to not allow ds2 to have mmr jab?

[TheLadyEvenstar]

I don't think I am, after ds1 had it i noticed a major difference in his behaviour and don't want to go through it again,

Monkeytrousers -

% children dead from measles - must be very close to zero, since there have been only 2 deaths in the last 16 years from measles in the UK, and those two were both people whose immunity was compromised (one from drugs taken for an underlying lung condition, I don't remember the other one)

% children infertile from mumps - a big fat zero. Mumps does not affect the fertility of children. If caught after puberty, by adults, it has a small chance of affecting fertility. Solution: Jab pre-pubescent boys who have not yet had mumps.

% children dead/infertile/whatever from rubella - another big fat zero. Rubella is only seriously dangerous for a fetus, if contracted by a non-immune pregnant woman. Solution: Check immunity of teenage girls and jab those who are not yet immune to rubella.

Deaths from measles in 2007 197,000 mostly under 5's this has dropped 74% since 1999 because of vaccination programmes.

During the 62-65 epidemic in the US of Rubella it caused 30,000 still births and 20,000 children were disabled.
We have the luxery of living in a world with vaccines where deaths etc are now very rare.

There is a Dr. Rosemary Waring at Birmingham University who has researched gut immunity in the context of autism and ASD. She has discovered that a high percentage of autistic children have poor sulphation mechanisms. In real terms, this means that the mucins that line the gut, preventing pathogenic bacteria/ fungi from attacking the gut wall, are not smooth and slippery like they should be, but lumpy and clumpy and without the appropriate negative charge.

This means that the fungus Candida albicans (causes thrush) is not repelled and can grow more than normal, and can potentially create a leaky gut wall by "going hyphous" and penetrating it. Leaky gut has been linked with many auto-immune conditions as well as autism and ASD.

Children who have low sulphation potential may be more at risk from vaccines like the MMR; they might also be more susceptible to being intolerant of dairy and wheat (among other foods). They are likely to be at risk for other allergic/ autoimmune conditions such as eczema, asthma (for. e.g.).

There is no NHS test for sulphation potential. But if you come from a family with a high history of allergic/ autoimmune conditions, it is possible that the cause may be linked to poor sulphation, and the child might then be at higher risk of suffering a reaction to the MMR (or other vaccine)

This is a very short summary of one potential theory on how vaccines may contribute to ASD conditions. Dr. Rosemary Waring is a respected biochemistry researcher and her results make interesting reading.

There's also a very good paper published in Gut in 2006 (very high quality journal) which gives a model for the development of various autoimmune conditions such as arthritis, MS, type 1 diabetes involving leaky gut and things like gluten or casein. It wasn't daft enough to mention autism, but it was pretty much like reading an autism theory.

I followed up some of the references, and lots of the diabetes papers were very like autism papers too (all leaky guts & gluten). Interesting for me as although we don't have autism in the family we have lots of type 1 diabetes (including diabetes starting at age 2) and MS as well as various other odd autoimmune conditions.

well, if someone would take on Rosemary's (and others') ideas, it has been suggested that a risk-assessment model could be set up for parents to help them make a more informed choice - involving in-depth family history etc. This would not give cast iron security that nothing would happen, but it would raise flags that the child might be more at risk of an adverse event.

Another chap I have a lot to do with is Mike Ash - he is very knowledgable on leaky gut, gut immunology etc. And of course there is NAtasha Campbell-McBRide - her book on the Gut-Brain axis is very interesting. (although I did take issue with her suggesting increased intake of palm oil was beneficial, given what the palm oil industry is doing to orangutan habitats!)

you might already know of these 2 of course.

I shall look out for that article in Gut, thanks for that.

We used to consult with Mike Ash. He suggested saccromyces - which did seem to do a lot of good. But then ds1 just started refusing to take anything. He would eat around anything I tried to hide in food so it all got expensive and pointless.

I like Natasha Campbell-McBride's ideas - although her diet is hard to do 100%.

Another person I like is Derrick MacFabe. He's American- runs an autism research centre in Canada (parent funded!). HAd quite a long chat with him and think he's got some really interesting ideas. If you type his name, Canada and autism into google you get a video of a presentation he gave. It's very good.

"a piece about how parents are manipulated by the media with regard to MMR www.badscience.net/2008/12/its-not-my-fault-i-fall-into-repetitive-self-parody-you-started-it/"

I'm not manipulated by the media.

Personally I'm more interested in this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this
that whatever the media has to say about autism. (Most media reports I've seen have been pro MMR anyway).

