Debate on Vaccines

[Emsyboo]

I have seen a few threads where mums have an opinion pro or con vaccine and asking for more information I would like to know your reasons for being one or the other.
My MIL is very anti vaccine and told me 4 out of 30 children die from vaccinations - I don't believe this to be true think their may be a decimal point missing although I have seen some posts from people who seem to have backed up information about vaccines.

I am pro vaccine but like to see both sides before I make a decision so if anyone has any information pro or con and more importantly has info to back up I would be really interested.

Thanks

Is that your only response? Don't you want to tell us how you know? Go on, enlighten us all. You must be so clever, or have second sight or something. Please tell us how you know Seeker.

I can tell you exactly what I know. I know is that there's a great deal of evidence that it was. If a beneficial event followed the admission of medication you'd no doubt ascribe it to the medication. Given the volume of other evidence apart from correlation about the possibility of a link - I think assuming that many or most parents are probably right is on pretty safe ground. Even if you don't agree with that, you'd have to agree there was enough evidence to open up research and ask - what the hecks' going on with these children. And you'd have some have some pretty compelling evidence to say it was something else entirely. Which you don't have.

You have to have an enormous amount of arrogance to say to the parents - you're lying. But that's what you do.

I have NEVER accused anyone of lying.

"No one has yet answered my question about unvaccinated children regressing into an autism like state. How many are there? There must be examples?"

I think you will find that late onset autism was described at least as far back as 1943 by Kennar and Hellars syndrome was first described back 1908. It did exist long before the MMR if that is what you are asking.

Really Seeker? But you know, you just KNOW, they're all wrong.

How do you know this? How do you know this, Bruffin? And where did madge go? How does she know this?

nb: mercury introduced into vaccines in the late 1930s.

Bruffin - how do you know they're all wrong, without seeing their medical records, or their doctors, or the children - you just know they are all wrong, every single one of thousands and thousands of them.

Breathtakingly arrogant. Breathtaking.

This is where you all basically piss off saying look I've got much more important things to do than discuss this with someone who has an agenda.

I don't know they are all wrong. I just know that so far no link has actually been proved. And PLEASE will you stop saying I think that MMR are lying. They may be wron - but thye are not lying.

Can I ask why you think it's breathtakingly arrogant of me to question a causal link, but not breathakingly arrogant of you to say there definitely, categorically is one?

And what caused the cases of regressive autism that happened before the MMR was introduced?

I don't definitely categorically say a link has been proved - I say the balance of probability is that there is one, there's a large body of evidence that there is one, that correlation in very large numbers is a serious indicator of possible correlation and it is vanishingly unlikely that every single one of these parents is lying or wrong.

On the other hand the pro-vaccine brigade are absolutist: there is no link, there is no evidence of a link, Andrew Wakefield is a disgusting charlatan for investigating, Andrew Wakefield is irresponsible for suggesting there could be a link.

Excellent that you disagree with those: excellent that you admit the possibility of a link between MMR and autistic disorder: excellent that you will be more open minded in future and not stoop to the scorn, absolutism and ridicule that the pro-vaccine brigade normally resorts to.

I look forward to bruffin and madge admitting there could be a link too.

"correlation in very large numbers is a serious indicator of possible causation"

I have not slept for 16 hours.

I am actually thinking - I wonder if Bruffin and Madge will admit the evidence and possibility of a link? Or will they try to explain how they know that all those thousands of parents are wrong?

Diagnosis by second sight over the internet of children you've never seen with medical histories you've never read by people who don't even know what the disorders are. A modern marvel. And they say it's wacky to question vaccines.

You are twisting my words.

There is currently no evidence for a link. It is, of course, possible that tomorrow some such evidence might appear. But there is currently none.

Andrew Wakefield undertook some very dodgy research and was struck off. It takes quite a lot for the GMC to strike off one of their own.

And you didn't answer my question about pre MMR autistic regression. Presumably because it doesn't fit your theories,

"There is currently no evidence for a link."

Now that's what I call absolutist. There's MASSES.

Remember that thread - you said you were looking for links to scientific papers? Didn't look that hard huh? They're there.

Not least thousands and thousands of parents reporting a link. Once might be called a coincidence. Ten times could be carelessness. Thousands and thousands? Whoops sorry - I forgot that you KNOW they're all wrong. Every last one of them. You KNOW that. So what they say doesn't count.

Remember the connection between wild measles and mumps - and autistic regression?

Remember a few pages ago, the famed "monitoring" of vaccines after roll-out? And yet when all the MMR parents reported reactions they are dismissed out of hand?

"One of their own" - my foot. It would have been catastrophic for the government, for the medical profession, for the NHS and for the pharmaceutical industry if he hadn't been struck off. Financially and morally utterly cataclysmic.

