to not expect my dr to give me such a hard time over vaccinations

[squimlet]

So we have decided to delay giving dd her mmr vaccinations. she has glue ear and persistant coughs and colds and we have decided to delay giving it to her till she is up and running a bit better - even it thats a few years down the line.
So this morning my dr started giving me a hard time over it saying that she will catch this that and the other and then she will be infertile and her children might be brain damaged and do I want that on my concience. How would that make me feel knowing it was my fault etc etc.
I just nodded and smiled but Oh god inside I was boiling with rage. I so wanted to tell him to bugger off but refrained.

There were never any studies done on its safety since 1929
. So the wording has always been something like 'there is no evidence that it is harmful'. Of course there isn't it hasn't been tested.

The main problem with thimerosal was that no-one considered the amount that babies were receiving. A little is probably fine, especially if you have a fully functioning detox system - which a lot of autistic children don't.

The FDA asked for it to be removed from childhood vaccinations in 1999, and the American Academy of Paediatrics called for the same in the same year.

The UK finally removed it in 2004 when I think WHO guidelines were changed to recommend it was removed. THis did follow work showing that thimerosal affected brain structure in mice.

There was some sort of overlap when the FSA were recommending that pregnant women shouldn't eat more than one portion of tuna a week (this was post 1999 as it was after my first pregnancy) but it was still deemed ok to inject mercury into 8, 12 and 16 week old babies.

Of course we didn't always inject 8, 12 and 16 week old babies with thimerosal- until the introduction of the MMR in 1989 the baby jabs were spread over the first year which gave longer between doses to get rid of the mercury.

If you want definitive proof that thimerosal is dangerous you won't find it as so little research has been carried out on it. However it is known that mercury is a neurotoxin. It also didn't need to be in the vaccinations. It could have been entirely avoided (as it is now) using single dose vaccinations. They cost a dollar more per dose.

Oh, the old thimerosal again???? It's mercury you loon.

Perhaps you should know the ins and outs of it all before getting angry with people who bother to find out about such things.

WW - you alright, sweety? Has the mercury gone to your head?

I meant to say I don't know if the paper concerning thimerosal and mice was significant in the WHOs decision but they were very close in time and the mouse paper was widely reported. There had been growing concern from the late 90's anyway, so it may not have had much to do with it. It remains controversial as to how relevant it is to humans.

Not at all, Cristina. Deliberate ignorance does irritate me slightly however.

Thanks, Yurt, now I remember reading about that a few years back. There was a good book written on the MMR by the guy who was Lancet editor at the time of the publishing decision in '89, i forgot his name. (Must be too much tuna.)

WW - join the club then.

His contrinution to the MMR trial is pretty interesting - RIchard Horton.

He's supposedly said that the original paper was excellent science.

From the point of view of someone with a severely brain damaged child it is nice to be able to rule things out (especially when there are siblings to make decisions about). Had I know I could have got a thimerosal free jab for a dollar more I would have gladly paid the dollar.

I don't know whether it was involved or not but the blatant lies spouted about its safety by a dept of health official on the news when it was removed destroyed any confidence i had in anyone other than myself or dh making the decision about whether to vaccinate the younger 2. I would have found the honest 'we don't actually know' far more reassuring.

Which is a shame because sometime Social Services will be making the vaccination decisions for ds1 (so obviously he'll be topped up). I probably need to find an open minded GP for him. I had one, but he stopped practicing.

waiting a short while is perfectly reasonable. A few years? Why?

glue ear can take a while to clear up kekouan- I guess that's what the OP means.

"I would have found the honest 'we don't actually know' far more reassuring." I agree with you, Yurt. This is probably for a different thread, but for every professional's "we don't actually know" there will be someone else's certainty (non-professional's) that they do know. I think things are changing in this regard in health professionals' training and it's much more of a requirement nowadays to specify the limits of 1) medical knowledge, 2) your own personal knowledge. (But when you do you have someone jumping down your throat like my WW friend above.)

Glue ear can take up to the age of 8 or more to totally clear up. It can also be episodic, so you can find a week or more without glue ear.

btw - someone at work had rubella, caught from their child, whilst I was pregnant.

