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,

You're welcome ladylush. I have a kind of personal interest in this because my daughter was damaged by the DTP vaccine (she is not autistic). Before this happened I was one of those passive parents who assumed that the good doctor knew what was best for my child and had her best interest at heart. I was ignorant of the power of big pharma and the monetary stakes involved.

I got into reading about autism and therefore MMR because my daughter had gastroenterological problems similar to some of those we see in some children with autism.

I sort of worked backwards as it were. I looked for info about bowel/allergy problems and kept finding it on sites that dealt with autism. It was only afterwards that I made the connection that a lot of these kids had reacted badly to a vaccine just as my DD had. I then started reading up on MMR (which my children have not had and will not be having) to see if what had happened to autistic children was in anyway similar to what had happened to my daughter. I discovered a lot of similarities like zinc, vitamin B12 defeciency, casein intolerance and so on.

Coincidence? I don't think so.

The fantastic research and work done by those concerned with autism has helped me to improve a lot of my DD's health issues. Some of the biomedical interventions that help autistic children have helped my daughter. Again, I don't believe this is coincidental.

MMR damage denial has long since left the realms of science and become a political debate. The shameful witchhunt of Dr Wakefield is proof enough of this. Unfortunately much of the public doesn't look further than the end of their nose or the BBC website so they have not only fallen for 'doctor gone bad' story (which is utterly ridiculous and doesn't have a leg to stand on when you think about it properly) but have joined in the unwarranted persecution of this dignified and honorable man. People like a good smear campaign and a bit of public hanging, let's face it.

[there isn't a smiley which even comes close to it emoticon]

Lil- that's my point- giving M M and R on the same day is the same as giving MMR. This is what they did in Japan when the MMR was withdrawn (because urabe strain mumps was causing meningitis). So a big flaw with the study you linked to.

There is no published work on the 7%. Although it is mentioned in Richard Lathe's book on autism. There has been no attempt to find out the size of the subgroup and the vast majority of studies have ignored its existence - preferring to show (yet again) that MMR is safe for the majority (we know that). One recent study did note a subgroup, but then went onto apply its own definition to the features that were associated with this group, which bore no relation to Wakefield's clinical studies.

Should have said the 7% comes from talking to people working with people with autism as a ball park figure as to the numbers that seem to have been affected. I know a lot (100;s?) of people with autism and that would tend to roughly tie in with the number who say to me that they think their child has been affected, so it's a figure I certainly find believable.

ladylush- when ds3 was in hospital with seizures the first person I saw was a nurse in A&E. She asked the dreaded questions 'child up to date with vaccinations' - and I started to explain no he hasn't had any- then started to justify it- she stopped me and said 'you don't need to justify it to anyone, he's your child'. I could have kissed her.

In fact the doctors etc were all surprisingly (to me) supportive as well, once the background had been explained and they realised the decision had been discussed with my GP and HV.

I have generally experienced this too.

When I explain to medical professionals what happened to DD1 as the reason for why she is not up to date on vaccines and why DD2 is currently unvaccinated they tend to agree with the decision (which like Jimjams was made with our GP and DD's allergist).

In fact I've yet to find a nurse or doctor who wants to come anywhere near either of my children with a jab.

Well I'm pleased to hear you've had quite positive experiences when dealing with medical professionals. Mine have been less so. Maybe that's because ds was considered less vulnerable than your children. At the time his MMR was due, there was only Lupus and Diabetes in the family gene pool - my thyroid disease had not been diagnosed. Still, as a baby he had terrible gastric problems and constant (no exaggeration) colds which seemed to last forever. Instinctively I just felt his system was not strong enough for an overload of viruses.
Back to pharmaceutical companies though, their spin is quite convincing if you don't know much about a topic and what questions to ask. A typical example is they will tell you x drug is more effective than y drug, but when comparing to y drug they cite a sub-therapeutic dose of drug y (a dose that would never be used) thereby rendering the "research" meaningless. That's a common trick, but there are many more.

I believe another underhand method they use is to not publish negative study results.

So if they get results they don't want for say adverse reaction, they just ignore those, don't make them available and try again.

Similarly vaccines are tested on thoroughly screened people with no health problems. So if you take the case of a child like my DD1 (born early, low birth weight, eczema, casein intolerant), it is more than likely that the vaccines she received had never been tested for safety for a child like her.

Then when it turns out that the vaccine wasn't safe for a child just try getting a doctor to admit it and report it. (medical professionals accept that my DD is vaccine damaged only because another doctor, our GP, says so. If I don't show them her notes written by him they think I'm making it up)

Again, the safety info on vaccines is totally inaccurate as the reporting system for adverse events is so inadequate. Currently any safety claims are based on pure guesswork as it is generally accepted, even by the government themselves, that only about 10% of reactions get reported.

If the government was serious about our children's safety they would overhaul the current passive reporting system and make it routine to follow up every vaccine given.

They would also start trying to understand what makes certain children vulnerable to vaccine damage and set up a rigorous screening process just as they have started advising doing in the US.

At the same time they should be contacting and examining every child suspected of MMR damage and try to find out what has happened to these poor souls.

