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!

Aaah, there is ANECDOTAL evidence. That anecdotal evidence has been followed up with scientific studies which have shown no evidence of impact.

I'm really impressed with the marsden study. I thought they used very sophisticated statistical techniques to handle some of the problems assoicated with time of vaccination. Really good stuff. It's one of the best papers I've seen in ages. Thanks for prompting me to review it.

There we are! Denialism!

oh I was just waiting for you to say anecdotal

yes dealt with up the thread you should read back sweetie

That's fine. At least we've established where we differ. You can carry on basing your decision making on anecdote, inuition, voo-doo or whatever you define as evidence. That's what Mbeki did with his position on HIV. I'll stick with scientific evidence. Thankfully, that's the position of policymakers in this country. We've seen the harm Mbeki has done.

BTW, right, I have a job. A professional one that is demanding. I was 'lucky' enough to have been on leave last week. I must admit (big generalisation) that I've noticed that none of the anti-vax people seem to have jobs. Unfortunately, time constraints mean that I am not able to respond to most of the drivel that's been posted.

I also think your tone reflects the quality of your debate. I don't see how any health care professional could possibly take you seriously when you use the language of a 5 year old!

Yes -- I know the difference between evidence and proof, and you don't.

That is where we differ.

I have a professional job too, and I'm on leave now. Is that ok?

A lot of those "anti-vax" people don't have jobs because they have to stay at home and look after vaccine damaged children.

But let me guess, you don't give a piece of shit about that do you?

I guess we differ there as well.

I notice you avoided that other thread with it's very, very salient points and cogent arguments until it was too full for you to post.

its very salient points

and its brilliant reasoning, and its solid evidence for that matter too

Fucking Hell, Stata - that is a low, low blow.

You're right - I don't work, because I care full time for a severely disabled child.

maybe you should try it - it opens your eyes to an awful lot of things.

just maybe, if the society that cares so desperately whether I vaccinate my children or not actually took care of the children damaged by the vaccination programme, I wouldn't have to spend my time on legal challenges, and health investigations.

I wouldn't spend 7 hours travelling every Friday, in order for my daughter to receive one hour of therapy.

I'd be able to merrily choose to buy my food from anywhere, rather than havign to hunt down specialist alternatives.

and I'd be able to send her to school anywhere, rather than out of county - a "choice" which at one time meant I was spending 4 hours a day just taking her to and form school.

but you carry on judging away - you are clearly suited to it.

I was at work. I can't sit on Mumsnet all day.
All these mums (where are the dads??) of vaccine daamged childen seem to have an awful lot of time on their hands.

Personally, I don't even believe that half of them do actually have vaccine damaged children. THey may have sick or developmentally delayed children and they're looking for a reason. Understandble (and very dramatic) and they may believe it themselves but it doesn't make it true.

Unfortunately, what doesn't make the news is all the millions of children saved through immunisation. That doesn't sound quite as dramatic.

Did you find out what censoring means btw?

I'm not judging. Just presenting the evidence. You do what you want with it but don't pretend to believe in scientific enquiry if you don't.

There is no link between artist and MMR.

Yes, but have you definitely proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that there is no link between artists and MMR? No? Then I won't vaccinate because I heard somewhere that Van Gogh didn't have his MMR.

how can you tell which ones (via the power of your Obviously Special Computer) which ones are "real" vaccine damaged, and which ones aren't?

honestly, with super powers like you have - I'd give up the "demanding professional job" (PMSL), and start raking it in as a psychic

"Personally, I don't even believe that half of them do actually have vaccine damaged children. THey may have sick or developmentally delayed children and they're looking for a reason. Understandble (and very dramatic) and they may believe it themselves but it doesn't make it true. "

Personally, I think you should go screw yourself.

You don't know what evidence is. We've already established that. You think it's the same as proof. Sometimes. Sometimes you think you can prove a negative, sometimes you think you have proved a negative, then in the same breath you say that doesn't mean it's not possible. You've been engaged in self-contradiction for some time now, alternating it with nastiness, repetition and denial.

Excuse me if I join the hordes who refuse to take you seriously. There was much jollity on the other thread about your evidence based medicine. That was the thread you carefully avoided.

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc

post hoc multiplied by x thousands may indeed lead us to ergo propter hoc

oh do fuck off with your implication of false correlation.

were you there, beofre my daughter ahd the vaccines which damaged her?

were you there afterwards?

have you had access to her medical records?

no?

then stop dismissing her very real issues.

I have. Artists definitely don't cause MMR.

curses lack of edit function and predictive text on phones

If you're trying to say there's no link between MMR and autism, I'd like to see your proof of this absolute negative.

'night, RPO.

You can shout and scream and say 'fuck off' as much as you like. I find it quite telling that you feel the need to resort to such language. Again, it reflects the strength of your argument. You can also take it personally if yo wish - that's your choice.

I don't know if any one particular child of any poster here is vaccine damaged. I just don't think that all these people who claim to have vaccine damaged children - and try to use it for emotional effect - really do. What I do know is that it is a common bias for people who have an illness, disability or whatever to try to attribute causality to some event. It happens all the time and not just with vaccines, it doesn't make it true no matter how much you want it to.

Yo

apart form the swearing, which I stand by, tbh, there was no heat in my post.

you may have read it that way, but I can assure you there was none. more a tired amusement, really.

but hold on - you say that you are sure that half the posters claiming their children are vaccine damaged are mistaken.

again, I ask you, how can you possibly know?

and who are you to even think that you could know?

you have no knowledge (other than what is written here) about any of our children. and definitely no access to their records.

all of us have said at one time or another that we have had medical agreement and acceptance.

yet you state you know differently?

but decline to say how you can possibly know this.

bluster - just like the rest of your posts.

I don't understand why it bothers you so much that I think that half the people on here who claim to have vaccine damaged children don't? It's what I think [shrug].

There is no bluster (and no swearing or dramatics) - the scientific evidence speaks for itself.

it doesn't bother me at all what you think of me, or others in my situation.

bt you said it, and I asked, that is all.

you are clearly unwilling ot actually back up your statement.

yet more bluster, really.

Good then - so no need to get upset and use foul language, is there?

The reasoning behind my thinking is the established epidemiological fact that people falsely attribute events to illness. It's well known. You can look it up - it's known as attribution bias. As well as the fact that vaccine damage is exceedingly rare. It's not hard to put the two together. You don't have to agree, I'm sure you don't since the implications for you would be quite difficult to accept.