to be cross my ds has measles because other parents didn't vaccinate their children

[snickersnack]

He's 11 months old, poor little thing . Fortunately he's going to be ok - he got off quite lightly, I think - but it was scary and he was really poorly for a day or so. Spent 10 hours in A&E yesterday while he had chest x-rays, blood tests, IV fluids etc. Now we're just waiting to see if his sister,who's 2, gets it - she's had one dose of MMR already so fingers crossed she's immune.

We live in an area where immunisation rates are among the lowest in the country. Now I have to go and tell all parents of the other babies he's met recently that their children might be at risk as well...

interesting question hatty/winky, to which i don't know the answer. But, there is ceratinly an increased incidence of measles now that there has been a reduced uptake of the MMR.

Beachcomber i didn't make comments on the papers i cut and pasted because i allowed people to read the paper, not my interpretation of it. I am a health professional with 2 degrees and when i was taught research critique and methodology i was told to always read the materials and methods and results of a paper, never the abstract, introduction or discussion. That is the only way to maximise your own ojectivity IMO. So to read someone's biased commentary on a website called 'putting children first' which obviously has an axe to grind is not the way i evaluate any research.

You keep referring to Dr Wakefield's science. The only thing that i can glean from the original piece in the lancet is that he found bowel changes in patients suffering from autism. So what? This was already known. But the extensive and repeated mention of the MMR vaccination in this piece is what caused the mass hysteria that followed. There could have been any number of different factors that may have brought about the bowel changes associated with autism, but he chose to focus on just the MMR, because that was the stance from which he approached the study. And he didn't look at autism patients who hadn't had the MMR to compare (an easy way to evaluate the position and was done in the second paper i cut and pasted, showing that the bowel changes were the same).
IMO the MMR should not even have been mentioned in the original article, what should have been discussed was the need to identify environmental factors which may act as a trigger for the disease, to discuss whether the bowel findings were cause or effect, eg. He did admit that he had not managed to establish a link but stringly hinted that the virological studies following would.

My DS had a host of health problems and as a consequence we put off the MMR. He has severe life threatening allergies and had reacted badly to the DPT. We were in the middle of deciding what to do for the best when he caught measles from a child whose mother did not vacinate due to autisim. As an aside she worked for the NAO and had access to far more research data than most parents and was not convinced that the MMR was safe.

I did not feel anger towards her particularly more anger at a gov/country that did not offer single jabs to parents like her who had concerns. DS was very poorly for a long time and was in hosp. Luckily we had a gp who knew enough about measles to tell us how to minimise the effects (orange fleshed fruit and veg etc..).

On the plus side he now has life long immunity I guess.

AS an aside on the dangers of measles:

My BIL died from a simple strep infection.

I have tinnitus in my ear (and associated problems) from a simple viral infection.

Many illnesses can morph into highly dangerous killers if the circumstances are right.

macdoodle - I wouldn't be so sure that your baby's meningitis had nothing to do with the 5-in-1 vaccination she had 4 days ago.

Hib is one of five vaccines she was given, and "the most serious manifestation of Hib disease is meningitis.

I'm glad she is fine now. Poor little one

Dr Andrew Wakefield - the dr who wrote the article in The Lancet that sparked this controversy - has been in front of the BMA board again today and has admitted a negligence in medical ethics regarding children. (BBC News this am)

This man made unsubstantiated claims re: the MMR and children are suffering and dying from a completely preventable illness as a result. I am 17 weeks pregnant and terrifed in case I come into contact with an un-immunised child.

Hope your ds feels better soon x

my dd2 had a HIb infection as well as bronchiolitis when she was 11 days old.luckily the Hib was discovered and treated beforeit had a chance to develop into anything serious.

when she had her baby jabs i asked if she would be having the Hib vaccine,and the nurse said 'yes'.i asked why,seeing as she's had the infection,and the nurse just looked at me like i was mad and went ahead anyway.

i have gone through the thread but cant see that anyone has provided any info proving that childhood illnesses only started to decline after the introduction of vaccinations,rather than before as that 'vaccination hoax' article suggests.

Macdoodle...that is a great idea....all children should have to be vaccinated to get a place in nursery.

My ds was a VERY poorly baby and I was told that not to vaccinate would cause him even more problems than he already had. (Although when he had his 8 week set of vaccinations he was only 6lbs 12oz!) He has had the lot!

The simple fact is that parents who choose not to vaccinate their child are putting other children (and unborn children) at risk.

I consider that The Lancet has much of the responsibility for printing such unuibstantiated science and presenting it as fact.

Divastrop..you are kidding right?

Pre vaccination, children regularly died of measles, pertussis,diptheria, TB etc.

Just look at the infant mortality rates pre and post vaccination schedule!

Suey2 the problem with a line of argument such as yours is that you won't read things that come from a source that you don't like. Rather limiting no?

