I would be grateful if you would try to do the same.

All I ask is some proper evidence to support the MMR/Autism link. I have asked for this in lots of places, and nobody has ever yet been able to give me any. However, i have read convincing evidence to the contrary.

And whenever I have pushed for such evidence, all I have ever got anywhere is personal abuse and anecdote in equal quantities.

bubbleymummy Mon 21-Feb-11 09:58:30

"I thought a proper study is one which does not look at any hypothesis but which looks at the the facts."


You need a hypothesis - otherwise what are you studying? hmm

silverfrog Mon 21-Feb-11 10:03:30

I have not been rude. (and I would say that dismissively suggesting that parents are casting around for a hook to hang the dx on" is patronising at best, and breathtakingly rude at worst. but each to their own)

I do apologise for the <snort>. But honestly, of course a study looks at a hypothesis.

no one has suggested that mmr causes autism. it has never been said (except by hysterical media, and Wakefield detractors).

I have said I will look out the links to the global replications in a bit. sorry. wrong computer, and half term means I cannot just lock myself away in the study to find my bookmarks. but I will link them. tbh, if you search autism groups on FB you will likely find some links.

noddy - I might be misunderstanding you here, but are you realy saying that ASD dx has not risen since the 1990s? the rate in the early 90s was 1 in 10,000. it is now 1 in 64. better dx accounts for some of that, but by no means all (and tends to accoutn for more dx's at the high functioning end, not severe ASD. and there is undoubtedly more severe ASD about since 1990)

seeker Mon 21-Feb-11 10:12:50

I would have thought the BMJ describing Wakefield's work as a "fraud" as it did in January of this year would count in most people's eyes as discrediting.

I don;t see why my "hook to hang a diagnosis on" could possibly be considered rude or dismiossive. When something devastating happens, people naturally look for reasons. And a coincidental MMR vaccine is a perfect piece of circumstantial evidence.

silverfrog Mon 21-Feb-11 10:26:26

Message deleted by Mumsnet.

silverfrog Mon 21-Feb-11 10:30:23

and your hook to hang a dx on is rude and dismissive because it reduces parents input, and knowledge of their child to nothing more than media-led hype.

you do realise that, from the 1998 paper, most parents did not know each other (and, remeber this was pre-media hype). they were all referred on (and there were many, many more than the 12 presented in the case series), because of hte health issues they saw in their children.

they had not read of any "supposed" link. and they had not been "swayed" by anti-vax agendas. they ahd had perfectly happy and healthy children, who all became ill post mmr, and regressed into autism.

they were referred to a bowel specialist for their health issues. clinical investigations were carried out to try to understand these health issues.

and a pattern was found.

and the pattern indicated the mmr.

seeker Mon 21-Feb-11 10:35:37

It didn;t, actually. But believe what you like.

But a bit of evidence would be good.

And some evidence to support he fact that the BMJ and The Lancet, and Pediatrics are all lying - and why - would be good too.

rightpissedoff Mon 21-Feb-11 10:37:48

Christ I would be pissed off if a stranger over the internet kept diagnosing my child as an anecdote. You should be ashamed of yourself Seeker. Who the hell do you think you are?

You're not desperate and asking for evidence. You're just dismissing what silver says without even understanding it or looking into it.

Sausage -- you've ignored evidence and arguments repeatedly. Not that it surprises me, but I just thought I'd point it out.

rightpissedoff Mon 21-Feb-11 10:38:41

"But a bit of evidence would be good."

bollocks -- there's truckfuls but you don't want to admit it

rightpissedoff Mon 21-Feb-11 10:39:32

Message deleted by Mumsnet.

seeker Mon 21-Feb-11 10:43:31

Where have I dismissed diagnoses as anecdote?

I haven't. I have dismissed links to MMR as anecdote. And I will continue to do so until someone gives me convincing evidence to the contrary. Which nobody seems to be able to do - they just say stuff like "Oh there's loads of evidence"

Well, where is it?

And why is it arrogant to ask for scin=entific evidence?

If the evidence is there, then present it. Clearly and unhysterically. Then people will accept it.

bubbleymummy Mon 21-Feb-11 10:43:53

seeker - have you actually read the Lancet paper?

You are actually being very rude in dismissing silverfrog's child's regression as an anecdote. Do you really think she doesn't know her own child?

silverfrog Mon 21-Feb-11 10:45:41

seeker, have you actually read the 1998 paper? in full, I mean, not just the summaries that are touted about?

the pattern that Wakefield et al saw indicated the mmr. you can say as ftne as you like that it didn't, but that is untrue. so he called for more investigations, and said (in his opinion) that singles (which were available at the time) should be used until the full facts could be established.

furhter work has been carried out on this hypothesis, and it replicates what he found.

from your posts on this thread, it seems you have read all the media reporting of the case, and the anti-Wakefield stance, but you have not read anything that Wakefield has written, or anythign which supports his hypothesis (and there is alot of work that does).

you repeat, time after time, that there is no evidence for what Wakefield says. this is not true.

if you are actually interested in this, get out htere and find the evidence. although I suspect you are not that interested, and this is just an internet ruck you are mildly interested in for today. so you cannot b bothered to find any information beyond the headlines (which themselves are inaccurate)

silverfrog Mon 21-Feb-11 10:47:51

I would just like to add, there is no hysteria on this thread, seeker.

throwing accusations like that around are unhelpful.

mamatomany Mon 21-Feb-11 10:49:04

Just because Wakefields research or whatever you want to call it was discredited doesn't mean it was wrong, there hasn't been a que of people wanting to take up any "real" research into the link has there ?
I also think you are fooling yourself if you have the single vaccines without knowing the origins and the storage of them until they reach the actual patient better not to vaccinate at all, at least that way you don't have a false sense of security.

silverfrog Mon 21-Feb-11 10:50:27

if you want clear links to evidence - search Beachcombers posts on this topic. hell, search my past posts. search jimjam's posts (and her various aliases)

search Leonie's posts, and Appletrees. Bubbleymummy has posted a lot of interesting info on this too.

read the vax threads over the last few years - all the link are there.

do some research, instead of just bleating the evidence is not there.

it is htere, you just have to look for it.

mamatomany Mon 21-Feb-11 10:50:43

I meant that the content of Wakefields research was possibly of interest, even if the methods were not credible.

BaggedandTagged Mon 21-Feb-11 10:51:28

"You are actually being very rude in dismissing silverfrog's child's regression as an anecdote. Do you really think she doesn't know her own child?"

Saying something is anecdotal doesn't mean you're saying it's not true. What Seeker is saying is that one incidence of something doesn't prove a causational link between the two factors.

e.g. today I had a Starbucks and then this evening I had indigestion. That doesn't mean that the Starbucks gave me indigestion

A better example is the link between peanut butter consumption and autism. The positive correlation between the two is really quite compelling but it doesn't mean that peanut butter causes autism.

seeker Mon 21-Feb-11 10:54:26

No hysteria? Read rightpissedoff's contributions, then say that again!

ANd comments like "Just because Wakefield's research was discredited doesn't mean it was wrong" makes me want to scream with frustration!

silverfrog Mon 21-Feb-11 10:58:24


the paper was not discredited.

Wakefield's opponents describe it as good science, with a valid conclusion. what part of this makes it discredited?

and no, I owuld not say RPO's posts are hysterical. heated, maybe, and frustrated. but not hysterical.

silverfrog Mon 21-Feb-11 10:59:31

<oh, would like to point out, dd1's vaccine damage was not initially due to the mmr. I did say it earlier in the thread. just don't want this to spiral out of control dd1 was ASD before her mmr.>

mamatomany Mon 21-Feb-11 11:02:09

Scream all you like Seeker, my husband was a national manager for a pharmaceutical company and the governments priority for choosing one vaccine over another is certainly not what is the best drug for the job, in fact you can apply that to everything prescribed.

rightpissedoff Mon 21-Feb-11 11:04:08

Seeker why don't you respond to what silverfrog is saying? She and bubbley are righ on the nose. There's plenty of evidence -- you just don't want to see it.

I'm not hysterical -- I'm just rude.

There's plenty of evidence of a link BaggedandTagged. Just because it's not proof, it doesn't mean it's not evidence.

Trying to create stupid straw man argument like I ate sausages then I crashed my car -- ooooooohhhh there must be a connectino -- well that's just facetious.

There's a known link between incidence of mumps and measles naturally and incidence of autism.

The mass of temporal and circumstantial evidence, clinical, subclinical, and then you've got the medics and researchers who agree with these poor mums -- it all merits research. The one thing we can say with clarity is that it's a lie to say "there is no evidence of a link".

WriterofDreams Mon 21-Feb-11 11:04:38

I haven't read all the other posts so sorry if I'm restating anything said by anyone else. Just felt the need to contribute here.

The link between MMR and autism grew because autistic symptoms tend to appear around the same time as the MMR is given. Whether the MMR actually triggers autism is unclear. The research strongly suggests that it doesn't - I researched autism at a genetic level and it appears that classic autism is highly genetically determined. There are other types of autism which appear to be caused by other factors which haven't been identified yet. It could be that the genetic tendency towards autism is triggered by the MMR but then a large portion of my study had not been given the MMR so the question is what triggered their autism?

The issue of vaccination is a serious one. It is precisely because of vaccination that diseases like measles mumps and rubella are very rare nowadays. Because they're so rare people don't realise how serious they are. The WHO reckons that a concerted vaccination campaign from 2000 to 2008 worldwide prevented a massive 4.3 million deaths from measles. With thorough vaccination a disease can be completely eliminated. That's what happened with smallpox, a deadly disease that was one of the first to ever be vaccinated against. It now exists only in laboratories. The problem is, if even a small proportion of the population of a country stops vaccinating it allows the disease to continue to survive and can even cause a serious outbreak. I had measles as a child and it nearly killed me (I got it just before I was due to be vaccinated). If others around me had been properly vaccinated there would have been no disease to catch and so I would have been spared this illness.

Thanks to vaccination we need no longer worry about awful diseases like diphtheria, polio, TB etc. If people cease vaccinating then we can expect to start seeing reports on the news about children dying from these illnesses. I can understand people's unease about vaccines completely. However a small reaction from a jab is nothing compared to weeks of illness and possible death from measles. It's up to each parent to decide for their children, but remember that the benefits of vaccines far outweigh their risks.

rightpissedoff Mon 21-Feb-11 11:07:05

in fact these ridiculous straw man sausages/crashed car arguments get right on my tits

you are not talking to children

being patronising isn't an argument, it's just being patronising

rightpissedoff Mon 21-Feb-11 11:07:44

Well winter there was quite a lot of tosh in your post there.

bubbleymummy Mon 21-Feb-11 11:08:13

You are right baggedandtagged - I should have said dismissed as a coincidence. That is offensive.

Yes silverfrog you mentioned earlier that it wasn't mmr - I'm not sure if everyone picked up on it though.

silverfrog Mon 21-Feb-11 11:12:51

WriterofDreams - please, stop with the temporal "symptoms appear at the same time mmr is given" stuff.

if this was true of the mmr given at 18 months, is it still true now it is given at 13 monhs? and is it true of mmr boosters, which have also cause issues?

if so, how come these symptoms appear at whichever time mmr is given? is it 8 months they appear? or is it 13 months? or is it 4 years? or is it after mmr?

as to the rest of your post. you do know that autism is not just one thing? that there are many types of autism, and many routes into it?

yes, a genetic link has been found for some cases and types. but that does not even begin to cover the restof the cases.

silverfrog Mon 21-Feb-11 11:17:08

"However a small reaction from a jab is nothing compared to weeks of illness"

Christ. I missed this on my first reading of your post.

a small reaction?! regrssing into severe autism, form having been a perfectly healthy child?

and weeks of illness, compared with the years of pain and illness that those who suffered regression end up with?

your crass comments beggar belief, tbh.

greatauntbetty Mon 21-Feb-11 11:17:31

Hi felicity. Well you asked for information and unfortunately there is a lot of misinformation here which probably doesn't help.

I have to say - Wakefields research HAS been discredited. He has been struck off the medical register as a direct result of the paper and his blatant manipulation of the 'data' he presented. The reason for him being struck off was because of serious professional misconduct over widely cited unethical research. He actually deleted data on all the children in his so called study to remove data that contradicted what he was trying to say.

Silverfrog - this may contradict what you want to say/believe but unfortunately this is what the medical profession, their professional body and the law has decided.

rightpissedoff Mon 21-Feb-11 11:23:04

"I have to say - Wakefields research HAS been discredited."

This is a lie.

greatauntbetty Mon 21-Feb-11 11:26:42


So, the ruling by the GMC is a lie then?


bubbleymummy Mon 21-Feb-11 11:26:48

Writer - the reason no one thinks of mumps and rubella as dangerous diseases is because they never were! (unless you were pregnant and weren't immune)

Also, are you aware of how many cases and deaths there were in the UK at the start of the last century and what they had decreased to BEFORE the measles vaccine was introduced? The reduction of measles cases and deaths since the vaccine are a drop in the ocean compared to what happened before it came along.

rightpissedoff Mon 21-Feb-11 11:32:17

actually yes grin

but apart from that's always been recognised as a good case study

have you ever read it?

but let's take AW out of the equation (gawd bless 'im) just for a second, and think about the thousands and thousands of parents with evidence that their children regressed after vaccination, and then let's think about how the rate of autism / ASD has shot up from 1 in 5,000-10,000 (it was so vanishingly rare that the margin of error was THAT huge) to 1 in 64 over a generation in which MMR was introduced and the vaccine schedule grew like topsy

obviously you'd prefer not to, because they're real facts and not written up in a journal, but why don't you try?

whatever can the cause be? like I said earlier -- all credible explanations welcome

rightpissedoff Mon 21-Feb-11 11:33:35

Go on, all of you -- what's the cause?

You are all certain it's not vaccination.

