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!

I can't be bothered to look at your links. I've been told so many lies about this over the years, there's no reason to trust anything someone like you writes. For example, you've managed at leastone and I'm sure if I read that long post I would find some more, but it's not even that I've got better things to do, it just bores me, going through stuff and picking holes in it and finding the flaws for the million zillionth time. Then the lies and the flaws that are pointed out are never addressed or admitted to, the propaganda machine just moves on to more half truths and lies.

Of course, should any trusting mum believe a word of your rubbish, have their child vaccinated and then watch him or her slide into regression the next day, you'd just say it was "coincidence", and "there's no evidence" they're connected, as would the doctor, and every one else that poor mum had trusted. What a load of old bollocks.

'I'd love to know why it is that you are sceptical about the contents of peer reviewed journals, but happy to be allowed to be swayed by entirely subjective personal testimony

I am not

But whilst iw ould say the peer reviewed trials probaly do say that MMR is safe for teh vast majority, anyone who reads them regualrly knows that teh desiign of these trials is not set up to pick up tiny subgroups: indeed, an margin of non conformity of fisning is acceptable within the statistical analysis, especially when delaing with alrge trials, and could easily mask such a group.

And as yet we don't ahve methods of identifying those members of tiny subgroups at a stage where outcomes could be followed, even if they did agin ethical approval (and who would give that? Assumig a science background for yourself, you would know that nerging a theoretically at risk group into a test group and then following them would be refused ethics clearance- certainly by my own uni anyway).

I would love to see far more work done on these small subgroups, and I would like to see better record keeping- I know for a fact that ds3's file does not say regressed after MMR, causal or not, because the Paed refused to listen to that bit.

Why do I listen to individual cases? becuase there is no research method in the world that picks up individual cases, and there is absolutely no reason why a aprent saying X should not be believed for their child: listening to that does not prove the same happened to anyone else after all, just repsonding on a cse basis, acknowedging teh variable (eg the paracetamol research I emntioned earlier). If we started lsitening to the very many parents saying this and designed some research that actually did look at the tiny subgroup insofar as it is definable (history of bowel issues, parental autoimmune disorders) then we might get real answers either way. Which is surely the best of all? Will it happen? Do you think the Government could afford it if somethingw ere shown? i don't, tbh. I dobnt it's the causal factor but they would be silly if they haven't considered ittbh, and what researcher would wish to be the one that found the fact that bankrupted the NHS? not me!

Thank you for the links sausage. Just wanted to say a few things now - will have to come back later to finish!

For a start the graphs that you refer too initially show different time periods. One could argue that the second graph (the zoomed in one) is misleading because it only shows cases from 1940 when, as shown in the first graph, there had been a huge decline at the start of the century already. This obviously occurred without any vaccine (or even widespread use of antibiotics!) Why choose the 1940s to start the second graph? Perhaps because there was another peak in the early 40s - visible in the first graph - probably due to the second world war - health/living conditions etc. and this makes the decrease in cases look more extreme- although if you look at the first graph you can see that it is nothing in comparison to what had already happened!

Also, considering that antibiotics use began to increase in the 1940s - some of the decline in measles fatality needs to be attributed to them because most measles deaths are due to secondary infections such as pneumonia - which obviously has a much better survival rate with antibiotics!

see what happens when i rush! Too = to

Back sooner than I thought!

The second graph states 'measles vaccine licensed(1968)' just as the cases start to drop off - this makes it look like all of a sudden there is a drop as soon as the vaccine comes on the scene BUT how long was it between when the vaccine was licensed to when it was in use AND how long before a significant number of the population had been vaccinated in order to actually make a difference? Perhaps this was just another of the natural 'troughs' that can be seen throughout the century. If you look at the HPA figures there was another 'peak' in 1970 - actually one could again question the misleading position of the arrow in the second chart - it makes it look as if the decline starts after the vaccine when in fact, the vaccine was licensed 2 years before the peak!

Even after the introduction of the vaccine there were still significant outbreaks with numbers greater than or equal to some years before the vaccine. (early 70s '78, '79) The main difference is the number of deaths in these instances - even though there have been some large outbreaks, the fatality figures are much lower than they were. This can not be attributed to the vaccine.

