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!!

Wannabe, are you addressing your question to me?

Exactly, RedRedWine.

I hate to sound harsh, but the opinions of the grandparents, or the parents of a child involved in the "study" are not actually relevant here. We are talking about properly conducted science - that is the only way we can find stuff out. There hare been repeated attempts to replicate Wakefield's findings, but they have all failed. All we have is anecdotes from parents who notices the first signs of autism in their child at the same time as the child had the MMR jab. Which is around 13 months. Which is when the signs of ASD start to show - regardless of vaccine status.

The plural of anecdote is not data.

I'm addressing it to anyone who says there is no link between mmr and autism.

Rubbish post (again ) sorry. Because they weren't given MMR or or because they were and it wore off?

I had chicken pox, mumps, rubella and measles as a child as did every one of my friends. It wasn't pleasant but you got Lucozade and ice cream on tap in your Mum's bed and all you could do all day when not sleeping was read. Probably had a huge knock-on effect for literacy in the seventies.

Are these common childhood illnesses becoming more life-threatening due to mild vaccine strains and resistance?

Leonie, I hadn't seen that correspondence before, fascinating to hear a paediatrician and grandfather of one of the 12 children in Wakefield's study say all these allegations about causing distress and suffering to children are rubbish.

Leonie and saggar thank you for answering my badly-worded question!

ah but edam, his opinion is irelevant, he's only a grandparent after all.

The opinions of parents ARE relevant when you are accusing Wakefield of harming children by carrying out procedures though. And a grandparent who is a paediatrican has a particularly interesting insight.

Sadly parents of children with autism are often dismissed by doctors and other professionals. Wakefield actually bothered to listen to them and try to find out what was happening to their children. No wonder they liked him - it was probably the first time they hadn't been patronised or brushed off.

And that patronising attitude continues, clearly. Wakefield 'tortured' children by carrying out procedures and if the parents say no, he didn't, we'll just ignore them because what do THEY know, they are only the parents...

edam -no, his big mistake was conducting flawed and unethical research - that is why he has been struck off.

And there has been further research, tons of it - none of which proves any link between MMR and autism.

and still no-one wants to answer my question... what do you say to the parent of a child that has regressed following mmr?

Or is it just easier to stick with the "he was unethical" argument than to admit these children do actually exist?

I don't think Brian Deer is motivated by making money for Glaxo (although I don't know the guy) my impression is more that he's on a crusade - he's a campaigning journalist and he's determined to 'get the baddie'.

totally edam. What makes me is that so often on here people are quick enough to say that parents know their children best, that it's up to the parent etc, and now suddenly their opinions are irelevant? How does that follow?

Wannabe, I am not answering your question because I don't know if there is a link or not.

Seeker - as far as I know (and it's been a while since I looked so there could be more recent stuff I've overlooked) all the research that proves MMR is safe is epidemiological. Which is fine, but doesn't really address Wakefield's theory that there is a sub-set of a sub-set of children who are vulnerable to damage from MMR (in theory because they have leaky guts IIRC).

Is there much well-funded research effort going into looking at gut disease and autism? The link between the two does deserve attention whether or not you think MMR is an issue.

On MMR, when I was making up my mind for ds, I looked at Cochrane and Drug and Therapeutics Bulletin, both of which said 'the evidence we have on MMR is that it is safe but the safety studies are insufficient'.

Wannabe - you're asking people to prove a negative i.e. if they hadn't had the mmr they wouldn't have regressed. However, isn't regression one of the characteristics of ASD and doesn't that regression start to become more apparent roughly around the time when the mmr is given. ASD is extremely serious but there is yet to be any properly conducted hard scientific research that shows that any regression is caused by the mmr rather than a co-incidental occurance of the typical progression of ASD.

wannabe - I don't know whether children have regressed following MMR. I do know that just because a parent says this has happened and sincerely believes that it has that doesn't mean that it actually has happened. ASD starts to manifest itself usually around 13 months in affected children, regardless of their vaccine status.

But I have in my family a person who was badly damaged by the whooping cough vaccine in the 70s. There was clear research linking this particular vaccine to damage in some children. No such research exists linking MMR and ASD.

but milly, whether you know whether there is a link or not is irelevant. The fact remains that there are children that have regressed within days and sometimes hours of having had the mmr vaccine. It happens too often for it to be a coincidence (afaik the NAS predict that it is approx 7% of children diagnosed with autism that have regressed following mmr).

Those parents believe that their children would not be disabled now had they not had the mmr. Do we have the right to tell them they're wrong then?

I don't think that we are telling them they are wrong. We are telling them we don't know.

wannabe - they'll all tell you what you refuse to hear, and you know what that is, you just don't want to accept it.

You surely accept that regressive autism occurs in non MMR treated children? So just because some happen to happen just after MMR doesn't make it causative so what makes you so sure?

You should read a book, Human Trials by Susan Quinn. Its not based around autism or vaccines, but around MS and theories of producing autotolerance. But it explains quite well how anecdotal evidence and small numbers in trials are completely and utterly meangingless in the overall scheme of things.

That in't the same as saying that your experience has no meaning by the way. So please don't take it personally.

Wannabe - its not about the right to tell them they're wrong. Simply, at the moment there is no properly conducted scientific research that shows a link between mmr and autism. In a way I think it is a bit sad that some parent's may be carrying a burden of guilt because they believe that by choosing to vaccinate their child they have caused a serious medical condition when there is currently no evidence that there is any link.

Thing is, seeker, that sounds uncomfortably like 'the parents are too stupid to know what's going on - we professionals with qualifications know far better than them'. Do you remember Jimjams? She said very clearly she had video of her son before MMR walking and talking and acting entirely normally. Didn't stop doctors telling her she'd imagined the whole notion of regression. And she's got a ruddy PhD in biochemistry, what chance do 'ordinary' parents stand if the professionals are too arrogant to listen to a parent who does have some scientific education?

(Before I go too far in referring to someone else's old posts, the story of her son is more complicated than MMR = autism, btw.)