to think it's not terribly helpful to keep referring to parents who haven't MMR'd as "whack jobs"...

[MsGillis]

..or morons, or unfit parents, or up there with people who drink and drive?

I appreciate that people have very strong feelings around the subject, but I think that we need to understand that there are a significant number of parents who didn't/haven't vaccinated, not because they are crystal waving nutjobs, but because they are actually scared shitless and paralysed into indecision?

Surely there are ways and means to communicate information, and arrogantly shouting about how one person is right and anyone who disagrees is all kinds of nobhead is not going to be conducive in opening up reasonable dialogue?

Jimjams,
I have never once said any parents are stupid. Not once. I find you claiming I have extremely offensive.
Either demonstrate that I have ever said anything of the sort or take that back.
Cheers.

"what the courts decide is not necessarily what science indicates"

My understanding of the legal system is that no compensation is paid out to anybody if there is any doubt as to who the guilty party is.

Is your understanding different?

LaVolcan

"My understanding of the legal system is that no compensation is paid out to anybody if there is any doubt as to who the guilty party is.

Is your understanding different?"

I have no doubt that the judgment of Judge Lucio Ardigo (The Ordinary Court of Rimini, Civil Division, Labour Section) is scientifically meaningless and of no probative value whatever.

Just one for the future: if this appealed judgment is overturned will
you come here and say that the higher court's judgment is definitive and that you retract every allegation you've made against the MMR vaccine?

(In case you ask, I won't accept that it makes any difference to the science whichever way it goes. It's a court case, and therefore will incorporate such things as legal notions of evidential thresholds, burdens of evidence, tort law causation policies and statutory presumptions. It's not a measure of scientific consensus.)

Do you really think there is only 1 case where compensation was awarded, and only in a country you somehow look down on? (Think before you answer - it's a trick question )

Oh I'm sorry magdalen I thought that I would also add that whilst I have every respect and sympathy for any parents, at the same time I would not actually regard their opinions of the genesis of their children's autism as evidence of a link between the MMR and regressive autism meant that you thought the poor fools were a little too simple to understand what happened to their children. I did in the past (not on this thread) mention that in some of the cases I know their doctors agreed with them but then you started demanding the names of these doctors & said it didn't count unless you could speak to them directly to confirm what was said. Which is clearly just a little bonkers (& pretty much irrelevant to this thread anyway).

Yes I have spoken with researchers who have expressed opinions in private although I'm not quite sure why you're bringing it up as I haven't mentioned them at all on this thread. I have only linked to statements made by researchers publically & only discussed those.

No, I don't think that was the only case. And I don't look down on Italy. But I don't believe scientific consensus is established in any court room. That's the job of research, peer review, repeatable results and the scientific method generally.

And the science says 'no'.

So, now, what about my question. Any answer?

(Oh by the way, if you were thinking of the one UK case I believe the medical member of the panel dissented.)

Jimjams,
I am not saying they are stupid, not in the least. You're the one who appears to be doing that. You really are a piece of work, saying I have said that they're stupid when I have done absolutely nothing of the kind.
Regarding all those doctors and medics who tell you they have evidence of regressive autism, I don't it's particulary bonkers to ask for names. You go on about them enough. You also say they're happy to talk about this link between MMR and regressive autism you seem so convinced exsists, but which you seem utterly unable to provide any evidence of.
You have spoken with these conveniently unnamed researchers, you say. Well as far as I am concerned that means nothing at all. You say I have called parents stupid, which I have not.
What you say other people say seems unreliable.
Some actual evidence, would, as I keep saying be really very much appreciated.
Cheers.

You have said you don't believe that parents are capable of correctly recognising the reasons for a regression.

I haven't gone on about doctors and medics at all on this thread magdalen - you're the one who mentioned them. Not me.