I think its is a bit misguided to think that the graphs have been 'demolished'. I'm not sure how that is even possible to be honest! The people who you linked to are interpreting the information in a different way but are no more qualified to do so and, it would seem, just as likely to mislead in the way they present their information!

Excellent points bubbley.

Bubbley -er the whole point I was making was that the graphs use different time points. I said previously, death rates were in decline from Victorian times and of course antibiotics played a huge role in that.

Measles however, was not going to eradicate itself. The year before the vaccine there were 150+ deaths.

And to answer your second post. Vaccination is effective within a few weeks, so its an erroneous suggestion that the drop in cases immediately following vaccination coming in was "too soon".

As regards "demolition" if you look at some of the anti-vaxx sites they have literally made data up (last link). Data wasn't available one year, so they just decided they would insert their own.

As concerns the Rosemary Cottage being "no more qualified to interpret the data than I am" - I beg to differ. But if one of them also does happen to have a PhD in Infectious Diseases, please ask them to bring the argument here.

RightPissedOff: "I'd LOVE to see the peer reviewed journal paper showing the link between ASD and MMR - please do post a link.

PS Have you ever heard of Occam's Razor?

And unfortunately, the time in a child''s life when autistic tendencies are beginning to be noticable is also the time - around 18 months - when the MMR vaccine is routinely given.

People understandably casing around for reasons have a ready made hook to hanf the diagnosis on. Sad but true.

Yes -- I'm afraid it works against you.

Have a little think about it.

Large numbers of people report regression in their children after vaccination.

Large rise in ASD disorders since vaccination introduced.

Simplest answer? That there is a link.

It takes a very large stretch of reason to say the simplest answer is that although we don't know the cause, we know it's not vaccination.

I don't think you understand Occam's Razor tbh.

"And unfortunately, the time in a child''s life when autistic tendencies are beginning to be noticable is also the time - around 18 months - when the MMR vaccine is routinely given."

It's also a coincidence that we first began to be told this is when MMR was introduced at 18 months. It's also interesting that the time has moved forward to 12-14 months since the vaccination was moved forward.

How people can believe this crap I don't know.

It's like short term memory loss. "Oh everyone's always known this". Er -- no, we haven't.

oh the joy of wiki

Occam's razor (or Ockham's razor[1]), often expressed in Latin as the lex parsimoniae, translating to law of parsimony, law of economy or law of succinctness, is a principle that generally recommends selecting the competing hypothesis that makes the fewest new assumptions, when the hypotheses are equal in other respects.[2] For instance, they must both sufficiently explain available data in the first place.

Your theories don't even explain the available data, let alone tend towards the simplest explanation.

Best avoid this one in future.

RPO - you really need to read the literature. If there was a link - then the analysis of the hundreds of thousands of cases in which NO link has been found, would have found it. In the meantime, how about a look at the developing world which has no vaccination schedule is doing?

www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs286/en/

18 deaths an hour. Thats 3 dead kids since I last posted.

[slow hand clap]

Oh and as for your clever C&P - the vaccine fits perfectly with the data :-)

Oh don't worry, I've read lots of literature, and I'm quite convinced that the main epidemiological studies prove nothing at all. It's not even that hard to pull them apart. You don't need to go to some crappy website. I've done it on threads before and it's pretty unanswerable.

Nice piece of scare-mongering, from someone who really doesn't seem to care a very great deal about the number of children killed and destroyed by vaccines. You airily deny their existence. Well done you -- you must be so proud of yourself.

My lip would curl if it could be arsed.

I'm afraid it doesn't, and just saying so doesn't make it so. Your side does do that an awful lot -- you just say something loud enough and long enough, and never mind whether it's true or not.

It's true you've been successful. An epidemic of autistic and ASD children appears out of nowhere and people actually believe there's such a thing as a genetic autism epidemic or we just didn't notice thirty years ago or thousands and thousands of parents have succumbed to mass hysteria and paranoia hmm] .

Know why this sticks around? Because people keep seeing it happen.

"Measles however, was not going to eradicate itself. The year before the vaccine there were 150+ deaths. "

Well the vaccine hasn't eradicated it either - in fact it has done much less to eradicate it!

