Wakefield found guilty by the GMC

[manfrom]

Finally the GMC stands up and takes the right decision:

www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/jan/28/mmr-doctor-fail-children-gmc

Apparently there was heckling in court.

"One woman shouted: "These doctors have not failed our children. You are outrageous." She called the panel of experts "bastards" and accused the GMC of being a "kangaroo court". Another shouted: "This is a set-up."

So obviously they believe it's the right thing to do to falsify data and pay parents for blood samples at a kiddies birthday party....

[dons hat and flak jacket]

LindenAvery, thanks for your questions.

Your question about closure is complicated. I think MrsT's answer was pretty comprehensive.

I'm going to have a think about it and see if I have anything to add.

My first reaction is that 'closure' isn't really the right term. I think it is more about feeling that things are being done, actions are happening and children are being helped.

For me that isn't really closure, which suggests an ending.

For me peace of mind will come with a beginning in a general sense. (No disrespect to those who have been beavering away for years.)

Will get back to you when I've had a think.

BTW probono I agree with you with regards to earlier vacccines, atopy, etc.

I agree with most of the views you express here. I've just learnt to not be too 'out there' in the face of people who have no idea where I'm coming from.

There is no point. And it is too much to process. I think it has to be done it bite sized pieces. I suspect that there are scientists who see things this way too.

Tis all crap and bullshit but unfortunately much of this is more about politics than it is about science.

Having said that I have learnt to put much 'eau dans mon vin' as we say here in France from the measured and hugely informative MrsT.

mso are you a doctor?

Nice.

Oh franke.. good spotting.

Haven't they been badly brought up.

Some of those posts were sensible and sensitive. That is good news.

Yes, probono, I wanted to say that - most of the other posters on that thread actually didn't seem to have had an empathy bypass.

No, well put: and there are others here, like Musukebba and Nooka among many, who are able to discuss without abuse. I guess we'll know it's a troll next time.

Franke, I actually reported your post so that hq can have a look. Goading others to troll must break about fifty rules. But it's not a "report" of your post as such.

oh I know someone who knows Ben Goldacre's mother (won't say how or it will identify her), we have had some interesting conversations about old Benny boy.

I actually read a piece about the MMR written by Ben Goldacre that I pretty much agreed with recently (almost fell off my seat). Can't find it now, but it was about media fueling the scare- the bit that I felt he missed out really was who was feeding the stories to the media? Where was the information coming from? If you search newspapers for MMR stories probably 90% of them take the line that MMR is safe and only loons think otherwise. But they repeat the line that there's lots of scare stories out there - tbh I can't find them, occasionally there's something in the Daily Mail (which is hardly going to be taken seriously), occasionally in the Private Eye, although not for a long time and there's the ancient Nick Hornby article I link to quite a bit because I think it's good & still relevant. But otherwise I can't really find any scare stories only ones refuting the claims. So there are stories refuting mythical scares stories and papers published refuting made up hypotheses.

Most journalists just churn out whatever press release they're given. A lot of the press releases accompanying papers 'proving' the safety of the MMR have been disingenuous to say the least as they have suggested that these papers disproved Wakefield's hypothesis when they haven't even tested it. Instead they've tested the 'MMR has caused the rise in autism' hypothesis, which seems to have been made up to disprove. Yes, yes we've known for a long time that MMR is safe for most, well boogaloo. That's great. Can we take a look at those children who appeared to have something happen to them after their MMR vaccination please. Or even have a look at regressive autism and try and model what is happening. That sort of information makes it much easier when deciding what to do with siblings.

Of course the relevant question for those working in public health is whether people are choosing to have the MMR. I have no idea -the dept of health told me in 2000 they were still choosing MMR. If they're not now then maybe they should offer some singles to get the numbers up (would be hard as they're going out of production). I can see why they might not want a measles epidemic, but if tactics so far haven't worked to increase numbers then perhaps they should try another. They have been shouting the MMR is safe line for years, Wakefield's reputation is now destroyed. If people still refuse MMR then maybe they need to look at why and approach the public differently.

Perhaps if there had been no stories at all, and the epidemiological studies refuting the none existent hypothesis hadn't been released with a fanfare then everyone would have forgotten about it and gone off to have MMR anyway.

As for mso. I'm not sure why she would link to this thread, she's ignored most of the questions, hasn't read any of the links, hardly looks like a truth seeker . BUt I doubt people will read this thread anyway, they'll just go on about idiotic mothers and guffaw a little about how clever they are .

Be reassured, in RL it is actually possible to have sensible conversation with doctors and researchers about autistic regression - and all potential reasons for it.

