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,

I think we have to be careful here to separate out science from politics. If you talk to scientists who work in the autism field many (especially in the States- because of the type of autism work which goes on there) will quite happily debate the role vaccinations (all vaccinations, not just MMR) may play in triggering autism in some cases. The various different mechanisms which may be in place. They will happily discuss this at conferences. Talks on this subject get accepted at conferences. Even those that suggest vaccines can play a role. Either primarily or as a secondary trigger (that role- secondary trigger is particularly accepted/non-controversial). I had informal chats with autism researchers - again at IMFAR- and it was not remotely a taboo subject. It was discussed freely and openly. Along with antibiotics and gut damage and everything else certain people would have us believe is terribly controversial.

That work isn't done here because 99% of the work on autism in the UK is done by cognitive psychologists. So in the main they work with people with AS (who are less likely to be vaccine damaged anyway- the inheritance of AS is broadly different) on various psychological tasks.

Autism speaks (parent funded) is a big funder of autism research their aim has been to attract the biggest players in various fields and encourage them to investigate autism. Hence the research questions in the link above are now being investigated.

There's also now finally money being put into investigating the abnormal immune system in many people with autism (I think it's now agreed it often is abnormal).

A lot of these initiatives are now happening because parents have pressed for the answers and have basically set up the organisations which fund the research. I spent a lot of time at IMFAR talking to a doctor/research group director whose centre is investigating various claims that have originated from parents (and were initially rejected, but now found to be accurate)- funded by a parent.

I'm not sure one 'invents' a theory as such.

Don't scientists develop hypotheses based on observation or as extentions of pre-existing scientific theories?

Haven't you actually read the 1988 Lancet paper then cyberseaphim? If you haven't then how are you able to be so critical of the theory it proposes and of Dr Wakefield as one of the main authors?

Here is a link to it so you can see that it doesn't make any sweeping claims. It is a study of a case series and thereby by definition is only examining a small sub group.

I have no objection whatsoever to researchers pursuing their interests and agenda but I do think that ordinary people should be allowed to judge the evidence for themselves and if they find it lacking, to be able to say so - and part of the process of understanding, is to be able to have an accurate account of how, when and why, theories are put forward.

i don't think the govt is trying to con us. I do however think a decision has been taken, understandably, to protect public health at all costs. They are afraid of misinformation, of people not being able to tell the difference between a homeopath telling us polio is good for the immune system [no i don't believe that] and that MMR may cause problems for a very small section of the population. If they allow a small loophole in their affirmation of universal safety, they are afraid of an epidemic. I do see their logic. However it doesn't really help those families whose children have suffered immeasurably, quite possibly from MMR, and it prevents further research in the area. This is a problem.

the research is insufficient syberseraphim. No further research is being carried out [officially] despite govt's own enquiry recommending the need for more research. Funny that.

Only got to page 3 of comments so apologies if anyone has made this link already, but interesting article in saturday's guardian, especially about severe asthma actually occuring LESS in children that had the MMR.

www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/dec/06/bad-science-mmr-vaccine

oops, just realised this has already been discussed...

that's probably an effect of the measles virus itself though alternative types have been saying this for years.

And note in the link above (arguing that the effect is not great enough to justify not vaccinating) there are a lot of confounders mentioned!

I think the following quote from the 1998 Lancet paper is particularly interesting;

"In some cases the onset and course of behavioural regression was precipitous, with children losing all communication skills over a few weeks to months. This regression is consistent with a disintegrative psychosis (Heller?s disease), which typically occurs when normally developing children show striking behaviour changes and developmental regression, commonly in association with some loss of coordination and bowel or bladder function.14 Disintegrative psychosis is typically described as occurring in children after at least 2?3 years of apparently normal development.
Disintegrative psychosis is recognised as a sequel to measles encephalitis, although in most cases no cause is ever identified.14 Viral encephalitis can give rise to autistic disorders, particularly when it occurs early in life.15 Rubella virus is associated with autism and the combined measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine (rather than monovalent measles vaccine) has also been implicated. Fudenberg16 noted that for 15 of 20 autistic children, the first symptoms developed within a week of vaccination. Gupta17 commented on the striking association between measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination and the onset of behavioural symptoms in all the children that he had investigated for regressive autism. Measles virus18,19 and measles vaccination20 have both been implicated as risk factors for Crohn?s disease and persistent measles vaccine-strain virus infection has been found in children with autoimmune hepatitis.21 "

Interesting to see that viral encephalitis from wild measles infection can lead to children regressing, developing behavioural problems and bowel conditions. Sounds very similar to autism does it not?

Cyberseaphim if you read the paper it clearly states why it comes to the (fairly basic and limited) conclusion that it does. It is a scientific paper which examines, observes, documents and describes a group of previously unseen bowel lesions and problems. One can't really have an opinion on it as it is not a subjective piece. It is a scientific report done in the usual manner. Either the science is good or it is not, it is not a matter of personal opinion or interpretation. The science has never been discredited so it still stands no matter how you or I may feel about it or how inconvieniant the logical conclusion it draws may be.