Putchildrenfirst is an organistion founded by parents. Of course they have an 'axe to grind' they believe and have evidence to back up their belief that their children have been devastatingly damaged by a so called routine medical procedure. The problem though in this debate is that everybody has an axe to grind. There are those on the 'pro-MMR' side who have their careers, reputations, livelihoods, and a whole lotta money at stake. On the other side you have thousands of parents who want the truth and recognition. You also have some honourable scientists who have sacrificed their livelihoods,funding and reputations in their attempt to investigate impartially. I know who I believe (and is much more convincing with the quality of their evidence).

Here is how Putchildrenfirst present themselves;

"PutChildrenFirst.org was founded by parents to let the world know that the Centers For Disease Control (CDC), a division of the Department of Health and Human Services, is covering-up the relationship between a near-tripling of vaccinations for our children in the 1990s and the epidemic of autism and other neurodevelopmental disorders that began at exactly the same time.
In 1999, the world was made aware through a joint statement by the AAP and Federal health authorities that our children were receiving dangerous levels of mercury through vaccines as part of the Childhood Immunization Schedule. Soon thereafter, the CDC's own internal analysis showed a startling correlation between autism and injected mercury.
For the next 7 years, the CDC has manipulated data, hidden results, purchased studies, and deceived parents, pediatricians, and politicians in a blatant act of self-preservation and pharmaceutical industry protectionism. When the mercury-autism connection could not be disproven using our own American data, the CDC shopped the world for studies to try and refute any correlation, finally finding support from a Danish vaccine manufacturer.
We don't expect everyone who reads this website to believe us. Our proof comes through the very words of the people responsible for this cover-up. The Freedom of Information Act, which many of the perpetrators did not realize applied to them, has allowed us to unearth dozens of documents never before seen by the public. We invite you to see for yourself. It's time to put our children first."

They are not alone in their analysis of the Danish study, it is one that is seen repeated many times by all manner of critics. Perhaps if you disagree with the conclusions they come to you would be so good as to detail here why. To just say 'oh but they must be biased so it doesn't count' isn't really cutting it I'm afraid.

I keep refering to Dr Wakefield's science because it stands unchallenged. The 1998 Lancet paper is not the only piece of research in this field you know. The Lancet paper was only the beginning of a hypothesis and was never made out by the authors to be anything more. It was a call for further investigation. What people forget is that Dr Wakefield had been investigating measles virus and bowel disease (particularly Crohn's disease) for some time, that is how he got involved in all this in the first place.

See here for a long list of work that supports and contributes to Wakefield's hypothesis.

You are making all kinds of sweeping statements about Dr Wakefield's motivation and ethics none of which you can back up. It is your opinion. Remember that Dr Wakefield did not and does not work alone and was highly respected in his field until he dared to ask questions about the safety of a vaccine.

You mention a study that compares autistic children who received MMR with autistic children who didn't, could you link to it please because I don't know what you're talking about.

Dr Wakefield's intention was to carry on his research and try to find answers to some of the many questions that the original paper raised. If his funding hadn't been cut perhaps he would have been able to do this. To criticise him for not carrying out such work is ridiculous. Fortunately others have carried on his good work and he has been able to continue his own work at Thoughtful House in the US.

Sorry Suey2 but this issue is no longer one of science but of politics. The science is there in shedloads.

But becaroo, you can't isolate the introduction of vaccines from many other factors that also came into play. Better hygiene, nutrition etc.

There is evidence that diseases like measles started to decline in incidence before the vaccine came along.

Polio is another story mind.

This may have been answered but...

I believe the MMR is 95% effective following both doses. Therefore, for every 100 individuals vaccinated, 5 of them are still vulnerable. This means it is vital to keep a high uptake of the MMR to protect that 5% of the population.

Also - raised earlier - bf does not protect your child from diseases always - DD2 caught chickenpox at 16 weeks despite me bf (and I def had chickenpox at 8 yo)

Can I just say a quick thing about the respect for Wakefield amongst his profession.

Three years after he published his findings he was made a fellow of the Royal College of Pathologists in recognition of his research work.

becaroo - If you aren't immune to measles, mumps, and rubella, why didn't you get yourself vaccinated before pregnancy?

no beachcomber, i wont read the critique of a piece of research which comes from a third party, i prefer to read the research myself not someone else's interpretation. I read the danish study. None of the accusations that the putting children first website highlighted was particularly obvious to me. The conclusion i came to was that it did not show the link between MMR and autism. It did not examine certain things which would have been nice to look at, sure, and there were flaws, but IMO the whole paper cannot be abandoned as a result. No one paper can look at everything, but there has been a huge amount of work done now without proving a link. I look forward to a meta-analysis: but maybe you dont trust the cochrane collaberation either!

There are many other papers which have not shown a link. Dr wakefield admitted that the link had not been proven. I am not saying he has never done anything of worth, but that he, IMO, showed naivety and a serious lack of judgement with the lancet piece for the reasons i mentioned previously.

