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?

whenshewas - I explained the problem with epidemiological work - that it it cannot pick up a small effect - the epidemiologists agree with that. They also do not (imo) pay enough attention to the fact that autism is not a clearly defined group - and yes that is a criticism.

However, as I pointed out their work does show that MMR does not trigger autism in the majority of autism cases, and is not responsible for the rise in autism cases.

That doesn't help me in my decision making (as I explained).

And no of course you cannot disprove a null hypothesis which is why I find the work going on in research groups looking directly at children with autism (such as the work on the immune system and the work on mitochondrial dysfunction) far more useful. Because it can provide useful information for my hypothetical grandchildren.

Really lottieandmia? I would call it a normal reaction as a parent to try to find a reason and hope beyond desperation that it wasnt you that had passed a faulty gene on to your child.
How do I know this? - because it was ME .

lottie

"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."

It's what people do, but that doesn't make it reasonable, it's called post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy

I get where you are coming from, Loveis but I don't think everyone is the same to be fair.

Well I wanted to know what happened to prevent it happening again. I would still like to know what happened to reduce the chances of it happening in any grandchildren (and I think ds2 and ds3 will agree with me).

I rather assume in our case it is a combination of genetics and environment - if I didn't think genetics played a role why on earth would I be worrying about triggers for ds2 and ds3 - it wouldn't make any difference as ds1 would just be random.

I stand by my point re Honda you were dismissive until you read the caveat that it could rule out autism in a tiny sub group.

Also you haven't explained why you expect everyone to believe every word you type about talking to immunologists but are not prepared to listen to magdalens posts.

Which post of magdalens?

And if you search back through my posts on the last thread whenshewas - you will see I made exactly the same point about Bent Taylor's paper - very similar to the Honda paper where he actually states that his work doesn't rule out a rare idiosyncratic reaction to the MMR. I say I agree with him - before anyone else mentions it. And then I went on to say that that was what the MMR regression is supposed to be - a rare idiosyncratic response. I was apologising to Honda for assuming he hadn't noted that (did he?)

What do you want me to say when? I have said that (1) MMR has only affected a small number of children (2) that it is not responsible for the rise in autism. What more do you want? Do you want me to say I DON'T believe there MIGHT be a group who are susceptible to damage from the MMR (along with other environmental factors) due to an underlying condition? I can't say that because I think there might be. It might be a small group but I also think my children are at high risk of belonging to such a group so strangely enough it's of interest to me.

(1) should read: MMR is believed by those who suspect a link to have only affected a small number of children

I don't want you to change your belief that mmr can cause autism in a tiny tiny number of patients.

What I would appreciate is more willingness to admit that so far there is no evidence that this is the case.

But you haven't shown me any evidence that it isn't the case either. I agree that MMR is safe for the majority of children. I agree that MMR hasn't caused the rise in autism. That is all the evidence shows.

Those aren't my questions. When I thought I had an average child I vaccinated.

Now I want to know what the MMR risk is for children who are at high risk of having an underlying susceptibility. My understanding is that this work hasn't been done yet, all we know so far is that some children with autism appear to have mitochondrial disorders and some children with autism appear to have whacky immune systems. If you can show me that MMR is safe for these groups I'd quite obviously be delighted (seeing as how I did vaccinate my son when I thought it safe to do so).

Urtica - no I am not baiting, and reading the journals tells you there are different types of autism. I have already said that I am not talking about multiplex autism (I assume the group you mean by 'complex genetics').

I have children who the research (not Wakefield's) suggests are at risk. I make the wrong decision & I potentially increase their risk of ending up like ds1. How on earth is that 'baiting'. I find it quite bizarre that taking steps to prevent another regression makes people so angry. Note (1) no-one has linked to the Daily Mail - I don't believe they've ever reported on autism and immune dysfunction and (2) the quotes I have linked to have suggested spreading vaccinations out for those in vulnerable groups - not no vaccinations.

Maybe someone could explain to me why the idea of a group of children being susceptible & needing a different vaccination schedule makes you so angry? Why wouldn't you want to take steps to reduce the likelihood of a regression - I don't get it.

Questioning is not attack.

I think a lot of posts have appeared hostile to her too.

She's not backward at coming forward herself, to be honest. Except when she's asked to back up her opinions with names, facts,papers, studies........

She has backed up her opinions with facts and papers, but these don't say what some other posters want them to say.

Some people seem to want her to give out names of individual immuno-compromised children!

Raspberry and Volcan,
Currently in the UK we have a nasty outbreak of measles underway. At the moment the situation is most serious in Wales, but it is evident that the issue of measles vaccination coverage is not confined to Wales and more outbreaks are likely. This illness, measles, is largely preventable by vaccination. In the UK we had pretty good vaccine coverage against measles using a combined MMR vaccination. Unfortunately a large scale health scare was sparked by a paper in the Lancet by Wakefield et al. Now, despite the fact that this paper was retracted and Mr Wakefield thoroughly disgraced the link between the MMR and regressive ASD (actually any ASD, and many will simply refer to "autism") has been firmly planted in the minds of many. This health scare led to a drop in MMR uptake, which has led to lowered rates of immunity which means outbreaks like the one in Wales occur.
Now, since the original paper lots of research has been done to explore the possibility of a link between the MMR and ASD and GI issues etc. None of this work has replicated the Wakefield findings, and in fact it now appears that the children in the original study had medical histories at odds with those presented in the paper. Now, as will I am sure be pointed out, even before Wakefield did his study some (note, some) parents had associated the MMR with autism/ASD. This is unsurprising as there is a simple temporal relationship between when autistic behaviour gets noticed and when the MMR is administered. The association, however, was by no means on the scale that was witnessed after the Lancet paper. It was certainly not on a scale which would lead to the drop in immunisation rates which has resulted in the current situation.
Lots and lots of good scientific work has been done to investigate a possible link between MMR and ASD & GI issues etc. All of it comes to conclusion that the MMR is not implicated. There simply is not scientific evidence to support the idea that the MMR is causing regressive autism. The MMR is very safe, and much much safer than getting measles, mumps or the devastating effects rubella can have on a developing foetus.
With that in mind discussions about vaccination will tend to include the MMR and Wakefield's discredited work. I am of the opinion that the way forward is by discussion and presenting evidence. I find it frustrating and annoying when, on a thread like this one, someone pops up (and I wouldn't have cared who it was) and refers to

"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........"*
This seems to me to imply a causative link between the MMR and regression. This is a link which has not been demonstrated in the scientific literature, and the putative link is what has led to the tragic and avoidable situation in Wales.
If anyone wishes to actually provide links to scientific evidence of a causative link between the MMR and regressive autism (or any form of ASD) I will be delighted to read all and any papers provided.
Jimjams is also welcome to refer to unnamed parents, and unnamed experts and unnamed neurologists and unnamed doctors etc., but I will continue to point out this provides absolutely nothing in the way of evidence and does nothing at all to enhance the credibility of his/her opinions.
Cheers.

• Which is where I entered the discussion.

No-one has mentioned Wakefield or his work on this thread magdalen. Or at least I haven't. The unnamed doctors you keep referring to were my reports of my son's doctors talking about his potential for having an underlying condition, not about MMR. The quotes I referred to about vaccination have been made publically & linked to.

So Wakefield aside - we have a group of children with autism who appear to have mitochondrial dysfunction & a group with whacky immune systems. We'll leave those with gut disorders out of it. What would you suggest for parents of those kids? The research is in its infancy - as of yet there are no certainties. What evidence can you provide that vaccination with the standard schedule is perfectly safe for them? Because you seem to be getting very angry at me reporting that some researchers working in that field have suggested an alternative vaccination schedule for those children might be safer.

Magdalen, you may 'find it annoying' that there are parents whose children have had bad reactions to vaccines but they do exist, on MN as well. And to deny such a thing really makes no sense.

Could you clarify for me please, that you do accept vaccine damage is possible? This is not just about MMR...

Nobody has at any point said that the MMR is not safe for most people.

I think you know that it would be wrong of anyone to post the real names of people on here. Would you post your name on here?

Why would anyone deny that ome children have bad reactions to vaccines? No medical procedure is 100% safe, and nobody ever says they are.

Of course nobody is expecting children to be named. But presumably the experts, doctors and immunologists referred to will have published their findings somewhere?