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!

But, starlight, there's no scientific evidence that that's true for autistic children. And what you don't know is if their response to the dz would have been worse, eg higher risk of death, brain damage etc.

And what we are screening for? Autistic traits? Allergies? Auto-immune disorders?

Say we assume 0.5% of children react badly to vaccines. And that's way way over what the scientific evidence suggests. And according to silverfrog, about 2% of children are autistic. But of course you're not going to catch all these children as autism is both a spectrum and also hard to definitively define at young ages. So you'll have to think of markers. You see where I'm going? Firstly, you're going to get loads of false positives. Autism diagnosis is notorious for false positives and in any case the true population of 'reactors' is even smaller. And you'll get false negatives as well don't forget so you won't even get all the hypothetical 0.5%.

It just can't work. And the evidence doesn't support it anyway so how is the NHS supposed to justify implementing a hugely expensive screening programme which will reduce immunised numbers below that required for herd immunity without any basis in the scientific evidence.

Stata said;

"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."

Have you got a link for this? Indeed could you expand on what you actually mean. Which data are you talking about?

You have made some pretty big claims on this thread but none of them have been backed up by anything concrete whatsoever.

Sorry, but it just sounds like so much noise to me.

In addition, you have addressed none of the science that has been posted.

Nor have you commented on the fact that the original MMR which was introduced to the UK was known to have a history of side effects.

Good god the lot of you naysayers, just stop a moment and think about what you are saying.

Here we have a vaccine which includes viral elements of three diseases which have all in their natural wild form, been associated with the development of autism.

We have evidence that atypical close temporal association of mumps and measles infection is associated with intestinal disease similar to that found in children with autism.

We have evidence that children with autism associated with behavioural regression and intestinal disease suffer from chronic measles infection in their inflamed guts - the RNA of the measles virus has been confirmed as being that of the vaccine strain.

We have evidence that wild measles virus can cause disintegrative psychosis in humans - a condition remarkably similar to autism.

Add to all that the fact that there is a pattern of eye witness accounts of parents testifying that their children developed symptoms following MMR vaccination. There are thousands of stories with remarkably similar profiles.

Most sane people accept that wild rubella can cause autism. Most sane people accept that measles can cause disintegrative psychosis. Most sane people can accept that mumps and measles infection (or indeed chicken pox) in close temporal relationship can cause gut disease and behavioural regression.

What, in the name of all that it is reasonable, makes you deny that a vaccine which contains these very same elements can provoke the same conditions?

Why won't you address the science?

Why won't you admit that the politics are murky and loaded with conflict of interest and financial implications.

What have you really got to lose/fear from all this?

Vaccination won't come to an end just because the DoH admits that the MMR is a bit of a loose cannon of a vaccine. All that will happen is that we will go back to what our own generation experienced of single measles vaccine and mumps and rubella being given out as and when required. There is no need for children to die from measles in the UK today just because (yet another) triple vaccine turns out to be an incalculable risk.

As has been said before here on MN - the tide is turning in the US. Over there scientists now talk openly about science that is censored and vilified here in the UK.

Politically none of this matters really, but in humane terms it couldn't matter more.

Good points Starlight.

I'm sorry, it's boring, but I have to come back to this.."Did you see the way RPO attacked sausage up the thread?"

Sausage came on here with her use of "bollocks", "wilful misrepresentation by Herberts", "rubbish" and "spouting garbage", blaming people like me for measles deaths, and slow handclapping, and moved onto "moonlanding conspiracy bollocks". I had no idea she was so sensitive, after all that aggression, so I called her on her it.

Anyway these accusations of bullying are only another distraction strategy away from the fact that the science, the links, the most basic questions still aren't being responded to. Twenty pages in, Beachcomber has had to come back to them because there's been no response at all. I think it shows that the priority on one side is serious inquiry: the priority on the other is point scoring.

Yes, well, rightpissedoff - anything rather than examine the science.

Oh and all this raving about talk of 'measles kills and children are going to die because of you antivaxxers (who campaign for single measles vaccine to be available and who vaccinated their children)' is fucked up too.

