vaccine yes or no??????

[123mon]

Hi, i would like to know your opinions about vaccine please. I decide to dont let my 3 years old daughter have the vaccine and i was wondering if there are other mums that think the same as me

Hm yes but then people are also saying things like 'links to autism have been completely disproven' which isn't actually true either. Except in politicians heads. MMR has been shown to not be behind the vast rise in autism cases - but I don't think anyone has ever really suggested it is. (I'd certainly agree MMR is a very rare trigger, and that those who regressed from MMR may have been susceptible to other viruses etc). Autism isn't one thing anyway.

i never sayd that vaccination is evil.... people stop saiyn think that aren't true

Apologies OP. I mis-represented you.

Pleased you can see my posts now though

saintly as you've said, if MMR is a trigger for autism, it's very rare. OP's child has already had one dose with no adverse reaction. Out of interest, if she was going to have a reaction would it be once both doses are complete, or would it be more likely to become apparent after the first dose? I've always assumed any problems would probably come after the first dose...

Hm well there was some work on the double hit - so those affected by the first were affected again by the second. But there's a whole other controversy around that which would completely derail the thread!

It would be possible to have a reaction only after the second, but hard to tell really given regression officially doesn't happen. I have no idea about other reactions though.

Trazzle its nite a big secret as Saintly implies.
some info including info on managing immunization

research md fever and regression
Vaccines do not cause MD.
Its not the same as mmr causes autism because any fever or stress on the body may cause the regression.

Well mitochondrial disorders & autism are a whole other issue. I have discussed that with researchers/doctors as well. Ds1's neurologist offered us a muscle biopsy for him (we all agreed to hold off on that one). But that's a completely different issue than the autism/mmr/gut type we were talking about. Which again is different from the autism/immune system/unusual reaction to viruses including potentially attenuated viruses we have discussed. Autism not being one thing.

It's actually fairly new for mainstream medics to even accept the autism mt dysfunction suggestion. That was seen as bonkers a few years ago. I know because I tried to get a referral after attending a conference & realising ds1 had some of the symptoms. It was initially refused but i spoke to the researcher from the conference a was able to get a supporting letter from a paediatric neurologist at addenbrookes, this was followed by a change in ds1's community paed & he was given the referral (to our local NHS paediatric neurologist). When we saw the neurologist he was very clued up on it all - but at that time the community paediatricians certainly were not. Well his first one wasn't.

I'm not suggesting some big secret. Please stop portraying all people who choose not to vaccinate as paranoid. More I agree with what the neurologist, ds1's current paed and the geneticist have all said independently. 'You're ten to twenty years too early'. They have all said it is likely that routes to autism & possibly even clinical treatment are in their way to development - but we're not there yet. None of them seen particularly freaked out by the notion that sometimes vaccinations might trigger the regression.

I am pleased to see the idea that underlying mt disorders might have a role is becoming more mainstream. That's a huge shift in opinion. Perhaps it will lead to some UK payouts for those affected. (Even better, perhaps the concept of trying to identify susceptible children before vaccination will start to take hold - utterly insane though that idea might be )

The controversy to which I referred regarded two papers which were meant to be published together which unexpectedly weren't. The second paper dealt with the double hit. If you plough through the GMC hearing it's all in there (good luck with that - cba to go there). Nothing to do with mt dysfunction. Not a big silence, just little known, controversial and so highly political it's prob impossible to get to the truth. Also very out of date and the research involved a brand of MMR which was withdrawn anyway. So very much not worth going into, but relevant to the question asked.

It would be career suicide to do any research that looked into triggers for autism in those genetically predisposed [or any other genetic vulnerability like bowel issues] that may include MMR in that research, even if one acknowledged that such a trigger many only affect a very few. That is the flipside to WHO and other medical authorities having completely buried any possibility of MMR having issues for the sake of public health - ie, they made the decision, in their view, to prevent a measles epidemic which in terms of sheer numbers, would cause far more deaths and illness than a few possible autism cases triggered by MMR. I think what is unfortunate is that they treat the public like children [although I can kind of see why sometimes] incapable of understanding anything complex - MMR is either absolutely safe or absolutely evil, which is just not true for anything really. The way it has become very difficult to gain access to single vaccines is very wrong, as has the label on those doctors who do offer them as 'quacks'. Greater access to single vaccines would ensure those that are worried would be able to get their children protected - why on earth is that such a big deal?

from the gmc council

"Q Before I turn you to another page, I just wanted to complete things. As far as the
second paper, which you rejected, was concerned, did that come from the same research
group?
A It did come from the same research group although I cannot recall, and I do not have a
record, of exactly what the authorship of that paper was. I do not recollect.
Q Can you help us as to its nature at all?
A From what I can remember, this was a laboratory study trying to identify what the
possible cause of the new syndrome was. From what I can remember, this was an attempt to
try to isolate a component of the MMR vaccine with this syndrome.
Q Without that paper, the paper with which we are concerned, the 11096 paper made only
the temporal link, is that correct, with the MMR vaccine?
A That is exactly right. Not only did it only make the temporal link but it was made very
clear in that paper that such a temporal link was not a proof of association, moreover that
there was no published evidence to support any association between the vaccine and the new
syndrome."

