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.

The links do work. I suggest you read parent 12's.

Why did 12 contradict herself? And why didn't Wakefield call witnesses?

I mean, obviously she got a referral later, but the initial contact was with Wakefield, from details from a mum at a toddler group. Doesn't that seem a bit of an odd way of doing things?

Doesn't it also strike anyone else as a bit odd that parent12 seems to have taken details of Wakefield and of a firm of solicitors from this other mum at the toddler group?
When I enrolled my child in a medical trial it certainly didn't work quite like this...
Cheers.

Um no, not really. Maybe you've never had to seek very specialist appointments. My referral ( from the paediatrician) to a neurologist came after I contacted a researcher in the States who put me in contact with a paed neurologist at Addenbrookes who wrote a supporting letter to the paed suggesting a paediatric neurologist locally who then referred.

She doesn't contradict herself seeker.

What's with all the cheers.

Sorry the paed referred after the Addenbrookes neurologist wrote to her with a suggestion. Added too much in there. If you're seeking very specialist advice it's not unusual to find a name. In our case it was a good referral - the man was a genius (& have to admit from previous experience I wasn't expecting much).

currentbuns - re "So, in a nutshell - you diagnosed the rubella yourself, ably assisted by Dr. Google"

Yes, because that is what "DS' paediatrician said 'It's probably rubella' after examining him & hearing about symptoms from the past few days" means

You say things like this and then are shocked when I point out that some of your posts make you look not very intelligent.

There is actually a topic of discussion here above and beyond your trying to attack me for having chosen a different path than yourself. Maybe try to come back to it, if you bickered quite enough.

Someone wrote "Why on earth would I take responsibility for people who are not my responsibility?" and I get passive aggressive faces. There are parents who take out their infectious children, knowing they are infectious and there was one on here declaring she doesn't take responsibility for others. Well, neither did the person who took their poxy child to Tesco that nearly killed my best friend's brother. No, the situations are not exactly the same but I was fecked off at the poster who clearly does not give a shit about anyone but herself.

Saintly,
She says in your link that a chance meeting alerted her to a study that was looking into a link between autism and bowel disorders and the MMR and that her GP was happy to refer her to Walker-Smith. Her evidence to the GMC shows the parent gave her Wakefield's contact details, and she contacted him direct not via her GP. This was definitely before 19th July 1996. She also contacted Dawbarns solicitors. Her letter of referral from her GP is dated 23rd September, by which point she had already applied for legal aid via Dawbarns (20th August).
It just seems that the idea that her GP referred her son to Walker-Smith is rather simplifying the actual situation?
Or may be I am just reading too much into it?
Cheers.

Cote how about you stop abusing people who don't agree with you? Your tone is really unpleasant as I suspect you know

I don't agree with your definition of "abuse" but don't care enough about it to argue.

There is "report" button you can click next to each post, FYI.

He was struck off because what he did was unethical and inappropriate and therefore it was not appropriate for him to continue to be a doctor. The transcript of the evidence of parent 12 exposes the complete bias and lack of randomisation involved in the process of his research.

Well magdalen yesterday I have the contact details of a doctor to a parent in response to a specific question. I said 'oh the God of that is X' - & googled his contact details. For any subsequent referral to anyone she will have to go backwards and get referred via her GP or paediatrician. Is it unusual to contact a specialist on strength of parent recommendation & then go back to get the referral after speaking to them - not in my world. I've done it & I have aided others in doing it - in both cases more than once.? I see nothing unusual in it. It would be utterly pointless me presenting myself to my GP & asking for a referral without a name as the referrals I have requested have always been very specific & I've made a point of talking to them or someone working in the same field first. I've been doing that for more than a decadez Actually thinking about it even ds1's very first specialist appointment came about after I met someone at mother and toddler group whose sister had had a specialist appointment with 2 people. I spoke to her, got the contact details, phoned them, they said i needed to get a referral, went to my GP & asked for a referral to the same 2 people. That was 12 years ago. I've done the same every time since although may have asked around rather than relied on chance meetings. That first one was definitely chance though.

As for whether child 12's mother is mistaken and imagining her child's symptoms or highly suggestible I don't see any reason to think so.

The poster who said she didn't take responsibility for others was referring to vaccines. I don't recall anywhere in her post where she said she would take out an infectious child without a care in the world for anyone else. Just because she isn't putting Joe Bloggs children before her own, this doesn't mean she doesn't give a shit about anyone else.

I am well aware of that but I prefer to think/hope that adults can moderate their conversation so as not to need such things.

JoeBloggs' children...lovely.

Iirc, AW's was a case study of 12 children, not a large scale study pretending to be randomised controlled trial or something. Not sure why you think it had to be randomised.

Jimjams can explain this in much better terms, as she has many times before on MN.

I don't understand your random holding and PA comment, kitten.

Saintly,
Did you contact a firm of solicitors too? Did you apply for legal aid? Did they put you in touch with other parents in the area so that you wouldn't feel so isolated?
Because all of that sounds pretty odd to me?
Cheers.

Bolding, even.

In a properly controlled sample, patients would be selected at random rather than having a mum at a playgroup suggest to another mum that MMR caused her child's autism and then getting involved with a consultant AND a solicitor in order to pursue a vaccine damage claim.

Cheers

Um no I didn't get in contact with solicitors as I had nothing to sue for. I do know lots of mothers who HAVE contacted solicitors - usually for birth injuries - & I have been present in conversations where names have been swapped.

Cheers.

magdalen I suspect that your 'cheers' may be annoying jimjams. Just a heads up on that one!

Thank you, Sneezing

If anyone is interested, DS' chicken pox spots appeared on the 1st day of our ski holiday, several years ago and we kept him in the hotel room for the entire week. I also told hotel management, reception, and individual room service personnel about DS so that those who hadn't had CP and/or were pregnant wouldn't come near our room.

So no, refusing unnecessary vaccines for our babies does not mean that we are inconsiderate despicable people who would deliberately put other people at risk