And these are the folk who accuse me of scaremongering - oh the irony.

X post with Leonie. Ironically.

The triple vaccine is a load of bollocks anyway - my DDs have both had rubella, why on earth would I choose to give them a triple vaccine they don't need to have? The same must be true for masses of children.

We know perfectly well that combined vaccines carry an increased risk over singles. The MMRV vaccine (measles, mumps, rubella and chicken pox) had unacceptably high rates of side effects (it caused convulsions) when used in the US - to the point that the government stopped recommending it and Merck experienced 'production difficulties' with it.

We know there is viral interaction with combined vaccines - the mumps dosage in the MMRII has to be much higher than it is in the single mumps vaccine in order to stimulate an appropriate immune system response.

When you have the evidence to show that a single measles vaccine is safer, then that's the time to start campaigning.

What you have is suggestion and conjecture.

I'm afraid I can't comment on the hard science. It's not my area of expertise and I'm not in a position to critically appraise the literature. I use trusted sources where experts indeed do so and there is no scientific evidence of the effect you propose. It seems to be based on a lot of jumps in logical steps and assumptions that I don't think you can justify. (eg measles leads to degenerative psychosis ergo measles vaccine is dangerous - I think that's more of an argument as to why you should immunise). I could appraise the statistical models used in a generic manner but it's also important to understand the hard science behind it. I prefer to put my trust in the analyses who actually understand it and do this kind of stuff day in day out.

You know my area of expertise and more than happy to engage in debate in the validity, flaws and biases in that area.

And, Beach, your comment "Anyway, might I just point out how unhinged and weird all this talk of 'Saint Andy/conspiracy/ANTIVAXXERS/moon landings sound." is spot on. Drop the Wakefield conspiracy stuff if you do want to be taken seriously. It does you no favours and, as starlight said, is indeed a red herring.

And I'm still wondering what your feelings are about this www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTHDKNEx3lo&feature=player_embedded
(just in case you missed it)

Leonie doesn't think it's offensive. I noticed that the rest of you, who have screamed offensive about everything, haven't mentioned it.

It's funny that all the years I lived in America, I never noticed that people laugh at children being sick to keep their audience interested when giving presentations (I did go to lots, it never happened).

"I'm afraid I can't comment on the hard science."

But you have. You've denied it, you've said it doesn't exist, you've rubbished and ridiculed it.

I assume you now withdraw all of that.

"You know my area of expertise and more than happy to engage in debate in the validity, flaws and biases in that area."

And yet you've linked to studies which the scientific community has accept will not demonstrate, and could never demonstrate, what you claim they demonstrate.

Every time someone disagrees with you, they're accused of bullying. This is a pattern, an effort to silence because you cannot address the science and the rather uncomfortable oversight surrounding the case.

Stata, I don't know what you want anyone ot say about that clip.

yes, Wakefield joked at a conference about taking blood at a birthday party. (incidentally that is what the "callous disregard" part of the judgement refers to - not the actual taking of the blood, but the joking about it at a conference. interesting)

was everyone who was there in that room also callous?

or do you possibly think that it was all a joke - that the fainitng and vomiting didn't actually happen, and that it was all part of a (bad taste, to some, but then a lot of comedy is in bad taste to some) attempt at levity?

shoudl every person in that room also have a charge of callous disregard for children levied against them? there was a lot of laughter...

fwiw, if a doctor I knew well on a personal level needed some blood samples for a control, and asked dd2 (dd1 cannot consent) if she minded, I wouldn't stop her. I have given blood/samples often enough out of a clinical setting - thereis nothing particularly harmful in it (although is was unwise to do so), and there is nothing to be worried about.

you are, of course, implying he forced children to give the samples, when they were scared. which, given that none of the parents (whose consent Wakefield also sought) have complaind that he took blood at the party, is a little ridiculous, surely?

so, what it boils down to yet again, is point scoring, which is all you seem to want to do.

have you (hand on heart now) absolutely never laughed at a bad taste joke? because I think the evidence on this thread suggests otherwise...