I have provided quotes from an immunologist working on autism at the UC Davis. She is highly respected in her field and is quoted as saying this: Judy Van de Water, Ph.D., is an immunologist at the University of California, Davis, who is directing an investigation, funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), into the potential environmental risk factors that may be behind the rise in autism. "A healthy child should do fine with our current vaccination schedule," she says, "but you can't always know how robust a child's immune system will be prior to vaccination." Some experts suggest that some children who develop autism have faulty immune systems. A 2008 study published in the journal Autism Research compared levels of immunoglobulin (antibodies that play a role in immunity) in normally developing children with the levels in children with autism. It showed that children with autism had lower levels of immunoglobulin, suggesting "an underlying defect in immune function." A 2009 study published in the journal Brain, Behavior and Immunity did a similar comparison and found abnormalities in the "natural killer cells" (the big guns of the immune system) of children with autism spectrum disorders, which "may predispose them to the development of autoimmunity and/or adverse neuroimmune interactions during critical periods of development." "Since some vaccines are designed to mimic infections," Van de Water says, "you can imagine how sick you could be if you get nine at once and your immune system is not working optimally for any number of reasons." She and her team are developing a heel-stick test that will determine the health of a child's immune system before immunization, but it's still years away from FDA approval. In the meantime, if your child has a bad response to an early vaccine acting very lethargic for more than 24 hours and running a fever of 100 degrees Fahrenheit or higher -- Van de Water suggests that it may sound a warning about future vaccinations. For other signs of how the state of a patient's immune system impacts immunization, visit the CDC website (cdc.gov).

and this (and I've copied a bit more in this case)

Experts on autism spectrum disorders believe that most cases are caused by a combination of genetic vulnerabilities and environmental factors. There may be hundreds of roads to autism, involving numerous combinations of genes and external factors. Could thimerosal or some other aspect of vaccines be one of these factors? "It's always possible that there's a small subset of kids that have this vulnerability," says Dr. Isaac Pessah, director of the Center for Children's Environmental Health and Disease Prevention at the University of California, Davis. Pessah's lab is looking at dozens of possible environmental factors, including pesticides, plastics and flame-retardants. "This is a very emotional debate," he says, "and we need more research directed at these questions." It's difficult to draw any clear lessons from the case of Hannah Poling, other than the dire need for more research. One plausible conclusion is that pediatricians should avoid giving small children a large number of vaccines at once, even if they are thimerosal-free. Young children have an immature immune system that's ill-equipped to handle an overload, says Dr. Judy Van de Water, an immunologist who works with Pessah at U.C. Davis. "Some vaccines, such as those aimed at viral infections, are designed to ramp up the immune system at warp speed," she says. "They are designed to mimic the infection. So you can imagine getting nine at one time, how sick you could be." In addition, she says, there's some evidence, that children who develop autism may have immune systems that are particularly slow to mature. Van de Water worries that current vaccine schedules may be overly aggressive for some children. She suggests that parents who are concerned about vaccine safety ask their pediatricians to give fewer at a time. And, she adds, don't vaccinate a child when he or she is ill.^

and yes (a) I know thimerosal is not in the MMR and (b) yes I realise they are expressing an opinion - one I happen to think is worth listening to.

On a previous thread I gave links to an academic conference presentation describing in more detail the sort of work they are doing.

Oh well you'll have to imagine the second block in italics

Jimjams,
I am not saying this parents are stupid, but human being are fallible. You are surely aware that research has been done on this subject? For example:
adc.bmj.com/content/87/6/493.full
To quote:
"Abstract
Parents of autistic children with regressive symptoms who were diagnosed after the publicity alleging a link with measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine tended to recall the onset as shortly after MMR more often than parents of similar children who were diagnosed prior to the publicity. This is consistent with the recall bias expected under such circumstances."
So, please excuse me if I don't take reports from you of parents associating the MMR with autistic regression as the gold standard of scientific proof of a causal link between the two.
That quote from Judy Van de Water, yet again. It's not even approaching evidential proof.
Cheers.

That link again:
adc.bmj.com/content/87/6/493.full

OK magdalen obviously a (pretty poor) paper showing recall bias is of more value than asking why the fuck a child ended up in ICU post MMR & then was never the same. I'm not sure Elizabeth Miller has ever been near a severely autistic child - I tend to value more the opinions of those who have.

