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!

IF the studies were so deeply flawed, they wouldn't have been replicated.

You can shout, scream, stamp your feet, jump up and down as much as you want. It won't change the fact that there is no evidence of a link between vaccines and autism. None. And it has been studied a lot. I don't understand why this is so difficult to accept.

This is a bit like the Nigeria polio outbreak where people believed that HIV and contraceptives had been put in the vaccines. Same level of debate.

Why can't you engage with it? Do you deny the catch up campaign ever happened? Do you deny the follow up didn't fully happen?

Surely it's you involved in medical denialism -- you literally seem unable to cope with anything that challenges your point of view. Others who are opposed to you can (and do) respond to what people say and the points they make. You just say "I'm right, and if you disagree, you're a denialist. Look, you're disagreeing, that proves I'm right and that proves you're a denialist."

Stata you are very strange -- to have a PhD and not to be able to follow a train of thought is quite unusual.

You've been shown flaws in the studies -- you refuse to look at them and without even doing so you say, well. it makes no difference.

You've been linked to studies that replicate Wakefield's work. You literally deny having seen them.

You've had it pointed out to you many times that there is a difference between evidence and proof and that you are conflating the two. You simply ignore it.

There is a denialist on the thread -- it's you.

I haven't been linked to any studies replicating Wakefield's work (the work that was falsified and subsequently retracted)

The studies showing that there is no link between autism and vaccines have been replicated over and over. Good nuff?

I'm not shouting and screaming my arguments are perfectly cogent. You, on the other hand, are getting a little bit sweaty about the palms by the sound of it.

Now you accept they may be flawed, but because there are so many of them, it doesn't matter?

Would you be interested in knowing that rather a lot of other epi studies in this field are also flawed? It seems confounding factors are built into this type of thing, it really does.

There you go again -- claiming there's no evidence of a link.

Oh yes there is. What you mean is -- there's no proof.

Now for you to believe there is no link, you have to believe there is not one case. To do that you have to believe that thosuands and thousands of people, including consultants, immunologists, virologists, MDs, are wrong, or lying about individual children you know nothing at all about.

Now that's denialism "par excellence".

Yes, you have: silver wrote here that she linked them: and they've been linked on previous threads. But who cares? You wouldn't read them anyway. You just deny they exist.

Come on, come on, let's have a bit of detail. Why don't the flaws in the studies matter. What about those two studies. Are you accepting they are flawed? If not, why not?

I haven't seen any. Be grateful if you could link if they are there. As I've said, I am not pro or anti vax. I am pro evidence based decision making. Therefore, reviewing ALL the evidence is a key component which means I would be very interested in reading all papers.

I'm still waiting for SOMEONE to please post a link demonstrating that vaccines and autism are causally related? Surely there must be a study out there, even a flawed one?

Now now, we both know it's up to you to prove they aren't causally related. There's lots of evidence they are. After all, that's why there've been so very many studies -- the cases won't go away.

So it's up to you to prove they aren't causally related. So you've produced some studies and said: "There we are they aren't".

And then I've said: "But your studies are flawed and they don't show what you say they show."

And then you say: "No they're not -- because of this..." and that's when you explain why the studies are not flawed or why the flaws don't matter.

That's where we are in the conversation. You need to explain why the flaws don't matter.

There isn't any evidence that they are causally related.

Drums fingers waiting for evidence.

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.

No, he SAID those things. He didn't prove them. No-one believed him!

Oh my goodness -- are you sure you have a PhD?

Do you know what evidence is?

Do you know the difference between evidence and proof?

You are unbelievable. You don't seem to be able to follow a single, simple train of thought.

How can you say there isn't any evidence that they're causally related?

There's a temporal connection between vaccination and regressive autism for thousands of children. There's clinical, sub-clinical, videographic evidence, there are consultants and immunologists who agree on the cause and recommend against other family members being vaccinated. There's a very large increase in the numbers of children being diagnosed with profound autism and also on the ASD spectrum. Why on earth do you think there've been so many attempts to try to disprove it? Because the cases keep on happening and they simply will not go away. However much you might grate on, and on, and on, and pretend that it isn't happening -- normal people realise that not everybody that ever made a claim of such a connection can possibly be a stupid, hysterical, paranoid liar.

How can you deny this is evidence? Are you really that stupid, or so lacking in understanding of what evidence is, and the difference between evidence and proof?

I think you must be. You've said so many times: there isn't any evidence they are causally related. That's simply not true.

A temporal association and for that matter, an epidemiological association do constitute evidence of a causal relationship. Only a propagandist could deny it. Who's saying they constitute proof? Not me. Not silver. Not even Andrew Wakefield.

Now we have that little lie again and again and again -- there is no evidence.

This is a lie. What does that make you?

I'm actually quite astounded that someone who claims to have a PhD involving research methodologies can't understand the difference between evidence and proof. Nor can they understand the importance of significant flaws in epidemiological studies.

It's incredible.

One more time.

There is a great deal of evidence for a relationship.
The studies you use to deny it are flawed.

How hard is that?

It's OK right, part of medical denialism is downgrading the qualifications of people who don't agree with you. You can carry on questioning my PhD, it's par for the course with medical denialists.

BTW, I looked at that study. The researchers controlled for length of time since vaccination and for age. It's absolutely fine and, in fact, an excellent study.

No, they didn't follow up for the appropriate amount of time. They were not three and a half years short (ie diff between vax age and diagnosis age) but they were about two years short.

What about the other study where they kinda accidentally on purpose forgot about the 3.2 million vaccinations in 1994?

Your first sentence is risible that's exactly what happened with Andrew Wakefield and what you guys do with everyone who doesn't agree with you!

You are so in denial -- you can't even respond to my points about evidence and proof.

I find it incredible that you have a PhD and can't do that. Go on, prove me wrong. Show that you understand the difference between evidence and proof, show that you know what evidence is, and then explain why you think there is no evidence of a relationship.

Show me you really deserve that PhD -- because quite frankly anyone with CSE philosophy ought to be able to discriminate between evidence and proof.

I don't need to prove anything on a mumsnet board. I 'proved' it to my committee

the researchers censored the data - that accounts for the problem you've raised. the study is absolutely fine.

You can't, that's why. It's easy enough. The difference between evidence and proof. The claims about proving a negative. The definition of evidence.

No, you don't have to prove anything to anyone, but you know. It's a bit rubbish if you can't answer those questions when you've jumped feet first into a debate and made lots of claims about evidence and proof and "evidence based medicine".

What do you mean, the researchers censored the data? What are you talking about?

right, look up what censored means. I haven't the time to teach you research methodology.

No, you explain why it's ok to ignore 3.2 million vaccinated children.

When you're ready.

In the mean time answer those questions about evidence and proof. Which you've ignored, along with so much else on this thread.

Absolutely re: censored: gotcha.

Translation: we will ignore this data if it's inconvenient.

No that's not what censored means in research terms. At all. Try again.

Answer my questions about evidence or proof. Do you know the difference?

Why do you say there is no evidence of a link between MMR and autism if you know what evidence is and if you know what proof is?

You haven't tried at all. Go on. Give it a go. Why lie about there being no evidence?