Can I ask the people who are anti-vac, how do you feel about the smallpox vaccine, do you think that was right? Would you have had it?

[Kendodd]

I suppose the same (ish) question could apply to the polio vaccine, I believe there is an eradication programme for that. Hopefully it'll be successful.

Cotes,
You also mention mitochondrial disorders.Now, mitochondrial disorders are very real, and I've discussed them in the context of vaccination before. I went to see what various organizations had to say on the subject.

"Do vaccines cause or worsen mitochondrial diseases?
As of now, there are no scientific studies that say vaccines cause or worsen mitochondrial diseases. We do know that certain illnesses that can be prevented by vaccines, such as the flu, can trigger the regression that is related to a mitochondrial disease. More research is needed to determine if there are rare cases where underlying mitochondrial disorders are triggered by anything related to vaccines. However, we know that for most children, vaccines are a safe and important way to prevent them from getting life-threatening diseases."
That's from the CDC: www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/mitochondrial-faq.html
How about this:
"Vaccinations are critical in protecting the health of our children. All children, even those with suspected or known mitochondrial diseases, should receive the recommended vaccinations."
That's from MitoAction: www.mitoaction.org/blog/statement-autism-vaccines-mitochondrial-disease

There's also this paper:
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/18816884/
This is a paper titled "Attitudes regarding vaccination among practitioners of biochemical genetics". The authors conducted a survey of active and emeritus members of the Society for Inherited Metabolic Disorders. The responses of this group should, I hope you would agree, give a good idea of the general attitude of those who actually know a bit about metabolic disease towards vaccination?
Various questions were asked, such as "I view the risk of vaccination in known metabolic disease patients to generally be outweighed by the risk of infectious diseases being vaccinated against", which 63.2% strongly agreed with, 31.1% agreed with (0.9% disagreed, and 0.9% strongly disagreed). When it came to what vaccinations they recommended 21.3% recommended the routine schedule, 73.1% recommended the routine schedule plus annual influenza. 5.6% recommended a modified schedule. So the majority (almost 3/4) actually recommended more than the routine schedule.
They also asked about individuals with undiagnosed metabolic disease and vaccination, and here over 95% felt the benefits of the current vaccination schedule outweighed the risks.
So, in conclusion, the overwhelming majority of the actual practitioners in the field of metabolic disease feel that the benefits of vaccination outweigh the risks to patients with diagnosed or undiagnosed metabolic disease.
Yes, more research is (as always) a good thing. But right now the opinion of those who are actually experts in this field is that vaccination is far more beneficial than risky. And of course further research is always needed, but we should all work on the current scientific consensus and what that's telling us, don't you agree?

Cheers,
Rosewind

Bumbleymummy,
Actually I was making a very slight joke when it came to the MA bit, I don't know anyone who went and "upgraded" their BA. Funny old system the Oxford one, also the whole awarding BAs for scientific subjects.
My point is that on a forum like this it doesn't matter, we could all claim to be professors or whatever we like. I'm not asking you what qualification you have. I'll judge you by what you post. By their fruits, and all that. I like references, so that's Matthew 7:15-20.
Cheers,
Rosewind

It is famously impossible to prove a negative. However, some things are as certain as they can possibly be-the sun will rise tomorrow, evolution is how it happened, vaccines do not cause autism, smallpox was eradicated by vaccination.

Nobody is saying that there are never side effects or adverse reactions to vaccination. Anything which actually works will have side effects. If you want to be 100% certain of no adverse reactions go homeopathic. The down side is that there will be no positive effects either- but you can't have everything........

Martorana, where does this 'vaccines cause autism' argument come from anyway? Not even Wakefield argued that. AFAIK there is still research being carried out into triggers for autism in genetically susceptible children. It is possible that vaccination could be one of those triggers for those children. It's a very narrow minded person who would try to argue that there is absolutely no possibility of that.

FWIW, scientists are still filling in gaps in the theory of evolution and it wasn't just the vaccine that resulted in the eradication of smallpox :)

RW,

“The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.” -Bertrand Russell

or..

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts."

-Bertrand Russell

Take your pick! :)

It is possible that turnips could be one of the triggers for some cancers. It would be a very narrow minded person who would try to argue that there is absolutely no possibility of that.

PJ, see above link to study about brassica vegetables having a protective effect against cancer. :)

You have provided no proof that turnips don't cause cancer.

The researchers in the above study provided evidence that they have a protective effect. Do you have some evidence that refutes that study and/or suggests that they cause cancer? I suspect not. back to your PJ!

:)

There is no evidence to prove that turnips do not trigger cancer in susceptible individuals.

On the other hand, repeated studies looking for evidence that the fraudster Wakefield was right, or that 'MMR can cause autism' or 'there is a link between MMR and autism' have failed to find any.

I cannot understand why you reject the first, but cling to the second.

There is no evidence to prove that turnips do not trigger cancer (proving a negative?) but there is evidence that brassica vegetables have a protective effect against cancer. Perhaps you think they can do both simultaneously?

No one has said "MMR can cause autism." Perhaps the problem is that
you think studies showing that vaccines don't cause autism in healthy children is the same as showing that they do not trigger autism in genetically susceptible children?

Entertaining as you have been PJ (as always!) It's time for bed for me. Good night :)

"FWIW, scientists are still filling in gaps in the theory of evolution and it wasn't just the vaccine that resulted in the eradication of smallpox "

They are filling in the gaps with more evidence of evolution and yes it was. Obviously better hygiene and understanding of the transmission of diseases made for generally healthier population, but it was smallpox vaccination that specifically eradicated smallpox.

AFAIK there is still research being carried out into triggers for autism in genetically susceptible children. It is possible that vaccination could be one of those triggers for those children. It's a very narrow minded person who would try to argue that there is absolutely no possibility of that"

It is, I suppose possible. But huge amounts of research has failed to turn up such a link. And since Wakefield this has been such a hot research topic that if there was even a correlation it would surely have been be found- never mind a causation.

No Martorana, it wasn't just the vaccine. Have a read about variola minor (Variola Alastrim). "variola minor swept through the USA, Great Britain, and South Africa in the early 20th century, becoming the dominant form of the disease in those areas and thus rapidly decreasing mortality rates."
People who were infected with the mild form of the disease did not contract the more severe form.

My point about evolution is that scientists don't know it all yet and are constantly finding new things and adapting their theories. Nothing is set in stone.

As I said earlier no one is saying vaccine causes autism. I think you are also making a mistake and thinking that studies that show no significant increase in autism in a vaccinated population can also show the effect in a subgroup of genetically susceptible children. They can't. There has not been 'huge amounts of research' into triggers for genetically susceptible children. In fact, genes related to autism have only been identified fairly recently and it isn't just as straightforward as one gene = autism! There are many different genes and epigenetic factors that come into play. It's very complex.