To think Andrew Wakefield has blood on his hands for causing so much distrust over the MMR?

[chicaguapa]

That's it really. He's caused so much damage with his stupid little study. It was years ago, he was struck off, the study was discredited, but people still don't get the MMR because of it.

NobleGirrafe, we only have singles for MMR, but I'd did make me uncomfortable at the time that so many injections were given in one go. I think they have a added another one now (not sure, have no need to know these things now my children are older) so if I had a baby now I would look into spacing them out more.

I was reassured by the consultant paediatrician that gave us singles that the other vaccinations were safe, so that was good enough for me at the time. Incidentally, he also believed MMR was safe, and made it clear that his own children had been given MMR. But then he took my concerns seriously, which is something that the NHS wasn't prepared to do.

Does anyone know if the more recent studies into MMR have looked at the children who's parents insist that the MMR caused their child to regress?

I know that at the time I was making the decision, I couldn't find any information about studies relating directly to those children, which significantly added to my distrust of the information given by the NHS.

But you might get Rubella and pass it onto someone you don't yet know is pregnant and seriously harm their unborn child!

Where is my 'lack of concern'? I take offence at that suggestion. If you bothered to read my posts on this thread you would see that I've said 'Obviously there is a small number of children who cannot be vaccinated. I support those parents in their desire to protect their children by vaccinating mine'. By which I meant, of course, that herd immunity protects the children who are medically inappropriate to be offered vaccination.
In terms of compensation, of course it's hard to get a payout. That would be because this is a very complex picture with many factors and unknowns. Showing exact cause and effect is very challenging. There is no compensation at all for a woman who has a stillborn child because of ruebella is there? The double standards on this website are, as ever, mind blowing. On any thread about chicken pox (for which there is no vaccination available on the NHS) you will find women shaming those who've set foot out of doors with a poxed child because of the potential effect on pregnant women and yet when it comes to ruebella - a more pernicious illness for the unborn foetus, we are supposed to let statement's such as Cote's pass unchallenged?

Plus if a parent thinks their child was affected by MMR amongst other things and then adopted several 'precautionary measures to prevent siblings also being autistic, then the parent cannot then state that they saved their child from autism by not having the MMR. They may not have been autistic anyway. I speak as someone who has autism in the family.

I think the psychotropic drugs my sister was on before she realised she was pregnant may be involved but I've never looked into it!

No cloudandtrees there hasn't been.

In the case of the kids I know the ones whose paediatricians have stated they think that MMR may well have played a role are not officially recorded as vaccine damaged. You'd never get the funding for such research now anyway, or get it published.

crashdoll - leaving vaccinations aside there is a lot of work going into identifying environmental factors that might be involved (and genetic/environment interactions) and I do think that's being done with a view to making autism avoidable. There's not much point investing millions of research dollars to identify markers if you don't then use that information.

And even the NHS is getting better at testing - ds1 was given a microarray a few years ago (negative).

Staying in when you have chickenpox is risk free. Having the rubella vaccination is not. It's a different argument.

Where is the evidence to link autism and MMR. There is none! The MMR is as safe as all vaccines which work on the principle of herd immunity. Measles can kill so please get vaccinated. I live in an area with a high number of measles cases, I don't want children to die from measles.

It's not a different argument at all. It's an argument about the risk assessments we all make - in terms of our own safety and in terms of public safety. The difference is that a parent who takes a poxed child out for a very brief walk or school run, keeping them away from other people, has made only an infinately small difference to the risk of that child passing on a dangerous illness. A parent who chooses (without known and proven medical reasons) not to vaccinate makes a much bigger difference to the risk of that child passing on a dangerous illness to numerous individuals.

Of course its a different argument.

Keeping a child with the pox inside does not put that child under any increased risk of anything.

Giving a child any vaccination puts them at risk of an adverse reaction. It might be a small risk, but it's still a risk.

Or are you saying rubella is 100% safe and has never caused an adverse reaction in anyone (or MMR come to that as rubella isn't freely available).