What's the cause?

silverfrog Mon 21-Feb-11 11:48:09

<RPO - you do know that the only reply to that will be "I don't know. But it is just a coincidence re: mmr. after all, Wakefiled was discredited, and the study was rubbished. and there is no link between mmr and autism. but that doesn't mean I know what does trigger the regressions", don't you? because what else could be said?>

rightpissedoff Mon 21-Feb-11 12:01:24

yes, I know <sigh>

there's so much evidence.. it's true what you say, people just don't want to see it -- they look right at it and say what? where?

mamatomany Mon 21-Feb-11 12:18:22

It's not impossible that there's no cause, what pisses me off is the lack of funding to research the issue which would lay to rest concerns once and for all.
Maybe nothing causes Autism maybe it's just in some people to some degree in all people ?

rightpissedoff Mon 21-Feb-11 12:30:12

it's not impossible there's no cause?

I think it is impossible actually -- nothing comes from nothing <muses>

anyhoo, there's so much evidence that vaccines are involved that it's just wilful to say IT'S NOT IT'S NOT IT'S NOT REALLY IT'S NOT

it just doesn't make any sense

rightpissedoff Mon 21-Feb-11 12:37:04

maybe it's just in some people to some degree in all people

oh my god that's so vacant

mamatomany Mon 21-Feb-11 12:57:39

I know a hell of a lot of people who've never been near the MMR who if you described them you'd say were on the spectrum.
I'm undecided about MMR or vaccines, it certainly needs a hell of a lot more research before people blindly go along for vaccinations.

silverfrog Mon 21-Feb-11 13:07:10

mamatomany, the original links between mmr and autistic enterocolitis (as described in the 1998 paper) were about links with severe regressive autism

not people who "have a few traits" or are "a bit anti social"

severe autism - with compulsive behaviours, and stimming, and violence (against self and others). with loss of langugae skills and double incontinence. locked in, in their own world. uninterested in anythign else. people with chronic diarrhoea and ulcerated guts.

not quite the same as the office eccentric who may or may not be on the spectrum, is it? this is not even Rainman territory.

it is unable to live an independent life in any way shape or form.

and these numbers have risen, exponentially.

this does not happen without a cause (whatever that cause may be). and it is not possible to hide behind "oh, most people are on the spectrum to some degree".

I have a peculiar memory for dates and numbers. and can be obsessive about a few things. this in no way compares to my dd1, with all the issues she faces with ehr severe autism.

greatauntbetty Mon 21-Feb-11 13:13:18

This info is for those who are undecided on the issue. For those who are convinced there is a link between MMR and autism, I guess you will continue to selectively choose information that supports your view.

Immunization Safety Review: Vaccines and Autism
MMR - the facts
Vaccines didn't cause autism, court rules
Why is MMR preferable to single vaccines?
Lack of Association between Measles Virus Vaccine and Autism with Enteropathy: A Case-Control Study
No effect of MMR withdrawal on the incidence of autism: a total population study

I could go on.

And no, I don't know what causes autism. But I think there is a reasonable amount of credible evidence that finds no link to the MMR.

rightpissedoff Mon 21-Feb-11 14:09:28

and where will you be when someone takes your "info", and vaccinates their child, and sees a regression?

running over the horizon faster than guano out of a bats's arse with a cheery "it's all a coincidence darling" thrown over your shoulder as you disappear

rightpissedoff Mon 21-Feb-11 14:13:04

oh my gosh you even used the japan study silly girl

what else let's see

rightpissedoff Mon 21-Feb-11 14:16:05

who links to the HPA for research ?

dearie me, and MMR the facts?

thanks but no thanks

rightpissedoff Mon 21-Feb-11 14:17:50

"But I think there is a reasonable amount of credible evidence that finds no link to the MMR."

Actually there's a reasonable amount of credible evidence in favour of a link to MMR.

But you just go ahead and ignore it.

The problem is ehre that ATM the research on the group ahsn;t been done; why not just do it instead of expecting people to doa s told without it?

Relying only on peer reviewed evidence is odd: this sort fo research just tests for pre-existent links: those links already exist in the real world and still would regardless of whether the research is undertaken forst. The phenomena tested do not magically spring into existence because a wizard discovers that X and Y could be linked!

And yes, what RPO says about disappearing voer the horizon: currenlty on Mn there are people wishing all disability benefits would end, all satte provision cease. Many people with a disabled child or relative will tell you how fast family and friends vanish on diagnosis. I currently have 2 asd children, one possibly regressing (thanking goodness I didn't give MMR as not being able to blame myself is a freeedom anyway but I do think the existence of genes might have meant MMR exacerbated the ASD), one with dyspraxia and a DH needing a levelof care. And no support barring financial from state. Why would I feel an extra responsibility to take actions I do not want (eg give MMR) or accept collaterel damage for the sake of others who ahve in largescale abandoned us?

sausagerolemodel Mon 21-Feb-11 15:26:46

This is the modus operandi of conspiracy theorists sigh.

Wear down your critics by just keeping saying the same thing over and over again until they really can't be arsed refuting your lies and assertions anymore. (at last count 36 out of 150 posts on this thread were yours, that’s 1 in 4….). Saying it more often and for longer still doesn’t make your assertions correct. I guess attrition has to be your friend because logic, statistics and scientific credibility are not your strong point.

In one breath you say "stop patronising me", and then you show all of the intellect of a 6 year old by being unable to understand that a sample size of 1 child diagnosed by its mother does not constitute “reliable evidence”. This is not the same as saying the mother isn’t a reliable witness and doesn’t know her child, it’s a simple numbers game. Coincidences do happen. Some regression happens without an environmental trigger. No parent can see what is happening inside her child’s cells.

You also labour under the misapprehension that because measles vaccine uptake and ASDs have both risen over the course of two decades that they are related.

Its a basic, simple tenet of being able to analyse scientific evidence that you understand that

Growing population of people with ASD - well of course there is. Why would you expect anything else?


"ASD" it is a spectral disorder and that spectrum has been increasing in size and scope for every bit as long as it has existed. This is because of changes in the diagnostic criteria and increased public awareness and referrals to support services, not because incidence is actually increasing in the population. Loads of kids who would never have been "diagnosed" with anything other than perhaps (in the olden days) being considered "a bit slow" are now fully diagnosed paid up members of the ASD community. Great - hopefully they get the help and support they need.

Before anyone had even coined the term autism there were still people with ASD, they just called it something else. Before the raising of public awareness, people weren’t looking for symptoms in their child, so lots of people with mild symptoms would not have been diagnosed. Even now it is considered that ASD is still under-reported, so expect the numbers to keep rising for a while yet.

Observing regression.

Regression can be caused by lots of things. In girls with ASD RETT syndrome it is usually a mutation on a gene which encodes for a protein in neurones. They have this mutation from birth but they still develop entirely normally for anything from 8 months of age to 2 years of age before regressing. Even girls who have identical mutations will regress differently and from different ages.

What causes the mutation? It could be spontaneous. It could have been exposure to some mutagen during pregnancy such as cigarette smoke. Who knows? My point being that regression happens along a sliding scale of time and can be due to loads of things that never entered your mind (chemicals from a new carpet? Something that leaked under the sink? second hand smoke from a beer garden as you walked past?) Or indeed spontaneous mutations which can and do occur all the time. We know how RETT happens but the causes of some forms of ASD are still not known at the molecular level, so we can't look for them.

The point of the analogy being that there are loads of things that cause mutations, and mutations can cause ASD, so you simply can't say - it happened after the vaccine, it must have been the vaccine that caused it.

Silverfrog – the poor science in Wakefield’s paper comes from two sources
a) the fact that he got positive results from patients that his PhD student had previously tested as negative which was almost certainly because
b) the PCR primers he used were crap and give false positive results, as written up
here =pubmed

Who was that addressed to Sausage?

', so you simply can't say - it happened after the vaccine, it must have been the vaccine that caused it.'


But equally I don't believe we can say yet that in chidlren who have the genetic programmming for asd, that mmr does not affect that.

I know we can't because I am as up to date with the research as anyone I know, ASD being my postgrad field.

sausagerolemodel Mon 21-Feb-11 16:14:59

You can't prove a negative anyway Scram - so you'll never be able to say that no matter how many trials and studies are done. All you'll ever be able to say is that the vast weight of evidence points to the contrary. This, will, of course never be enough for those who are convinced the other way.

There are so many different genetic elements involved I don't think its clear to refer to "genetic programming for ASD" as an entity because we don't know what that means. (unless you can elaborate for me?)

And we certainly don't know what it means in context of MMR - the evidence would say "probably nothing" but you can't rule out that some unusual genetic haplotype happens to confer some strange effect on an individual that means that exposure to measles, mumps and rubella virus has a different and devastating effect on them than to the rest of the population.

What we do know however is that even if this condition existed, it would not exist in high enough numbers to ever make non-vaccination the safer option. Vaccination would still be safer.

sausagerolemodel Mon 21-Feb-11 16:19:00

Oh and as you ask its RPO who is arguing like a conspiracy theorist and posts 1 of every 4 posts on this thread. I should have made that clear.grin

' it would not exist in high enough numbers to ever make non-vaccination the safer option. Vaccination would still be safer.'

For general population I would agree; for famillies like mine where all 4 children ahve evidence of being on spectrum (assuming one counts dysrpaxia as spectrum related, which some do and some do not) I think the odds are dramatically changed. Not to say I don;t make a great many other changes too: ds4 is still BF at alsmot 3 for instance, had a GF diet until almost 2...... it's one amyriad of things we have been wary of.

I do know my family statisticallya re anomallies, we are rare.

By 'genetic programming for ASD' what I mean is that ASD is most likely genetic epigenetic (in some cases, obviously there are also examples of spontaneous mitichondrial issues, such as those following herpes infection). Genetic programming means having the genetic blueprint in place but not having ahd it triggered by exposure to an environmental co-factor.

You will I hope have noted though that all I ever suggested was people read and make their own mind up: I beleive that to be important. i work in the support field of disability with an ASD specialism, and when people come to me it's harder on them when they feel they did X or Y becuase theywere told to- whether ASD or anything else, such as CP (eg if they went for a MW led birth dn it went wrong). far easier to cope with outcomes IMVHO if you made empowered and informed choices all the way- if that choice emans you have MMR that's not a problem for me, indeed ds's 1-3 all did. DS4 has had singles, had he not been showing signs of an ASD now he would possibly have had MMR at puberty to protect against mumps (given it's non availability). I don't do dogmatic opinion; only informed choice.

sausagerolemodel Mon 21-Feb-11 17:16:44

I was talking at population level but where there is clearly a strong genetic susceptibility such as in the case of your family, then it is important that we try to discover what environmental triggers (if any) cause regression or make symptoms worse.

As I understand it the current thinking is that about 90% of ASD cases are due to heritable factors alone, so I'm not personally convinced that environmental triggers play a role (apart from prenatally).

It seems to me that experiencing regression (which must be devastating for a family) causes people to be search high and low for an environmental cause for why their perfectly developing baby suddenly stops developing perfectly. Of course this is perfectly logical, but as we know from RETT and other cases, sometimes it just is all in the genes.

rightpissedoff Mon 21-Feb-11 17:22:56

I posted one in four so that means -- what?

My goodness you must be low in arguments to barrel scrape that one.

Anyhoo: "Wear down your critics by just keeping saying the same thing over and over again until they really can't be arsed refuting your lies and assertions anymore"

that would be you then.

"Saying it more often and for longer still doesn’t make your assertions correct. I guess attrition has to be your friend because logic, statistics and scientific credibility are not your strong point."

oh look there you are again

In one breath you say "stop patronising me", and then you show all of the intellect of a 6 year old by being unable to understand that a sample size of 1 child diagnosed by its mother does not constitute “reliable evidence”.

no I don't hmm now you're making things up

"You also labour under the misapprehension that because measles vaccine uptake and ASDs have both risen over the course of two decades that they are related. Its a basic, simple tenet of being able to analyse scientific evidence that you understand that

Why no it doesn't. But then, a very large increase, combined with very large numbers of parents citing temporal correlation, citing all sorts of evidence, does merit research. I think that brings us back what Wakefield wanted my dear old thing.

"Growing population of people with ASD - well of course there is. Why would you expect anything else?"

Well I wouldn't expect a relative increase from 1 in 5,000-10,000 to 1 in 64. Why would you? What an extraordinary thing to say. You must be truly, truly desperate if you're blaming ASD on the rise in population.

What a shame -- I must go and there are so many more misconceptions from which you need to be disabused.


rightpissedoff Mon 21-Feb-11 18:21:07

arguing like a conspiracy theorist?

where? what are you on about? where am I arguing like a conspiracy theorist?

go on, cut and paste, you know you want to

seeker Mon 21-Feb-11 22:05:24


Please will uou post a link to what you consider the single most convincing scientific paper proving that there is a link between MMR and autism.

rightpissedoff Mon 21-Feb-11 22:25:12

You first Seeker. You tell me the explanation for

a. increase in ASD disorders from 1 in 5,000-10,000 to 1 in 64 and

b. thousands of parents reporting regression to ASD after vaccination

c. Show me the paper which proves there is no link and the case is closed.

Explain thousands of parents reporting crash and regression before Wakefield and independently of each other.

Explain why and how you know with such certainty -- when naturally occurring measles and mumps are known to be linked to increased autism diagnosis -- that a vaccine which linked them cannot have the same effect.

Explain how you know that thousands of parents are wrong or, as someone said on another thread, lying. How do you know this Seeker? Every single one of them. Lying or wrong.

Go ahead.

sausagerolemodel Mon 21-Feb-11 22:25:46

"you're blaming ASD on the rise in population."

hahaha No.

Read it again. That wasn't what I said AT ALL. Completely wrong end of stick - not even holding the same stick.

The population of people WITH ASD is increasing because of the following factors:

Increase in diagnosis,
increase in public awareness,
increasing the scale to include more causes and/milder symptoms

I didn't ever suggest that research wasn't merited. But its been done. To death. Wakefield couldn't find a link despite his dodgy research methods. Unsurprisingly lots of people who have tried the same with really solid methodology can't either. This mightily suggests that there isn't one. (I already posted a link to one paper.)

As for disabusing me of my "misconceptions" you haven't done anything vaguely close - you pop on the board, post about ten messages saying things like

"this is a lie!"

(without bothering to explain why or adding any evidence to support your statement)

and then piss off again into lala land where there are no doctors, only observant parents who understand the molecular goings on in their childs body with their super x-ray specs and where there is no need for statistics because, well, what would that prove?


rightpissedoff Mon 21-Feb-11 22:29:27

"But then, a very large increase, combined with very large numbers of parents citing temporal correlation, citing all sorts of evidence, does merit research. I think that brings us back what Wakefield wanted."

