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

You really are struggling to keep up aren't you
A correlation is a relationship between twin variables. It's does not confirm that one causes the other

Causal relationship is a correlation that has been scientifically tested to prove that altering one variable causes a specifics effect on the other

The relationship between MMR and autism is a correlation, not causal relationship.

do I understand - are you joking?

remember a few pages back when I said two or three times - once might be coincidence, ten times might even be a coincidence, thousands and thousands of times - that's an indicator of causation

but you know - I certainly do have a problem understanding you but I dont' think that's anything to do with me

roar-- are you trying to be patronising becuase you've been caught out making no sense whatsoever

now I've seen everything

Indication is not the definition of absolute proof, it is a suggestion that rigouris research is needed

"the link is not causal"??

changing your mind about that??

I am making perfect sense as anyone who understands research would agree

No GB, the scientific evidence to say that the link is causal does not exist. Not even wakefeild by his own admission

I'm not trying to be patronising at all, you genuinely seem to struggle with the definitions of research terminology. I just wanted to make sure we were on a level playing field. Thanks

Goosberrybushes - one question. Why are you so fucking rude? Everybody else seems to be able to discuss this without descending to correcting spelling, sighs and snorts, headbanging and telling peopel they've said things they haven't - why can;t you?

You can talk. Everybody is not able to discuss this in the way you describe - and you can have a look back at your pro-vaccine bragade posters to see where the unpleasantness began. Although naturally that probably wouldn't have bothered you.

Telling people they've said what they haven't - well this is not the case at all, but you raise a very important part of the vacination question.

People often don't realise what they are saying - they genuinely don't. So when they say - the link is not causal - they are saying "I think all those parents and quite a few of their doctors are wrong while knowing nothing about their children, their medical records, their histories or (usually) the disorders themselves".

It doesn't matter how you dress it up as "well I'm sure if it was me I would belive the same thing" or "it's natural for parents to look for an answer. You are saying "I know better than these people what is the matter with their children. I don't know what the problem is - but I absolutely know, I am 100 per cent sure, that in every single case vaccination is not the cause."

It doesn't matter how you express your belief that there is no link between MMR and autistic disorder - this is what you mean.

(Obviously - because if you think some are right, or may be right, you think there is a link, or there may be a link.)

Now you may hold this as an article of faith (and it is faith, because how could you possibly know) but it is certainly something that you ought to realise is an article of your faith, and certainly something that you ought to be able to defend if you hold it as an article of faith. When people who don't even realise and understand what they actually think themselves - then start to be patronising and sarcastic and talk about "vaxaloons" (Pims that wasn't you but there is always sarcasm, nastiness, patrongage and so on from the "other side") unfortunately the temptation is of course to set them straight on the limits of exactly how clear thinking they are.

Pims is plainly unable to process some of the answers she is getting despite laying down some very absolutist claims. And also this weird innocent pretence thing about the MMR appointment. All very odd and it felt like some kind of trick.

the link is not causal - they are saying "I think all those parents and quite a few of their doctors are wrong while knowing nothing about their children, their medical records, their histories or (usually) the disorders themselves".

Please don't count me as 'they' I have explained on a number of occasions that parental concern has to investigated but in itself is not enough scientific evidence to prove causality.

In the field of science you are wrong GB

and please stop implying what I mean. I have not done this to you. It is unfair and untrue.

I mean exactly what I write

Thanks

In science a hypothesis has to be proven before it is accepted

In law, people are innocent until l proven guilty

Parental concern warrants investigation, but is not categoric proof of a causal relationship.

You really are clutching at straws GB. These are the rules and laws of our country and society and are there for our protection. It is not my fault if this doesnt fit with ur understanding of how science is undertaken and theories become fact

Further to that: if you would like to see more research, you must then believe there is evidence of a link.

No one would recommend research - which, if not epidemiological, would inevitably involve privacy and invasive issues - on the grounds of NO evidence.

It is a premise that epidemiological evidence does not have the power to expose the vulnerability of sub-groups. If you disagree with this premise, you have to understand what you are saying. You have to understand that you believe the study of large numbers and large populations will expose vulnerability to an reaction by a particular individual or sub-group. (There has actually been a ruling in a US superior court that this is not the case).

Therefore if you acknowledge the need for more research, you must acknowledge the existence of at least some evidence. Otherwise it is entirely pointless.

If you acknowledge the existence of at least some evidence and the need for research you must - it follows quite logically - acknowledge the existence of a possible link.

You cannot say: "there is no link" AND "we need more research".

There is no point to research unless there is an opportunity to reach more than one finding. Which, if you believe : the link is not causal : you do not have.

Absolutism implies proof. If you are absolutist ("the link is not causal" "it doesn't exist") you ought to be able to understand that.

People who question vaccines are rarely absolutist: not even Wakefield claimed a proved link: he didn't even suggest a proved link. There is a balance of probabilities-- and most people who question vaccines are at various points along the seesaw of that balance. The absolutist ("there is no link") stands at the end of the seesaw, unmoving, incapable of discussing probabilities and likelihoods unless he abandons his absolutist stance.

You don't actually need to know a great deal about vaccinations to be able to establish or indeed follow a very very clear train of thought about absolutism, evidence, proof and process.

Pims it's alright, don't worry about it.

