AIBU to remind everyone that the MMR vaccine does NOT cause autism?

[TheHodgeoftheHedge]

Seeing as this worry comes up so many times on MN and in wider life, I feel obliged to post this and remind everyone that MMR has not link to autism whatsoever, as yet another HUGE study has found.

www.independent.co.uk/news/health/mmr-vaccine-autism-antivax-measles-study-andrew-wakefield-a8808086.html

Thanks.

Never mind. I got the full text, which is from 2016. www.bmj.com/content/355/bmj.i5792.abstract (You'd need to log in from a University or research account)

The mentioned 2004 analysis is www.clinicaloncologyonline.net/article/S0936-6555(04)00222-5/fulltext

The debate that accompanies the opinion article is certainly interesting, with different view points.
www.bmj.com/content/355/bmj.i5792/rapid-responses

Not sure what you wanted that quote (missed the quotation marks there) to show, though.
The review itself is from 15 years ago.
The review gives a more detailed analysis per cancer and per stage at diagnosis and treatment options.

The problem with what you've been saying, and seem to be trying to say is that it's different to say that chemo does nothing for cancer, or that chemo causes cancer, than to say that chemo is useful only in certain conditions or against certain cancers. That's fine. Doctors know that and advise on treatment based on knowledge about specific cancers. Treatment varies: surgery, radiation, chemo, combinations of all three. Even other options.

The 2016 comment really should have been based on more recent data, but reflects the fact that there are different optimal options for cancer treatment (and there isn't just one type of cancer) and that the options also depend on stage.

I'd agree that for metastatic cancers, chemo (which is really a last resort, because it's basically beyond surgery) offers little benefit regarding quality vs length of life. I've said many times among friends that I was fairly happy that my dad didn't discover his cancer until virtually his deathbed, while other people of similar age suffered for the entire length with little benefit regarding life extension.

However, I'd not tell people to avoid chemo, or that it's not beneficial at all as a blank statement.
As none of the authors said either.

From the 2016 comment

"Ethical cancer care demands empowerment of patients with accurate, impartial information followed by genuinely informed consent in both the clinical trial and therapeutic settings. Intensified prevention, earlier detection, more prompt and radical treatment of localised and regional disease, together with highly skilled, earlier, supportive care are the important yet underfinanced priorities in cancer control. Ethical impediments to sound practice need to be addressed and corrected. Above all, the efficacy bar for approval needs to be raised for both new and existing cancer drugs41 —by using more meaningful statistical and disease specific criteria of risk-benefit and cost-benefit.25 Finally, aggressively targeting the less than ethical actions of stakeholders in the heavily veiled medical-industrial complex may be the only way forward: current market driven rather than health driven priorities and practices do not benefit cancer patients."

That's what scientific debate, in this case about ethics, looks like. It's not a manifesto against chemo.

MNdog, it was you who brought up the primary school analogy. I merely put it into context. It is only Cath I feel this way about, not just anyone.

You might think Lweji the biggest instigator...I see her as the most knowledgeable and most likely to give trustworthy information.

Yes I do know what I am talking about. I also think that unfortunately Cath honestly believes what she is talking about, and I actually feel a little sorry for her in her delusion. However most of her information is flawed, confusing, and incredibly dangerous in how incorrect it is. Good information from credible sources...great. Information from Cath’s sources...nope.

If people actually believed her some would be shortening their lives massively, therefore robust replies are needed to counteract this. So no, I won’t let it go unchallenged.

“I've said many times among friends that I was fairly happy that my dad didn't discover his cancer until virtually his deathbed, while other people of similar age suffered for the entire length with little benefit regarding life extension*

I agree - I said the same about my mum. She never had chemo as there was no benefit to be gained and died 2 months after her metastasized cancer was discovered. .

HIVpos Mon 11-Mar-19 00:58:39

MNdog

I am going to go out on a limb here and assume this wasn't an accident.
You know what you're talking about, great! Be content in your knowledge, no need to learn anything more I am sure.

If people actually believed her some would be shortening their lives massively, therefore robust replies are needed to counteract this.

Are you absolutely certain about this? Do you really believe that most people are incapable of carrying out their own research and coming to their own conclusions without seeing yours and others abusive comments directed towards anyone who doesn't share your views? I would take you a lot more seriously if you didn't come across as so insecure and as such a bully. I do get that you are personally invested in this discussion due to your diagnosis but you are also completely sure you have nothing more to learn, so unsure why you're so hostile. I don't think it should be up to you to decide what other people can and cannot read/research, you don't deserve that kind of power and why you think you do is beyond me.