And respond to this. And respond to Silver's posts, about the research being replicated. And about treatment based on Wakefield's ideas being successful.

And as you prepare to bleat about peer-reviewed research, you might consider the amount of peer-reviewed research in this field which has been shown to be so deeply flawed as to be meaningless.

I make no guesses here as to why this research has credibility. But it can be pulled to pieces without difficulty.

rightpissedoff Mon 21-Feb-11 22:37:46

The population of people WITH ASD is increasing because of the following factors:

Increase in diagnosis,
increase in public awareness,
increasing the scale to include more causes and/milder symptoms

Explain why the western world suddenly decided to increase diagnosis from 1 in 5-10 thousand to 1 in 64. Why the sudden increase in diagnosis and interest? Do you seriously think we did not notice these cases before? How short is your memory?

"I didn't ever suggest that research wasn't merited. But its been done. To death."

No it hasn't. There's been a series of deeply flawed epidemiological studies puporting to show what you claim, but they don't. The Japanese study for one. The Finnish and Danish studies. The study which apparently showed the autism boom starting before MMR.

Other studies have been done which do replicate the findings.

I note you aren't interested in debate at all, or you would respond to silver, and bubbley, who have a quite different approach to me. It's easy to facepalm me, but less easy with silver and bubbly.

Lala land is where you live: where you believe you know what the cause of these regressions is not, despite knowing nothing about the children, or their medical history, or their clinical notes, or their diagnoses, or how their consultants often agree with them. Nothing. But you claim your own x ray specs through the magic of the internet.

I think this "observant parents who understand the molecular goings on in their childs body with their super x-ray specs" is revolting offensive to parents who trusted the health care system and have damaged children as a result.

Yes I would trust silver over a doctor who had never seen her children, never mind a random internet ranter like you.

rightpissedoff Mon 21-Feb-11 22:42:02

You can't respond, you just can't. Neither of you. You can't even think about it properly.

rightpissedoff Mon 21-Feb-11 22:43:08

I'm off. Sausage your comment about the parents was vile. I think you are a bloke.

seeker Mon 21-Feb-11 23:11:44


Please will uou post a link to what you consider the single most convincing scientific paper proving that there is a link between MMR and autism.

Just saying "You don;t know why autism regression happens, so the reason I put forward for it must be the right one is not valid argument.

Sayin that because parents with children with autism think it was vaccines that caused therir regression, then it must be true isn't a valid argument either.

YOu keep saying there is toms of research to suppport your views. All I am asking for is one link to one paper. Shouldn't be hard.

seeker Tue 22-Feb-11 07:15:40

Hoping to get the link sometime today.

rightpissedoff Tue 22-Feb-11 09:22:46

Good morning.

I've posted links elsewhere, so have plenty of others. You can go and find them if you're genuinely interested which you're not.

I'm deliberately not posting links here. It's very purposeful. It's to show you how far people like you and sausage have gone down the road of credulity. If someone in a white coat told you black was white you'd nod wisely.

You are surrounded by evidence -- surrounded by it. It is starting to dominate education provision, accounts for a large proportion of DLA, features in all our lives through relations or friendships. There are many mums on here who have children they say are damaged by vaccines, never officially recognised. They say doctors, on the quiet, believe them, and have advised them not to have their other children vaccinated. The parents of nearly two thousand children had tranches of evidence about their regression which supported extended legal aid.

On top of this, the epidemiological studies wheeled out to prove there's no link are deeply flawed (if you are interested which you're not, there is a thread here which gives a statistical breakdown of about eight epidemiological studies and why they are meaningless).

Now then. All this you fail to recognise as evidence. It's quite, quite pathetic. So excuse me if I don't post a link for you. You are deliberately, wilfully ignoring evidence. If you really wanted a link you'd trawl through older threads here -- there are plenty of them, plenty of pubmed links, plenty of research. You don't want to know about that -- you want to score a little point. Who cares? Who cares about you and point scoring? That's all this means to you.

Truly pathetic. I would rather people actually recognised this evidence for what it is. For you to realise -- my God, it wasn't like this thirty years ago. What the hell happened?

The "tons" of evidence I talk about here is not "research" -- it is, quite literally, evidence. It's not something you're able to process.

silverfrog Tue 22-Feb-11 09:24:37


I had a quick look yesterday for the links I promised you. Just a simple search through the archives.

Only to find that last year you were on a thread asking for the exact same information.

So, I cannot be bothered to link to it here (the Wakefield studies, and the studies which replicate his work around the world). The information is easy enough to find, and in fact has already been presented to you. If you cannot even be bothered to do the simplest of searches for it, well, that just proves how disinterested you are, tbh.

<interestingly, on that thread, you claimed that mothers link mmr and ASD because the time that ASD symptoms begin to appear is 13 motnhs. yet on this thread you are saying ti is 18 months. quite a difference in developmental stages for a toddler, wouldn't you say? and quite obvious that you are not even sure in yourself what "time" ASD symptoms allegedly start appearing>

Read the studies that have been linked for you numerous times before. Read the link betwenn autism and the bowel. read up about the Leaky Gut theory, and the Sunderland protocol. And the research that was lauded last year which shows that digesting proteins may be difficult for people with ASD. and how that link was first posited by Wakefield, all those years ago (long beofre the 1998 paper), and rubbished for some years. read exactly how he found himself in the position he was in - and understand the links between the bowel and health.

then maybe you will be able to actually answer soem of the questions tha tare put to you, instead of repeatedly asking for information without actually attempting to look an y up yourself.

silverfrog Tue 22-Feb-11 09:25:09

x-posts, RPO smile

ArthurPewty Tue 22-Feb-11 09:48:47

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

silverfrog Tue 22-Feb-11 10:08:10

re: the "dodgy research methods" and the "changing data to fit" - if anyone actually reads up on this, it is glaringly obvious that is not what happened.

but it is more convenient ot hide behind the ridiculous notion that a whole team of maverick doctors were running around, experimenting on children without proper referral or consent, and making up lies about the ill health of these children, rather than stop to think for a minute, look at the evidence and be absolutely gobsmacked at the way these childrne had been treate dup to that point (constant pain and diarrhoea form an ulcerated gut? oh yes, that is just totally normal in ASD. no treatment. Next!), and, tbh, how they have been treated since.

<and before anyone tries to score points on that fornt, no I am NOT anry at Wakefield that I cannot get anyone to take my daughter's gut issues seriously. the man did his job. he investigated some symptoms in some patients. he found a new disease, linke dot their autism. he published his findings as a case series, and suggested a hypothesis. the ridiculous blowing out of all proportion, and the entrenched view of the govmt in trying to force eveyone into a one-size fits all (when it patently doesn't) vaccination programme could not be foreseen. and does not mean he should not havepublished what he found>

'<interestingly, on that thread, you claimed that mothers link mmr and ASD because the time that ASD symptoms begin to appear is 13 motnhs. yet on this thread you are saying ti is 18 months. quite a difference in developmental stages for a toddler, wouldn't you say? and quite obvious that you are not even sure in yourself what "time" ASD symptoms allegedly start appearing>'

I always find that intersting as I don;t beleive that to be the case, MMR link or no. When you talk to people whose chidl has an asd unless there has been a really sudden regression (rareish) they tend to have been able to see diffrences over all of their infancy, DS1 even has 'independent' written on his maternity notes! What they meant was, he didn;t like being touched but was able to make his needs known through crying on a very basic food- nappy basis. No 'Mummy I need a hug' stuff as we had with ds2.

Autism doesn;t typically manifest at 13 months either. The criteria is any time before 3 years: both regressions have witnessed came at 2.10. Diagnosis in AS / HFA is typically around 6, LFA younger but anywhere between 2 and 4. Nobody keeps stats on ASD, did you know? there is no national record of how many chidlren have ASD, let alone their histories. I mean, that's crap in itself isn't it?

I can think of a whole laod of reasons why a parent might falsely attriibute ASD to MMR but it happens at vaguely same age is unlikely, IMO.

As for the rise- nah, that's been fairly well discredited now, it's just a labelling difference.

seeker Tue 22-Feb-11 10:19:58


I honestly don;t understand why you are not prepared to provide me with the evidence you say you have.

Yes, I have asked before, and nobody would give it to me then, either. I have read a lot of research in this area, and have so far seen nothing that shows a link between MMR and autism except the testimonials of parents. I'm really sorry, but this is not evidence. You seem to have decided that I am closed minded - I'm not. i just need credible evidence. And when I ask for it I just get shouted at, and told that I've been given it aleady, or I "only have to look areound me".

Why are people so reluctant to present their case properly? You do yourself no favours - the "anti-link" people can produce loads of hard evidence. You say you can too, but you don't.

silverfrog Tue 22-Feb-11 10:23:55

scram - in the case of your ds1, my brother - people who function well enough (when not in meltdown - we have spoken before re: your ds/my brother, you know I am not dismissing issues here), then yes, I can accept labelling difference.

in the case of my dd1? bollocks. no way.

there were not as many severe ASD children about a decade ago.

they were not hidden away in homes/institutins (we are talking 10 years ago, not 30). they did not exist in as many numbers then, but do now.

something has changed.

if you look back 20 years, same thing. not shut away, not given up. just not htere in the same numbers.

I do know how the labelling differences has affected dx. if my brother were a child now, the difference that could be made ot his life? just enormous. he is the type of person that is being mopped up by the labelling differences.

not the classic severe autism, where the boundaries are not blurred by flashes of ability and independence. and the people like my brother are not the only ones making up the difference in numbers.

Seeker to me there is no evidence except the testimonials of aprents either. I woudl agree there,

But also I see no evidence of anything else, or that there ISN'T a link for a very few. And nothing decently sensitive has been done.

Seems to me that would be the next sensible step. Starting with identifying the sub group. It shouldn;t be ahrd; aprental auto immune disorder and history of unexplained GI issues.

Start with a basic MMR / ASD correlation study, looking at development and jab date.

See if anything worth a follow up is there.

AS long as it isn;t done, people will wonder, And the work of decent peer reviewed researchers is slowly flagging up the sorts of issues that thsoe who do believe in MMR causality think is linked, such as SI Genius on gluten (he comes up when I tick peer reviewed and all the other 'proper' boxes on Ebsco anyway).

It's worth the finances to study this properly, becuase either there will be decent stuff saying no link so I can tell aprents that I feel sufficient research has been done to prove safety in the subgroup (whom I usually deal with), or whatever: at the moment all I can say is 'read and draw your own conclusions'.

ArthurPewty Tue 22-Feb-11 10:45:52

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

rightpissedoff Tue 22-Feb-11 10:54:55

"There is no evidence but the testimonials of parents. I'm really sorry, but this is not evidence."

ie One. Yes, it is evidence.

Lie Two. There is plenty of other evidence.

The increase in autism since the introduction of MMR and increase in vaccine schedule.

Evidence presented to the legal aid board by two thousand parents that resulted in extended legal aid.

Andrew Wakefield's study and its replication.

Known fact that wild mumps and measles are linked to autism trigger.

Lie 3. nobody would give it to me then, either.

seeker Tue 22-Feb-11 10:57:44

I have an ordinary parent's interest in this - my own children did mot have the MMR because at the time there was a bit question mark over its safety. I did a lot of reading at the time and remained unsure.

I didn't realize that I was wrong about the age when autism manifests - the only two children i know well who are on the spectrum did become clearly "different" at toddler age (although there had been pointers before visible with hindsight). Thank you for putting me right- although the triumphal "you're wrong about this so you are also wrong about everything else and I am therefore not going to engage with you" is not particularly helpful!

Of course there is validity in parents' testimony. It's just not scientific evidence, and in order to move forward that is what we need.

rightpissedoff Tue 22-Feb-11 11:05:10

So you avoided MMR but want others to take the risk? Ew how awful.

Unfortunately as has been shown in at least one thread, large parts of the scientific evidence in this field are untrustworthy.

What do you say to that?

missmehalia Tue 22-Feb-11 11:05:37

I haven't time to read all this, but I was exactly where you are a few months ago. I read everything I could get my hands on, and considered our family's health history.

In the end, I decided to go for it. However, I waited til she was in good health (no colds, tummy upset, etc.) I also phoned a fantastic homeopathics company who sent me remedies to give her a few days beforehand, on the day and afterwards to help her system cope with it. I felt I had done everything I could for her. I also put it off for a couple of months til I felt she was fighting fit. You can do it at any time, not how/when the NHS specifies, so don't worry too much if you hesitate for a few weeks or months, imho. (But remember I'm not medically qualified! It was just my instinct in our situation.)

On the day I was petrified I had done the wrong thing, but she's fine. She did catch a cold immediately afterwards, but it was typical of the mid-winter things that were going round at the time. (Ironically, we think she caught it from someone in the waiting room at the GP's surgery).

Also, it's worth remembering that, as MMR becomes the focus, it's easy to overlook the fact that other boosters are given at the same time. If you don't want that, then remember to JUST ask for the MMR, and wait until you feel your DC is ready for the other boosters.

On the day, it was three jabs at once, which I wish I had realised. I think it was too much in one go. Lucky she is pretty robust.

silverfrog Tue 22-Feb-11 11:05:56

seeker, no triumphal "you are worng about everything"

just pointing out that less than a year ago you were convinced ASD manifests as 13 months, coincidentally when the mmr is given. you were otld then that ASD does not miraculously appear at this age.

then on this thread you were convinced that it manifests at 18 months, and parents like to hang the hook on mmr, because of the coincidence (not that ther eis anymore since mmr given at 13 months). and again, it was pointed out that this is nonsense.

that is all.

rightpissedoff Tue 22-Feb-11 11:07:40

Vibes to Leonie and Silver and Scram, and thanks for being so open.

silverfrog Tue 22-Feb-11 11:09:30

RPO, no one ever answers the question of why the studies that erroneously claim to disprove Wakefield's hypothesis without ever examining or testing it claim what they do.

or how anyone could actually believe what they claim, given they never actually test what they say they do.

the whole hting just moves on to the next attempt to point score.

rightpissedoff Tue 22-Feb-11 11:38:18

I know. They'll be back the next time, same old nonsense, avoiding the facts, repeating peer-reviewed as if it were a guarantee of reliability and oracular truth.

