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!

Who was that addressed to Sausage?

', so you simply can't say - it happened after the vaccine, it must have been the vaccine that caused it.'

Absolutely.

But equally I don't believe we can say yet that in chidlren who have the genetic programmming for asd, that mmr does not affect that.

I know we can't because I am as up to date with the research as anyone I know, ASD being my postgrad field.

You can't prove a negative anyway Scram - so you'll never be able to say that no matter how many trials and studies are done. All you'll ever be able to say is that the vast weight of evidence points to the contrary. This, will, of course never be enough for those who are convinced the other way.

There are so many different genetic elements involved I don't think its clear to refer to "genetic programming for ASD" as an entity because we don't know what that means. (unless you can elaborate for me?)

And we certainly don't know what it means in context of MMR - the evidence would say "probably nothing" but you can't rule out that some unusual genetic haplotype happens to confer some strange effect on an individual that means that exposure to measles, mumps and rubella virus has a different and devastating effect on them than to the rest of the population.

What we do know however is that even if this condition existed, it would not exist in high enough numbers to ever make non-vaccination the safer option. Vaccination would still be safer.

Oh and as you ask its RPO who is arguing like a conspiracy theorist and posts 1 of every 4 posts on this thread. I should have made that clear.

' it would not exist in high enough numbers to ever make non-vaccination the safer option. Vaccination would still be safer.'

For general population I would agree; for famillies like mine where all 4 children ahve evidence of being on spectrum (assuming one counts dysrpaxia as spectrum related, which some do and some do not) I think the odds are dramatically changed. Not to say I don;t make a great many other changes too: ds4 is still BF at alsmot 3 for instance, had a GF diet until almost 2...... it's one amyriad of things we have been wary of.

I do know my family statisticallya re anomallies, we are rare.

By 'genetic programming for ASD' what I mean is that ASD is most likely genetic epigenetic (in some cases, obviously there are also examples of spontaneous mitichondrial issues, such as those following herpes infection). Genetic programming means having the genetic blueprint in place but not having ahd it triggered by exposure to an environmental co-factor.

You will I hope have noted though that all I ever suggested was people read and make their own mind up: I beleive that to be important. i work in the support field of disability with an ASD specialism, and when people come to me it's harder on them when they feel they did X or Y becuase theywere told to- whether ASD or anything else, such as CP (eg if they went for a MW led birth dn it went wrong). far easier to cope with outcomes IMVHO if you made empowered and informed choices all the way- if that choice emans you have MMR that's not a problem for me, indeed ds's 1-3 all did. DS4 has had singles, had he not been showing signs of an ASD now he would possibly have had MMR at puberty to protect against mumps (given it's non availability). I don't do dogmatic opinion; only informed choice.

I was talking at population level but where there is clearly a strong genetic susceptibility such as in the case of your family, then it is important that we try to discover what environmental triggers (if any) cause regression or make symptoms worse.

As I understand it the current thinking is that about 90% of ASD cases are due to heritable factors alone, so I'm not personally convinced that environmental triggers play a role (apart from prenatally).

It seems to me that experiencing regression (which must be devastating for a family) causes people to be search high and low for an environmental cause for why their perfectly developing baby suddenly stops developing perfectly. Of course this is perfectly logical, but as we know from RETT and other cases, sometimes it just is all in the genes.

I posted one in four so that means -- what?

My goodness you must be low in arguments to barrel scrape that one.

Anyhoo: "Wear down your critics by just keeping saying the same thing over and over again until they really can't be arsed refuting your lies and assertions anymore"

that would be you then.

"Saying it more often and for longer still doesn?t make your assertions correct. I guess attrition has to be your friend because logic, statistics and scientific credibility are not your strong point."

oh look there you are again

In one breath you say "stop patronising me", and then you show all of the intellect of a 6 year old by being unable to understand that a sample size of 1 child diagnosed by its mother does not constitute ?reliable evidence?.

no I don't now you're making things up

"You also labour under the misapprehension that because measles vaccine uptake and ASDs have both risen over the course of two decades that they are related. Its a basic, simple tenet of being able to analyse scientific evidence that you understand that
CORRELATION DOES NOT MEAN CAUSATION"

Why no it doesn't. But then, a very large increase, combined with very large numbers of parents citing temporal correlation, citing all sorts of evidence, does merit research. I think that brings us back what Wakefield wanted my dear old thing.

"Growing population of people with ASD - well of course there is. Why would you expect anything else?"

Well I wouldn't expect a relative increase from 1 in 5,000-10,000 to 1 in 64. Why would you? What an extraordinary thing to say. You must be truly, truly desperate if you're blaming ASD on the rise in population.

