MMR - another US case

[saintlydamemrsturnip]

news report here

"immunise. it's the only sane way."

"don't be a victim of the anti vaccination movement. think and research for yourself."

God you sound like one of those american "vote x for congress" adverts.

At the end of the day it's about informed choice. And ultimately, there wouldn't be a vaccination damage compensation scheme if vaccination damage didn't exist would there?

Well precisely beastie. I don't think there's an anti-vaccination movement anyway. I'm not anti-vaccination- why would ds1 have been vaccinated if I was.

Anyway diseases. Which ones? Mumps is not an issue. Don't know why it's given - it doesn't work as well as thought when introduced so all that's happened is that numbers of teens/adults with mumps has increased (not a great result as its more serious then). Ironically it is slightly more effective in monovalent rather than MMR form (have a search there are peer reviewed publications on efficacy).

Rubella obviously an issue- and women of childbearing age need to be protected. The current thinking is to vaccinate everyone including those who don't need it. Which is fine, but if I had a daughter I would be suggesting to her to check her rubella immunity before trying for a family- I wouldn't want to rely on a vaccination given in the pre-school years.

Measles. Well for a well fed western child it's usually self limiting and mild. Of course it can come with nasty complications (my mum is deaf in one ear from measles) and for those with no known family history then some measles vaccination is one that probably makes sense. I personally would give it a little later than 13 months though- it seems to be slightly more effective when given a little later.

I'm not sure why I'm being painted as radical. I'm not. I just had a child who was developing normally who lost all speech and whose development stalled after a standard viral infection (nothing that has a vaccination). Age 10 he still has no speech and requires 24 hour care. This will presumably the situation for the rest of his life. Now children don't usually regress following normal run of the mill viral infections and so it seems likely to me (or at least entirely possible) that there is an underlying disorder somewhere. Which of course may have a genetic element and so may be shared by his brothers- who knows. Various models for the development of autism include a viral or vaccine viral trigger at a crucial developmental stage - and so for our other children we feel it is important to avoid any potential trigger at this developmental stage. Believe me when you've watched a child regress you don't lose that image really.

I don't think that's particularly radical or off the wall and I would never suggest our situation is common. I have found medical professionals involved in ds2 and ds3's care to be very understanding and helpful. So I don't think our decisions are that crazy.

I think there are ways to make the current vaccination programme safer and would support those. That's very different from the role in which you seem to have placed me.

good post MrsT.

MSO - don't make the mistake of thinking you are the only one who reads scientific research papers, or that you are the only scientific voice on this forum - not the case. People with scientific backgrounds also have chosen not to vaccinate with some vaccines because they have read lots of research about them as well and made an informed (if different from yours) decision.

www.tripdatabase.com/infection/SearchResults.html?ssid=infection&s=1&criteria=autism+mmr&sort=t

all you need to know, in black and white.

Do you think that we haven't read those papers?

They treat autism as one thing. It is not. No-one thinks that MMR is causing all autism. That would be ridiculous. The issue is whether autism is being triggered in a small susceptible sub-group by MMR. Or even in several different small susceptible sub-groups by MMR.

Wakefield has identified one subgroup. Guesstimates that it was contributing to about 7% of cases of autism- although that figure has probably declined as the MMR brand causing most problems was withdrawn.

Another potential subgroup comes from those with mitochondrial dysfunction. The person leading the research into mitochondrial dysfunction and autism stated at a conference that he felt that regression following natural viral infection was more common in these cases, but that it could happen occasionally following vaccine viral infection.

Anyway I don't know why I'm bothering because it's already been pointed out that autism is a collection of disorders and we're not talking about all of them, but you keep ignoring that.

the point is that you are scaremongering by starting threads like this. If (and i don't know, you don't know, no-one knows) there is a tiny subset of people for which MMR causes autism, it is too small to be detected by epidemiology. which means that for you to start threads on here which are going to stop people vaccinating because of a risk which is too small to identify, when the risk from measles is easily enough to identify is irresponsible.

any scientist worth their salt would realise that this is an ethical minefield. you started a thread which could have no other aim or effect but to dissuade people from vaccinating their children based on a theoretical and unproven risk which is by your own admission so small as to be undetectable in a population. that vaccine is against a disease with a proven and real risk of brain damage. the second comment was 'yet another reason not to vaccinate my children' well done. you had the effect you wanted. are you proud? what are the chances that the poster there, or any of the other bewildered mothers out there have a mitochondrial disorder?

