Mumsnet has not checked the qualifications, experience, or professional qualifications of anyone posting on Mumsnet Talk and cannot be held responsible for any advice given on the site. If you have any serious medical concerns, we would urge you to consult your GP.

Reactions to MMR - how long do they last?

(606 Posts)
MrsMoppetMama Tue 17-Jul-12 18:45:46

My DD (13 months) had her MMR 11 days ago, she had a bad reaction after about 3 days (high temp and trouble breathing) and we took her to urgent care center. Although this has now passed, she seems to be really out of sorts and has stopped sleeping through. Her normal routine was brilliant as she went down from about 7 - 7. Now she is waking every two hours and is very unhappy. Is this normal? is this because of her MMR or is it just a phase? She has also stopped taking her bottle before bed, is it likely that she has weaned herself? Help! It's been pretty easy going with her up to now so a bit stressed by all this.

peachypips Tue 17-Jul-12 18:47:03

Three weeks exactly to the day for my kIds!!!

nancerama Tue 17-Jul-12 18:49:36

I was told by my doctor that an MMR reaction takes 3 weeks to show as it's a live vaccine that takes time to react. Did your DD have just the MMR or the boosters of her other jabs as well? If she had the boosters, that is a more instantaneous reaction

numbertaker Wed 18-Jul-12 10:40:14

For my son it was 10 weeks, and a dose of the measles. I had to go to a homeopath to get him sorted.

numbertaker Wed 18-Jul-12 10:40:47

It is a vaccine reaction, you need to get the doctor to report it.

CatherinaJTV Wed 18-Jul-12 15:46:15

it is very likely just a phase, this time is particularly exciting with toddlers increasing their range and activities during the day - MMR reactions take several days to appear and fever peaks at 9 days after injection. See your doctor if you are worried, but don't let anyone scare you.

BourbonBourbon Wed 18-Jul-12 15:47:31

Lol at homeopath grin

CatherinaJTV Wed 18-Jul-12 15:59:07

BB - and here I was trying to be so good and not LOL at that wink

Tabitha8 Wed 18-Jul-12 19:44:20

What's wrong with homeopaths?

ElaineBenes Thu 19-Jul-12 03:58:53

No evidence that they work beyond placebo. That's what's wrong. The homeopath did nothing. Sorry, but you wasted your money.

Also, if it really is a vaccine reaction, then the OP doesn't need to get anyone to report it. She can do it herself. https://yellowcard.mhra.gov.uk/

MrsMoppetMama Thu 19-Jul-12 10:16:46

Thanks for all this, it's good to know that it is the MMR and not something else to worry about. She has calmed down a little bit now but sometimes seems to be out of sorts. Perhaps that is just a phase and is getting me ready for toddler years!!

numbertaker Thu 19-Jul-12 14:03:53

You might LOL at homeopaths, but after 10 weeks of visiting the GP, he held his hands up and said 'i cant help you anymore, try homeopathy' and thank God he did because it cured my son in 24 hours.

numbertaker Thu 19-Jul-12 14:05:09

so LOL back at ya!

numbertaker Thu 19-Jul-12 14:06:05

I swear this place is full to the brim with pharma trolls.

mrsmoppet - you can report the reaction here. It doesn't have to be 'proven' to be reported - any suspected reaction can be recorded (and is worth doing imo). It's probably easier to report it yourself than persuade your GP (although it rather depends on the GP).

https://yellowcard.mhra.gov.uk/

JennerOSity Thu 19-Jul-12 14:09:45

Think my DS was affected for about 2 weeks from what I remember and it isn't even that long ago oh dear

Sossiges Thu 19-Jul-12 14:12:07

numbertaker I couldn't agree with you more
I'm LOL at "it is very likely just a phase"
hmm

ElaineBenes Thu 19-Jul-12 17:31:17

I'm guessing you've never heard of regression to the mean, numbertaker.

Don't worry, you're not the first person to be taken in by homeopathy for that very reason.

And of course, who ever heard of toddlers just having a phase hmm

bumbleymummy Thu 19-Jul-12 18:20:41

Yes, they do have phases but they can also have bad reactions to vaccines too.

numbertaker Thu 19-Jul-12 18:42:54

I think after having child raising skills for 14 years, nursing children though vaccine reations, and a major disease, all the while using a combo of western and homeopathy I am fairly well versed in what I see as truth. Also the literally hundreds of hours I have spent looking into vaccines, nutrition and health.

Don't be so patronising. I SAW homeopathy work, I SAW it heal my son when western medicine said it could not help him anymore, if being taken in means health for my children then take me in.

Tabitha8 Thu 19-Jul-12 18:49:42

How does the placebo affect work with a child?

BourbonBourbon Thu 19-Jul-12 20:27:14

Lol at 'I am fairly versed in what I see as truth'

And then lolagain at 'pharma trolls' grin

Sorry but your posts are bonkers. Yes vaccine reactions exist, but homeopathy is a total sham. I'm not a pharmatroll, fun though that does sound.

Whilst really not having the time to enter a bish bash bosh thread there have been some interesting things about homeopathy in the press in the not too distant past

this for example although he is a rather controversial figure. And some links to various interesting looking papers in this article for anyone interested.

Oh some of the links have expired - you need to search for them.

now this is an intriguing paper although tbh I don't know why the homeopaths bother. They're never going to get their research accepted in a mainstream journal, whatever they do, so they're never going to be accepted by those too 'clever' to try it. :shrugs: They should just get on with treating people who come to them. Or is the EU trying to get rid of them as well?

That by the way is the froggy paper from the Guardian - where the link had expired.

CatherinaJTV Thu 19-Jul-12 21:07:43

thank you BourbonBourbon smile

Marne Thu 19-Jul-12 21:10:55

A reaction can happen at any time. My dd2 reacted 24 hours after her MMR and ended up in hospital, eventually the doctor agreed that it was a reaction to the MMR.

Was it recorded as an adverse reaction Marne? Just interested as I know a couple of friends in similar situations who couldn't get it yellow carded- being able to fill out a yellow card yourself is a huge improvement to the system. Of course it would help if they would tell people about it grin

Marne Thu 19-Jul-12 21:37:19

Saintly- i'm not sure if it was recorded (i should check really), i think a lot of doctors like to cover it up, my daughter has ASD, she reacted to both MMR's but the 2nd (the booster) put her in hospital, i didn't want her to have the booster as i was worried it could make her regress, the nurse kept phoning me and reasuring me that there was no link between MMR nad ASD and how most children dont react etc..etc..., i feel guilty for allowing her to have it.

Accuracyrequired Thu 19-Jul-12 21:41:06

"she had a bad reaction after about 3 days (high temp and trouble breathing) and we took her to urgent care center. Although this has now passed, she seems to be really out of sorts and has stopped sleeping through. Her normal routine was brilliant as she went down from about 7 - 7. Now she is waking every two hours and is very unhappy."

how is this just a phase of an excited toddler increasing her range of activities

bizarre

Well don't feel guilty, they probably scared you silly about not having it. I know five people with similar reactions (including hospital stays). In fact two of those had the same thing happen to two children at which stage they said no more (and they were told it was coincidence and nothing to do with the mmr and none of the instances were yellow carded).

You could yellow card it yourself on the link above if you want it recorded.

Actually six people - I was counting families not kids. Those are just RL people I have met - have heard of a lot more online.

Accuracyrequired Thu 19-Jul-12 22:28:10

hi saintly, sorry I didn't respond to your other links on the other thread, I "put it away" until having time to look at the graphs and then I forgot

Lol - don't worry, I find those questions really interesting.

numbertaker Thu 19-Jul-12 22:59:52

I may well be bonkers, rather that that BAAAAAAA

Accuracyrequired Thu 19-Jul-12 23:02:19

i don't doubt your sanity numbertaker you seem very sensible to me smile

ElaineBenes Fri 20-Jul-12 02:59:40

I thought this study was interesting (on the MMR) [a proper peer reviewed paper, not something bizarre from the crankosphere btw]

"A study was conducted on 1,162 identical and fraternal twins at 14 to 83 months of age, each receiving a placebo and then the vaccine, or vice versa, three weeks apart. The study population was followed for three weeks after each injection. No difference was found in reported minor reactions between vaccine and placebo recipients"

www.pediatricsdigest.mobi/content/106/5/e62.short

Of course, it's not that MMR reactions don't occur but, as parents, we're expecting them, so every little sniffle is considered a reaction - so in the end there's no difference in symptoms reported between non vaccinated and vaccinated twins!

ElaineBenes Fri 20-Jul-12 03:15:03

Marne, you absolutely shouldn't feel guilty about giving your daughter the MMR. Based on the best scientific evidence you had no reason not to give the MMR.

The thing is, what you don't know is how your daughter may have reacted to measles itself. Unfortunately in the UK today, with MMR uptake the way it is, the possibility of contracting measles is not insignificant. If your daughter reacted to an attenuated virus so severely she had to be hospitalized, who knows what would have happened to her had she contracted the wild virus?

Marne Fri 20-Jul-12 08:20:38

Thanks Elaine, i know your right. I dont know if dd2 had ASD before her first MMR, looking back at pictures and video's it seems that she didn't. I don't know if the MMR caused her ASD or if it triggered something off (made her regress). She reacts badly with most things, chicken px made her very porly as des most illness she picks up sad, thats just the way she is.

Accuracyrequired Fri 20-Jul-12 08:39:36

was it a true placebo?

I only ask because in two of the Cervarix safety trials they didn't use a true control so the resutls are untrustworthy

Accuracyrequired Fri 20-Jul-12 08:40:20

I mean, in most vaccine safety trials they use another vaccine or the other vaccine ingredients as a control rather than a true placebo

I dont' think people realise this

Marne - there's beginning to be a lot of research showing that the immune system in some cases of autism is dysfunctional. It's worth keeping an eye on the research if it interests you. There are a few different research groups in the states. And it can be worth contacting researchers directly or attending conferences. They'll say things that won't ever get published. For example at IMFAR a few years ago, one researcher working in this area was talking about triggers (to the dysfunctional immune system) and he said while he felt the most common trigger was a wild type virus of some sort at a critical age it could occasionally be that 'the dreaded vaccines' as he put it could be the trigger. That sort of comment will never get published and I doubt he'd even write it into his draft paper.

Ds1's regression (of speech, and perhaps more interestingly speech sounds) came after a natural viral infection (not one that is vaccinated against) and his paediatrician and neurologist have happily written that up into his notes as being the trigger for regression. Not sure whether that's helpful or not.

We have video pre- regression of him saying for example sssss (snake noises) qua-qua- (ducks) ka- (cat) (he was very young) and had a wide variety of other sounds meaning various proto words. I thought he could say ssss again now, but I asked him the other day and he couldn't. He definitely can't say 'kuh' we spent six months trying to teach him a couple of years ago. The video we have is on VHS - I was thinking the other day I should get it converted to digital really then compare speech sounds then with now. I am happy to accept that early words might have got lost as developmental changes early in the second year alter the way language is produced (something suggested to me a few years back). But loss of the fine motor control needed/ability to make specific sounds suggests brain damage to me.

Sorry the researcher was talking about triggers for regression (via having a dysfunctional immune system)

Sossiges Fri 20-Jul-12 09:05:50

I have seen so many posts by people saying "my DD/DS had her/his jabs the other day and now she/he's vomiting, has diarrhea, has a high fever, is off their food, not sleeping, waking at night screaming, seems withdrawn" etc. and the pharmatrolls (love it!) always brush it off - "it's a phase, it's a coincidence, already had a virus infection which you didn't know about" - bollocks to that. How blind do you have to be?

ElaineBenes Fri 20-Jul-12 15:59:28

Accuracy
You do know why in vaccine trials, a new vaccine is compared to the old one right? You realize that it is UNETHICAL to leave children exposed to the risks of disease when the existing vaccine is effective and safe? This is the same whenever you have an existing treatment, the new treatment always always tests against the existing one. Why is this a problem? What would be the point of testing a vaccine against a placebo when we know that the existing vaccine works but we want to see if a new one is better?

In the study I linked to, however, it was a true placebo since it was just a case of waiting 3 weeks to receive the vaccine if the placebo was received first. It wasn't a medical trial.

No-one is saying vaccine reactions can't and don't happen. But I do think this paper demonstrates that parents are subjective in how they perceive and report symptoms. I know there is a large faction who support the 'Mother knows best' idea, that's fine but it's not borne out in the scientific evidence.

CatherinaJTV Fri 20-Jul-12 17:13:37

sossiges - see, my husband developed a 40 degree fever, the highest he got in 20 years, totally out of the blue, 4 hours after a cancelled flu shot appointment.

Tabitha8 Fri 20-Jul-12 19:15:21

How do they trial vaccines? Do they wait a certain number of months to see if any child catches the disease? Do they try to expose the child to the disease?
During vaccines trials, are all side effects noted? How many children would be involved in, say, a new MMR vaccine?
Are the parents told of the trial?

numbertaker Fri 20-Jul-12 19:23:48
numbertaker Fri 20-Jul-12 19:25:07

The truth is they test our vaccines on the third world poor, then we free ride off the back of them.

Tabitha8 Fri 20-Jul-12 19:26:47

Disgusting, isn't it? How do they get away with it?

NB, article is in the Telegraph. Not the "crankosphere".

ElaineBenes Fri 20-Jul-12 19:39:10

And how many other scandals have there been with other medications? Big pharma does bad things, it certainly could do with more regulation.

Vaccines are NO different to any other medication. I don't like my children taking ANY unnecessary medication, I always hold off on the antibiotics until I'm as sure as I can be that they are necessary.

By vaccinating them, I'm ensuring that the chances of them being hooked up to an IV on antibiotics or a whole bunch of other stuff is minimized as much as possible. On average, vaccinated children will require LESS medication that unvaccinated because they are healthier and have less infections.

You don't realize what a bonus your unvaccinated child is for the pharma industry.

Tabitha8 Fri 20-Jul-12 19:46:52

Who says vaccinated children are healthier?

On average, vaccinated children will require LESS medication that unvaccinated because they are healthier and have less infections.

Could you provide a reference for that please. I can't find anything I'd take as a reliable source for a comment quite that bold. Plenty of anti-vaccine sites giving data that unvaccinated kids have lower instances of allergies etc, one pro-vax study on 95 children - with quite a few flaws- not least sample size- showing no differences.

I did find this from Reuters saying that vaccinated children had more instances of whooping cough than unvaccinated. And of course there's this study I linked to last week which shows that aP vaccination facilitates parapertussis infection (another cause of whooping cough).

All interesting stuff, but I think this is the sort of thing it's very hard to get a handle on surely?

Marne Fri 20-Jul-12 20:20:11

'Vaccinated children are healthier' sorry but thats 'bull shit', has anyone noticed that there are so many more bugs around sinse they introduced all these vaccines?

I was not vaccinated as a child due to the so called link to epilepsy (we had epilepsy in the family so my mum was adviced not to vaccinate), i had survived measles, mumps, whooping cough but other than that i was rarely ill, never got tummy bugs, rarely needed anti-biotics and never had to go to hospital. Now days kids seem to pick up so many bugs (my kids get tummy bugs at least once a year, throat and ear infections, uti's, strep throat etc...etc...) as do most kids in their class. Illnesses such as chicken pox and whooping cough build up the imune system and makes it stronger to cope with other illnesses surely??

I may be wrong and i'm sure a few of you will disagree.

Measles can be nasty (but most children will cope with it fine), why not vaccinate against measles at a early age but not in a 3 in 1 injection?

And actually iirc that study with the 95 unvaccinated kids (and thousands and thousands of vaccinated ones - just short of twenty thousand iirc) found that the infection rate was higher in unvaccinated children for measles mumps and rubella - and pertussis - (although pertussis seems to be doing strange things this year). Anyway I mean really? No shit sherlock. We needed a study to tell us that? Of course there will be higher rates of infection in an unvaccinated group versus vaccinated. It would be extremely worrying if that wasn't true.

IIRC though the rates of infection for other diseases was the same across the two groups (how much that tells us with a sample size of 95 in one group and thousands and thousands in the other I'm not sure).

Sorry that should have said "Of course there will be higher rates of infection for diseases vaccinated against in an unvaccinated group versus vaccinated. It would be extremely worrying if that wasn't true."

ElaineBenes Fri 20-Jul-12 20:37:10

Aaah, but you see I'm not talking about unvaccinated children who are piggybacking on herd immunity.

I'm talking about unvaccinated children who have had measles, mumps, diptheria, whooping cough, rotavirus, HiB etc. After all, if you're willing to let yoru children go unvaccinated and you shout to everyone how terrible these vaccines are, if everyone did as you did, we'd be up shit creek without a paddle would we not?

If you take a population with a million unvaccinated children with all the lovely preventable diseases swirling and circulating freely around and take a million vaccinated children, which population do you think will be healthier? Which population will have more dead, deaf and brain damaged children? This is why vaccinate.

If you're worried about allergies, get a pet rather than leave your kids unvaccinated - all the benefits, none of the risk. Lots of evidence that having a pet works.

FanjoForTheMammaries Fri 20-Jul-12 20:45:31

My DD had completely impressively clear speech sounds, hundreds of words, until a virus, then lost them overnight and can barely make any clear sounds ..mysteriously sad

FanjoForTheMammaries Fri 20-Jul-12 20:46:22

Late in her third year too

ElaineBenes Fri 20-Jul-12 20:49:57

Fanjo

Wow, how awful sad

How old is she now? Do you have a diagnosis?

Seriously Fanjo? That's exactly what happened to ds1.

Well he didn't have many words as he was too young. But he could say ssss (for snake) and qua qua qua (for duck) and ka for cat or caterpillar and ga for garden and other sounds as well. We have video of him saying them.

All those sounds have gone now. I thought he could say sssss again but I tried the other day and he couldn't.

DS1 can still say most vowel sounds along with n- m- y- d- (sometimes but not on demand) ditto b-. He has one clear word 'mummy', which is nice.

There is a clinic with SALT and ABA trained person who work on teaching those who are non-verbal to talk - although it tends to be single words and a very long process. We tried some of her methods for about a year or so (for so long as ds1 enjoyed them) but found that ds1 could pick up some sounds, but they would slip and he would lose them again. So we've gone down the electronic talker route instead, which is working really well.

FanjoForTheMammaries Fri 20-Jul-12 20:58:41

She is 5.9. We have autism DX, and HAD a chromosome microdeletion DX but were then told that was an error hmm

here Risca Solomon is the person you need. I don't think you need a dx, but if you were interested on working on speech she would be the person to talk to. We've decided not to in ds1's case.

Accuracyrequired Fri 20-Jul-12 20:59:59

Elaine: yes I understand the official reasoning but it's unethical to produce untrustworthy trials that don't demonstrate the true risk of a vaccine and then pretend that they do and roll out mass programmes based on those trials.

For example: cervarix was tested against havrix, which contains the same adjuvant as cervarix. The adjuvant is one of the most powerful immune stimulants manufactured. Havrix has the same adverse events (many auto immune related) reports as Cervarix -- therefore the adverse events reported with Cervarix looked little different to background incidence. So the boosts the apparent safety indicator of Cervarix.

You do see why that's misleading don't you?

Accuracyrequired Fri 20-Jul-12 21:00:54

"Big pharma does bad things"

no shit sherlock

FanjoForTheMammaries Fri 20-Jul-12 21:01:07

DD could sing whole nursery rhymes completely clearly then suddenly started mispronouncing words overnight then lost all her speech over about a week, now just babbles

FanjoForTheMammaries Fri 20-Jul-12 21:01:59

Thanks saintly, that is really interesting, I hope she can help DD, who is getting very frustrated

Accuracyrequired Fri 20-Jul-12 21:02:18

which population do you think will be healthier?

we have a very unhealthy childhood population with vast lakes of auto-immune dysfunction, including diabetes, asthma, etc etc etc

Accuracyrequired Fri 20-Jul-12 21:03:09

"No shit sherlock"

hey we cross posted

great minds

no brainer

Accuracyrequired Fri 20-Jul-12 21:04:24

[a proper peer reviewed paper, not something bizarre from the crankosphere btw]

ooooohhhhh now I see your agenda

DS1 was ill at 11 months. Quite badly ill, so was treated fairly aggressively - and his very early words started to go after that. The striking thing for us though was the loss of sounds.

I had actually forgotten how many sounds and consonants he had until I checked out some video (PFB so we had video of every waking moment). In the video he is laughing at various animals and saying all these back of the throat sounds like qua and kuh effortlessly which we have spent years trying to teach him.

They're definitely the people to contact.

Although for ds1 his talker has been pretty life changing. He has a voice tha everyone understands now, and it's helping his language development as well. He probably made more progress in the last 6 months in language (since getting the talker) than he has in the previous post-regression 12 years.

ElaineBenes Fri 20-Jul-12 21:07:35

Yes accuracy. My agenda is indeed evidence based on the scientific method. I have been uncovered!