What a shame -- I must go and there are so many more misconceptions from which you need to be disabused.

Laters.

arguing like a conspiracy theorist?

where? what are you on about? where am I arguing like a conspiracy theorist?

go on, cut and paste, you know you want to

OK< RPO>

Please will uou post a link to what you consider the single most convincing scientific paper proving that there is a link between MMR and autism.

You first Seeker. You tell me the explanation for

a. increase in ASD disorders from 1 in 5,000-10,000 to 1 in 64 and

b. thousands of parents reporting regression to ASD after vaccination

c. Show me the paper which proves there is no link and the case is closed.

Explain thousands of parents reporting crash and regression before Wakefield and independently of each other.

Explain why and how you know with such certainty when naturally occurring measles and mumps are known to be linked to increased autism diagnosis that a vaccine which linked them cannot have the same effect.

Explain how you know that thousands of parents are wrong or, as someone said on another thread, lying. How do you know this Seeker? Every single one of them. Lying or wrong.

Go ahead.

"you're blaming ASD on the rise in population."

hahaha No.

Read it again. That wasn't what I said AT ALL. Completely wrong end of stick - not even holding the same stick.

The population of people WITH ASD is increasing because of the following factors:

Increase in diagnosis,
increase in public awareness,
increasing the scale to include more causes and/milder symptoms

I didn't ever suggest that research wasn't merited. But its been done. To death. Wakefield couldn't find a link despite his dodgy research methods. Unsurprisingly lots of people who have tried the same with really solid methodology can't either. This mightily suggests that there isn't one. (I already posted a link to one paper.)

As for disabusing me of my "misconceptions" you haven't done anything vaguely close - you pop on the board, post about ten messages saying things like

"this is a lie!"

(without bothering to explain why or adding any evidence to support your statement)

and then piss off again into lala land where there are no doctors, only observant parents who understand the molecular goings on in their childs body with their super x-ray specs and where there is no need for statistics because, well, what would that prove?

facepalm

"But then, a very large increase, combined with very large numbers of parents citing temporal correlation, citing all sorts of evidence, does merit research. I think that brings us back what Wakefield wanted."

And respond to this. And respond to Silver's posts, about the research being replicated. And about treatment based on Wakefield's ideas being successful.

And as you prepare to bleat about peer-reviewed research, you might consider the amount of peer-reviewed research in this field which has been shown to be so deeply flawed as to be meaningless.

I make no guesses here as to why this research has credibility. But it can be pulled to pieces without difficulty.

The population of people WITH ASD is increasing because of the following factors:

Increase in diagnosis,
increase in public awareness,
increasing the scale to include more causes and/milder symptoms

Explain why the western world suddenly decided to increase diagnosis from 1 in 5-10 thousand to 1 in 64. Why the sudden increase in diagnosis and interest? Do you seriously think we did not notice these cases before? How short is your memory?

"I didn't ever suggest that research wasn't merited. But its been done. To death."

No it hasn't. There's been a series of deeply flawed epidemiological studies puporting to show what you claim, but they don't. The Japanese study for one. The Finnish and Danish studies. The study which apparently showed the autism boom starting before MMR.

Other studies have been done which do replicate the findings.

I note you aren't interested in debate at all, or you would respond to silver, and bubbley, who have a quite different approach to me. It's easy to facepalm me, but less easy with silver and bubbly.

Lala land is where you live: where you believe you know what the cause of these regressions is not, despite knowing nothing about the children, or their medical history, or their clinical notes, or their diagnoses, or how their consultants often agree with them. Nothing. But you claim your own x ray specs through the magic of the internet.

I think this "observant parents who understand the molecular goings on in their childs body with their super x-ray specs" is revolting offensive to parents who trusted the health care system and have damaged children as a result.

Yes I would trust silver over a doctor who had never seen her children, never mind a random internet ranter like you.

You can't respond, you just can't. Neither of you. You can't even think about it properly.

I'm off. Sausage your comment about the parents was vile. I think you are a bloke.

OK< RPO>

Please will uou post a link to what you consider the single most convincing scientific paper proving that there is a link between MMR and autism.

Just saying "You don;t know why autism regression happens, so the reason I put forward for it must be the right one is not valid argument.

Sayin that because parents with children with autism think it was vaccines that caused therir regression, then it must be true isn't a valid argument either.

YOu keep saying there is toms of research to suppport your views. All I am asking for is one link to one paper. Shouldn't be hard.

Hoping to get the link sometime today.

Good morning.

I've posted links elsewhere, so have plenty of others. You can go and find them if you're genuinely interested which you're not.

I'm deliberately not posting links here. It's very purposeful. It's to show you how far people like you and sausage have gone down the road of credulity. If someone in a white coat told you black was white you'd nod wisely.