You claim you do research, that you alone know the truth of autism but at the same time you can point to no published papers which support your theory. if you know something that everyone else does not, where's the science? where's the published research? it isn't here:

www.tripdatabase.com/infection/SearchResults.html?ssid=infection&s=1&criteria=autism+mmr+mitochondri on&sort=t

so which is it? is mmr a significant risk that all parents should take note of, or is it a risk for a group of children too small to identify epidemiologically? you can't eat your cake and have it. either it is common, and we should all take note, or it is infinitesimally rare, in which case you're much worse off taking your chance with measles?

which is more likely to damage your child's brain? the vaccine causing autism (no identifiable risk) or measles? that really, really is the only question worth answering. and it's the one you refuse to answer.

yes I'm annoyed, because you are knowingly promoting something which increases the chance of children being harmed, and that is a bad thing.

as an aside, to all those screaming 'parental choice', as if you don't have it, what exactly is the current system? what I'm trying to act for is informed parental choice, and informed by real science. If you have evidence to back up your claims, let's see it. I've shown you mine...

and why can't you quote on this forum? it makes replying to specific claims very difficult.

Erm I linked to a new story that might have been of interest to some. I happen to believe that people are intelligent enough to do their own research and reach their own decisions about what is best for their family.

The autism mitochondrial work is very new. As I'm sure you're aware when work is new it takes a while to be published (and lets face it publishing anything which suggests that vaccines might be damaging - even to a small subgroup - is difficult). However, at conferences people give an indication of the work they are doing, and you get a chance to talk to people directly and examine the evidence presented. It is very common for vaccines to be discussed because it is something parents are interested in. And most autism researchers are aware that parental concerns are essential in this field.

This forum exists for those of us with concerns about vaccination to talk to each other. That means we share stories. There are some on here whose doctors have even accepted were vaccine damaged. Are you telling those of us who have watched children regress that we are not allowed to discuss it in public? Why be so defensive. None of us are suggesting it's common. Doesn't mean we shouldn't be allowed to talk about it.

And what exactly am I 'promoting'? I have never told anyone what to do with their child, and have spent a lot of time on here telling people how to go about getting vaccinations.

You seem to also not understand that whilst a random child picked from the street is at a small risk from the MMR. A child who has a sibling who regressed after an immune event is potentially going to be at a much higher risk . So the 'you' who is at a much higher risk from measles, rather depends on who the 'you' is. If you read my post above I did actually say that measles vaccination made sense for most.

Next you'll be saying that regression doesn't happen and parents just didn't notice their child was autistic before.

If you don't know what effect posting that was likely to have, you shouldn't own a keyboard.

if it's not common, why have you brought it to attention without stating how rare these disorders were, knowing that it is going to persuade many vulnerable parents, who are not all scientifically literate, to not vaccinate their children thus exposing them to danger?

as a scientist, you really should think more about the context and effect your posts may have. you may credit many with the knowledge and intelligence to make their own decisions. the recent drop in vaccination rates and the readership figures for the daily mail suggest otherwise. people are very susceptible to scare stories. Even i found it difficult taking my child to be vaccinated, knowing that i was reducing his chances of disease. watching someone put a needle into a child is a difficult thing to do, no matter what your rational brain knows is right.

Thank you for clarifying that the risk, if it exists at all, is very small and should not be a consideration for those with healthy children. I'm sure that those with children with a mitochondrial disorder will be interested in your post. I believe the prevalence is somewhere around 13 cases per 100,000 people.

sorry, the first sentence of that was a bit cheap.

Your whole posting style is cheap to be honest.

The work on mitochondrial disorders an autism is very new and the types of disorders have very subtle signs. There is one paediatric neurologist in the uk who has experience in this area - he is currently working in addenbrookes.

The 'drop' in vaccination is a drop in the mmr rate and dies not include single jabs. The department of health have informed me in writing that confidence in the mmr remains very high amongst parents.

It seems you gave very little of interest to say and certainly nothing new / it's all been discussed ad infinitum on here. The 'vulnerable'children I'm interested in are those at risk of regression. You seem to view them as acceptable damage. I don't.

if you come to that conclusion, you haven't read what I've posted. do you accept those who are damaged by measles through the influence of the anti-vaccination movement, whose cause you have forwarded on here (again, see the second post in reply to this thread) through your irresponsible posting as 'acceptable damage'? I don't. I would certainly always welcome the investigation of possible risk factors. However, such research has to be done with a sensitivity that you have sadly not displayed here to prevent the drop in vaccine rates (which despite your protestations, is real - as is the increase in measles cases...)

by all means, protect vulnerable children, I don't think you are going about it the right way. The right way is to research, and then, when you are certain you are right, publish and let doctors know what are the vulnerable children.it isn't to scare parents of normal children into not vaccinating their children.

