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!

Dr O'Leary is an uncontested expert in PCR - which is presumably why CDC and the American Academy of Paediatrics chose to fund testing done at his lab for the Hornig study.

The notion that O'Leary gets it right and is a world class expert when exonerating a vaccine but is just wrong wrong wrong and seems to have forgotten the basics of PCR when it comes to implicating a vaccine is preposterous.

And we are expected to swallow this on the basis of what? Undocumented (apart from his own report), unsubstantiated, testimony by a expert witness who was paid a large sum of money to find something wrong with the lab in question but who appears to have forgotten to bring his homework .

It is an oddly familiar notion however - rather similar to the argument made against world renowned paediatric gastroenterologist Professor Walker-Smith where we are expected to believe that he had suddenly forgotten how to discern when a colonoscopy is required for diagnostic purposes. Except this time it is a journalist who his being paid to find fault with the expert in question's methods.

BTW all of the above concerning the Cedillo hearing and Bustin's testimony comes from Michelle Cedillo's appeal document.

www.rescuepost.com/files/michellesappeal03162009.pdf

The Bustin/O'Leary part starts on page 49 (bottom of the page).

"Dr. Bustin?s testimony actually supports Michelle?s
position regarding the reliability of the O?Leary lab. In this
regard, at the hearing, Dr. Bustin attempted to show that
another laboratory (Dr. Finbar Cotter) in London was unable to
replicate the O?Leary lab?s results (i.e. detecting measles RNA in samples) using the O?Leary primers. However, as Dr. Bustin?s
power point presentation showed, Dr. Cotter?s lab was able to
replicate the O?Leary results using the O?Leary primers for high
copy numbers. High copy numbers are considered accurate because
the detection of RNA occurs at a lower cycle number, in other
words, earlier in the experiment, and makes them inherently
reliable. Dr. Bustin acknowledged this in his testimony. He
also agreed that his dispute was only with the O?Leary lab?s low
copy numbers (Tr. 2042), and he conceded that Michelle had high
copy numbers (Tr. 2061)."

Also page 29 refers to the last minute element;

"Michelle?s hearing was scheduled to begin on June 11, 2007.
On the eve of trial, as Michelle was preparing for the direct
testimony of her four (4) expert witnesses, as well as for
cross-examination of the respondent?s twelve (12) experts, the
respondent filed three more expert reports, all prepared by Dr.
Stephen Bustin. First, the respondent filed Respondent?s
Exhibit UU on May 31, 2007. This was a simple twelve (12) page
report. Then, on June 7, 2007, the respondent filed two more
reports. See Respondent?s Exhibits XX and WW. These exhibits
were vastly different from Respondent?s Exhibit UU."

The entire document is well worth reading - it is sobering.

Hi Beach and thank you for all this information.

Hi Gooseberry - you're welcome

This amicus brief by Mary Holland is very worth reading too.

ebcala.org/images/filed%20cedillo%20amicus%20brief.pdf

I think this quote from one of the OAP petitioners about sums the situation in the US up from Age of Autism:

'In affirming the decision, the Court of Appeals failed to do justice by Michelle Cedillo and thousands of other petitioners in the Omnibus Autism Proceeding (OAP). This case, the first test case in the OAP, highlights the overall failure of the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP). As Rebecca Estepp, an OAP petitioner, said, "These are government lawyers, representing a government agency, presenting government-funded science to government judges, with no jury and no normal rules of evidence. Where's the justice in that?" '

And then of course we have the worrying development that is the Supreme Court decision in Bruesewitz v. Wyeth.

The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 was designed to promote the vaccine programme by doing two things; protect manufactuers from litigation in order to ensure a supply of vaccines, and provide a nonadversarial 'Vaccine Court' where victims of vaccine damage could be compensated and recognised.

In reality these two objectives are massively contradictory, and, it would appear that the second objective is not being achieved. What the Vaccine Court is doing in reality is making it impossible for plaintiffs to win their cases and also making it impossible for them to be given a fair hearing by then exercising their right to legal recourse in civil court.

The terrible irony of Bruesewitz v. Wyeth is that poor Hannah Bruesewitz was damaged by the very vaccine that brought about the creation of the Vaccine Court. It was because manufactures feared litigation from brain damage cases as a result of dangerous (and now withdrawn) DTP vaccines that the 1986 law came about. They admitted that these particular vaccines were dangerous when they created the very court that refused Hannah Bruesewitz compensation for being damaged by one of these DTP vaccines for crying out loud .

