Dr. Wakefiled and the MMR study

[Uwila]

"If found guilty, Mr Wakefield could be struck off the medical register."

\link{http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/5070670.stm\MMR Doc to face charges}

Discuss, please.....

Oh Peachy, I can't believe how thoughtless people are. These people are not friends because true friends accept warts and all.

I remember one time in our kung fu class many years ago, and one of the trainees was talking about the "mongs at the special school". We just looked at him and my DB said, "I went to that school" and walked away. That guy was so mortified that he kept apologising to my DB because right then he knew that my DB was a nobler man than him. My DB (he is 44yo now) knows that people think he is weird but it does not matter to him because he knows who are his genuine friends. I respect his friends because they are normal compared to him but they like him because he is kind, considerate, fun and non-judgemental. His current girlfriend is normal compared to him and she just likes his company. She also knows that the relationship will remain platonic (he calls her his friend because he is embarrassed to use the term girlfriend)

My DB still lives with my DM and always will. However, she has taught him how to cook the food that he likes, pay bills because chances are, she will pass away before he does. I will take on the pastoral care then but I know that he can lead a semi-independent life because of the efforts of my DM and DF (who passed away 20years ago).

Keep believing in your son Peachy and trust me, he will amaze you

I'm new here - why nothing on this thread since last Monday? Jimjams - I love you. I am pro Wakefield. Gave DD separate jabs. I did not realise children were going untreated/travelling abroad for gut disease treatment because doctors don't want to treat here. I had my large intestine removed due to gut disease age 34. It was agony. I nearly died - slowly. I am wordless that children should suffer this and not be given help.

Interestung how the media reports the "measles epidemic" as nothing to do with them.
They reported a charlatan's rubbish as if it were a valid study, and then wheeled out a variety of sad mothers who blamed MMR.

I don't believe you can do anything to half a million kids per yeart without something bad happening to some.
But it ain't autism.

As the number of parents who are too witless to understand even basic statistics has grown, leading to more children not having MMR, the number of kids diagnosed with autism has gone up.
MMR is not an obscure treatment, even small defects would show up very quickly and loudly.
But instead the only evidence we have is a weak indication that MMR actually reduces a childs chances of becoming autistic.

Measles is a bad thing. It causes amongst other things blindness in a scary % of cases.

Here's one for those who get their healthcare information from the BBC and Hello! magazine.

If MMR is so dangerous why is it universal in the USA. Think that one through. The US is an extremely litgious society (for our Dail Mail readers that means they sue a lot).
More than 2 million US kids get MMR per year.

Imagine the financial consequence of even the slightest screwup rate of this.

Do we see it ?
No we do not.

I expect there is a bad side effect of MMR. You're sticking a biologically active substance into many people. But the BBC and daytime TV haven't found this effect, and it is maliciously dishonest to pander to the cretins who would tell you otherwise.

How many children have to lose their sight before this stupidity is brought to a close ?

"In the USA, the Government runs a generous scheme to compensate those injured by vaccines. It is paid for by the manufacturers by a levy on each vaccine sold."
As found on the internet. I still believe there is more to this whole story than we are told. HRT was safe and so was the contraceptive pill, but now we have learned that these are not without risks. So I'm sure that for some there are probably risks associated with MMR. I opted for single vaccines my decision and one I certainly don't regret for a second. We should be given the option to choose regardless, but obviously cost is an issue. This is a very emotive issue and will remain so until at least there is some kind of definitive research. Oh and finally I didn't have MMR, had rubella vaccine but also got rubella and we think measles. Can I believe that things were so bad 40 years ago before MMR when I was having my first vaccinations I don't ever remember hearing of measles deaths before MMR!!! And no vaccination gives you protection for life - that has been proven. Sloping off now before I get beaten up

MMR has not been used in Japan for about 10 years, they use single jabs, and the rate of autism has not fallen.

autism is more widely recognised now than before so the numbers will go up regardless of other factors

2 million doesn't sound a very high number in the US if it's half a million here?

I was put off mmr by ds having serious illness with ongoing permanent difficulties as a direct result of his mmr..not because I listen to the BBC or read the Daily Mail

and found it shocking that no advice or help is given to people who suffer consequences of vaccine damage or wasn't given to us at the time at any rate

I think it's quite offensive DC for you to suggest that parents who don't choose MMR are doing so because they are too stupid to know otherwise. I have never heard of anyone, including Wakefield, suggest that MMR isn't safe for the vast majority of children. My understanding is that only a small number of parents of autistic children blame the MMR.

Wakefield and others involved in such research now say they believe around 7% (I think) of autistic children were triggered by the MMR. Therefore, considering how few children in the population are actually autistic, this equates to a tiny % of children being at risk. This is why it does not register as a fall in the Japanese study.

If the government had been open and thorough about it in 98 then they could have avoided the mass panic. They have created the current situation, not Andrew Wakefield who was just a doctor reporting a cluster of gut problems he had found in autistic children. They chose to try and be dismissive for fear that the public would be too stupid to understand and would suddenly stop vaccinating. They have created mistrust which has had the very effect they wanted to avoid.