FanjoForTheMammaries Fri 20-Jul-12 21:09:11

I don't know if I could bear to watch video of DD.

She started by saying. 'heppy' and 'gerden' for 'happy' and. 'garden' then it all went.

I used to be smug and proud about her language and think she was gifted ..pride came before a big fall!

FanjoForTheMammaries Fri 20-Jul-12 21:09:51

I hope DD could use a talker later, she doesn't have the motor planning skills yet

I didn't watch any for years, then bawled my way through it. Watched it a couple of times then haven't looked again.

I'd like to get it transferred to digital now if I can (it's so old I only have VHS tapes).

FanjoForTheMammaries Fri 20-Jul-12 21:12:43

I am teary at the thought even

Accuracyrequired Fri 20-Jul-12 21:12:57

Elaine you should say something about the scientific base for a mass population programme of cervarix innoculation given what I have just revealed to you

Check out LAMP - that's what ds1 is using (terrible motor planning as well), and the motor planning issues are recognised and taken into account with the system. It's designed specifically for autism, and the motor planning issues that go with that. We tried other methods and talkers (such as proloquo2go) which didn't work at all - ds1 wouldn't engage, couldn't do it because of motor planning. With LAMP from the trial he has just flown with it. I was very reluctant to even do the trial and within a day my jaw had dropped and he loved it right from the start.

FanjoForTheMammaries Fri 20-Jul-12 21:13:45

However.DD wasn't interactive then with me and now is super cuddly and affectionate

FanjoForTheMammaries Fri 20-Jul-12 21:14:28

Thanks,I will certainly investigate that. They sound very similar

Here's the UK LAMP site with a link to the US site.

CoteDAzur Fri 20-Jul-12 21:15:42

"You do know why in vaccine trials, a new vaccine is compared to the old one right? You realize that it is UNETHICAL to leave children exposed to the risks of disease when the existing vaccine is effective and safe?"

If everyone is so sure that the vaccine in question is effective and safe, WHY do a vaccine trial in the first place? hmm

FanjoForTheMammaries Fri 20-Jul-12 21:17:42

Thanks, she has started to hit me this week with frustration so we need to start thinking about different options

I think the reason why LAMP has worked so well for ds1 is the use of http://www.aacandautism.com/lamp/why consistent and unique motor patterns]] mentioned on this webpage.

I don't fully understand why but for some reason ds1 just seems able to remember how to produce the word using this approach extremely quickly. He actually knows more vocab on the device than me and I'm quite often found saying 'ds1 show me how to say after' for example. And it's fast - so for minimal effort he gets a big reward (a voice).

This time last year I was complaining about having to do a trial in the next few weeks, within a few days I was trying to find out how to get a device grin

sorry link again

FanjoForTheMammaries Fri 20-Jul-12 21:22:45

Looking at the link, it looks really impressive

ElaineBenes Fri 20-Jul-12 21:25:44

Beacause, cote, safer and more effective vaccines are developed all the time or pathogens mutate and vaccines need to change.

Despite the number of vaccines increasing, children are exposed to far fewer antigens in vaccines than in the past.

I didn't expect it to work. Or I expected it to be something where I'd have to say 'ds1 get your communication aid' then force words out of him. In fact he comes home from school, takes off his school t-shirt as he walks thought the door, gets on a clean one, then gets out his talker and tells me something. Nearly always a comment, not a request. And he's possessive about it. If someone picks it up to have a look, he takes it back off them.

FanjoForTheMammaries Fri 20-Jul-12 21:27:22

That sounds like a dream come true!

CoteDAzur Fri 20-Jul-12 21:27:45

You didn't get it at all.

Honestly it is! He has told me so much, and I've discovered he understands things that I had no idea he understood. And he worries about things I didn't know he worried about.

FanjoForTheMammaries Fri 20-Jul-12 21:30:16

I am always thinking how sad it is that I don't "know" DD

For us google maps was the first insight into his mind (found out he remembered places he'd been to age 2 for example) but that wasn't invented until he was about 8!

With this I've been surprised by the language he already understands. So for example shortly after we got his own device we were driving to the beach and he was trying to send me down tiny country lanes. I said 'no way' so he immediately replied 'later'. I almost crashed the car - had no idea he understood later, or could use it appropriately.

Now he's hit puberty his behaviour has become a little <ahem>challenging and we were able to have a chat about that as well - which really surprised me. His language is still very under-developed. He's had no proper voice ever, so he has 13 years to catch up on, but he's coming out with new words every day now. And he explores the talker by himself to find new words (I hadn't shown his later - didn't even know the word was on there). And he's just starting to put words together into short phrases. His word order is often a bit wrong, but he's learning. Earlier for example he said 'mummy car new car park after christmas'. (Referring to some building works at respite which will finish in January) WOW!

FanjoForTheMammaries Fri 20-Jul-12 21:37:11

That is so amazing for him smile

Accuracyrequired Fri 20-Jul-12 21:53:29

Elaine are you avoiding my question

I can quite understand why you would want to but just wondering

Accuracyrequired Fri 20-Jul-12 21:55:03

I mean, it is completely indefensible to roll out a mass vaccination programme on such flimsy evidence and then put public reports of adverse events (which match the adverse events linked to both vaccines) down to coincidence and ignore the people who've suffered and are suffering as a consequence

but humour me

Accuracyrequired Fri 20-Jul-12 21:56:26

Can I just say best wishes to fanjo

FanjoForTheMammaries Fri 20-Jul-12 22:13:23

Thanks, means a lot smile

Fanjo anytime you want to know more about LAMP just ask on SN. I have some video of ds1's progress as well from trial to present day - just let me know if you want to see it.

FanjoForTheMammaries Fri 20-Jul-12 22:19:05

I definitely will...thanks smile

Accuracyrequired Fri 20-Jul-12 22:39:55

I thikn Elaine has gone for a lie down in a darkened room at the thought of justifying the Cervarix roll out

ElaineBenes Sat 21-Jul-12 01:05:33

I completely agree with you accuracy. If the drug company presented false and misleading safety evidence and on this basis the vaccine was rolled out, then you have uncovered a serious and unjustifiable scandal.

I personally don't know enough about the Hpv vaccine to comment. Can you perhaps direct me to your source of information?

ElaineBenes Sat 21-Jul-12 02:12:19

Marne

Sorry, I completely disagree with you regarding auto-immune disorders. There is no evidence of a causal relationship between vaccines and auto-immune disorders.

This book (downloadable as a PDF if you register) www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=10306 highlights eight different studies, all with different designs, which found no relationship between vaccines and type 1 diabetes. There's no doubt that type 1 diabetes incidence is increasing and there are various hypotheses but immunization being causally responsible is highly unlikely.

And I also completely disagree that having chicken pox or whooping cough makes your immune system stronger. Yes, you do have better immunity than vaccine acquired but that's all. And in the meantime, you have weakened your immune system by being sick (normally temporarily unless you're one of the unlucky dead or permanently damaged). Yes, MOST children recover from measles. About 30% (in the US) have complications like secondary ear infections (1 in 10 children get it and some suffer deafness from it), diarrhea and pneumonia (which is one of leading causes of death from measles complications and 1 in 20 children with measles will suffer from it). 1 in 1,000 will have encephalitis (likely to be left deaf and/or brain damaged) and 1-2 in 1,000 (in developed countries - much more in poor countries) will die. You also have fatal subacute sclerosing panencephalitis affecting 4-11 children per 100,000 cases occuring 7-10 years after infection.

So in what way can being infected by measles possibly make your immune system stronger? A whole load of kids will have had to have taken antibiotics to save their lives or sight or hearing, another whole bunch would have had convulsiosn from encephalitis and another load will be deaf, brain damaged or blind and then there's the children who'd have died.

I find this letter by Roald Dahl incredibly moving, testament to how fatal measles can be:

^MEASLES: A dangerous illness by ROALD DAHL (1986)

Olivia, my eldest daughter, caught measles when she was seven years old. As the illness took its usual course I can remember reading to her often in bed and not feeling particularly alarmed about it. Then one morning, when she was well on the road to recovery, I was sitting on her bed showing her how to fashion little animals out of coloured pipe-cleaners, and when it came to her turn to make one herself, I noticed that her &#64257;ngers and her mind were not working together and she couldn’t do anything.
“Are you feeling all right?” I asked her.
“I feel all sleepy, ” she said.
In an hour, she was unconscious. In twelve hours she was dead.
The measles had turned into a terrible thing called measles encephalitis and there was nothing the doctors could do to save her.
That was twenty-four years ago in 1962, but even now, if a child with measles happens to develop the same deadly reaction from measles as Olivia did, there would still be nothing the doctors could do to help her.
On the other hand, there is today something that parents can do to make sure that this sort of tragedy does not happen to a child of theirs. They can insist that their child is immunised against measles. I was unable to do that for Olivia in 1962 because in those days a reliable measles vaccine had not been discovered. Today a good and safe vaccine is available to every family and
all you have to do is to ask your doctor to administer it.
It is not yet generally accepted that measles can be a dangerous illness.
Believe me, it is. In my opinion parents who now refuse to have their children immunised are putting the lives of those children at risk.
In America, where measles immunisation is compulsory, measles like smallpox, has been virtually wiped out.
Here in Britain, because so many parents refuse, either out of obstinacy or ignorance or fear, to allow their children to be immunised, we still have a hundred thousand cases of measles every year.
Out of those, more than 10,000 will suffer side effects of one kind or another.
At least 10,000 will develop ear or chest infections. About 20 will die.
LET THAT SINK IN.
Every year around 20 children will die in Britain from measles.
So what about the risks that your children will run from being immunised?
They are almost non-existent. Listen to this. In a district of around 300,000 people, there will be only one child every 250 years who will develop serious side effects from measles immunisation!
That is about a million to one chance. I should think there would be more chance of your child choking to death on a chocolate bar than of becoming seriously ill from a measles immunisation.
So what on earth are you worrying about?
It really is almost a crime to allow your child to go unimmunised.
The ideal time to have it done is at 13 months, but it is never too late. All school-children who have not yet had a measles immunisation should beg their parents to arrange for them to have one as soon as possible.
Incidentally, I dedicated two of my books to Olivia, the &#64257;rst was James and the Giant Peach’. That was when she was still alive. The second was ‘The BFG’, dedicated to her memory after she had died from measles. You will see her name at the beginning of each of these books. And I know how happy she would be if only she could know that her death had helped to save a good deal of illness
and death among other children. ^

Accuracyrequired Sat 21-Jul-12 05:25:05

The sources are: two of the three Cervarix safety studies and the Havrix adverse events reports and safety studies as detailed by the manufacturer. The adjuvant AS04 MPL is by common agreement one of the most powerful immune stimulants developed. You'll be able to find this out easily without reference to the "bizarro crankosphere".

This type of thing is not an isolated event and it's strange to claim that it is. It is not bizarre and cranky to develp a deep sense of mistrust based on real and serious malpractice, as opposed to what you might dismissively consider to be conspiracy theories. So less of that please.

There is quite a lot of evidence about vaccines and auto immune disorders, the first sentence of that post is profoundly misleading.

Accuracyrequired Sat 21-Jul-12 05:26:09

I also dislike the use of anecdotes by people who dismiss the use of anecdotes and personal experience of vaccine damage. I consider it rather hypocritical.

Accuracyrequired Sat 21-Jul-12 05:39:32

Perhaps I should say: obviously the safety studies, the vaccine ingredients, the adverse events reports and so on are all available online from the manufacturers.

Accuracyrequired Sat 21-Jul-12 06:24:17

"It really is almost a crime to allow your child to go unimmunised. "

Sorry, bu what planet are you on?

Accuracyrequired Sat 21-Jul-12 06:32:39

Yknow I'm so sick of reading everywhere and hearing everywhere about so so many problems and difficulties with unhappy poorly children who have autism or a form of AS disorder, on medication, who can't get the best out of their education, who get distressed, whose futures are uncertain, who will need help for years and years and years, who are unpopular, excluded, misunderstood, taken from pillar to post with appointments with social serives and teachers and doctors and tests and assessments, with exhausted parents, despairing familes, unsupported, ignored, rejected, threatened, and so many of them can point to vaccination as the start of their problems, and then someone comlacent comes along as says risk this, or it's almost a crime.

Sossiges Sat 21-Jul-12 09:38:00

The strange thing is most people who are hmm about vaccinations now are the same ones who happily took their kids along for jabs "because it was the right thing to do", dealt with the vaccine reactions and thought "never again". Odd that isn't it?
We're not just weird hippy anti-vaxers from the bizzaro crankosphere. Learning from experience is a great thing.

Elaine - perhaps you would like to comment on the research (still in it's infancy) regarding autism and immune system dysfunction. That is potentially relevant to people such as Marne. I have been to two conferences where people working in the field (who publish in peer reviewed journals - not the 'crankosphere') have talked about their models (one involving dysfuntional cytokines, one mt disorders) and shown how 'vaccinations' might fit into their model. Both scientists working independently on separate models, both seeing wild and vaccine type viruses as 'indistinguishable' in their models. Now of course the vaccination bit of the model is never going to make it through peer review in the current climate unless they chose their journal very carefully, but these scientists were confident enough to say it in a room full of
hundreds of their peers, and they were happy to talk face to face
about it.

Pagwatch Sat 21-Jul-12 10:04:17

Would it be helpful for me to post an emotionally charged piece about taking my son home after his MMR and watching as a huge red hot lump appeared on the injection site, how he wailed for hours and finally slumped on the sofa mewing like a hurt animal, how this lasted several days after which he stayed quiet and disinterested, white faced and disengaged. How he never spoke again. How he stopped looking at me. How he regressed from that day onward. Shall I post about life with a 15 year old with profound disabilities.

Would that be helpful. Because I am not sure it would be nearly as unhelpful as your Roald Dahl quote above.

www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/07/120717141010.htm

The most recent press release from a few days.

One of the guys I mentioned above who talked about vaccines was working on a similar model. Antenatal exposure to a viral infection followed by a post natal trigger.

All highly interesting stuff.

And how interesting that they're now looking at gut issues in their models as well. When I first entered the autism world mote than a decade ago I was told I was being ridiculous when I mentioned my son's gut issues. (Now largely resolved - no thanks to the NHS).

bumbleymummy Sat 21-Jul-12 11:32:17

Elaine, you mentioned this 'weakened immune system' on the other thread and I asked you to clarify what it is that is weakened and whether you think it happens for all illnesses eg. Colds, flu etc.

Tabitha8 Sat 21-Jul-12 19:00:17

I might have been more inclined to vaccinate my child if he could have been tested to see if he would be one of those left permanently damaged. However, no such test exists, does it? Why not?

Tabitha8 Sat 21-Jul-12 19:04:30

As for a weakened immune system, it can only be temporary. That's why we are supposed to keep our children warm when they have a raised temp caused by a virus and not sponge them down with cold water.
I know several elderly people who caught measles as children. They recovered and are still alive several decades later so their immune systems are doing ok.

Marne Sat 21-Jul-12 21:17:22

Many people have survived measles (me being one of them) with no damage to their imune systems.

At the end of the day its the parents choice wether to give their child the MMR and for most children they will not have any side effects, if i was given the choice again i would probably opt for the singles rather than the MMR, i dont think i could risk the MMR again (and feel guilty after). As i said before 'i'm not sure if the MMR caused dd2's autism' all i know is when i look back at photo's and video's of my dd2 before the MMR she had great eye contact and responded to my voice, around the time of the MMR eye contact faded away and she became non-responsive.
I don't think we will ever know if MMR is linked to Autism (and other sn's), i think it will always be covered up and dismissed as it would cost too much to compensate all the families that have been effected.

If you want to give your dc's the MMR then go ahead (your choice), i chose for my dd's to have it, sadly i reggret that choice but at the time it was the right thing to do. I will alway wonder if the MMR was to blame but i love my dd's how they are and have excepted that there lives will be harder than most childrens.

ElaineBenes Sat 21-Jul-12 21:58:51

I'm reading 'autism false prophets' right now marne. I highly recommend it. It'll provide a counterbalance to the crankosphere.

Or maybe Marne would prefer to read the peer reviewed research I've linked to. Written by people slightly less controversial than Paul Offit. hmm And probably more relevant.

Although she vaccinated her children anyway so I don't quite know why you keep directing comments at her Elaine.

And if you would like a counterbalance to Paul Offit. may I suggest reading Lucy's Story, by Lucy Blackman. Best book I have ever read. She also features in Douglas Biklen's 'Autism and the Myth of being the Person Alone'. She types independently now. A brief google brings up many other independent typers (who had to start with support). Thank goodness they didn't read him first eh?

Oh another immune paper from this month, and it's open access

This blog looks like essential reading for anyone interested in the immune system and autism. And there's a book too

ElaineBenes Sun 22-Jul-12 02:25:11

The book I recommended is peer reviewed as it is published by Columbia university press, not some quack publishing house. This is how it works with university publishing presses. The peer review process OS even more rigorous.

ElaineBenes Sun 22-Jul-12 06:43:37

And just a few points for the record.

Saintly in your link to the reuters article on pertussis, at no point does the paper say that INCIDENCE is higher in vaccinated children. And the other paper you linked to RAISE THE POSSIBILITY that pertussis vaccination could increase susceptibility to parapertussis. Please don't twist things just to make it sound as you wish it to sound.

Just like linking to papers which suggest that autism has linkages to the immune system doesn't say anything about the risks of vaccine vis-a-vis contracting the disease for any particular child. I was also at a scientific conference. Some researchers said, off the record, how furious they were that so many funds were going to the autism-vaccine link when they wanted to explore much more promising routes of enquiry but were restricted from doing so. But they also admitted that if they did end up finding something, it would be very easy to get published because there would be so much publicity.

And Tabitha8

You asked why does no test to identify children who would be seriously damaged by a vaccine exist. Well, firstly, even the theory that you could identify such children through some markers is weak and controversial so to begin with you may not even be able to identify markers. Secondly, you have a problem that the number of children is going to be extremely small. You have to make a decision between a test which is highly sensitive (ie you capture ALL the children who would react) but not so specific (ie you include children who would be fine) or lower sensitivity (so you may miss some children) but more specific (so you have less children being mistakenly excluded). Most screening tests have to play-off sensitivity versus specificity. When you're trying to capture a very small number of children, then specificity is hugely important. Effectively, if you have a very sensitive test, then you are more than likely to include many children who are perfectly fine to be vaccinated and who will then be exposed to the pathogen, especially with herd immunity being decreased. You also don't know if those children will be the same ones to die or be permanently damaged by the pathogen. If you then increase the specificity you will then decrease the sensitivity and then the test will be meaningless anyhow given the very small numbers involved. What would you recommend doing?

And is there a screening test to see if your child will be the one who dies from measles? The risk is 1 in 1,000 - far far far higher than any risk of a severe reaction from the MMR (not sure if there have even been any deaths). Why are you insistent on a screening test for a vaccine but more than happy to risk the higher chance of death or permanent disability from the disease? If you're free-riding on herd immunity (although that strategy may not last unfortunately), you could at least say so.

And, don't forget, the elderly people you see who had measles are the survivors. You don't see the ones who died as children. And in fact you don't 'see' the deaths averted at all. Of course no-one knows if their child is the one who would have died or been severely damaged had they not been vaccinated. More than likely Roald Dahl's daughter, Olivia, would be 57 years old today had a vaccine been available in 1962. We'd be seeing a hell of a lot of more anecdotes about 'measles damaged' (and dead) children without the measles vaccine.

Pagwatch Sun 22-Jul-12 07:49:26

confused

That all sounds remarkably like 'it is just too much effort to try and identify these kids'

any test that screened out any DC would be a blessing for those individual families.

And seriously, given that you seem to struggle to express any sympathy for those of us with severly disabled children, could you lay off the Roald Dahl stuff.
It seems hypocritical to see you mawkishly waving his loss at me when you can't seem to summon any sympathy for the life my son has to live.
When my son is 57 he will probably be living alone in some residential unit not understanding where everyone who loved him has gone

Elaine - you seem to be completely overstating anything I have said. I have lined to papers the raise the possibility that the world of vaccines isn't quite as black and white as you portray. Nothing more. I am interested in possibilities. I actually think that people working in public health should be interested in possibilities. Both as an ex evolutionary biologist (truly I find it fascinating), and as the parent of children who seem towards have a tendency to inflammation.

I agree with pagwatch. My son attends as school where there are children damaged by disease, vaccination, birth and genetics. It all looks pretty similar when you're actually dealing with it rather than just waving around someone else's loss to prove a point. Shit happens, those of us with children who regressed have had the luxury of easy decisions taken away from us. Do you think Roald Dahl's loss is news to us? I've known about it for years. Just as I've known that my mother was left deaf in one ear by measles for as long as I can remember. My mother, by the way, who was damaged by measles, agrees with our decision. It's a world of subtleties out there.

