to think that there is a witch hunt against Andrew Wakefield?

[MagalyZz]

I just can't believe that they're still gunning for this guy!?

Whatever you make of his research, it WAS his research and he found what he found and he should be allowed to "suggest a link"

I have a child on the spectrum who had the MMR and I do not think the MMR had anything to do with it, but I do believe Dr Wakefield that a tiny percentage of people do react very badly to this vaccine.

Leave the guy alone ffs!!

Crikey, that link from ChazsbarmyArmy is pretty horrible.

it's only a matter of time before chicken pox is advertised as a killer, and parents refusing to immunise their children are subjected to the same judgements as those who do not give mmr.

Thanks for answering my question Leonie. I've read (nearly) all of your posts on this topic and although I disagree with you re Andrew Wakefield's behaviour, I do wish that the government and the media hadn't handled the issue so badly. Then maybe Wakefield's research could have been continued quietly, properly and thoroughly by others and we wouldn't see such screaming differences of opinion on sites like this!

Leonie - these were healthy kids subjected to an unecessary medical procedure that made them ill - oh how we laughed

What, the Pope head of that organisation involved in covering up child abuse? Who was in the Hitler Youth? The religous fundamenatlist? Damn hard to find some condemning shit on him I'd say.

"So who are all these other people who have no contraindications in their medical history but who still persist in not vaccinating?"

We are rational adults who don't know if our DC might be in the small percentage of children to possibly regress after an MMR shot. We don't know this, because nobody has followed Wakefield's research and found out exactly who this small percentage of children are. They haven't, because no doctor in his right mind would stick his neck out to be professionally beheaded a la Wakefield.

"Children with autoimmune diseases" is a general term that means little. Nobody knows if our DCs will develop MS or other autoimmune diseases in the future, diseases for which there does not need to be familial precedent.

I've vaccinated DC against measles. The other two are not that important in my mind. DS has already had rubella at 5 months and we barely noticed it. If he doesn't get mumps by the age of 8 or so, he can be vaccinated then, before the unset of puberty. If DD doesn't get rubella by the age of 17 or so, she can be vaccinated at that point.

Anybody who claims rubella in particular is a killer disease needs to read up on it. Only fetuses of non-immune pregnant women are possibly at risk, and I am not prepared to take chances, no matter how small, with my babies so that someone else's fetus can be protected slightly better. If she is responsible enough to be a parent, she should find out about her own immunity and get a rubella vaccine herself before getting pregnant.

No, I'm not finding it funny. Not when it's children.

Leonie you've been pretty rude yourself on here, and on the other thread.

Wakefield started a chain of events which has led to the return of measles which was basically under control until he published his work. I amd lots of other people are entitled to be angry about that and to be pleased he has been struck off.

Leonie - I don't think they will ever offer both, if they offer both it would be like saying ok there might be something in all this afterall so which would you like? - with more children being unvaccinated and more children using the singles so that wild virus levels increase leading to an epidemic.

Why do you think the money hungry pharmaceutical companies are not working overtime to produce singles? And ( and this is conspiracy on a grand scale) what if the makers of MMR are quite happy for all the scare stories circulating resulting in a lower uptake. Originally when MMR was introduced I believe the forecast was that measles would be erradicated by 2010? Well here we are and thanks to the drop in uptake it looks like the routine administration of MMR is set to continue for a few years yet. I happily predict another scare say in 10 years time and this will focus on the rubella component.

And all those Doctors able to supply singles - well why not keep scare stories circulating - everyone's a winner - save the parents and children of course.
Does anyone have an old BNF to hand (say an early 90s one and care to look at the cost price of single vaccines then). What a get rich scheme!

Wakefield has had ample opportunity to deny these claims. Conversely how do you know that it was an exaggerated anecdote not a factual account. You were there at that party and witnessed it did you?

My post is to Leonie

LeonieDelt - What do you mean by policy protecting? The GMC's job is to protect Doctors. Wakefield had got himself into a position where he was undermining the credibility of doctors in general so they had to act.

Silverfrog: "Oh, and btw, GMC didn't actually have a problem with the payment at the kids birthday birthday (one charge they didn't hold against him). they had a problem with him joking bauot it at a conference, but no problem with the £5 in the party bags..."

Hmm. I've flicked through the GMC report, which says 'Dr Wakefield caused blood to be taken from a group of children for research purposes at a birthday party, which the Panel found to be an inappropriate social setting. He behaved unethically in failing to seek Ethics Committee approval; he showed callous disregard for any distress or pain the children might suffer, and he paid the children £5 reward for giving their blood. He then described the episode in humorous terms at a public presentation and expressed an intention to repeat his conduct. When giving evidence to the Panel, Dr Wakefield expressed some regret regarding his remarks. The Panel was concerned at Dr Wakefield?s apparent lack of serious consideration to the relevant ethical issues and the abuse of his position of trust as a medical practitioner with regard to his conduct in causing the blood to be taken. The Panel concluded that his conduct brought the medical profession into disrepute.
Dr Wakefield defended the ethical basis for the taking of blood at a birthday party contrary to the experts who gave evidence to the Panel and who strongly condemned this action. The Panel determined that his conduct fell seriously short of the standards expected of a doctor and was a breach of the trust which the public is entitled to have in members of the medical profession. It concluded that this behaviour amounted to serious professional misconduct.'

So your claim that the GMC had no problem with the blood taking, merely joking about it at a conference is, well, crap. And to me, that casts doubt over the rest of your long post as well.

Leonie I have no qualms arguing with parents who have no valid reason not to vaccinate. Whether they feel they've made the 'right decision' is immaterial - it affects all of us. Would you drink and drive and expect that to be OK because you'd weighed up the evidence and decided it wasn't that dangerous? No - society has a say in whether or not you get to make that decision. If you're writing to you MP about singles, perhaps I'll write to mine about denying non-vaccinated kids access to schools.

And the GMC actually usually do a pretty good job of looking after their own and protecting GPs no matter what. Makes you wonder why they've cast Wakefield out.

As someone said to me this morning: 'Andrew Wakefield the victim of a witch-hunt? Yes, and it turned out that he was a witch.'

Hello Cote - I still think you should vaccinate girls earlier with rubella because in spite of the best intentions they could still get pregnant earlier than what you hoped for - and before they have even considered their immune status.

I don't think anyone is disputing that Rubella is a mild illness (although rare complications include thrombocytopaenia andncephalitis) but as you can be infectious for a week before the symptoms appear I think it is better that young children are immunised against it because of CRS. Most women don't think about their immunity prior to becoming pregnant (maybe they should) and when it was originally given to 12 year olds it didn't reduce cases of CRS to the levels we now have as a result of MMR

Leonie - Really? I thought it was funded by Doctors paying fees etc.