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?

This is complex too of course because not all diseases and all vaccines are the same in term of their cost/ benefit profiles. Herd immunity is not relevant for tetanus for example. And it does appear that
some vaccines are less effective (especially over time) than others (e.g pertussis) & the herd immunity argument is less convincing then. So blanket pro or anti vacs stances don't make sense to me.

In line with that, if I speak to a GP and s/he denies there are any unanswered questions about vacs I find it hard to trust the rest of what s/he has to say as sounds like such a biased perspective.

saintly

That post (re explaining scientific method wasn't actually aimed at you - although it was about you). Some posters were claiming you had posted evidence and I felt it was important to explain what scientific evidence actually looks like.

To answer your question / address your points.

To repeat. I have said
(1) MMR is safe for the majority of children - fine no issue with that

(2) MMR has not caused the rise in autism rates fine, the evidence is overwhelming mmr has not caused a rise in autism rates

(3) some subgroups of autism have mitochondrial and/or immune disorders - it is not yet clear exactly what this means for the individuals concerned ok some subgroups have m / i disorders

ok so you are not saying this is evidence (of anything other than some people with autism have these disorders) which is good because it isn't. My problem is some people may interpret that as an attempt to link autism with the mmr jab (and there isn't any evidence that the mmr causes autism (at all, even in subgroups)).

(4) some researchers (who have been linked to & who are experts in autism) have said that given the type of dysfunctions being uncovered that for this subgroup for the moment it may be wiser to space vaccinations out.

now this a hypothesis. These researchers have hypothesised that certain people with certain disfunctions may have an increased risk. Therefore their advice is to space vaccinations. They are advising on a hypothesis not evidence. I have no problem at all with them giving that advice it is possible that they may be proved right. But at the moment they don't have any evidence that the mmr causes autism (in any subgroup)

'I actually think this is part of the issue the OP referred to. Anyone who utters a word of doubt about the MMR is immediately hoisted up as 'saying the MMR causes autism' when in actual fact they said nothing of the sort.

The torch burning responses and insistence that the MMR is infallible and if you don't agree completely and absolutely you should be burned at the stake are unbelievable.'

Quite. I agree with spink. The NHS is one of the great things about the UK, BUT of course cost is a factor in deciding what treatments to use on the general population.

So if I decide to choose a different route for my children (even though it would be ok for most people), which I have to pay a lot for then that is fine too and nobody has the right to insult me and call me a 'nutter' as some kind poster did earlier on the thread.

Of course the government doesn't want me to do that because they can't control who I decide to go to. But I know that I can find a reputable doctor. And that's all that matters.

Well, no they don't. It's a personal attack. Which is why it got deleted.

imagine you had a severely autistic child, and children with red flags for immune and/or mito dysfunction. Who would you listen to? Experts in autism & the immune system or people who don't even seem to realise it isn't one condition. Or can you really not imagine being in such a situation

I will be honest this is hard to answer because you don't know how you would respond until you have walked in the other persons shoes. I would never pretend to know what it feels like to have an autistic child (and I hope I never find out).
As you may have guessed by now I like to hear about evidence, in my mind given that the mmr has been exhaustively researched and no link has been found I would immunise. But I can't possibly know what I would do.
I like to think that in the hideous situation of my daughter being in an accident and being declared brain dead I would donate her organs. But I can't be sure I would be able to do that. (Sorry have been discussing this issue in RL and it just popped into my head).

You still haven't answered what you would do when - if you had a child with severe autism and children showing red flags.

Would you say. 'eh up - this research group who are considered experts in autism and the immune system are suggesting I space them & it might be dangerous for my child to give multiple shots on the same day'

Or would you say 'well it's perfectly safe for the majority & I must protect a hypothetical child above my own so even though spacing them would be possible with some cash I'll stick with the MMR - after all I know it's safe for the majority why should I worry about anything else'

What would you do - fuss about how dare they use their knowledge to suggest a safer vaccination programme without first testing a hypothesis. Or would you listen to to them?

You know - if you had a child with severe autism and others showing red flags for immune/mito disorders. (You appear to be having trouble imagining being in this scenario).

OK you did answer.

And you don't know.

You hope never to find out what it's like to have an autistic child (and we're talking severe autism in my case - you know - will never talk, will require 24 hour lifetime care) but you think that you would ignore comments from experts in autism on how to reduce risk & happily take along your child for MMR because you know it's safe for the majority and that's the only evidence that counts.

Of course you would.

WhenShe - if you hope never to find out what it's like to have an autistic child then you should be able to understand that those of us who do want to limit the possibility of further damage either to our disabled children or anything that could stop our NT children from living independent lives (because they have the same parents when all said and done).