You are surrounded by evidence -- surrounded by it. It is starting to dominate education provision, accounts for a large proportion of DLA, features in all our lives through relations or friendships. There are many mums on here who have children they say are damaged by vaccines, never officially recognised. They say doctors, on the quiet, believe them, and have advised them not to have their other children vaccinated. The parents of nearly two thousand children had tranches of evidence about their regression which supported extended legal aid.

On top of this, the epidemiological studies wheeled out to prove there's no link are deeply flawed (if you are interested which you're not, there is a thread here which gives a statistical breakdown of about eight epidemiological studies and why they are meaningless).

Now then. All this you fail to recognise as evidence. It's quite, quite pathetic. So excuse me if I don't post a link for you. You are deliberately, wilfully ignoring evidence. If you really wanted a link you'd trawl through older threads here there are plenty of them, plenty of pubmed links, plenty of research. You don't want to know about that you want to score a little point. Who cares? Who cares about you and point scoring? That's all this means to you.

Truly pathetic. I would rather people actually recognised this evidence for what it is. For you to realise -- my God, it wasn't like this thirty years ago. What the hell happened?

The "tons" of evidence I talk about here is not "research" -- it is, quite literally, evidence. It's not something you're able to process.

seeker,

I had a quick look yesterday for the links I promised you. Just a simple search through the archives.

Only to find that last year you were on a thread asking for the exact same information.

So, I cannot be bothered to link to it here (the Wakefield studies, and the studies which replicate his work around the world). The information is easy enough to find, and in fact has already been presented to you. If you cannot even be bothered to do the simplest of searches for it, well, that just proves how disinterested you are, tbh.

x-posts, RPO

re: the "dodgy research methods" and the "changing data to fit" - if anyone actually reads up on this, it is glaringly obvious that is not what happened.

but it is more convenient ot hide behind the ridiculous notion that a whole team of maverick doctors were running around, experimenting on children without proper referral or consent, and making up lies about the ill health of these children, rather than stop to think for a minute, look at the evidence and be absolutely gobsmacked at the way these childrne had been treate dup to that point (constant pain and diarrhoea form an ulcerated gut? oh yes, that is just totally normal in ASD. no treatment. Next!), and, tbh, how they have been treated since.

'

OK.

I honestly don;t understand why you are not prepared to provide me with the evidence you say you have.

Yes, I have asked before, and nobody would give it to me then, either. I have read a lot of research in this area, and have so far seen nothing that shows a link between MMR and autism except the testimonials of parents. I'm really sorry, but this is not evidence. You seem to have decided that I am closed minded - I'm not. i just need credible evidence. And when I ask for it I just get shouted at, and told that I've been given it aleady, or I "only have to look areound me".

Why are people so reluctant to present their case properly? You do yourself no favours - the "anti-link" people can produce loads of hard evidence. You say you can too, but you don't.

scram - in the case of your ds1, my brother - people who function well enough (when not in meltdown - we have spoken before re: your ds/my brother, you know I am not dismissing issues here), then yes, I can accept labelling difference.

in the case of my dd1? bollocks. no way.

there were not as many severe ASD children about a decade ago.

they were not hidden away in homes/institutins (we are talking 10 years ago, not 30). they did not exist in as many numbers then, but do now.

something has changed.

if you look back 20 years, same thing. not shut away, not given up. just not htere in the same numbers.

I do know how the labelling differences has affected dx. if my brother were a child now, the difference that could be made ot his life? just enormous. he is the type of person that is being mopped up by the labelling differences.

not the classic severe autism, where the boundaries are not blurred by flashes of ability and independence. and the people like my brother are not the only ones making up the difference in numbers.

Seeker to me there is no evidence except the testimonials of aprents either. I woudl agree there,

But also I see no evidence of anything else, or that there ISN'T a link for a very few. And nothing decently sensitive has been done.

Seems to me that would be the next sensible step. Starting with identifying the sub group. It shouldn;t be ahrd; aprental auto immune disorder and history of unexplained GI issues.

Start with a basic MMR / ASD correlation study, looking at development and jab date.

See if anything worth a follow up is there.

AS long as it isn;t done, people will wonder, And the work of decent peer reviewed researchers is slowly flagging up the sorts of issues that thsoe who do believe in MMR causality think is linked, such as SI Genius on gluten (he comes up when I tick peer reviewed and all the other 'proper' boxes on Ebsco anyway).

It's worth the finances to study this properly, becuase either there will be decent stuff saying no link so I can tell aprents that I feel sufficient research has been done to prove safety in the subgroup (whom I usually deal with), or whatever: at the moment all I can say is 'read and draw your own conclusions'.