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?

The immunologists I am referring to is the one I have quoted. I think that would be clear in context if you hadn't cut & pasted quite so much. You've also twisted what I said to suit your own interpretation (oh what a surprise) - so by way of example - doctors telling me we'll have an idea of what went on with ds1 in 10-20 years time - means that - that they can't tell us what went on now so we have to guess. It was quite clear in context that there were simply saying they didn't know what had happened to my son. By way of another example you have mixed up things I have attributed to publically available quotes with ds1's own doctors.

Otherwise hmm yes I seem to be talking about my own experience which is er nothing to do with MMR. So a little bit of twisting going on again.

And you have the cheek to call me 'a piece of work' and patronising? And oh of course it's not a personal attack - just like you're not calling parents stupid.

saintly you can't honestly expect people to accept your word for it that you have spoken to parents whose children have experienced regressive autism post mmr. When you completely dismiss the actual evidence magdalan posted re parents recall of regression and mmr.

All your posts have involved the words opinion, believe and appear. None of which have any place in a scientific debate.

Ha ha ha at scientific debate. You think that paper on recall was a good paper? Good grief.

Anyway whenshewas - I mentioned the other parents once ins a throwaway comment magdalen's complaints are about me talking about my own son. You'd better tell pixel she has no right to talk about her child a few posts ago either.

Even if its a crap paper it still holds more weight than just going off what you said.

I think the main trouble is that you are essentially asking for us to prove a null hypothesis. Which can't be done.

Jimjams,
You're a piece of work for accusing me of saying parents are stupid. I note you haven't managed to back that up? Like most things you assert.
I ask you for evidence and you give...well, your opinion and apparently all these people agree with you (even if you don't say who exactly they are, and they don't publish papers). I think you are quite aware that I have linked to more than one paper in the course of our "discussions" here. The paper on parental recall was merely the first one that popped up, it's not like I am conducting some sort of scientific review. The idea that parental recall related to autistic traits (or any human recall) is less than perfect is hardly controversial. It's one of the reason studies (you know those things I keep banging on about) have to be done carefully. I mean recruiting your participants and simultaneously signing them up to a legal action regarding the MMR causing a form of regressive autism might be expected to be frowned upon?
Cheers.

Whenshewas,
Thank you, by the way. I probably shouldn't let jimjams get to me, but I really don't appreciate being accused of calling parents of autistic children stupid. His/her habit of just constantly claiming the backing of these nameless authorities also really begins to grate after the first ten or so times she/he does it.
Cheers.

And nowhere has Wakefield been mentioned magdalen - except where I said 'ignore Wakefield' oh my you wouldn't be muddying the waters again. I quoted the bit where you appeared to be saying parents were too stupid to recognise why their child regressed (you say they're just mistaken but haven't given a reason why ones prior to the Wakefield paper would be mistaken). I think you might find that most would interpret what you said in my way.

Nope whenshewas - I have no interest in 'proving' anything. (Why would I, this is not an academic question for me - you do realise that don't you?) I have children who are at high risk of regression, who may well have an immune disorder - should I vaccinate them & if so using which schedule? That's it. If I was out to prove something why would I keep carrying on about the value of information for ds2 and ds3's hypothetical future children & aiding in difficult decision making.

And purlease don't play the victim here magdalen.

saintly if you want to discuss what you believe I suggest you head over to the philosophy and religion boards.

Jimjams,
I said:
"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."
From which you infer that I think the parents are "stupid"?
Do you always infer like this?
Cheers.

Come now magdalen - I thought you didn't want to talk about personal experiences.

You have only mentioned recall bias - which doesn't work with the now young adults of the pre-Wakefield era. You haven't explained why you think they are mistaken. Clearly you think (despite never clapping eyes on them that they're wrong - and you call me arrogant). I suspect given your posts on this topic most parents who linked regression to MMR would tell you where to stick your sympathy.

'saintly you can't honestly expect people to accept your word for it that you have spoken to parents whose children have experienced regressive autism post mmr.'

Why not? you think people just lie for the hell of it? There is plenty of evidence that negative reactions to vaccines happen - on another thread is the parent of a child who ended up in hospital after his booster right now.

What you want to believe is that all vaccinations and current vaccination policy are some holy cow beyond reproach - and you are banging on about religion and philosophy? Please...

Who do you think you are to be so dismissive of other parents? Obviously we'd all like to live in a world where vaccines where perfectly safe for everyone. But we don't live in a perfect world.

I've been lurking for the entire thread. Magdalen , you've got the patience a saint! And not a saintly Jim jams.

