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!

And just to add, since my post about st andy was removed by mumsnets (as well as all the other libel directed at the GMC et al. so at least there is balance - tempted to make sure this happens every time so you can't spread slander here)

St Andy's action led to a decrease in MMR rates.
The decrease in MMR rates led to an increase in measles.
The increase in measles has resulted in death and disability.

For that reason, he is offensive to me.

I hope that is not considered libel.

^"It won't change the fact that there is no evidence of a link between vaccines and autism. None."

You said this Stata. This is not true. Demonstrably, you do not know the difference between evidence and proof.^

Sorry RPO. I do indeed stand corrected and thank you for pointing out my error.

Second try. There is no scientific evidence of a link between vaccines and autism.

Pagwatch: "The anti vac argument doesn't even hold as most of us only think our children are peculiarly vulnerable , not anti the programme for those who have no issue."

I think this is what needs to be made more clear on these threads for anyone looking into vaccinating their DCs.
Otherwise it starts to look as though people believe that there is a conspiracy and the government are systematically trying to damage healthy children.

I find that open letter very sad. And am not surprised that 7 out of the 12 desperate families feel like that. It makes me feel all the more sick and angry by Wakefield's experiments on children.

You obviously haven't reaad the GMC findings as it is clearly written in those that he experimented on a child

In relation to the administration of Transfer Factor to Child 10, the Panel noted the admitted background of Dr Wakefield?s involvement in a company set up with Child 10?s father as Managing Director, to produce and sell Transfer Factor. Around the same time, Dr Wakefield inappropriately caused Child 10 to be administered transfer factor. The Panel accepted that information as to its safety had been obtained and that the approval to administer Transfer Factor to one child was granted in the form of ?Chairman?s approval?, ?on a named patient basis? in a letter from Dr Geoffrey Lloyd, Chairman of the Medical Advisory Committee at the Royal Free Hospital. Nonetheless the Panel found that Dr Wakefield was at fault because the substance was given for experimental reasons, he did not cause the details to be recorded in the child?s records, or cause the general practitioner to be informed, and he did not have the requisite paediatric qualifications.
Dr Wakefield?s actions were contrary to the clinical interests of Child 10 and an abuse of his position of trust as a medical practitioner. The Panel considered these to be serious departures from the standards of a registered medical practitioner and concluded that these amounted individually and collectively to serious professional misconduct.

I can't be bothered to copy and paste: you aren't really worth it as you're not reading or paying attention. But if you are interested, which you plainly aren't, but there we are, read Beachcombers post above: she addresses these points very pithily.

Likewise I'm assuming you can't be bothered to read the research that supports the likelihood of a link, and can't be bothered to deal with the fact that most of the epi studies linked to so far are accepted by the scientific community as weak and incapable of showing a correlation if there was one.

"There is no scientific evidence of a link between vaccines and autism."

Stata: see the links. They've been offered, quite a long time ago now. You demanded them. Obviously you haven't read them, despite those demands.

You are having to backtrack quite a lot. But who cares. It won't make any difference to the issue itself.

RPI Leonie asked for proof, you obviously have a very limited underswtanding, her was clearly found guilty of experimenting on a child!!!!!!!!!!

Are you positing that the GMC finding is proof? Seriously?

Have you looked at the links? The papers which replicate the research? Do you know what proof is? Do you, indeed, know the difference between evidence and proof? What do you think about the studies that are supposed to show "no link" being too poorly designed to do any such thing?

Oh don't bother. Why would you.

And no, I don't have a limited understanding. Really.

Well that was cogent. Why don't you look up some of the stuff that you claim to be interested in. Before lecturing people and being sceptical about something you know very little about.

There is a consistency here.

Beachcomber, Silver, Leonie and others are capable of appropriate and informative response when challenged.

The same can't be said for the militant pro vax crew. Stata's now backed down on two or three issues, it's true. But in general there's a change of subject, or a stupid emoticon, or an offensive poem, or an accusation of lying. You don't take it seriously. You're not interested. You just want to "win". It is actually quite depressing.

At least we know that no one will consider their vaccination choice in the light of a wanky poem. Whereas they might throw into the equation some of thoughtaboutit's links, for example.

Oh please just because your cronies agree with you doesn't make you right. It just means four peopole are deluded. You dominate these boards by bullying anyone who opposes you, then get all righteous when anyone actually stick up for themselves as Stata did.

This talk of being anti-vaccination is dangerous, and not a little bit stupid.

It is very stupid to call people whose children reacted badly to a vaccine as 'anti-vaccination'. How can I or Pag or Silverfrog be anti-vaccination when we farking well vaccinated our children?

Shouting 'anti-vaccination' at people who pay attention to safety issues with vaccines is utterly weird behaviour. Would you shout 'anti-car seat' at somebody who pointed out a potential problem with a car seat? Would you shout 'anti-medicine' at somebody who pointed out the dangers of a drug like Vioxx? Would you shout 'anti-road' at a group of people who campaigned to get a dangerous intersection changed?

Ranting and shouting about people being anti-vaccination is a lazy and crude silencing tactic. It is also unbelievably crass and offensive when shouted at people who vaccinated their children (and very stupid - have I said that already?).

Claiming that people who raise concerns about vaccine safety are responsible for children's deaths is also dangerous behaviour. In addition, it is stupid and blinkered.

In the case of measles - there is a perfectly good single measles vaccine which has a pretty impressive safety record. The UK government and the UK government alone carries the responsibility for this vaccine not being made available to British children. If they were as concerned about measles as some of the posters on this thread claim to be, they would never have withdrawn the single measles vaccine. They certainly would have reinstated it sharpish when they saw that public confidence in the triple vaccine had waned. If you want to get angry about lack of measles vaccination, might I suggest that it would be rather more intelligent to direct your anger at the UK government which is putting children at risk for purely political reasons.

