To think this takes not vaccinating to a whole new level

[Swanlaked]

DD has a child at school who has cancer. The school sent a letter home asking all parents to please think about giving their child the MMR if they haven't had it and also to inform them immediately if any child was in contact with chicken pox.

One of the mums at the school is still refusing to have her 3DC vaccinated. No health issues it's big pharma/poison/conspiracy theory crap

AIBU at this point to think the school should seek removal of the children and tell the bloody thicko to find another school for them?

Jasssy you know that two doctors in that case who did nothing wrong were wrongly struck off. Your faith is strong. But I don't share it.

Excuse me: one was struck off, the other was wrongly charged with serious professional misconduct.

What 'faith'? You were talking about Wakefield and 'smears' against him. Why change the subject when asked about your statement?

Winchester can you please explain specifically how Wakefield has been treated unfairly in your view?

Your faith that doctors would not be wrongly accused of course.

How was he treated unfairly? I only put 'smeared' in my post.
Be that as it may, for a start most posters here believe he carried out a trial which paid parents from anti-vaccine groups, that he carried out cruel experiments on children, that he claimed his clinical trial proved that MMR caused autism, that he then he patented his own measles vaccine to be used instead, and that he advised parents not to vaccinate their children.

But you probably don't know that it wasn't a trial (it was a case study) that he never claimed his clinical trial proved MMR caused autism, that he never paid parents, that there was never a new measles vaccine, that the patent wasn't his, that he never advised parents not to vaccinate their children and that all but one of the parents in the original case study support him, supported him through the GMC trial, and say to this day that he was the only doctor that ever listened to him, and that two years into the controversy, he was made fellow of the Royal College of Pathologists in recognition of his research work and in a show of support.

'that ever listened to them'

But he changed a whole lot of things to fit the cases to suit his narrative, he said in a news interview that, "There is sufficient anxiety in my own mind for the long term safety of the polyvakent vaccine - that is, the MMR vaccination in combination -,that I think it should be suspended in favour of the single vaccines".

Did you know that he was offered funding to replicate his research in a study of 150 children but didn't because he couldn't? Because the first case series was full of stuff that he'd made up?

He certainly filed a patent for the single vaccine patent - there's a picture of it on this link.

And re most of the parents in the original series supporting them - well, most of them were recruited from anti - vax groups in the first place.

There already was a single measles vaccine available - Rouvax - which had been in use from the 1960s and was still available on the NHS at the time.

www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c5258.full

The "cruel experiments" relates to children having endoscopy performed when this wouldn't otherwise have been been considered necessary. And then the histology from the samples was subsequently "amended" during a research review.

It's all dodgy as fuck. If you read the first link it's interesting how he disagrees with paediatricians about some of the cases' development - i.e. they have concerns before vaccination but he says everything was fine until the vaccine.

I know there was a single measles vaccine already but he was certainly hoping to make money from a single measles vaccine revival (as per the link).

Yes I mentioned earlier that he said there should be more research and he said parents should continue to vaccinate with individual vaccines.

It wasn't a vaccine patent and it was in the name of the Royal Free.

The parents were not 'recruited from anti-vax groups' - that's incredibly offensive and dismissive to parents of suffering children. They either approached him, were recommended or contact established through support groups for vaccine injured children. If you continue to call them 'anti-vax groups' I will not read another word you write. These were dreadfully suffering children - and the parents were picking up the pieces of a policy that you recommend.

in addition, a lot of the children's parents essentially sought him out. Child 2 and 9 were found by a doctor working with Wakefield and 4 and 8 were referred directly to Wakefield even though he didn't do clinical work.1, 5, 9 and 10 strangely ended up in the gastro dept (his area) without any history of bowel problems.

The referral letters said things like :
"thank you for asking to see this young boy" (child 3)
"this 7 3/4 autistic child's mother have been in contact with Dr Wakefirld and have asked me to refer them" - child 5

The entire point is that he was trying to get to the root of what ailed the children - and to do this he carried out investigations that would not normally be recommended. It wasn't a vaccine: it was a measles transfer factor. In the name of the Royal Free - he was not 'certainly hoping to make money'. (your link wasn't in the page by the way but I have seen the image before).

Do you withdraw the allegation that these were 'anti-vax groups'?

I honestly think some people have no idea just how dangerous things like chicken pox are for immunocompromised people.

And yet there is no routinely given vaccine

www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c7001.full

Winchester - they were recruited through groups such as JABS. Which is a "support group of parents who feel their children have suffered a reaction or have been severely damaged by a vaccine".

Sounds like a good, balanced starting point for case recruitment to me, lol!

I don't care if you don't read what I write or not but the original case series is dodgy as such because he made stuff up such as the time line and the children's developmental status before the vaccine. He didnt include the cases he couldn't make fit.'t was hoping to gain financially by filing a lawsuit against the MMR vaccine makers and he couldn't replicate his findings when encouraged to with other, presumably not self-selected groups.

Im my first link he made a very clear statement that there was cause for concern about the MMR link and autism. He also came up with the whole idea of the link between "regressive autism" and the diarrhoea before he'd seen a single case. You may not know much about research but normally your date leads you to a conclusion, you don't start with one and then fiddle the cases until they fit.

Lol? lol?

There's the case information here. I am particularly impressed with how he dismissed a geneticist's and paediatrician's prior concerns about a children's development and dysmorphic facial features as the child having just a "broad nasal bridge". When he trained as a gastroenterologist.

www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c5347.full

Winchester - hide if you like but it's terribly biased recruitment. But they're not "anti-vax", they're just terribly concerned about vaccinations. I'm allowed to find the cognitive dissonance amusing.

And from the JABS website - where some of his cases came from through parental word of mouth - "Measles, both as a natural disease and a vaccine, may rarely be associated with fits/epilepsy or other neurological problems such as autism spectrum disorders".

Your faith that doctors would not be wrongly accused of course.

No 'of course' as no such thing exists. Do stop inventing.

Wakefield's fraud is well-documented and well-evidenced.

Who was Brian Deer in the pay of or influenced by in his investigations, by the way? It can't have been Big Pharma, given his stories about them before Wakefield.

nolonger, It's not exactly a strange thing to look for a group of people that are suffering with similar (unusual) symptoms and then look at whether or not they have anything in common.

'Not at all, if they were arrived at without resorting to fraud'.

What does this mean? Does it mean that doctors would not be wrongly accused so long as they had not resorted to fraud?

Good Lord are you using Brian Deer as a source? Nice company you keep

Not on vaccine information, but as an investigative journalist who helped to piece together the various aspects of the Wakefield fraud, subsequently verified by others.

What was his nefarious motivation? Founded (and preferably evidenced) smears only, please - 'nice company you keep' is as I'm sure you know inaccurate as well as not providing any real information.