Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

News

Latest Wakefield MMR Scandal

239 replies

twiglett · 23/02/2004 10:18

message withdrawn

OP posts:
twiglett · 23/02/2004 11:49

message withdrawn

OP posts:
Angeliz · 23/02/2004 12:14

DP and i think it's so transparent too! Obviously trying anything to discredit him and get all parents back onto the MMR.
A few things i said to dp last night whilst reading the article. One thing that stuck out to me was that, the other Doctors who worked with him said they were not told where the money came from/conflict of interests. Now to me that just makes Andrew Wakefeild even more sincere as the other Doctors were COMPLETELY impartial! (As, i beleive was he!)
I saw it on breakfast T.V this morn and Dr.Hilary was saying that it was flawed. Fiona said ,"but are the facts (the findings of his research),still true?", and he said, "no as he was biased!". Surely a fact is a fact however you feel!

Angeliz · 23/02/2004 12:23

Another thing that really gets my goat is that they all go on and on about a measles epidemic but if they are so worried, GIVE PARENTS A CHOICE and give the singles!!!!

GeorginaA · 23/02/2004 13:21

I'm not sure why anyone is particularly surprised!

Government + inquiry = spin + whitewash

Simple formula, really

CountessDracula · 23/02/2004 13:36

I saw an immunologist re the MMR for dd as I have Crohn's. I have never in my life had such a stupid consultation with a doctor (and believe me I've had a few). Talk about cagey - she wouldn't look me in the eye half the time, wouldn't answer any question straight - it was like talking to a politician on Question Time blindly following the party line. Made me so angry.

A couple of doctors I know have said that there is no way they would let their kids have MMR if there was a family history of auto-immune diseases like Crohn's.

Jimjams · 23/02/2004 14:13

Heard on the news that TB has been criticised today for not doing enough to stamp out spin. How timely.

Clarinet60 · 23/02/2004 15:29

That's interesting Countess. Says it all, really.

Jimjams, I rarely shout at Tone, but I did today, on the lunchtime news. 'not a shred of evidence' indeed - as if he has the first clue what he's talking about?
TBH, I think most people will see that the cover-up is bright and shiny and getting shinier with every news bulletin. I hope so, anyway.

suedonim · 23/02/2004 16:03

According to something I heard this morning, when Dr W started his research with those children, the legal case wasn't even in existence, so there couldn't have been a conflict of interest to start off with.

Hmm, things are looking a bit blurry...is that a smear I see?

Jimjams · 23/02/2004 16:22

Yes I heard that as well Suedonim. What I find really scary is that so many supposedly independent people find themseleves in the position where they seem to have to smear him in order to keep their jobs. First the Royal Free, then murch of his own team and now the editor of the Lancet (who was making extraordinary allegations on the Jeremy Vine show today). Just what pressure are these people being put under. It was very strange - he came across as a raving loon, and the voice of reason was being provided by a Daily Mail journalist! how on earth did that happen?

I will never vote "new" labour they are too frightening. Far too Big brother for me. I will be buying the next issue of the Private Eye as well- should be very interesting.

suedonim · 23/02/2004 17:32

Yes, ikwym, Jimjams. I said to dd that the Daily Mail must have been rehabilitated! The world is becoming odder and odder.....

Clarinet60 · 23/02/2004 17:34

I'm going to look at bmj.com and see if there are any rapid responses. You sometimes get an odd voice of reason on there, and a good old ding-dong from the establishment too.

Clarinet60 · 23/02/2004 17:45

Here's a bit of stuff from BMJ's rapid responses - there's a bit of argy-bargy going on already, from before this latest news: (Sorry it's long)

''Interestingly, the Vaccine Safety Committee of the IOM met again on February 9, 2004. The following are quotes from 3 presentations:

“Mind you, half of Dr. Wakefield’s theory has been proven correct and accepted in the medical community. Hundreds of children with regressive autism and GI dysfunction have been scoped and clinicians are seeing the inflammatory bowel disease he first described. The NIH is finally funding an attempt to repeat Dr. O’Leary’s findings of measles RNA in Wakefield’s biopsy specimens, though I am disappointed it has taken this long”. US Representative Dave Weldon, Florida, 15th District, a physician

"Based upon our experimental research, it is plausible to postulate that an atypical measles infection that does not produce a typical measles rash but manifests neurological symptoms might be etiologically linked to autoimmunity in autism. The source of measles virus could potentially be MMR vaccine or a mutant measles strain, but more research is necessary to establish either of these two possibilities…Fundamentally, I tend to think that autistic children have a problem of their immune system, which is the “faulty immune regulation.” Hence they have abnormal immune reactions to measles virus and/or MMR vaccine” Vijendra K. Singh, Ph.D., Research Associate Professor of Neuroimmunology, Utah State University, an expert in the autoimmune causes of autism.

“In light of encephalopathy, presenting in children as autistic regression closely following MMR vaccination … The findings confirm a highly significant statistical association between the presence of MV RNA in CSF and autistic regression following MMR vaccination.” Jeff Bradstreet MD, Director, International Child Development Resource Center, Melbourne, Florida.

