Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To dare speak about Vaxxed on MN?

496 replies

thegoodfight · 20/02/2017 14:37

NC for this but a regular.

So I've just watched the documentary Vaxxed. I know how vaccine threads unfold on MN, so I'm ready to be told IABU however I feel like everyone should see this whatever your views - it's about the cover up around studies into autism and MMR

There is an admission from a CDC insider that he worked on the study and hid data which proved a link (a strong an quite frankly astounding one) and the data was sent to an external biologist who saw it for himself. There are first hand accounts from parents, scientists, doctors and politicians. The CDC haven't denied anything or called their lawyers despite it being an allegation of the biggest medical fraud ever (not exact words but something along those lines)

I just can't believe it's not been in the news! AIBU to ask if anyone else is planning to watch it??

OP posts:
helpimitchy · 20/02/2017 22:26

Absolutely spot on Polter

CloudPerson · 20/02/2017 22:28

Just popped back in to let the OP know that I'm watching Vaxxed again with this thread in kind.

The crap spouted in the documentary is shit, there is so much misinformation about autism, horrible negative language about autism, that it's quite distressing to watch.

So I'm half way through, things that have jumped out at me so far are:
Someone claims there was no such thing as autism before the 1930s. Bollocks! It was there, it was misdiagnosed as other psychiatric conditions or autistic people were written off as eccentrics or simple or mad.
Someone states clearly that it's not genetic, that it is purely environmental won't someone think of the children! Bullshit. How many mothers discover they are autistic following diagnosis of their children? How many can go on to identify family members who are also on the spectrum?
Talk about children not detoxifying, using very crude basic stereotypes in discussions about diagnosing, talking about an explosion in cases (which interestingly coincided with the DSM iv which saw the inclusion of asperger's and a general broadening of criteria, not that this was mentioned in Vaxxed at all, interesting that they leave out very pertinent info). All massive judgements based more on skewed opinion, none on proven fact.
Conveniently sticking to outdated concepts around autism which suit their agenda, and which most people watching won't be in a position to question, so will blindly believe.

I'll probably be back with more to say a bit later.....Grin

I am more open minded than some on the subject, but this documentary is truly shit.

DJBaggySmalls · 20/02/2017 22:30

I live in the UK. Any vaccine available has had a reasonable amount of testing and has had to show it is cost effective to be on offer. To be cost effective for the NHS, it has to work and not generate too many compensation claims. Plus my doctor is pretty clued up.
I'm actually happy to rely on that, and not struggle to read a dense scientific paper that I probably wont fully understand.

MimiTheWonderGoat · 20/02/2017 22:33

Thanks, I'll look at that too.

You think statisticians don't manipulate data? It's not necessarily deceitful manipulation. A lot of the time the datasets are flawed so the stats are best guesses, but presented as fact.
Also, they'll ask a question "Is drug A safe?" and carry out a comparison based on another drug rather than a placebo. So, it may be safer than the other (crap) drug and get the thumbs up from the study, but it may still be a crap drug with few health benefits compared to no treatment at all.

bumbleymummy · 20/02/2017 22:35

Applebite, Why are you singling me out when there are plenty of people on this thread who are also on the other threads? Yourself included obviously. You may need to reread your last post if you think those were the questions you asked - they weren't.

I think the MMR is fine for most and most people would choose to have it but I think singles should have been kept available for longer on the NHS when there were concerns about the MMR so that people had an alternative and could still have vaccinated. I've also already said that on this thread.

My information comes from reading papers/WHO/NHS/ PHE etc. Not dodgy websites. :)

Applebite · 20/02/2017 22:38

Because you don't usually give a straight answer! That post was straight, thank you.

How do you think we work out who is in the "most" category and who isn't? Not being snarky, a genuine question.

OurBlanche · 20/02/2017 22:39

bumbley The paper does not say that, no one who has read it would think it does. The GMC etc never said that it did, nor did anyone else that formally discredited it. However, Wakefield did say it still does. Most people, who have not read the paper, wouldn't give a monkeys for the Quibble you are persisting with. The man said it, raised fears, anxieties (and a lot of oney for himself) by putting that lie 'out there'.

Mimi you're focussing one one study that you don't agree with... in an article posted to dicredit the suggestion that no further research had been done... that included a range of methodologies and conclusions... including the Japanese study.

The problem with the study you propose is the group that has not had MMR vaccine. How would you get that group? In the UK that vaccine is effectively a blanket requirement. The exceptions are children with other health issues, aka confounding variables. To ask parents not to vaccinate so their children could be that group would be putting them at risk, going against WHO etc recommendations.

Basically, the kind of research you would find persuasive would not get a meaningful number of Group B, you are asking for research that cannot exist in the UK...but look, that American one might be persuasive.

MimiTheWonderGoat · 20/02/2017 22:40

Not quite true DJBaggySmalls. Pretty sure the JCVI statement on the men b vaccine said it wasn't cost effective to roll it out for all age groups as there wasn't enough evidence that it works, but they still give it to young babies. So cost effective yes, whether it works is another matter it seems.

noblegiraffe · 20/02/2017 22:41

Pharmaceutical studies have to have a protocol that is run through an ethics committee for approval before they can do clinical trials on humans. There are strict standards in place (you can't run a trial against a placebo if patients really need some treatment) and they can't just fudge shit. They also have to say what analyses they plan to run before doing them so can't just fiddle the data to fit. See the Declaration of Helsinki! Obviously crap still goes on like not publishing failed trials, but the pharmaceutical industry is pretty highly regulated so obvious statistical manipulation isn't as easy to get away with.