Also if you look at Dr Wakefield's professional history it is no surprise that he was one of the people who became involved in the original early report. He was a gastroenterologist who had been looking at links between measles infection and bowel disorders (specifically Crohn's) for quite some time.

Indeed he had gained a reputation for being excellent in his field of research and was awarded large grants in order to pursue his work.

"ordinary people should be allowed to judge the evidence for themselves"

Judging by these MN threads on MMR, I would have to say that "ordinary people" don't judge the evidence, they (you) judge newspaper articles.

If you were interested in the evidence, they would read the study in question. Sorry.

Meant to say if people here find the 1998 Lancet paper lacking or scientifically unsound I'd be really interested to hear why.

Here is the link to it again in case anyone missed it.

lol Cote. Do I 'thrust'? Little time, nothing more.

"I'm not sure one 'invents' a theory as such.

Don't scientists develop hypotheses based on observation or as extentions of pre-existing scientific theories?"

Yes! A theory is a consolidation of tested hypotheses - tested by many. Challenge and contestation is the crucial element of the scientific method. Many people seem to think a challenge is a bad thing. It is the making of the thing - unless it breaks of course.

Challenge is not a bad thing.

Expecting people to explain things over and over because you are too lazy to read a thread before posting on it is a bad thing.

Cote, stand down. This is mumsnet. It's a forum for mums. Perspective is everything.

i went for single jabs but ds1 had pre school booster of mmr jab. the booster you don't need to worry about.

Yes, it would be amazing nice if someone actually tested Wakefield's hypothesis rather than one they've --made- up they would prefer him to have. Except he doesn't,

First rule of challenge is to understand the bloody hypothesis you're challenging.

Monkey - This is a debate of facts and logical reasoning, not subjective "I like/don't like" viewpoints. As such perspective is not everything, it is not even much of anything on this thread.

Read the thread. Then maybe you will have something interesting to contribute.

Quite Monkeytrousers.

So Dr Wakefield et al observed children with a bowel disorder that they had not seen before. They examined this group of children within the scientific context of the time. The context provided them with information that had been researched by others and themselves over a number of years. None of this science hit the papers, made the public eye or had been considered terribly controversial. The information scientifically shows that measles virus can cause bowel problems, developmental regression, loss of skills, digestive disorders, immune system disorders and so on.

Building on what had been previous established with regards to measles virus plus observing that these children developed their symptoms in the period following exposure to measles virus, it was hardly a huge leap to suggest that this exposure had played a role in the development of the observed and documented symptoms.

The exposure happened to be through vaccination so the paper was destined to piss a lot of people off.

So Dr Wakefield et al who had been trying to meet with the Department of Health for quite some time to discuss their concerning (one would have thought) findings recommend that more research is done ASAP. They do not claim to have shown causation, they say more larger studies need to be done. In the meantime they suggest that it might be prudent to offer single measles vaccine as it does not appear to be implicated.

Ten years on and we are still waiting for the government to commission a study that accurately reproduces, challenges and tests this original early report.

Oddly lots of time and money seem to have been spent on studies that try to disprove claims that were never made in the original report or looking for needles in epidemiological haystacks.

Logic and reasoning. Guffaw. This is MN, Cote.

Still, If I'm pissing you off, I must be doing somehting right.

MonkeyTrousers - No, you are not pissing me off. I know from previous experience that you are not to be taken seriously, that you like getting into controversial threads whose subjects you know very little about only to ha-ha-ha about it all.

Yes, you are doing something right - teaching about yourself to the rest of MN.

Do stick around, though. You might learn something.

I still do think it's a con. If the government don't bother to do pre-vaccine health checks and don't publicise wrt possible at-risk groups and practically strong-arm parents into getting their babies MMR'd and er, oh yeah, forget to mention that the immunisation may not last beyond adolescence........then um imho something is very wrong. People should be given the information so that they can make informed choices. The greater good angle pisses me off. So maybe a greater number of babies will suffer no ill effects from the MMR but what of the percentage who do. Do they not matter? Of course they bloody do.......we need to do a hell of a lot more to identify these individuals and to protect them from harm. I thought the greater good angle used when they said pregnant women should not drink alcohol was patronising (because they assumed women could not work out how much 2 units is) but at least no one's health is compromised. The vaccine issue is very different. Doctors eagerly seek to discredit Wakefield when questions are asked about safety. They don't talk about vulnerability or immunological issues. They have perfected a look that says "hmm, don't be stupid dear". I'd rather be thought of as stupid and know that I chose the safest option for my dc. I just wish more balanced information was made available by the NHS instead of the current pro-MMR propoganda which is defensive in nature.

SO have those who think us who won't give the MMR to our second/third children realised that PERSONAL experience over rides that of someone who learns it all from a text book?

No, YANBU. He is your child, so your choice. If you had a bad experience the first time round I am not suprised you dont wan to now. Go with what your heart tells you.

Well said ladylush.

I actually find it quite frightening the lengths the government is prepared to go to in order to protect Pharma's profit public health policy and the arses of those responsible for the current lamentable situation.