My son at 57 will require 24 hours care and i very much doubt he'll have added to his one word spoken vocabulary. Forgive me for doing my best to avoid a repeat of that for my other children. I asked my 7 year old last week where he wants to live when he's a grown up. He looked at me as if I was mad and said 'with ds1 of course, he will need me to look after him'. He at least, appears to understand the reality of the situation we're in.

Describing the elderly as measles 'survivors' could be seen as scaremongering. In 1962 there were (according to HPA figures I have dredged up) just short of 185,000 notifications (presumably more cases?) and 39 cases.

In 1979 when I had measles there were 77,000 cases and 17 deaths.

Ok in 1963 the UK measles death rate was1 in 5,000 but 1 in 10,000 for healthy children. Yes measles carries with a risk of death- which increases dramatically if you are poor, undernourished or unhealthy. But please don't scaremonger Elaine.

As for your point that 'so many funds' are going to the autism-vaccine link. Really? Who is funding this work? Other than the nonsense epidemiological studies which treat autism as one thing (and are therefore pointless - I would agree) the only organisation I'm aware of that funds research into autism and vaccination (and they don't fund much) is Autism Speaks which is PARENT led and parent funded. They fund research that PARENTS want.

What 'much more promising lines of enquiry'? If genetics - they get the biggest slice of research funding currently. Personally I think the immune system and gut related research is the most promising for treatment - both underfunded areas.

Do tell more, it sounds fascinating.

As for books being peer reviewed because they are being published by a university press. I have just completed a chapter (on autism) for a university publisher. The review process is not the same as a journal.

Sossiges Sun 22-Jul-12 13:11:52

MrsMoppetMama how is your daughter doing?

ElaineBenes Sun 22-Jul-12 13:30:36

Ignoring the personal insults (very childish but I can appreciate your frustration), I explained why a screening test is not possible. You will end up exposing children who are perfectly fine to be vaccinated to something far more dangerous. How do you know that the child left unvaccinated will not die from measles? Even if you could develop markers, Will you choose sensitivity over specificity? There's not a zero risk option. You're wishing for the impossible and then using that as evidence of lack of caring.

Iinfo on measles complications is from the center for disease control, an authoritative source.
www.cdc.gov/measles/about/complications.html

I've also written for a book in a university press as have many of my friends and colleagues. I can ensure you that an established academic university press wil always peer review. It's a long and painful process. I'm glad you seem to have been spared it, saintly

So you're all for collateral damage then? Even if it's your child that is affected.

I didn't say I was spared peer review - I said the peer review process was not that same. Please stop changing what I say?

Are you suggesting my measles figures (published by the HPA - so UK rather than US figures) are not authoritative? The CDC mortality figures look rather high - compared to the UK 1960's figures (apologies I forgot the reference for the death rates - Deaths from Measles in England and Wales in 1961. A Report from The Epidemiological Research Laboratory, Colindale, London, N.W.9. Monthly Bulletin of the Ministry of Health & the PHLS 1963; 22: 167-75.) I wonder whether they are taken from high risk populations?

Pagwatch Sun 22-Jul-12 14:07:18

I am not sure I have insulted you. I have responded to what you have posted. I don't have any gies on you personally as I have no clue who you are or anything else about you.

I do have a view upon your postingly a tragic, yet in the context of this thread, horribly mawkish and inappropriate anecdote. I find that, juxtaposed with your seeming indifference to the anecdotes of others strangely lacking in empathy.

I am not looking for 'zero risk option'. I said any testing that might help a few would be a blessing. I am not sure why that position is unreasonable. I can see why you do as though who are damaged by vaccines seem to be rather an annoyance more than anything else to you.

I may of course be wrong. I can only assume that you feel this way by your choosing to be sneering, smug and superior when discussing things with mothers of severely disabled children. You are probably perfectly nice.

ElaineBenes Sun 22-Jul-12 14:33:30

I Think the evidence shows that the mmr vaccine is safe and effective, that is all. I have intentionally avoided bringing this down to the personal level so as not to cause offense and certainly have not sneered at anyone's story of disability and I'd didn't say one word about yours.

Dr paul offit details some of the abuse he has received in his book, some of very similar lines, so i can certainly see the pattern although I'm hesitant to align myself with someone as learned and respected as he is.

I'm sorry you disagree with me regarding vaccine safety. If new evidence comes to light showing that they are in fact dangerous, I would change my position. For now, the evidence is that they are one of the safest medical interventions known and, at least for measles, far far far safer than the disease.

Sossiges Sun 22-Jul-12 14:41:29

Ah, but Pagwatch's evidence shows that the MMR clearly is not safe.
Dr. Paul Offit - isn't he involved with that dodgy Rotateq vaccine? Not biased at all towards making money vaccines, then?
There is tons of evidence of adverse vaccine reactions if you look for it.

I'm struggling to see where anyone has been abusive towards you.

And as repeatedly pointed out over the years on these threads, I am sure that vaccines are relatively safe for the majority of children. Presumably it's why both pagwatch and I have vaccinated children. The question, once you have a child who has regressed via after an immune reaction is 'is this safe for my child who appears to react differently from the average child', which is, a little different. The best way, imo, to find the answer to that is not to look at epidemiological research that shows that MMR is safe for the vast majority of children, rather to look at the research (ongoing) into children like my son. Those who have autism and immune system dysfunction. It would seem a more sensible approach, and I watch the ongoing research into autism and immune dysfunction with interest.

ElaineBenes Sun 22-Jul-12 15:13:49

I find the 'you don't care about our childre' cries quite rude. Not from you. I disagree with you about a lot of things (!) but you don't descend to personal insults or goading which I respect.

What you don't know though, saintly, is if catching the disease will be even more dangerous for your children. That's the issue. I'm not questioning your own personal decision, that's between you and your doctors.

bumbleymummy Sun 22-Jul-12 16:12:35

I see the 1 in 1000 figure quoted quite a lot but when you actually look at the figures for outbreaks the fatalities are never as high as that. I think they must be taking figures from undeveloped countries into account. If not, then I'd like to know why measles is more deadly than it was in the 1960s.

Well actually, it's not actually my doctor's decision. It's ours. Ds1 hasn't been to the GP in 8 years and they don't know anything about autism. My last GP didi - he started off thinking we'd made the wrong decision, then changed his mind. Although last time I spoke to his paediatrician in very general terms about vaccinations she did say she felt if there was a group of children more suceptible than others then steps should be taken to identify them. His neurologist thought our sequence of events made sense and hopes to be able to offer further tests/treatment in the future.

I am interested in where you disagree? You disagree that some children are more susceptible than others? I take your point that a natural infection might be problematic as well but the option to vaccinate is always there and they're not that likely to come into contact with many of the diseases (and yes I know that's because the vast majority have been vaccinated - but I feel I've done my duty to society in caring for a severely disabled child - I save the state hundreds of thousands a year). There are also other issues that I"m not going to go into that contributed to the decision.

Or do you just disagree that steps should be taken to identify the susceptible children? It's not as hard as you make out - and could be done relatively cheaply. The alternatives wouldn't be no vaccination versus vaccination anyway - if they made singles available an altered schedule might be suitable for some. There are two vaccinations I would give ds2 (not ds3 or ds1) if available as singles. Unfortunately they're only available (paid for) in London and I can't get the childcare for ds1 and certainly couldn't take him with us. I did try and persuade a local private GP to offer them but after going away to think about it for a few weeks he said although he sympathised, and he might change his mind in the future he was concerned that if he offered singles he might end up at the GMC.

It would seem entirely reasonable to me to investigate ways of saving families the pain of experiencing regression. I'm saddened that's controversial actually - it's really not much fun.

Or perhaps you disgree that immune dysfunction appears to be relevant to autism? I don't think that's particularly controversial these days. Like gut issues in autism - it was controversial 10 years ago, but not now. in fact when we saw the neurologist the paediatrician who was with him asked whether we'd tried a special diet (yes, I nearly fell off my chair in shock).

Accuracyrequired Sun 22-Jul-12 19:23:05

Elaine: do feel free to ignore me and respond to the posts above.

But you were insulting quite some time ago. You really shouldn't do that on this kind of thread, it's unkind and silly, and then to accuse others of doing it is ludicrous.

LaVolcan Sun 22-Jul-12 20:05:09

What you don't know though, saintly, is if catching the disease will be even more dangerous for your children. That's the issue.

Catching the disease via the normal methods of transmission e.g. via droplets spread by coughing and sneezing, and it going into your digestive tract is a very different transmission than direct vaccination, so we are not entirely comparing like with like.

Tabitha8 Sun 22-Jul-12 21:52:56

Elaine
If you're free-riding on herd immunity (although that strategy may not last unfortunately), you could at least say so.
Huh, what herd immunity? There's always the talk of approx 95% vaccination rate needed for herd immunity. So, is that 95% of children? 95% of the entire population? Presumably it is the latter. So, do we give adults booster shots of measles vaccine? Nope.
Incidentally, I simply do not fear measles in the way that your clearly do.

Accuracyrequired Sun 22-Jul-12 22:09:40

Elaine's gone, twas a game of vaccination knock knock ginger

call names and run away

Accuracyrequired Sun 22-Jul-12 22:12:05

Anyway I agree with your point about herd immunity, and I think pro-vaxxers while they like to think of us as "free riders" might be a bit suprised that some of us are peed off at the loss of the possibility of childhood mumps and rubella and even measles infection for their family.

And in response to the question "what! have you forgotten what those disease are like!" the answer is no, I haven't. I remember them, I had a lot of them, so the scaremongering doesn't work.

We're ok - ds1 caught rubella from a vaccinated child grin

Accuracyrequired Sun 22-Jul-12 22:40:00

I hope Elaine's university press-published book wasn't on this subject as she doesn't seem to have done her research that thoroughly.

Accuracyrequired Sun 22-Jul-12 22:43:30

Elaine's insults so far - "bizarre", "crank", "quack", "cranksphere"

Accuracyrequired Sun 22-Jul-12 22:44:18

"I have intentionally avoided bringing this down to the personal level so as not to cause offense"

uh huh

Accuracyrequired Sun 22-Jul-12 22:45:05

anyway word to the wise for next time Elaine .. pack it in

ElaineBenes Sun 22-Jul-12 22:52:08

Qed

Accuracyrequired Sun 22-Jul-12 22:55:07

hmm no apology then

Accuracyrequired Sun 22-Jul-12 22:58:00

And you never did respond to the Cervarix issue; nor to the issues raised above by saintly and Pagwatch. Would very much like to see those responses.

ElaineBenes Sun 22-Jul-12 23:10:57

Bumbley
I'm assuming they're referring to secondary complications of measles as well. I'm sure the center for disease control have no reason to make things up.measles mortality is far far higher in poor countries, way beyond one in one thousand, to say nothing of permanent disability.

Too right I'd be scared if measles if my kids were unvaccinated. Your complacency is misplaced tabutha8. Measles can be fatal, death from thr mmr is so low as to be unquantifiable. So unless youre banking on herd immunity, its not rstional not to vaccinate. And 95% is not a magic number for herd immunity, it's not an all or nothing concept! A lot is better than a little but some is certainly better than none! Also, among the adult population, you get more herd immunity for a lower level of immune people because adults tend to mix less closely and with less other people than children.

Saintly. If a highly sensitive and highly specific test could be developed, then fabulous. I'm skeptical. I couldn't comment on specific markers but even if the theory were sound and accepted, surely you must see that sensitivity comes at the expense of specificity and that the effectivess of any screening test is also a function of how prevalent the condition is in the population. When it's rare, you'll end up with a LOT of the wrong children even if specificity is good.

Well, given this sort of research I think I'll sit it out until they either find markers (I find your "it can't be done so we may as well not bother looking and you may as well be vaccinated" quite extraordinary tbh) or they understand more about the immune dysregulation. Certainly for ds3 who, like his severely autistic brother, appears to be prone to inflammatory responses.

I would, btw, highly recommend you read Lucy Blackman's book. I have no idea why Paul Offit felt qualified to write about severe autism, as it is far from his area of expertise, but anyway. (Has he actually ever even met anyone with severe autism? Hmm I wonder). If you can't be bothered to read the book then [[http://sue-rubin0.tripod.com/Presentations/One%20Size%20Does%20Not%20Fit%20ALL%20TASH%20Connections%20Article.htm Sue Rubin's] short piece makes the same sort of points.She is not controversial as she types independently.

And actually I find her piece fascinating as ds1's demonstrable cognitive skills have leapt forward massively in the 6 months or so that he has had the talker (and don't worry, he operates it all independently, we're not stupid delusional parents who can't accept the truth).

Accuracyrequired Mon 23-Jul-12 00:23:17

"death from thr mmr is so low as to be unquantifiable.

When you refuse to accept MMR as a cause that's an empty statement.

ElaineBenes Mon 23-Jul-12 01:20:49

I never said it can't be done so don't bother, it's not my decision to make! I did say im skeptical any screening test could be developed. How would you get past the sensitivity/specificity issue? And surely you would equally need to have a screening test for the possibility of a reaction to the pathogen being vaccinated against? Or how would you weigh up the relative risk.

It's all very well demanding a test and accusing those who question whether a screening test could even be developed as not caring but how on earth would you do it, even assuming that markers even could be identified?

There's zero evidence that single vaccines are safer and in fact the mmr has been extensively studied, much more than the singles. So even if a test could be developed, you don't have a scientific basis for moving to singles.

Im delighted for you that your son is improving with his new treatment. That's great news.

Accuracyrequired Mon 23-Jul-12 01:29:16

"the mmr has been extensively studied"

Safety studies were inadequate, I believe the exact description of them is "wholly inadequate", while many of the popularly quoted population based studies are also agreed to be inadequate by the peer review community.

So that's not true either.

"There's zero evidence that single vaccines are safer"

There's a good deal of evidence that the risks of MMR are profoundly underestimated and underplayed (I'm sure you've taken on board what you've read about unreported reactions, dismissed, derided, ignored) so your insistence of relative risk assessments is empty, as they're impossible where the risk is unknown.

Er he's not improving with his new 'treatment' - he has a system to communicate now and so can demonstrate competence - have no idea whether it was there before or not - which is why I said 'demonstrable'. I'm sorry, I thought as you were recommending Paul Offit you would be familiar with the controversies of those with severe non-verbal autism demonstrating intelligence. He's as severely autistic/non-verbal now as he was yesterday.

Even cochrane described MMR safety studies as inadequate. The point with singles - the system I described above- is that susceptible children wouldn't have to receive the whole lot of vaccinations - only those particular vaccinations that were of benefit to them. I did explain that. They wouldn't have to take the risk for vaccinations of no benefit to them. I know you don't agree with individualising the vaccination programme and think families of damaged children should just suck it up (as they do, largely at the moment) but for those of us with likely susceptible children an individual approach would make more sense. Although, if you search, there are papers showing better immunity from singles versus MMR. And don't say I'm being rude - you haven't said anything in support of those vaccine damaged at all - other than to say it's so rare it doesn't matter.

There are papers showing unexpected interactions when giving other vaccinations in combination. Can't google right now as I'm on the iPad. Anyway I wouldn't give vaccinations in combination unless there was a very clear advantage (such as the DT? Where I might consider it) - because if you have given six shots at once and have a reaction you have no idea which bit even caused reaction. I know you believe reactions don't happen, or so rarely they're of no relevance, but I need to use my fingers to count the people I know whose kids have ended up in hospital after vaccination.

Brief google- one example of MMR versus monovalent measles I googled for monovalent measles assuming that if the three single jabs that would be the one associated with more side effects.

bumbleymummy Mon 23-Jul-12 08:29:34

Elaine, it is the secondary complications that cause deaths from measles. Measles itself does not kill. I know that in developing countries the fatalities are much higher (due to malnutrition, less availability of treatment for complications etc) - that is why including those figures when you are calculating risk would skew them. Don't you think it is strange that the risk of dying from measles has gone from 1 in 10,000 in the 60s to 1 in 1,000 now?

Sossiges Mon 23-Jul-12 09:37:10

Hi jimjams link not working

Yes that's weird isn't it. I think it let me read it by mistake first time around! And I shame as I wanted to go back and read it properly. It was a review of studies comparing the two. From my brief browse, didn't seem to be many studies comparing the two, and some of those were flawed and there were slightly more side effects noted with MMR (although follow up time was very limited anyway).

But I didn't read properly.

Sossiges Mon 23-Jul-12 09:53:37

Never mind!

Tabitha8 Mon 23-Jul-12 17:52:47

Agree with Acuracyrequired about wishing that our children could be exposed to mumps and german measles at a young age. Like in the olden days - when I was young, in fact.
If the gov't/health organisations are so concerned about measles, then they know what they have to do. Offer the single jab again. Not that I'd go for that, either, but I'm sure many would be very grateful.

ElaineBenes Tue 24-Jul-12 02:41:41

You can have a single measles vaccine if you want but there's no reason for the taxpyer to foot the bill. Beyond theoretical speculation, there is no evidence that it is any safer than the mmr so there is no reason for the government to offer it. If you can get the measles vaccine just because you want it, then I should be able to get the chickenpox vaccine or the flu vaccine for free just because I want it - there's lots of evidence that it's safer to have the vaccine than the disease - but I still have to pay if I want it. In any case, if hte govt suddenly allowed single vaccines, I can just imagine the cries that they've known the MMR is dangerous all along. Noone would believe ' Well, there's no evidence to show that single vaccines are any safer than the MMR other than some theoretical speculation and there's no scientific evidence that the MMR causes autism but, nonetheless, we are going to offer single vaccines'. Wow, given the level of paranoia about vaccines, the reaction to that kind of statement would be very interesting.

I still don't see how any test for vaccine reaction would be developed. None of the posters who demanded why there is no test and said that it's not been done due to callousness and laziness have explained how you would actually roll out such a screeening test even assuming that these markers could be identified. No one has explained how you would deal with the sensitivity vs specificity issue. No one has explained whether you would need to develop at the same time a test to know the chances of a serious reaction to the wild disease (as you;d have to know the relative risk, right?). It's all very well demanding an elusive screening test but, as always, the devil is in the detail. Explain to me how it'll work, how many children who are perfectly fine to be vaccinated will be left unvaccinated due to false positives (it'll be a high number even with a test with relatively high specificity as the number of true positives in the population is very low) , how many false negatives you could accept, what you'd do about figuring out the relative risk. I'm interested.

Accuracyrequired Tue 24-Jul-12 03:20:50

"there's no reason for the taxpyer to foot the bill"

No reason that you accept. There are good reasons, in fact, if you read the research. "Theoretical speculation"? As you'll see from the links, it's more than that.

"I can just imagine the cries that they've known the MMR is dangerous all along." Well quite. It would be financially cataclysmic for governments and drug manufacturers around the world. This is the real reason, not the science.

There you go again with "paranoia". Have you read any of the links? That's just insulting.

"None of the posters who demanded why there is no test and said that it's not been done due to callousness and laziness have explained how you would actually roll out such a screeening test even assuming that these markers could be identified. No one has explained how you would deal with the sensitivity vs specificity issue. No one has explained whether you would need to develop at the same time a test to know the chances of a serious reaction to the wild disease (as you;d have to know the relative risk, right?). It's all very well demanding an elusive screening test but, as always, the devil is in the detail. Explain to me how it'll work"

Isn't that the point of research? I think we're all in favour of that.

"I'm interested" - I doubt that. If you were interested, you'd have taken seriously what people have said so far and read the links. The evidence of your posts suggests that hasn't been done.

LaVolcan Tue 24-Jul-12 08:18:26

Wow, given the level of paranoia about vaccines,......

But where does this paranoia come from? I have not heard of any paranoia about e.g. tetanus vaccination. It's worth asking why people have doubts, and trying to address their concerns, instead of saying 'Don't question - just do as we say.'

Does this questioning come from the feeling that 'we've heard this before'? We have seen drugs introduced and then whoops, there are side effects and they are withdrawn.

Tabitha8 Tue 24-Jul-12 10:00:24

Elaine I'm suggesting that if the gov't/health organisations are really worried about measles, then they ought to offer the single jab. My thoughts are that the gov't/health organisations are actually not worried about measles. I happen to agree with them.

Accuracyrequired Tue 24-Jul-12 10:33:02

Tbh if they were really worried about measles every single parent in the country would have a basic idea about Vit A and its benefits. There'd be public health campaigns. So, yes, Tabitha. Agreed. They aren't - they're concerned about MMR.

ElaineBenes Tue 24-Jul-12 11:37:51

Lavolcan.
Read bad science or autisms false prophets if you want to know a bit about the origins of the mmr paranoia.

ElaineBenes Tue 24-Jul-12 11:42:32

Tabith8
Please show me a scientific study which shows that the single vaccine is safer (other than theoretical speculation). Then I'd agree with you.

I think the person who should be most concerned about measles is not the govt but the parent of an unvaccinated child.

Accuracyrequired Tue 24-Jul-12 11:45:09

Elaine: are you reading anything people have posted? Plainly not! Plenty for you to respond to but you've avoided doing so. It's like you read one book and decided you know everything!

