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

Gooseberry - would love to share your wall, thanks.

mine is looking a bit frail these days

No, you suggested I read into it and have. Lots.
Thanks
And I was more confused about the points u were trying to raise. Perhaps it's how u write, but I find the objective stuff difficult to pull from the anger at other other posters

Anger? moi?

actually read back pims - making stuff up like the others? now that is contagious isn't it - wonder if there's a vaccine for it

and yes, pimks - faux naivete - your mind was made up and you were trying to point score - if you'd really read that thread AND all the links including the scientific peer-reviewed papers how very ODD that you simply manage to pull out and produce your own links to........

brian deer

silver just to make clear you are responding to this ahem misleading claim from dbennett

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

yes he did

yes - Wakefield produced documents at the gmc trial which proved that some of the claims against him were misleading (at best).

memos, records, emails - the lot.

and the answer to all this?

"oh, um. yes. I see."

no one pulled up for lying, no one slapped on the wrist for falsifying data (oh the irony!).

I wonder if anyone will actually think for more than a nanosecond about that silver. How does that thought process go when your belief system means you cannot countenance it? Denial, denial, denial.

Silverfrog, he presented his findings as a scientific study. He was not a paediatrician therefor not appropriately qualified to be the final consultant making a diagnosis.
All studies have to be judged by the same standard and subject to ethical approval.
I'm sure I don't need to bring up research conducted without ethical approval and it's consequences.
No man is above the law, despite how good his intentions are.
And the colonoscopys and lps were deemed to have been unethically conducted by the GMC, not me. An lp is not routine for a patient with inflammatory bowel disease, any paediatrician would support this.
The work done by wakefeild is null and void. Further ratified scientific research would have to be done to prove a causal link.
Of course there is a link between MMR and autism, but unfortunately it is the same correlation as there is between the number of ice creams eaten and number of drownings that occur, but the link is nor causal.
Further scientific research subject to proper rigor and ethical approval has to take place to determine the nature of the link.
Till then we can only be sensible and vigilant about the risks associated with this (and all) vaccines

So Wakefiled didn't pay 5 quid to kids a a birthday party for blood samples?

"The link is not causal."

Goodness - you know they're all wrong too. Thousands and thousands and thousands of them. Incredible. On what grounds?

Like wot I said: once might be a coincidence. Ten might - conceivably - be called a coincidence. But thousands and thousands and thousands? Two thousands of them at least with enough clinical, sub-clinical, videographic and diagnostic evidence to conduct an extended legal case?

And GB, I had no ulterior motive. I am still open minded.
If you google Andrew wakefeild Brian deer is not far behind. Sorry for doing what was suggested and reading.
Your posts are becoming very bitter. The snorts and the head banging are not really conducive to a constructive exchange of information. I hope to learn from this thread, control ur emotions, thing rationally and we may achieve something

Gb, it takes rigoris scientific research to prove a causal relationship.
That is a fact. All other variables have to be methodically eliminated.
I'm not saying anyone is making anything up, or lying. Calm down.
The scientific research has not been performed. That is not myfault.
There is a link, but untill it has been fully investigated it remains a correlation not a causal relationship. That is a fact

How can you be open-minded when you say: the link is not causal.

When you say that you are saying: all those thousands of parents are wrong.

You are saying: I know this although I have never seen the children, either before or after the vaccination, I have not seen their medical records, talked to their doctors, seen the biopsies and results of colonoscopies and lumbar punctures, read their diagnoses etc etc. I know they're wrong.

That's what you are saying.

Why are they becoming bitter? Humour is a way of responding heavily sarcastic tones when talking about something you claimed to know nothing about until yesterday. I think perhaps you should control your own - mutual respect helps and it's the pro-vaccine brigade that bring it down to absolutism, sarcasm and unpleasantness.

So when more investigation is needed why smear the man who called for it and is - with his team - expert in the field?

There is a lot of evidence that the link is indeed causal PIMS - plenty

Frankly you either think they are wrong or you think some may be right.

If you think some may be right then you think there is evidence for a link between MMR and autistic disorder.

If you think this why are you linking to briandeer

I didn't smeared him. The GMC presented a very convincing case as to why he should be struck of
I would support any area of research where a critical mass of patients or parents have raised concern.
And the link is not causal, as I explained this takes a very strict process of research which to date has been inconclusive

PIMS, once again: you do not need ethical approval to treat your patients. Wakefield is a gastroenterologist, and ordered clinical tests to investigte troubling symptoms in his patients.

I am aware of what the gmc said - that he needed ethical approval to order these tests as part of a clinical trial.

however. he was not conducting a clinical trial. he was treating his patients. presumably, the other authors of the Lancet paper (all involved with the care of these patients) shoudl also be struck off, if what you are saying is true? why were they not?

the lumbar punctures are interesting: it is routine, in some instances, to go down this route. once it was clear that it was not of clinical relevance, however, the team stopped with the lp. as any doctor would. that does not mean they shoudl not have investigated this route in the first place.

seeker: look it up re: the blood samples. properly, not the Brian Deer stuff. he was foolish to have taken control blood samples in a non-clinical setting. he has admitted that. but the judgement wa snot whether he shoudl have done it or not, the gmc ruled he showed "callous disregard to childrne in his care" for making a joke about it at a conference. (the children were al willing, btw. no forcing. they did it happily, and for free. he got their parents' consent. and then (after the fact gave them £5 as a thank you. not offered beforehand, no bribery, no cirruption. just some children, who were asked if they minded (and parents were asked) and they did not. again, no complaints form the people involved on that one. I have given blood outside a clinical setting before now - indeed my doctor has taken routine bloods from me and dh at home. it is not sucha big deal, imo)

Unfortunately the 'evidence' you have mentioned is not enough by scientific standards (set for our protection) to prove the link is causal.
If this was the case there is no way the vaccine would still be available

Silverfrog, his co author in the paper WAS also struck off

PIMS - there were more than 2 authors (is this really new to you?!)

my question, in case it was not clear enough, is why was Wakefield picke dout as the scapegoat in this? why not the rest of the team?

Pims - do you think some of the parents are right about their children?

I'll answer your other points but I'd appreciate an answer to this first.

And silverfrog, he was an adult gastroenterologist.
So he should not have been diagnosing children in isolation, but as part of an mdt

When you're ready.

he didn't dagnose in isolation.

he was part of a team.

fgs - have you done any reading on this at all, other than Brain Deer? because it does not look as thoguh you have, tbh...