Don't lie to yourself and pretend you're open minded. With all that evidence and you say there's none - that's based on an article of faith. You have your opinion, and there's "no evidence" getting in the way of that - that's for sure.

And he didn't "undertake dodgy research". He presented a case series.

You want some real dodgy research? Every single study "proving" ha ha no link between MMR and autistic disorder before 2002 - just for a start - and the established scientific community agrees with that.

I think there are cases of autistic regression without vaccination. I'm pretty sure there's a poster on this board in that sad situation. What's your point? How does that not fit with the evidence my theories?

topical:

www.salem-news.com/articles/july172011/murdoch-vaccines-wn.php

disclaimer haven't read or absorbed content of the above in detail, just tickled by the expansion of the murdoch crisis into this arena!

seeker,

no one is claiming for a second that all cases of autistic regression are caused by mmr.

there were cases of it before mmr, and there are cases now that are not caused by mmr (but may be caused by other vaccines, or post viral infection - it is documented (iirc) that catching chicken pox and measles within a short space of time is a major risk factor for autistic regression)

what is true, however, is that since the introduction of the mmr, cases of autistic regression have increased.

I believe the term 'dodgy' could possibly relate to the numerous lumbar punctures and colonoscopys he did on a vulnerable children WITHOUT ethical approval.
And perhaps forgetting to declare the conflict of interest he had in this patent:
briandeer.com/mmr/1998-vaccine-patent.pdf

I originally felt incredibly sorry for Andrew wakefeild, and have read his work. However the study, like any other has to be judged by the same standard and due to its flaws is inadmissible.

This makes for interesting reading...
www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c5347.full

And yes tabs, we got it and all's well thanks x

@Gooseberrybushes

Andrew Wakefield did "undertake dodgy research".

Even aside what have been deemed ethical breaches such as paying children to undergo invasive tests, performing multiple invasive tests on vulnerable individuals purely for research purposes and hiding multiple financial links to his research.

He incorrectly reported the children's signs, symptoms, natural history and referral criteria.
He changed them from the hospital records.

This must be described as "dodgy research".

This was before he overstated his "case series" and was complicit in the Media MMR Scare.

I'm be very happy to see, and discuss, where the established scientific community state every piece of research before 2002, on MMR and ASD is dodgy.

But on Wakefield, the verdict really is in.

he (and his team -remember, he was not working alone, he did not perform the lumbar punctures) carried out clinical investigations with his patients. you do not need ethical approval for this - it was not a scientific study, they were patients he was treating. he explained the procedures to his patients parents, and gained consent. this is what doctors (those who actually have an interest in treating their patients, that is, rather than simply saying "oh yes, unending pain and constant undigested food in stools is only to be expected with autism")

he did not falsify, nor incorrectly report, the medical conditions. there are several documents to prove this.

Brian Deer is not an accurate source of info, i am afraid.

he did not overstate his case series - he presented what he had found, and said he thought it deserved further info, as it raised a lot of questions (it did , and does)

he didn't do any lumbar punctures or colonoscopies iiirc

what's more the procedures carried out by his team were carried out for diagnosis and treatment of the disorders - that's what happens when you go to a doctor for help with a problem

then they wrote about them - there was a team of twelve I think silver?

he didn't overstate his case series - he spoke about his concerns before the press conference and made it clear to Horton that he was alone in his concerns - and then Horton directed the specific questino to him and only to him

did you expect him to lie? horton obviously didn't - and if you've read the transcript you can see most clearly that he qualified his concerns, acknowledged that other members of the team disagreed and most definitely did not play them up or attempt to mislead

unlike you lot

look at the introduction to the 2002 Danish study - it's quite clearly stated there and has never been challenged by the scientific community

so Dbennett - how do you KNOW that all those thousands and thousands of parents are wrong?

surprise me with your magical diagnostic powers

pimsoclock - i believe your earlier "so what's all this about vaccines, i'm confused" was some kind of ridiculous faux naivete

briandeer

silver - do you want to share my brick wall, headbanging against for the purpose of?

Documents he didn't provide to the GMC.
When under professional obligation to do so.

Interesting.

so dbennet - those magical diagnostic powers of yours

isn't that all a bit woo ?

yes, Gooseberry, the Lancet 12 - there are some links on the last couple of threads, i believe to footage of the Lancet parents supporting him still (they clearly think the lumbar punctures and colonoscopies which he ordered were worth it), and of open letters they have written stating their case, their worries baout how Brian Deer got hold of their children's medical records (still not got to the bottom of tht one, but it was clearly illegal), and how he misrepresented what he found.

it is interesting - all the posters claiming such malpractice by Wakefield ought to take a look. sobering stuff.

erm, yes he did.

and the people who had blatantly lied said "oh. um. I had forgotten about that. yes, well..." and shuffled their feet a lot (no doubt)

what about the other points, DBEnnett?