ElaineBenes Tue 24-Jul-12 12:04:58

Bumbley
It looks like CDC went for the higher level of the case fatality range. Other reports put it between 1 in 1000 to 1 in 10000.

But do you know the crazy thing? It doesn't matter! Even if you accept a case fatality of 1 in 10000, the vaccine is still safer by quie a few orders of magnitude. I can kind of understand people holding off on hep b, varicella, hpv but not measles. too serious and too common.

Accuracyrequired Tue 24-Jul-12 12:09:22
CoteDAzur Tue 24-Jul-12 12:13:20

"My thoughts are that the gov't/health organisations are actually not worried about measles"

That would be why Blair wouldn't say if his son had the MMR hmm

It's time to grow up now. Governments have entirely different risk/benefit calculations than those of individuals:

Parents will vaccinate depending on what is best for their child: vaccinate if the disease is scary enough, don't vaccinate at all if their child might be vulnerable to vaccine damage.

Governments will promote vaccination depending on what is best for the nation: economic cost of parents staying home to look after sick children, cost to NHS of epidemics and their possible complications, etc. A few children damaged for life is collateral damage.

Accuracyrequired Tue 24-Jul-12 12:15:45

Wrong again Elaine.

"the vaccine is still safer by quie a few orders of magnitude"

You don't know if this is true because you don't know how safe the vaccine is. As you'd know if you took any notice of anything anybody on this thread has written.

Sossiges Tue 24-Jul-12 12:17:17

"Even if you accept a case fatality of 1 in 10000, the vaccine is still safer by quite a few orders of magnitude."
The vaccine is only "safer" if you don't read/understand/believe any of the evidence to the contrary.
Even if the case fatality were 1 in 1000 I would still rather have the disease than the vaccine.

Sossiges Tue 24-Jul-12 12:17:39

x-post smile

LaVolcan Tue 24-Jul-12 13:05:19

Elaine

Read bad science or autisms false prophets if you want to know a bit about the origins of the mmr paranoia.

But of course, you have ducked my question. Why don't people worry about a tetanus injection? Why is that acceptable to everyone, (apart from those who don't vaccinate at all - which isn't the majority of us here).

What makes you assume that I haven't read 'Bad Science'? Just because Ben Goldacre is a long-haired trendy doesn't necessarily make him radical! It is possible to read it and to question what he says.

You are fond of saying that you like scientific evidence, when it suits you, and dismissing anything which you don't agree with as the crankosphere and yet the best you can come out with is Bad Science!

Tabitha8 Tue 24-Jul-12 15:42:21

Elaine I am not trying to prove that the single jab is safer than the MMR. I'm just saying that if measles were the public health hazard that some would like us to believe, then a single jab would be offered.
Me? I wouldn't give my child the MMR for any reason. Not admittance to school. Nothing would persuade me.

The dept of health wrote to me in 2000 and said they were quite happy to licence a single jab, and quite happy to provide one on the NHS. But the pharmaceutical companies had not asked for the licences to be renewed so they coukdn't licence one. If they did ask they would consider it. I presume they never have.

This was the same letter where they told me that there was no lack of public confidence in the MMR. That they carried out surveys and ran focus groups and confidence in the MMR was higher than it had been prior to the publication of wakefield's paper . And I was quite mistaken to think otherwise (I had suggested to them that offering single jabs might increases measles vaccine uptake).

So if that was the case twelve years ago, at the height of the MMR controversy god only knows why they are still blaming Andy for every case of measles that so much as reaches the UK. They need to work out their story and stick to it.

Elaine - they know quite a lot about the immune profiles of autistic kids - I would presume that could provide some info. If you actually read some kf the papers i have linked to and follow the papers they cite you mgiht come up with somideas yourself. About eight years ago Natasha Campbell McBride had sime suggestions, perhaps they could dig those out, We managed to find some rests to run in ds3. . Or they could do something very general and look at family histories (followed up by further testing if necessary). I realise you appear to think that every child who can be vaccinated without damage must be and therefore you want a 100% test but hey ho. I just see extra information as helpful for decision making,

I wouldn't object to paying for singles locally. Although dare I point out that ds1 is going to cost the state millions in his lifetime. So you know, there is a financial benefit to ifentifying at risk children and altering the echedule to better suit them. Other than the fact it would save affected families enorrmois grief - which doesn't seem to be enough of a reason for you.

And cote had made a very good point about individual versus population risks - although you ignored it when I made that point earlier.

ElaineBenes Wed 25-Jul-12 02:42:27

My oldest aunt died as a child from a vaccine preventable disease. Leaving children who are perfectly fine to be vaccinated unvaccinated exposes them to the risk of death. or do they not count? Arebthey collateral damage? Shame you cant ask my grandmother about the pain of losing a child, if she could see the debate today shed be turning over in her grave.

I fear that only when measles returns and we hear about children dying and being left brain damaged and dead will it become 'scary' enough again. Too bad about the 'collateral damage' along the way.

Individual care means exactly that. Vaccine policy is made at the population level but you are free and should raise any concerns with your children's doctors and work with them to decide what is in your child's best interest. The very few children who can't be immunized should be protected by herd immunity.

the idea of markers is in any case just theoretical speculation. But as I said, you can't get past the fact that you will be leaving children who are false positives (and there will be a lot, inevitably, even with high specificity because of the low prevalencenogradus positives) At the level of individual care, sure, do whatever tests you wish, as a screening tool - it wouldn't work even if you could develop markers (questionable in itself).

The hpa on why singles measles vaccine is not a good idea.
http://www.hpa.org.uk/Topics/InfectiousDiseases/InfectionsAZ/MMR/GeneralInformation/

And another from the collateral damage from rubella

http://www.sense.org.uk/what_is_deafblindness/rubella_mmr/vaccination/single_vaccines

Lavolcan
If you don't like Ben gold acres summary of the mmr scandal, try Paul offits. I thought you were looking for a reason why there was an mmr scare as opposed to other vaccines - although, of course, that's not quite true, in Nigeria they're convinced that the polio vaccines are full of sterilizing agents. So conspiracy theories are not just for the mmr! And in the 70s in was dtp and then there was a multiple sclerosis scare in France with another vaccine. Mmr is the scare du jour here in the uk but just as ridiculous as the claims about polio vaccines being a western plot to reduce Nigerian fertility. I see no difference and the discourse is frighteningly similar.

Here is a link to a summary of 25 studies showing no link between mmr and autism. 25! Good enough for me.
http://www.immunize.org/catg.d/p4026.pdf

Tabitha
You have summed up perfectly the differences between us. You wouldn't give the mmr no matter how many studies proved its safety. I wouldn't give the mmr if the scientific evidence showed it to be unsafe

Well the hpa appears to be disagreeing with cochrane there - read the cochrane conclusions - they said MMR safety studies were wholly inadequate. Perhaps the hpa needs to read them as well.

The only argument for giving MMR is the 'time left exposed' one. A) measles vaccine is known to work better the later you leave it (talking between 12 and 18 months here) and B) I don't think the risk of leaving someone exposed to mumps a little bit longer is particular dicing with death.

And will you please stop linking to studies that treat autism as one thing. I have explained why epidemiological studies doing that are pointless. You may as well count number of cases of autism versus number of cases of rubella in pregnancy (see what I did there - used one of your favourite triggers) and say 'ooh look no link people thinking rubella infection can be linked to autism are all mad and wrong and a bunch of nutters' Do you now understand why you have to identify the subgroup? Are you offended enough at being called a nutter? Just imagine if you watched your child have a seizure, trip to ITU, immediate regression then got a bunch of robots carrying out the wrong analysis over and over whilst calling you a nutter. Read Taylor et al, it's on your list so read the paper- they even SAY in their paper (never mind all their stas are wrong anyway) that they cannot discount a rare idiosyncratic response to the MMR - which is what we're talking about. 5% of autism cases - not all of them. I'll dig out another book for you to read - can't remember the title off the top of my head, but the bloke who wrote it developed the rabies vaccine so you should like him- he says in there that given suggested figures of 5 to 7 % of cases of autism triggered by MMR seems entirely reasonable. . No-one has ever suggested all 'autism' is caused by MMR so I don't know why people like you pretend they do.

I raise you my severely disabled child - you raise me a dead one from 60 years ago. Unbelievable. Let's play the shit happens roulette should we. And if I vaccinated ds3 - although there are clear signs he's in an 'at risk' group and he regressed and ended up in the same situation as his brother would you give the remotest damn? I'm guessing not as your concern for pagwatch's distressing stories have been so touching. You're only considering one side of the risk/benefit ratio. I'm looking at both.

I'm well aware measles carries with it a risk of death. And morbidity. Yep i'll throw my deaf mother into the measles sweepstake 'tough time' game again. Isn't it fun? Can you dredge up another dead person (oh no actually we need an anti measles vaccine to counter my deaf mother now don't we, I'll throw in one of the kids who ended up hospitalised after MMR). Your turn. I've given you the 1960's measles mortality figures (and you still haven't answered why measles is so much more deadly now than in the 1960's). You just seem unable to comprehend that my children might be at a slightly higher risk from vaccination that yours. Utterly bizarre.

This truly is totally pointless. You're not reading anything that's posted. And your total lack of concern for people living with severe disabilities is actually quite upsetting. We are allowed to choose to not vaccinate our children because we believe they're at higher risk and we're allowed to choose not to run that risk. And please if you have to keep quoting Paul Offit as someone to read can you please post with the disclaimer than he known nothing about autism so really shouldn't be writing about thing like FC. Yes his background gives him the right to comment on MMR. But not on communication methods for those who are very severely autistic. He's potentially doing a lot of damage to individuals there. I'd hate to hear of someone denied a voice because they hadn't realised that some people require a period of supportive typing before being able to operate devices independently. That would be a terrible terrible thing.

I thought I'd come across most theories - but this is a new one on me - might be interesting to some (and perhaps could be modified taking into account the new research on autism & maternal viruses during pregnancy).

www.nccn.net/~wwithin/autismrubella.pdf

Oh and apologies. Cochrane actually said MMR safety studies were largely, rather than wholly, inadequate.

Accuracyrequired Wed 25-Jul-12 07:56:25

"You wouldn't give the mmr no matter how many studies proved its safety."

To be fair, one would be nice to start the ball rolling.

Accuracyrequired Wed 25-Jul-12 07:57:41

plus Elaine - you can't ignore other people's experiences wholesale and then expect them to listen to yours

do you honestly think people don't know that people have died of measles?

Accuracyrequired Wed 25-Jul-12 08:15:46

plus also - well said saintly

ArthurPewty Wed 25-Jul-12 08:18:45

YELLOW CARD PLEASE

If people dont start reporting these reactions, they'll never know just how dangerous these vaccines really are :/

Tabitha8 Wed 25-Jul-12 08:47:57

Elaine You are right. I wouldn't give the MMR if it were proved safe as I don't see the need to mass vaccinate all babies against mumps and German measles.
How many of those 25 studies involve a scientist in a lab with a test tube? Or are they all just epidimiological studies which don't actually prove anything, do they? They can be used to show doubt that smoking causes cancer.

LaVolcan Wed 25-Jul-12 08:51:17

Elaine
So you lost an Aunt to a vaccine preventable disease or who knows - she might have been vaccine damaged by it? My grandfather died before the war when my father was a boy to a disease which is now easily treatable. I don't think Dad ever got over it. We can all speculate about what might have been but how do such anecdotes help advance the debate about the safety of vaccines.?

If you don't like Ben gold acres summary of the mmr scandal, try Paul offits.
You do like to misread what people write don't you? So Ben Goldacre blames the media instead and then latches onto Andrew Wakefield. But Goldacre doesn't question why the media latched onto it? There must have been sufficient people who were worried about the issues for the media to make something of it. Offit also latches onto autism. But none of this 'evidence' helps to address people's fears. Honest questions deserve honest answers, but few of the 'don't question, just vaccinate' are able to address the questions.

ArthurPewty Wed 25-Jul-12 08:52:03

"Honest questions deserve honest answers, but few of the 'don't question, just vaccinate' are able to address the questions."

amen.

LaVolcan Wed 25-Jul-12 08:53:50

Leonie I bet people don't even know about the Yellow Card system. I didn't until I started reading these threads.

ArthurPewty Wed 25-Jul-12 08:56:15

it deserves its own thread i think. perhaps i'll go start one.

Sossiges Wed 25-Jul-12 09:23:18

Elaine - she's stubborn but at least she keeps her cool [grudging admiration].

Elaine I think you'll find that herd immunity doesn't apply to vaccinated people, only people who have contracted the 'wild' diseases. Therefore when people go on about "95% coverage to achieve herd immunity", it's nonsense, to put it politely.
Here you go.

Yes I suppose it's easy to keep you cool if you just borrow other people's tragedies to try and prove your point rather than actually live with the result of an unusual response to an immune system activation (for want of a better word). I have to admit het refusal to even consider those with severe disabilities anywhere in the equation did make ne rather see red.

I would be interested in how much Elaine actually knows about the day to day care required for someone with severe autism.

DementedHousewife Wed 25-Jul-12 10:25:35

Sigh. Elaine, "Only amateurs ignore anecdote" Ben Goldacre.
My sister is vaccine damaged, she is severely disabled, on a good day she can hold a sippy cup and requires 24 hour care. Her immediate collapse and subsequent cardiac arrest post (as in minutes) of being given the pertussis vaccine left her brain damaged and with a life time of chronic Guilliane-Barre Syndrome a recognised vaccine reaction. It happens. Her life is worth no less than little johnny down the road or you, or any other child for that matter. She isn't collatoral damage 'for the greater good' shes a genetically individual human being.
To ignore vaccine damage, play it down and advise parents, without access to thier history, medical records or any medical training whatsoever, that a MMR reaction is just 'a phase' Catherine my jaw hit the floor when I read that. Seriously, how stupid do you have to be to try to diagnose and advise a worried mum from the saftey of your computer screen, without having all the knowledge and facts is quite frankly idiotic and dangerous.
Ignoring children and adults who HAVE suffered vaccine damage is dangerous and does NOTHING at all to improve vaccine saftey.
My children are unvaccinated.

Sossiges Wed 25-Jul-12 11:02:06

saintly jimjams I beg your pardon, I didn't mean to belittle your situation by 'bigging up' Elaine. Her refusal to even acknowledge vaccine damage is amazing. But so many people who believe in vaccination get very excitable very quickly and threads degenerate into slanging matches (I have seen some truly horrible people on vax threads, as I'm sure you have), and at least she hasn't started swearing yet...

Sossiges Wed 25-Jul-12 11:04:53

That is why it was [grudging admiration]

ElaineBenes Wed 25-Jul-12 11:43:11

I have never said vaccine damage cannot happen, just that it is very rare. If it happens, it's tragic but it's certainly safer than being exposed to he disease,especially measles.

The scientific evidence is that mmr does not cause autism. I'm sure life with a severely autistic child is extremely challenging and I indeed know very little about living with it. I do understand the need to find a reason, but based on the best scientific evidence, it's not the mmr. That's whats important. Hopefully further research will provide the answers you're looking for.

By the way, it was epidemiological studies which first made the link between smoking and lung cancer and then study After study showed the same thing so eventually the link was accepted. The tobacco companies did much the same thing the anti vax crew do, deriding each study, but when the body if evidence is so overwhelming as with the mmr, you have to begin to accept the findings. know you don't like epidemiology but it's the only way you'll show something empirically at the population level.

Sossiges Wed 25-Jul-12 11:58:44

I don't think vaccine damage is as rare as you think. It is estimated that 1-10% of cases of vaccine damage are reported (VAERS in USA) so no-one really knows the scale of the problem. Those would be the serious cases. Mild vaccine damage I would think is ignored. How about invisible vaccine damage where child appears well but goes on to develop asthma or eczema? Shouldn't think that gets reported at all.
I wouldn't say in any case, that vaccine damage is safer than being exposed to the disease, especially not in the case of MMR or pertussis vaccine. When it happens to your child, the risk is 100%.
Scientific evidence - is anecdote not evidence? Yes, unless it's inconvenient.

LaVolcan Wed 25-Jul-12 11:59:43

I have never said vaccine damage cannot happen, just that it is very rare. If it happens, it's tragic but it's certainly safer than being exposed to he disease,especially measles.

You are implying that exposure to measles means that you will catch it and will suffer severe side effects including death. That is just not so. Many of us, me included, were exposed to measles, caught it, got better and have suffered no long term effects. By contrast, some of the cases here of vaccine damaged children make for very distressing reading. Given the choice of being ill for a week or so or lifelong damage, I think many would pause to question which is safer.

ArthurPewty Wed 25-Jul-12 12:02:58

Vaccine damage is huge.

Few people know about the yellow card system in the uk

only 1 - 10% of reactions are reported to vaers

its huge, but no one knows the true extent of it

Sossiges Wed 25-Jul-12 12:04:01

A bit cheeky, comparing tobacco companies to "the anti vax crew". Tobacco companies are more like Big Pharma, out to make a buck, don't give a toss for any ill-effects of using their product. Don't forget smoking was thought to be good for you at one time, too.
We're just trying to protect people - our children.

Sossiges Wed 25-Jul-12 12:06:08

La Volcan very true

ElaineBenes Wed 25-Jul-12 12:06:36

If vaccine damage is as common as you say, you'd see an associatin between the vaccine and the condition in hand in epidemiological studies sossgies. All the evidence adds up in the same direction - vaccines are one of the safest medical interventions.

Generally lavolcan, if you're not immune and exposed to measles, you will get it. It's highly contagious. Of course, not everyone will have severe side effects but WAY too many will for me to willingly expose my children to it. I'm sorry the cases of vaccine damage make for distressing reading, too bad that death and disability averted don't have quite the same emotional punch which clearly you are basing your decision making on.

ElaineBenes Wed 25-Jul-12 12:13:01

I'm sure your motives are different to tobacco companies, sossgies, but the modus operandi is similar.

ArthurPewty Wed 25-Jul-12 12:14:49

"If vaccine damage is as common as you say, you'd see an associatin between the vaccine and the condition in hand in epidemiological studies sossgies"

not necessarily - especially if it goes unreported.

ElaineBenes Wed 25-Jul-12 12:18:01

There are studies which directly ask people. There are studies which look at vaccination rates and the rates of x disease. There are natural experiments. Very few,nif any,merely on direct reports of vaccine damage.

And the system does work. The rotavirus vaccine was withdrawn due to a rare bowel condition (no deaths, all children recovered). It was detected and the vaccine withdrawn. As it should be.

ArthurPewty Wed 25-Jul-12 12:20:39

oh, if only it was "all as it should be" and the "system worked."

that would be bliss.

ElaineBenes Wed 25-Jul-12 12:23:18

And tabitha, you said before that you'd refuse the single measles vaccine as well. So you don't refuse the mmr because of the rubella and mumps components. Yiure contradicting yourself.

You also said you wouldn't vaccinate no matter how deadly measles is.

To me that suggests a complete lack of evidence based decision making.

ElaineBenes Wed 25-Jul-12 12:23:54

It is thus leonie.

CoteDAzur Wed 25-Jul-12 12:25:47

"The scientific evidence is that mmr does not cause autism"

Not true. Scientific evidence is that MMR does not cause trigger autism in most children.

ElaineBenes Wed 25-Jul-12 12:27:10

There is no scientific evidence that says it triggers or causes autism in any children,

CoteDAzur Wed 25-Jul-12 12:29:40

So Pagwatch is lying?

Or is she an idiot?

Sossiges Wed 25-Jul-12 12:31:01

Now this may be of interest.

ElaineBenes Wed 25-Jul-12 12:32:29

I said theres no scientific evidence. I know you find this offensive and I'm sorry for this and how you reconcile two conflicting stories is up to you.

LaVolcan Wed 25-Jul-12 12:32:43

It's highly contagious. Of course, not everyone will have severe side effects but WAY too many will for me to willingly expose my children to it.

We will have to beg to differ on this one. My children were small before MMR was commonly offered so they never had it - they never caught measles either. Did that mean it wasn't going round so they never caught it, or they did catch it but weren't ill? We will never know.

Now when it comes to future grandchildren,(although I will keep my opinions to myself unless I am asked) personally, I have been more persuaded by saintly's (and others) arguments - that vaccine damage can and does cause disability, but you seem to be reluctant to accept this.

Sossiges Wed 25-Jul-12 12:33:52

Read down to the end

ArthurPewty Wed 25-Jul-12 12:35:04

There's plenty of evidence that in a vulnerable subgroup of children (thought to be about 7% of all autism cases) that MMR is the trigger.

There is no one 'autism' - there are 'autisms'. Multiple aetiologies, multiple triggers, multiple causes.

ElaineBenes Wed 25-Jul-12 12:37:13

Really sossgies. I stopped at the point where they started ranting about big pharma lies.

Lavolcan. Yes, I know youre very influenced by stories that you hear. I'm more influenced by scientific evidence.

