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

"something that doesnt exist."

there you go again - absolutism

how do you know it doesn't exist? if you think it doesn't exist you assume all the parents are wrong

You are indeed making assumptions. The problem is - you have no idea that you're doing it. You can't think clearly about this - it seems you don't even realise you contradict yourself.

you want evidence that "can categorically prove a causal link" - but nobody says it is proved - not even Wakefield said that

you think more research is needed? why? if you think there's no evidence of a link? if a link "doesn't exist"?

I think it's pretty clear (and you seem to think so too - but who can tell with all this self-contradiction) that the evidence is good enough, and there is enough of it, to support Wakefield's calls for

a.caution
b.more research

I think you forget - if you ever knew - that he did not claim that the case was proved - by any means.

So - now you're a scientist looking at research papers - but you knew nothing about this until yesterday

www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs286/en/

450 families per day suffered the same loss. Tragic there should be any

PIMS A tragedy in my link, indeed. So, does that satisfy you that the MMR was proven to be the cause?

Pims - do you know what you think AT ALL

do you think there is enough evidence of a link between vaccines and autistic disorder to support more research?

or not?

if you don't, why are you calling for more research?
if you do, why are you saying "it doesn't exist"?

so much for scientific process - a cogent train of thought would be useful here

GB, stop twisting what I am saying.
I have said on a number of occasions that of course there is a link.
The trouble is there is NO evidence (supported by a rigorus ethically approved scientific clinical or non clinical trial) to support a causal link.
Science is important you cant de-nigh that.
Parents concerns need to be explored, that does not mean that I can say if they will be proven right or wrong and making assumptions is unhelpful to say the least.
I said I deal in science, fact. That doesnt make me a scientist. I tend to look at adult cardiac disease research papers and you can raise your eye brows all you want. This IS the first time I have looked at this and did so with no preconceived ideas

and I would have much more respect for you if you replied with less sarcasm and treated me with the same respect I have treated you.

you will find no sighs, raised eyebrows, questions of personal integrity, stamping, head banging - need I go on? in any of my posts.

I can understand why anyone would be passionate about this, particularly when you read the links like the one Tabs put up. However passion and emotion can be very detrimental in the quest to find the truth. It is important to stay objective so that when you do come to an answer, you can be sure its the right one

do you honestly think that when I say "a link" you mean something different to "a causal link"?

why on EARTH would you think such a thing?

however let's make it easy

if you think there is no causal link why do you want more research?

you have stated categorically that there is no causal link, it doesn't exist

so why do you want more research?

that's ok you don't have to have any respect or bother any more, honestly

honestly, just carry on thinking what you think even if you do contradict yourself repeatedly, so long as you're happy

"deny" by the way

PIMS What about my link? Is that proof that the MMR was to blame? Do you accept that as proof? The gov't did.

and GB, no I don't think the scientific evidence as it currently stands is strong enough to warrant further investigation. However, I do think the patients and parents concerns ARE strong enough to warrant further research.

Tabs, Im afraid not. It was a tragedy, but unfortunately quite an emotionally charged piece of journalism. I would be interested to read the crown report and reasons leading to the compensation payout.

PIMS Let's just say that I am surprised at your response.

you think it's all down to your spelling?

really?

when I've repeatedly pointed out your muddled thinking and self-contradiction?

your last post shows how muddled you are for example

there isn't enough evidence to warrant investigation but evidence from parents warrants investigation

there ought to be an investigation because there's enough evidence from parents to warrant investigation but that evidence doesn't matter because we already know there is no causal link

now I really, really can't make sense of that and I'm AMAZED that you think it makes any sense at all or is in any way a convincing argument

you are so full of advice for someone who knew nothing about this until yesterday

really - if anyone's opinion is dangerous it's the opinion of the person who knows very little but has no idea how little they know

Parents opinion is not scientific evidence, but should be investigated.
In not contradicting myself at all. They are two separate things and should be dealt with separately.
I treat disease that I can diagnose with clinical evidence. I will still review a patient if a nurse has a 'feeling' that they are not right, but I can't treat that. I can only investigate the symptoms.
Understand?

PIMS How do you propose to investigate the concerns of parents?
Are you saying now that you are a doctor? Asking us for advice on giving your child the MMR? Are you for serious?