Oh the responses are on the whole decent aren't they - not much gaffawing.

Will just point out in case anyone from there reads, I have a severely autistic child, he regressed (accepted by his doctors), yes you grieve but I would like to know what happened to him because it is relevant to his brothers. I know in his case it was nothing to do with the MMR - although there is quite a bit to suggest that it was immune related (currently under discussion with paeds and neuros) And yes obviously I would like to understand that - because if that vulnerability is heritable then it could affect his siblings, or their children.

I don't think that makes me mad. Nor do I think that makes MMR instantly dangerous for everyone. Personally I would prefer to see vaccinations given in smaller groups- so that at least if you have a reaction you have a chance of working out which one affected you. I don't think that makes me barking mad either.

I have repeatedly said on here that MMR is safe for the vast majority of children. I have never told anyone not to vaccinate (will sometimes advise which brands of vaccination are thimerosal free - although that's less relevant these days) and occasionally point out that measles vaccination seems to work slightly better (at a populations level) if given at 15 rather than 13 months (usually said to someone who is worrying about their 13 months needing to delay jabs).

Of course the majority of people vaccinate - I did, quite happily. When Men C was brought out I went straight down the surgery to ask when ds1 could have it. There are vaccinations that I would choose to give ds2 and ds3 if I could get them without having to give 5 of the things at once. If I think a vaccination is the best way to protect my child then of course I will give it. Same as anitbiotics. We give them to ds2 and ds3 when necessary. DS1 was given a lot that were unnecessary. My motto really is never say no to something, but just think why am I giving this and is it needed right now or can we delay or maybe not give at all?

I think given the boys may (and it is only a may and only a slight hint) have some sort of immune vulnerability that is a sensible approach. The good news is that ds1 is now starting to be investigated (on the NHS) and if we find out what triggered his regression then we may treat it (doubt that though) but it will give us lots of facts that we can use to make decisions about ds2 and ds3.

If mso thinks that is crazy and daft and ridiculous so be it.

It would be hilarious if it weren't so depressing that anyone who has any concern about any issue to do with vaccines is labelled an nutty anti-vaxer who wouldn't know their left foot from their elbow. The arrogance and callousness astounds me. The way mso made sweeping claims and then totally ignored the fact she was wrong, the way she doesn't seem to have realised the Cochrane report concluded safety studies into MMR were inadequate, utterly depressing. The immunologist I saw when ds had gut problems however was wonderful and not like that at all. I really wonder who these people are and what they do in their every day lives. If they are in medicine and apply that arrogance and tunnel vision to people in their care I would be seriously worried about their patients.

Hmm

well I wonder then what mso thought that he was achieving.

I am one of those mums. I ahve a severely disabled son.

Does he think that by coming here and bateing me he makes people respect his views?
Does he think he improves the reputation of the 'scientific community'.
Or does he just look like an arrogant bullying prat which will make me much much less likely to listen to him.

The notion that this whole thread has been about him having a laugh is perhaps a small insight into his moral compass - again not something that will recommend his views to any normal, right thinking person.

I tend to listen to the views of people of integrity, people of character. Mso does not meet these requirements.

Mumsnet needs a [total cunt] emoticon

I doubt there's much HQ can or would do probono. The op on that thread was pulled up pretty quickly by other posters. And everyone here has debated pretty robustly with the 'troll'.

Mrs Turnip, Private Eye had their own NHS correspondent person (M.D.) 'peer review' their coverage of the MMR thing, here.

Slightly off topic but as this 'antivaccine' thing seems to preoccupy people in an odd way;

Interestingly the United States which is the most vaccinated population in the world has a high infant mortality rate for a western country (they rank 34th which is pretty poor). They also have very high rates of ASD, asthma, eczema and other chronic conditions which involve the immune system.

For me there is a problem here which needs looking at. No doubt diet, genetics, pollution, etc all play significant roles, we know these factors are linked to chronic disease.

However we also know that vaccines are linked to ASD, asthma and eczema, etc. As MrsT has shown us, research is being done in these areas but it needs an open minded audience. If it can't get published I think we need to feel concerned about the impartiality of those who own the medical journals and those who advertise in them.

I'm of the opinion that treating kids like pincushions and handing vaccines out like sweeties is a nonsensical, irresponsible health policy.

Children receive a lot of vaccines that they do not need. Vaccines that do not safeguard the child's health as an individual. Rubella for boys, mumps for girls and HepB for just about anyone are examples of the gung ho, grab 'em and jab em, one size fits all, you must have vaccines you don't need to enter school mentality which has been allowed to prevail in the US. And yes I have heard of herd immunity but I think it is a crap concept, I think 'overall herd health' is a much more intelligent one.