MSO, there are a lot of parents who are anti MMR not anti-vaccine.

My children are fully vacinated but I chose not to let them have the MMR for various reasons, they have had all the others

The department of health told me in writing that the mmr stories had had little impact on the vaccination rate. I didn't say that - they did. I must admit I was surprised by that statement but there we are. And that's without including all those paying for monovalent jabs.

So now we've established that there aren't hordes of 'vulnerable' children at terrible risk from measles (according to the department of health) then perhaps we can get back to discussing the research as I have and our children as I have. I would have thought that having someone report back from imfar and other conferences would be useful to those on here. I'm sorry you think it irresponsible to discuss presentations from scientific conferences.

I come on here as a parent to discuss my son with others in the same or similar situations. I would appreciate it if you'd stop acting as if that is completely irrelevant to any conversation. In my life what happened to him and why is of huge importance. Luckily there are scientists out there working on it now- in the main funded by parent set up research organizations interestingly. It's only recently these organizations have had the money to fund the projects which us why the research is new. Interesting times ahead.

And incidentally whilst you may have the time to sit back and wait and find out what is eventually decided about mmr and other vaccination and autism those with children who have regressed don't.

If you are genuinely interested in the current state if research (I doubt you actually are) go to somewhere like the Kennedy krieger institute and email a member of their autism team, or if you're interested in mitochondrial dysfunction and autism their metabolic group. They'll almost certainly email you back with up to date information.

Or have a browse of the current projects funded by autism speaks and email the project leaders. Plenty to choose from.

strikes me, as a lurker of these vacc threads, that mso aren't you scaremongering people into vaccinating with mmr by quoting the risk factors ? does it not amount to the same thing you are claiming mrsturnip is doing by posting the link to this story?

just my viewpoint.

TBH I find it a bit weird that mso keeps saying I am posting links to the 'anti vaccination movement'. I have done nothing of the sort. I posted a link to a news story. OK american news so it's a bit white teeth and cheesy but a news story none the less about a single child and his litigation case. I posted it without commentary - (I don't know enough about the case to have an opinion) - for those who were interested.

I think mso is attributing parents with a stunning lack of intelligence if she/he thinks that they will make their decision based on a single news story from the States.

Abusing people whose children have regressed or been affected by vaccination goes a little beyond 'cheap' I think .

I would however love to see any links to papers that have considered that mmr might be affecting a subgroup with the symptoms described by Wakefield. (clue: there aren't any).

And if stating that for the majority of children measles vaccination is worth considering idea constitues 'mentalism' then so be it.

Delete 'idea' from the sentence above. I was on the ipod.

Before I joined MN I was very pro-immunisation. I still am: both my children have had all jabs, to no ill-effect. However, what I am now is more understanding of why some choose not to have the MMR. I also accept that some have had bad experiences rather than just dismiss their stories as I used to do.

I used to think that there were people who were easily-led and just plain ignorant about immunisations. It's possible some people are but now I realise that there are some very well-informed intelligent parents out there with a an in-depth knowledge of a very complicated set of issues. Some like MrsT can give us an insight into the cutting edge of research. I find their posts interesting and informative.

I am still capable of making my own mind up. I feel that I've chosen immunisations with a much fuller knowledge than I would have done otherwise. A parenting forum will always be about the stories behind the statistics. It doesn't matter if the chances of x happening is one in a billion if you are the person it happens to. Sharing these experiences can bring support to those going through them, but also imo give others a greater understanding of humanity in general.

If you (a general 'you') have been lucky enough to live a life untouched by complication, it is enriching to learn what life with complications can be like. I think it helps develop your empathy. And you never know when you'll need to draw on the support of MN, or the understanding that life has real lows as well as highs and that we still continue, we still parent.

My God. I thought MSO was rude until I read tamsinmary's comment.

I've been following the thread and have been impressed by how reasoned people have been explaining their opinions about vaccine damage/choosing not to vaccinate. In spite of pretty bloody-minded provocation. Doubly so because in some of the cases they are talking about how it has directly affected their lives. They certainly don't have to share this information but they do, even in the face of open ridicule.

I respect that.

My God. I thought MSO was rude until I read tamsinmary's comment.

I've been following the thread and have been impressed by how reasoned people have been explaining their opinions about vaccine damage/choosing not to vaccinate. In spite of pretty bloody-minded provocation. Doubly so because in some of the cases they are talking about how it has directly affected their lives. They certainly don't have to share this information but they do, even in the face of open ridicule.

I respect that.

here here oven and omicron, well said.

methinks MSO is punching above her wieght here...

and hello mrst, didn't realise it was you
if, indeed, it is you... which I'm sure it is.