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,

Well there was a radio item on this morning claiming that we all waste, on average, 2 working days a week, browsing web sites instead of working. I think I might have over used my quota by now.

My concern has never been about the science, and as I now understand it from arguments presented here, Dr W. now rests his case on the 'Turin Shroud' argument - that if he could run the measles tests again, he would get different results which would support his case. My concern is with truth and honesty. I do not know how it was helpful to any parent of any autistic child, that research based on false data was presented to the public as a reason for avoiding the MMR. I do support the right any parent to opt for singles or even to avoid vaccination altogether (however much I may disagree with the decision) as we live in a country that allows parents that freedom. There are many countries where there is no question of attending school or any public facility if vaccination is deliberately avoided without a medical reason. However living in a free country was Dr W's downfall as he had , in the end, no means of silencing those who would not back down from telling the public the truth about his activities. I do not blame Dr W. for making blunders and mistakes ( most scientists do ) but I do not accept that he had the right to to deceive the public into thinking he had discovered a link between MMR and autism.

I'll leave this one now as my gut feeling ( joke alert) is that it's all been said by now. Hmm Turin Shroud - another favourite and more seasonal topic. ......

cyberseraphim - have you not read the whole thread? Wakefield has already been discussed and the points you believe to be true about him were addressed.

In the US it is possible to get exemption without a medical reason - but you need to know how, as with other things.

I'm supposed to gone by now - Yes I have read everything about Dr. W but my concerns have not been answered although I accept that those who continue to believe in him have had their concerns answered.

Which false data are you talking about? You keep talking about false data without actually saying what is meant to be false. Are you talking about Chadwicks work? Wakefield agrees the results were negative using this methodology.

The arguments there come down to different PCR methodologies. I spent a year amplifying DNA I knew was there, but not able to visualise it the way I needed to - because I couldn't get the next step to work. Doesn't mean the DNA didn't exist. It just meant I couldn't see it at the level I needed to. Now (having had a trip back to the lab last year), there would have been no problem visualising the bit I needed to see because they're using a different methodology.

Look here'sa publication with Wakefield's name on it showing he couldn't identify measles virus RNA in IBD

Cyberseraphim Dr Wakefield does not rest his case on the argument you cite. He has not rested his case at all in fact. He and others continue their research at Thoughtful House in the US. They are also continuing to help treat gastroenterological problems in autistic children. It is a shame that more UK doctors don't follow his lead and investigate bowel problems in autistic children who present relevant symptoms.

I have a couple of requests for you.

Could you please link to a citation where Dr Wakefield says, and I quote from you, "that if he could run the measles tests again, he would get different results which would support his case"?

Are you aware that the 1998 Lancet paper at no point examines whether the children have persistent measles infection or not? There is no data in this report concerning measles detection as the relevant tests were not performed as part of this study.

Could you link to where you are getting your information that Wakefield et al's data was false please? Could you indeed specify which data you are refering to?

Could you specify what you mean by Wakefield's blunders and mistakes?

Could you confirm whether you have actually read the 1998 Lancet paper as linked to earlier or not? I ask because much of what you have posted on this thread suggests that you haven't read it. If you have not then I fail to see how you can come up with a sensible critique of it.

(BTW you might want to be careful about what you post or at least how you put it as much of your above post is libelous and could get MN into trouble.)

Hmm, why is this so addictive. But I have to end my contributions now - and I wish the good doctor well in his new career of exorcism !

Take this anti Wakefiled blog getting overexcited about Chadwick's negatives. Er Wakefield published those negative results in the link I gave above.

I'm not sure who's being economical with the truth here....

So wakefield actually publishes the results you're suggesting he ignored. And yet you still think he's presenting false data.

You know, you're right Cybersraphim we do live in a free country with freedom of speech. I think you are right that laypeople should be able to speak up and be heard if they find fault with an authority of any nature.

However I think that with these rights comes responsibilty; the responsibility to not libel others, misrepresent others, mislead others, and present as fact what is only utter bollocks one's humble and possibly misinformed personal opinion.

although I have to say I have personally enjoyed cybers' posting along the general lines that people who have concerns about the MMR are misinformed and refuse to be swayed from an emotional position which can't be sustained by the facts. I love irony.

The question of who is spouting misinformation and ignoring anything that does not fit with their own beliefs seems to be in the eye of the beholder

Quite right pagwatch.

I suppose when you think about it those who claim there is no link between MMR and autism are doing a jolly good job of defending their position really considering that they don't have any relevant, impartial, unflawed studies or data with which to back up their assertion.

You can only do what you feel is best for your child. Having said that was surprised to find a friend admitted that she refused the MMR years ago and actually regrets it now.

Actually it is a particularly impressive performance given that the Vaccine Court in the USA has recently awarded damages to a child who developed autism after multiple vaccinations of which MMR was one.

Asserting that there is "no link" is quite a tricky challenge for them now really but the dedicated continue all the same. Amazing!

