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!!

Tbh, I've never seen a clearer example of giving someone enough rope...

Answering basic questions like those with "its just not science" (despite NO ONE in the scientific community agreeing with you - at the gmc trial the paper was described as good science...) and then ignoring the facts entirely just prove that you are completely out of your depth on this.

Just the admission that you have no idea of different ASD gut issues shows how little you have read on this Su Jeff. Presumably you have been getting all your info from the popular press.

Sorry, my post was to novicemama, in case that isn't clear.

Also, Su Jeff (whoever that may be!) Should be subject. Sorry, STILL having to use my phone...

no silverfrog I get most of my information from the scientific community. Friends, colleagues, family who are scientists and do it for a living and have no axe to grind either way. They all, without exception, think Wakefield did bad science, was irresponsible and deserved to be struck off. Most commentators in the press agree. As does the GMC. As does anyone who bothers to read the plethora of research done on the subject of MMR.

OK answer me this: what if the Wakefield study was replicated, with ethical approval, with a larger group, with everything done above board? And what if the findings showed no link? People on here would still be crying 'conspiracy' because that is your default position on ths subject.

obvs smallwhitecat my scientist friends do not just call it 'bad science' and leave it at that . One thing I've learned on this thread is not to bother setting out the scientific evidence on MMR, I usually just get a barrage of anecdotes in response.

novicemama said: I don't know what country you've all been living in, but since the Wakefield drama started in 1998 there can't have been a month go by without a scare-mongering piece in the Daily Mail and most other papers about the 'dangers' of MMR, it's been all over the bloody place and with scant few sane voices allowed column inches to question it either. Now the tables are turned I can't see why you want sympathy.

What misinformation! Overall, media coverage for the last few years has been overwhelmingly pro MMR, with ordinary occurrences of the component diseases reported as dangerous events, together with messages aimed at reinforcing MMR uptake. As far as the media goes, in recent years the Daily Mail is in a minority in questioning MMR safety.

'in the last few years' fascicle, the tide has definitely turned, but at the height of the drama (2001-ish?) Ben Goldacre was a lone voice in the wilderness while any and every other media source went bonkers for the 'story'. And it was a pretty sensational story, I'll give it that.

thank goodness for all the drama, it led frightened credulous parents in my area to not vaccinate leading directly to my DD catching measles!

See novicemama you aren't being precise enough in what you say here;

"what if the Wakefield study was replicated, with ethical approval, with a larger group, with everything done above board? And what if the findings showed no link?"

Which Wakefield study are you referring to? I'm going to guess the 1998 Lancet paper and not one of the 19 other (peer reviewed and published) papers he has written on autistic enterocolitis. This piece of work, which wasn't a study as such, but a report on a case series did not look for a link with MMR, it did not test a link with MMR, it did not find a link with MMR and it did not claim in any way shape or form to have found a link with MMR. It does mention the MMR because it faithfully reports (as is its scientific duty) that the parents had observed that the onset of symptoms coincided with MMR administration. It would have been unscientific to leave this piece of information out and there was no reason why that information should have been left out anyway.

All this report did was document the bowel inflammation in a group of children with similar case histories. It noted that this particular type of inflammation had not been seen before and that it warranted further investigation. Further investigation has been done (in several countries) and the results are the same (in terms of the type of inflammation).

Please try not to patronise others with silly comments about crying conspiracy and default positions when you are asking questions about 'links' that it would be utterly impossible to establish with science which replicated that of the Lancet paper alone. I don't mean to be rude but your question does suggest that you don't know a lot about this - it is a very naive question in terms of the actual science we are talking about.

There are actually a couple of really simple ways to shed some light on this;

One - do a population study comparing vaccinated versus entirely unvaccinated populations. Parents have been campaigning for such a study to no avail for quite some time.

Two - do a primate study. (Actually it is that this hasn't been done to test the increasingly heavy vaccine schedule as a whole. Many of us are very uneasy with the fact that the vaccine schedule is entirely untested). Well that nice Dr Wakefield did a primate study over several years with macaque monkeys being given the standard US vaccine schedule adjusted for size, weight, etc. Apparently the results are concerning - I say apparently because although the paper was accepted by peer review and published online by prestigious journal Neurotoxicology, it has now been censored and they are refusing to go to print with it (even though it was accepted for print initially). The editor of the journal says it was her boss in the publishing company Elesiver who made the decision to censor the paper.

An initial section of the primate study examining the effect of thimerosol containing Hep B vaccination on newborns has been published and AFAIK not censored yet. The results show concerning differences in newborn reflexes and skill acquisition.

Different subject but I'm still interested in your opinion of Professor Walker Smith and the fact that none of the other doctors have provoked the scrutiny of the GMC despite having worked under exactly the same ethical approval as that of Wakefield, Murch and Walker Smith.

The only difference between the doctors who were called up by the GMC and those that weren't is the retraction of the interpretation.

smallwhitecat I do feel very much for these parents.

