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.

Not to mention that some children will be far more at risk than others, which is a point that many people on this thread have decided to ignore.

Nobody has ignored it, which is why there is a list of contraindications for vaccines. But and the big but there are a lot of people who claim their child has immune problems and cant be vaccinate. There is no evidence for that at all and i have asked many time. Even specialists in the area of mitochondrial disease recommend that children suffering from this should still be vaccinated unless they had a previous bad reaction. This is because the disease themselves put more stress on the body and will cause more harm.
from mito action

"Vaccinations are critical in protecting the health of our children. All children, even those with suspected or known mitochondrial diseases, should receive the recommended vaccinations. The risks of these communicable illnesses outweigh the risk of vaccine-related reactions"

Reagrding Mr Wakefield, has anyone linked to this cartoon yet, it's rather good:
darryl-cunningham.blogspot.co.uk/2010/05/facts-in-case-of-dr-andrew-wakefield.html
I read the whole thread, but it is possible I might have missed it. Worth posting again.
Cheers.

I was so "anti-vaccine" I vaccinated my child with the regular vaccinations at the times I was told to. What a good little girl I was. Such a raving 'anti-vaccinator' I was first in the queue,

Fwiw - for children with severely compromised immune systems childhood illnesses such as measles are not the big risk. It's the every day viruses that we all carry harmlessly that kill. It's often the viruses the child or adult already has that's a problem. Google JCV virus - that's the sort of thing that kills people with compromised immune systems.

Magdalen, thanks for posting that. I have just read it and answered the questions, but for me personally, I found the whole thing pointless. My own decision was never about vaccination v non vaccination. It was about MMR v Single vaccines.

The questionnaire and the information given did not mention the possibility of using single vaccines, even on the page where it had the perfect opportunity to.

Again, it mentioned studies on vaccinated and non vaccinated children, with and without autism, but it said nothing about research done with children who had been vaccine damaged.

I was pleased to see that it did give figures about how many children would be protected after the first and second MMR vaccines, as this is something the NHS refused to do when I was making my decision. I was told by the vaccination nurse at my surgery that that the first injection wouldn't work with out the second.

The only time single vaccines were mentioned in that link, it said that children would need six injections rather than two if they had singles. This is not true! And it's exactly the sort of information that leads to distrust, and ultimately leads to non vaccination. My children had each of the three vaccines once, and then were tested for immunity. So while they did have one more injection than they would have done if they had been given two MMRs, they didn't have to have any vaccine injected into them needlessly. (Ds 2 had to have rubella twice as it didn't work the first time, but he ended up with protection earlier than he would have done if he'd had 2 MMRs).

So in a nutshell, a that link does absolutely nothing to make me think I made the wrong decision over MMR, if anything, it convinces me I did the right thing by rejecting it.

lottie the 1 in 100,000 risk for a serious reaction was for the mmr vaccine (taken from nhs website).

I do agree that there are some (small number) of people who are at increased risk of a reaction to a vaccine. These people should not have the vaccine and need to rely on herd immunity to protect them.

Has anyone except me actually read wakefield's patent application? Or have we just read Deer Brian's take on it (or someone reporting what Deer Brian said) I'm pleased to see parents of autistic kids being ridiculed in that cartoon. I'm sure my friends whose kids ended up in HDU/ICU post MMR didn't think anything of it until Wakefield came along. FFS.

The parents of the original 12 kids are more than happy to talk. Shame no-one wants to listen to them. The GMC refused to allow them to submit evidence & Leveson decided not to allow them to testify a week before they were due to appear. Maybe someone should -you know- actually talk to them. Or any of the others who link MMR with their child's condition. They're happy to talk on the whole. Instead they get ridiculed as being too stupid to notice a regression & sometimes severe physical changes or thick for thinking a child's seizure might be related to that vaccinatuon they just had. Then they get told they're not socially responsible. Oh the irony.

Clouds,
Can I just clarify (and I am sorry if you've been through all this before, I have read the thread but being new here I didn't have a sort of mental image of you so find it hard to put individual posts to names in my mind, avatars would help- is there a way to view that shows avatars?):
You decided to opt for single vaccines rather than the MMR because?
I believe you said it wasn't Wakefield, so what was your reasoning?
You therefore decided single vaccines (none of which currently are licensed in this country) were the safer option. Again, why?
You went, presumably, to a private clinic and paid for the single vaccines. Your children received single doses of the unlicensed vaccines.
They then tested antibody titres and declared your children had lifelong immunity, is that correct?
I just want o have this clear in my mind, apologies for the intrusion. If it was a clinic I'd be interested to know which one, but quite understand if you don't want to say.
Cheers.

Although as I have said before a reassuring number of doctors do have a brain & will quietly agree that MMR may have played a role in individual cases. Thank heavens for that.

