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!!

They do that about everything, scaremongering. First it was Cjd, than foot and mouth the list goes on. We all thought we were going to die. I was a teen when the cjd thing came out and all i thought about was that i was going to die.

HOW is mmr the better option, given the safety studies have not been done (Cochrane concluded more were needed) and also given that seems to be pushing mumps into an adult population?

How is it better when 7% of ASD children are potentially reacting to it (and ASD prevalence rates now stand at 1 in 64) that is a lot of children.

I do not agree that the arson why the studies have not been replicated is Wakefield's fault. If (and as I have argued above, I do not agree with this) the ethical side is an issue - run the study ethically. The patients are still out there, still being denied treatment. These are children with ulcerated guts, fgs, they deserve treatment.

If that's the only stumbling block, then why not just go ahead annd do it? The science,after all, has not been discredited (despite the many media headlines to the contrary) and so the hypothesis is worthy of investigation.

I take your point about small (relatively) numbers, but that.does not mean insignificant.

You cannot blame wakefield for the misrepresentation in the press. For that, you can mostly lay the blame at Here's door.

Sorry, at DEER's door (bloody phone corrective text!)

I do think it is disgusting how all the press are reporting it to be fair - completely distancing themselves from having any responsibility for the scaremongering.

I wonder what the next big health scare story will be?

A any result on a sample size of 12 IS insignificant, no matter what test you apply to it.

Well unless the population is very small.

Linden - Only the Daily Mail knows for sure.

Leonie - What is worng with investigating? The investigation could have found no fault and exonerated Wakefield. That is not what happened.

The original paper ended with the words:-

"We have identified a chronic enterocolitis in children that may be related to neuropsychiatric dysfunction. In most cases, onset of symptoms was after measles, mumps, and rubella immunisation. Further investigations are needed to examine this syndrome and its possible relation to this vaccine."

This was based on a study of 12 children. To then hold a press conference recommending a change of policy based on this egotistical, unethical and not supported by the study itself.

Coalition, back to smoke and mirrors again, I'm afraid. Wakefield did not call a press conference and recommend change in policy. He said more research was needed to see whether his hypothesis held up.

The media misrepresented, and here we are.

12 is not insignificant for a case study. It is not insignificant (when you look at the size of the sub group he was examining) at all.

"Wannabe, the point in vaccinating against Mumps is that it's a serious disease. Even though I wasn't vaccinated as a child, nor were my peers, I didn't
catch it until I was an adult, at which point the consequences were serious and damn near fatal." But the point is that being vaccinated wouldn't have stopped you contracting mumps as an adult, in fact being vaccinated would make it more likely to lead to you contracting mumps as an adult as you would have been immune as a child.

There is always going to be a percentage of people who don't contract certain illnesses as children and who will go on to contract them as adults, however, if we don't vaccinate against certain diseases which are far worse in adulthood than childhood then there is a greater likelyhood that children will develop them in childhood and develop life-long immunity thus lessening their chances of developing them as adults with far more devastating consequences.

So it could actually be argued that by vaccinating children against mumps we are putting a lot more adults' lives at risk as mumps is worse when caught as an adult.

Excellent post silverfrog.

wannabe I know this was last night and I haven't had chance to come back on mn, but yes, my DD was 10mo when she caught measles.

I had stopped bf-ing so she wasn't getting any immunity from that, and MMR is given at 13mo so she was too young. She was one of the unprotected vulnerable people who should be protected by herd immunity IF EVERYONE ELSE IMMUNISES. Measles is only around now because people are NOT vaccinating as a direct result of Wakefield's 'research'. Other groups who rely on herd immunity are cancer patients, AIDS patients, numerous other people who have compromised immune systems. Your decision not to vaccinate affects these people - your unvaccinated child may be fine and healthy - other people will suffer for your actions instead.

Yes - the science has not been discredited because it does not prove anything? This should have been the point hit home but no smoke without fire - how many research papers are printed on a weekly basis that do not prove anything but are able to make a hypothesis based on opinion. How many get picked up by the daily papers?

Where is the evidence? Cochrane still has NO actual papers that prove what you want them to prove?

MMR because it avoids the lag between injections - when introduced it achieved coverage levels greater than 90%. I think the government will never be able to reintroduce single vaccines because to do so will be seen as -'oh we got it wrong' - the confidence behind MMR would disappear and the amount of children vaccinated against measles would drop.

If AW had said ' A very small subset of children with autism should be vaccinated with measles vaccine rather than MMR' do you think what happened would have happened?

silver frog - "12 is not insignificant for a case study"...and a case study is not grounds for calling a press conference to suggest a change in policy.

What is the size of the subgroup being studied? For 12 to be significant it must be very small.

The media misrepresented. They are at least as guilty.

That goes back to part of ky earlier post, linen. Why have Tue studies that replicate wakefield research been ignored? Why are the only studies quoted the ones that "disprove" what he never said?

BTW, he DID say that wrt to the small sun group. You cannot hang him for having been grossly misrepresented in the press.

He has never said not to vaccination. He never said Tue mmr was unsafe. He said that for a small number of children who present with a select group of symptoms, the mmr would be an unwise.choice (working hypothesis) and thatthat should be investigated further

Leonie - maybe Novicemama feels that without the misinformation being disseminated leading to drops in vaccaination rates her daughter wouldn't have got ill? I think I'd be a bit angry about that.

Coalition. Again, he DID NOT call for a change in policy. He said caution needed wrt a small sub group f possibly sensitive children.

Sub group was thought to be 7% of ASD children. ASD rates 12 years ago I don't know (before my need for interest) but must be findable. Today autism rates are 1 in 64.

yes Leonie I was pretty angry about it. 1 in every 10 children who catch measles are hospitalised. It's a dangerous potentially fatal illness that can lead to lifelong problems.

The point is that it could have been avoided if people had not made stupid selfish choices not to vaccinate. The vast vast majority of people can vaccinate with no complications and this ensures herd immunity. Herd immunity requires 90% vaccination - in my area it is 80% mainly due to Wakefield's scaremongering.

Should I not be a tiny bit angry that my DD had to go through that at such a young age when it could have been avoided?

Novice, how is wakefield scaremongering when he said exactly what you said - mmr safe for the majority; caution needed for small percentage.

He is not responsible for themedia scaremongering.

The tiny percentage of children possible affected ate not acceptable collateral damage to safeguard the rest of the population, just as your daughter is not acceptable.collaterAL damage in the backlash against "mmr is safe for all, no questions" policy Tue gov have adopted.