I am not really sure why you bother wiht all this, actually. you have little interest in reading what some of the new studies are suggesting. (note, none of the non-vaxxers have ever said anyhting is concrete. just like we have never saidnot to vaccinate. just like most of us believed in the vacintion programme until it tore our families apart. just about everything you accuse us of is untrue, as Beachcomber pointed out, yet oyu still say it)

you say you want to address the "don't vaccinate, it kills, it should all be banned" argument that we put forward. except we don't say that.

we say examine your family's health history, and here is what some studies are saying about that.

yes, there are plenty of studies that you link to which apparently disprove what the studies we link to say. except they don't disprove this, because they never actually get aorund to examining it. yet you still claim that what the papers we link to is not true

the whole area of study is in it's infancy. there are strong suggestions about a lot of things. whilst this is the case, I do not believe vaccination is in the best interests of dd2, or any future children I may have, given the family health history. I have medical acceptanc eof this.

Stata you are just ignoring the science.

What is so hard to understand about measles virus being detected in the inflamed guts of children who reacted badly to a measles containing vaccine but not in controls who didn't react to a MCV (or didn't receive one)?

I haven't clicked on your link but I imagine it is the video of Dr Wakefield joking about children fainting/vomiting after having bloods taken.

I suppose it is in bad taste - I don't see it as a reason to ignore ground breaking scientific findings however.

I'm not really very sure why you think it is such a top trump ok a link really.

I have posted links on this thread to scientific studies, reviews, hypotheses and conference presentations.

You have posted links to songs on youtube and a doctor making an stupid joke (which he has since apologised for and admitted that it was just a silly exaggeration - none of the children really fainted or were sick).

Remember all your demands? Here they are. Care for a read, stata, Bruffin and your "cronies", as you term you prefer.

The following peer-reviewed papers support Dr. Wakefield's original findings:

Furlano R, Anthony A, Day R, Brown A, Mc Garvey L, Thomson M, et al. "Colonic CD8 and T cell filtration with epithelial damage in children with autism." J Pediatr 2001;138:366-72.

Sabra S, Bellanti JA, Colon AR. "Ileal lymphoid hyperplasia, non-specific colitis and pervasive developmental disorder in children". The Lancet 1998;352:234-5.

Torrente F., Machado N., Perez-Machado M., Furlano R., Thomson M., Davies S., Wakefield AJ, Walker-Smith JA, Murch SH. "Enteropathy with T cell infiltration and epithelial IgG deposition in autism." Molecular Psychiatry. 2002;7:375-382.

Wakefield AJ, Anthony A, Murch SH, Thomson M, Montgomery SM, Davies S, Walker-Smith JA. "Enterocolitis in children with developmental disorder." American Journal of Gastroenterology 2000;95:2285-2295.

Ashwood P, Anthony A, Pellicer AA, Torrente F, Wakefield AJ. "Intestinal lymphocyte populations in children with regressive autism: evidence for extensive mucosal immunopathology." Journal of Clinical Immunology, 2003;23:504-517.

The following peer-reviewed papers replicate Dr. Wakefield's original findings:

Gonzalez, L. et al., "Endoscopic and Histological Characteristics of the Digestive Mucosa in Autistic Children with gastro-Intestinal Symptoms". Arch Venez Pueric Pediatr, 2005;69:19-25.

Balzola, F., et al., "Panenteric IBD-like disease in a patient with regressive autism shown for the first time by wireless capsule enteroscopy: Another piece in the jig-saw of the gut-brain syndrome?" American Journal of Gastroenterology, 2005. 100(4): p. 979- 981.

Balzola F et al . "Autistic enterocolitis: confirmation of a new inflammatory bowel disease in an Italian cohort of patients." Gastroenterology 2005;128(Suppl. 2);A-303.

These are the articles on treatment of gastrointestinal symptoms in autistic children:

Buie T, et al. Pediatrics. 2010 Jan;125 Suppl 1:S19-29. Recommendations for evaluation and treatment of common gastrointestinal problems in children with ASDs.

Buie T, et al. Pediatrics. 2010 Jan;125 Suppl 1:S1-18. Evaluation, diagnosis, and treatment of gastrointestinal disorders in individuals with ASDs: a consensus report.