Saintly,
Do you mean this patent application:
briandeer.com/wakefield/vaccine-patent.htm
Cheers.

NB - according to the dept of health the single vaccines are unlicensed because the vaccine manufacturers have not requested a licence. At least that's what they told me 12 ish years ago.

'Unlicensed' makes them sound terribly dodgy when actually it's more of a paper exercise - well according to the letter I received 12 years ago blah blah blah

Actually that same letter told me that I was wrong to think that the MMR scare had affected confidence and vaccination rates had remained high. So god knows what the last ten years has been about.

The HPA page on single vaccines is quite comprehensive:
www.hpa.org.uk/Topics/InfectiousDiseases/InfectionsAZ/MMR/GeneralInformation/
Cheers.

Yes that patent for the treatment for autistic enetrocolitis which may also have had a use as a safer vaccination. I've never been quite clear what the problem with a safer vaccination is I must admit. Also note who submitted the patent - it wasn't a get rich quick scheme for Wakefield, the money would have gone to the Royal Free. It's not actually all that unusual for universities to try to turn research into business these days. Or is it only big Pharma that's allowed to develop drugs?

Magdalen, I posted this (in response to someone else) earlier, which might help answer your questions.

My decision was based on many things, AW was just one of them. I was also influenced by the fact that I could not get straight information and answers to my questions out of the NHS. I was influenced by the fact that the then prime minister was telling us to vaccinate our babies with MMR when he wouldn't say whether he had done so himself. I was influenced by the fact that I knew the NHS were screwing the statistics about unvaccinated children by recoding children who had been vaccinated by singles as completely unvaccinated, which was in my view and attempt to scare people into choosing MMR. I was influenced by parents who believe their child was severely damaged by MMR.

I was influenced partly by AW, but that could have so easily been changed if more studies actually looked at the children who had regressed after the MMR, but that didn't happen, and still hasn't happened. Studies at children who have had the MMR and been unaffected, or looking at children who have some form of autism just wasn't enough for me to feel confident about what I was expected to inject into my child. You wouldn't go about proving that strawberries are red by looking at potatoes, would you?

The vaccines were licensed on a 'named patient basis' or something like that. And they were licensed in other countries whose health care systems I have no reason not to trust. It was a long time ago now, so I don't remember all the explanations that I was given at the time, but I do remember that I was satisfied that I was making the best choice I could for my child.

I don't think I was told my children had lifelong immunity, just that they had a strong immunity (except with ds2s rubella).

The consultant paediatrician we used was Dr Primavesi

at independent expert groups.

Did a comedian write that?

The patent clearly says mmr is unsafe and here is a safe version I have invented and whats more it can cure vaccine damage as well

The GMC refused to allow them to submit evidence
You claim you have read the gmc transcripts. You make things up as you go along. <a class="break-all" href="//Pdl.dropbox.com/u/26719415/Daily/Day_028.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Parent 12 did give evidence and Wakefield, Murch and Walker-Smith were more than capable of calling the parents to give evidence on their behalf, they chose not to, in fact Wakefield chose not to present any defence at all.

the gmc transcripts if anyone is interested

The thing is, contrary to what some have said, we are not told by the NHS to do what we are told. The NHS provides us with the opportunity to vaccinate if we so wish and teh consequences of not vaccinating are now clear. Noone forces us, we are lucky to live in a country where we are given the option. I have worked in the third world, I have seen kids with polio etc. It's horrific. I am bloody glad we have the option to vaccinate.

Nothing wrong with a safer vaccine, as long as you dont falsify evidence against another vaccine to make a place for your own vaccine in the market.

parent 12s evidence

Just coming along to say that the parents could have given evidence, and one did. But it's already been said.

There is soooooooo much misinformation around.

The parents were not granted legal aid to represent their interests. 8 wrote to the hearing but their evidence was rejected. statement by parent 12

statement by 8 of the 12

another statement from a parent referring to having no voice

I suppose you have to choose who to believe.

Your links dont work.
Again you said the parents were not allowed to give evidence, that was clearly untrue as i have linked to parent 12s evidence. The court case was not about the parents, it was about Wakefield, Murch and Walker Smith conduct, there was nothing stopping them calling any of the parents as witnesses if they felt they were needed.

You claimed the parents did not know how brian deer got hold of their records, but available on line is Justice Eadie's judgement that wakefield should pass them over as part of the libel case.

Why did Wakefield not call them as witnesses?

The links do work, by the way.

Saintly,
Do you think that parent12 is telling the truth when she says her GP referred her to Walker-Smith (as she claims in your link above), or when she says in her evidence (p 28 of bruffin's link) that she initially contacted Mr Wakefield directly, from contact details the other parent gave her at the toddler group? That she didn't go through her GP?
It's probably me misreading something here, but it just struck me as a bit odd.
Cheers.