They have taken a view that the 1 child in 1million who may develop autism following the MMR is justifiable collateral damage if it ensures that the hundreds of thousands of others are protected from disease. This is all very well from a statistical point of view but what if you are the parents of that child? It is you who are going to have to give your life over to caring for a severely disabled child. It is you who is going to feel the guilt of not giving enough time to your other children and you who will grieve for the child who could have been.

It is for this reason and because parents feel they cannot trust the government on this issue that they choose to opt for singles or indeed not to vaccinate. It is not bacuse they are stupid.

The one single thing that makes me turn completely against Andrew Wakefield and question any kind of credibilty that he may have had is the fact that he now 'works' in the US selling 'cures' for autism to desperate parents. How a concoction of vitamins is supposed to cure autism I don't know but he is happily raking in thousands of dollars from the poor people who will do and pay for anything to make the children better.
If this really works why isn't this 'treatment/cure' (call it what you will) approved by some kind of medical body and available to all parents who have to cope with autistic children?
As far as I'm concerned the guy is a fake and a fraud and has inspired unjustifiable fear in some parents and hope in others with virtually no evidence to back it up with.

Message withdrawn

As Oilhan says. Wakefield is a charlatan who has duped the arts graduates in the media who have spread a false and damaging story, causing harm to many chldren. He did this for profit.

I'm sorry homemama but given the amazingly stupid level of evidence for MMR not being safe, I assume it's ignorance of statisitcs or numbers in general.
The only other option left to me is to assume malice, which I think is unlikely.

I took care to say that I did not believe MMR was 100% safe. I said it more than once so you'd get the message, and here I am saying it a 3rd time.

But, in this country as the number of children vaccinated has gone down, Autism has increased.
That not only implies that it is safe, but given the numbers is a slight indication that somehow it may even prevent it.

The government has handled it badly. They refused to fund proper studies and I read allegations they cut off money to people doing it.
The ministers concerned simply don't understand this stuff, which is why the focus on "perception" over reality.

Think of that next time you vote for someone with an arts degree who may end up minister for health.

The Autism scare is a sham, whipped up by a crook, and amplified by witless daytime TV presenters.

dc this is just not logical

by which I mean a fallacy

I wonder about you DC. I really do.

god DC you do talk utter crap

find me some accurate and current measles stats including any other conditions that kids had prior to having measles.

go on.

"But, in this country as the number of children vaccinated has gone down, Autism has increased.
That not only implies that it is safe, but given the numbers is a slight indication that somehow it may even prevent it".

So what did you study at uni? flower arranging?

As usual DC you're talking out of your arse, which leads me to conclude that you studied proctology at uni

Hey DC, have you read the Drug and Therapeutics Bulletin review of the all the evidence on MMR? Or the Cochrane Collaboration review? Did you go to Wakefield's original press conference and read his Lancet study? Health correspondents in the media did. And interviewed lots of docs too. Before you slag them off, maybe you should try doing the same.

yes, I have posted the same thing grumpyfrumpy, I think that is a very pertinent question. If the trigger is the measles virus in the vaccine, then why would the single vaccine be any different/safer?
I have looked for some kind of scientific / research based explanation for this but no luck so far.
the explanation I received was that, in some way, having the three vaccines at once "overloads" the body, but this seems speculative imo.

It's hard to know what difference it would make having single vaccine..possibly ds was only affected because the mmr they were using then was faulty but it took them years to decide that and withdraw it..in the interim we were told that it was not at fault. Makes it hard to believe. And also makes it hard to trust.

Grumpy, that's a very valid point but at the time most children recieved their measles vaccine through the MMR so IMO it was entirely correct for Wakefield having discovered measles strain vaccine in the gut and spinal fluid of these children to urge caution to the government.

I'm not sure of the science behind the overloading with the triple jab although the Paed we saw about DS's gut problems advised us to go for singles if we could afford them and said something about how the rubella vaccine affects the other two. He also said that in his opinion children shouldn't be given any of them until 18mths as this not only gives their immune system more time to mature but makes the jabs more effective.

It's an emotive subject and people are entitled to their opinions on either side but I just take offense at the suggestion that I went for singles because I was too stupid to know better.

AFAIK, his 'interest' was in developing a treatment for the gut problem not an alternative jab to the MMR as is often reported so not as big a conflict of interest as is suggested.

Could anyone please point me in the direction of any websites or books which details the contents of childhood vaccinations?
Any any research done into their effects?

Many thanks

homemama - no, that is not correct. The patent did include an alternative vaccine. Wakefield claims (iirc - it is a little while since I read all the papers) that this part of the application was speculative and an afterthought. But it is there in the patent.

the thing is, though, Andrew Wakefield specifically recommended single vaccines as a safe alternative. I would have hoped that, in doing so, he had some basis for his recommendation.