Reactions to MMR - how long do they last?

[MrsMoppetMama]

My DD (13 months) had her MMR 11 days ago, she had a bad reaction after about 3 days (high temp and trouble breathing) and we took her to urgent care center. Although this has now passed, she seems to be really out of sorts and has stopped sleeping through. Her normal routine was brilliant as she went down from about 7 - 7. Now she is waking every two hours and is very unhappy. Is this normal? is this because of her MMR or is it just a phase? She has also stopped taking her bottle before bed, is it likely that she has weaned herself? Help! It's been pretty easy going with her up to now so a bit stressed by all this.

If mmr is the trigger in 7% of autistic children you absolutely would see it as increased risk in epidemiological studies. You don't.

Oh dear, please Elaine, it's not Sossgies it's Sossiges, thanks.
So you don't think that Big Pharma lies? It's so sweet, such innocence in this day and age. [touched]

OK, so if the evidence doesn't suit your idea of the facts, you just stop reading. Right, that must be where I've been going wrong then

"I said theres no scientific evidence. I know you find this offensive and I'm sorry for this and how you reconcile two conflicting stories is up to you."

Funny how you "know" such a thing with no evidence whatsoever. Your cognitive dissonance is not "offensive" to me, at all.

It's good that you realise that there is conflict. That is the first step to resolving it.

Since Pagwatch and her DS are real live people, you can't change them. What you need to change is your story that there is no evidence MMR triggers autism, because it has clearly triggered her DS's.

Lavolcan. Yes, I know youre very influenced by stories that you hear. I'm more influenced by scientific evidence.

You know nothing of the sort and it's presumptuous of you to say so. You say you are influenced by scientific evidence, and yet you serve up - a story about Roald Dahl's daughter, and aunt who died who may or may not have been saved by vaccine and Bad Science. If they aren't stories, what are they?

I personally was a cautious vaccinator myself and have found some of the links posted by others very interesting. We need a balance to make an informed opinion, but it is hard to get balanced information. Big pharma does have a vested interest; governments do too.

I do lack what appears to be your belief that 'all vaccines safe, the disease is always worse'. It's not so black and white as that.

The DTP vaccination triggered an autoimmune response in my DB, that attacked his kidneys causing them to fail and cause eyesight loss. He's real.

People's bodies react differently to the same environment, chemicals, toxins, viruses and medicines. Sometimes they kill.

Your only way out of this while still keeping your cognitive dissonance is claiming Pagwatch is:
(a) A liar (who told a false story)
or
(b) An idiot (who doesn't get what really happened to her DS)

So, Elaine... Which do you choose?

I said no scientific evidence. I have no comment on any individual case as I am not a doctor.

No need to be a doctor to see that you are suffering from cognitive dissonance.

Your worldview is conflicting with the reality of a real live person, Pagwatch's DS, whose autism has been triggered by MMR. You are desperately trying to hold onto your belief "There is no evidence that MMR triggers autism", so you must have concluded either that Pagwatch is an idiot or a liar.

Come on, share with us. Which is it?

If you have found some other way to discredit her in your mind, please do share that, too.

From Richard Lathe (developer of rabies vaccine) autism, brain and environment'

a reasonable hypothesis is that around 5% of cases might be due to MMR vaccination, with impaired immunity as a contributing factor. The statistical challenge is then to detect an increase in ASD at this level. Population sizes ib the order of one million in both the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups are needed, because below this the small increment could never achieve statistical validity

and so he goes on - read the book if you're actually interested.

I would suggest that rather than playing with population data - and all the problems associated with that, you might be better off clinically examining the children whose parents suggest a link. If parents are thought to be too stupid to recognise a link then you could examine those who were admitted to hospital and now have a diagnosis of autism. Who knows, might find something interesting.

I'm actually laughing at tobacco companies being just like people who don't vaccinate. Because yes people who choose not to vaccinate after having a damaged child are just like multi-national organisations that supress evidence aren't they? Oh the irony.

I think I'm with cote on the cognitive dissonance.

How can epidemiological studies prove that smoking causes lung cancer? They can only show that it is a likely cause.
So, how can epidemiological studies prove that the MMR is safe?
Elaine Vaccines may well be one of the safest interventions, but that doesn't actually mean that they are safe.