The second paper was a laboratory report that tried to connect mmr with the new syndrome it was rejected at peer review stage.

gmc transcripts

Agree pofaced.

Gosh that's highly selective reporting bruffin. Two can play at that game. Thus making it all fairly pointless.

Q: Do you know why it was rejected
A: No I do not. It is interesting that the editorial that was published in the February Lancet which was highly critical of the clinical paper had as one of its main criticisms as the lack of evidence of chronic viral infection in the gut and the subsequent editorial in the BMJ made the same point. So what was missing from the equation/jigsaw was the confirmation of chronic virus infection in the gut which was there in a paper which was rejected.

Q: You told us that you have a positive review with respect to the first paper: did you give a positive review in respect to the second
A:Yes I did, because in work I had done previously myself in animals, in mice, to detect the presence of a virus in the gut, namely rotavirus I would use the same technique.... so I had faith in that technique....... The controls were there.... if there was a non-specific binding of the reagent to the gut why were they not binding to the children without autism? blah blah blah

Not selective at all. I suspect you thought nobody would have access to the gmc transcripts.
Just pointing out the claim you made about the rejected paper was nonsense and did not answer the question ie can you get the same reaction from the booster again.
You know very well that nobody has ever been able to replicate measles virus in the gut as well.

Well it is selective isn't it. As I've just posted a different selection giving a different response also from the GMC. Why would I assume no-one would have access to the GMC transcripts? I feel the GMC is fairly pointless as it has more to do with politics than science as I said above, but anyway.

You are correct though that I had forgotten the content of the second paper. I must have remembered the words double whammy from whenever I read the transcripts however long ago (I didn't re-read before my post above) and in my memory confused it with the other MMR discussion around 'double hits' which is a further regression after the second jab. I don't have time to find the original source (if there is one, it may have been a general discussion I had with various labs) but a quick google suggests that Michael Fitzpatrick has taken time to voice his disagreement with this and so you may be able to find an original source. I certainly have friends who describe a double hit effect and see no reason to doubt them. I know we are meant to assume all mothers are mistaken and couldn't recognise the timing of a regression if it danced around in front of them, but having been quite capable of observing a regression myself (and having had my account accepted by every doctor we've ever spoken to) I find it a little tricky to assume they're mistaken just because the regression happened to follow a jab. Twice.

Stephen Walker did find measles virus although it was never published. Hard to know why - you will say the science wasn't up to scratch, I will wonder whether it would even be possible to get such a paper through peer review - even if it was gold standard science. He may have decided after the response to his poster it wasn't worth it (see pofaced's post). Who knows. As regards the lack of replication, I could point out they examined different subgroups, you'll say that doesn't matter and round and round in circles we'll go.

I really wish there were absolute answers to all the above btw - my life was a lot simpler in the days when I vaccinated my child assuming there was only a very small chance of any adverse event, and the risk from the disease was definitely higher. I wouldn't particularly object to returning to those days. Unfortunately there are, for our family, still quite a lot of unanswered questions.

Its not selective because its in context and not edited or are you expecting me to quote the whole of Hortons evidence on mumsnet.
As for the walker paper. Its own authors don't have any confidence as it lacks control and blind trials. Its hardly independent of wakefield.either.

My point was that you were choosing a small quote from a huge body of evidence during which more than one view was expressed.

We're obviously never going to agree, we're coming at this with completely different interests. You presumably believe science operates pretty much independently of politics, whereas I believe certain politics influence work done and reported.

I'm interested in the risk to my children who are known to (statistically) have a high risk of developmental regression. You're looking at a population level. I believe (and have repeatedly stated) that the MMR is safe for the majority of children but am concerned about those who have underlying susceptibilities to regression. I don't believe enough (anything much at all) has been done to examine whether the MMR is safe for those children. You presumably don't believe a susceptible group exists. You clearly don't see individual reports from parents as being relevant. I'm very interested in why children I know had reactions to the MMR (including seizures and ending up in HDU or ICU). I'd like to see their parent's questions answered (although to be fair on the whole in the cases of severe reactions their clinicians have been supportive).

We're not even on the same page.

saintly can you help me understand what causes the pre-disposition to the regression? Apologies if it's covered in the posts but I can't see it. Is it when the vaccine is given while the child is already unwell? I can see how that would be problematic for their immune system and could cause complications.
I'm not trying to cause trouble or stir anything up, up just a 19wk PG mum expecting DC1 and trying to garner as much info as possible...

Remembering - that is the big question unfortunately. It is somewhat complicated by there being more than one known route to autism. I have had docs say they would like to see more work into identifying susceptible groups but I'm not sure it's the sort of work that could be done at the moment tbh

One has already been mentioned - an underlying mitochondrial disorder - I think most doctors now would agree you would need to be careful in those cases, but there isn't an easy way to test for that and the type of disorder involved doesn't really give obvious symptoms. You could probably find out more if you contact Kennedy Krieger in the States, I've always found them approachable & they work on this sort of thing.