And further to that it's important to know why this absolutist stance is so significant in the MMR debate in particular.

Pharmaceutical manufacturers and health authorities have no problem with describing on their inserts various possible serious adverse events. This is because they are able to describe the likelihood of such a reaction as vanishingly rare, "one in a million", in the colloquial. It is possible to accept that brain damage and death may result because the likelihood is so small and the risk-benefit analysis is therefore an easy one to make.

However with MMR and autism this is not the case. Admit one case, admit the possiblity of a link - any possibility of a link - and, to mix metaphors, the floodgates open, the tower comes tumbling down. The numbers are huge.

And people will question - but this is all Wakefield did: suggested the possibility of a link and advised caution and more research.

It's therefore imperative that not a single case of MMR-induced autism can be acknowledged in any normally developing child. Not a single one, not a single shred shred of evidence that leads us to the possibility of a link.

Gooseberry,

What Pimsoclock is saying is absolutely right relating to correlation and causation. For example, in hotter climates, people get more sunburnt and they get more malaria. So, simply running a correlation, you would think that malaria is caused by hotter temperatures or that malaria actually heats up the environment! Of course, neither is right, more heat actually allows does cause sunburn but also allows the anopheles mosquito to flourish, thus causing malaria.

So, correlation in no way implies causation. This is especially true of data series over long periods of time, when a lot of background variables are changing simultaneously. The book "bad science" debunks a lot of the vaccine myths.

Pims doesn't understand and neither do you Larry

GB, unfortunately it is you who doesn't understand

It is important to differentiate between any link and a causal link to ensure that it is the correct variable that we isolate and change. If we change the wrong variable, it could have catastrophic effects on the population and may not even help the original problem

That is why it is important.

There is no evidence to show that declining numbers of MMR jabs have in any way reduced the amount of regressive autism diagnosis.
However we do know that a drop in MMR uptake has a significant impact on Mortality from measles

Gooseberry,

Umm, I have a degree in Natural Sciences from Cambridge University. I suspect Pimms has done some form of scientific research. And you?

When you are in a minority and people are explaining something to you, it may be an idea to at least listen to what they are saying.

Pims - don't worry about it.

Larry - you PLAINLY don't understand no matter what your degree. I doubt you even read my last posts let alone any of the others.

tbh, given the mmr has been pushed right back to 12/13 months, I would be very surprised if amny children were given a regressive autism dx post mmr reaction.

the whole dx process is designed to fob off, wait and see, deny parents opinions, make out that it is most likely:

pnd
parental neurosis
pushy parenting
natural delays

by the time you get to the end of the dx proces,s you are so far removed from anythign which might have played apart (which probably did not get noted down anyway), and your knowledge of your child has been questioned so much that no one will take what you say seriously.

the official figures are meaningless, to a large degree. a large part of the case against wakefiled with re the "falsifying" records is the fact that dx terms change, and there is little consistency across departments when referring to the same child, with the same issues.

dd1 has has had at least 6 different dx labels applied to her. one child, one issue, but multiple terms used depending on: which pct, which hcp within each pct, whether it is an education prof or a health prof (and different terms get oyu different services)

the whole hting is a mess, and you certainly cannot say with any accuracy that regressive autsim numbers have/haven't dropped.

For example: to imagine that the phrase of "a link between MMR and autism" means anything other than a causal link - that's unusual.

In fact I've never seen it used to mean anything other than a causal link. It doesn't mean I don't understand the difference between a causal link and any other kind of link, for example the link that they both contain the letter "m" - but it seems rather pointless to use the phrase and mean any other link than a causal link.

For example: this point correlation does not equal causation.

It's very easy to understand and everybody on this thread understand it. What Pims (and you) find difficult to understand is the volume of correlation and the volume of evidence apart from correlation which leads to the indication that there is a causative link.

Maybe you don't understand, maybe you're trying to mislead, maybe you just don't know - who can tell. But to keep saying - correlation does not equal causation (which is the same as saying thousands of coincidences) is an attempt to slide away from the volume of correlation and the volume of alternative evidence.

Larry your malaria analogy is inappropriate: there is no detailed temporal correlation between heat, sunburn, mosquito breeding and malaria. The temporal element is seasonal, if at all.

GB, that is just plain rude.

Please stop using personal insults to make your case right, its not working. You are still wrong, no matter how much you shout or stamp your feet or claim we dont know what we are talking about.

My posts clearly make sense. yours really are just turning into childish noise.

SF I agree, the diagnosis is difficult and the official figures really may not reflect the problem. I really wanted to use that point to re iterate to GB how complex the issue is and that parental concern is not enough to prove this link is causal but is serious enough to warrant investigation. (I really dont see how that is soo difficult to understand)
I have a concern that breast feeding my child has caused him to be a poor sleeper, but Im not sure that I could prove it!!
As you have said yourself, it can be be difficult to get a single diagnosis often because it is not a single problem in isolation it is more that one. Even in wakefeild theories and previous papers, he identified that measles was also a huge problem to this group of patients and could in itself cause problems.

This again supports the reasons for weighing up the risk versus benefit as with all vaccines and I actually thought Tabs suggestions about a fact sheet displaying the benefit vs risk would be very helpful and fitting in helping parents to make an informed decision in every case.

They're not nonsense. What's happening is you don't understand them. That doesn't make them nonsense.