Only a fool would say that all vaccines are safe for everyone!

That doesn't mean they are BAD and we all should avoid them btw. I'm not having an argument about the rights and wrongs of vaccination here, just commenting on some of the illogic.

Elaine I neglected your point about my contradicting myself. When DS was born, I was very pro-vaccine and he was going to get the lot except the MMR. Three years later, he's had not one jab. Why I started questionning vaccinations? Yep, it was the MMR because of the problems reported by parents but denied by the medical experts. I lost faith in the whole system.
Starlight You've hit the nail on the head. Vaccines are not safe for everyone. But, how do we identify those at risk? I know we don't even try to at the moment.

Because this behaviour is nothing like multinational corporations suppressing evidence is it? Oh no, the 'anti-vax' crew (i.e. including people who did vaccinate until it all went pear shaped) are far more like a tobacco company, than the companies mentioned in that report from a few weeks ago.

Next you'll be telling us that pharmaceutical companies aren't interest in profits

And I am supposed to trust these companies with vaccinations...........

Well according to Elaine, the system works. And yes those people are far more trustworthy than someone like Pagwatch, because they rely on scientific evidence dontchaknow

But it's okay - they've learned from their mistakes. They don't need to worry about being find here the MHRA engages in light-touch regulation

*fined

or perhaps *found out

From the Grauniad

The GSK sales campaign also involved helping to publish an article in a medical journal that misreported evidence from a clinical trial.

Really my eyebrows can't go high enough

Yep the system works.

Actually that's a perfect example of the system workingn saintly. The side effects were reported and known. There may have been poor public health decisions but side effects were detected and it was withdrawn. And the rotavirus is another example of the system working. If vaccine side effects were as widespread as you claim, it would be detected - I hardly think nearly every government in the developed world is involved in this cover up!

There are many alternative hypotheses to explain why someone's own personal experience and belief may not be reflected in the scientific evidence. It's certainly not as offensive (and childish) as 'she's either a liar or an idiot'. I won't go into details here as I feel it is inappropriate to do so but I'm sure you can find out on your own, it is not a phenomenon restricted to vaccines.

At no point have I said vaccines carry no risk but the scientific evidence shows that risk is extremely small. Some high risk groups are identified such as children witb impaired immune systems who face an awful choice of russian roulette made worse by the actions of the ignroant and misinformed (colateral damage of the anti vax movment). There is no scientific evidence which shows that vaccine damage includes autism. Maybe this wil change in the future, but I doubt it given how much this subject has already been researched.

I'm no fan of the actions of big pharma. But vaccines are no different to any other medication. And I find the conspiracy theories rather pathetic to be honest.

But we have come to the crux of the matter, whether one is persuaded by anecdote or science. If I weigh up one persons account on an anonymous Internet board versus overwhelming scientific evidence, I know which evidence I'm going to weight more highly.

Tabitha

There are a number of criteria one must meet to demonstrate causality. Epidemiological studies, depending on design, can demonstrate association, temporality, dose response. It is possible to use quasi experimental techniques to demonstrate a causal effects where randomization is impossible or unethical. Really, I think you should take epidemiology 101 if you wish to comment on the limits of epidemiological studies. I can recommend a great online course by johns Hopkins university if you are really interested in understanding epidemiology,

I'm not sure this is keeping cool, it's rather a callous tone. I'm sorry I haven't read your above posts. I came to see if you had responded to Cote's very important, indeed central, question.

You haven't responded to Cote's question.

Elaine - it really is as simple as she's a liar or an idiot. What she says is true or it's not true. There is no grey area. You believe it's not true. Therefore you must believe she is stupid or lying. More than that, you must believe thousands of other people are stupid are lying too. It's a belief system, a faith. It's not scientific. It's closing your eyes to the evidence.

"I hardly think nearly every government in the developed world is involved in this cover up!"

The evidence points that way - pharmaceutical corporations have financial reasons for being mendacious - governments probably imagine it's for the greater good. I have no doubt that there's a general acceptance of a role of vaccination in the development of some ASD disorders in the political health establishment, but they probably imagine - as you do - that it's a sacrifice well worth making. They - like you - don't mind people being damaged and hurt and having their lives ruined - they, like you, think it isn't a big deal.