Another time I personally would be careful would be if the mother has had a viral infection during very early pregnancy. There are a few promising models that have been investigating that & some (not all) include vaccinations as a potential later hit triggering regression in an already primed immune systwm. Unfortunately they tend not to publish that bit, so it's hard to know what current thinking on that is, although will happily discuss it in person or during conference papers. I doubt they'd go as far as advising not to vaccinate though (esp as in that model any virus is a risk).

In the Wakefield style regression with subsequent GI issues who knows, officially there's no such thing, although I do know gastroenterologists who have told parents with eg Crohns in the family to be careful. I don't believe there's evidence for that as such though.

Knowing more than one family where two children have regressed post MMR (with very extreme reactions) I'd be careful after one sibling reaction tbh. There's absolutely no evidence for that though obviously (although it is the sort of case where senior clinicians are usually sympathetic & would happily talk it through).

Am happy to give further info about our own personal decisions (which weren't really based on any of the above) if you PM me. In terms of ds1 - there is a lot with hindsight that I would have done differently but I'm not sure how many warning signs there were (some, but not many).

I dont need to quote anymore because it clearly says the second report you claimed to be hidden wasnt what you said it was. A lab report will not give the information you claim was in there.

This is not the first time that you have been caught out with misrepresenting information. You claim not to be antivax yet you never ever post anything positive.

Remebering if you are interested in the regression, the wakefield cases are easily accessible from the gmc transcripts i linked to above. It tells a very different story to "perfectly normal children regressing overnight" that some people assume it was.

Saintly you clearly have particular interest in the links because of your DS and have made choices for your other children based on that. But even you would have to admit that if everyone stopped vaccinating their children then the chances of a significant disease outbreak are high?

Remembering please vaccinate your child. And if you are seriously considering not, please speak to your GP in RL before making any decision.

I have already said I misremembered the content of the second paper - I last read the transcripts well over year ago. It wasn't purposeful misrepresentation. If people still want to follow up the issue of double hits I would suggest googling and following Michael Fitzpatrick's comments. He's refuted them, will presumably reference and he certainly won't be saying anything in support of Wakefield. But anyway you might find the original. As I already said the concern with that was (iirc) related mainly to a brand of MMR no longer used so isn't really relevant to decision making today anyway.

I'm not sure what you would define as never saying anything positive. I have repeatedly said that MMR is safe for the majority of children. Can't get much more positive than that.

There is apparently more than one route to regression. I do know perfectly normal children who regressed overnight and I know in some cases their paediatricians have implicated MMR. The children I know well in this group however do not have GI symptoms so wouldn't be part of the Wakefield group. I would never suggest these were a particularly large group of children (I know them because severe autism is a small world, if ds1 wasn't severely autistic I doubt I'd know any of them).

I actually don't think MMR is a particularly common trigger for regression (have said that repeatedly on here over the last 10 years as well), but that isn't the same as saying it never occurs and, well, living with severe autism, understanding first hand the effect the condition has on families and personally knowing children who did end up very poorly after the MMR, yes I am interested in what happened to them and why. Just as I am interested in cases of regression -that are not (as in the case of ds1) related to MMR. So shoot me. I never quite understand why my interest in what triggered regression makes people so angry.

Well yes of course there would be disease outbreaks if everyone stopped vaccinating. I have never claimed otherwise.

Don't worry, I'm intending on vaccinating but keen to understand if there are avoidable triggers (such as postponing if DC is poorly at the time etc) and generally having as much info as possible. The way I see it a 1:gazzilion chance of issue from jab is better odds than 1:far less of getting measles/mumps/rubella and the associated risks and complications. Just getting as much info as possible first
The only jab I'm really unsure about is Vit K at birth. Anyone?

My position is that I would like to see serious research undertaken to identify children who are at higher risk from vaccinations in advance - so that they could be given an altered schedule, different vaccinations or in extreme cases no vaccination at all. In other words I would like to see efforts made to make vaccination safer by individualising the programme and considering it at the individual level as much as the public health level. I fully support this type of research and would like to see a lot more funding directed towards it.

Yes it's an expensive way to potentially 'save' a small number of children, but imo worth it.

Oh cross posted. Remembering unless you had some particular reason to vaccinate within a particular time period I personally wouldn't vaccinate when my children were ill and I'd give them a few weeks after they were ill to recover (that is one thing I would definitely change re ds1 if we were to revisit his first 2 years).

The whole point about increasing the availability of single vaccines is PRECISELY so that anyone who is concerned can still protect their child, and other vulnerable children in society. The decision to make single vaccines as difficult as possible to gain access to is ostensibly one made apparently because parents are too stupid to make sure all the vaccines get given at the right times, but is really because it would mean the powers that be would be allowing a tiny glimmer of possibility that there were questions hanging over MMR.

Jimjams has repeatedly said that MMR is safe for the majority. MMR is blatantly obviously safe for the majority as proven by statistical analysis. There MAY be a small subset of children genetically presdisposed for whom MMR can act as a trigger. More research is needed and won't get done for political reasons [or for public health reasons, one could argue, because of the concern of more measles cases]