Sossiges Wed 25-Jul-12 12:37:36

LaVolcan don't keep your opinions to yourself. My mother was aware of the possibility of vaccine damage but kept quiet, I wish she had alerted me to the dangers.

ElaineBenes Wed 25-Jul-12 12:38:23

If mmr is the trigger in 7% of autistic children you absolutely would see it as increased risk in epidemiological studies. You don't.

Sossiges Wed 25-Jul-12 12:43:47

Oh dear, please Elaine, it's not Sossgies it's Sossiges, thanks.
So you don't think that Big Pharma lies? It's so sweet, such innocence in this day and age. [touched]

Sossiges Wed 25-Jul-12 12:45:43

OK, so if the evidence doesn't suit your idea of the facts, you just stop reading. Right, that must be where I've been going wrong then hmm

CoteDAzur Wed 25-Jul-12 12:49:20

"I said theres no scientific evidence. I know you find this offensive and I'm sorry for this and how you reconcile two conflicting stories is up to you."

Funny how you "know" such a thing with no evidence whatsoever. Your cognitive dissonance is not "offensive" to me, at all.

It's good that you realise that there is conflict. That is the first step to resolving it.

Since Pagwatch and her DS are real live people, you can't change them. What you need to change is your story that there is no evidence MMR triggers autism, because it has clearly triggered her DS's.

LaVolcan Wed 25-Jul-12 12:51:38

Lavolcan. Yes, I know youre very influenced by stories that you hear. I'm more influenced by scientific evidence.

You know nothing of the sort and it's presumptuous of you to say so. You say you are influenced by scientific evidence, and yet you serve up - a story about Roald Dahl's daughter, and aunt who died who may or may not have been saved by vaccine and Bad Science. If they aren't stories, what are they?

I personally was a cautious vaccinator myself and have found some of the links posted by others very interesting. We need a balance to make an informed opinion, but it is hard to get balanced information. Big pharma does have a vested interest; governments do too.

I do lack what appears to be your belief that 'all vaccines safe, the disease is always worse'. It's not so black and white as that.

StarlightWithAsteroid Wed 25-Jul-12 12:54:00

The DTP vaccination triggered an autoimmune response in my DB, that attacked his kidneys causing them to fail and cause eyesight loss. He's real.

People's bodies react differently to the same environment, chemicals, toxins, viruses and medicines. Sometimes they kill.

CoteDAzur Wed 25-Jul-12 12:54:26

Your only way out of this while still keeping your cognitive dissonance is claiming Pagwatch is:
(a) A liar (who told a false story)
or
(b) An idiot (who doesn't get what really happened to her DS)

So, Elaine... Which do you choose?

ElaineBenes Wed 25-Jul-12 13:04:23

I said no scientific evidence. I have no comment on any individual case as I am not a doctor.

CoteDAzur Wed 25-Jul-12 13:21:03

No need to be a doctor to see that you are suffering from cognitive dissonance.

Your worldview is conflicting with the reality of a real live person, Pagwatch's DS, whose autism has been triggered by MMR. You are desperately trying to hold onto your belief "There is no evidence that MMR triggers autism", so you must have concluded either that Pagwatch is an idiot or a liar.

Come on, share with us. Which is it?

If you have found some other way to discredit her in your mind, please do share that, too.

From Richard Lathe (developer of rabies vaccine) autism, brain and environment'

a reasonable hypothesis is that around 5% of cases might be due to MMR vaccination, with impaired immunity as a contributing factor. The statistical challenge is then to detect an increase in ASD at this level. Population sizes ib the order of one million in both the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups are needed, because below this the small increment could never achieve statistical validity

and so he goes on - read the book if you're actually interested.

I would suggest that rather than playing with population data - and all the problems associated with that, you might be better off clinically examining the children whose parents suggest a link. If parents are thought to be too stupid to recognise a link then you could examine those who were admitted to hospital and now have a diagnosis of autism. Who knows, might find something interesting.

I'm actually laughing at tobacco companies being just like people who don't vaccinate. Because yes people who choose not to vaccinate after having a damaged child are just like multi-national organisations that supress evidence aren't they? Oh the irony.

I think I'm with cote on the cognitive dissonance.

Tabitha8 Wed 25-Jul-12 19:02:14

How can epidemiological studies prove that smoking causes lung cancer? They can only show that it is a likely cause.
So, how can epidemiological studies prove that the MMR is safe?
Elaine Vaccines may well be one of the safest interventions, but that doesn't actually mean that they are safe.

StarlightWithAsteroid Wed 25-Jul-12 19:08:27

Only a fool would say that all vaccines are safe for everyone!

That doesn't mean they are BAD and we all should avoid them btw. I'm not having an argument about the rights and wrongs of vaccination here, just commenting on some of the illogic.

Tabitha8 Wed 25-Jul-12 19:17:56

Elaine I neglected your point about my contradicting myself. When DS was born, I was very pro-vaccine and he was going to get the lot except the MMR. Three years later, he's had not one jab. Why I started questionning vaccinations? Yep, it was the MMR because of the problems reported by parents but denied by the medical experts. I lost faith in the whole system.
Starlight You've hit the nail on the head. Vaccines are not safe for everyone. But, how do we identify those at risk? I know we don't even try to at the moment.

Because this behaviour is nothing like multinational corporations suppressing evidence is it? Oh no, the 'anti-vax' crew (i.e. including people who did vaccinate until it all went pear shaped) are far more like a tobacco company, than the companies mentioned in that report from a few weeks ago.

Next you'll be telling us that pharmaceutical companies aren't interest in profits

Tabitha8 Wed 25-Jul-12 19:23:52

And I am supposed to trust these companies with vaccinations...........

Well according to Elaine, the system works. And yes those people are far more trustworthy than someone like Pagwatch, because they rely on scientific evidence dontchaknow hmm

But it's okay - they've learned from their mistakes. They don't need to worry about being find here the MHRA engages in light-touch regulation

*fined

or perhaps *found out grin

From the Grauniad

The GSK sales campaign also involved helping to publish an article in a medical journal that misreported evidence from a clinical trial.

Really my eyebrows can't go high enough hmm

ElaineBenes Thu 26-Jul-12 00:13:37

Actually that's a perfect example of the system workingn saintly. The side effects were reported and known. There may have been poor public health decisions but side effects were detected and it was withdrawn. And the rotavirus is another example of the system working. If vaccine side effects were as widespread as you claim, it would be detected - I hardly think nearly every government in the developed world is involved in this cover up!

There are many alternative hypotheses to explain why someone's own personal experience and belief may not be reflected in the scientific evidence. It's certainly not as offensive (and childish) as 'she's either a liar or an idiot'. I won't go into details here as I feel it is inappropriate to do so but I'm sure you can find out on your own, it is not a phenomenon restricted to vaccines.

At no point have I said vaccines carry no risk but the scientific evidence shows that risk is extremely small. Some high risk groups are identified such as children witb impaired immune systems who face an awful choice of russian roulette made worse by the actions of the ignroant and misinformed (colateral damage of the anti vax movment). There is no scientific evidence which shows that vaccine damage includes autism. Maybe this wil change in the future, but I doubt it given how much this subject has already been researched.

I'm no fan of the actions of big pharma. But vaccines are no different to any other medication. And I find the conspiracy theories rather pathetic to be honest.

But we have come to the crux of the matter, whether one is persuaded by anecdote or science. If I weigh up one persons account on an anonymous Internet board versus overwhelming scientific evidence, I know which evidence I'm going to weight more highly.

ElaineBenes Thu 26-Jul-12 00:22:09

Tabitha

There are a number of criteria one must meet to demonstrate causality. Epidemiological studies, depending on design, can demonstrate association, temporality, dose response. It is possible to use quasi experimental techniques to demonstrate a causal effects where randomization is impossible or unethical. Really, I think you should take epidemiology 101 if you wish to comment on the limits of epidemiological studies. I can recommend a great online course by johns Hopkins university if you are really interested in understanding epidemiology,

Accuracyrequired Thu 26-Jul-12 06:54:03

I'm not sure this is keeping cool, it's rather a callous tone. I'm sorry I haven't read your above posts. I came to see if you had responded to Cote's very important, indeed central, question.

You haven't responded to Cote's question.

Accuracyrequired Thu 26-Jul-12 07:04:17

Elaine - it really is as simple as she's a liar or an idiot. What she says is true or it's not true. There is no grey area. You believe it's not true. Therefore you must believe she is stupid or lying. More than that, you must believe thousands of other people are stupid are lying too. It's a belief system, a faith. It's not scientific. It's closing your eyes to the evidence.

"I hardly think nearly every government in the developed world is involved in this cover up!"

The evidence points that way - pharmaceutical corporations have financial reasons for being mendacious - governments probably imagine it's for the greater good. I have no doubt that there's a general acceptance of a role of vaccination in the development of some ASD disorders in the political health establishment, but they probably imagine - as you do - that it's a sacrifice well worth making. They - like you - don't mind people being damaged and hurt and having their lives ruined - they, like you, think it isn't a big deal.

So you're saying you believe pagwatch is mistaken. And although you admit to knowing nothing about severe autism you have clearly bought into the 'signs of autism begin to show at 18 months' line. Although, actually, the actual picture is far more complex - and more variable - than that oft spouted line. Again we come back to autism is not one thing.

Do you think my friend who's child had a very long seizure and ended up in HDU imagined it as well? Or the one whose child ended up in ICU? How about my friend who held off giving MMR until later, whose child then lost all speech - (not regained by age 17) was that coincidental as well? Did she imagine her child speaking beforehand? You clearly believed the 'loss of speech' after a virus anecdote earlier. So why is regression after a vaccination not believable?

I have noticed doctors to be the same. None have ever questioned my recount of loss of skills following a viral infection. Whereas friends who witnessed regression following vaccination have been told they are mistaken - despite in many cases their cases being clearer because their children were older (and sicker) prior to regression. In the interests of balance I should point out that sone doctors have agreed that vaccination was the most likely trigger, especially if they were involved in the clinical care of the aftermath - they haven't all dismissed reported regression without investigation.

You believe flawed epidemiological studies that are relying on data from an imperfect system (do you have any idea of the delay between 'age of parental concern' and 'age of diagnosis'), studies that erroneously treat autism as one thing, over parental reports (unless the parental report includes a wild type virus in which case you might believe them, providing they continue to vaccinate).

Is it scientific to cling onto studies which have been repeatedly pointed out to you are flawed - because you don't like the alternative possibilities? The most scientific thing to do would be to examine clinically the potentially affected children, or if you insist on working with epidemiological studies to start to identify subgroups of autism and then carry out some sensible stats that aren't confounded by increases in dx at the high functioning end of the spectrum. That would be scientific.

And if the urabe strain fiasco is a sign of the system working then I weep, truly I weep. What does 'informed consent' mean to you?

Accuracyrequired Thu 26-Jul-12 07:31:54

What evidence have you that Pagwatch and thousands of others are mistaken or lying? You have no such evidence - it's just a faith thing, you don't want to believe it, so you don't. It's exactly like any other sort of belief system. Life isn't like Disney you know - where if you wish hard enough things become true. You just live in a dreamy make-believe world where you just believe what you want, never mind what's real and right there in front on you.

Sossiges Thu 26-Jul-12 07:45:35

^ This

Ha ha at suggesting epidemiology 101 from someone who is unable to understand that the epidemiological studies that she's so fond of are flawed. At least Autism Speaks are taking a more intelligent approach

And Elaine if along with 'autism shows at 18 months', you are also buying into the 'autism is genetic' stuff that is rolled out by the dept of health, then you can correct your misunderstanding. As you can observe from the tone of this description the role of environmental factors is not controversial. The difficulty, it is agreed, is identifying them - especially as there are almost certainly many.

ArthurPewty Thu 26-Jul-12 08:14:52

The Urabe strain debacle is a sign of the system working perfectly??

I'm just stunned, just stunned at this statement.

I think it's called clinging to a belief system [[http://www.foiacentre.com/news-MMR-070305_2.html despite all evidence to the contrary.

Accuracyrequired Thu 26-Jul-12 08:36:15

Can I call it "desperately" clinging to a belief system?
<childish>

Accuracyrequired Thu 26-Jul-12 08:38:55

also v quickly - nonsense surrounding "parents want to find something to blame"

my one child vaccinated according to schedule plus mmr, can't focus, can't stand change, highly sensitive to noise, has obsessive knowledge of his "thing" (never diagnosed despite suggestions he should be checked out)

my other two children - no mmr - none of that

do I blame mmr? I do my damndest never ever to think it may be to blame, I can't stand the idea it might be to blame, I choose to think it's just him being him

my lip curls when I see "parents just need to blame something"

Oh yes 'parents need some to blame' is so lazy and offensive.

My son is severely autistic, non-verbal, has severe learning disabilities. Therefore I must be a tragic figure? Desperately seeking something to blame? Er no, he has a severely autistic life ahead of him so we do our damnedest to fill it. He's going on a (challenging) moor walk today, he's surfing tomorrow and so on and so forth.

Do I want to know what happened? Yes. Why? Well durr - because I have younger children and a) would like to make the best decision for them and b) would like them to have more information to make decisions for their children. How terribly fragile and blame seeking of me :rolls eyes:

CoteDAzur Thu 26-Jul-12 10:58:42

Elaine - Good to see that you are back smile

Now, would you answer my previous post:

CoteDAzur Wed 25-Jul-12 13:21:03
Your worldview is conflicting with the reality of a real live person, Pagwatch's DS, whose autism has been triggered by MMR. You are desperately trying to hold onto your belief "There is no evidence that MMR triggers autism", so you must have concluded either that Pagwatch is an idiot or a liar.

Come on, share with us. Which is it?

If you have found some other way to discredit her in your mind, please do share that, too.

Tabitha8 Thu 26-Jul-12 11:07:18

Elaine Why are you not interested in furthering science by finding out how vaccines damage children? How the MMR has caused some children to regress into autism? Which children are at risk? Surely science is all about pushing boundaries and not staying within a cosy, comfy world?

Sossiges Thu 26-Jul-12 14:43:48

Tabitha - some excellent research to be done there but it won't happen - no money in it (and too dangerous). Now some research to prove that vaccines are completely harmless and, in fact, good for you would have Pharma queuing up to hand out the dosh.

Pagwatch Thu 26-Jul-12 17:05:18

Hello,

I should concede at the outset that I am quite possibly an idiot.

But DS 2s regression did flummox quite a few people who are much smarter than I.

I think the thing that gets forgotten is that ds2 was vaccinated because I was absoloutely fully behind the vaccination programme. He was being vaccinated as his elder brother had. I signed up, took him along. It was straightforward to me - like brushing his teeth.

I don't want something to blame - why would I? I hear that all the time, almost inevitably from those who don't have children with disabilities. It would make no difference to me if it was genetic, from a jab or from the position of the moon on the night he was born. I don't give a toss. What possible difference woukd it make?
I have no 100% certainty about what happened. I know what was witnessed and recorded (passed 18 month check with flying colours - diagnosed as severely autistic at 2) but I can only try and piece together the jigsaw. If one day I find something else caused him to regress that would be fine. I am just interested as what we watched was so extraordinary and tragic. It would be a con fort if maybe other children could avoid that regression.

The only way in which it helps us at all is figuring out how best to care for his now 9 year old baby sister. Interestingly her GP and the consultant I have had to see about her asthma and allergies have both suggested that avoiding vaccination is a bloody good idea. So I may be an idiot but her medical advisors think that the series of events, inexplicable and challenging, are sufficiently serious so as to make the vaccine potentially more of a risk to her than the illness.

I suspect I am lucky that those charged with her medical care have the intelligence, the common sense and the humility to say 'if she were my daughter, no way would I vaccinate'

To be hobest I have a great deal of respect for their opinion because it's basis is not shaped by a need to condemn me as a fool or a liar simply because my difficult family history sits outside their routine experience.

Those who say 'this does not fit within my understanding of the science so I will ignore you and dismiss you' are pretty thick in my opinion.

But then I am an idiot so what do I know.

ElaineBenes Fri 27-Jul-12 03:03:34

Pagwatch
For the record, the cries of 'idiot', 'liar', 'has to blame something' did not come from me, others have been whipping themselves into a frenzy assuming things which were never said or implied. As I have said, there are other explanations why an individual experience may be different to that in the scientific evidence. It doesnt mean the evidence is wrong nor does it necessarily discredit the personal experience.

It still does not detract from the fact that there is no scientific evidence of causality between the mmr and autism. Even the theory of how it might work is only speculative. Originally all the focus was on thimerosal, that didn't work out as thimerosal was taken out of vaccines (another example of a bad public health decision) so now it's the mmr combo.

And, as I have said before, Im not questioning any individual choices. You made your decision about vaccinating on the basis of medical advice, your doctors agree with you. How fortunate your daughter is that other people DO vaccinate so that she is less likely to get the diseases others vaccinate against. I don't mean that sarcastically, this how it is meant to work.

Saintly
Its quite ironic just how similar your actions are to the tobacco companies and the evidence on smoking. Sure, your motives are different, I accept that but, wow, you're doing exactly what they did. Every epidemiological study which showed smoking was associated with an increased risk of cancer was picked at and declared worthless, it's just statistics after all - what was important was that they had inconclusive lab tests and speculative theories about how smoking was fine. The similarity would be laughable if it wasn't for the fact that the end results are the same.

All your links show speculation about the role of environmental factors, the role of the immune system etc. To be honest, this is not my area so I cannot comment on the science but I understand enough to know a) there's been nothing conclusive, just possible areas to continue research and b) vaccines have not been shown to cause autism. Could that change in the future? Possibly but highly unlikely that vaccines are a significant driver, even for a small number of children. I'm sorry but the evidence is just not there beyond anecdotal and speculative.

ElaineBenes Fri 27-Jul-12 03:09:04

And, saintly, for the record, I haven't questioned your account neither have I questioned anyone else's. It's not my place to do so and it would be highly inappropriate.

ElaineBenes Fri 27-Jul-12 03:16:35

Sossgies

Too dangerous? Are you completely paranoid?

And tabitha, given the amount of money which has already gone in to studying vaccines, given that when side effects, even rare ones such as bowel IntussUspection with the rotavirus, are detected and the products withdrawn, I think that it would be very hard to make the case for this research you call for, at least in the scientific world. Personally,I would like to see research money (which is not unlimited) go to areas where more research is actually needed and may even deliver something useful.

Disingenuous. That's all I'm going to say. Yes of course me pointing out that the epidemiological studies to date have failed to address the correct hypothesis (they have tested whether the rise in cases of 'autism' - all of it - are due to the MMR, something no-one has ever suggested, I'm not sure why this is so difficult to understand), are flawed is JUST like a tobacco company. Do you actually believe that?

As for this mysterious there are reasons why people think something when the 'scientific evidence' (flawed epidemiological studies) shows otherwise - pray do tell. Either the individual is mistaken or the 'scientific evidence' (flawed epidemiological studies) are wrong. So why not just say it.

You have said three or four times now you know nothing about autism. I'm impressed that you are so certain that you know so much about how it isn't triggered.

And please don't tell me you think thimerosal was an example of the system working? How many years did we lag behind the states, oz, Canada etc there. IIRC (and I would have to check) the UK took it out after the WHO said it should be removed from routine childhood immunisations where possible. Anyhow, years after concerns had been acted on by other countries.

Actually elaine - you could do me a favour. I have always wondered how someone could defend the epidemiological studies done to date given the problems in terms of defining age of symptom onset/age of diagnosis/undiagnosed children in the cohort and numbers of shots of MMR given. Not to mention the big one of not recognising that autism isn't one thing.

Maybe you could explain why you are so confident that they are correct?

Accuracyrequired Fri 27-Jul-12 09:42:27

Elaine - why don't you read that "anecdote" again and imagine it mirrored several thousand times.

It seems to me in the face of all of this that all you have is blind faith that they must all be lying. Or wrong. You might want to diseemble at length but really that's your choice.

Accuracyrequired Fri 27-Jul-12 09:46:19

Unless of course you're saying - I don't know, it's too hard to tell and I simply don't know that much aout it?

In which case, why have you expressed such certainty and been so dismissive and rude about this?

ElaineBenes Fri 27-Jul-12 11:40:51

No thimerosoal is an example of the system not working and misguided parent pressure leading to the wrong decisin. Removing thimerosal was unnecessary. There was no evidence that it caused any damage yet parents were insisting that thimerosal in vaccinations caused their child's autism (can you see a similarity?).

Nonetheless thimerosal was removed. Did autism rates continue to rise? Yes.

Accuracyrequired Fri 27-Jul-12 11:45:31

Elaine - do you have a response please. You either
don't know (in which case why so certain and rude?)
or you think she's right (along with thousands of others)
or you think she's wrong (with thousands of others)

and if you think she's wrong (with thousands of others) you must think she's
a liar
or
stupid

Accuracyrequired Fri 27-Jul-12 11:46:53

You are welcome to say you don't know. Please don't bother with "I don't want to say". You've been rude and callous enough already, and nothing will shock. Just tell us what you think, without covering it up.