ArthurPewty Tue 22-Feb-11 11:50:02

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

seeker Tue 22-Feb-11 11:50:52

I don't want others to take the risk - where have I said that? I want to know the truth.

I wasn't convinced about anything - I said a post or two ago that I realize I was wrong about the age related regression.

I'm not avoiding the facts, I want to know what they are.

The research I have done points to there being no link between MMR and autism.

You say there is loads of evidence to support the fact that there is a link. But you won't tell me what it is. I don't understand why. I honestly truly don;t understand why. Surely you could just link to the evidence and then everyone would understand.

silverfrog Tue 22-Feb-11 11:55:27

seeker, you know that the evidence is piecemeal, if you have done the research.

just as there is no single study which can categorically state that mmr is safe for all, there is no single piece of evidence which links mmr and ASD. there are studies which show the link between mmr and gut damage. and there is evidence of a link between gut damage and ASD.

life is not black and white, much as people (generic) who come on these threads and say "just do it, mmr is utterly safe" woul like to make out it is.

what do you think about the gut/brain theories, btw? and the protein issues found in (some) people with ASD?

seeker Tue 22-Feb-11 11:57:44

I don't know! That's why I am asking for information.

You say that Wakefield has been replicated - a link to that would be a good start.

rightpissedoff Tue 22-Feb-11 11:59:15

what do you think about the fact that so much
"official" evidence is discredited?

why do you think it's difficult to get funding for research which challenges the orthodoxy when other researchers have seen what happened to wakefield?

why do you think other researchers avoid challenging orthodoxy at all?

note: silver -- file on four at last broadcast the pathologists programme.. must have had some legal ding dong.

Three deeply respected senior pathologists question the official line on the triad of symptoms for shaken baby syndrome. One result? The police reported them to the GMC. The police.

This is what happens in Britain if you seek to challenge an orthodoxy.

silverfrog Tue 22-Feb-11 12:00:03

you were given those links on the thread last year.

if you had read them then, along with the info on gut/brain issues, then you would have had the information you have been asking for.

<much as I owuld like to be, I am genuinely not being stroppy in not giving them again - search is not working atm. but I read the thread yesterday, as I said in my earlier post, and didn't link them then because I had the impression that you had not bohtered reading them last itme around>

ArthurPewty Tue 22-Feb-11 12:00:40

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

silverfrog Tue 22-Feb-11 12:02:35

thought it was you, RPO smile

will dig around and do some catch up on that.

awfully odd. <understatement>

rightpissedoff Tue 22-Feb-11 12:07:15

I know -- the rudeness is like a sort of lightning scar isn't it grin

silverfrog Tue 22-Feb-11 12:09:33

tbh, it was only form halfway through that i was sure it was you grin

you started out a little tamer on this one, before your frustrations broke thorugh smile

<mind you, surveyig that lot - it owldn't be any ogod me namechanging - my typos are constant and consistent!>

rightpissedoff Tue 22-Feb-11 12:12:01

I know -- usually it's cos you're on your iphone ..!

Leonie -- it's shocking isn't it, I think you can hear it on iplayer.

bubbleymummy Tue 22-Feb-11 12:15:14

OOh - I didn't know you had a namechange! I may have an inkling...Were we on a very long AIBU thread a few weeks back right to the end?

silverfrog Tue 22-Feb-11 12:15:42


no iphone here.

android all the way grin (thankfully has a better predictive text programme - althoguh it certainly never looks that way when I post!)

ArthurPewty Tue 22-Feb-11 12:19:22

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

silverfrog Tue 22-Feb-11 12:23:33

yes, i love that site too, Leonie.

mine would be ok, except I had to train it to not automatically replace the word I had mangled when I hit space, as it was coming out with complete gibberish due to my crappy typing...

so now it learns my crappy mistakes, and adds them as words hmm

still, am mostly intelligible grin

ArthurPewty Tue 22-Feb-11 12:30:19

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Piggyleroux Tue 22-Feb-11 12:32:17

I will never vaccinate. You gave to rely on your Childs immune system to create the antibodies needed to provide protection from certain diseases and there is no guarantee that this will be the case anyhow. It's not the vaccine that protects it's your childs immune response.

My ds is not vaccinated because his cousin almost died after her DTP shot. The medical profession would not admit that the vaccine caused the near fatal reaction.

Pharmaceutical companies make billions from vaccines because no one ever questions them and if you do you are mad or irresponsible. The real figure of how many kids are vaccine damaged is not known because the medical establishment will never admit it.

If you are told a lie long enough you start to believe it.

seeker Tue 22-Feb-11 19:09:00

So if I search, I will find evidence that the Wakefield research has been replicated?

Im happy to search - it's just that I don;t think I have ever seem that particular research.

bubbleymummy Tue 22-Feb-11 19:37:49

Ok - just came across something interesting...If you look at the number of cases of measles and the number of deaths on the HPA website - the mortality rate was 0.02% BEFORE the vaccine was introduced. That's the same as swine flu....and that was 50 years ago. It's even less now! I just found that fascinating.....any thoughts?

silverfrog Wed 23-Feb-11 11:57:13

that is interesting, bubbley.

I do find it fascinating how illnesses are perceived.

Leonie mentioned earlier about hr relatives' views on chicken pox.

dd1 had the misfortune to come down with chicken pox while we were in the states - the reactions were huge

we were seen in isolation at the hospital (had to see a doc, as wanted it documented when she broke out in spots, so we could fly home). the doctor had no clue what the quarantine period was, nor incubation for dd2, and we were treated as though she had a particularly virulent strain of the plague.

it was all rather surreal, tbh.

bubbleymummy Wed 23-Feb-11 20:21:03

Yes silverfrog, it really does seem to be about how we perceive an illness. Does it start to seem more dangerous because there is a vaccine available iykwim? Most people I know weren't worried about swine flu and wouldn't have even considered the vaccine (I know some people in at risk categories who did though) yet if you suggested not vaccinating against measles to any of them they would be horrified. I wonder why that is? Do people assume that it is more dangerous than swine flu without actually looking at figures?

seeker Wed 23-Feb-11 23:44:41

It can have to opposite effect too - I am very old and the first generation to be vassinated against polio. My mother still talks about how terrified she was of polio when my older brothers were little and the relief she felt that there was a vaccine by the time I came along. Polio is very rare worldwide now and really not an illness that anyone thinks about much. But my mother's generation still remember people being killed or severely disabled by it.

bubbleymummy Thu 24-Feb-11 20:37:05

Seeker, it's been mentioned on another thread (chickenpox one maybe) that the way in which polio cases were reported was changed in the 1950s. If you look at the figures on the HPA website here You can see that there was a big decrease from the end of the 1950s but how much was due to the vaccine (introduced in 1956) and how much was due to the change in the method of reporting. Bear in mind also that we now know that the live vaccine can actually cause polio outbreaks!

seeker Thu 24-Feb-11 23:11:38

Really? I thought, for example, that there had been no polio in Europe since 2002.

I honestly don;t think (and I am a naturally sceptical person) (and one who thinks vaccinating against chicken pox is bonkers) that the practical eradication of polio in the developed world and the massive reduction of the disease in the developing world since the introduction of vaccination can be entirely due to changes in reporting protocols!

bubbleymummy Thu 24-Feb-11 23:47:10

Oh goodness no! I don't think it is ALL due to reporting changes. I just think that we can't attribute the dramatic decline in polio entirely to the vaccine as a lot of people would like us to. It may very well have actually played quite a small part alongside other factors and it was just that the change in reporting method happened to coincide with the introduction of the vaccine - making the vaccine look more impressive.

seeker Fri 25-Feb-11 00:00:33

What other factors? Better public hygiene I suppose.

bubbleymummy Fri 25-Feb-11 00:15:12

Well yes, better sanitation, nutrition, general living conditions - not as crowded etc. Things that are probably still not that improved in the parts of India and Africa where it is still quite prevalent - although I'm sure the situation isn't helped by them still using the OPV (live) vaccine because it's cheaper

seeker Fri 25-Feb-11 08:50:48

I don't think it's just because it's cheaper - the live vaccine withstands heat better as well.

There are only a couple of areas where polio is still a significant problem - and the rates are coming down in those areas too.

And smallpox has been completely irradicated worldwide - surely you agree that's a good thing to have come out of vacination?

Of course Seeker.

I was thinking about this a little last night (becuase I have an essay to do and anything is more interesting than this one wink)

I see it as this: none of the research that ahs been done is sensitive or designed o pick up what would if it exists be tiny subgroups. Research always has margin or error and statistical significane and this could easily slip through that. I am not anti vaccine, or even anti MMR: I do think for most it is safe.

But making decisions on a grand scale is for the Government and based on that research. parents however make decisions for their own kids absed on a very different set of data. if I knew what I know now, would I give ds1 the MMR seeing as he does have the characteristics that woudl fall with the subgroup- a parent with autoimmune issues (psoriasis, me); bowel issues; a (medically verified) history of intolerances.
No, I probably would not. I don't think MMR did cause his ASD, but I equally beleive he has far mroe susceptibility to environmental factors than your average kid.

Macro-Micro decision making.

rightpissedoff Sun 27-Feb-11 00:32:46

"Bear in mind also that we now know that the live vaccine can actually cause polio outbreaks!"

Am back, briefly -- yes there's a case just now in Malaysia of paralytic polio, the first for three years. It happened in the middle of a vaccination campaign. She hadn't been vaccinated yet. Local health officials happily admitted: this is something that happens when you have a vaccination campaign with OPV in areas of poor sanitation.

Also US health officials puzzled by 21,000 children catching whooping cough despite mandatory vaccination.

These are on reuters, associated press etc.

rightpissedoff Sun 27-Feb-11 00:44:33

"I see it as this: none of the research that ahs been done is sensitive or designed o pick up what would if it exists be tiny subgroups."

The problem is this: we are continually being told you can't prove a negative. However in the same breath we are told : there is NO such thing as regressive autism triggered by MMR. To claim this you are basically claiming to have proven a negative. "We don't know what it is, but we know it's not MMR."

Even if you accept the deeply flawed epidemiological studies "demonstrating" that there is no link (which I don't) then the balance of evidence is on the side of the possibility that MMR can trigger regressive autism in a small group. There is too much evidence of this happening.

However for the pro-vax lobby it is impossible, absolutely impossible, to accept that even one case of regressive autism has been triggered by MMR. Impossible. Because if one, why not two? Why not ten? Why not a thousand? Every case would have to be considered on its merits. This is not desirable in any way for the pro-vaccination lobby.

Indeed it's worse than not desirable. Imagine if one case was conceded. Imagine if AW had not been struck off. The case of MMR-autism would be given credibility.

This would be politically and financially absolutely cataclysmic for governments and the pharmaceutical company. Also I do accept, I have to accept, I know people in the industry -- that the pro-vaccination lobby is not motivated entirely by venality. There are people of very good faith who believe that if the MMR story was given any credibility at all it would be a public health catastrophe.

It is for these reasons that AW had to be struck off. It didn't matter what the hearing was told: there was no way he wasn't going down. They tried hard: they delayed it, they closed it to the public, the date of judgment was set back several times. But they had to do what they did. They simply could not and cannot concede the possibility of one single case of regressive autism triggered by MMR.

Think of that the next time someone says: you can't prove a negative. Well STOP claiming to have done so then.

rightpissedoff Sun 27-Feb-11 00:46:04

"..for governments and the pharmaceutical company..."

should read "companies" of course

StataLover Sun 27-Feb-11 14:58:05

There is no link between MMR and autism. Wakefield's studies were falsified.

In 1999, Brent Taylor and co-workers examined the relationship between receipt of MMR and development of autism in an excellent, well-controlled study. Taylor examined the records of 498 children with autism or autism-like disorder. Cases were identified by registers from the North Thames region of England before and after the MMR vaccine was introduced into the United Kingdom in 1988. Taylor then examined the incidence and age at diagnosis of autism in vaccinated and unvaccinated children. He found that:
The percentage of children vaccinated was the same in children with autism as in other children in the North Thames region
No difference in the age of diagnosis of autism was found in vaccinated and unvaccinated children The onset of symptoms of autism did not occur within two, four, or six months of receiving the MMR vaccine.

One of the best studies was performed by Madsen and colleagues in Denmark between 1991 and 1998 and reported in the New England Journal of Medicine. The study included 537,303 children representing 2,129,864 person-years of study. Approximately 82 percent of children had received the MMR vaccine. The group of children was selected from the Danish Civil Registration System, vaccination status was obtained from the Danish National Board of Health, and children with autism were identified from the Danish Central Register. The risk of autism in the group of vaccinated children was the same as that in unvaccinated children. Furthermore, there was no association between the age at the time of vaccination, the time since vaccination, or the date of vaccination and the development of autism.
Subsequent studies have corroborated the findings that the MMR vaccine does not cause autism.

rightpissedoff Mon 28-Feb-11 07:45:43

There is no link? Prove it. You can't. So stop saying it.

That study you're talking about is rubbish.

That's the one with the average age of vaccination app 15 - 18 months and average age of diagnosis 5 yrs or just over, can't quite remember -- I read this paper a very long time ago.

So at the end of the study there was a cohort of children vaccinated and not diagnosed autistic simply because they didn't have time to be diagnosed within the framework of the study.

So in the study they count as vaccinated and not autistic -- even though they might well be autistic, we just don't know. Eh voila! we have our made up proof that MMR doesn't trigger autism.

They've got some bloody good statisticians on their side, I'll give them that.

rightpissedoff Mon 28-Feb-11 07:48:34

Anyway stata you were talking about studies being falsified?

To be fair I think we should call the Madsen study accidentally on purpose deeply misleading, rather than actually falsified.

StataLover Mon 28-Feb-11 08:25:02

THere is no evidence that the Marsden study is rigged or misleading. Having bloody good statisticians is a good thing for a study as it helps you NOT mislead and actually understand the complex relationships and probabilities.

Some more studies in addition to the two above showing no link between autism and mmr. The body of evidence is that there is no link. You may believe it, it doesn't make it true.