If you assume that the vaccine was introduced the year that the license was passed - 1968 (was it? Why did they bother saying license passed then - why not just say vaccine introduced?) then according to the HPA chart there were 99 deaths the year before (not 150+). There were also 45 deaths in 1954, 28 deaths in 1956, 31 deaths in 1960 so it wasn't like there was a hugely dramatic drop that never would have happened without the vaccine - there was a downward trend happening anyway.

There was also a rise after the measles vaccine was introduced (the arrow on the chart is misleading here) - so if it was introduced in 1968 and worked within a few weeks then how would you explain that?

I didn't actually say that RC were in no better position to interpret the data than YOU ( i haven't a clue what your qualifications are) - I said that the sites that you linked to weren't - the first one's disclaimer said that he was not medical or a scientist - he was just interpreting the data - just the same as you or I could do. So again, it's just another person's opinion to add into the mix.

So please post the data on children killed by the MMR

As you seem to think I care so little about children, you presumably, think that the 150 that died the year before the vaccine came in were expendable?

Have you heard of transference? You seem to be accusing me of all of the things that the anti-vaccination campaign is guilty of??

I note that you haven't ACTUALLY posted any data yet to support your claims. I'd still love to see it. (if it exists). Yet you make claims that I am talking rubbish and then say "you just say something loud enough and long enough, and never mind whether it's true or not."

I have data. Do you?

sausage, it isn't really an accurate comparison to make between a developing country without a vaccine schedule and the UK. You've already said that improved sanitation and healthcare made a huge difference at the start of the last century without any help from vaccines. Developing countries do not have that available to them. :(

sausage - just to correct you again - there were 99 deaths the year before the vaccine was introduced (According to the HPA figures you linked to)

FYI - if you choose to get individual jabs, Mumps is not currently available as has not been for 2 years +

I will respond to this - only because i feel the need to expose the moon-landing-conspiracy-theory bollocks that seems to pervade the anti-vaccination campaign.

1. Your statement "Well the vaccine hasn't eradicated it either - in fact it has done much less to eradicate it!" actually made me feel a bit sick - why? Because we WERE on the road to eradication before the Wakefield bollocks and people stopped vaccinating. Now that has gone backwards. I can back this up with as much data as you like. (look at the WHO website about the eradication campaign if you don't believe me)

Why are you even bothering to worry about whether the wording about whether a licence was passed, introduced whatever? It became available, if you prefer that term. (the only reason you questioned it was to raise doubt where none need exist)

This is a typical conspiracy theorist type argument to try and find a chink in the armour rather than face up to the fact that the weight of evidence is firmly stacked against them. It doesn't matter what term or year you prefer, the fact is that the vaccine works. (Why they chose to use the word licenced, I don't know, but I rather suspect it was some academic whom it didn't occur to that some future twonk would attempt to re-imagine it in a sinister fashion.

There were also 45 deaths in 1954, 28 deaths in 1956, 31 deaths in 1960 so it wasn't like there was a hugely dramatic drop that never would have happened without the vaccine - there was a downward trend happening anyway.

do I have to explain this in small words?

If you could take that raw data (available), extrapolate it and prove to me that there WASNT a statistically significant drop in the measles cases after the vaccine was brought in I will buy you a packet of biscuits.

I already said there was a downward trend. When the trend hit YOUR "rock bottom" it was still killing many kids every year. (like you said "45 deaths in 1954, 28 deaths in 1956, 31 deaths in 1960") - but on the graph you like, its practically nothing, so hey!

As I have said, if you think measles would have eradicated itself - just look to the oooh, 6 kids now, that have died FROM MEASLES in the small space of time that you have been trying to tell me that the vaccine is bollocks.

I have Occam's Razor. Your job is to prove it. So far you've failed.

And what about asthma, killing 1400 people every year and condemning even more to chronic disease, and the WHO acknowledged fact that measles incidence is linked to lower asthma prevalence? That's 1400 deaths.

What about diagnosis of "measles type illness" if you've been vaccinated, happily not adding to the figures?

Moon-landing? No -- a lot of people have a lot more sense than you that's all.