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

I wonder where dbennet went with his or her magical diagnostic abilities

Silverfrog, it was a team That lacked a paediatrician
It doesn't matter how much you argue for it, the paper has been withdrawn. It has been declared void and not by me. Sorry!

GB if it was my child, I would be sure that I knew best.
Objectively as a medical professional I know that this is not always right or helpful and can be misleading.

Are you saying you think all of them are wrong?

Just say it.

All of them are wrong, all of them are right, or some of them are wrong and some of them are right. There's noother option. So which is it?

Straight answer would be great. This about what you think, not the objective truth, so it shouldn't be hard to answer.

GB, I'm saying what I THINK is irrelevant. It's what you can prove.
This is not a proven causal link. And if you read what said, a critical mass of concerns should always be taken seriously and investigated fully

It's not proved the link is not causal but you are ready to tell me that "the link is not causal".

You are afraid to say that you think they are all wrong. You know how arrogant that makes you.

so, PIMs, you accept he did not diagnose in isolation?

you accept he was part of a team?

you can keep moving the boundaries as much as you like, but the fact remains that the team at the Royal Free did some important work, on patients which other doctors had declined to treat (how's that for callous disregard?)

no one questioned the team, which included those foremost in the field of gastroenterology. not until that press conference was called, and Wakefield was flung to the lions.

no complaint was ever made against them - the patients, and their parents, felt they had received good care. they were happy with their treatment, and had had all the procedures explained to them.

the 1998 paper was described, at the gmc trial that you love to use, as "good science, which still stands" - by a witness for the prosecution - even the prosecution at that trial could find nothing wrong with it! the conclusion still stands, and the same witness also said he wished that the paper could be considered on its own merits, without all the media circus that came after (although since he was instrumental in that media circus, that was an odd hting to say)

the paper did nothing more than describe a new form of bowel disease, that had been found in patients (remember thos patients? remember how the tests were not clinically indicated? well, what do you know?! the tests turned up bowel disease that had previously been overlooked... hmmm. strange. but wait, those tests werent clinically indicated... because blood, undigested food in stools, severe and unrelenting pain - these don't warrant investigation if you are autistic - not according to the majority of doctors, or the gmc )

"a critical mass of concerns should always be taken seriously and investigated fully"

like wot wakefield said

before he was struck off

Aaah - you missed me.
Trouble is that a series of personal assertions does not science make. Lots of people fervently believing lots of things does not make them true, and it does not make scientific evidence. In some oriental cultures for instance people are convinced that mental disabilities are caused by things that their ancestors did, that descendents are getting punished for. Just because thousands, or even millions, believe something, does not make it true.
There seems to be a suggestion that the BMA plus a lot of researchers in various countries are part of a conspiracy to cover up problems with the MMR.
This is an interesting notion.

Do you think that all those parents are wrong? Surely you won't be afraid to say so.

Luckily there's a lot more than person assertion. But you'd know that if you'd done your reading.

There is no way that either you or I can say whether or not the parents are correct in saying that their children's regression was caused by the MMR.. That does not mean they are lying. It mean that , while their children have regressive autism and also had the MMR vaccine, there is no proven causal link between the two. They obviously believe, very sincerely that the MMR caused the regression - but there is no evidence, other than causation, that it didn.

How insulting of you to compare MMR evidence to a faith in karma. Have you no shame?

You can't have read anything at all - I don't believe anyone with any knowledge of the scientific papers and the other evidence would be so cynical and callous.

Seeker: they are all wrong, or they are all right, or some of them are right and some are wrong.

If you believe there is no link you believe they are all wrong.

If you believe some are right you believe there is a link between MMR and autistic regression.

This is called clear thinking. A lot of people don't understand the implications of what they are saying with regard to MMR. I hope this clears it up.

And once again - yes there is plenty of evidence apart from causation. You did promise you'd read some of it seeker. Guess you got busy again.

Seeker - "but there is no evidence, other than causation, that it didn."

shome mistake surely - should have picked it up first time but yknow. haven't slept.

Rl called.
(I originally started that sentence with sorry but then decided that I wasn't.