Tabs, what I do for a living is irrelevant and no I would certainly not give advice on a public forum like this. There are government websites for that, from which I am happy to get real advice.
I am always interested in how people interpret clinical issues and this certainly caught my eye as there were a lot of professional terms being used that most lay readers may not have encountered and would find difficult to argue with.
Another reason why I looked at this objectively.
It could have been a debate about coil insertion!! Just because I work in the medical profession does not mean I know everything about all subjects. But I have aquired a set of skills to be able to look for the facts and make balanced safe decisions

Tabs, I suggested if you thought this should be investigate to write to the health secretary or the GMC

We were not asking you for advice; you were asking us.

yy you don't know what you're on about

"Parents opinion is not scientific evidence, but should be investigated."

What, just parental opinion on its own? how should parental opinion, on its own, be investigated? what would you suggest? biopsies, on the basis of parental opinion? lumbar punctures, on parental opinion? colonoscopies on parental opinion? you think these should happen on the basis of parental opinion? You are worse that you think Andrew Wakefield is. So any parent that goes to a GP and says "my child was damaged by MMR" ought to have - what - any of the processes above? brain scans? what?

or are you perhaps trying to downplay evidence from parents as just "opinion" because it suits your argument?

are you perhaps ignoring the fact that the parents didn't simply go to andrew wakefield and say "I think my child was damaged by mmr"

are you ignoring the fact that they presented with children with appalling symptoms of pain, diarrhoea, gut distress, failure to thrive, coinciding with the MMR after normal progression up to that point?

what about the clinical presentation? what about the profound symptoms? do you dismiss those as" parental opinion"? if so, why? if not, will you acknowledge there is evidence other than "parental opinion"?

do you think they it constitutes "scientific" evidence that ought to be investigated? certainly they constitute clinical evidence

if you don't, you believe invasive investigations ought to be carried out on the basis of "parental opinion" alone

if you do, you are recommending a process of investigation where you have already decided the result - ie there is no causal link - in other words recommending invasive investigations which you believe are pointless

is this what you recommend? is this what you think?

you

Shame I didn't check where PIMS has posted in the recent past. I would've worked out she or he was a medic. Oh, what a mug.

not a medic, unles the posting style and spelling is a strange double bluff

I asked for your opinions, not your advice. The title of the thread is the vaccine debate after all.
GB stop being such a sensationalist!!
I am suggesting that their concerns be dealt with as per the normal structure and format for investigating concerns in the the NHS.
The last time I checked this didnt mean jumping in head first with invasive procedures. It involved investigations and recommendations for system changes and reserach made by a panel of experts. I would never make such ridiculous assumptions on a public forum.

If by the end of my reading, my concerns are strong enough, I will be writing a letter to the GMC and the health secretary, what will you be doing????

In the mean time, we need to make safe decisions based on the facts. Al medicines and medical procedures carry risk. Giving antibiotics carries risk. An appendectomy carries risk however the risk of intervention needs to be balanced with the risk of the disease itself. Infection can kill, appendicitis can kill.
Vaccines are no exception. We have to balance the risk associated with the vaccine against the potential benefit. In 2008 450 people per day died of measles. Aside from the autism debate, the chance of anaphylaxis is about 2%
Autism diagnosis were rising long before MMR was introduced
www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/2/39

We need to be mindful of both problems. Simply avoiding the MMR does not guarantee your childs saftey and leaves them exposed to different risks.

PIMS Here is what you posted yesterday morning, which I took to mean you wanted our advice, idiot that I obviously am.

Could we have a show of hands and a brief synopsis of the salient points? I only have 5 mins before ds wakes up from his nap and it's MMR day today
All those in favour say 'aye'
All those against say 'nay'
If u wouldn't mind giving brief reasons it would be most helpful. Thanks in advance!

I was asking for a show of hands, not really how you would ask for advice...

And really it is pretty in keeping with the format of a debate

Why does it matter what I do?
If I was a medic, would that automatically make me part of a conspiracy??

There is nothing in posts about MMR that is anything less that pure fact based on the reading I have done ( a lot of which came from links on this thread!)
There is no opinion or assumptions in what I have said and the only times I have given any opinion is in response to a direct question from you.

That is because, when making this difficult decision, readers and parents deserve to be able to make the decision free from emotional blackmail or scorn or emotionally charged opinion.

I have to say that Tabs, you definitely were very supportive and non judgmental to the fact that I was having dc vaccinated and I really respect you for that and your honesty.

But GB, your posts really are dangerous, opinionated and arrogant!! The reason for that is that you fully believe that a causal link can be proven without scientific evidence and shoot anyone down who dares to disagree. The issue of parental concern needs to be given credence and should be examined. The result may find something completely unrelated to MMR, but it needs to be examined. In the mean time your arguments need to be balanced with risk and common sense.

People should be free to express what they think with fear of ridicule or scorn. That is certainly not my experience on this post. I have found you narrow minded and bullying in your approach to what should have been an informed debate.