MNdog, The great thing about MN is that we can learn from each other, some know more on certain subjects, some less.

However incorrect, old and unreliable sources, and those that have been shown up as not to be trusted tend to also be flagged up as such, and reasons why given. It’s been proven in this thread again and again, and not just by myself and Lweji, that links referenced by Cath are in this category. Just as such links put up by anyone else would be if from untrustworthy sources

So yes, I am absolutely definitely certain. Insecure? Interesting you think that. Bully? If someone has just been diagnosed with HIV and is feeling very vulnerable reads this thread, it could be a very dangerous thing for them to read about it being a harmless virus and other totally incorrect information. So that is why I post, and yes that is why I will be hostile to anyone who refers to HIV as harmless, and advocates stopping treatment.

As for your assumption that I believe I have no more to learn...Oh wow - I learn new stuff every day. Last week was the CROI conference - really interesting stuff about the English and Düsseldorf patients that could help with cure research, then there’s new dual therapies being approved that are being shown as non inferior to the standard triple therapy - so potentially better for us. Then we’ve possible got monthly injections instead of pills. Then there’s all the studies on best meds for pregnant HIV+ mums to take. I’m also interested in breast vs bottle and risk of vertical transmission. Then research studies on growing older with HIV, menopause, HRT etc. It’s actually all quite exciting.

@HIVpos

You would deem absolutely anything that doesn't support your worldview as 'untrustworthy'. That's the most basic response from people who want to ensure a conversation doesn't take place. It doesn't make your position any stronger and people are more than capable of putting two and two together for the most part.

Cath has not advocated for ceasing treatment, that I have seen? I'm not sure where this accusation has come from tbh. Happy to be corrected though. And I am glad you've admitted that you don't, in fact, know everything there is to know

I am not a 'dog' though, HIVpos and would appreciate it if you stop with the name calling. Cheers.

Cathmidston The issue is that people are are risk of harm fron your unsubstantiated claims and out of date information. Fortunately, I am more that capable of realising this, doing my own research and speaking to people who are specialists in their field (in our case my husbands haematologist) others aren’t and that is where the problem lies.

My concern is that somebody in a very vulnerable position may come across one of your posts. My husbands diagnosis was completely unexpected; he does all the right things, doesn’t smoke, rarely drinks, keeps fit, eats healthily and even (you’ll be pleased to hear) drinks plenty of water, but just before Christmas he was told he had CML. He spent the first three nights in hospital on google, he read papers from over 20 years ago, but didn’t have the background knowledge to be able to interpret them or put them into context, ones that basically told him he was going to die. It took time for him, with the help of professionals, family and friends, to rationalise it all and understand that the future isn’t as bleak as he first thought. I’m just relieved he didn’t come across one of your posts in the middle of the night.

I’m just relieved he didn’t come across one of your posts in the middle of the night.

What, a person who simply said they wouldn’t undergo the same therapy that he’s been recommended themselves. Yeap really dangerous

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26922746

There is increasing evidence that patients whose disease is controlled by TKI's will have greater impact on their quality of life from comorbidities or drug adverse events than from the disease itself. Research into management of long-term toxicities is needed.

What, a person who simply said they wouldn’t undergo the same therapy that he’s been recommended themselves. Yeap really dangerous

Yes it is, and you know it.
Because it's a blank statement. You don't know the specifics to be able to decide which treatment, if any, would be more applicable.
So, it reads as no chemo ever, whether you mean it or not.
Saying "I wouldn't do it" or "don't do it" amounts to the same thing.

Saying "I wouldn't do it" or "don't do it" amounts to the same thing

No it doesn’t. How ridiculous
I was directly asked what I would do and I was also ridiculed for supposedly using conventional medical treatment when I said I wouldn’t vaccinate. So I gave my answer. And no, under no circumstances would consider chemotherapy and at the moment, thankfully I have a right to chose that because it is the right choice for ME. You can do what you want ...

under no circumstances would consider chemotherapy

That's the blank statement that's easy to say, particularly when you're not actually faced with the situation.
But you also said you'd pester relatives not to take medication. That's not neutral at all, no matter how you try to sound it.

And yes, it's highly hypocritical to trust conventional medicine for a whole set of circumstances and then reject it completely for other entire sets.