I read that article on Saturday too. I used to be a big fan of Ben Goldacre's but I think he misses the point spectacularly with regard to MMR. I agree that reporting on MMR is pretty deplorable, but as jimjams says, the balance of media reporting seems very much in favour of MMR and against Wakefield.

I have learnt a lot more about the subject from mumsnet and the links posted by jimjams and others than I have from the press, who seem incapable of getting beyond the non-issue of rates of autism with regard to MMR.

Even if Dr Rosemary Waring's results could be replicated - they do not support MMR causition which is what the OP asked about. No one is saying that there are no honest or genuine researchers in the ' bio med' field only that higher standards and stricter regulation are needed if the wider community is to be engaged with its work. Regarding the theory that a special sub group exists. How would any 'risk assesment' be carried out and who would volunteer to take part ? My first son is autistic, we have a family history of bowel problems ( hardly significant in itself) so would anyone seriously suggest that I should have undergone 'risk assessment' before having my second son vaccinated ? No epidemilogical study, however wide in its scale has ever found any difference in autism rates in un vaccinated children than in vaccinated children. One survey found that autism rates were higher in unvaccinated children - but this has not led to speculation that there is sub group of children at risk of becoming autistic unless they get the MMR twice (or more).

However I do agree that it is not fair to suggest that anyone (here) is a victim of media manipulation. Everyone has done their own research very thoroughly. Equally, everyone has a tendency to blame the media and journalists for promoting views they do not like. We have a free press and journalists can say what they like but whether people believe it is another story - again something that all sides can agree on.

I think his point was that we're all manipulated by the media - them being the gatekeepers and all that - whether we like it or not.

christywhisty - re your worldwide measles death toll stats: We don't live in some remote village in Africa with only a witch doctor to rely on for medicine, so I don't see what the relevance is. Over 1.5 million children die from diarrhea around the world every year. Does that mean we should all vaccinate our children against diarrhea because it is such a killer disease? No, because in developed countries, children don't die of diarrhea.

And re "rubella caused still births & disabled children": Yes, Sherlock, we know rubella is dangerous for fetuses whose mums catch it for the first time when pregnant. And No, that does not mean all babies in the entire world, boys and girls alike, should be vaccinated. It would be much better to let children have rubella, build lifelong immunity, and vaccinate the few girls who haven't had it at around puberty.

Cote D'Azur - totally agree. I had never knowingly had ruella ( and parents could ot remember me having 'German Mealses' but was checked for it when I got pregnant with DS, and had antibodies, so had had it without even knowing... It is NOT a serious childhood disease, and it is a big con by the gvt to pretend it is. By all means have the jab, or let your children have it if you wnat to , but do not subscribe to the myth that is will do them any harm to catch it naturally - they may well already have...

btw - fwiw, both boys have had single measles jabs , and single mumps jabs, but if the jabs had not been available singly, would ot have done it. The measles jab was done at our local GPs surgery by her, without any fuss or preaching. She would have done mumps but could not get the vaccine 9to her chagrin), and so recommended a clinic to us...

A big con?

Con?

On a different note, did anyone watch the films by disabled people above?

MrsGuy - I am also immune to rubella and nobody remembers me having it. It is quite a mild disease that often passes unnoticed.

think i'm just going to post this from now on on these threads:

MMR is safe for the large majority.

Emerging [but insufficient] research suggest that a small subset of children [history of auto immune disorders, bowel/gut inflammation] may be be vulnerable.

I think the figure suggested is that of around 6% of all regressive autism cases could be caused by MMR. Too small to be picked up by large scale epidemological studies, but crucial for the individual children and families involved.

Most children have MMR with no ill effects.

monkeytrousers - Rubella is indeed a mild disease and to pretend otherwise is a lie. The only one for whom it is dangerous is unborn fetuses. It is indeed a con to pretend that all our babies are at risk from rubella and MUST be vaccinated before the age of 2.

So, let me get this right - the main thrust of all these claims is that the government is conning or lying to us. Does anyone know why they would do that and waste so much money doing it?

because it is cheaper for them to do combined vaccinations

it is a con to say that a baby boy needs rubella innoculation and a baby girl needs mumps innoculation. It is a con to not say that vaccinating babies will in many cases not offer lifelong immunity against these diseases.

Was the 'small sub group theory' was mentioned in Dr W's original 1998 paper or was it invented later on ?

Monkeytrousers - I wish you would read these controversial threads before you thrust in with your posts.