I would like to thank beachcomber, jimjams, pagwatch and cote (and any others) for their extensive knowledge in this area. It has been an educationally enriching experience reading this thread

Thank you ladylush.

I'm sure I speak for all of us when I say your comment makes a refreshing an encouraging change from being insulted.

Well I must disagree Beachcomber have you seriously read this article...I can see no flaws.

www.newscientist.com/article/dn7076

Its the best large scale study out there that shows no link between MMR and autism.

Lots of problems with that article.

1. When MMR was replaced by singles in Japan it was replaced with singles given on the same day. This is equivalent to giving MMR.

2. It is another piece examining whether MMR has been responsible for the rise in autism cases. No-one is suggesting it is. That is not Wakefield's hypothesis. He is asking whether it has triggered autism and bowel disease in a small subgroup of children with autism (if you ask people who work in this group they'll say approximately 7%). That study didn't look for or test that.

Hello jimjams

• I cannot understand 1). How is giving MMR separately any better than giving it together? I have NEVER seen a single study on this, its like one of these urban myths that have been accepted without quesion and taken advantage of by expensive clinics.

2. Does that mean 7% of children with autism was triggered by the MMR? how can that figure be deduced form the small scale Wakefield study (apologies if I missed your explanation in previous pages)

Hello lil.

Yes of course I have 'seriously' read the study your article refers to. Anybody who is really interested in the vaccine/autism debate knows of this fatally flawed and biased study that has been touted (and long since been discredited) as "the final nail in the coffin of the claim that the MMR vaccine is responsible for the apparent rise in autism in recent years". (Why the need for the ridiculous spin??)

What Jimjams said with bells on. Plus one of the main authors (Rutter) has serious conflict of interest issues.

homepage.ntlworld.com/clifford.g.miller/hondarutter.html#The_Vaccination_Data_HondaRutter

homepage.ntlworld.com/clifford.g.miller/hondarutter.html#Japanese_Autism_Linked_to_Vaccines

homepage.ntlworld.com/clifford.g.miller/hondarutter.html#The_Invalid_Claims

homepage.ntlworld.com/clifford.g.miller/hondarutter.html#Autism_Rose_Fell_With_Vaccinations

homepage.ntlworld.com/clifford.g.miller/hondarutter.html#the_power_of_rechallenge

homepage.ntlworld.com/clifford.g.miller/hondarutter.html#who_is_Professor_Sir_Michael_Rutter

Sorry to be blunt but citing this study as some sort of proof of the safety of the MMR vaccine only weakens one's argument.

The debate on this sort of stuff is great when it isn't reduced to personal slanging matches - this has been a good one.

I have been vilified on other threads by posters for introducing non-MMR-relevant corollaries but will do so again.
Wakefield's original research was investigative, no agenda as such. He found results that he published, no problems originally seen with his paper, until the immense backlash from the Pharma Powers and the Govt - leading to investigations and general discreditation of his work as a whole and almost criminalising him.

This has happened to other scientists in other fields: Arpad Pusztai researched GM-modified potatoes and published results that suggested that rats eating potatoes that contained a snowdrop lectin did not do well, and that their progeny were small and in poor health, and often infertile. He was vilified, sacked asked to leave his post, and subjected to general discreditation of his whole body of work (GM companies are often related to Pharma Power)

And on the other side: much of the work done on the safety of aspartame was done by a man who was employed by a scientific foundation that was at least partially funded by Pepsi (amongst others). Oddly enough, he kept finding it had no adverse effects - but then he was using MSG as his placebo in some of his RCTs (glutamate and aspartate use the same receptors in the brain).

Anyone who seriously believes that financial interests have no power over research outcomes is being a little naive.
Just look at the way vitamins are now being slated as being "cancer-causing" - Vits A & C (two powerful anti-oxdidant vitamins) have both suffered this label. But then Big Pharma can't patent/trademark vitamins and god forbid anyone should actually get well without pharma products, or stay healthy enough not to need them!

Excellent post thumbelf. Beachcomber, as a nurse I find (like many of my colleagues) that I have a questioning approach to medication in general - which includes vaccinations. I am always quite astounded how passive many people are in this process and don't research what possible side-effects are in their medication nor what it is comprised of. I detest the way in which the pharmaceutical companies operate. Corporate drug pushers. Ply professionals with food and free lunches, then the indoctrination begins. Doncha know there's no such thing as a free lunch Nonetheless I am not nearly as informed as you and jimjams et al, so very grateful for the knowledge you have imparted.

"side effects are in their medication! Erm I mean, what side effects may arise from their medication. Am tired. Have been nursing a sick ds

Oh blimey. Just ignore the grammar

Thanks Ladylush!
Another interesting point is that in 2 separate studies, one in 1998/9 in the UK and another in 2007 in Eastern Turkey, they found that ~70% of GPs use the promotional literature from Pharma companies as their primary source of info on medication. Only about 17% of GPs did any independent research through medical journals to check for accuracy/bias.
Obviously the promotional literature is designed by the Pharma companies to increase sales of a commercial product, and is highly unlikely to be an unbiased source of info.