Cote, that is the nature of policy. In the US policy is dictated by panels in insurance companies and is very much based on cost analysis. My exFIL was a surgeon and had to argue his case with insurance company bean counters before treating patients who hadn't half his brains or expertise or education.

Until there is evidence and studies confirming that vaccinations as they now stand cause the harm that is claimed then policy will remain as it is. Without that then policy really can be assumed to be fine, and a good thing. Policy can't be based on hunches.

Bean counters hadn't half his brains or [etc], not patients...

Wrt deaths from measles in Wales, yes the results of lab tests are not in. However, about 400,000 cases of death due to measles are recorded in sub saharan Africa and it is the leading cause of blindness in African children. Blindness condemns children in Africa to a (short) lifetime of abject poverty.

1 in 1000 who get measles die. It's not far-fetched to think that with about 1000 affected right now in the UK, death from measles is likely to occur, if it hasn't already happened. When older people catch the disease it is more likely to claim life.

Splitting hairs about herd immunity and levels of vaccination needed for it to obtain has no place in any debate. It stands to reason that with different methods of transmission of various diseases higher levels for some and lower levels of vaccination for other diseases are necesasry in the general population.

I never understand the argument for not vaccinating as the vaccine wears off. As we get older we get stronger (generally) and can fight illness more effectiive. Boosters are available. I do think that people who don't vaccinated are misguided and a bit paranoid. Conspiracy theories spring to mind.

Super - measles & mumps are both examples of diseases that are more serious in adults than children.

Of course waning immunity has a place in any debate. Have a look at the HPA website where they discuss that babies born to vaccinated mothers may have no measles protection at all whereas those born to people who have had the disease are protected for around 6 months. Waning immunity (vaccine & to a lesser extent natural) is also more likely once you remove a disease from circulation. This means that what was once ok 'one measles vaccination for life' as it was when introduced becomes two, then presumably three etc etc. You can't just ignore it. Recent paper discussing these sorts of issues wrt measles.

But waning immunity should inform policy - eg cote gave the example of vaccinating babies against rubella then assuming that will protect them thirty years later when pregnant. I think I'd be checking my rubella status before getting pregnant personally (fwiw I did)

I mean that paper seems to be saying 95% of vaccinated 2 years olds had (expected) immunity to measles, 50% of vaccinated 21-25 year olds had immunity to measles while 95% of the pre -vaccination era 35+ age group had protection. You can't just ignore that.

And those figures were for 2-dose measles vaccination.

lottie it's not like autism is the only thing a child is at risk from. We are not talking about the option of 1) do not nothing and your child will be fine 2) inject with mmr and risk autism

i feel the need to point out again that mmr has actually been extensively researched and no link has been found. The trials cannot rule out mmr causing regression in a tiny tiny subset - not being able to rule it out is not a smoking gun. We are getting back into you can't prove a null hypothesis territory again

I will be having another child and I will be far more concerned about that child's potential exposure to measles than I will be then getting autism from the mmr vaccine I will be giving them.

I know I've said this before but some of you still think mmr does cause autism. There is not one shred of evidence it does. There is a theory it might in a tiny group of people

I course if I am fortunate enough to give birth to a NT child I want them to stay that way. That's exactly why I will be giving them the mmr, measles can cause a lot of damage.

saintly there was a really great link a few pages back to the hpa showing that rates of measles (and I think crs) have dropped since vaccination.
So you can theorise all you want about waning immunity, vaccination program's do work.

sorry I don't have time to find that link and post it again, got to go to work

I haven't theorised - I have linked to an academic paper discussing waning immunity to measles in Taiwan - a highly vaccinated population. I obtained the figures about babies being born without measles protection from the GPA website.

Incidentally - this is the final sentence from the Tawainese paper The waning vaccine-induced immunity may have impact on the control of measles in the future, especially when the vaccinated population becomes old

Let me guess you don't count it as evidence as it has the word 'may' in it.

HPA - not GPA

That always seems to be the way when Saintly provides evidence. If I doesn't confirm to the current orthodoxy it's dismissed as not relelvent.

This thread proves in spades that the anti-vaxxers will play fast and loose with facts, research, methods - you name it - despite hard evidence like Swansea in their faces.

In fact Swansea shows the only thing that will change their minds is the clear risk to their own hides. Sadly this means collateral damage to others who genuinely can't vaccinate.

saintly you really do love a theory don't you.

right I really have to stop now off to work

'lottie it's not like autism is the only thing a child is at risk from. We are not talking about the option of 1) do not nothing and your child will be fine 2) inject with mmr and risk autism'

Yes thank you - I do know that. It's called rock and hard place.