MMR - is there any well respected, well researched evidence against it?

[bohemianbint]

I'm due to get DS (16 months) jabbed around about now, and I'm just trying to get my head around the whole thing.

I'm erring on the side of just doing it - I'm aware that the fella who started the autism rumours was a bit of a religious nutter by all accounts and has been discredited.

There seems to be a lot of studies from reputable sources that it is a Good Thing. Are there any non-speculative, non-hysterical articles based in fact which support not giving it?

Even though the more I read, the more I think it's fine (and I don't let anyone jab me or mine un-necessarily, there was no syntocin or vit K jabs when I had DS!) I'm still a bit worried and want to be as informed as possible before making a decision.

Your help would be appreciated! (I can't make any decision without Mumsnet. )

the Wakefield et al research had demonstrably poor research methodology, and its clinical efficacy has been discredited.however it has done considerable damage to public faith in a reputable immunizations programme

do a web search - the info is out there
cochrane library

cochrane has also said that the research into MMR is wholly inadequate.

The damage to the immunization programme has been done by department of health spin. I've read the original papers. There isn't one paper out there that has even tested the hypothesis that MMR has triggered autism in fewer than 10% of cases. That is the hypothesis that has to be disproved if you want to say there is no link,

The evidence is that MMR vaccine does not cause autism or inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). There are now numerous studies that do not support a link between autism and IBD and the MMR vaccine (CSM, 1999; Gillberg and Heijbel, 1998; Taylor et al, 1999; Davis et al, 2001; DeWilde et al, 2001).

The Wakefield et al study published in the Lancet in 1998 actually said 'We did not prove an association between MMR vaccine and the syndrome described' and none of the studies since have found a link.

Berelowitz, one of the contributors to the Wakefield study, has subsequently said 'I am certainly not aware of any convincing evidence for the hypothesis of a link between MMR and autism...' (Berelowitz, 2001).

And scottish mummy read what Horton said at the GMC hearings (and he is no fan of Wakefield.) its in the post above yours.

"the Lancet paper was an excellent example of a ?case series?. That this was a standard and entirely reputable way of reporting on a possible new syndrome. He likened it to how the first cases of HIV/AIDS were reported in the early 80s and how the new variant CJD issue broke more recently. He said unequivocally that the science reported in the 1998 Lancet paper ?still stands? and that he 'wished, wished, wished' that the clock could be turned back and the paper be considered in the light it was first presented, without everything that followed."

i heard all authors except Wakefield have withdrawn their support for the original research

The Wakefield et al study published in the Lancet in 1998 actually said 'We did not* prove an association between MMR vaccine and the syndrome described' and none of the studies since have found a link.

Berelowitz, one of the contributors to the Wakefield study, has subsequently said 'I am certainly not aware of any convincing evidence for the hypothesis of a link between MMR and autism...' (Berelowitz, 2001).

I've already said earlier that taylor et al said in their conclusions that their work does not prove that 'some children may suffer a rare idiosyncratic response to the MMR' THAT IS THE HYPOTHESIS: THAT IS WHAT WAKEFIELD SAYS HAPPENS.

I wrote to the dept of health about that- and they replied and said they could never prove otherwise but hey ho it was safe for the majority.

The papers you have listed show that the MMR is safe for the majority of children. I know that, everyone knows that I;m interested in the 8%ish who regressed following the MMR. know that 90% of autistic children didn;t have their autism triggered by MMR. Boogalloo for them-what about the others?

Wakefiled said that they did not prove an association between MMR and autism. He recommended singles whilst further work was carfried out.

They have not withdrawn their support for the research they have withdrawn their suipport for an interpretation of the research - an entirely different thing. You need to read more carefully scottishmummy.

ah semantics - who rattled yer cage! clearly we dont agree yurt1. i cant be arsed batting research and counter arguments about i have a big glass of wine waiting for me. so cheerio

imo MMR immunisation programme is safe.

No, IIRC Wakefield said there should be more research into the hypothesis that MMR may be linked to autism, measles having been found in the gut of a small number of children with autism and bowel disease. Research which has not been done because Wakefield has been hounded out of the country and no-one else wants to sacrifice their career.

