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.....

sorry I should say the patent application

I suppose what people need to know then is proportionately how many children developed autism post single vaccines. That will not prove that those children were or were not genetically predisposed to the condition, but it will at least yield some basis for debate. Certainly a better one than to advise people not to vote for a health minister with an arts degree. What a load of fucking shite.

no I don't think that's quite right.
these are the pertinent questions imo:

1. is there something in the MMR vaccine that triggers this particular type of autism? if so, what?
2. if it is (as hypothesised) the measles virus, then what are the relative risks of being exposed to this via the combined vaccine versus the single vaccine? or vua caching measles?
3. what other potential triggers might susceptible children be exposed to? e.g. other vaccines, other viruses, other environmental triggers?
4. what are the risks of catching measles (and mumps/rubella) in terms of likelihood and potentially serious consequences, for an individual child and the population?
5. what happens to the risk of being triggered/immune response over time, i.e. is it better to wait? does the risk reduce as the child matures?

Oh ok (huff) but can you at least concede that the notion of health ministers with arts degrees is not crucial to the research

yes I would say that isn't entirely central

Message withdrawn

Oh good

Goodness me no hope for me then. Arts Graduate, who actually believes that there is something behind this MMR/DPTHibMen/Vaccination damage scenario and dared to give her children single vaccines!!!!! I said it before, vaccines do not give lifelong immunity. My gut (pardon the use of that word) feeling is that we're completely overloading children's immunity too early - yes protection is good, but these 7 in one (USA) are so new, we cannot yet possibly have a clue as to what it is doing to their systems. Roll on more and more research and this time, let the parents of those children damaged have far more involvment. Jimjamskeepingoffvaxthreads you and others are an inspiration and I find your knowledge outstanding. Thank you for keeping me informed too. Take care and give you lo a hug from me please

I wouldn't worry, he is an ARSE graduate

No Grumpy, that wasn't directed at you. It was directed at DC who blatantly said that parents opt for singles because they are too stupid to understand the research.

HC, I obviously misunderstood when I read about the vaccine he was developing.

I still believe that the government could have avoided mass panic and resolved the whole thing if they had not allowed themselves to be paniced by the findings. They could have commissioned more research, tested children who developed autism after singles, put money into researching what the various triggers for autism may be and much more. They could then offer NHS singles to those children who may be at risk of having any severe reaction to the MMR (as long as research showed that risk was not there with the single jab) and at the same time reassure the vast majority of parents with perfectly healthy children.

From a personal point of view, I can say that DS had a bad gut reaction to the single measles jab which lasted for a couple of days. But then he has a leaky gut which is often found in autistic children although DS does not show signs of autism. I have currently no way of knowing whether the reaction would have been the same or worse with the MMR. All I can say is that I'm glad I took the advice of his paed and followed my instinct.

Actually I didn't specify that the parents were too stupid. At least 3 other possibilities. The first is that they are ignorant of GCSE maths which is of course quite common, and the second is that they didn't bother to read the detail, or the third is that they are dyslexic or suffer some other reading dysfunction that makes them unable to handle this stuff.

I suppose in fairness there is 4th possibility, which is one that might have caught me.
The leaflets in my local surgery were very dodgy, with half truths and the artsgrad fallacy of "lack of evidence= evidence of lack". If they had been my only source of info, I might well have assumed that the government was doing a cover up of something dodgy or that the Labour party had been bunged money by those nice people who they "just happened" to have ordered the vaccine from.

now support this fallacy dc which i take it is your own pearl of wisdom

You've actually outwitted me zippitippitoes

I can't think how to explain this to someone for who it's not obvious.

I'll try, but rather expect to fail.

Take two sets of kids. One you give MMR to, the other you don't. If MMR causes autism you'd expect more of those who had MMR to get it more often.

Of course there is always a slight chance that even with carefully making sure the two sets are similar, random chance gives a false result.

So you need a good large sample to make this very unlikely. Since MMR has been given to millions of kids we do indeed have these numbers.

What's probably confusing you is that we don't have two separate groups. We have a time series where the number of kids getting MMR is varied over time.
If you vary MMR use up, then there should be an increase in Autism.
We do indeed see this, which fooled the arts graduates in the media and many ignorant mothers.

But a problem with time series is that if you sample kids over time they aren't easily comparable. New additives appear in food, expectant mothers are exposed to different chemicals and other environmental dangers.

But you can decrease the number of kids who get MMR, and see what happens to the autism numbers.

They have continued to go up.

This is not consistent with the idea that MMR causes Autism.
If it caused Autism, then the numbers should really have gone down.
They didn't. They went up.

Up is the wrong direction for a causal reduction in the input.
Of course being a right brained scientifically trained male, I believe in cause and effect, you may choose not to.

Although I don't believe it myself, the fact that Austism and MMR numbers have what we call a negative correlation, implies that it is possible that in a small number of children MMR actually prevents it.
The numbers are too noisy to really support the notion that MMR might be a preventative for austism, and the negative correlation varies by country for no obvious reason. But when something looks more like a treatment than a cause you have no good reason for thinking it is at fault.

Sarcasm doesn't suit you DC.

And I take offence at ignorant mothers - Aside from the fact that I would question their ignorance, do these children not have fathers? Do these fathers not have a say in their childrens immunisation programmes?

so wakefield is struck off and roy meadows walks free?

sorry, but f*&K that!

Good point about fathers, but women are more prone to delusional pseudo science like homeopathy and astrology. This would matter less if fathers took an active part in these decisions, but in my experience they leave it to the mothers. Doesn't form a valid excuse of course. I've dated women with these views, and their shrill defence of rubbish tells me why so many weak men opt for an easy life.

Sadly in The Roy Meadows case we have the Ernest Saunders defence. Grey haired affluent white men are immune from the law. As one myself I see this as a fine way of running a country, and given the lack of any widespread opposition to this view, assume I am in the majority.
Note that Lord Archer mad the mistake of not letting his hair go properly grey, and paid a heavy price.

Like the bit about the Ernest Saunders defence DC, but as a right brained scientifically trained male you surely realise that a correlational study does not identify causal relationships?

dc do you have a checklist of bugbears that you have to include obsessionally when you post

I think men are actually very much the dominant force in peddling pseudo science

I can't really get my head round why someone so misogynistic would choose to post on a predominantly female site? Especially one with a good number of academic scientists?

Well, because he likes winding us up.

Yes, that's why I try not to rise to it. Sorry for slipping up there

I shall be taking this comment at face value

It's just like skool, really (if you went to a mixed school, I did).