LeBFG Fri 27-Jul-12 13:38:27

Same old anti-vaxers, same old crap.

So glad that you have the required insight and energy to keep posting Elaine. Keep up the good work.

<repeats like a drone> vaccines aren't perfect, they sometimes cause reactions, they really are better than the alternative world where no one is vaccinated.....<anyone listening in anti-vax world?>

And cote, it can only be supposed that Pagwatch's DS's autism was triggered by the MMR. If I were in her position, I would be thinking EXTREMELY hard about vaccinating the rest, anyone would. But, correlation does not equal causation. To make my point: My neighbour, who broke his back two years ago went to a woo magnet healer - one seance and he's walking much better, swears by it. The difference is dramatic - would you call HIM a liar?

<sigh> where have I suggested thimerosal might be responsible for a rise in autism? I don't think anyone is particularly suggesting that still are they? More that it might be involved in certain cases.

Are you saying given the choice you would prefer to inject your children with a thimerosal containing jab, rather than a thimerosal free one? That's a decision I really can't understand.

Yep those same old anti-vaxers who are so anti vaccination they vaccinated. I was first in the queue for men C, how anti vaccine of me.

Is there any point me mentioning that many metabolic pathways ate known to operate (for want of a better word) differently in autism? No, I thought not.

LeBFG Fri 27-Jul-12 14:21:23

Intrigued saintly - why men C? Surely, if I type "men c" and "vaccine damage" into google I'll find pages of how the vaccine has damaged babies. Probably find some links to autism while we're at it. So why this one?

Accuracyrequired Fri 27-Jul-12 14:25:22

Same old unthinking pro-vaxxers, same old crap. Don't know what they think, can't help being rude, can't respond to any of the points raised, don't bother reading peer reviewed links.

Same old same old crap.

Accuracyrequired Fri 27-Jul-12 14:26:50

Bfg in case you haven't noticed Elaine is NOT here to answer the question that's been put to her so many times. She might have had the energy but she's certainly had no insight at all - frightening how callous and unpleasant her views are. AS yours must be, I suppose, as you think she's so great.

Accuracyrequired Fri 27-Jul-12 14:27:47

"it can only be supposed that Pagwatch's DS's autism was triggered by the MMR."

well that's what the anti vaxxxxxxxers think so welcome to the club

Because I gave it to my typically developing eldest son before he regressed into severe non-verbal autism. And no, I don't link his autism directly to a vaccination, but 12 years down the line I know a lot about the research into autism and the immune system and look forward (if that is the correct word) to further findings. I suspect they'll help his siblings make the most sensible decisions. Perhaps even by the time they move into the high risk age group for meningitis C.

Eleven years ago I was laughed at by a paediatrician for paying attention to ds1's gut symptoms. A year and a half ago a neurologist and paediatrician asked me whether we'd considered trying a special diet to aid with behavioural symptoms. The times they are a changing.

LeBFG Fri 27-Jul-12 14:39:08

She probably FINALLY got bored of all your endless ravings. I did a long time ago. Amongst many, many other things, I got bored of the endless linking to scientific papers of which the poster CLEARLY had no understanding with sentances quoted out of context.

And the reason why I finally gave up trying to debate this topic: the anti-vaxers machine gun assertions which take a bloody long time to research and then refute in a correct manner. I'm no immunology expert, have not looked at all the epidemiological studies nor neccessarily understand all the population genetics of disease variants (and I have a PhD in population genetics btw - but I'm humble and admit I have limits)

It is clearly easier to make an assertion than to refute it.

So that is the tactic of the anti-vax brigade - make assertions, endless assertions...finally bore the pants off the most dedicated posters and then complete their 1000 post threads with only the anti-vaxers surviving.

LeBFG Fri 27-Jul-12 14:46:59

I'm sorry, but you can't say you're not anti-vax saintly (of course you can say what you like, but it doesn't make sense). You weren't anti-vax until your DS developed autism. You are now on these pages to argue....what exactly?

AccuracyNOTRequired: "supposed" links to the noun "supposition" - therein implying doubt. If I thought these two events were causally linked, I would have simply said "Pagwatch's DS's autism was triggered by the MMR."

Accuracyrequired Fri 27-Jul-12 14:49:22

Read the thread - no one was raving unless you count the "bizarro crankosphere" nonsense along with the !!!!!!!!!!!!! and the CAPITALS

She isn't bored - she doesn't know what to say - and neither do you. There's no response. "We" (loose use of term) haven't raved - there are just clear arguments, and links, and so on, and if you could respond appropriately you would - but you can't, so you don't.

That's why you gave up - you simply can't refute. And you can't be polite enough to say - that research looks really interesting.

You immediately look for something to refute it - you never think, well that does look rather interesting and concerning. It's just NO, it must be WRONG because it just must be, I believe in vaccinations, they can't be right, but I haven't got enough time to google - so I'll just go away and blame them for - what, having too much evidence?

Accuracyrequired Fri 27-Jul-12 14:50:57

Bfg: it can only be supposed - means - it is a highly likely possibility, if not the only possibility

what you seem to have meant is "it is possible"

Accuracyrequired Fri 27-Jul-12 14:52:38

LeBfg bet you haven't read a single peer-reviewed paper Saintly has linked to. So you don't really know what you're talking about - you throw "anti-vaxxer" around to randomly insult people rather than address the evidence the offer. Now why would that be? Oh yes - because you can't address it the evidence people offer and have to flounder around trying to smear them.

LeBFG Fri 27-Jul-12 14:59:27

Look Accuracy, even if it were proven that the MMR jab DIRECTLY precipiated Pagwatch's DS's autism, this would still be no reason to not vaccinate IN GENERAL. For Pagwatch, of course it does.

Rubella contracted in pregnancy is linked to autism too. How do you know the rates of autism triggered by MMR (lets assume a link) would be greater than that caused by the rubella infection itself? It's this sort of reasoning and level of analysis that is sadly lacking in anti-vax world.

LeBFG Fri 27-Jul-12 15:06:18

I looked at many, many links that you and others dig out. I don't need to look at all of saintly's links - I just clicked on one and it clearly says that autism comes about by a combination of environmental and genetic factors (like many, many genetically-linked diseases) and she uses this link to refute the implication that autism is genetic. What is the point in replying to these links? Criticising every last one, pointing out flaws - not in the research, but in the reader's understanding....frankly, life is too short.

I'm doing general arguments here as a deliberate tactic. You clearly do not respond to logic. You believe in woo magic FGS!

Accuracyrequired Fri 27-Jul-12 15:07:38

Don't say "look" to me like that please.

The problem is that pro-vax people insist that MMR is not now, never has been or ever will be connected to any triggering, regression or development of any kind of autistic spectrum disorder ever.

Plainly there is evidence that it could well be.

Accept that such evidence exists, and that more research should be carried out on the back of it to identify vulnerable people, and there we are. Problem solved.

Therefore, Bfg, if you want to accept that there is evidence that MMR could well be associated with such a triggering, or regression, that is good news.

If not, it is a frightfully weak argument to accuse people of having too much good evidence and to thus be forced to resort to accusing them of "endless raving" and "crap".

Accuracyrequired Fri 27-Jul-12 15:08:33

"you believe in woo magic ffs"

I mean this is just incoherent abuse

LeBFG Fri 27-Jul-12 15:13:43

The pro-vax brigade have been investigating this link for years Accuracy - scientific careers would be sealed with gold if they could find a link. Researching autism is very much in vogue at the moment. As a scientist, I would be happy to accept the evidence that MMR triggers autism...if the science was there. But it isn't at the moment. Do you think scientists are all part of the cover up plot too?

LeBFG Fri 27-Jul-12 15:27:44

If you're feeling sore Accuracy perhaps this might cheer you up: I'm not immoderately impressed with the amount of posting you do on this subject smile

There are a couple others too, not here at the moment, who are similar. Where does the energy come from, the time and more importantly, the motivation? I would love to know.

Accuracyrequired Fri 27-Jul-12 15:31:37

Oh snap! I'm not impressed by your PhD in population genetics!

I can't imagine where their energy comes from, especially when some are looking after very poorly children after vaccinations.

Accuracyrequired Fri 27-Jul-12 15:46:29

Oh that's not a snap at all is it.

Yes, I've come to find it interesting it very quickly - I've read a lot of nonsense and abuse by pro-vaxers over the years - until I saw some that finally made me join and now after a rather meh start I'm finding it quite gripping at times.

Oh and I have a PhD in..... oh is there any point? No, not really.

I'm here to talk about the children I know who have suffered devastating reactions to vaccinations that have left them in the same sort of state as my son. And I'm here to find out more about the immune system and autism so I can make better decisions for my younger children. And I'm here to talk to other parents whose children (or siblings - as there are few on this thread) have suffered severe regressions. It's a pretty isolated situation to be in, and very very different from raising NT kids so it's fairly common to share experiences and I'm interested in their stories.

I'm not here to argue with those who are unpleasantly aggressive though (give Elaine her due, she has not been aggressive).

I mentioned the rubella link for autism pages ago.

Also you have completely misunderstood what I said about genetics. There does broadly, appear to be two 'types' of autism. Broadly divided into multiplex and simplex cases. In multiplex cases autistic traits appear to be highly heritable with the broader autism phenotype (BAP) running through the family. Simplex autism arises out of the blue and is associated with spontaneous CNV's. There appears to be no correlation with the BAP.

My point was to counteract the commonly held misconception that 'autism' is inherited in a simple fashion, with the environment playing no role. It's not controversial within the autism research community to acknowledge that in some cases of autism a genetic predisposition of some sort has triggered autism in response to an - as yet unknown- environmental factor (it's also accepted there's likely to be more than one). If you are remotely interested here's a blog post giving some idea of the sorts of things currently being investigated

I'm so sorry you misunderstood what I said. Hope that helps. (Although I doubt it's of any interest - after all you don't have to worry about any of this stuff).

But you have to start by understanding that there is no such thing as 'autism'. It's not one condition.

and here's a very simple explanation of the differences between multiplex and simplex

Interesting isn't it.

And here's a very simple summary of the potential types of interplay between genetics and the environment in cases of autism.

Again, I don't expect everyone to be interested. But if you have an autistic child, presumably some of those reading do, then you may be interested.

LeBFG Fri 27-Jul-12 17:19:12

I merely pointed to the fact that I clicked on the first link I saw and got, what I would describe, as a poor example to back your claim.

Your very simple link is nothing of the sort. A paragraph summarising reseach which contain phrases such as multivariate ANOVA and post hoc comparisons and BPASS is an instrument resistant to rater bias cannot be described as 'a very simple explanation'. Just to highlight the point, the final line says genetic transmission mechanisms may differ between families with more than one child with autism and families with only one child with autism. implying there IS in fact a genetic link behind both the simplex and multiplex. From the very little I've read, autism is polygenetic the inheritance and presentation of which is only partially understood (understatement). Do you not want some researchers to pursue that line of research too?

I'm not interested in reading blogs btw - please don't link to them.

PhD mention was in ref to a ridiculous link on another thread when one of you guys linked to a paper that was highly specialised, and frankly, I fail to believe the poster understood what the hell it was about. I definitely struggled and it was my subject area. This wasn't to glorify myself, it was to illustrate the psuedo-intellectual nature of anti-vaxers who, even whilst linking to the pages in question, misunderstand the text, quote out of context and twist the meaning.

There, that took me a whole 20mins to read and reply which is why I haven't got time to read spurious links that inevitably don't support the anti-vaxer's pov.

The 'blog' is by one of the largest funders of autism research at the moment. You might find it interesting.

The abstract is fairly simple to understand if you have some understanding of genetics and I linked to the other as it summarised other papers, and wasn't particularly technical.

I'm reasonably interested in pretty much all research into autism - although I think cognitive psychologists sometimes miss the point a bit.

You appear to be attacking me for being an 'anti vaxer' when I have made it clear my interest is in identifying children who might be susceptible to damage from vaccination. I do have issues with the way mass vaccination is delivered. Much as I have issues with the way antibiotics are (mis)used, although I would probably see them as the greatest medical discovery of all time. I'm slightly surprised that identifying susceptible children would be seen as a bad thing. I'm also interested in identifying children at risk of autism and preventing that -
one reasonwhy the immune system research is so interesting.

Of course, when you look at autism risk In a susceptible child you don't just consider vaccination.

So yes I'm pretty much interested in most research. My son has made it very clear he would like to be able to speak, so I feel no guilt in hoping that one day there's a better understanding of ways to avoid regression (or indeed non-regressive autism).

Oh and did you miss my post where I said there was a genetic basis to both multiplex and simplex autism? I'm not quite sure why you are correcting something I already said.

LeBFG Fri 27-Jul-12 18:35:20

So this abstract is only fairly simple to understand if you have some understanding of genetics . Except, I find it hard to follow (and I do have some understanding of genetics) and in any case, it appears to be based on an analysis of phenotypic characteristics and not a genetic analysis...happy to be corrected.

No one argues then that there are both genetic and enviromental factors involved with autism. Glad we got there. I don't dismiss that vaccines should be considered in the analyses. In fact, they have. As I said before (always the same on these threads) the link would make for great science. There are teams busy trying to find links. It would make their careers. But as yet I've not seen anything that backs this up. Research should continue, of course, on all fronts. If you agree with this, I'm not actually sure what we're disagreeing over saintly

Oh very good, pedantic much? Google multiplex and simplex autism if you are actually interested, there's plenty out there on multiplex vs simplex autism. The take home message (again only if you are actually interested) is that genetic transmission mechanisms are likely to be different in simplex and multiplex families, which, you might recall was my original point.

I think I might have mentioned that the epidemiological research looking at vaccination has treated autism as one thing. I also mentioned that I have been to various conferences where researchers have been happy to show how vaccinations might fit into their models in some cases (usually as a rare alternative).

You presumably have children you don't think are at any
particular risk of autism. I have children who are considered to be at high risk of autism. Furthermore I have a child is very severely autistic following a regression believed to have been triggered by an abnormal response to a common viral infection (agreed by his doctors). I suspect the studies you believe show no link, don't provide quiterge same reassurance for me. FWIW, I have not suggested that vaccination is a particularly large trigger of autism, I suspect the subgroup is relatively small. Nevertheless I feel for those I know in that situation, although note than might be suspected have some support from their doctors and given that my son's neurologist felt some sort of underlying metabolic or immune disorder was possible in ds1's case I'd prefer to watch the research unfold.

Anyway no more, I'm repeating myself so much I'm even boring myself now.

Apologies on iPod, cba to correct

Tabitha8 Fri 27-Jul-12 19:17:36

BFG Do you think that all parents who don't vaccinate their children are "anti-vaccination"? How do you define anti-vaccination, by the way?

LeBFG Fri 27-Jul-12 19:33:42

Of course you prefer a wait and see approach saintly - this is reasonable given the description of your DS.

children I know who have suffered devastating reactions to vaccinations that have left them in the same sort of state as my son. - I understand your reaction, but how come you are so convinced all these children are vaccine damaged? Perhaps many also had an abnormal response to a common viral infection? Just a question: knowing what you know now, and if a vaccine was available, would you have vaccinated your DS?

Tabitha - clearly anti-vaxers can be compared with anti-hunters. Someone who doesn't hunt is not neccessarily anti-hunt. On this thread and many others, it has been pointed out that doctors will advise against vaccinating children/adults given certain suseptibilities/conditions etc. Anti-vaxers dismiss all vaccines out of hand. They sometimes say "in x, y and z conditions, I agree with vaccinations", but as these conditions realistically can never be met, they are, effectively, anti-vax.

Tabitha8 Fri 27-Jul-12 19:39:59

Gosh, that makes me an anti-vaccine person, then, in your eyes. Hey ho.

LeBFG Fri 27-Jul-12 19:43:22

You may have misunderstood - if you have been advised not to vaccinate, then you are a non-vaccinator, not necessarily an anti-vaxer. Is this you Tabitha?

Tabitha8 Fri 27-Jul-12 19:45:07

Nope, by your definition I am most definitely anti.

LeBFG Fri 27-Jul-12 19:45:38

Congratulations!

LeBFG Fri 27-Jul-12 19:49:44

Or perhaps you didn't want to be labelled as such? I'm thinking very hard of another situation where one wouldn't vaccinate one's DCs at all and NOT be anti-vax actually...

Tabitha8 Fri 27-Jul-12 19:50:21

Thanks. It's nice to be anti something in this world where anything goes.

Tabitha8 Fri 27-Jul-12 19:54:49

My definition of anti is usually a person who would ban something. I wouldn't ban vaccines. I just want them PROVED to be safe rather than waiting for someone to prove that they are not safe.
Too many problems over the years with vaccines for me to trust them anymore, I think.

OK last post.

In some cases I don't know for sure, but ime most people with autistic kids do not link their child's regression with MMR, it's fairly unusual, and they're otherwise sane people, so I see no reason to not believe them. In other cases the reactions have been very extreme. For example, I know a child who ended up in HDU, and another who ended up in ICU, another had a very long seizure (never before and never again). Of course this could be coincidence but it would seem sensible to at least consider MMR was a factor. In some cases doctors have agreed that MMR was quite possibly involved. I feel sorry for these people that they have suffered that loss (and it is a loss) and then get openly ridiculed. They did what they were told, and vaccinated and quite possibly lost a lot in doing that. They don't deserve ridicule. In other cases the children have been older so have lost very clear speech, which again is, imo, noteworthy.

Would I have vaccinated my son against the virus? Probably not. Or at least not at that age. Many of the different models make the point that age of exposure to the environmental insult (whatever that is) may be critical. In my son's case there was a whole series of unfortunate events just prior to his virus that may have contributed to his abnormal response. In addition it was aggressively treated (it had to be), and the treatment itself may have been damaging. We explored that with the neurologist, he felt an underlying metabolic disorder may have contributed and was happy to test for it, but it would have been an invasive test with no treatment outcome so we refused. We're interested in what happened but not enough to put our son through invasive testing when there would be no potential for benefit to him. I suspect that the timing was very unfortunate and at a later age he may have been more robust.

There's also the issue of deliberately exposing to a virus that my children may otherwise never encounter (and yes I know in cases such as measles their risk of encountering it is because of mass vaccination although I still assume they may catch measles tbh).

I do have some issues with mass vaccination (such as possible selection pressures - an area which really isn't that well understood yet and has the potential - albeit small - to go horribly wrong - I would like to think that these were considered before rolling out a new vaccination, I'm not particularly convinced they are). I also believe the system for reporting side effects is inadequate. I would rather there was a move towards an individualised approach to vaccination - where benefits are considered on an individual basis. If we're going to stick with mass immunisation then there I would like to see more consideration given to identifying those more likely to suffer an adverse reaction, more attention given to identifying adverse reactions, and much more support given to those who suffer from adverse reactions. Of course in other areas of medicine there is a move towards individualised drugs so maybe that will happen eventually.

That's a long answer, but still a simplification. In a nutshell I don't believe that vaccination is an evil. I think it has the potential to do good. I think it could be used more intelligently and I think the damage it can do is underestimated. I could say the same about antibiotics, and I love antibiotics, I think they're marvellous things - even though ds2 and ds3 have never had them.

Oh but underlying the unfortunate events, and the abnormal response is presumably some sort of predisposition. <that's where my interest lies.

Anyway, I'm done, Olympics.

CoteDAzur Fri 27-Jul-12 23:39:17

"even if it were proven that the MMR jab DIRECTLY precipiated Pagwatch's DS's autism, this would still be no reason to not vaccinate IN GENERAL."

Actually it does, given that NOBODY knows if THEIR child is in the "at risk" group, because this group is not identified. It is a terrible and irreversible outcome, and therefore, the risk is significant even if the probability is very small small. (Think before you argue with me on this - I've studied this stuff)

If you search my posts and the words game theory, you should find some papers I previously posted on MN that explain how and why people will not vaccinate their children in such a scenario.

"Rubella contracted in pregnancy is linked to autism too. How do you know the rates of autism triggered by MMR (lets assume a link) would be greater than that caused by the rubella infection itself? It's this sort of reasoning and level of analysis that is sadly lacking in anti-vax world."

LOL @ "this sort of reasoning and level of analysis" grin

You comparison is wrong on so many levels that it would just take too long to go into now. But anyway, I don't need to know about autism triggered by rubella contracted in pregnancy because I will have DD's immunity tested in her teens and if she isn't immune, vaccinate her at that point. There is absolutely no benefit whatsoever to be vaccinated against rubella as a baby.

This doesn't even require any reasoning or analysis. It is just obvious.

PigletJohn Sat 28-Jul-12 00:23:12

"It is a terrible and irreversible outcome, and therefore, the risk is significant even if the probability is very small small."

Just to check, are you calculating this based on the belief that MMR is known to cause autism? Which country published the medical test results showing this?