Dr. Bernard Rimland, Founder of the Autism Society of America, President of the Autism Research Institute and a full-time professional research scientist in the field of autism for 45 years has stated “Late onset autism, (starting in the 2nd year), was almost unheard of in the ‘50s, ‘60s, and ‘70s; today such cases outnumber early onset cases 5 to 1, the increase paralleling the increase in required vaccines.” (2)

This directly contradicts the following statement by the author “Because autism is usually diagnosed during the toddler years…”

Lastly, MMR does not contain Thimerosal and the majority of pediatric vaccinations are given in the first year of life.

A relatively simple study would be to compare the age of onset of autistic symptoms in affected children in Atlanta who received the MMR vaccine at 15 months with those vaccinated at 30 months of age. I believe, from my own research, that such a study will show that autistic behavior follows MMR vaccination and that fewer and milder cases will be noticed in the cohort vaccinated at 30 months, since vaccination at a younger age is more damaging. Another reasonable study would be to compare Measles, MMR and Myelin Basic Protein antibody titers of children who developed autism shortly after MMR vaccination in Atlanta to an equal sample of normal children similarly vaccinated.

Obviously there is an inherent risk with these studies; they could prove that regressive autism after MMR vaccination is not a coincidence.

References

  1. DeStefano F. et. al. Age at First Measles-Mumps-Rubella Vaccination in Children With Autism and School-Matched Control Subjects: A Population-Based Study in Metropolitan Atlanta PEDIATRICS Vol. 113 No. 2 February 2004, pp. 259-266

  2. The Autism Epidemic is Real and Excessive Vaccinations Are the Cause A Statement: Bernard Rimland, PH.D.July 14, 2003 Available at: autismautoimmunityproject.org/Rimland.htm (accessed February 17, 2004)

Jimjams · 24/02/2004 13:03

Thanks for that Drolie. Those BMJ spats are always interesting reading.

I find this a very odd thing to be doing, but deep breath and here we go.

article in the Daily Mail

dinosaur · 24/02/2004 13:06

What a good article.

I used to read Melanie Phillips in the Observer, a few years ago, and whilst I didn't always agree with her conclusions, I certainly thought she was intelligent.

donnie · 24/02/2004 14:39

I can't bear the way Dr Wakefield is being targeted like this.Sooner or later he'll be forced into submission somehow....I can't help thinking there genuinely is a conspiracy against him.

Jimjams · 24/02/2004 17:14

there's a graph in the guardian today showing how in 1997 there were 151 measles cases confirmed and 262 in 2003. There were 36 rubella cases in 1997 and 2 in 2003 (which is crap becuase I could name you 5 children who had rubella in 2003) and 100 mumps cases in 1997 and 821 in 2003. Hmmmmm could that have anything to do with the obstructions they've places on getting single mumps vaccine. I wonder.

twiglett · 24/02/2004 17:29

message withdrawn

OP posts:
Jimjams · 24/02/2004 20:23

I've just received a statement from Andrew Wakefield. I'm not allowed to forward it on publically, but it makes interesting reading.

Jimjams · 24/02/2004 20:30

Oh and this is interesting too

www.thisislondon.com/news/articles/9305535?source=Evening

misdee · 24/02/2004 20:34

i had rubella in 1990 (yet i still had to have a jab at senior school). dn had measles last year.

Jimjams · 24/02/2004 21:09

just received the statement again. if you go to SN under "read this" there is a link that takes you to it. It seems to be genuine to me. Pretty much says what I had already heard.

Paula71 · 24/02/2004 22:28

Would it have helped if His Tonyness had spilled over Leo having/not having MMR?

I must say it is upsetting to see people get so angry over this. Both my ds twins had their MMR. While I was pregnant I read up on it, not government spin but research from all sorts of sources and couldn't see enough evidence supporting Wakefield and his research hadn't a large enough cross-section of children involved. I sometimes feel I am being made to feel inadequate or a bad mother for letting my boys get it, I felt more worried about their other vaccines!

IMHO (and I know this will annoy some) the parents were looking for someone to blame for their childrens' autism. (Duck and wait for things to get thrown at me.)

Don't be rude and nasty to me now - that is my opinion and as I have two very healthy, robust boys, so far allergic to nothing, I am perhaps not as emotive as someone with children who may be affected by vaccines or medicines, we are lucky. The chattering classes seem to have hyped this up into hysteria and have confused and upset a lot of people. I don't see why people can't opt for single jabs if it makes them feel better (although the amount of parents who seem to "forget" to go back for the second and third is shocking.)

And if charities tell us that to vaccinated a child only costs something like 40p why did the single jabs cost so much?

Shall I post this or delete it? Oh go ahead it has been a while since I was insulted and called stupid !

Angeliz · 24/02/2004 22:34

Paula, where have you read that parents "forget" to go back for second and third vaccines?? That seems a bit ludicrous to me! Chattering classes??

OldieMum · 24/02/2004 22:35

This is an article from today's 'Guardian' about the Wakefield smear and the question of corporate sponsorship of medical research. here

twiglett · 24/02/2004 22:38

message withdrawn

OP posts: