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?

lottiemia - your link is from 1989. In science, that's a lifetime ago. Do you have anything more recent?

And if you actually read the abstract, the conclusion is "The results from this study confirm the efficacy and low reactogenicity of MMR vaccine and support its use as part of the routine childhood immunisation programme in the United Kingdom"

I have not immunised my children and I go a massive pasting on here. Whack job and bad mother apparently.....

saintly

"What happened to first do no harm btw? When did convenience become more important?"

A negative impact on the uptake of vaccination, and increasing the timespan in which children are not protected is doing harm.

I think you understand the meaning of first do no harm widowwadman.

sorry DON'T think you understand the meaning

The dreaded wiki has a neat explanation

Non-maleficence, which is derived from the maxim, is one of the principal precepts of medical ethics that all medical students are taught in medical school and is a fundamental principle for emergency medical services around the world. Another way to state it is that, "given an existing problem, it may be better not to do something, or even to do nothing, than to risk causing more harm than good". It reminds the physician and other health care providers that they must consider the possible harm that any intervention might do.

"The results from this study confirm the efficacy and low reactogenicity of MMR vaccine and support its use as part of the routine childhood immunisation programme in the United Kingdom"

Yes, and?? I did not say the MMR doesn't work, but it is certainly rubbish to say that the MMR replaced rouvax because rouvax doesn't work.

If you wish to believe that rouvax doesn't work then that's up to you. But why do you think the government wasted money on it in the past then? It's also still used in France.

For parents like me who feel our child may be safer with a single vaccine, it's relevant for me to know that the single vaccine available (although at significant cost) is at least as effective as MMR.

Also, there won't be any recent studies on rouvax vs MMR because the NHS no longer offers singles.

Sorry, I meant the measles componant of MMR of course.

saintly I would love it if you could link to the papers.

Can you link to any that show mmr causes regression?

I am worried that you are taking research proving immune disorders do occur in people with autism and then you are assuming this means that vaccines cause regression.
As far as I know there is no evidence that vaccines cause regression but if you can find me some evidence I would love to read it.

Thanks for offering to post links to clinical trials I really appreciate it. Looking forward to seeing the mitrichondrial disorders / immune disorders data.

lottiemia

Rouvax is not used in France instead of MMR, but in addition, for those children who are at higher risk before reaching the recommended age for MMR.

Yes, I know that. The point is it works as well as MMR in preventing measles.

MMR is used because it's quicker and cheaper to get people vaccinated. Not because it provides better immunity.

whenshewas are you just not understanding what I am writing or deliberately twisting it?

The papers I offered to link to were ones talking about immune disorders/mitochondrial dysfunction and autism - I offered this because you appeared to think there wasn't that much evidence for these conditions. Here's one example - chosen because it summarises where the research is now whilst very clearly stating what is not yet understood (and you need to read the final paragraph).

I am not assuming anything, let me be clear on what I am saying:

I find it interesting that immune dysfunction is being found in autism and that as the mother of children with red flags for immune disorders & a severely autistic child I am minded to pay attention to the opinion of experts in that field. Or are you back to saying I should just ignore what they've said because the research hasn't been carried out yet? Can you imagine for one moment having a child at increased risk with red flags? What would you do?

"Rouvax is not used in France instead of MMR, but in addition, for those children who are at higher risk before reaching the recommended age for MMR."

Not at all.

My children have had Rouvax.

(1) They had it at the recommended age for MMR, not before.

(2) I didn't have to prove or even claim any "higher risk". I just said that I don't want the MMR and want the measles vaccine (Rouvax) instead. Paediatrician said "Fine".

raspberry sorry but saintly is being very calm but she's not being evidence based. She has quoted what she heard immunologists say about a possible link between mmr and autism (that's not evidence).

If she does provide links to data showing people with autism have a higher incidence of immunocological complaints than expected that will be interesting but it isn't proof mmr causes autism.

Who knew I would live to see the day that jimjams is being accused of being "not evidence-based"

Re Rouvax - It was pretty hard to find Rouvax for DS' recent booster, so I don't know how long it will be available in France. Several pharmacies I tried to order it from said they couldn't find it anywhere. I'm not sure if it is readily available these days or if it is being phased out in favor of MMR.

Who knew I would live to see the day that jimjams is being accused of being "not evidence-based"

indeed, Cote!

Well I've just posted one paper whenshewas - why not just google autism and immune dysfunction - and autism and mitchondrial dysfunction so you can see for yourself.

I haven't ever said I want to 'prove' that MMR ever causes autism (why on earth would I want to? I would be delighted for it to be found to be safe). Why do you keep going on about it as if I have? I pointed out I wasn't particularly interested in proof as I'm not trying to win an argument. I am interested in what I should do to best aid my children in growing up to live an independent life. One won't, I would like the other two to have that opportunity.

Given the opinions of people working on immune dysfunction - which is the most informed opinion there is out there are the moment (and no doubt they will alter their opinion in some way as their work continues) - you still haven't explained to me why I shouldn't listen to them. What evidence do you have that is better than theirs (and don't link to epidemiological evidence again - I have explained why that doesn't answer my specific questions more than once).

Right let me try and explain where I am coming from. saintly has posted loads of scientific data (I'm really sorry I haven't had time to read that link yet - demanding toddler is surpassing herself today and I have morning sickness, I will read it sorry I haven't had chance yet).

This thread is about the suggestion that mmr causes autism (ok saintly isn't interested in that but I am).

Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. the data saintly has posted has mostly been about a hypothesis that vaccines cause autism

Evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and in accordance with scientific method. so while case studies are invaluable in medicine they can't prove a hypothesis - not evidence

The scientific evidence needs to be analysed statistically in order to ascertain its strength. obviously case studies can't be analysed you need huge numbers of subjects in order to do this

This is where I am coming from a case study (studies) and a hypothesis are not evidence.

Good point raspberry probably one of the reasons they are treated badly is because a lot of people have a very limited understand