Dales L, Hammer SJ, Smith NJ. Time Trends in Autism and in MMR Immunization Coverage in California. JAMA 2001; 285:1183-1185.

DeStefano, R, Bhasin, TK, et. Al. Age at First Measles-Mumps-Rubella Vaccination in Children With Autism and School-Matched Control Subjects: A Population-Based Study in Metropolitan Atlanta. Pediatrics 2004:113:259-266.

Deykin EY, MacMahon B. Viral exposure and autism. Am J Epidemiol 1979;109:628-638.

Farrington CP, Miller E, Taylor B. MMR and Autism: Further Evidence Against A Causal Association. Vaccine 2001; 19:3632-3635.

Kaye JA, Melero-Montes M, Jick H. Mumps, Measles, and Rubella Vaccine and the Incidence of Autism Recorded by General Practitioners: A Time Trend Analysis. BMJ 2001; 322:460-463.

Peltola H, Patja, A, et. Al. No Evidence for Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Vaccine-Associated Inflammatory Bowel Disease or Autism in a 14-Year Prospective Study. Lancet 1998; 351:1327-1328.

Taylor B, Miller E, Farrington P, et al. Autism and Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Vaccine: No Epidemiologic Evidence for A Causal Association. Lancet 1999; 353:2026-2029.

Taylor B, Miller E, Lingam, et al. Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Vaccination and Bowel Problems or Developmental Regression in Children with Autism: A Population Study. BMJ 2002; 324:393-396.

rightpissedoff Mon 28-Feb-11 08:48:46

I just told you what the problem is stata. hmm

Here is is again (I wonder if my bolding will work): A lot of children that could be diagnosed autistic are counted as non-autistic.

Do you understand why that is a problem, or do you not understand why that is a problem?

Do you see? They are saying there is no difference between vaccinated/unvaccinated and autistic/non-autistic. But do you see? They've put a lot of children in the wrong group! That means they can't tell if there's no difference at all! In fact there might be quite a big difference! BUT THEY CAN'T TELL!!!!!!!!!!

Get it yet?

"The body of evidence is that there is no link." What do you mean by that? The sentence is a conflation of :

"It's proved that there is no link"

And "The body of evidence shows that there probably is no link."

Proof is proof: it's not "the weight of evidence". You need to decide what you're saying.

If you are saying there is no link you are saying there is not a single regressive case of autism out of the thousands claimed, that all those mothers and many of their consultants are lying or mistaken, that many specialists are lying or mistaken, and that direct temporary, videographic, clinical and subclinical evidence are all part of that big lie.

How do you know that? When you don't know the children or the mothers or their consultants or have seen their medical records? How do you know Stata? By looking at a graph?

You don't know, and the probability is that some of them are right. Even if it's a small group that doesn't show up on a large epidemiological study.

All those other studies look like epi studies too, probably retrogressive. Bet they're put together with similar flaws. I've read too many in my time to take them seriously any more. But if you want to link or copy and paste them here I'm happy to share an analysis. Most of them are really old anyway.

rightpissedoff Mon 28-Feb-11 08:49:07

I just told you what the problem is stata. hmm

Here is is again (I wonder if my bolding will work): A lot of children that could be diagnosed autistic are counted as non-autistic.

Do you understand why that is a problem, or do you not understand why that is a problem?

Do you see? They are saying there is no difference between vaccinated/unvaccinated and autistic/non-autistic. But do you see? They've put a lot of children in the wrong group! That means they can't tell if there's no difference at all! In fact there might be quite a big difference! BUT THEY CAN'T TELL!!!!!!!!!!

Get it yet?

"The body of evidence is that there is no link." What do you mean by that? The sentence is a conflation of :

"It's proved that there is no link"

And "The body of evidence shows that there probably is no link."

Proof is proof: it's not "the weight of evidence". You need to decide what you're saying.

If you are saying there is no link you are saying there is not a single regressive case of autism out of the thousands claimed, that all those mothers and many of their consultants are lying or mistaken, that many specialists are lying or mistaken, and that direct temporary, videographic, clinical and subclinical evidence are all part of that big lie.

How do you know that? When you don't know the children or the mothers or their consultants or have seen their medical records? How do you know Stata? By looking at a graph?

You don't know, and the probability is that some of them are right. Even if it's a small group that doesn't show up on a large epidemiological study.

All those other studies look like epi studies too, probably retrogressive. Bet they're put together with similar flaws. I've read too many in my time to take them seriously any more. But if you want to link or copy and paste them here I'm happy to share an analysis. Most of them are really old anyway.

rightpissedoff Mon 28-Feb-11 08:59:53

I recognise the 1999 just by the title. Tis bolleaux.

What it does it, it says the autism boom started before mmr was introduced.

How did they establish this? They looked at how old people with autism were and if they were over a certain age, they decided they were too old to have been vaccinated. Thus they decided the autism wasn't due to MMR.

So, if MMR was introduced in 1988 for children of 18mths, and say the study was done in 1998. That meant that any autistic children over the age of eleven and a half couldn't have been affected by MMR because they couldn't have had MMR.

But soft! some information tiptoes our way. Why, it is the news that in 1994 3.2 million children between the ages of 5 and 16 were vaccinated in a catch up campaign ahead of a large batch of vaccine running out of its use-by date a feared measles outbreak.

That means you could have been born in 1978 and had the MMR. That means that in 1998 you could be aged 20 and autistic and have been affected by MMR.

Whyever did they leave this out of their calculations? What an astonished mistake to have made for such accomplished statisticians. Do you know, I think they might have done that on purpose too.

StataLover Mon 28-Feb-11 14:23:53

There's no conspiracy. That's just medical denialism.

Study after study shows no evidence of a link. That means that in all probability there isn't one. In fact, I'm not aware of any study published in a peer reviewed journal which has demonstrated a link.

if you reject scientific evidence as the basis for your own decision making, that's fine. You can rely on intuition, voo-doo, mumbo-jumbo, whatever floats your boat. But please at least be honest that you're making it all up as you go along.

silverfrog Mon 28-Feb-11 18:10:35

Stata: I am stil unsure as to what part of "Wakefield et al never said that mmr causes autism" you do not understand.

It has NEVER been said that mmr: a) causes autism or b) is responsible for the rise in autism.

You blithely claim that there is no evidence of a link between vaccines and autism. Maybe you should get on to the Special Masters who have recognised in an Omnibus case that vaccines played a role in Hannah Poling developing symtoms of autism and tell them that they are wrong.

You should quickly get on to the experts at the Cochrane Review and tell them that they are mistaken too!&#8232;&#8232;

The fact is that there is a building body of evidence that links vaccines and autism. No doubt if funding was not cut off and researchers weren't witchunted for investigating MMR, there would be even more evidence.&#8232;&#8232;

There are peer reviewed studies, clinical evidence and huge amounts of anecdotal evidence. Also there is the fact that there is a rise in ASD that we have no other credible explanation for. A rise in ASD cases, that in the US in particular, follows the rise in the number of vaccines given.

Then there is the fact that some autistic children's condition improves when they follow treatments that target vaccine damage. &#8232;&#8232;Currently there is a doctor (Dr Yazbak) who is trying to find one single child who presents a case of regressive autism with autistic enterocolitis who is unvaccinated, to date he has not found a single case.

&#8232;&#8232;So far the government and the medical establishment are relying on epidemiological studies to demonstrate that MMR does not trigger autism in susceptible children. All of the studies produced so far have been criticised for either serious problems of conflict of interest and/or methodological flaws that render the study useless. The much touted Taylor study, the Danish study and Fombonne's studies are all high profile examples of this. All these studies were declared as definitive yet they are all now discredited.

There comes a time when one is obliged to ask if these experts are incompetent since they seem curiously unable to design an unflawed study (unlikely) or if they are in fact extemely competent at manipulating statistics to achieve results that suit their own ends.&#8232;&#8232;

The famous 2005 Cochrane Report only examined 31 studies out of a roughly 5000 that were submitted. The Review has been accused of discarding papers that that show MMR in a bad light. BTW the Report did not examine Dr Wakefield's work, which still stands unchallanged and which so far no-one has discredited. Hence no doubt the need for the extensive smear campaign to try and ruin Dr Wakefield's reputation.

&#8232;&#8232;There is evidence that the safety of MMR warrants further investigation, yet that government keeps trying to draw a line under the entire subject.

The government also seems curiously unwilling to examine children who are suspected of being damaged by MMR and to perform a study which directly replicates Dr Wakefield's. All this just doesn't look good and it certainly doesn't inspire confidence.&#8232;&#8232;

Wakefield's work has, of course been replicated - in small scale studies, around the world. But you, ad others, will no doubt continue to look the other way, because you do not like what it says and the implications of this.

silverfrog Mon 28-Feb-11 18:12:08

Bollocks - sorry about the bizarre symbols - thought C&P form word might be easier. forgot it buggers up the spacing and syntax.

StataLover Mon 28-Feb-11 18:37:21

Message deleted by Mumsnet.

silverfrog Mon 28-Feb-11 18:45:57

No he didn't. On either count.

More interestingly, perhaps - can you link to a single piece of work that actually disproves wakefield's hypothesis.

because you haven't done so so far.

silverfrog Mon 28-Feb-11 18:46:53

oh, and btw, my post said studies lining vaccines and autism. do try to take the time to read things through properly.

StataLover Mon 28-Feb-11 18:50:27

No, I don't know of any work that disproves his theory. I haven't looked. It's not really important for me to try to justify the work of someone who falsifies data (according to the GMC, BMJ and Lancet). Garbage in, garbage out.

On the other hand, I did do a search looking at the links between MMR and autism and I didn't find one study demonstrating a link. That's why I'd really appreciate it if you could at least give me the citation of those studies which do show a link. As I said, I believe in scientific enquiry and fi there was a demonstrated link I would be more than happy to change my position.

silverfrog Mon 28-Feb-11 18:53:04

yet again, he did not falsify data.
I know what the claims are, but they are untrue.

so, you agree his hypothesis has never been disproved?


StataLover Mon 28-Feb-11 18:55:11

The GMC, Lancet and BMJ said he did. He's been disgraced. I said I don't know silverfrog. If it's of interest to you, perhaps you could tell me if it's been replicated or disproved?

silverfrog Mon 28-Feb-11 18:57:46

yes, Wakefield's work has been replicated.

you have been told this many times now, on this thread, the other current vax threads, and the last round of vax threads.

yet oyu still continue to claim ignorance on this fact. hmm

the lies that the BMJ printed have been shown to be just that.

as for the GMC verdict.

well, <shrug>. he proved conclusivly at teh hearings that he did not falsify the data, that he did not misrepresent it. that he did not lie, or behave unethically.

the judgement is flawed on those points, and tries ot conflate issues to muddy the waters.

rightpissedoff Mon 28-Feb-11 19:51:43

Stata, your posts are rubbish. Don't you understand the difference between proof and weight of evidence? Don't you understand that epidemiological studies prove nothing with regard to the individual? Don't you understand that peer-reviewed studies are very often flawed and misleading (I note you've ignored the fact that I've shown that with at least two of yours but no, you just plough on regardless talking about mumbo jumbo.

Those studies, those two of them, are little better than mumbo jumbo. I bet I couldn't even light my fire with them, they're so useless.

rightpissedoff Mon 28-Feb-11 20:06:28

God these people. Talk about a broken record.

rightpissedoff Mon 28-Feb-11 20:14:32

Silver: your huge post above is fantastic -- a marvel of its kind.

Flossie69 Mon 28-Feb-11 20:53:41

So, those of you who went the single route - can I ask where you had these done?

StataLover Mon 28-Feb-11 21:11:25

Thank you for the lecture right. I did learn a lot about research methodology during my PhD.

rightpissedoff Mon 28-Feb-11 21:17:06

My pleasure. Why don't you read and respond to silver's marvellous and insightful post?

In fact why don't you respond to anything rather than just grating on without apparently, reading anything that anyone else has written?

rightpissedoff Mon 28-Feb-11 21:18:52

And if you did learn about research methodology, you MUST know the difference between proof and weight of evidence, despite your attempts to conflate them, and you MUST know that all the points made by silver (and in a much smaller way, by me) have salience and cogency.

Unless your PhD has about the same value as the studies we've been discussing.

StataLover Mon 28-Feb-11 21:32:33

Did you access the original article and critically appraised it yourself. hmm, Could you share with me your critical appraisal framework?

Trying to engage in epistemiological debates about proof is really not necessary. LEt's put it this way, the studies have not demonstrated a relationship between autirsm and vaccines. Does it mean there isn't one? No, it's possible but the probability is very low. And if we performed a meta-analysis on the many studies that have already been done, you'll find that the probability is even lower.

I'm not sure what you want me to respond to in silver's post. I asked for the citation for the statement that Wakefield's work (the one that was falsified) has been replicated. i haven't seen it.

All I said is that there is no evidence linking autism and MMR. If there is, please share it or at least the citation. I'd be interested in seeing it.

rightpissedoff Mon 28-Feb-11 21:41:56

Why yes actually, I did! Long time ago, I mean, they're quite old.

Why don't you have a look at what I've written, and what silver has written, and then back at the studies. Of course with the Taylor you'd have to check back on an outside fact -- the 1994 catch up campaign. Shouldn't be too hard.

You can verify quite easily that they're flawed. Bet you won't.

Now then.

"The studies have not demonstrated a relationship between autism and vaccines."

The facts have, however, and it is up to "the studies" to give us convincing reasons to ignore the facts, which they fail to do. The problem with people like you is that you choose to ignore the facts, even to the point of accusing people of lying, and move straight onto excuses for doing so.

Once again, you ask for evidence you've already been linked to.

rightpissedoff Mon 28-Feb-11 21:44:07

Oh, and the fact that you can't see anything to respond to in silver's post?

Just shows -- you close your eyes, stick your fingers in your ears and sing la la la, if something is difficult for you to deal with.

I can't copy and paste, otherwise I'd pick up individual points, but to be honest I'd be c and p'ing the whole thing.

StataLover Mon 28-Feb-11 21:44:37

'people like you' I'm quite honoured. So what was your critical appraisal framework? What were the pluses of the study? Did you write to the authors to discuss your concerns?

rightpissedoff Mon 28-Feb-11 21:45:01

Did you even read it? Respond point by point, go on, see if you can.