Now, take the case of Michelle Cedillo - Bustin's testimony would never have been allowed in civil court and yet it seems that families like this can be denied their lawful democratic right to present their case to a civil judge and jury.

US citizens should be very very concerned about this development - especially considering that vaccines are mandatory for school entry and that exemptions are not easy to come by.

www.ageofautism.com/2011/03/what-bruesewitz-v-wyeth-means-for-american-families.html

www.ageofautism.com/2011/02/we-lost-bruesewitz-v-wyeth-but-we-gained-sotomayor-and-ginsburg.html

Jesus, not only do parents of vaccine damaged children have to study medicine, they now have to study law too.

This explains Bruesewitz-v-Wyeth pretty well (even though there is some silly nonsense about autism and now epilepsy too! 'coincidentally' manifesting around vaccination age.)

[[http://healthland.time.com/2011/02/24/bruesewitz-v-wyeth-what-the-supreme-court-decision-means-for-vaccines/]

Basically they told the family to piss off with their damaged child, because if the door is opened to civil court, the flood gates will open and the manufacturers will no longer ensure a supply of vaccines either because a) they will refuse to as it is no longer profitable or b)they will be bankrupted by the compensation fees.

This. This is what is meant by 'for the greater good' and 'herd immunity'.

Sorry for link;

healthland.time.com/2011/02/24/bruesewitz-v-wyeth-what-the-supreme-court-decision-means-for-vaccines/

Now fully signed up to the conspiracy theory.

Tis not even a theory.

I'm quite keen on the term 'collusion', myself. (AKA ass covering)

It ain't fucking pretty whatever you call it.

Yes -- the collusion of people who know.

I have absolutely no doubt that the damage MMR can do is known by those who officially deny it. Some may think they are doing so for the greater good. But it is known.

The truth is, if we all knew, the consequences politically and financially woudl be cataclysmic.

Fuck fuck, I have now stayed up way too late reading this and panicking about having given 20 month DS the MMR 12 days ago, 2 weeks after having chicken pox. I was (am, I think) pro-vaccinating but now I am tired and scared and unable to think straight.

He's been grumpy and frustrated since the MMR and had a few days of nasty nappies last week, but has learnt a new word or two this week.

I know this is more of a theoretical thread, sorry, but in the cases where parents believe their child to have regressed after MMR, can you tell me how soon after the jab most of them said it happened?

Sorry to those of you with poorly children, don't mean to belittle them at all.

Hello IHeartKingThistle. I'm really sorry that you are feeling worried. Please please remember however, that the children who reacted badly to MMR are in a minority. This is, of course, not to belittle their suffering or make light of the wider issues. Most children have their MMR and they are fine, your son is no doubt one of them.

What you could do is give him some good doses of cod liver oil (high in vitamin A) and a vitamin C supplement. Neither of these can do him any harm (respect the dosage for the cod liver oil), and they will give his immune system a wee boost. I would also suggest some good quality probiotics - they will do his gut flora good.

If your son was to react badly, he would almost certainly have had a fever/convulsion/rash/swelling by now. One you have passed the 15 days mark, I think you can be reassured - you are very close to this.

Let us know how your DS gets on, I'm sure he will be fine.

Thankyou for the kind and sensible post Beachcomber, I needed it!

You're welcome .

I'm so sorry that discussions like these upset people, but they do need to be had.

We do love our children so don't we? and of course with love comes worry. Best wishes to you and your DS.

there's an interesting pice on Age of Autism re: measles rates immediately pre- and post- 1998, and why Wakefield should not be blamed for the rise in measles now (sorry, am on phone so can't link)

Beach and Gooseberry: thanks for continuing with this - I got caught up with RL, and am now abroad for some ASD stuff. BEach - you posts are alwaysso reasonable and balanced, thank you

Yes silverfrog - I've read that too. if you look at the figures on the HPA website here there are actually fewer cases of measles every year than there were prior to 1998. There were more cases in 2008 - but even then it was fewer than there had been in 1996. I'm not sure what people are talking about when they blame Wakefield for some imaginary surge in measles cases!

I'm not sure they are themselves twas ever thus