I'm not quite sure what magic diagnostic powers I claimed/implied to have.

But I think you're asking why I think the evidence, in-perfect that it is, does not indicate that MMR (or indeed any vaccination) is linked with an increased risk of ASD.

And that's a question that would require, as I'm sure you are aware, a really long post.

But you bring up one point in particular so lets stick with that.

The idea that a minority of parents with ASD believe that the MMR vaccination caused their child's autism.
And why I think they're could be mistaken.

Firstly, people can be wrong.
This is not new and isn't going to go away anytime soon.

Lots of people thinking the same thing is no defense against being wrong, especially if those people don't make their decisions in isolation.

And , unfortunately, being wrong feels just the same as being right.

So why might this event (the diagnosis of a child with ASD) lend itself to an error of attribution.

Firstly, it's serious.
Having a child with ASD is life altering, incredibly stressful and out of our control.
These are tailor made conditions for humankind's natural pattern recognition abilities to go in over-drive, spewing out false positives.

There are numerous forms of cognitive bias & logical fallacies at play here (the most famous, post hoc ergo procter hoc, has already been mentioned) but there are really are too many list here.

Secondly, there is no cure and proven therapies/access to proven therapies are a long way from good.
This, apart from driving up the stress levels, tends to open people up to information from less conventional sources.
These less conventional sources can offer simple easy answers which gain purchase in the minds of people in these situations because they restore an illusion of control.

At this point I'm going to sort the washing.
I'll be back later.

"and why I think they could be mistaken."

"could be mistaken" or "are mistaken"?

why are you afraid to say?

if you think they could be mistakenyou obviously therefore think they may not be mistaken

you think there could be a link bewteen MMR and autistic regression

do you actually know what you think?

do you know what you think or are you afraid to say what you think?

bear in mind you aer looking at

thousands upon thousands of reports of correlation
diagnostic evidence
videographic evidence
clinical evidence and sub-clinical evidence
peer-reviewed papers
effectiveness of treatment protocols predicated on existence of autistic gut disorder
established links between autistics and gut disorders, and gut disorders and viral disruption
enough evidence for at least two thousands cases meriting substantial and extended legal support

so

you think they are wrong or they could be wrong?

and by the way - saying no link has been proved

well not even Wakefield says it has

and saying more research is needed

so does he

so - wrong, or could be wrong?

Why are papers by Brian Deer ok but those by Andrew Wakefield are not?

www.jabs.org.uk/pages/home/home.html

From several years ago.

Silverfrog, the diagsnotic team has to be appropriate to the patient considering their age and problem. He could have been part of a circus team from what you are saying that would have made it ok as long as it was a team diagnosis!

to quote GB "It's not proved the link is not causal but you are ready to tell me that "the link is not causal".

You are afraid to say that you think they are all wrong. You know how arrogant that makes you."

a dictionary definition of arrogant
making claims or pretensions to superior importance or rights; overbearingly assuming

I am afraid GB that I am not the one making assumptions. Quite the opposite. I deal in science and the science here is weak.
By definition, the fact that you are willing to accept a causal link without categoric scientifically sound proof would be more fitting of an 'arrogant' definition. but thanks anyway.

For what its worth, this is the first time I have looked at this. With fresh unbiased eyes. I am happy to agree that further research would help deal with parents concerns however, I can not agree with something that doesnt exist.
Find me the paper that is a multi centred RCT that can categorically prove a causal link, or even a single centred one and I am happy to read a critique the methodology as I would with any research paper.
Thats what makes my opinion unbiased. I look for the facts not the assumptions

Tabs, I never said Brain Deer was right. However his information has been accepted for publication where as Andrew Wakefeilds has been withdrawn.

There has been an exhaustive investigation that has clarified that his research is (unfortunately) void and I do believe the report by the GMC.

If any of you disagree with that, I would suggest that you write to the GMC, posting on this forum will not change the outcome of what they have found.

PIMS Glad your daughter was ok.
Look at the link I posted a few minutes ago re the MMR.

Brian Deer's info has been accepted for publication where? Do you mean in the BMJ?

Tabs, a tragedy in that link. Clearly a reason why proper research needs to be conducted