StataLover Mon 28-Feb-11 21:46:59

The only thing I care about right is evidence based decision making. Medical decision making should be firmly embedded in empirical evidence. There is no evidence of a link between vaccines and autism. You can shout and scream as much as you want that there is - but the evidence is not there. Even if the studies are flawed (and I don't think the flaws threaten the validity of the findings) they have been replicated numerous times. Causality has not been demonstrated between vaccines and autism.

rightpissedoff Mon 28-Feb-11 21:50:26

I'm sorry -- are you seriously asking me write that out? You must be joking. I've given a summary: that should be enough to have you thinking. For example, do you think I'm lying about the catch up campaign? Go and check. Do you think I'm lying about the follow up? Go and check.

You don't want to -- you don't want to find out how misleading those studies are.

Why are you honoured to be someone who chooses to ignore the facts, accuses people of lying and then tries to find excuses to justify those behaviours? What an odd person you are.

rightpissedoff Mon 28-Feb-11 21:53:39

There you go again.

"There is no evidence of a link".

There's lots of of evidence, but you choose to ignore it.

What you mean, I think, it's that there's no proof of a link. Well that's true enough, but then, that doesn't mean there's no link, and it doesn't mean there's no evidence of a link. And it especially doesn't mean that when thereis in fact such a lot of empirical evidence that there is indeed a link.

Why don't you think the flaws threaten the validity of the findings?
This I really want to hear.

rightpissedoff Mon 28-Feb-11 21:55:37

Seriously that was pretty quick work, checking the studies against the criticisms made, and going back to look at the catch up campaign. Do share exactly why the ignoring of the catch up campaign, and the placing of potentially autistic children in a non autistic cohort, really don't matter at all.

StataLover Mon 28-Feb-11 21:58:11

You're engaging in perfect medical denialism. Trying to pick holes in any paper that doesn't agree with your point of view and believing in conspiracy theories. It's medical denialism par excellence.

StataLover Mon 28-Feb-11 22:01:26

IF the studies were so deeply flawed, they wouldn't have been replicated.

You can shout, scream, stamp your feet, jump up and down as much as you want. It won't change the fact that there is no evidence of a link between vaccines and autism. None. And it has been studied a lot. I don't understand why this is so difficult to accept.

This is a bit like the Nigeria polio outbreak where people believed that HIV and contraceptives had been put in the vaccines. Same level of debate.

rightpissedoff Mon 28-Feb-11 22:04:02

Why can't you engage with it? Do you deny the catch up campaign ever happened? Do you deny the follow up didn't fully happen?

Surely it's you involved in medical denialism -- you literally seem unable to cope with anything that challenges your point of view. Others who are opposed to you can (and do) respond to what people say and the points they make. You just say "I'm right, and if you disagree, you're a denialist. Look, you're disagreeing, that proves I'm right and that proves you're a denialist."

Stata you are very strange -- to have a PhD and not to be able to follow a train of thought is quite unusual.

You've been shown flaws in the studies -- you refuse to look at them and without even doing so you say, well. it makes no difference.

You've been linked to studies that replicate Wakefield's work. You literally deny having seen them.

You've had it pointed out to you many times that there is a difference between evidence and proof and that you are conflating the two. You simply ignore it.

There is a denialist on the thread -- it's you.

StataLover Mon 28-Feb-11 22:07:59

I haven't been linked to any studies replicating Wakefield's work (the work that was falsified and subsequently retracted)

The studies showing that there is no link between autism and vaccines have been replicated over and over. Good nuff?

rightpissedoff Mon 28-Feb-11 22:08:52

I'm not shouting and screaming grin my arguments are perfectly cogent. You, on the other hand, are getting a little bit sweaty about the palms by the sound of it.

Now you accept they may be flawed, but because there are so many of them, it doesn't matter?

Would you be interested in knowing that rather a lot of other epi studies in this field are also flawed? It seems confounding factors are built into this type of thing, it really does.

There you go again -- claiming there's no evidence of a link.

Oh yes there is. What you mean is -- there's no proof.

Now for you to believe there is no link, you have to believe there is not one case. To do that you have to believe that thosuands and thousands of people, including consultants, immunologists, virologists, MDs, are wrong, or lying about individual children you know nothing at all about.

Now that's denialism "par excellence".

rightpissedoff Mon 28-Feb-11 22:10:15

Yes, you have: silver wrote here that she linked them: and they've been linked on previous threads. But who cares? You wouldn't read them anyway. You just deny they exist.

rightpissedoff Mon 28-Feb-11 22:11:32

Come on, come on, let's have a bit of detail. Why don't the flaws in the studies matter. What about those two studies. Are you accepting they are flawed? If not, why not?

StataLover Mon 28-Feb-11 22:12:52

I haven't seen any. Be grateful if you could link if they are there. As I've said, I am not pro or anti vax. I am pro evidence based decision making. Therefore, reviewing ALL the evidence is a key component which means I would be very interested in reading all papers.

StataLover Mon 28-Feb-11 22:17:42

I'm still waiting for SOMEONE to please post a link demonstrating that vaccines and autism are causally related? Surely there must be a study out there, even a flawed one?

rightpissedoff Mon 28-Feb-11 22:25:21

Now now, we both know it's up to you to prove they aren't causally related. There's lots of evidence they are. After all, that's why there've been so very many studies -- the cases won't go away.

So -- it's up to you to prove they aren't causally related. So you've produced some studies and said: "There we are -- they aren't".

And then I've said: "But your studies are flawed and they don't show what you say they show."

And then you say: "No they're not -- because of this..." and that's when you explain why the studies are not flawed or why the flaws don't matter.

That's where we are in the conversation. You need to explain why the flaws don't matter.

<drums fingers>

StataLover Mon 28-Feb-11 23:11:45

There isn't any evidence that they are causally related.

Drums fingers waiting for evidence.

StataLover Mon 28-Feb-11 23:12:52

well, <shrug>. he proved conclusivly at teh hearings that he did not falsify the data, that he did not misrepresent it. that he did not lie, or behave unethically.

No, he SAID those things. He didn't prove them. No-one believed him!

rightpissedoff Tue 01-Mar-11 02:37:56

Oh my goodness -- are you sure you have a PhD?

Do you know what evidence is?

Do you know the difference between evidence and proof?

You are unbelievable. You don't seem to be able to follow a single, simple train of thought.

How can you say there isn't any evidence that they're causally related?

There's a temporal connection between vaccination and regressive autism for thousands of children. There's clinical, sub-clinical, videographic evidence, there are consultants and immunologists who agree on the cause and recommend against other family members being vaccinated. There's a very large increase in the numbers of children being diagnosed with profound autism and also on the ASD spectrum. Why on earth do you think there've been so many attempts to try to disprove it? Because the cases keep on happening and they simply will not go away. However much you might grate on, and on, and on, and pretend that it isn't happening -- normal people realise that not everybody that ever made a claim of such a connection can possibly be a stupid, hysterical, paranoid liar.

How can you deny this is evidence? Are you really that stupid, or so lacking in understanding of what evidence is, and the difference between evidence and proof?

I think you must be. You've said so many times: there isn't any evidence they are causally related. That's simply not true.

A temporal association -- and for that matter, an epidemiological association -- do constitute evidence of a causal relationship. Only a propagandist could deny it. Who's saying they constitute proof? Not me. Not silver. Not even Andrew Wakefield.

Now we have that little lie again and again and again -- there is no evidence.

This is a lie. What does that make you?

rightpissedoff Tue 01-Mar-11 02:45:10

I'm actually quite astounded that someone who claims to have a PhD involving research methodologies can't understand the difference between evidence and proof. Nor can they understand the importance of significant flaws in epidemiological studies.

It's incredible.

One more time.

There is a great deal of evidence for a relationship.
The studies you use to deny it are flawed.

How hard is that?

StataLover Tue 01-Mar-11 08:38:12

It's OK right, part of medical denialism is downgrading the qualifications of people who don't agree with you. You can carry on questioning my PhD, it's par for the course with medical denialists.

BTW, I looked at that study. The researchers controlled for length of time since vaccination and for age. It's absolutely fine and, in fact, an excellent study.

rightpissedoff Tue 01-Mar-11 08:49:17

No, they didn't follow up for the appropriate amount of time. They were not three and a half years short (ie diff between vax age and diagnosis age) but they were about two years short.

What about the other study where they kinda accidentally on purpose forgot about the 3.2 million vaccinations in 1994?

rightpissedoff Tue 01-Mar-11 08:52:19

Your first sentence is risible -- that's exactly what happened with Andrew Wakefield -- and what you guys do with everyone who doesn't agree with you!

You are so in denial -- you can't even respond to my points about evidence and proof.

I find it incredible that you have a PhD and can't do that. Go on, prove me wrong. Show that you understand the difference between evidence and proof, show that you know what evidence is, and then explain why you think there is no evidence of a relationship.

Show me you really deserve that PhD -- because quite frankly anyone with CSE philosophy ought to be able to discriminate between evidence and proof.

rubyrubyruby Tue 01-Mar-11 08:56:31

My youngest 3 didn't have the MMR at the recommended age. It was at the peak of all the controversy.

I decided to get them vaccinated a couple of years ago instead - pre-teens. I was actually quite surprised at their reactions to the jab - 2 of them had sore throats amd stiff necks and felt generally very unwell. I'm glad I didn't give it to a young baby.

StataLover Tue 01-Mar-11 09:01:48

I don't need to prove anything on a mumsnet board. I 'proved' it to my committee

the researchers censored the data - that accounts for the problem you've raised. the study is absolutely fine.

rightpissedoff Tue 01-Mar-11 09:06:48

You can't, that's why. It's easy enough. The difference between evidence and proof. The claims about proving a negative. The definition of evidence.

No, you don't have to prove anything to anyone, but you know. It's a bit rubbish if you can't answer those questions when you've jumped feet first into a debate and made lots of claims about evidence and proof and "evidence based medicine".

What do you mean, the researchers censored the data? What are you talking about?

StataLover Tue 01-Mar-11 09:08:36

right, look up what censored means. I haven't the time to teach you research methodology.

rightpissedoff Tue 01-Mar-11 09:10:11

No, you explain why it's ok to ignore 3.2 million vaccinated children.

When you're ready.

rightpissedoff Tue 01-Mar-11 09:10:51

In the mean time answer those questions about evidence and proof. Which you've ignored, along with so much else on this thread.

rightpissedoff Tue 01-Mar-11 09:12:15

Absolutely re: censored: gotcha.

Translation: we will ignore this data if it's inconvenient.

StataLover Tue 01-Mar-11 12:29:53

No that's not what censored means in research terms. At all. Try again.

rightpissedoff Tue 01-Mar-11 12:56:29

Answer my questions about evidence or proof. Do you know the difference?

Why do you say there is no evidence of a link between MMR and autism if* you know what evidence is and *if you know what proof is?

You haven't tried at all. Go on. Give it a go. Why lie about there being no evidence?

StataLover Tue 01-Mar-11 12:59:05

Aaah, there is ANECDOTAL evidence. That anecdotal evidence has been followed up with scientific studies which have shown no evidence of impact.

I'm really impressed with the marsden study. I thought they used very sophisticated statistical techniques to handle some of the problems assoicated with time of vaccination. Really good stuff. It's one of the best papers I've seen in ages. Thanks for prompting me to review it.

rightpissedoff Tue 01-Mar-11 12:59:55

There we are! Denialism!

oh I was just waiting for you to say anecdotal

yes -- dealt with up the thread -- you should read back sweetie

StataLover Tue 01-Mar-11 18:44:56

That's fine. At least we've established where we differ. You can carry on basing your decision making on anecdote, inuition, voo-doo or whatever you define as evidence. That's what Mbeki did with his position on HIV. I'll stick with scientific evidence. Thankfully, that's the position of policymakers in this country. We've seen the harm Mbeki has done.

StataLover Tue 01-Mar-11 18:52:06

BTW, right, I have a job. A professional one that is demanding. I was 'lucky' enough to have been on leave last week. I must admit (big generalisation) that I've noticed that none of the anti-vax people seem to have jobs. Unfortunately, time constraints mean that I am not able to respond to most of the drivel that's been posted.

I also think your tone reflects the quality of your debate. I don't see how any health care professional could possibly take you seriously when you use the language of a 5 year old!

rightpissedoff Tue 01-Mar-11 18:57:13

Yes -- I know the difference between evidence and proof, and you don't.

That is where we differ.

I have a professional job too, and I'm on leave now. Is that ok?

A lot of those "anti-vax" people don't have jobs because they have to stay at home and look after vaccine damaged children.

But let me guess, you don't give a piece of shit about that do you?

I guess we differ there as well.

I notice you avoided that other thread with it's very, very salient points and cogent arguments until it was too full for you to post.

rightpissedoff Tue 01-Mar-11 18:57:53

its very salient points

and its brilliant reasoning, and its solid evidence for that matter too

silverfrog Tue 01-Mar-11 19:00:18

Fucking Hell, Stata - that is a low, low blow.

You're right - I don't work, because I care full time for a severely disabled child.

maybe you should try it - it opens your eyes to an awful lot of things.

just maybe, if the society that cares so desperately whether I vaccinate my children or not actually took care of the children damaged by the vaccination programme, I wouldn't have to spend my time on legal challenges, and health investigations.

I wouldn't spend 7 hours travelling every Friday, in order for my daughter to receive one hour of therapy.

I'd be able to merrily choose to buy my food from anywhere, rather than havign to hunt down specialist alternatives.

and I'd be able to send her to school anywhere, rather than out of county - a "choice" which at one time meant I was spending 4 hours a day just taking her to and form school.

but you carry on judging away - you are clearly suited to it.

StataLover Tue 01-Mar-11 19:01:03

I was at work. I can't sit on Mumsnet all day.
All these mums (where are the dads??) of vaccine daamged childen seem to have an awful lot of time on their hands.

Personally, I don't even believe that half of them do actually have vaccine damaged children. THey may have sick or developmentally delayed children and they're looking for a reason. Understandble (and very dramatic) and they may believe it themselves but it doesn't make it true.

