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.

Newmumonline

I am so glad that you have completely researched this topic via YouTube. I am even more impressed that you have taken your references from the high renowned impartial source "natural news". I feel really grateful to you for sharing your findings with us. I am particularly impressed about your confidence that carrot juice can ward off measles!

Wadham,
I thought you'd gone, welcome back. Let's look at some other documents shall we, from the BMJ.
Just a couple for starters.
www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c7452
It's titled"Wakefield?s article linking MMR vaccine and autism was fraudulent"
Here's a quote: "Who perpetrated this fraud? There is no doubt that it was Wakefield. Is it possible that he was wrong, but not dishonest: that he was so incompetent that he was unable to fairly describe the project, or to report even one of the 12 children?s cases accurately? No. A great deal of thought and effort must have gone into drafting the paper to achieve the results he wanted: the discrepancies all led in one direction; misreporting was gross. Moreover, although the scale of the GMC?s 217 day hearing precluded additional charges focused directly on the fraud, the panel found him guilty of dishonesty concerning the study?s admissions criteria, its funding by the Legal Aid Board, and his statements about it afterwards.
Furthermore, Wakefield has been given ample opportunity either to replicate the paper?s findings, or to say he was mistaken. He has declined to do either. He refused to join 10 of his coauthors in retracting the paper?s interpretation in 2004,and has repeatedly denied doing anything wrong at all. Instead, although now disgraced and stripped of his clinical and academic credentials, he continues to push his views."
Next up:
www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c5347
The tl;dr version being:
"How the link was fixed
TheLancetpaper was a case series of 12 child patients; it reported a proposed ?new syndrome? of enterocolitis and regressive autism and associated this with MMR as an ?apparent precipitating event.? But in fact:

Three of nine children reported with regressive autism did not have autism diagnosed at all. Only one child clearly had regressive autism
Despite the paper claiming that all 12 children were ?previously normal,? five had documented pre-existing developmental concerns
Some children were reported to have experienced first behavioural symptoms within days of MMR, but the records documented these as starting some months after vaccination
In nine cases, unremarkable colonic histopathology results?noting no or minimal fluctuations in inflammatory cell populations?were changed after a medical school ?research review? to ?non-specific colitis?
The parents of eight children were reported as blaming MMR, but 11 families made this allegation at the hospital. The exclusion of three allegations?all giving times to onset of problems in months?helped to create the appearance of a 14 day temporal link
Patients were recruited through anti-MMR campaigners, and the study was commissioned and funded for planned litigation"

Now obviously these articles are, to put it mildly, pretty damning of Wakefield. If he is innocent of the accusations contained in them, it's odd that he hasn't successfully sued them for libel isn't it? Well, isn't it?
Cheers.

Newmumonline

I would ask you to stop for a moment and consider the content of your blog. None of the sources you have used have quoted authoritative reports or studies for the assertions they make and the conclusions they draw are so one sided as to be almost laughable.

The Vaccine Injury Law Project - Yes MMR can cause encephalitis. The chance is about 1 in a million. However, they don't mention that for a child that catches measles the chance of encephalitis is 2,000 times greater.

NaturalNews.com - The linked article mentions the potential effects of vaccines, but completely ignores the far more likely and more serious effects of the associated diseases. (I also find it impossible to trust any sources that recommend homeopathic "remedies".)

I understand the fears about MMR and other vaccines, with so much written about the subject (I have two children with autistic spectrum conditions and so this is close to my heart). When considering these issues I have carefully considered both pro and anti arguments and the reliability of both arguments

Please check out the following link that gives a quick and informed analysis of the potential effects of both MMR and the associated diseases. I hope this is helpful to you.

www.leedsmmr.co.uk/

Thank you Cherriesarered but I think you will find my emphasis was VERY much on vitamin A and not carrot juice. But thanks for the cheap shot.
When vitamin A was used for measles, (pre-vaccines) it lowered mortality rates. When people are deficient in it, it causes problems #Fact. Glad to see that you just speed read and skimmed my post for something joke worthy.

RationalThought I am about to click on your link now, thank you.

Liska

"When vitamin A was used for measles, (pre-vaccines) it lowered mortality rates"

Stats please.

Also meant to say, regressive autism is indeed recognised, but I don't think it's recognised that it is caused by nothing at all and just happens all by itself when the regression is spectacular.

If you can accept that complications can happen following a disease then it is not such a leap of faith to accept that they happen after a vaccination.

I don't think anyone is denying that sometimes children have complications after vaccinations, are they? I'm certainly not.

seeker - here the WHO cites vitamin A as reducing complications from measles and reducing deaths. Scroll down...

www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs286/en/

RationalThought I am on your link now and reading this:
"3 in 1,000 children who get measles may die as a result of the disease itself"

That doesn't compare to UK data I have seen, where largely deaths are due to underlying health conditions in the measles patient, yet they use the words "as a result of the disease itself".