Re: the clip.

Do I still think he's a marvellous man? God yes. I've know a lot of doctors and I've never met one yet who didn't engage in gallows humour. I'm with the parents. They're with him: so am I.

Now, you've had the comments on your ludicrous links and your weak epidemiology.

If you could comment on the very not ludicrous papers above it would be a contribution.

Beachcomber, you said: "I find it utterly incomprehensible that there are people who will get so worked up over the idea that a triple vaccine (with a bad safety record) might not be the good idea it seemed in the first place, because it appears to have a side effect that affects a very small percentage of children who present a very specific profile."

the problem is, there are posters on tis thread who think it was ok to go ahead and ntroduce MMR1, for the greater good. it was ok to introduce a vaccine with known unaaceptably high side effects and damage rates, just because it was cheaper than the safer alternative.

tbh, that says it all.

collateral damage is ok if it isn't your child - the original "I'm alright Jack" attitude, which is sickening, and shows exactly why our children are not even given the help they need a lot of the time.

Oh, OK. I see. It was just bad taste but not offensive. He really is made of teflon for you guys.

You are absolutely engaging in scaremongering. I made that point up in the thread. Again, you've absolutely distorted what I say to make yourselves sound reasonable. You know perfectly well that when people google the first things that come up are the whacky anti-vax sites. You are being incredibly irresponsible to do that.

There is no scientific evidence that vaccines lead to development disorders. You're using tangential studies and then making huge and unjustified intellectual leaps to reach the conclusion you're looking for. For example, there are far less antigens in modern vaccines than in the past which is leading to lower side effects. So even the combined vaccines have less antigens that the combined ones in the past.

RPO, no I rely on experts to provide me with their analyses of the evidence in their fields outside of my area of expertise. The vast majority of the scientific community - people who actually understand all the intricacies of the science and can see the full picture - don't support what you're saying. I know you think you know better but I don't agree.

I have tried to engage with you on the epidemiological studies but to no avail. :( Too bad, you might have learnt something.

None of those studies replicate Wakefield's work. None of them suggest a precipitating event linked to MMR.

4 of the 5 papers you quote as supporting his work are written by Wakefield or his discredited cronies. One thing that we're always suspicious of in science is if one lab is the only one coming up with a finding.

No one denies the very real digestive problems suffered by some children with autism. The issue is trying to link it to vaccines. It's that part where there is no evidence and nothing has been replicated. People have tried.

You have never accepted that you linked to misleading studies. Studies known, by the "scientific community" you revere, to be misleading.

You need to accept that -- it's incredibly irresponsible to mislead people in that way.

You engage in scaremongering. You had your post deleted because it was defamatory, and you accuse us, as part of the "anti-vax movement" of being responsible for measles deaths. Deeply irresponsible.

This trust you have: I'm afraid you have made a choice, and you have chosen the people to trust who agree with you. I too trust experts: and they are different experts, with different opinions to you. For example, the experts who have carried out the studies above. And as their inquiries and tentative theories sit much more appropriately with the facts, while yours tend to rely on blanket denial bolted on top of a cauldron of evidence which will, rather naughtily, keep bubbling over, I don't think I've made a mistake.

As a matter of interest: re those studies linked to. What do the experts you trust say about them, specifically? You have had the time, on this thread, to find out what your favourite experts say about these specific papers? I would like to read those critiques.

I think your talk of antigens is another attempt to mislead: and draw away from the known impact of natural virus infection. With MMR it is not the antigen or preservative I fear: I wasn't aware that anyone had really said that on this thread.

You haven't tried to engage on the epi studies because you've been too busy attempting to mislead people with them

"There is no scientific evidence that vaccines lead to development disorders."

Stata don't be silly.

It is very well recognised and accept by all and sundry, including the government and vaccine manufactures that vaccine can sometimes, very rarely, cause brain damage.

It is written on the fecking insert of the vaccine packaging for goodness sake.

You are talking utter nonsense that not even Merck or GSK would accept as anything other than utter twaddle.