Science sets out to challenge whether anecdotes are actually based in fact, or if they are just anecdotes with no trend underlying them. This sounds much harsher than I mean, but direct parental experience is anecdotal by its nature. That is why people do large-scale scientific studies - to see if those anecdotes are bourne out by the hard evidence.

In the case of MMR they are not. Large studies over many years have shown this.

Not to belittle these parents, but I still choose to believe the 99.9% of research which says MMR is safe. Wakefield thinks differently, I choose to think he is wrong until I see further evidence which fits within the scientific guidelines.

Now see if I lived in the UK and my child had caught measles I would be blaming the government for their unwise and heavy handed decision to refuse single vaccines leading to lowered vaccine uptake.

I would also be blaming them for the whole Urabe mumps strain balls up because that was the beginning of the loss of public confidence in the MMR. That was when MMR uptake started to fall (years before anyone had even heard of Wakefield).

I would also be blaming them for failing to do the above population study and primate study as outlined above.

But then I guess I see this as a kinda complex multi faceted issue and not a black and white one.

It is funny but my GP took almost that exact attitude novicemama. he assumed that my recollections of DS2s skills pre MMR were faulty, until he checked the developmental checks he had done and saw some of our videos.

Then he concurred that DS2 had regressed. It was just the change in diet and bowels that was co-incidence.
And when I gace DS2 a gfcf diet and he became less autistic, apparently that was co-incidence too.

If I agreed with the 99.9% of research then my son would be in full time residential care by now rather than at home happily with me.

99.9% is fuck nothing when your child is the child who has regressed and whose profile fits with the premis that he regressed post MMR

I will reiterate something I said pages ago which is that of course, some children are not suitable for vaccination - perhaps up to 5% of the population at a real push.

The rest of us are suitable for it and it is required to ensure herd immunity.

Wakefield was at best careless and at worst willfully irresponsible to disseminate misinformation about MMR knowing it would lead to reduced uptake and increased measles infection. Most of his co-authors, and the Lancet, have distanced themselves from the conclusions he came to for precisely this reason. Public health is at risk because of his 'conclusions'. On balance that makes me angrier the very small and unproven possibility that MMR has any link to autism. Even though this link was not explicit in the Lancet paper, it was the conclusion which he came to and which he shared with the waiting press conference. Irresponsibly IMO.

Ah
Fair enough. As i have the consequnces ofthe 'small and unproven possibility' to take care of, then I will chose which aspect makes me angry.

But i am pretty familiar with society being happy that some of us pay the price for herd immunity. I just get a bit tired of being called names while I do it.

pagwatch, I don't wish to belittle your experience, I remember the background from other threads.

Can you see though that there has been damage done by telling people 'MMR is not safe'? Measles can kill, it spreads quickly, it's highly dangerous esp in vulnerable groups. I think Wakefield should have this on his conscience.

There is one thing I agree with you on, novicemama. There does, at times seem as though there is little point in carrying this on.

In the world according to novicemama, science isn't science (even when the scientists say it is). If is IS science, it is bad science. It is bad science because it is bad science, in the same way as it is unethical because it is unethical (it just is)

When questioned, it turns out there is a bit more.behind this, but novicemama won't (can't?) explain what that is.

Wakefield is wrong because is wrong, not because of anything he didn't ever say.

And not to forget, of course, that the mmr is safe. Completely safe. so safe that the cochrane review concluded more safety studies were needed

But its all ok, because all parents of damaged children want is something to blame. Not to find out what went wrong so that a) it can be treated and b) it doesn't happen again. No. All that is needed is to be able to say."xxxx is to blame" that will make it ALL better.

Good lord, novicemama, up to 5%? If you believe that this many children might not be suitable candidates for vaccination, do you not think that every effort should be made to try to find out which children might fall into this category, rather than just accepting them as a kind of collateral damage.

But the studies don't say "MMR is safe" - science doesn't work like that, that would be a ridiculously unscientific thing for a study to set out to say.

They say things like;

"This study provides strong evidence against association of autism with persistent MV RNA in the GI tract or MMR exposure. Autism with GI disturbances is associated with elevated rates of regression in language or other skills and may represent an endophenotype distinct from other ASD."

The studies that claim to provide evidence against an association of autism/bowel inflammation and vaccines are analysed here.

It's a pretty poor show considering all the time, money and expertise that has been thrown at this.

Also begs the obvious questions - why no primate study? Why no vaccinated versus unvaccinated populations study?

novicemama, reading your posts, its evident that you are not a scientist.
It also seems that you hold all, who have not allowed their DC to receive MMR, directly responsible for your DD case of measles.
May I ask how many 'studies' have you followed and how many papers have you read yourself?
One presumes that you base your strong convictions on evidence gathered first hand and not on drivel by popular press or anecdotes from friends who may or may not have scientific qualifications and/or direct knowledge of the issue.