It's not black vs white. And it takes a small mind to reduce whole fields of medicine to this dicotomy.

Cath what would you do if you child contracted meningitis?

And yes, it's highly hypocritical to trust conventional medicine for a whole set of circumstances and then reject it completely for other entire sets
Seriously? So you have to accept ALL medication you’re offered or take NONE of it ...what a bizarre and quite frankly ridiculous notion. Doctors aren’t gods

How do you know I haven’t had to make that decision? In MY view there are far better methods of dealing with cancer than one that involves poisoning myself.

I was asked a direct question and I answered it truthfully, but quite frankly whatever I answered would be wrong in your view.

1. ‘Yes I’d take chemo’ = you hypocrite, how dare you accept chemo when you wouldn’t vaccinate.

1. Refuse to answer question = you’re a liar and a hypocrite and various answers would be made up on my behalf

1. ‘No I wouldn’t take chemo’ = you’re dangerous, we don’t believe you, you wouldn’t tell us to stop therefore you don’t really believe it etc etc blah blah blah

MDog - sorry if you take offence, but it is in fact your name which is rather long and I cba to type it all out. Katterina is on here too - if I was messaging her I could call her Kat - not saying she is one though 😀.

“You would deem absolutely anything that doesn't support your worldview as 'untrustworthy'.”

Nope, not just my view but the view of up to date reliable and peer reviewed sources, not old crap that does not stand up to scrutiny. I am more than happy to apologize when wrong as my aim is to inform, not misinform. Therefore my position is incredibly well backed up.

As for assuming I know everything...well nobody does as there is still so much that is being discovered - as I said exciting stuff even if there most likely won’t be a cure in my lifetime.

Cath told me she thought me absolutely nuts for taking HIV treatment. She also said she would be jumping up and down to prevent any loved one from taking it - or chemo. This is the same thing as advocating for ceasing treatment.

to @Awake. It is good your DH has access to good information.

It reminds me of another example...I work in supporting PLHIV and once saw a post from a new member (lived in a country with little support and much stigma) with a video. It was quite fascinating really. It was this very plausible healthy looking woman standing in front of a packed hall and telling everyone how she had stopped HIV treatment and was so much better for it etc etc. To this vulnerable newly diagnosed person he had come across this on the internet and took it at face value and thought he should not start his HIV treatment. What he (or I) didn’t realise was that this woman died shortly after of an AIDS related illness. This is what encourages me to look more deeply when faced with such misleading stuff - like the misleading stuff that Cath posts!

PS this person is alive and well and on treatment now - shame there’s still the stigma though which prevents some people from even seeking treatment until it’s too late and the virus has caused their death 😟.

I'd love to know what these 'far better ways of dealing with cancer' are. The ones that oncologists seem to know nothing about. Do share Cath, both the doctors and patients are desperate for more efficient and gentle ways of doing things.

Cath told me she thought me absolutely nuts for taking HIV treatment. She also said she would be jumping up and down to prevent any loved one from taking it - or chemo. This is the same thing as advocating for ceasing treatment

Yes, after you repeatedly and relentless accused me of not actually believing what I was saying because I wouldn’t tell YOU what you should do....and instead simply saying I wouldn’t take it... continually trying to goad me into telling you to stop treatment which I wouldn’t do ... like I said, I’m damned for whatever I say because having an alternative view is not tolerated and you were clearly trying to trap me into saying what you wanted me to so you could makes more derisory comments.

Thing is Cath you've not managed to provide a single shred of up to date, peer reviewed evidence to support your stance. You talk about goading and your friend talks about bullying, but they are both the tropes that people use when they can't provide what they are quite reasonably asked for.

@gilead

If Cath is anything like my friend i had the argument with the other day, peer reviewed doesnt mean anything. Because science isnt real and facts can be manipulated to suit an agenda.

Cath...yep you said it - calling me absolutely nuts to take treatment while providing no useful proof not to - just the same as advocating stopping treatment, no 2 ways about it.

So this is what makes you dangerous.

You continue to have no debate - certainly not about HIV anyway.

You continue to have no debate - certainly not about HIV anyway
So why are you still banging on about it then..I’m not...

HIVpos please keep taking the treatment... I wouldn’t take it, but I really want you to keep taking it... better?

You’re not? Oh good 😁

The problem with people like Cath is that any criticism of what she is against in principle is going to be taken as proof again everything she is against in principle.
In that sense, I’m damned for whatever I say, well, ain't life a bitch when you are unreasonable?