In answer to the o.p. No, it's not helpful to call people whack jobs. Some are, but the vast majority are trying to do the best for their child. The problem with these threads is they are the same arguments by
mostly the same posters again and again. I'm a sucker for them though. Thank God both of my boys are already fully vaccinated. I cried before my older son had his.

Sorry, not a very good post, too much wine, but just to add I really admire your stamina in arguing and believing in your point view.
And magdalen , I love your cheers and think you bruffin st all are doing a sterling job x

InseyWinseyUpthespout seems to have missed the point of the original post.

lottieandmia I dont for a minute think that the parents you refer to are lying but am pretty convinced that they will try to find a reason, any reason to explain the cause of their childrens autism.The other answer is that their crap genetics caused it and that is pretty hard to handle .
disclaimer am a parent who has (unknown previously)crap genetics

lottie

1. saintly you can't honestly expect people to accept your word for it that you have spoken to parents whose children have experienced regressive autism post mmr.' this was actually a response to saintly's expectation that we accept her at her word while refusing to take on board other posters comments that have been backed up by evidence.

I don't actually doubt she has spoken to these immunologists and parents I just wish she would be a little more willing to listen to a point of view that doesn't necessarily support her own.

2. what you want to believe is that all vaccinations and current vaccination policy are some holy cow beyond reproach - and you are banging on about religion and philosophy? Please...

I post one one flippant comment suggesting a poster goes on the religion and philosophy boards. It was a flippant throw away comment, how on earth does that equate to banging on.

3. What you want to believe is that all vaccinations and current vaccination policy are some holy cow beyond reproach

I am assuming that you mean by this I think all children should be vaccinated no exceptions (I'm not really sure what you mean if you want to clarify that would be great).

Throughout the thread my stance on vaccination has been that all children that are able to should get vaccinated. So there will of course be a small group of children who have a family history of adverse reactions to vaccines who should not get vaccinated.
If a child had a bad reaction to one vaccination yes it would be best not to vaccinate them further. If they have an underlying medical condition that makes vaccination dangerous then no don't vaccinate.

This is exactly why most people need to vaccinate to protect those who can't be immunised and babies like inseywinces who are too young to have been vaccinated.

Which point of view am I not listening to when?

I have stated that MMR is safe for the majority of children.

I have stated that MMR is not behind the rise in autism cases.

I have stated that those who believe that MMR can trigger regression believe the numbers affected are small - and belong to a susceptible group.

I have not mentioned Wakefield.

So which bit am I not listening to?

I'm liking blackcats post. I cried when dd had her first jabs too.

Oh and I like the cheers sign off as well.

Mathanxiety - you've made a few assumptions, about my supposed 'extensive googling' and that the reason I want to speak to a specialist is because I haven't been given information which supports my existing position.

I'm afraid you're wrong on both counts. I'm not anti vac, I'm pro informed choice. So yes, I do expect a health professional to be able to steer me towards a decent paper on vaccine acquired herd immunity, or effectiveness over time of vaccines. I don't find it acceptable to be told that I don't need to read up on those things & I should 'trust the system' which was what my GP advised.

I am a healthcare prof & wouldn't dream of advising treatment without a full explanation of the rationale, pros & cons, including providing references if they are requested.

blackcats and whenshewas,
Thank you both!

Cheers.

saintly

When I quoted Eric Fonbonne you dismissed that as you don't want to hear from epidemiologists.

When you looked at the Honda data your first post dismissed the evidence until you read that the paper cannot rule out mmr cause autism in a tiny number of patients. this would require the disproving of a null hypothesis which that paper would never have achieved

You expected magdalan to simply accept your word on what various unnamed immunologists have said to you but we're very dismissive of her.

'I dont for a minute think that the parents you refer to are lying but am pretty convinced that they will try to find a reason, any reason to explain the cause of their childrens autism.'

Sorry, I do think that is nonsense. It's incredibly patronising to suggest parents are looking for a reason. If you get sick after an antibiotic, it would be reasonable to assume that the antibiotic caused it. If your child regressed spectacularly and overnight after a vaccination then it would be reasonable to assume that the vaccination caused it.

I would like to ask people at this point. If you can accept that a child can regress after an illness then why not after a vaccination?

In addition Loveis, a genetic predisposition is what we've been discussing throughout the thread. Some children have are genetically predisposed - that is the point!!

'I am assuming that you mean by this I think all children should be vaccinated no exceptions'

It does rather come across that way. Maybe I got the wrong end of the stick? I am also irritated by the aggression towards people who chose single vaccines.

Damn you autocorrect we're = were