ElaineBenes Sat 28-Jul-12 00:44:45

Very good posts LeBFG. And I, for one, am impressed by your PhD in population genetics (although I appreciate it wasn't with that intention that you mentioned it). But of course people who don't have much regard for science wouldn't have much regard for a scientific qualification. I did indeed get bored of the raving LeBGF but I just ignore the posters who are abusive and clearly quite bonkers, otherwise it's just a waste of time and energy.

Regarding the 'flawed' epidemiological studies. Any epidemiological study looking at vaccinations will be flawed. This does not mean that they are bad. It simply means that given that a randomized controlled trial cannot be conducted (for ethical reasons - since it is unethical to deprive a child of an effective vaccine), one has to use other techniques. Inevitably choices need to be made and not all the criteria for causality will be met in each study. What is crucial though is that all the studies have different designs and therefore different flaws. And they ALL come out with the same thing. Even where the studies are very highly powered (ie the chance that they will miss an effect which is there is tiny), nothing is found to associate vaccines with autism. Even if this sub-group arguement is true, the numbers would have to be tiny for the effect not to be detected.

It is also important to note that there is only speculative theory. Saintly, you have provided links showing the possibility of environmental triggers. I understood most research is focusing on prenatal environmental triggers - this cna include prenatal infection which is why the MMR is GOOD for reducing autism rates. However, nowhere have I seen in any of the links you've provided to scientific papers any of the authors jumping to the conclusions you have - that vaccines are responsible.

So you have zero epidemiological evidence (which you MUST have to prove causality) and a speculative theory which certainly isn't mainstream. Does it mean you're definitely wrong? No, but I think it's highly unlikely and even if it is proved right, then the numbers involved will be extremely small (I have crunched the numbers but given how highly powered the studies are, I'd guesstimate at least less than one in 100,000).

I do agree with you that I'd like to see better reporting of side effects - but for ALL medications. I'd also like to see better and more rigorous regulation of pharmaceutical companies - for ALL medications.

Regarding thimerosol, you may not have said it caused autism. Others have though. That is one of the reasons it was removed. Do I prefer single vial vaccines without preservatives? Yes, I do. Doesn't mean it was the right decision to remove thimerosol without ANY evidence it does any harm at all and plenty of evidence it's perfectly safe. And I will quite happily take my children for a flu vaccine this winter even though the vaccine contains thimerosol.

tabitha
i'm very glad you wouldn't ban vaccines. Did you see what happened in the former soviet union when diptheria vaccination rates fell? Yes, an epidemic of diptheria. Good thing most people DO immunize their children against diptheria and your children can free-ride on that.

ElaineBenes Sat 28-Jul-12 03:10:56

I must admit that I find it ironic that LeBGF's PhD is derided but Cote threatens 'Think before you argue with me on this - I've studied this stuff' grin

Anyway, Cote, I think it's less game theory but more a tragedy of the commons. However, it's lucky (in a way) that the primary benificiary from vaccination is the child him or herself with the social benefit a nice plus. This is why we continue to vaccinate.

There is no zero risk option. It's either a tiny risk or a much bigger risk. damage or death from disease is just as irreversible than damage from a vaccine - it's just far far far more common. I don't vaccinate my children for the fun of it.

And the sad thing is that the more successful you are in spreading your misinformation, the more you put your own children at risk.

Are you impressed by my PhD in population genetics Elaine? See how pointless throwing around PhD medals is?

Thimerosal was not removed because others said it caused autism. Or at least that was never given as an official reason - that suggested link was rejected. Repeatedly. According to the MHRA it was removed to limit exposure to mercury containing compounds. Particularly for low birth weight babies. I'm surprised you see that as a bad thing tbh. You can still find some thimerosal vaccinations if you wish your children to be exposed.

The rest of it has been done to death. I've mentioned at least three times the sorts of thing researchers have said about vaccinations in their models at conferences such as IMFAR, read back if you can't remember. You confuse population versus individual benefit in the way cote has described, and you assume risk is uniformly tiny for every child. You seem completely unable to understand that whilst the risk to most children from vaccinations is small, and they are therefore able to enjoy the benefits, the risk to other children is very much larger and therefore it's entirely reasonable to limit that risk in any way you see fit as there are currently no attempts made to identify these children. Having observed one child regress to severe autism I choose to avoid potential triggers wherever possible. When there's a better understanding of the different pathways to autism I may feel more comfortable exposing my children to various potential triggers.

I don't choose to be cautious about vaccination for the fun of it.

LeBFG Sat 28-Jul-12 09:10:23

"even if it were proven that the MMR jab DIRECTLY precipiated Pagwatch's DS's autism, this would still be no reason to not vaccinate IN GENERAL."

Actually it does, given that NOBODY knows if THEIR child is in the "at risk" group, because this group is not identified.

- if nobody knows who's at risk before vaccination then no one person can say they are more at risk than average. If the overall probability of vaccine damage is low relative to damage caused by the disease then vaccination is still justified.

If you search my posts and the words game theory, you should find some papers I previously posted on MN that explain how and why people will not vaccinate their children in such a scenario.

Have searched specially for you cote smile. You link to one paper on game theory. It explains quite clearly that in the senario where PERCEIVED risk is high vaccination rates drop off. As you are quite aware, perceived risk is not the same as ACTUAL risk. The sad thing is when perceived risk is high enough, even when vaccination rates drop right down to nearly zero, the hightened risk of disease and disease-related damage is not enough to change the status quo i.e. to not vaccinate.

If you don't like the arguments to vaccinate against rubella cote, what about the mumps and measles?

On a side note, I wonder how much of this is about fear of autism? Once-upon-a-time people lived in fear of the C-word - anything and everything was linked to cancer rates. Now I see, in the UK, there is an hysteria around autism (just check out some of the behviour/development threads). If it were the case that to vaccinate would give 0.001% chance of autism and to not vaccinate would give 0.01% chance of brain damage from the disease, I think many parents still would NOT vaccinate....because of the A-word. My French pediatrician says the French are quite happy about MMR but hate the hep B. Each culture appears to have it's little pet hate it would seem.

I'm quite happy to admit I fear autism for ds2 and ds3.

I would like them to grow up and be able to walk to the corner shop alone, without needing to have someone holding onto them. Something ds1 will never do.

Quite a lot of threads I see in behaviour the child is showing warning signs for autism. They may not get diagnosed for many years. There's nothing wrong with intervening early if there is a problem. Ds1 was missed by several professionals (including one who told me I was over anxious). I'd love to take my non-verbal teenager back to her to show her what happened to her 'over anxious mother' diagnosis. But I don't suppose she gave us a moments thought once she'd stopped rolling her eyes.

Incidentally we started with intervention before ds1 was 2. If we'd waited for the professionals to get their act together we'd have been waiting for another 18 months before starting. In that time amongst other things we taught ds1 receptive noun vocabulary, started work on imitation (finally achieved age 8), taught some attention skills, taught him to drink from a cup, did some sensory work, and started on PECS. I don't therefore much care that I was lumped in the 'hysterical about autism' category by some.

LeBFG Sat 28-Jul-12 09:49:21

I equally see threads from mothers worried to an extreme because their baby isn't pointing at 9 months, smiles at others but not at it's mother, who sometimes sulks, who sometimes flaps it's hands....the list is endless and my heart bleeds for these posters who clearly have very healthy and happy babies but whose anxiety is clearly ruining their early-year experiences. It's really sad and, I think, out-of-proportion to the real risk of autism. You are clearly in a different class saintly and have very good reasons to worry.

Tabitha8 Sat 28-Jul-12 13:09:46

Elaine You say I am freeriding on others vaccinating against diptheria. Not sure why your stopped there at one disease? Anyway, why would you care? If you feel vaccinations work and are safe, why would you care?
Is it not the case that I am freeriding on the horrors suffered by others when their children are vaccinated? Have their children not been used as guinea pigs to make me feel that vaccinations are not a risk worth taking for my child? I look back over the years here as well. The live polio vaccine was a cause of polio in some and the old whooping cough jab caused some cases of brain damage. There is a real history here of vaccines going wrong. It is a not a new thing.

PigletJohn Sat 28-Jul-12 14:31:04

Sossiges and AccuracyRequired added the Polio thing to a different thread about some schools witholding the Cervical Cancer jab (I don't know why they wanted to add Polio to it, but they did). I didn't find their posts very clear but I thought they were probably trying to create distrust in OPV, so I did my best to reply. Didn't get anthing disproving what I had said from them, but there was some vague and unsubstantiated smearing.

What's the actual point you want to make about Polio OPV?

LeBFG Sat 28-Jul-12 15:12:43

Tabitha - if your DC are not vaccinated at all, then they may well benefit from herd immunity where it exists. This is a selfish act (have a look at cote's cost/benefit analyses on other threads).

I hope you don't drive your precious DCs around in a car either, they risk dying you know. In fact a lifetime risk dying in a transport accident in the UK is 1 in 240. Risk if you never get in a vehicle: ZERO

Risk of catching polio from a polio vaccine (now superseded by a safer version): 1 in 2.4 million.

LaVolcan Sat 28-Jul-12 15:22:30

In fact a lifetime risk dying in a transport accident in the UK is 1 in 240. Risk if you never get in a vehicle: ZERO

Not zero because pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists do get killed on the roads.

LeBFG Sat 28-Jul-12 15:43:39

Ahh, LaVolcan. Quite correct, not zero...but what carries greater risk: vaccinating against polio or choosing to drive/cross the road etc? Which, was in fact, the point of the post.

We all take risks. Many, many, many women in the UK every year choose to risk the lives of their unborn, completely healthy babies by having an amniocentesis. A one off, potentially disastrous procedure. This is when faced with chances maybe as little as 1:200 that the child has Down's. One study Wiki quotes gives the chances of loss at 1 in 1,600. Compare these probabilities to that of catching polio from the vaccine.

ElaineBenes Sat 28-Jul-12 16:20:20

We don't give the opv here against polio, we give the ipv which is more expensive, doesn't prevent transmission and is much safer than the opv. The opv is necessary in counties where polio is endemic in order to ensure eradication whereas the ipv can be used for individual protection in counties where polio has largely been eradicated. Ideally, ipv and opv would both be used in endemic counties, but given the cost involved, it's mostly just opv.

We are REALLY close to eradicating polio! It could happen in our lifetime.

LaVolcan Sat 28-Jul-12 16:57:39

We all take risks. Many, many, many women in the UK every year choose to risk the lives of their unborn, completely healthy babies by having an amniocentesis.

Quite correct - we do all take risks. I would hope that those being offered amniocentesis were advised of the risks and would make their decision based on those risks.

How many people are offered reliable information about vaccines? It appears from reading these threads that a number of people aren't informed so are not giving informed consent.

PigletJohn Sat 28-Jul-12 17:00:27

I really look forward to the day when Polio will be wiped from the face of the earth. We managed it with Smallpox, and Polio is now close to extinction. We know how to do it, and have the vaccines and techniques. It isn't even expensive.

I know two Polio survivors, they are both aged about 50/60, so they must have been caught in the last few outbreaks in Britain. Thank god it is practically unheard of now, here.

LeBFG Sat 28-Jul-12 17:11:11

LaVolcan: How many people are offered reliable information about vaccines? do you have privileged information regarding these risks?

Do you accept the risk of miscarriage is 1:1600, or is this figure inflated (as we can only suppose the govt are working to reduce the financial burden of Down's children). Perhaps the real risk is only 1:10 000? Why question one source (vaccine risk) and not any others?

Can someone remind me please why in 1950's Britain the ministry of health (? Was that it's name?) suspended the DTP vaccination campaign in areas with polio outbreaks?

(It was sound advice)

Tabitha8 Sat 28-Jul-12 17:36:57

I know that, here, we use the IPV. My example of the OPV was what happened in days gone by.
The WHO declared Europe a polio free zone about ten years ago. Not sure the vaccine can take credit for that as millions of people never had it.
BFG Why am I being selfish in not vaccinating my child?
Sorry to disappoint you, but I do drive my child about in a car. Yep, I do know the risks. We fly as well. Even more hazardous I believe. Life is, of course, not risk free. For me, vaccines are simply not a risk worth taking. Perhaps I'll change my mind next year. Driving a car is a risk worth taking. It has all sorts of benefits to me.

PigletJohn Sat 28-Jul-12 17:45:31

"My example of the OPV was what happened in days gone by."

But what was the point you wanted to make about OPV?

ElaineBenes Sat 28-Jul-12 17:45:39

I think your perception of risk is very skewed tabitha. You may believe flying in a plane is more hazardous than a car, it's not - it's much much safer as shown in the statistics even if you dont feel that it is. Similarly with vaccines, statistics show that is far far safer than the disease.

LaVolcan Sat 28-Jul-12 17:51:05

do you have privileged information regarding these risks?

I certainly don't recall being given much information. I still have my son's vaccination record to hand and the only information given is the date and a signature. Things may have changed since then - I had a tetanus injection five years ago and the record shows the type of vaccine given. Now when I have my cat vaccinated, the record shows the vaccine type and batch number. Why should I have more information for my cat than myself? Does this count as privileged or not?

Fortunately I have never suffered a miscarriage and have therefore had no reason to look into the stats about it, so cannot offer an informed opinion about them.

I did have to make a decision about whether to vaccinate my children, and if so, which vaccines to give them. Therefore I chose to be informed about the issue. I am disturbed to read that immunity given by the rubella vaccination may wear off. I certainly don't ever recall being told this, or being told to advise my daughter to check her immunity status before she plans to conceive. It may be that they didn't know this at the time, but I can't recall any public health information being put out about it subsequently.

Tabitha8 Sat 28-Jul-12 17:51:33

Piglet The OPV is a live vaccine and caused polio in some children. Did you not know that? It still causes polio cases abroad.

Tabitha8 Sat 28-Jul-12 17:53:19

Agree with LaVolcan about the rubella jab. I'd assumed I'd be immune for life so had no reason to check my immunity before having a baby. I was never told the immunity might wear off.

LeBFG Sat 28-Jul-12 17:57:14

tabitha: you make an individual cost/benefit sum. In the case of a vaccine with good uptake rates and thus low levels of disease, the sum will be in your favour if you don't vaccinate. Your DCs take no risk because not taking the vaccine and only face a low risk of catching the disease. Other people are vaccinating their children with some risk of vaccine damage with the side effect of benefiting you. This is selfish.

Beware however, as vaccination uptakes change (often after vaccination scares where perceived risk is high) and we see resurgences of disease. My neighbour didn't vaccinate as disease was apparently really low. Her now teenage DC caught measles 2 years ago. They had a stint in hospital so obviously quite serious.

So the cost/benefit sum can change. The selfish thing to do where vaccine coverage is low is to vaccinate of course. But as cote's game theory paper models, people hold on to the perceived risk IN SPITE of their increased risk of disease damage.

Here we go again.....diseases that are eradicated, or nearly so, have nothing to do with the associated vaccine programme. How many times have we heard that chestnut?

What caused it then? My neighbour insists it's improved hygiene. Well there you go - washing your hands after you pee is more effective than a vaccine. What's your favored theory tabitha?

LaVolcan Sat 28-Jul-12 17:59:04

BFG - I see you were still talking about amniocentesis rather than miscarriage per se. My reply is the same - it's not something which affected me, so it was not something I needed to look into to inform my decision.

(For what it's worth, for my second child I turned down scans because I didn't need a scan to tell me the date, and wouldn't have accepted a termination, if an 'anomaly' had been found, so I saw no point in them. For my first child, I didn't realise that they were 'offered' and that you could say no to them.)

LeBFG Sat 28-Jul-12 18:11:51

Not something that affected you LaVolcan nor me, but you appreciate that this is a good parallel with vaccinations, don't you? There is a risk whether you do the amnio or not (like vaccinating or not). The medical profession and govt would benefit by deflating the risk of miscarrying to encourage women to test and terminate a Down's. The fact is, they don't. The risks when compared with vaccine damage are very high but with this information many, many women choose to take the amnio.

Tabitha8 Sat 28-Jul-12 18:13:09

Not sure that "a Down's" is a polite way to describe a child, actually.

LeBFG Sat 28-Jul-12 18:15:19

Still stinging from the selfish accusation?

Tabitha8 Sat 28-Jul-12 18:17:42

I wasn't having a go. I was merely thinking that if my child were affected by Down syndrome, I don't think I'd want him described as "a Down's". That's all.

Tabitha8 Sat 28-Jul-12 18:18:11

But no, if you think me selfish, that is fine by me. It's up to you.

LaVolcan Sat 28-Jul-12 18:23:51

BFG No, I don't accept that it's a good parallel with vaccinations; it seems tangental at best. There are strongly held opinions about whether to terminate for anomalies but a vaccination thread isn't the place to discuss that issue.

crashdoll Sat 28-Jul-12 18:48:25

I'm not anti-vax or pro-vax (nor do I have children yet), although I would probably place myself closer to pro than anti. However, I have a question which is not aimed at any poster in particular. I am aware that vaccines can cause damage and actually work with several children who are considered vaccine damaged. My query is how can we be sure that the issues would not have happened anyway? The MMR may very well have triggered of autism but how do we know the common cold would not have triggered it off 2 months later? Or even the actual disease?

crashdoll Sat 28-Jul-12 18:49:47

Pressed send too soon.

Basically, I feel it would be beneficial to understand all the triggers and risks not just vaccines. We don't really know if the vaccine damaged children would have unfortunately suffered damage from something relatively minor.

LeBFG Sat 28-Jul-12 19:05:39

Yes Volcan, but I'm not saying we need discuss the ins-and-outs of anomalies. This is risk cost/benefit analysis. I've thought of driving a car, but there is no risk inherant in NOT driving cars. Same with food (having seen the other thread running on vaccinations) - we are all obliged to eat despite the risks of food poisoning etc.

Good point crashdoll

LaVolcan Sat 28-Jul-12 19:43:28

BFG You were the one who introduced the comparison with the risks of amniocentesis.

There are always two reasons given as to why you should vaccinate - one, to prevent you getting the disease yourself and two, to promote herd immunity i.e. for the greater good. The second of these arguments cannot apply to driving/ amniocentesis. No one says that by driving you make the roads safer for others. No one says that you should have an amniocentesis to promote the general welfare of other pregnant women. They do say this about vaccination and it's what a lot of the discussion about vaccination has turned upon. Some people do appear to be damaged by vaccines - is it an acceptable risk if the greater good of the general population is served? It is a valid question to ask, but there do appear to be posters on vaccination threads who are reluctant to accept the validity of this question.

Crashdoll - we don't. Although in more than one model the timing of the insult (whether natural virus or vaccine or some other environmental factor) is key. It may be that susceptible children could reduce their risk by being given the vaccination later. Although that's all very theoretical at the moment. in many of the models there's a bit of sequence of events and the timing at each stage may be key. (or I guess you could remove one bit of the sequence and all would be well). Hopefully yours is a question that will be answered in the future.

Saying 'downs' children' is considered very old fashion, and as the parent of a child with severe learning disabilities does rather grate (in fact we rejected one SLD school because the -now retired thank god- head teacher kept referring to 'a downs child'. I didn't bother to say anything earlier but as it's been brought up I will make a polite request to try to say 'children with DS' etc etc. Please, it is appreciated by those of us who care about and for people with learning disabilities.

Back to my earlier question- does anyone remember why the DTP vaccination program was postponed in areas with polio outbreaks? Was it because of provocation polio, and was the 1950's outbreak one of provocation polio? These are genuine questions btw - I can't remember, and it's respite Saturday so I'd rather sleep than google tbh- I have a lot to catch up on. If anyone knows please share smile

LeBFG Sat 28-Jul-12 20:14:03

I didn't say the models were perfect - just gives posters a fresh way of looking at how people make decisions based on relative risks.

I thought the amnio example was quite good because there is the link to govt policy i.e. it's in the interests of society (financially) to not have Down's syndrome babies. There is a clear case for the gvt to muddle the figures....but they don't. Or do they? <facetious icon>

We haven't really discussed herd immunity on this thread. We've been discussing individual cost/benefits to vaccinations. Most vaccines are for the individual's good. As we are just humans, we do act in selfish ways so this reason to vaccinate, though oft quoted, is always a weak one. Most people wouldn't choose to vaccinate for the sole purpose of protecting unrelated people.

LeBFG Sat 28-Jul-12 20:15:52

*babies with DS

No I made that point on the flu thread (about the difference between vaccinating to protect yourself or a family member versus vaccinating to protect unrelated people). I do think if it is going to be policy to vaccinate to protect another group then they need to sort out the vaccine injury compensation payment scheme first before asking people to take that risk - however small.

Re m/c following amnio - the most often quoted figure is 1 in 100, but that is usually said to be an over estimate these days. Can you link to your figure please - am interested in how they haven calculated that. It is known to very much depend on the skill of the person carrying out the procedure though. There was a paper fairly recently (a report anyway) giving the number of healthy babies lost (well chromosomally normal) per case of DS picked up. It was a surprisingly high number iirc. I've always felt the pressure to invasively test & terminate (if there is one - and I think there might be) is less to do with the cost to the state of a child with DS and more to do with applying the medical model to LD's. Dunno, interesting thought.