I know the official line is that children could receive many more vaccines than they do already with no bother. Problem is though that idea is based purely on theoretical models (which aren't very good). It is not based on scientific evidence. The vaccine schedule as a whole has never been tested for safety. We cannot therefore, with any sort of scientific honesty, claim that the schedule as a whole is safe. If we try to claim otherwise that puts us into the domain of charlatans, cranks, snake oil salesmen, etc that gung ho vaccinators are so keen to call anyone who questions the wisdom of administering invasive unnecessary medical procedures which artificially tinker with the developing immune system of infants (an immune system about which we have many gaps in our knowledge).

We all know that not all vaccines are safe for all of the people all of the time. We also know that not all children react badly to all vaccines. What we don't know is the bit in the middle. And shame on us that we aren't making more of an effort to find out. Even more shame on us that scientists who do try to find out are censored, lied about and accused of misconduct by those who make the very products under investigation and that these practices are encouraged by the government and lapped up by a baying public.

No doubt in the minds of some people who see this in a very simplistic Vaccines Good Disease Bad way, the above makes me 'an antivaccination conspiracy theorist nutter who is responsible for every case of measles on the planet'.

I think vaccination is a great idea on paper, I just happen to think that the reality is much more complex than the theory.

Can't be arsed to read the Bad Science link 'cos it will be the same old same old (heavy on immature jokes about 'bingo' and 'woo' and light on relevant science).

I do sometimes feel concern that there seem to be a lot of thick scientists about though. You can generally spot the thick ones easily because they introduce themselves by flashing their white coats and shouting 'make way, important scientist coming through who knows more than everybody about everything (including the health of children I've never met).

Am with you Beach.

The blanket line "there is nothing wrong" is very convincing to me -- but not in the way it's meant to be. Since there plainly is something wrong, it tells me that there is a lot more to this than we're supposed to have any inkling of: and the fear of public awareness is profound, I'm sure.

Franke, maybe mso could be banned, I don't know. He/she was particularly and deliberately very unkind.

We parents of asthmatic and allergic children can, of course, be easily worried and unsettled by suggestions that childhood immunisations have contributed to these problems. But the epidemiological data doesn't support this argument, in my view. Recently, a very large (over 800,000) cohort study from Denmark found that, in children who had had MMR, there actually seemed to be a protective effect against asthma (American Journal of Epidemiology, don't have exact ref). And it's interesting to note that Albania, which according to WHO-Unicef estimates has historically had rather good child immunisation coverage www.who.int/immunization_monitoring/en/globalsummary/timeseries/TSWUcoverageByCountry.cfm?country=AL B comes very low down in the GINA world asthma prevalence ranking while say, New Zealand, which according to WHO-Unicef has actually less good coverage than Albania, comes out near the top.

Additionally, this German language Doctors net site www.netdoktor.at/health_center/impfen/impfgegner.shtml notes that prior to reunification, childhood immunisations were compulsory in the then DDR (East Germany) so coverage was very high, 99% while in the BRD (West Germany) childhood immunisation rates were lower as it was not compulsory. However, before unification rates of allergic diseases were lower in the DDR than in the BRD.

The rising prevalence of allergic disorders in richer countries which have adopted 'western' lifestyles is being much studied and the current consensus is that it is complex and multi-factorial. Recent epidemiological evidence argues against immunisations being a factor.

oh read the bloody thread !

Don't tell me what we parents of allergic and asthmatic children can be made to think or feel unless you and I have met

have we met?

reference for the Danish study: bit.ly/c2ves6

Also, a cohort study has recently reported from Tasmania on childhood immunisation and lifetime risk of atopic diseases, finding no evidence for association www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/123206705/abstract

I have read the thread, which is why I though some references to recent epidemiological evidence might be useful.

ClaireOB there was a much better designed, impartial, study done more recently which showed that the risk of developing asthma was halved by delaying DTP vaccination.

Timing, it would appear, is important.

The Denmark study was designed to exonerate MMR. It isn't really used to back arguments up any more because it was so flawed it wasn't only embarrassing but suspicious.

just read that link again -- lol at mso claiming to be polite

Haven't read the most recent postings (last day or so) yet, but just wanted to say - I've long wanted to see the pro-MMR viewpoint articulated in a muscular fashion on here, so props to mso and ClaireOB for doing so, from me anyway.

This is not meant as an attack on anyone who believes that their child has been vaccine-damaged.