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!

"There is no evidence but the testimonials of parents. I'm really sorry, but this is not evidence."

ie One. Yes, it is evidence.

Lie Two. There is plenty of other evidence.

The increase in autism since the introduction of MMR and increase in vaccine schedule.

Evidence presented to the legal aid board by two thousand parents that resulted in extended legal aid.

Andrew Wakefield's study and its replication.

Known fact that wild mumps and measles are linked to autism trigger.

Lie 3. nobody would give it to me then, either.

I have an ordinary parent's interest in this - my own children did mot have the MMR because at the time there was a bit question mark over its safety. I did a lot of reading at the time and remained unsure.

I didn't realize that I was wrong about the age when autism manifests - the only two children i know well who are on the spectrum did become clearly "different" at toddler age (although there had been pointers before visible with hindsight). Thank you for putting me right- although the triumphal "you're wrong about this so you are also wrong about everything else and I am therefore not going to engage with you" is not particularly helpful!

Of course there is validity in parents' testimony. It's just not scientific evidence, and in order to move forward that is what we need.

So you avoided MMR but want others to take the risk? Ew how awful.

Unfortunately as has been shown in at least one thread, large parts of the scientific evidence in this field are untrustworthy.

What do you say to that?

I haven't time to read all this, but I was exactly where you are a few months ago. I read everything I could get my hands on, and considered our family's health history.

In the end, I decided to go for it. However, I waited til she was in good health (no colds, tummy upset, etc.) I also phoned a fantastic homeopathics company who sent me remedies to give her a few days beforehand, on the day and afterwards to help her system cope with it. I felt I had done everything I could for her. I also put it off for a couple of months til I felt she was fighting fit. You can do it at any time, not how/when the NHS specifies, so don't worry too much if you hesitate for a few weeks or months, imho. (But remember I'm not medically qualified! It was just my instinct in our situation.)

On the day I was petrified I had done the wrong thing, but she's fine. She did catch a cold immediately afterwards, but it was typical of the mid-winter things that were going round at the time. (Ironically, we think she caught it from someone in the waiting room at the GP's surgery).

Also, it's worth remembering that, as MMR becomes the focus, it's easy to overlook the fact that other boosters are given at the same time. If you don't want that, then remember to JUST ask for the MMR, and wait until you feel your DC is ready for the other boosters.

On the day, it was three jabs at once, which I wish I had realised. I think it was too much in one go. Lucky she is pretty robust.

seeker, no triumphal "you are worng about everything"

just pointing out that less than a year ago you were convinced ASD manifests as 13 months, coincidentally when the mmr is given. you were otld then that ASD does not miraculously appear at this age.

then on this thread you were convinced that it manifests at 18 months, and parents like to hang the hook on mmr, because of the coincidence (not that ther eis anymore since mmr given at 13 months). and again, it was pointed out that this is nonsense.

that is all.

Vibes to Leonie and Silver and Scram, and thanks for being so open.

RPO, no one ever answers the question of why the studies that erroneously claim to disprove Wakefield's hypothesis without ever examining or testing it claim what they do.

or how anyone could actually believe what they claim, given they never actually test what they say they do.

the whole hting just moves on to the next attempt to point score.

I know. They'll be back the next time, same old nonsense, avoiding the facts, repeating peer-reviewed as if it were a guarantee of reliability and oracular truth.

I don't want others to take the risk - where have I said that? I want to know the truth.

I wasn't convinced about anything - I said a post or two ago that I realize I was wrong about the age related regression.

I'm not avoiding the facts, I want to know what they are.

The research I have done points to there being no link between MMR and autism.

You say there is loads of evidence to support the fact that there is a link. But you won't tell me what it is. I don't understand why. I honestly truly don;t understand why. Surely you could just link to the evidence and then everyone would understand.

seeker, you know that the evidence is piecemeal, if you have done the research.

just as there is no single study which can categorically state that mmr is safe for all, there is no single piece of evidence which links mmr and ASD. there are studies which show the link between mmr and gut damage. and there is evidence of a link between gut damage and ASD.

life is not black and white, much as people (generic) who come on these threads and say "just do it, mmr is utterly safe" woul like to make out it is.

what do you think about the gut/brain theories, btw? and the protein issues found in (some) people with ASD?

I don't know! That's why I am asking for information.

You say that Wakefield has been replicated - a link to that would be a good start.

what do you think about the fact that so much
"official" evidence is discredited?

why do you think it's difficult to get funding for research which challenges the orthodoxy when other researchers have seen what happened to wakefield?

why do you think other researchers avoid challenging orthodoxy at all?

note: silver -- file on four at last broadcast the pathologists programme.. must have had some legal ding dong.

Three deeply respected senior pathologists question the official line on the triad of symptoms for shaken baby syndrome. One result? The police reported them to the GMC. The police.

This is what happens in Britain if you seek to challenge an orthodoxy.

you were given those links on the thread last year.

if you had read them then, along with the info on gut/brain issues, then you would have had the information you have been asking for.

thought it was you, RPO

will dig around and do some catch up on that.

awfully odd.

I know -- the rudeness is like a sort of lightning scar isn't it

tbh, it was only form halfway through that i was sure it was you

you started out a little tamer on this one, before your frustrations broke thorugh

I know -- usually it's cos you're on your iphone ..!

Leonie -- it's shocking isn't it, I think you can hear it on iplayer.

OOh - I didn't know you had a namechange! I may have an inkling...Were we on a very long AIBU thread a few weeks back right to the end? :)

no iphone here.

android all the way (thankfully has a better predictive text programme - althoguh it certainly never looks that way when I post!)

yes, i love that site too, Leonie.

mine would be ok, except I had to train it to not automatically replace the word I had mangled when I hit space, as it was coming out with complete gibberish due to my crappy typing...

so now it learns my crappy mistakes, and adds them as words

still, am mostly intelligible