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!

Would the logical conclusion be, therefore, Pixel, that taking blood at a party without any clinical indications is an ethical and appropriate thing to do?

BTW, the children in our trial aren't sick (thanks to medication provided as part of the trial) and they have bloods taken, by phlebotomists who sit there and do it all day, in a clinic where they have to come every week - yet the peadiatrician spoke about how they have to ration anaesthetic cream to the youngest children and the how upset the children get. Oh well.

OK Leonie. You can do that. Did I say anything offensive at all? No I didn't. Again, you choose to take offense.

I had noticed that MNHQ have removed quite a few of your libelous posts though. I think beach may have started something.

You can just add the apology on to the long list of offended people I need to apologise to according to in this bizarre irrational parallel universe I've found myself in.

But don't worry because your friends will along in a mo to scream and shout on your behalf. Counts down 3..2...1

I wasn't at the party, I haven't a clue what went on but I assume it was done with parental consent.

Ds's doctor has on a couple of occasions gone to his school to take blood because it is a more relaxed and familiar environment for him, so in theory I suppose I wouldn't mind in the case of my own child where it was done. Although, ds hates parties and has been known to hide behind a door for the duration so I don't suppose a party would be my first choice!

Gosh you've been horribly offensive. Again.

Can't you stop with it? What on earth is the matter with you?

and yawn yawn yawn peer review was the be all and end all when it suited you.. now it's not all it's cracked up to be.. more backtracking

what about those studies you posted to mislead people?

what about the lie that there's no scientific evidence of a link?

god it's so circular, and you've got no answers so you keep trying to bully and offend people into keeping quiet

we must be winding you up something rotten to keep staying when you've got so little to contribute

ok in case leonie's post gets deleted for the cunt I'm posting the following

and directed at Stata

That's lovely of your son's doctor to do that for him. I guess there are clinical reasons for him taking blood.

The thing is that if you are conducting research on your children (or any human subject but esp vulnerable pops), you can't just get up at your child's birthday party and take blood from children, even if the parents give their consent. You have to prove to an ethics board that the value of the research is greater than the potential harm to the subject (which includes pain and/or discomfort and/or fear)

The children at the birthday party weren't ill and had no clinical reason to have their blood taken. It was for 'research' purposes and Wakefield did not have any ethical clearance to do it (not clear even what the research value was so it would never have passed an ethics board).

whose behaviour is vile beyond belief

Leonie be careful -- she's such a tell tale.. she had a nob end post deleted by me

No starlight. If you had a test done to you without consent then you absolutely should complain.

But there's a big difference between lack of informed consent for a clinical procedure (still not OK) and procedures conducted for reseearch purposes on children without ethical clearance

Depends on magnitude of the misconduct starlight. Generally, conducting research without ethical clearance and no clinical indications on children is considered a lot more seriously

Stata, you can carry on saying that there was no ehtical clearance as much as you like.

there was, and it was clearly shown that there was.

it does you no favours to insist on spreading this misinformation.

Umm, why was Wakefield taking blood at his child's party?

stata, you would know if you ever bothered to read anyhitng other than the Deer exclusives form which you clearly gain all your information regarding Wakefield.

Goodness what a furore over nothing. For what it's worth, even though this is a public forum, I've never even looked on the SN boards. It doesn't interest me I usually inhabit boards like AIBU, parenting, chat, general health etc.

Anyway, I'm quite happy to stand by what I say. I don't think it's offensive in the slightest.

Well, the GMC weren't impressed with the ethical clearance. I certainly don't know of an review board which would of approve of something like that, especially on children for whom it's not clincally indicated.