Terrified at 20 week scan doesn't even cover it.

Well tbh I have found doctors very open to the idea that vacinations may have contributed - or at least that is wise to delay/reduce the vaccination load on ds2 and ds3. I have had no hassle ever, and actually quite a bit of support (even in places like A&E with a convulsing child where I wouldn't have suspected it).

The problem is politics.

If you have a spare day or two the GMC MMR trials are worth reading though. They're long but fascinating. The doctors interviewed (even those called for the prosocution) have come across as wanting the best of their patients, of being open minded, of not thinking they have all the answers.

The powers that be? A different matter.

Well tbh I have found doctors very open to the idea that vacinations may have contributed - or at least that is wise to delay/reduce the vaccination load on ds2 and ds3. I have had no hassle ever, and actually quite a bit of support (even in places like A&E with a convulsing child where I wouldn't have suspected it).

The problem is politics.

If you have a spare day or two the GMC MMR trials are worth reading though. They're long but fascinating. The doctors interviewed (even those called for the prosocution) have come across as wanting the best of their patients, of being open minded, of not thinking they have all the answers.

The powers that be? A different matter.

Sorry to seem like I was jumping down your throat , cristina.

I was just amazed you didn't seem to know what thimerosal was and that you seemed to dismisss it as an old chestnut that you didn't know much about.

Where can I find those? Is the trial over?

WW - yes, probably a misundersatnding. Perhaps I have different ideas about what knowing the ins and outs of things means. I may have read an authoritative book on MMR and all the studies published about it, I still don't feel I know enough.

oh no it will go on for ever! Type Cry Shame autism into google and there's a massive report there. "trial diaries or something' The website is obviously not unbiased, but the reporting from the trial seems fairly straightforward reporting rather than opinion. Or at least the opinion is about boringness or style not the case as such.

Unfortunately it was decided not to allow transcripts of the trial to be made publically available apparently. Which is a shame as that would obviously be easier to trust as being free from observer bias.

The Richard Horton stuff is particularly interesting. I thought he'd really stick the knife into Wakefield but he didn't at all.

It's an interesting trial anyway as the affected children 'the victims' have not been allowed to testify. And none have complained- they wanted the treatment. So its a trial without victims as such. Fascinating read. But long. And will get longer.

cry shame- GMC reports

Yurt - thanks, I'll have a look. The GMC being secretive? You DO surprise me

QED. I don't think anyone knows enough to claim authority on the subject.

Actually it is quite opinionated (just browsing again), he makes it very clear who he likes and doesn't. BUt you can get at what's going on.

Would love to see the original transcripts

Here's a bit about Horton

When Horton moved to talking about the paper published in the Lancet, it became clear that he had the highest regard for the method which the ?case series? used and the way in which it was presented. If the prosecution was expecting him to say that the paper was full of poor science, they must have been surprised when he said the absolute opposite.

Horton said that the Lancet paper was an excellent example of a ?case series?. That this was a standard and entirely reputable way of reporting on a possible new syndrome. He likened it to how the first cases of HIV/AIDS were reported in the early 80s and how the new variant CJD issue broke more recently. He said unequivocally that the science reported in the 1998 Lancet paper ?still stands? and that he 'wished, wished, wished' that the clock could be turned back and the paper be considered in the light it was first presented, without everything that followed.

Defence council spent a considerable time cross examining Horton about the declaration of ?conflict of interest? issue. Over the years this has become one of the most important issues associated with the Lancet paper. At the end of a long session, the worst that Horton could adduce was that Dr Wakefield was genuinely surprised that there was the need for him to reveal funding from the Legal Aid Board, which anyway hadn?t been used in this case-series, or at all at that point.

Horton was happy to say that Dr Wakefield had been honest throughout his dealings with the Lancet and that he had not declared any conflict of interest because he genuinely believed (and believes still) that there was no conflict to be declared. While Horton personally disagreed with Dr Wakefield?s interpretation of this, as did Professor Simon Murch and Professor Walker-Smith, he acknowledged clearly that it could be seen as a matter of opinion and not a reflection on Dr Wakefield?s honesty.