On that particular page I cannot work out what data they are basing that assertion on.
Also, it appears to be an Australian website right?

Read the footnotes on here:

www.hpa.org.uk/web/HPAweb&HPAwebStandard/HPAweb_C/1195733835814

which might explain my confusion on the above.

That seems to me to be saying that if you are vitamin A deficient, you are more likely to be seriously ill, and restoring your vitamin A levels to normal helps you to fight the disease.

That is very different from saying that you can treat measles with vitamin A.

No, seeker the WHO refers to well nourished children as well, the exact phrasing is;

'All children in developing countries diagnosed with measles should receive two doses of vitamin A supplements, given 24 hours apart. This treatment restores low vitamin A levels during measles that occur even in well-nourished children and can help prevent eye damage and blindness. Vitamin A supplements have been shown to reduce the number of deaths from measles by 50%.'

I think the point is that in developing countries more people will die from measles because their diets are inadequate. So they are in more need of a vitamin A supplement than a person who has contracted the disease in the UK.

But in the UK a healthy person is unlikely to die of measles, and will usually recover. Unless they are already unwell.

What NewMumOnline said was that vitamin A reduces deaths from measles and that if you are deficient in vitamin A it causes problems. She didn't say it could be used to treat measles. That is exactly what the World Health Organisation also says.

Genuine question because I'm shit at understanding stats and research:

All the figures the nhs has on their website like the number of people who will go deaf from mumps or the number of people who die from measles, where do these figures come from? Is it UK data? Or worldwide? I've always wondered but don't know how to find out.

No she didn't lottie - thisis what she said ""When vitamin A was used for measles, (pre-vaccines) it lowered mortality rates"

She did not say "when people who are deficient in vitamin A get measles and have that vitamin restored to normal levels, it lowers mortality rates in those people"

www.gov.uk/vaccine-damage-payment/overview

people should research and reach their own conclusions. I believe single immunisations and a delayed vaccination scheme would result in better herd immunity as it would allay the fears of those who do not vaccinate. re wakefield his research methods and ethics were flawed and fraudulent.

see we still have no alternative explanation then from all those who parrot the government mantra that mmr never triggers autism.

you say that tens of thousands of parents are wrong. you show remarkable faith in public health officials who introduced a known to be unsafe mmr to the uk. and you fail to offer any alternative explanation for what has happened to children observed to react badly to a live vaccine containing viruses known to cause autism and degenerative psychosis.

Interesting link cafecito - so the government does list MMR as one of the vaccinations which may be covered.

Does anyone know how often they pay out i.e. how difficult is it to get it accepted that vaccine damage was the cause of the disability?

Haven't read the replies as I imagine the autism bunch has arrived.

YANBU, but the newspapers have to also take some of the blame for their scare mongering and miss-reporting. I remember some of the newspaper articles at the time (particularly the science-hating Guardian). Unbelievably bad.

Newmumonline also said that Germnay doesn't give measles vaccine.

That's not true. For some strange reason, she was quoting a report from more than 30 years ago. Like nearly every developed country and many developing ones, Germany most certainly gives the MMR.

I'm surprised Newmumonline as I thought you'd done research

"havent read replies as i imagine the autism.bunch has arrived"

How fucking offensive is that?!! You do realise there are parents on mnet who have children that have suffered vaccine damage?

Lottie,
I notice you haven't responded to my links to papers showing there has been loads of research into any possible causative link between MMR and/or bowel disease, it's on the previous page so you might have missed it. I also linked to the google scholar search results for MMR and autism which gives you a whole host of other papers you can read. These demonstrate two things. One, there is lots and lots of research on the subject, contrary to your assertion. Two, the overwhelming scientific consensus is that there is no causative link.
It would be nice if you acknowledged these facts, and stopped claiming to the contrary as this is insulting and dismissive of the hard work of dedicated scientist.
Cheers.

"Interesting link cafecito - so the government does list MMR as one of the vaccinations which may be covered. "

Of course it does. Why wouldn't it?

Newmumonline:

I'm sorry you think I was making cheap shots but frankly your blog is irresponsible scare mongering. The last large outbreak was in Ireland about 10 years ago and 3 people died. Ireland is not a third world country and there are many immunosupressed people living in the community, you may not who they are, often they "look" okay.

Scientific knowledge is based on taking a concept or idea then doing research into that topic in a number of ways! Through laboratory studies, field research, studies collecting data about reportable diseases and prevalence rates, surveys and interviews. Basically, if a person does a study, it is peer reviewed and put in a paper in a journal. Other people then come along and design other studies which prove or disprove a theory. If lots of studies confirm or dispute a theory then the conclusions of many high quality studies bear more weight than a single study.