Thank you wink

Ha - have googled - found the 1 in 1,600 figure - AND the 1 in 100! Bit of a difference.

crashdoll Sat 28-Jul-12 20:37:11

saintly Thanks for the answer. I was curious. I do think things need to change. I hate scaremongering but I have to say, with the exception of a post or two, this has been an educational read. smile I think it is vital to do your own research in all areas of medical care/treatment, as long as you read reputable sites and studies alongside discussion with your drs.

I don't know loads about autism as I work on the practical, caring side with older children and adults but what is the average age of onset of symptoms? Would it be more beneficial to delay the MMR and/or other vax?

Oh hard to say. Usually it is said that symptoms begin at 18 months. But I think that is a little late. I found a paper the other day that said 14 months was the average parental reported age of symptom onset which sounds more likely to me. But I also recently read something saying differences were apparent in videos from six months (which would be interesting as it would maybe allow regressive/non regressive cases to be better identified). I do know people whose children regressed later - around age 2- and I know people who say their children showed differences from birth. This is probably a reflection of autism not being one thing iyswim.

Personally I think there are arguments for delaying measles vaccination anyway - it works slightly better if given later (once maternal antibodies have gone) but there is a fear of leaving children unprotected from measles so it was moved to 13 months. I have to admit I struggle to understand the logic of vaccinating against mumps at all. I think there's a stronger argument for vaccinating against chickenpox (not that I'd give that either - but I can understand the argument for it).

Oh and I also know people (and there's literature in this) who describe two regressions. So a mild one initially, followed by a more severe one.

LaVolcan Sat 28-Jul-12 21:06:18

We've been discussing individual cost/benefits to vaccinations. Most vaccines are for the individual's good.

When it comes to the Rubella component of MMR the claim that it's for the individual's good is highly dubious because the disease itself is not regarded as serious. It might be beneficial to half the population sometime during a 40 year span 15 or more years hence, if they get pregnant.The logic of vaccinating babies against it escapes me, particularly if the immunity is likely to wear off before the woman needs the immunity.

crashdoll Sat 28-Jul-12 21:15:01

Out of interest, would you (or anyone else here who fancies answering) consider vaccinating against MMR if they were a.) later and b.) single vaccines? Just curious really, so feel free not to answer.

I would consider vaccinating against measles - particularly for ds2 who is approaching puberty. In fact if available locally I might do it - I did contact a local private GP about it fairly recently. I would be far more wary about vaccinating ds3. (And ds1 has had a measles vaccination).

I wouldn't vaccinate against rubella or mumps though. Although if I ever have a DIL I will advise her to get her rubella status checked - preferably six months or so before she wants to get pregnant. (I did get my rubella status checked before ttc).

LaVolcan Sat 28-Jul-12 21:22:01

Going slightly off topic here, I find your comments about autism being identified at six months interesting saintly. A cousin's son has been diagnosed with autism. I have no idea whether it was to do with vaccination or not. He was diagnosed sometime in his third year, but it was apparent from about six months that he was a bit slow in hitting milestones. No-one seemed unduly concerned until about 18 months when it was obvious that the delay was outside the range of normal.

I think it was a really recent paper. And I think it also said that in the first 6 months autistic babies hit social milestones early. I have photos of ds1 playing peekaboo behind a curtain at 8 months and he raised his arms to be lifted etc as well. His crawling was odd though, but that was after he was ill. confused

PigletJohn Sat 28-Jul-12 21:48:44

Tabitha8 "The OPV is a live vaccine and caused polio in some children."

It also prevented polio in some children.

Do you believe that the number of cases it caused were greater, or less, than the nuber of cases it prevented? By a factor of what? A hundred? A thousand? A million?

Oooh piglet - do you know the answer to my previous question about not giving DTP during a polio epidemic? Was the concern provoked polio?

LaVolcan - think it might have been this that I read (sorry can't remember blush )

AHA found it - I was sure I could remember reading something about an association between paralytic polio and the DTP.

As an aside I love the writing style in that paper. Love the phrase 'no evil effects' grin

Will read it properly tomorrow after I have slept.

LaVolcan Sat 28-Jul-12 22:27:34

Thanks saintly - I have had a quick look at the link. Certainly my cousin's son seemed fine at his christening at 4 months. It was slowness in movement which was first noted as a problem.

Just putting this here so I can read it properly tomorrow post inoculation poliomyelitis. Again, on a first browse I really love the language style - and I love the way the author sort of ums and ahs - and says it might be this or this, before coming to his conclusions, it reads as very balanced. Very conversational maybe.

There's been some research into movement and autism. I think this is probably the best known paper on that sort of thing

Catatonia can be a problem for some with very severe autism (not ds1 grin ). Lorna Wing published an interesting paper on that. And difficulties with movement can be seen - particularly in a lot of severely affected individuals.

ElaineBenes Sun 29-Jul-12 01:49:42

Well, saintly, I predicted it would happen, I just didn't think it would happen as fast as it did.

As soon as you found an epidemioogical study which demonstrated vaccine damage (albeit from over 60 years ago on a vaccine no longer used) out it comes with nary a mention of the fact that this is a flawed epidemioogical study, you know, the ones that can't prove anything and are flawed.

Where is your hyper criticism now? Or is that reserved only for studies which don't agree with what you've already decided? Is epidemiology only flawed when it shows vaccines are safe?

I find this study reassuring. It shows that even 60 years ago with less sophisticated reporting and statistical techniques, side effects were detected and quantified. Probably then there was no decent alternative to the risk of the polio vaccine and it was one of the reasons the vaccine injury compensation program was set up in the us.

Quite ironically, Bradford Hill was the first to demonstrate the association between smoking and lung cancer. He also set out the necessary criteria to demonstrate causality. He's a hero in the world of epidemiology!

LeBFG Sun 29-Jul-12 07:01:41

Great post Elaine. You did indeed predict it.

Aside to Volcan: that's why I said "most". Can you think of a vaccine other than rubella for which the main motivation is to protect an unrelated third party? Flu jabs I would see as primarily to protect the vaccinee (does this term even exist?). Even with rubella, I vaccinated my DS to protect my (possible) future GC. I'm not worried if immunity wanes. It can wane with the real infection in any case and some immunity for some period is better than none. I accept that all vaccines are not perfect all the time - but they are better than the alternative - NONE.

More research, we all agree at least, is a good thing.

LaVolcan Sun 29-Jul-12 07:37:30

BFG - Other vaccine - yes, the plan to offer the nasal spray for flu to children between the ages of 2-14.

Health Secretary Nicola Sturgeon said: “The evidence suggests that extending the vaccination programme to include children will help to reduce the spread of flu as children are more likely to spread the virus.”

I'm middle-aged, my children are older than that, and I don't have any grandchildren; as a result my contact these days with children is quite limited - I would imagine I am not untypical. Why not offer me the spray directly, if you are trying to reduce the spread in an older age group?

Rubella vaccine: why vaccinate a son - he is not going to get pregnant? If vaccines are not perfect all the time and the immunity has ceased, how is that better protection than no vaccine?

With measles & whooping cough I can see the logic of offering vaccination to children because the disease is more serious in them. Rubella - offering protection to babies in my opinion is more suspect because it sets up a false confidence that the protection is there. How many women do check their rubella status before they try to conceive? How many get pregnant accidentally?

Elaine As soon as you found an epidemioogical study which demonstrated vaccine damage (albeit from over 60 years ago on a vaccine no longer used) out it comes with nary a mention of the fact that this is a flawed epidemioogical study, you know, the ones that can't prove anything and are flawed.

Umm, but you were quite happy to provide us with a story about death from measles in 1962 in your attempt to convince us that measles is always more dangerous than vaccination. I saw saintly's post as one of historical interest rather than something which applied now. It can still be useful to learn from the past though.

LeBFG Sun 29-Jul-12 08:18:46

Have you read my post? Flu is for the vaccinee primarily - there are side benefits for other age groups. Rubella: my SON is vaccinated to protect my future CHILDREN. This is my selfish contribution to herd immunity - I am more interested in protecting my own family than other unrelated people.

LeBFG Sun 29-Jul-12 08:25:12

Just a quick link to show the at-risk groups with regards to flu. Quite a broad range of people. Everyone I know who's got the flu vaccine was to prevent themselves getting ill. Just because the disease is common and largely people fully recover, it can be easily to forget the levels of morbidity and mortality remain really high.

Eh? I haven't said anything about the study at all. I asked whether anyone could remember the research (because I had a vague inkling in my mind that there was some relationship between DTP and paralytic polio and I couldn't remember what that was. No-one responded, so I posted it here to show I had found it and for others to read who might be interested ).

I think there was some sort of association between cases of paralytic polio and tonsillectomies as well??? You may find this weird but I find it interesting.I actually find it fascinating that polio - which is usually a mild illness (is it 95% of cases a asymptomatic - which causes it's own problems of course?) can be triggered into a devastating disease by muscle damage ( I think, haven't read properly yet). Something that you (one) would think was unrelated. I think there were issues in some areas with epidemic polio giving antibiotics by injection (because parents thought it would work better) rather than giving equally effective oral antibiotics which was leading to injury provoked polio. And I think that might have been fairly recently, although tbh I can't remember.

You also appear to have totally misunderstood/misrepresented what I said about epidemiological studies. I said that in the case of autism and MMR the epidemiological studies carried out to date were flawed (because the MMR subgroup is too small and the studies to date have treated autism as one thing). I didn't mean that the whole methodology was flawed. I did actually link to some epidemiological studies that I thought looked promising. As I believe they noted one of the problem with autism is that no-one knows how many conditions you're actually dealing with.

You really do twist what I say to assume that I hold some sort of extreme viewpoint.

Oh okay. The JCVI minutes recognise that the reaction to vaccinating healthy children is likely to be mixed (and they include HCP's as well as parents in that) and the BBC says in the same way, extending flu vaccination to healthy children will provide most health benefits to others although I can't find a direct quote anywhere for that.

LaVolcan Sun 29-Jul-12 08:52:57

Yes, I read your post and was asking a question. I will draw my own conclusions as to your use of capitals to shout at me. I thought your response would be 'herd immunity.'

I have read your link and the high risk groups are those I thought they were. Young children are not fully defined, but under 5 are specified as being at high risk, so that seems a reasonable definition. No one describes a 14 year old as a 'young child'. So why is a flu vaccine going to be offered to primary and secondary school children from 2014? Not primarily for their own benefit, it would seem.

Rubella - is it wise to rely on 'herd immunity'? I have just asked my adult daughter whether she knew if the immunity could wear off and she answered no.The old policy of offering vaccination to girls just before puberty seemed quite sensible - it would offer protection at the time when some would soon become sexually active and whose future children might be at risk. It would be a good idea to offer boosters to those going away to university, but do they?

LeBFG Sun 29-Jul-12 09:12:31

Argh...going in circles here!

The capitals were to repeat what I'd said in the previous post as from your reply I can assume you didn't notice. No shouting going on, promise.

Why wouldn't 5-14yo benefit directly from the flu jab? They may be less at risk, but that doesn't imply no risk. In fact, the 1918 flu outbreak killed predominately the young.

If you can only argue rubella and flu as vaccines used primarily for herd immunity, then your on weak ground - find some other examples. Rubella certainly has strong herd immunity arguments, espcially as immunity wanes. But I'm only partially going to accept that. Someone else with much better understanding of vaccinations (probably Elaine on another thread) said that the policy of vaccinating teenage girls only (although logical) was not effective. Only when everyone was vaccinated did we see some really inway into preventing congential rubella - thank goodness. If the rubella vaccine gave 100% immunity throughout the childbearing years, then vaccinating teenage girls only would of course be the most sensible, and cheapest, option. Hopefully, they will develop this vaccine.

My original point is that most vaccines are in the interest of the individual being vaccinated. The point still stands.

LaVolcan Sun 29-Jul-12 09:21:13

If you can only argue rubella and flu as vaccines used primarily for herd immunity, then your on weak ground - find some other examples.

I read this as being your argument, it's certainly not mine.

If the policy of only vaccinating teenage girls was deemed not to be fully effective, it implies that vaccination is not as effective as the staunch 'vaccinate at all costs' people would try to convince us.

LeBFG Sun 29-Jul-12 09:31:24

To put this dog to rest: We were discussing risk factors, you Volcan brought in herd immunity "Some people do appear to be damaged by vaccines - is it an acceptable risk if the greater good of the general population is served?", I argued this was not a main factor motivating an individual to vaccinate, though if often quoted for flu and rubella. You said, ahh, but what about flu and rubella? Let's leave this shall we?

About your second point, I'm glad you're bringing this up as it's one of my bugbears. So many anti-vaxers (sorry if you don't like the term, it's just easier to write) will say that an incompletely effective vaccine is as good as none at all. If the current vaccines are so poor, why don't we see more cases of congential rubella? I just read this shocker. It makes me all the more certain to post on these pages if it can incentivise some people to go and vaccinate.

I know you don't like me linking to papers LeBFG, but there are some potential issues with imperfect vaccinations.

The Read lab has a lot of papers available online in full. If you're interested in vaccination definitely worth reading, some really interesting papers - not just on vaccination (and I don't think the work on vaccination could remotely be described as an anti-vaccination, quite the opposite).

I grew up living next door to someone who had congenital rubella syndrome. And I had to tell someone who was in her first trimester that she had been exposed to rubella. That experience and her reaction 'oh don't worry, I checked my rubella status before ttc; I'm immune' was actually what made me check mine a few years later. I hadn't actually realised until then that you could request a check at the GP's.

LeBFG Sun 29-Jul-12 11:18:32

Now there too saintly I'm glad you posted that link. It seems to be a favoured topic of yours. I very much like the work done on vaccine selection pressures. Clearly a promising path for the improvement of vaccines. As you are aware, antibiotics and viral drugs all have the same problems. For years we're known about mosquiotos developing resistance to DDT. But what do you do if the weapon works for a while and then turns out not to be as effective? You improve the weapon. With the vaccine research, the problem appears to be with vaccine reponses that allow the pathogen to grow slowly in the host rather than just blitzing it. The worst culprits being malaria and anthrax vaccines. Really good vaccines in this respect include smallpox, polio and measles.

LeBFG Sun 29-Jul-12 11:22:40

I appreciate your rubella argument, but many women get pregnant by accident. I didn't TTC my DS and only found out my immunity status after getting pregnant. THis is why I think it's 'idealist' (to an extreme) to expect this strategy to work to eradicate congenital rubella.

Yes, you're right, it is a favourite topic of mine. I have been very interested in the evolution of resistance since about ooh 1994 when I attended a talk where John Maynard Smith was talking very passionately about antibiotic resistance and how it had been avoidable. John Maynard Smith was always a bit of a hero of mine (even more so after getting to talk to him in a small group of prostgrad students - a remarkably lovely man as well as a complete and utter genius) so he sparked a bit of an interest there. Actually, thinking about it, I really should read what he wrote about the evolution of human language (another interest of mine, especially as ds1's language development is bonkers).

Oh I don't think it could eradicate congenital rubella, far from it, but I think there should perhaps be more encouragement given to women to check rubella status if they think they might be ttc soon. It might prevent a few cases and some heartbreak.

Ditto perhaps chickenpox status. I was exposed to chickenpox while pregnant and hadn't had it. Cue a few weeks of panic from me until I found out I was immune anyway.

LeBFG Sun 29-Jul-12 12:04:02

Yes, I've met him too. To be fair, in the paper you link to (which at least I have a hope of understanding), the case is still very strong to maintain high vaccination rates. It's only at low vaccination rates on one type of vaccine where mortality increases with vaccination coverage (from 0 to about 20%) and thereafter declines. You say this points to "some potential issues with imperfect vaccinations." As far as I'm concerned ALL vaccines are imperfect (e.g. the new polio vaccine is less effective than the older one as it was made safer). Does this mean they don't have great benefits? We should strive to develop new and better vaccines than trying to deny the immense positive impact they have had on public health.

LeBFG Sun 29-Jul-12 12:10:01

And for someone who has had these scares and personal experiences of rubella for example, I'm surprised you aren't more pro-vaccine. My nudge came after I bought DS home (born 7 weeks early) and met the neighbour. Her kids that week developed measles and were hospitalised. I swore a lot at the selfish attitude that she didn't want to vaccinate her precious DC for fear of vaccine damage when she came so close to exposing my very small and vulnerable baby. It brings it home when we think the 'at risk' group never includes us - then suddenly realise we are.

Oh I agree, I just like their approach to various different questions. John Maynard Smith (iirc - and it was a long time ago) was of the opinion that it would have been far better to have avoided the problems with antibiotic resistance in the first place by applying some common sense to their use, and I wonder whether the same is true, in some cases with vaccination. Of course it's going to vary from vaccination to vaccination. And while the advantages of vaccinating against something like polio are very clear and obvious, I'm not so sure that's the case for something like mumps.

Although I have moved far from the field now I am, at heart, an evolutionary biologist. I always will be. I can't help but find their approach to a wide range of topics interesting.

As someone who hasn't vaccinated some of her children due to their own personal risk/benefit analysis it's obviously of a lot of interest to me if a vaccination policy is likely to lead to more severe disease in unvaccinated individuals. The reverse is true as well - if a policy leads to lower virulence which it may do. Both outcomes have the potential to affect my decisions for my children (or my advice to them as they grow older). It's still ultimately guesswork, but another piece of information to plug into their individual analysis.

LeBFG. I'm really am not anti vaccination. Nor do I under estimate the impact childhood diseases can have. As I have already said my mother is deaf in one ear from measles. But, I live daily with severe autism. It has affected every aspect of my family's life and has far reaching consequences that will continue to affect the people I love after I die. I keep as up to date as I can with research into the development of autism and I make the best decisions I can for my children by taking into account our family history and current research.

I would never tell someone to vaccinate or not vaccinate. Whilst I have no issue with vaccination itself I do have issues with the way mass vaccination policy is decided and delivered and the ways in which potential adverse reactions are dealt with. It's therefore imo an entirely individual decision. I would never tell someone they should risk the disease, or the vaccination - that's their choice to make, certainly not mine.

My unvaccinated baby ds2 was exposed to whooping cough by two unvaccinated children. At the time I wasn't sure whether he was going to be vaccinated or not, I'd just delayed at the time because he had been very ill at 6 weeks.

TBH I didn't feel the way you describe about your neighbour. At the time ds1 was just post regression (pre-dx) and having a terrible time and I had no idea what to do, I could fully understand why people might have concerns.

As it happens ds2 didn't catch whooping cough until a few years later when he caught it from a vaccinated child (it was never diagnosed as such, but I'm fairly certain it was WC, it fitted the symptoms exactly).

Tabitha8 Sun 29-Jul-12 15:37:08

Saintly What you were saying about vaccination being halted during outbreaks of polio is talked about in Richard Halvorsen's book.
Piglet From the same book, he says that, from the 1970s onwards, the OPV used in the UK caused more cases of paralysis that the disease.

PigletJohn Sun 29-Jul-12 15:55:37

I don't know the author you mention, and I don't know his credentials.

If, as you suggest, it is true that "from the 1970s onwards, the OPV used in the UK caused more cases of paralysis that the disease" this fact is presumably sourced from official documentation and statistics that I can easily access. Can you tell me where I should look, please? Is it published by the WHO, the NHS, the Lancet or some other mainstream source?

PigletJohn Sun 29-Jul-12 16:01:38

p.s.
since you raised the point, can you answer my previous question please
"Do you believe that the number of cases it caused were greater, or less, than the number of cases it prevented? By a factor of what? A hundred? A thousand? A million?"

Tabitha8 Sun 29-Jul-12 16:07:54

adc.bmj.com/content/78/6/571.full
Read some of that, although the ref in Halvorsen's book is different.
I'll type that up in a minute. You'll have to find the document yourself if it isn't online.
Richard Halvorsen is a GP, by the way.

Tabitha8 Sun 29-Jul-12 16:10:23

Halvorsen's ref:
Chamberlain
Poliomyelitis vaccination: BMJ 1987; 295: 158-9
I feel as though I'm being interrogated. I'm merely reading a book written by someone else.

Tabitha8 Sun 29-Jul-12 16:11:43

As for whether or not you can easily access the BMJ, how should I know?

Tabitha8 Sun 29-Jul-12 16:13:49

Are you asking me my belief as to the numbers involved, or the facts?

Oh that's probably where I read it originally Tabitha

Piglet - it's usually suggested to the most effective strategy is to use OPV in areas where there are polio outbreaks and IPV in areas where there is no circulating polio. The UK was late to switch to IPV compared to places such as the States. DS1 for example received OPV, whereas I think had we been in the States at the time he would have received IPV.

a brief summary. If you want further details the link provides more information.