I have no idea whether MMR triggers autism in a small subset of children, perhaps those who have a family history of auto-immune disease. And neither does anyone else - as Cochrane and DTB found, the safety studies on MMR are not satisfactory.

Wakefield identified a possible line of research. That has now been shut down. It was politically not very astute of him to recommend single jabs at the Lancet press conference - but he's a doctor, not a politician. He was giving his honest view. Maybe he's wrong. We have no way of knowing because no-one is doing the right kind of research to investigate the questions he raised.

I have some professional experience of the way the Dept of Health and the medical establishment act when a scandal is exposed or their entrenched positions are threatened. And it is not pretty, or concerned with science or evidence, or truth. It is reaching for every cheap trick to discredit the person saying something uncomfortable and piling on massive pressure to make them go away. That's why so many patients died even though Glaxo had the studies to show that Seroxat was provoking suicidal thoughts especially in children, for instance. They spent over a decade hushing it up. The Department of Health and the Royal College of Pyschiatrists were complicit in that cover up.

I don't know whether those who dispute Wakefield's paper are right. But I do know that those who demonise him are using the same tricks that have been used before to hide the inconvenient truth. And that in those other cases, no-one in authority gave a toss that people were dying.

What really worries me is the big, fat lie, that a vaccine cannot cause severe unwanted side effects in some small subset of patients. Because there really are people who have suffered vaccine damage, in recent history - whooping cough, anyone? My sister, a nurse, cares for some patients with learning disability who have vaccine damage recorded in their notes as the cause of that disability.

But since MMR the DH and the medical establishment try to pretend that that is unthinkable. No-one knows if MMR, like some previous vaccines, may cause damage to a subset of patients. But it is not impossible. The research should be done to find out if it is true and if so who is at risk.

The Gilberg paper tested the wrong hypothesis (that MMR was responsible for the rise in autism- no-one suggested it was) the dewilde paper is barking (relates GP visits to autism dx- many years ago when I read that paper I asked people who they approached regarding developmental concerns to get a referral- in 90% of cases first port of call was HV NOT GP- and agin it assumes that MMR is causing all autism). The Davis paper made no attempt to identify a subgroup (from a brief browse of the abstract).

the Lancet has said that it regretted publishing the paper "In my view, if we had known the conflict of interest Dr Wakefield had in this work I think that would have strongly affected the peer reviewers about the credibility of this work and in my judgement it would have been rejected."

The following month, by a majority of 10 to 3, the paper's authors, including Walker-Smith and Murch , retracted the finding of a possible MMR-autism link set out in the paper's "interpretation" section.

They wrote to the Lancet, in a statement published on 6 March 2004

"We wish to make it clear that in this paper no causal link was established between MMR vaccine and autism as the data were insufficient. However, the possibility of such a link was raised and consequent events have had major implications for public health. In view of this, we consider now is the appropriate time that we should together formally retract the interpretation placed upon these findings in the paper, according to precedent."

Shortly before this retraction , the General Medical Council announced its own investigation into the affair, which it said raised questions over Wakefield's fitness to practice medicine.

edam- even his politically unastute (is that a word) recommendation for single jabs has more behind the story. Again you need to read the GMC diaries- but he made it clear before the conference if asked he would recommend singles- there were others on the press panel who said they would recommend MMR. The big question came and....it was directed towards Wakefied by the head of Roayal Free I think iirc, He could have got one of the MMR advocates to answer. And so it all began.

And you're right- my aunt cares for an adult who was left severely disabled following the single measles jab - she received the compensation payment. I wouldn't fancy her chances now.

ScottishMummy- my cage was rattled when my son regressed (not from MMR). It was rattled more when I discovered the system doesn't give a stuff about him or others in his situation. Nor do they care about seeking out treatments for a painful condition. Not semantics -getting the Wakefield hypothesis correct is basic acccuracy.

yurt - i agree it is dreadful that you are not supported and feel the professionals do not care. not on.

we clearly don't agree on this topic, and i do lots of reading fwiw as i am sure do you

so i am really signing off this topic my cold wine awaits

Ok- but really you haven't understood the Wakefield hypothesis- it is that a subset of children with autism are affected. what he didn't know at the time of the paper- but is known now - is that the subset or autistic children who have autistic enterocolitis is small. That makes the papers you have listed worthless- other than to say that a) MMR is safe for most and b) MMR has not caused the rise in autism. That doesn't address the question though.