I'm not holding my breath waiting for any of this however. I guess they're too busy persecuting blameless researchers and figuring out how to withdraw legal aid from families whose children have been damaged so that the state doesn't have to pay out compensation (and be faced with their monumental cock up).

you put other people's kids at risk by not giving your own child the vaccine. it's selfish. sorry to be so blunt.

Oh and they've also been pretty busy commisioning studies by people who have major conflicts of interest which can neither address the actual issue nor replicate the report they are trying to challenge.

Call me cynical but this either suggests gross incompetence or something to hide.

and the award for most crass comment of the day goes to......

Does anyone else find this thread a bit like being in a room full of people trying to talk when occasionally some pissed bloke stumbles in and shouts something incoherent?

at Pagwatch - that is pretty much exactly what it's like when people can't be bothered to read anything other than the OP and possibly the first page.

I have learned my lesson now - if I don't always read the whole thread, I always read the 1st 2 and last page, just to be on the safe side!

don't have time to read all 32 pages, so sorry if I've missed out a massive chunk about this study and that study as to why it's very wrong to give out the 3 in 1 vaccine....we are all entitled to an opinion still. made apology if upset anyone.

Of course we are all entitled to our opinion.

I'm just always a bit nonplussed by people who state quite strong black and white opinions such as 'it is selfish not to vaccinate' as though there isn't much to this issue.

Fair enough if you don't have time to read the thread but it kinda makes it hard to make a valid point if you don't really know what the discussion is about.

It is a bit like coming in to a discussion about bottle feeding for people who wanted to breastfeed but didn't get the support they needed, not reading the thread, and then telling people they are selfish if they don't breastfeed.

hey ahfeckit
tbh you didn't upset me because you clearly were just giving a knee jerk opinion.
But telling me that not givingthe MMR to my daughter after DS2 was left with massive severe SN after his MMR is 'selfish' is just pretty when you think about it.
Its not about this study and that study. It is about people on this thread who have severely damaged kids and genuine unresolved concerns.

Of course you are entitled to your opinion.

It just amazes me that when there have already been 32 pages it doesn't occur to new posters that everyone hasn't just been going 'yes its safe - no it isn't'

FWIW you should read some of the thread.

I have found it interesting and I already know quite a bit about this - obviously.

the mmr vaccine is a bit different to the bottle breast debate. i done a bit of both personally with my DS, so have no opinions either way about that one.
anyway, it's quite common for folk to just post a comment on a discussion without reading the whole thing (i made it plain and clear that i hadn't read the whole thing, as to others), you see it all the time. i'm just one of those people. ofcourse if one's view is seen as black and white, that means they then get picked on on places this. nothing new then...

pagwatch, sorry about your DS, that's awful. I just think the MMR is out there to help folk, it's there for a reason. It is just very unfortunate that there are a few out of X amount of children that will suffer from the MMR, but as a whole, the vaccine is safe and better than the consequences of going without and risking disease. That's basically all I meant from my comment, I don't go out of my way to have a stab at folk, parenting is hard enough as it is without critising each other. Think we all know that.

Umm, the breast/bottle feeding thing was an analogy.

Was not comparing actual discussion here to a breast/bottle 'debate' anyway.

Ahfeckit, I'm trying really hard not to be offended by your last post on the basis that you haven't read the thread and you clearly don't mean any harm.

Thing is though what you say above baldly put is basically, "I'm alright Jack, hard cheese for those who aren't as lucky".

there's no need to be bitter, we all have problems in life, so there's no need to put me in the 'I'm alright Jack' category, thanks. It is unfortunate that some people have had a lot of issues with MMR, but on the whole it is a safe way of protecting kids from some of the most horrific childhood diseases. If it wasn't okay to vaccinate, then it wouldn't be routinely available on the NHS.
Let's just agree to disagree rather than getting all petty and chewing other's comments to shreds and over-analysing. No harm was meant, beachcomber.

I'm not sure mumps quite comes under the heading of 'most horrific childhood illnesses'. As a third of children with it are asymptomatic......

well if that's the case why does the Government bother with MMR jab then??? since it's not really a great case for concern...?? . measles and rubella aren't exactly minor illnesses for kids to get. they are also in the equation, not just mumps...

love the naivety of
"If it wasn't okay to vaccinate, then it wouldn't be routinely available on the NHS."

the NHS are just as prone to making pharmaceutical errors as anyone, although they shouldn't be. They are as much at the mercy of the blurb from the Pharma interests as all doctors. Take the thalidomide situation; or if you prefer, the Celebrex and Vioxx more recently; and keep an eye on the statin debate as that is looking like it might blow up shortly.

Well for a while they gave MR, and before that M and R to at risk groups. I have no idea why they feel the need to protect against mumps (although having started the programme I can see that stopping it would leave a lot of young men at risk of mumps- it's not always quite so benign in adults).

Perhaps you ought to read the thread.

nah, i'm quite happy dipping in and out of the thread, haven't time to read all the nitty gritty bits..
rather than gang-bashing people's opinions that are in the minority, just let folk have their say please. I haven't slagged you off for having your opinion, let's just be courteous.