Anyway, the beginning of the loss of public confidence in the MMR began when it was realised that the Urabe strain cause meningitis - years before the general public had even heard of Dr Wakefield.

Leonie said that she'd never vaccinate her children even if there was clear evidence of vaccine safety.

She also said that a vaccine needs to be 1000% safe if you give it to healthy children.

I noticed that on all these threads you've never said 'Wait, hang on a sec Leonie, that's not what we're saying at all'. You've only ever backed her and each other up and given the impression that you are all of the same mindset.

And drop the Wakefield conspiracy stuff if you want to be taken seriously.

And stop cherrypicking your evidence. Put it in the light of suggestions for further research. Since that's what it is. And recognise the benefit of herd immunity for your own unvaccinated children as well as the fact that if everyone did listen to the scaremongering your own children may be at greater risk.

That's exactly what I meant when I said that genuinely vaccine damaged children lost out with the scaremongering because it undermines your credibility.

Stata, the only one with an act to drop is you.

any of us who come onto vax threads and say there might be room for caution, alwats say - do your research. read as much as you can. come to a conclusion that is right for you and oyur family, taking inot account any health issues tha tmight exist/.

and we give pointers where this balance might be achieved.

none of us say "don't vaccinate". we don't say anything concrete, either way.

just say, if you are worried, here is somehting to read, or here is someone you can talk to. (given that htey have the pro-vaccine advise formt heir doc/hv/vaccine leaflets/nhs website etc)

and bruffin - bullying? seriously?

do you even know what it means?

all we ever get in return is to be called deluded fools, accused of harming children by not vaccinating ours, and our children laughed at and denied.

nice.

you need to grow up, quite frankly. I would be ashamed if my 4 year old behaved the way some of you do.

I repeat;

There were two parallel pieces of work being done.

One clinical.

One research.

The two were different and separate.

The clinical work resulted in the 1998 Lancet paper.

The research was for a paper that never got published. Although it did contribute to later publications.

All this weird talk of 'experimenting on children' is utterly bizarre too.

Dr Wakefield held a research position at the Royal Free Hospital - he didn't perform procedures on children because he was not a clinician.

In the main it was Professor Walker-Smith who was involved in the clinical side.

Professor Walker-Smith was probably the most eminent paediatric gastroenterologist in the UK (he is now retired). Him being struck off for apparently not knowing when a colonoscopy is indicated in a child, is frankly laughable.

Or at least it would be if it weren't fucking tragic to have treated this eminent scientist in such a lamentable way at the end of his distinguished career.

This sensationalistic talk (which some people here seem to be actively enjoying) of 'experimenting on children' is ignorant and misinformed to the extreme.

The reality of the research is that the Royal Free team applied for ethical clearance to take extra samples/biopsies/etc from children, for research purposes, who were being clinically examined due to the nature of the symptoms they presented. The clinical examination was warranted and indicated and thereby did not need any ethical clearance other than the blanket clearance that Professor Walker-Smith had in his day to day role of paediatric clinician.

So to give a crude example - if an autistic child came to the Royal Free with gastroenterological distress, the clinical team (headed by Professor Walker-Smith) would decide if invasive investigation such as colonoscopy was indicated or not in order to diagnose and treat the child. If they decided that it was they would then pass the information supplied by the clinical examinations onto the research team. In order to use the information for research purposes, the research team, of course, required clearance from an ethics committee and parental permission.

I know all these details of reality are a bit boring and time consuming (and not as much fun as ridiculous sensationalism), but if only out of respect for the parents and the children concerned, I think they merit truthful discussion.

You do indeed repeat. But that doesn't make it true. The case at the GMC was the longest ever held. There was no oversight or lack of understanding. Again, clinging to Wakefield completely undermines any credibility. The GMC ruling makes it completely clear that in their professional opinion (which I know you disagree with, being qualified to do so, I know I'm not), some of the procedures, including some quite risky ones, were not clinically indicated and were performed for research purposes without ethical clearance.

And, by the way, Walker Smith has never denied that the data were falsified, he agree that it was. He only says he wasn't complicit in it, it was all St Andy.

"given that htey have the pro-vaccine advise formt heir doc/hv/vaccine leaflets/nhs website etc"

No, what they have is evidence based medical advice from their doctor, NHS website as well.

If they have concerns, then those should be discussed with their doctor who understands the clinical issues. Really concerned? Insist on a referral to a specialist. You don't have to blindly accept vaccinations but if people have genuine concerns, then you should be telling them to speak to their doctors as well as research if they wish, not to just research and make their own decisions. That's irresponsible because you know that what you're suggesting is against medical advice.

Yes, do research at sites run by people who understand such as the Center for Disease Control, Johns Hopkins Uni, Childrens Hospital of Philadelphia, American Academy of Pediatricians, and The National Network for Immunization Information which has an excellent page about evaluating vaccine information on the Web. T0 name but a few. But you never mention any of these sites. That's where people should go for medical information.

Or look on google scholar if you want the original papers and to see the full body of evidence. You never every say that.

But you know full well that for most people research is unrestricted google and the first things that come up are scary and the loony anti-vax sites. That's irrespnsible.

And don't scare people with stories of vaccine damaged children without pointing out that they are more likely to be an infectious disease damaged child. Send them here www.pkids.org/ as well so they can understand what they may be exposing their children too.