You accuse me of refusing to consider research on the basis of bias. That is simply not true. I will read the research, as i said before, and consider any conflict of interest in my interpretation of the results. Thankfully authors are duty bound to reveal any conflicts of interest (except Dr Wakefield didnt) which should inspire the reader to analyse whether the interpretation of results could be subject to that bias. I did not rubbish the lancet piece on the basis of Dr Wakefield's bias, i rubbished it because it mentioned MMR throughout the study when there was no reason to highlight MMR above any other possible environmental trigger or factor.

We all have to decide as parents who we trust and what to believe in. I have had to evaluate literature for the last 20 years with reference to my clinical practice. If you have ever been to a medical conference you will see that there are many different opinions, often contradictory, with every academic/ clinician trying to stick to their pet theory like glue. You are right, there is always bias. But it is the researcher's duty to remove it from his methodology and interpretation of results.

I am flabbergasted that you say the dr wakefield's science stands unchallenged! He is a prolific author is it true, but it was this paper that caused worldwide panic and the specific stating of MMR throughout the paper although there was no clinical or academic excuse for it. That is why i am focussing on it, however excellent his other work. Perhaps he was swayed by a few desparate parents and wanted to find something for them, i don't know.

You, however, have rubbished great tranches of research not because of the methodology, but because one or more of the authors may have, for example, advised a pharmaceutical company in the past. If the possible bias is stated, it does not completely rubbish the research, but you do have to look critically at the methodology.

I approach all of this with absolutely no axe to grind. I am genuinely impartial and objective. I find some of the posting quite offensive and of real concern: that some people genuinely think that there is a conspiracy within the medical profession and the pharmaceutical industry to hide any link i find quite shocking. The medical profession is constantly researching effects of licenced drugs, for example, and they are soon pulled if there is found to be any problems. rememeber all the issues recently with cox II inhibitors?

I really hope that people realise that most researchers are dedicated individuals and that there are rigorous safeguards when work is published and drugs are licenced. TBH it would probably be more profitable for the pharmaceutical industry if the WAS a link- it would be a huge race to licence an alternative vaccine- remember, they only have 7 years exclusivity in which time they would make a serious amount of cash before any company is allowed to manufacture.

I have been vaccinated but as another poster pointed out it is only 95% effective and with the rate of immunisation dropping there are far more children with measles out there to catch it from!

you write:
"When the mercury-autism connection could not be disproven using our own American data, the CDC shopped the world for studies to try and refute any correlation, finally finding support from a Danish vaccine manufacturer".

Could not be DISPROVEN. I am sorry, but the impetus is to try and PROVE a link. I read that as it couldn't be proved either!

God Kerrymum.Have just had a very quick look at the article you linked to.Very worrying indeed.I definitely think ther eis no smoke without fire.I can remember when I lived in the UK John Gummer[agriculture minister]feeding his daughter a burger and poo pooing CJD etc.When I worked in A cHILDREN'S hOSPICE THERE WERE 2 TEENAGED girls with CJD.I also vaguely remember that one of the vaccines ds1 had was cultured in some bovine material[8 years ago].
He and ds2 have not had MMR.and ,going off the op,from what I can gather CJD,has been described as a ticking time bomb.

becaroo - When were you vaccinated and do you know for sure you are not immune now?

And what disease are we talking about? Measles? Rubella?

Spot on Beachcomber: 'I think we need to stop handling vaccines out like they are sweets'

becaroo-no i wasnt kidding.i have looked into it and can only see figures that suggest-as winkywinkola pointed out-childhood diseases in general were in decline pre-vaccination due to improved nutrition,hygeine etc.

if it's rubella you are worried about then i assume your routine blood tests showed you are not immune.i dont know how old you are but when i was at school(late 80's/early 90's)all girls recieved a rubella vaccination.has this been stopped?

Suey2 - how refreshing to read your postings. The internet is a wonderful place but sadly you can find websites, blogs and comments to back up any agenda/opinion and people have forgotten that without thorough referencing and research any argument can be baseless.

Beachcomber - don't let an impartial, clinical and qualified professional analysis get in the way of a good conspiracy theory, will you?!

Mohammed Al Fayed keeps coming to mind... (although even he's given up now...)

Suey2 - you are obviously well-informed and your participation on this thread is valuable. It is good to 'hear the other side'.

However, do you really believe that you are "genuinely impartial and objective"??? Is that what scientists really believe? Then we ARE in trouble.

But why on earth wouldn't Suey be impartial - she has no vested interest whatsoever other than doing the best for her baby.....

Will someone answer my question about measles in the gut? If the presence of measles in the gut post-MMR is linked to autism, wouldn't these children, if not vaccinated, suffer the same consequences if they went on to catch measles?

phdiva on this subject i have no previous bias. I have plenty of opinions when it comes to manual and exercise therapy, which is my field of practice and for which, therefore, i have a lot of anecdotal experience. It is a constant challenge within my own field to be entirely objective when reading research, and i will constantly try and pick holes in research i don't agree with as a result of my anecdotal experience. But i have been educated to exclude my own bias and although i don't always succeed, i am aware of this bias and take every measure to try and retain impartiality.

oo and thanks for the support mhmummy