Thank you saintly. Sadly, I thought that would still be the case.

Until there has been a study involving enough children who have been vaccine damaged, I don't see how it is possible to claim that there isn't a link, when there may well be.

The risk of dying from measles is far greater than that of any vaccine damage. That is why the vaccination programme works! The reason that it isn't working right now and very young babies are being hospitalised is that people perpetuate unscientific gobblygook as if it were fact when it isn't!

yabvu,it was discredited on a technicality.

none of my 4 children have been vaccinated and they never will be unless they decide to when they are adults.

ime the people who vaccinate don't do any research of their own,they just do what they are told to by the government ad the big pharma companies.people who don't vaccinate actually spend a lot of time ad effort deciding what to do.

plus,vaccines make billions,no one makes any money out of telling people not to vaccinate,and to do things naturally,that to me speaks volumes.

My son was recently diagnosed with autism at 2.3 yrs. He had all his jabs, MMR made him poorly. But I think the autism was there from new born age and I'm glad he won't get measles AND have autism.

The risk of dying from measles is far greater than that of any vaccine damage

What? For Everyone?

healthy children dont die from measles,if they have been pumped full of toxic ingredients such as aborted fetal tissue at the age of 8 weeks,12 weeks and 16 weeks ,then yes maybe,a healthy breastfed(or even formula fed)child,there is a low risk.
doctors wouldnt want you to know that though because then you wont vaccinate and they will lose their bonus.

"yabvu,it was discredited on a technicality."

No it wasn't. And no study since- and there have been many- has been able to find a link between NMR and autism.

Trouble is parents look for explanations and autism regressions 18-24 mo often happen similar time to key jab schedule times so parents think its cause and effect.

Last year italian courts ruled that the mmr did cause autism,just type in italian parents awarded mmr and there are tos of news stories about it.

Autism is not one thing

Autisms Autisms Autisms Autisms Autisms

Of course I'm not saying vaccines (overall) are 100% 'safe'. Everything has a risk inherent, even sitting at home instead of gong out. For most parents there is no reason at all though to suppose, predict or suggest that the vaccine isn't 'safe' for their child in that the risks and liklihood of comtracting the illness vastly outweigh the known risks of the vaccination.
Measles isn't safe for any child. Ruebella isn't safe for any foetus. Tetanus and polio and diptheria aren't safe at all for anybody. Either you are prompted to protect your own child and the rest of society by vaccinating in a timely fashion OR you cannot do that for sound medical reasons OR you could do so but choose not to. If you're in the last group just don't expect a free pass in any discussion. That won't be happening because you've put everybody in the second group knowingly at risk. I don't think that's morally justifiable at all. It never ceases to surprise me that parents who have found their children cannot be vaccinated still stand up for those who choose not to do so.

Yep Ambersocks - the States as well, this year.

Doesn't mean MMR has had any effect on the autism rate, or has been responsible for the huge increase in autism over the last 20 years, but there have been payouts for individual cases.

The risk of dying from measles is far greater than that of any vaccine damage.

Yes. You are absolutely right. For the vast majority of children, the risk of dying from measles is greater than the risk of vaccine damage.

But parents don't make decisions for the vast majority of children, they make decisions for their own children that they are responsible for. And plenty of parents have to face the reality that for their children, they may well be a bigger risk of vaccine damage than there will be for the majority.

Parents cannot be criticised for doing what is best for their own children above what is best for the herd.

Andrew Wakefield is actually sueing the BMJ ad Brian Deer(think thats his name)

People should look investigate further into Brian Deer,he is one dodgy character.

Andrew Wakefield never had a chance,no one does,vaccines make too much money no one will ever know the truth.

And no study since- and there have been many- has been able to find a link between NMR and autism.

This is why I asked the question that saintly kindly answered. Perhaps they haven't been able to find a link because they haven't bothered looking at the children who have been vaccine damaged!