And I think you're rather missing the point - I never said Van der Water was providing was 'evidential proof' - quite clearly she isn't. And you're very, very naughty because I made that very clear indeed - stating repeatedly that she was providing an opinion. As I have said the work on autism and the immune system is in its infancy - in the meantime for people who have reason to suspect their children may have immune dysfunctions then the opinions of those working in that field are of interest. I look forward to what their research shows us - as I said on a previous thread their work may mean that if ds1's siblings ever have children they don't have to engage in the same guess work as we have.

Although thinking about it, the ICU child had the MMR, regression and diagnosis before the Wakefield paper anyway (I did mention that on the other thread). So erm recall bias not a problem anyway.

There may be a small group of children whose autism is triggered by vaccination. At present we don't have the tools to identify that group pre-vaccination.. The ability to do so would be very welcome. But until then, it is highly likely that an unvaccinated child (usual allergy etc caveats) is at more risk of harm overall than a vaccinated one. And single vaccines lead to more unvaccinated children.

Cote - I was talking about antigens because if we're running with a cross reacting antibody theory, then that antibody will be produced in response to a single antigen. The number of antigens presented simultaneously is therefore arguably irrelevant. As you say, any single virus/vaccine/meal involves myriad antigens.

Jimjams,
I have asked you over and over and over again for evidence (not what some unnamed "medic" or "doctor" or "specialist" has apparently told you, "off the record") of a causative link between the MMR and regressive autism. You instead resort to unsupported accusations that I am calling parents "stupid", which I am fairly unlikely to ever do since it is extremely far from any opinion I hold about them.
I do think that people want reasons for their children's autism, and this is absolutely and utterly understandable. I think that people who spread falsehoods about the supposed (though strangely undocumented) link between MMR and ASD are not doing parents of autistic children any favours.
So, if you have some evidence is would be as good a time as ever to present it.
Cheers.

I haven't done that magdalen. Do read what I have actually said rather than what you would like to think I have said. (And come on, be fair, you mentioned the doctors on this thread - I hadn't said a word about them until you did - it is considered poor form to refer to constantly drag up stuff from other threads).

So to summarise

(1) I have pointed out that the epidemiological studies show that MMR has not led to the increase in autism cases (never said it did)
(2) Pointed out that the epidemiological studies themselves state that they cannot rule out a regression due to MMR in a small number of cases (which is exactly what has been suggested)
(3) explained that researchers are finding that immune dysfunctions appear to be a feature in a subgroup of people with autism & in their opinion multiple vaccinations may be a problem in this group so it might be wise to space them out if you have reason to believe your child might belong in this group.

That doesn't really equate to spreading falsehoods about MMR does it now?

Personally? Yes I believe the parents and agree with their doctors, but am quite happy to put that to one side (seeing as I didn't mention it on this thread except for one throwaway comment anyway).

And I'm pleased you don't think parents are stupid, Not sure what reason you have for not believing those who did all their regressing and diagnosing prior to the Wakefield paper, but I am pleased to hear that you don't think they're stupid. But like I said, am happy to not include them in the discussion anyway - you're the one who keeps bringing them up.

Yes you're right raspberry - although tbh my main motivation for understanding why ds1 regressed has been to reduce the risk of it happening to ds2 and ds3. Eventually of course an understanding of what happened may lead to treatments (and to some limited extent has already) - but that seems a long way off & I do make the assumption that we're looking at lifelong 1:1/2:1 care for ds1.

I do think that if ds2 and ds3 have children the sort of work I have described above will be invaluable for them, and I really welcome it. Anything which helps them make the 'right' decisions will be a godsend.

A number of posters on various threads seem to think that if they don't vaccinate their child will automatically get measles, and that its effects are bound to be serious.

I compared the results of deaths from road accidents with deaths from measles. In 2011 there were 1900 road deaths, according to the Dept for Transport.