The existence of autistic enterocolitis has never been disputed btw-- it is accepted as a new condition that was described by Wakefield. The only factor under discussion is what causes it. It is very difficult for children in this country to access any treatment for it now. Can you imagine your child with an ulcerated gut being unable to receive any treatment? Somewhere in all of this those children get lost.

If you fancy more reading read the GMC hearing diaries- it's interesting stuff- and all sorts coming out there.

oh look I still find it hard to leave these threads alone especially when it gets onto Wakefield as I do think he has been treated appallingly - and his hounding has left families who were receiving excellent treatment stranded. Fwiw I do believe that the MMR is safe for the vast majority of children who get it. I have a dream though of the safest possible vaccination program- so every child gets the one that suits them best. But for that it needs to be admitted that sometimes - rarely though it may be- the thing designed to protect children does them harm. And currently that is not allowed.

can't bear it when people sign off cos they can't "win"
wine such a poor excuse
half of us sitting here drinking it anyway!

unnecessary CP - not about "winning" actually don't want to get bogged down in a diametrically opposed debate. it is obvious we have conflicting opinions. your reductionist misinterpretation is obviously winning or not. well mine is i want to participate in summit lighter.so stick that in yer pipe and smoke it

AND if i wanted to discuss efficacy,ethics,research and EBM and best practice id go to work - o im not. so where is my wine

This thread really got lost in the middle!
pagwatch if it was my comment you've taken up you have misinterpreted it.I only presume cote was trying to wind everyone up by suggesting pregnant people take responsibility for everyone elses illnesses or lock themselves in the house
Aussiesim I'm curius can I ask why the Australians told you not to get your dcs vaccinated at 10 but wait till adulthood?
Bero why did the Germans docs suggest you get your single vacs in the UK not Germany?

wakefield's hypothesis was that damage to the bowel caused by the measles vaccine allows bits of undigested proteins into the bloodstream, affecting the developing brain and leading to regressive autism. wakefield found mmr-derived measles in the bowel of the damaged guts of regressive autistic children.

but rates of regressive autism has not risen any faster than other types of autism.

what wakefield or anyone else hasn't managed to prove, is whether gut problems are a symptom or a cause. autistic children may be unable to clear the virus from their bowels. harmful substances entering the blood should be flltered out before they reach the brain.

essentially, more research needs to be done! we could argue until we're blue in the face. the fact is we simply don't know yet.

Agreed, warthog - more research needs to be done. And until a time when that research conclusively shows which subset of kids show adverse reaction to MMR, and tests are devised to exclude them, no kid of mine will be injected with it.

I understand the government's viewpoint - they look at the bigger picture, where herd immunity minimizes treatment costs for outbreaks, and a certain number of casualties are acceptable.

I, on the other hand, do not accept any avoidable risk with an irreversible outcome, no matter how small, for my child.

That should be understandable, as well.

In case anyone is still wondering, I was not joking when I said childbearing age women should be responsible for their own immunity to rubella rather than expecting the whole world to vaccinate their babies. Especially considering that even vaccinated kids can get and pass the disease.

But it's not the pregnant woman who suffers most, coteDaZur, it's her unborn child. Why should the child suffer because of the carelessness or ignorance of the mother?
And what about women who have multiple jabs but never get immunity from them -- I know someone like this. She had at least 3 rubella jabs, but none gave her immunity. She went to great lengths to avoid anyone with any illness, just in case... but it never would have been her fault if she had contracted rubella.

but lljkk that is exactly the problem - the rubella vaccine does not necessarily confer immunity. So out of all the children who have the MMR quite a few may not be immune to rubella either, and as they are vaccinated so young there is a much greater chance immunity will wear off, and yet, as in yurt's case, if they get it, will walk around with it, free to transmit it to the vulnerable parties because they are so sure they won't get it.
Rather than placing the responsiblity on the pregnant woman or the parents of a tiny baby, it would be much more sensible to vaccinate all girls at puberty. but of course not as cost effective as the current method.