Crappy homeopathy companies and vitamin pill salesmen don't abide by these standards.

bumbleymummy · 20/02/2017 22:52

Applebite, it would be great if we could! We're moving in the direction of personalised/stratified medicine and companion diagnostics are being developed alongside new drugs to determine which patients should have them- whether they are likely to respond/have side efeects etc. I wonder if vaccines will move more in that direction rather than the current 'one size fits all' approach.

OurBlanche, most people haven't read the paper though and do refer to it and say that it showed that MMR causes autism and then go on to criticise the paper - number of children studied etc. People on this thread had done just that and that was why I quoted and linked to it.

MimiTheWonderGoat · 20/02/2017 22:52

The problem with the study you propose is the group that has not had MMR vaccine. How would you get that group? In the UK that vaccine is effectively a blanket requirement. The exceptions are children with other health issues, aka confounding variables. To ask parents not to vaccinate so their children could be that group would be putting them at risk, going against WHO etc recommendations.

Yes, and this is exactly my point. They can't do a study of that nature in the UK. But, I live in the UK. We are a unique population with our own unique vaccine schedule and our own unique environmental factors and health problems. For a study to represent what's happening to our children it needs to focus on our children...not Japanese children (who knows what other vaccines they are exposed to that ours aren't)...or American children whose diets (for example) are very different to ours.

OurBlanche · 20/02/2017 22:53

So it was a pedantic quibble then?

bumbleymummy · 20/02/2017 22:56

I said exactly why I linked to it (several times). You're the one that seems to want to quibble over it.

OurBlanche · 20/02/2017 22:58

Mimi So you are saying that there is no research that would convince you! If UK, then you may be, say English, of Scottish extraction, granparents were Swedish... and on and on

OK! Let's just say I agree that differing cohorts means that no knowledge can ever be generalised across any arbitrary grouping...

Given that you can't accept studies from other cohorts and your own cohort cannot be researched as you would find acceptable, what is your solution?

Stick with the crazy monster shouters, just in case? Or go with the best science we have available?

MimiTheWonderGoat · 20/02/2017 23:01

I mentioned my issue with the HPV vaccine roll out on another (bun fight) anti vaxx/pro vaxx thread the other day but got ridiculed for it. It's the same problem as with the MMR really. If you roll it out on a huge percentage of the population then if/when large numbers of vaccine damage reports roll in there will be no large unvaccinated (HPV) population of the same ages and backgrounds and environmental factors to compare them against and therefore no way to unpick whether or not the damage is vaccine related. A sneaky way of avoiding a big payout in other words (if you are a conspiracy theorist) or just plain dumb of our government if you ask me.

OurBlanche · 20/02/2017 23:01

One more time Bumbley the paper did not include 'cause' but Wakefield has, does, probably always will do. Why, in the face of his lying, manipulative, dangerous behaviour would you choose to distract for such a minor quibble?

The man lied, his research is a lie, his continued persistence is crap. Why defend any part of him?

noblegiraffe · 20/02/2017 23:03

or American children whose diets (for example) are very different to ours.

Bloody hell, don't ever take any medication then will you? Studies tend to be international so your medication is unlikely to have just been tested on white British people who are vegetarian, or whatever.

OurBlanche · 20/02/2017 23:04

Mimi that is some seriously immobilising thought processing. Using that logic humans wouldn't get out of bed in the morning!

MimiTheWonderGoat · 20/02/2017 23:08

I don't gave a solution. I read and read and make my own decisions based on what I find out. If a study doesn't convince me then I don't accept it as the next best thing. I'm a data analyst/ statistician (not pharma) so probably look at studies with a more critical eye than most people might.

MimiTheWonderGoat · 20/02/2017 23:10

Ha! Which bit do you mean?

bumbleymummy · 20/02/2017 23:10

Because I wasn't talking about Wakefield (or defending him) - I was talking about the paper which some people had claimed said things that it didn't. I think people should know what the paper actually said. Why are you trying to make it into something that it isn't?

OurBlanche · 20/02/2017 23:13

Nicely turned! Nonsensical, but nice try!

TheWinterOfOurDiscountTents · 20/02/2017 23:14

To be so closed minded and with utter faith in "science" astounds me

Anyone who puts science in "" is generally unable to understand or evaluate it. Faith has nothing to do with science anyway.

TheWinterOfOurDiscountTents · 20/02/2017 23:17

The problem with the study you propose is the group that has not had MMR vaccine. How would you get that group? In the UK that vaccine is effectively a blanket requirement

Since there is only a 92% uptake, there are thousands and thousands of children who haven't had it.

But there has already been a huge amount of research, how many more times do people need to be told? Some will never listen, no matter how much research shows clear facts.

noblegiraffe · 20/02/2017 23:17

If you roll it out on a huge percentage of the population then if/when large numbers of vaccine damage reports roll in there will be no large unvaccinated (HPV) population of the same ages and backgrounds and environmental factors to compare them against and therefore no way to unpick whether or not the damage is vaccine related

Which is why they didn't simply 'roll out' the vaccine to everyone. You know it went through placebo-controlled clinical trials, right?