In the 55 years between 1955 and 2008 there were 1926 deaths, according to the National Office for Statistics.

In neither case was I looking for the effects of non-fatal damage, which could happen in both categories.

I thought these figures were interesting - roads are still substantially more dangerous than catching measles is.

Interesting that generally this "overloading an immature immune system " isn't considered a problem with the diphtheria and polio vaccines- I wonder whether people feel more able to risk not giving the MMR because the illnesses are not so frightening?

Seeker, Ds reacted very badly to his first DTP, his leg was hot and swollen, he wouldn't feed and he screamed on and off for days. After that he never slept for more than a few hours and he had permanent diarrhoea.

When I took him for the next one I told the nurse how poorly he'd been and she calmly said "Oh we'd better not give him that again then" (his red book shows different 'brands' used), so clearly it is possible to react badly to DTP as well.

Measles death occurs in 1/1000 infections. I'd be surprised if 1/1000 road accidents result in death.

You don't get a meaningful comparison by just looking at number of deaths per year, without any further context.

Jimjams,
I have noticed on other threads your habit of using unnamed researchers, specialists and so on to back up what are essentially (from the point of view of what constitutes actual evidence) your own opinions. This really grates on me. But I will admit, I didn't read all of this thread, so let me check:

"I get slightly fed up being told what to do by people who know absolutely nothing about autism (to the point where they don't even know what it is) & am happy with the decisions we made after reading the research (yes can understand it cheers), attending (& presenting) at international autism conferences & talking to researchers about their current research. With a quick chat with ds1's paed & neurologist along the way. I think the people who think they know better are whack jobs tbh."
There you are chatting happily with your unnamed researchers and the "paed" and neurologist.

" Because the 'pro-vaxxers' seem to lack an understanding that there are grey areas seeker. Something that senior doctors incidentally seem very aware of (junior ones not so much). If you inhabit a grey area no-one can tell you which is the 'correct' decision for your child. "
Those "senior doctors" at it again, anonymously. I those junior doctors would be just devastated to hear you talk about them (I remember this disdain from another thread too).

" Ds1's doctors have told us to wait 10-20 years and we'll get a much more accurate answer (like I said, hopefully in time for ds2 and ds3's children if they have any)."
Hopefully by that point they'll decide to share with with the rest of us too?

"at the moment they are not discussed at all (and currently in the UK it is very difficult to follow her advice on how to vaccinate whilst reducing the risk from the vaccination - even when your doctor agrees with you incidentally - btdtgtts)"
That handy unnamed doctor called in again, validating your position.

" Your way of thinking sounds the same as mine (and my old GP's and ds1's current paed and neurologists - I have been lucky). You're what I call a thinking doctor (I know it sounds patronising but amongst the good we have had some bad experiences.."
Phew, at least you admit some doctors fail to anonymously back you up! You, patronising? Never.

"which is why I'm listening to an immunologist who is an expert in my son's condition and his own doctors. I'm always amazed that people on here think they know better, when most of them don't even know what autism is, let alone its many causes.."
Well, blow me down it's those unnamed "expert immunologist" and doctors backing you up, again. Unnamed but absolutely on team jimjams.

"It's what everyone who knows what they're talking about (from researchers to consultants) have told me. It's honest. So we make best guesses with the information available."
Here they are again, the people who know what they're talking about, but only only sharing it with you, not the rest of the scientific community? What not?

"Although obviously I have spoken to his paeds and neurologist & GP."

"I was told by a lawyer that EU law makes it impossible to introduce a compulsory vaccination programme (although you could have something like the Australian system). "
Yay! An anonymous lawyer, well it does at least make a change.

"I'm inclined to listen more to immunologists rather than epidemiologists. And of course the parents of children I know who had MMR reactions that put them into ICU and following that regressed, but I'm not allowed to mention them on here. I expect the immunologists might be interested in them though........"

Which is where I came in. This isn't a personal attack, by the way, I am merely pointing out that you really do this all the time. It is not what is called providing evidence.
Cheers.