Unfortunately, what doesn't make the news is all the millions of children saved through immunisation. That doesn't sound quite as dramatic.

Did you find out what censoring means btw?

StataLover Tue 01-Mar-11 19:02:20

I'm not judging. Just presenting the evidence. You do what you want with it but don't pretend to believe in scientific enquiry if you don't.

TheCoalitionNeedsYou Tue 01-Mar-11 19:02:31

There is no link between artist and MMR.

StataLover Tue 01-Mar-11 19:05:41

Yes, but have you definitely proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that there is no link between artists and MMR? No? Then I won't vaccinate because I heard somewhere that Van Gogh didn't have his MMR.

silverfrog Tue 01-Mar-11 19:07:37

how can you tell which ones (via the power of your Obviously Special Computer) which ones are "real" vaccine damaged, and which ones aren't?

<and do I qualify as one the the ones "lucky" enough to have a Real vaccine damaged child, in your opinion? (and please don't say you can't tell - you have clearly decided that some of us are lying)>

honestly, with super powers like you have - I'd give up the "demanding professional job" (PMSL), and start raking it in as a psychic hmm confused

rightpissedoff Tue 01-Mar-11 19:08:46

"Personally, I don't even believe that half of them do actually have vaccine damaged children. THey may have sick or developmentally delayed children and they're looking for a reason. Understandble (and very dramatic) and they may believe it themselves but it doesn't make it true. "

Personally, I think you should go screw yourself.

You don't know what evidence is. We've already established that. You think it's the same as proof. Sometimes. Sometimes you think you can prove a negative, sometimes you think you have proved a negative, then in the same breath you say that doesn't mean it's not possible. You've been engaged in self-contradiction for some time now, alternating it with nastiness, repetition and denial.

Excuse me if I join the hordes who refuse to take you seriously. There was much jollity on the other thread about your evidence based medicine. That was the thread you carefully avoided.

Normantebbit Tue 01-Mar-11 19:14:06

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc

rightpissedoff Tue 01-Mar-11 19:17:04

post hoc multiplied by x thousands may indeed lead us to ergo propter hoc

silverfrog Tue 01-Mar-11 19:18:25

oh do fuck off with your implication of false correlation.

were you there, beofre my daughter ahd the vaccines which damaged her?

were you there afterwards?

have you had access to her medical records?


then stop dismissing her very real issues.

TheCoalitionNeedsYou Tue 01-Mar-11 19:18:26

I have. Artists definitely don't cause MMR.

curses lack of edit function and predictive text on phones

rightpissedoff Tue 01-Mar-11 19:20:09

If you're trying to say there's no link between MMR and autism, I'd like to see your proof of this absolute negative.

<goes off to write sequel to War and Peace while waiting>

rightpissedoff Tue 01-Mar-11 19:26:24

Message deleted by Mumsnet.

silverfrog Tue 01-Mar-11 19:28:15

'night, RPO.

<don't worry - Stata was clearly pissed off about something (can't think what grin), and out to get a reaction.>

StataLover Tue 01-Mar-11 19:40:59

You can shout and scream and say 'fuck off' as much as you like. I find it quite telling that you feel the need to resort to such language. Again, it reflects the strength of your argument. You can also take it personally if yo wish - that's your choice.

I don't know if any one particular child of any poster here is vaccine damaged. I just don't think that all these people who claim to have vaccine damaged children - and try to use it for emotional effect - really do. What I do know is that it is a common bias for people who have an illness, disability or whatever to try to attribute causality to some event. It happens all the time and not just with vaccines, it doesn't make it true no matter how much you want it to.


silverfrog Tue 01-Mar-11 20:02:04

apart form the swearing, which I stand by, tbh, there was no heat in my post.

you may have read it that way, but I can assure you there was none. more a tired amusement, really.

but hold on - you say that you are sure that half the posters claiming their children are vaccine damaged are mistaken.

again, I ask you, how can you possibly know?

and who are you to even think that you could know?

you have no knowledge (other than what is written here) about any of our children. and definitely no access to their records.

all of us have said at one time or another that we have had medical agreement and acceptance.

yet you state you know differently?

but decline to say how you can possibly know this.

bluster - just like the rest of your posts.

<and I really don't think you can dismiss the rest of my argument just because I swore at you.>

StataLover Tue 01-Mar-11 20:10:13

I don't understand why it bothers you so much that I think that half the people on here who claim to have vaccine damaged children don't? It's what I think [shrug].

There is no bluster (and no swearing or dramatics) - the scientific evidence speaks for itself.

silverfrog Tue 01-Mar-11 20:11:27

it doesn't bother me at all what you think of me, or others in my situation.

bt you said it, and I asked, that is all.

you are clearly unwilling ot actually back up your statement.


yet more bluster, really.

StataLover Tue 01-Mar-11 20:17:59

Good then - so no need to get upset and use foul language, is there?

The reasoning behind my thinking is the established epidemiological fact that people falsely attribute events to illness. It's well known. You can look it up - it's known as attribution bias. As well as the fact that vaccine damage is exceedingly rare. It's not hard to put the two together. You don't have to agree, I'm sure you don't since the implications for you would be quite difficult to accept.

silverfrog Tue 01-Mar-11 20:36:40

there are no implications for me.

my daughter's health problems are well documented and accepted.

so, by using your theoretical knowledge, you have decided that roughly half of the posters who say they have vaccine damaged children are lying.

I ask again - how do you come to this conclusion (on number, not the reasoning behind your decision, which is clearly wrong. but it a nice opt-out option for you, I suppose)

and which half? because surely you have an opnion on that too. or is it just down to luck again? you are awfully fond of that argument after all.

the lucky chosen ones, with childrne damamged by the vaccinations that wre supposed ot protect them. and the poor unlucky ones, as deemed by the all-knowing Stata, who "merely" have developmentally delayed and ill children.

how are you making the distinction between the two (and why are you ignoring the point i made that all of us have medically accepted cases?)

StataLover Tue 01-Mar-11 20:46:31

It's a guesstimate.

I don't think you do all have medically accepted cases.

I'm still waiting for the link or even jsut the citation to Wakefield's replicated studies. I'm very interested as a quick search of pubmed didn't come up with anything.

rightpissedoff Tue 01-Mar-11 20:49:29

I am so jetlagged and can't sleep.

"You can shout and scream and say 'fuck off' as much as you like. I find it quite telling that you feel the need to resort to such language. Again, it reflects the strength of your argument. "

I find it quite telling that you've had to flash your Phd, flash your "professional" job and resort to saying "I don't believe you, you're lying or delusional" to parents. What do you expect, an invitation to dinner? It definitely reflects on the strength of what we'll laughingly refer to as your argument.

"no need to get upset and use foul language, is there?

"The reasoning behind my thinking is the established epidemiological fact that people falsely attribute events to illness."

You are in lurve with epidemiology. You cannot see that correlation multiplied many times over, with other evidence to back it up, clinical, sub clinical, the epidemiology of natural disorder and disease, treatment protocols, etc etc, may indeed indicate causation.

"As well as the fact that vaccine damage is exceedingly rare."

This is almost funny. How do you know it's rare? "Because alleged vaccine damage is usually a coincidence." How do you know it's a coincidence? "Because vaccine damage is exceedingly rare." But how do you know it's rare? "Because what people think of as vaccine damage is a coincidence." How do you know? Because vaccine damage is exceedingly rare". But.. isn't your argument a bit circular? "Go away, you're hysterical."

You either laugh or set fire to yourself in frustration. It's that pathetic.

rightpissedoff Tue 01-Mar-11 20:51:43

By the way what is the difference between evidence and proof stata? Have you looked it up yet?

Have you had a little think about your claim that "there is no evidence that mmr and autism are causally related"?

In your own time. Have a little "guesstimate" if you're not up to thinking clearly right now.

silverfrog Tue 01-Mar-11 20:52:50

search the threads here ofr the link.

I said it earlier, but you clearly can't be bothered.

so you really are saying that we are lying?

rightpissedoff Tue 01-Mar-11 20:53:21

bluster, stuff and nonsense

guesstimate my arse

silly person

rightpissedoff Tue 01-Mar-11 20:55:06

oh now I'm so jet lagged and stata is going to run away again

rightpissedoff Tue 01-Mar-11 20:55:36

I need someone to bore me to sleep with a load of old rubbish and it was just the job

rightpissedoff Tue 01-Mar-11 21:00:16

well stata you've let me down

where the heck is a barrelload of ignorant pomposity when you need it?

StataLover Tue 01-Mar-11 21:10:58

YEs, I am in love with epidemiology. It's what I did my PhD in. Causation is set by a number of criteria. Correlation multiplied a million times does not mean correlation. The correlation doesn't exist anyway. We all know epidemiologic studies have their limitations, but it's pretty clear to the scientific community, beyond a reasonable doubt, that vaccines successfully and safely prevent disease.

Of course you'll laugh at my credentials. That's all part of medical denialism.

To paraphrase some points made elsewhere regarding any possible link between vax and autism:

Previously, anti-vax people said that mercury in vaccines was the reason for the purported link with autism. Mercury hasn't been in childhood vaccines for a few years now - no effect on incidence of autism. Why not?

SO what next? Ah-ha, we'll make up some stuff about formaldehyde. During the vaccine manufacturing process, it’s used to inactivate live virus, and traces do remain after manufacturing. Why on earth would those traces be allowed to remain? In trace amounts, formaldehyde is not dangerous. Also, it doesn’t last long in aqueous solution, such as vaccines. Moreover, exposure to far more formaldehyde than any vaccine contains happens in modern life. So it's not formaldehyde.

So, what else since you can't blame mercury or formaldehyde. Ah-ha, there's aluminium, which has been used as an adjuvant in many vaccines for over 80 years to increase the ability of antigens to provoke the desired immune response. It has now become one of the top two chemicals that antivaccinationists like to cite to demonise vaccines. True, aluminium is not nearly as scary-sounding as mercury, but with mercury falling by the wayside, antivax are certainly trying very hard to make it so. Now the antivax are climbing aboard the aluminum scare train as well because the scientific evidence is becoming so clear that their previous favorite bogeyman vaccine ingredient, thimerosal, is not associated with autism that even the die-hards are having a hard time arguing that it is anymore, particularly now that thimerosal is no longer present above trace amounts in most childhood vaccines. Consequently, they have no choice but to branch out to other scary-sounding ingredients in vaccines and invoking vague (and, conveniently enough, almost impossible to demonstrate) “environmental toxins” or risk becoming irrelevant.

One thing to remember about resistance to vaccines by most antivax posters is that it is not scientific in nature. It is either due to an excessive reliance on anecdotes or confusing correlation with causation (usually with a distrust of science and medicine), or it is ideological in nature. No matter how many of the “toxins” scientists remove from vaccines, it will never be enough because it’s all about the vaccines and the very concept of vaccination itself, not any individual ingredients in the vaccines.

Antivax people will never come to a point where they say, “OK, now I believe that all the toxins are gone and vaccines are safe.” They’ll either fixate on the viruses or the viral or bacterial antigens themselves, or they’ll make the claim that vaccines are made using “aborted foetuses” because some cell lines used to grow up virus stocks were derived from aborted fetuses 40 or more years ago. If every trace of formaldehyde, aluminium, or any other chemical with more than two syllables in its name were somehow to be removed from all vaccines, they would still be saying things like this:

"It is the toxin, or germ, contained in the shot itself that causes the adverse affects on the immune system."
"Dead-virus, or live-virus vaccine etc…who cares? The cultures for polio vaccines are grown in the kidney tissue of dead monkeys in third-world countries with little or no controls and the virulent pustule toxin is put in vaccines to be shot into you little kid’s arm. I wouldn’t go into a room where that putrid stuff is, let alone inject it into my blood stream! Would you?"

All of which is BS.
What interests me is that if, somehow, the only thing that would remain in vaccines is buffered salt water and the necessary antigens, be they killed virus or bacterial proteins, or whatever, would you then happily vax? If not, why not? Because then there's no reason whatsoever other than opposition to the idea of vaccines.

rightpissedoff Tue 01-Mar-11 21:30:26

Yes, we know about your Phd <eyeroll> put it away now there's a dear.

Now then, despite your very lovely scroll with a ribbon you still aren't convincing me that you know the difference between evidence and proof. This does have some bearing on the little lie you told earlier, about there being no evidence of causal relation.

There's also your other lie, about you being neither anti or pro vaccine. It's clear you are absolutely pro vaccine, and far from being impartial, your prejudice is overweaning. When presented with evidence, to simply say: I don't believe it, you are lying or delusional -- is demonstrative of the deepest prejudice.

So no more pretending you're impartial. Let's pop that lie back in the box and not revisit it. But your lie about the evidence -- we can wait a little longer for you to address that one.

"Mercury hasn't been in childhood vaccines for a few years now - no effect on incidence of autism."

A lie. It's been in flu vaccines, sometimes repeated annually, and most perniciously, it's been in vaccines recommended for pregnant women.

"So, what else since you can't blame mercury or formaldehyde. Ah-ha, there's aluminium, which has been used as an adjuvant in many vaccines for over 80 years to increase the ability of antigens to provoke the desired immune response....other scary-sounding ingredients in vaccines and invoking vague (and, conveniently enough, almost impossible to demonstrate) “environmental toxins” or risk becoming irrelevant."

Is this anything but a rant? Where's the point? Where's the cogency? Where's the impartiality? Where's the evidence?

There is so much unadulterated blither and crap in your last paragraph it's almost indecipherable.

This is just ranting about anti vax people and what would they say if this or that. It's not evidence based anything. It's just your random, prejudiced stream of consciousness and hatred of "the anti vax lobby".

silverfrog Tue 01-Mar-11 21:43:34

hey, RPO - maybe qualification top trumps would help send you off to sleep?

we could start listing all our qualifications, and tick them off one by one - make sure ot keep referencing them - you never know, it might make someone forget what the thread is all about.

whaddya reckon?

StataLover Tue 01-Mar-11 21:48:55

Quoting Specter:

"When you start down the road where belief in magic replaces evidence and science, you end up in a place where you don’t want to be.”

Unfortunately, for many here, it seems, when it comes to vaccines that’s exactly where they’re going. They don’t want to be there, but unfortunately they won’t realise it until they're there. They might not even realise it even then.

