Help me make sense of MMR - hype or theory

[felicity10]

OK, so I've been through a few pages of previous posts, I must be missing something because I can't make sense of it!

DD is 1 and I've had a letter about the vacs from the GP. I've heard about the MMR in the news few years ago and about the link to autism, but I just would really value your views.

Single vacs with no mumps or the MMR? Can anyone point me in the direction of key MMR issues?

I just don't want to get to the gp's and then feel like I am getting bullied into having the mmr - it is normally very no nonsense nurses who barely speak english, so will be unlikely to give me a clear answer as to any risks.

I am amazed that we have this lack of clarity in the UK.

Many thanks in advance!

Bollocks - sorry about the bizarre symbols - thought C&P form word might be easier. forgot it buggers up the spacing and syntax.

No he didn't. On either count.

More interestingly, perhaps - can you link to a single piece of work that actually disproves wakefield's hypothesis.

because you haven't done so so far.

oh, and btw, my post said studies lining vaccines and autism. do try to take the time to read things through properly.

No, I don't know of any work that disproves his theory. I haven't looked. It's not really important for me to try to justify the work of someone who falsifies data (according to the GMC, BMJ and Lancet). Garbage in, garbage out.

On the other hand, I did do a search looking at the links between MMR and autism and I didn't find one study demonstrating a link. That's why I'd really appreciate it if you could at least give me the citation of those studies which do show a link. As I said, I believe in scientific enquiry and fi there was a demonstrated link I would be more than happy to change my position.

yet again, he did not falsify data.
I know what the claims are, but they are untrue.

so, you agree his hypothesis has never been disproved?

interesting.

The GMC, Lancet and BMJ said he did. He's been disgraced. I said I don't know silverfrog. If it's of interest to you, perhaps you could tell me if it's been replicated or disproved?

yes, Wakefield's work has been replicated.

you have been told this many times now, on this thread, the other current vax threads, and the last round of vax threads.

yet oyu still continue to claim ignorance on this fact.

the lies that the BMJ printed have been shown to be just that.

as for the GMC verdict.

well, . he proved conclusivly at teh hearings that he did not falsify the data, that he did not misrepresent it. that he did not lie, or behave unethically.

the judgement is flawed on those points, and tries ot conflate issues to muddy the waters.

Stata, your posts are rubbish. Don't you understand the difference between proof and weight of evidence? Don't you understand that epidemiological studies prove nothing with regard to the individual? Don't you understand that peer-reviewed studies are very often flawed and misleading (I note you've ignored the fact that I've shown that with at least two of yours but no, you just plough on regardless talking about mumbo jumbo.

Those studies, those two of them, are little better than mumbo jumbo. I bet I couldn't even light my fire with them, they're so useless.

God these people. Talk about a broken record.

Silver: your huge post above is fantastic -- a marvel of its kind.

So, those of you who went the single route - can I ask where you had these done?

Thank you for the lecture right. I did learn a lot about research methodology during my PhD.

My pleasure. Why don't you read and respond to silver's marvellous and insightful post?

In fact why don't you respond to anything rather than just grating on without apparently, reading anything that anyone else has written?

And if you did learn about research methodology, you MUST know the difference between proof and weight of evidence, despite your attempts to conflate them, and you MUST know that all the points made by silver (and in a much smaller way, by me) have salience and cogency.

Unless your PhD has about the same value as the studies we've been discussing.

Did you access the original article and critically appraised it yourself. , Could you share with me your critical appraisal framework?

Trying to engage in epistemiological debates about proof is really not necessary. LEt's put it this way, the studies have not demonstrated a relationship between autirsm and vaccines. Does it mean there isn't one? No, it's possible but the probability is very low. And if we performed a meta-analysis on the many studies that have already been done, you'll find that the probability is even lower.

I'm not sure what you want me to respond to in silver's post. I asked for the citation for the statement that Wakefield's work (the one that was falsified) has been replicated. i haven't seen it.

All I said is that there is no evidence linking autism and MMR. If there is, please share it or at least the citation. I'd be interested in seeing it.

Why yes actually, I did! Long time ago, I mean, they're quite old.

Why don't you have a look at what I've written, and what silver has written, and then back at the studies. Of course with the Taylor you'd have to check back on an outside fact -- the 1994 catch up campaign. Shouldn't be too hard.

You can verify quite easily that they're flawed. Bet you won't.

Now then.

"The studies have not demonstrated a relationship between autism and vaccines."

The facts have, however, and it is up to "the studies" to give us convincing reasons to ignore the facts, which they fail to do. The problem with people like you is that you choose to ignore the facts, even to the point of accusing people of lying, and move straight onto excuses for doing so.

Once again, you ask for evidence you've already been linked to.

Oh, and the fact that you can't see anything to respond to in silver's post?

Just shows -- you close your eyes, stick your fingers in your ears and sing la la la, if something is difficult for you to deal with.

I can't copy and paste, otherwise I'd pick up individual points, but to be honest I'd be c and p'ing the whole thing.

'people like you' :) I'm quite honoured. So what was your critical appraisal framework? What were the pluses of the study? Did you write to the authors to discuss your concerns?

Did you even read it? Respond point by point, go on, see if you can.

The only thing I care about right is evidence based decision making. Medical decision making should be firmly embedded in empirical evidence. There is no evidence of a link between vaccines and autism. You can shout and scream as much as you want that there is - but the evidence is not there. Even if the studies are flawed (and I don't think the flaws threaten the validity of the findings) they have been replicated numerous times. Causality has not been demonstrated between vaccines and autism.

I'm sorry -- are you seriously asking me write that out? You must be joking. I've given a summary: that should be enough to have you thinking. For example, do you think I'm lying about the catch up campaign? Go and check. Do you think I'm lying about the follow up? Go and check.

You don't want to -- you don't want to find out how misleading those studies are.

Why are you honoured to be someone who chooses to ignore the facts, accuses people of lying and then tries to find excuses to justify those behaviours? What an odd person you are.

There you go again.

"There is no evidence of a link".

There's lots of of evidence, but you choose to ignore it.

What you mean, I think, it's that there's no proof of a link. Well that's true enough, but then, that doesn't mean there's no link, and it doesn't mean there's no evidence of a link. And it especially doesn't mean that when thereis in fact such a lot of empirical evidence that there is indeed a link.

Why don't you think the flaws threaten the validity of the findings?
This I really want to hear.

Seriously that was pretty quick work, checking the studies against the criticisms made, and going back to look at the catch up campaign. Do share exactly why the ignoring of the catch up campaign, and the placing of potentially autistic children in a non autistic cohort, really don't matter at all.

You're engaging in perfect medical denialism. Trying to pick holes in any paper that doesn't agree with your point of view and believing in conspiracy theories. It's medical denialism par excellence.