Unfortunately, society will.

No matter how much evidence is arrayed showing vaccine safety, the elder statemen antivax mumsnetters always finds a way to spin, distort, or misrepresent the evidence to combat it and not have to give up the concept that vaccine are dangerous or cause autism. It bears repeating often in the light of the disingenuous and even outright deceptive techniques used by promoters of anti-vaccine pseudoscience to sow fear and doubt about vaccines among parents. These arguments may seem persuasive to those who have little knowledge about science or epidemiology. Sometimes they even seemed somewhat persuasive to me; that is, at least until I actually took the time to look into them.

THe idea that vaccines don't matter and aren't effective. All we have to do is look at the experiences of several developed countries after they let their immunisation levels drop. Three countries – Great Britain, Sweden, and Japan – cut back the use of pertussis vaccine because of fear about the vaccine. The effect was dramatic and immediate. Here, a drop in pertussis vaccination in 1974 was followed by an epidemic of more than 100,000 cases of pertussis and 36 deaths by 1978. In Japan, around the same time, a drop in vaccination rates from 70% to 20%-40% led to a jump in pertussis from 393 cases and no deaths in 1974 to 13,000 cases and 41 deaths in 1979. In Sweden, the annual incidence rate of pertussis per 100,000 children 0-6 years of age increased from 700 cases in 1981 to 3,200 in 1985. It seems clear from these experiences that not only would dz not be disappearing without vaccines, but if we were to stop vaccinating, they would come back.

The fall of ANdrew Wakefield has been dismissed as conspiracy, lies, whatever. False heroes. To quote the GMC "The Panel is satisfied that your conduct was dishonest and irresponsible'. Wow.

A study by Kaiser Permanente (an NGO if you're interested) found that found that the act of refusing to vaccinate against pertussis placed children at a 23 times greater risk of contracting pertussis in the US. That’s a 23 fold-increased risk of a disease that, in children under 12 months of age from 2000-2004 in the US caused 62.8% to require hospitalization, 55.8% to have apnea, pneumonia in 12.7%, and death in 0.8%.

Even in a community with intact herd immunity, the choice to remain unvaccinated places children at a markedly higher risk than their vaccinated counterparts. The delusion that hiding children within the herd provides them with protection even remotely equal to vaccination must be abandoned. It gives some but not enough.

choice to refuse a vaccine, to “hide in the herd,” is an active decision to accept a markedly higher risk of infection, its complications, the associated medical costs and lost wages, the responsibility of spreading the disease to others should an infection occur, and to choose to undermine the very herd immunity on which we all depend.

Parents want to be fully informed about the medical decisions they make for their children, and rightfully so. To that end, we do everyone a disservice by allowing the public discussion such as on Mumsnet to be dominated by the risks of vaccines to the exclusion of other equally important topics, including the risks of not vaccinating. That's why I bother posting. It's not fair otherwise.

Beachcomber Tue 01-Mar-11 21:50:12

Stata who are these 'anti-vaccination' people of which you speak?

The vast majority of the people I have come across who are cautious about vaccination, are cautious because they did vaccinate their children, and were unhappy with the outcome.

Parents are not stupid - when the same story is told time and time again, people tend to engage their brains and start analysing their personal situation.

They then tend to look at the safety data - unfortunately it is very wanting (that is when one is actually able to access it.)

What makes you think that parents would wish to think their child is vaccine damaged when they are not? Can you imagine how painful it is to think that one's child has been damaged by one's own actions? (Taking a child to have a vaccination). The vast majority of parents would much prefer their child's ill health and suffering to be anything rather than something that they unthinkingly consented to being done to their child.

Trust me - I know because I consented to my daughter being vaccinated despite nagging doubts about her health profile. I wish I could blame genetics or infectious disease or a car accident - anything rather than a government endorsed routine medical procedure that was designed to protect her and which I unthinkingly consented to.

The guilt is unbearable - nobody would make it up if there was an easier reality, believe me.

StataLover Tue 01-Mar-11 21:59:31

Paraphrasing someone else who expresses things perfectly.

Vaccines are not perfect. They are not 100% effective, and there can be rare serious side effects. What differentiates anti-vaccine cranks from, for example, scientists who deal with issues of efficacy versus side effects and potential complications, is exaggeration far beyond what the scientific data will support. For example, if the influenza vaccine is less efficacious than perhaps we would like (which is true), then it must be useless. This is, in essence, the Nirvana fallacy, wherein if something is not perfect it is claimed to be utterly worthless. Part and parcel of this approach involves the complement, namely vastly exaggerating the potential side effects and complications due to vaccines to paint them as being far more dangerous than the diseases they prevent. In addition, anti-vaccine activists frequently attribute harms to vaccines that the existing scientific data definitely don’t support as being reasonable or legitimate. The claim that vaccines cause autism is the most famous, but far from the only one of these sorts of claims. It’s not uncommon to hear fallacious claims that vaccines cause autoimmune diseases, asthma, and a general “weakening” of the immune system, among others.

Overall, the anti-vaccine claims that vaccines are dangerous and don’t work, can be differentiated from scientifically valid concerns about the efficacy and safety of vaccines on the basis of how evidence is treated and the types of arguments that are used. Scientists, of course, tend to be a lot more measured and express the level of uncertainty in their claims; anti-vaccine activists are under no such constraints

silverfrog Tue 01-Mar-11 21:59:57

hey Beach smile

well, first up - now that there are 2 of us here, by Stata's reckoning and guestimation - one of us is lying about having a vaccine damaged child. so, shall we flip a coin? is it you, or me?

secondly, you're not playing fair.

Stata would like us to just be quiet.

it isn't fair to speak up, you see. to let other parents know that this can, and does, happen.

even when we actually say (repeatedly) that vaccines are safe for the majority, and even when we never say "do not vax", it is not fair to speak up and say we have vaccine damaged children.

it is not for parents ot worry their pretty little heads about - after all, they won't understnad it anyway, without the benefit of Stata's PhD <eye roll>

no no. parents should just line up, like they always used to before the inconveneient pesky lying parents of vaccine damaged children started speaking up.

silverfrog Tue 01-Mar-11 22:04:33

oh ROFL at you hinting that you are being measured in your posts, Stata.

and that I, and others, are being over the top.

I (and others) have repeatedly said that vax are safe for the majority, but that the current levels of acceptance re: collateral damage are disgusting.

I (and the others you like to term antivax) have never said to not vaccinate.

I have never said a vaccine is useless.

I have said I do not see the point in some, and that others are not as effective as the provax like to make out. which is true.

you, on the other hand, have been relentlessly rude, disparaging and dismissive about the very real problems tha tour childrne face.

you have calle dus liars, and insulted our intelligence.

you have still neglected to comment at all on the interesting inks given to you last night.

StataLover Tue 01-Mar-11 22:09:35

What distinguishes science from the way movements like the anti-vax movement approach evidence, it’s that the anti-vax movement values anecdotes over careful science. You may find numerous stories using the classic post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy (as a poster mentioned earlier). And there are indeed many stories of children who regressed or had development problems or whatever after vaccination. On the surface, these stories seem convincing. However, given that millions of children are vaxed each year with many different vaxes, and that developmental problems aren't uncommon, it is not surprising, given the law of large numbers, that there will be a significant number of children who regress in fairly close temporal proximity to a vaccination by random chance alone. Even though such cases are random, they appear as though the vaccine caused the regression. What’s difficult to accept is that it’s impossible to tell if vaccines are actually correlated with regression unless careful studies are done comparing large populations to determine whether children who are vaccinated really do have a higher chance of autism. Those studies have been done, and the answer is a resounding no.

To the anti-vax movement, anecdotes trump evidence as right clearly demonstrates.

The characteristics of the anti-vax movement are same as those shared by virtually every denialist movement, whether it's denying climate change, evolution, or scientific medicine. The use of logical fallacies, cherry picking of the evidence, false heroes, conspiracy theories and distortion of the science

Beachcomber Tue 01-Mar-11 22:18:22

Hello silverfrog you brave and wonderful thing.

<Weary> About sums it up for me.

I would love to have faith in the vaccine programme. On paper it sounds bloody fantastic - a free lunch as it were. You take practically no risk and you get a great benefit.

Except that the free lunch does not exist for everybody. Somebody has to pay.

Wish it wasn't our children (or anybody else's children though). sad

Beachcomber Tue 01-Mar-11 22:22:50

Stata - by definition, people like myself and silverfrog cannot intelligently be dismissed classed as 'antivaccination' because we vaccinated our kids.

Your determined attitude to portray us as antivaccination is illogical and offensive.

StataLover Tue 01-Mar-11 22:23:55

That's sums it up precisely. People take a very small risk to avoid a larger risk. There is not a risk-free option.

silverfrog Tue 01-Mar-11 22:25:27

and for some people that risk is not very small, and the benefit is not very large (as per the interesting info re: vaccine efficacy in autistic children)

<haven't we been here before?>

StataLover Tue 01-Mar-11 22:26:30

You can portray yourselves as you wish.

I have noticed that you are all extremely sensitive about offence to yourselves but think that 'fuck offs' and 'screw yous' are perfectly unoffensive. hmm

StataLover Tue 01-Mar-11 22:27:33

Yes, we have silver. And we can go back to the fact that you are fitting in with the anti vax stance of exaggerating that risk beyond anything that the scientific data show.

silverfrog Tue 01-Mar-11 22:28:38

erm, not "extremely sensitive" but yes, I do take issue with being called a liar.

I think fuck off was mild, tbh, given hat you were implying (especially following the outright namecalling from your side)

silverfrog Tue 01-Mar-11 22:29:32

....and back to the fact that you are ignoring, or trying to dismiss, the inconvenient truth.

Beachcomber Tue 01-Mar-11 22:31:17

Ok well here is a novel idea...

How about we try to accurately calculate the risks, determine who is at risk from vaccination and who is at risk from infectious disease.

How about we then use that data to determine who can be safely vaccinated and who, unfortunately, cannot.

I would love to have children who react well to vaccines. It is a no-brainer - if I knew they reacted well to vaccines and could be protected from the potential risk of infectious disease I would vaccinate them tomorrow.

(Quite how the above makes me antivaccination I don't really know.)

bubbleymummy Tue 01-Mar-11 22:32:08

Stata - what about exaggerating the risks of the diseases?

You agreed yesterday that the polio vaccine in the UK is probably not that necessary yet the majority of people fear polio like the plague! What about lumping measles, mumps and rubella into the same category as life-threatening childhood diseases when mumps and rubella are nothing of the sort? Do you think that type of exaggeration is ok?

Beachcomber Tue 01-Mar-11 22:36:33

I'm also really interested in why a medical community that has admitted that my eldest child does not react well to vaccines (or at least the DTP vaccine) is so keen to vaccinate her sibling with MMR.

DD2 does not need to be vaccinated against mumps and it is probably to her long term benefit not to be vaccinated against rubella.

And yet, I am 'antivaccine' for pointing these rather obvious facts out...

Beachcomber Tue 01-Mar-11 22:46:36

Also PMSL at our school doctor (we live in France where certain vaccines are obligatory for school entry).

Three years ago, said school doctor was berating me and threatening to report me to social services because my children had not received a BCG vaccination.

The following year she made no mention of BCG because it had disappeared from the list of obligatory vaccines for school entry.

Why had it disappeared I asked her? - answer; because it has been shown to have limited benefit versus risk ratio.

Well you don't say...

(Even the incredibly go-hung, pro vaccination, USA admit that the BCG vaccination is highly problematic.)

And this was a vaccine that school doctor was previously dead keen for my (documented) vaccine damaged child to receive.

You couldn't make this crap up.

sungirltan Tue 01-Mar-11 22:55:11

i have read most of this thread. i still cannot make a decision about dd having the mmr. dh and i decided to delay in order to research (dd is 16 months so we are only 3 months behind and have allowed the jabs up to 12 months)

i am scared to give the mmr. i am scared not to.

StataLover Tue 01-Mar-11 23:00:05

Pertussis kills. Measles kills. They can still easily become endemic if we don't vaccinate.

Diptheria and polio can kill. Less likely to be infected but given the potential severity of the dz, not a bad idea. We may be able to drop polio soon if things go well.

Mumps - not as fatal. Nasty stuff though as you can get encephalitis which can lead to brain damage in addition to other stuff like deafness. Not for me or my children thanks.

We all know rubella is a community good. Saves unborn babies. Not all women know they're pregnant or have the nous to get their immunity checked before. Especially since I have girls, happy to protect my grandchildren and other people's babies.

Hep B - one of the safest vaccines we know. Sure, not much chance of a child getting it but vaccine so safe that no worries there.

Hib - absolutely. GOne down from incidence of about 40-100 per 100,000 children to 1.3 leading to decreased deaths from pneumonia and meningitis. Again, won't take my chances with nature, thank you.

StataLover Tue 01-Mar-11 23:03:48

sungirltan - what exactly are you scared of with the MMR?

You have plenty to fear from measles and mumps such as death, brain damage, blindness and deafness. Or just a stay in hospital on IV antibiotics for pneumonia.

StataLover Tue 01-Mar-11 23:06:09

The BCG vaccine hasn't got high risks. It's just not very effective.

Beachcomber Tue 01-Mar-11 23:06:46

"Hep B - one of the safest vaccines we know."


I have a friend who is a nurse who received several Hep b vaccines in so many years. She worked in three different countries over a period of 5 years and each time was required to have a full set of Hep B in order to gain her work permit.

She now has MS and has been compensated by the Swiss government as her condition as been accepted as being directly caused by over vaccination with Hep B vaccines.

Sucks - huh?

sungirltan Tue 01-Mar-11 23:09:10

i am scared about the autism link even though i appreciate its rare/not even there. i am on the fence - as i explained dh and i are only delaying to research - not made a decison re the jab yet.

i have wasted lots of my time on antivax forums (not mn) where i find the posters to be so hystrical i can't digest their arguments and or being antivax is part of a wider parenting community where you have to tick all the boxes to fit in (bf/cloth nappies/blw blah blah). also they all default to the sherrie tenpenny website.

i would like to read some rational science against vaccines. i am not anit or pro i just want to be as informed as i can before we go ahead and jab/don't