To be honest though Paula I find that article as offensive as your one line. It's not how its said- it's the sentiment. let me try and explain why:
From the article:
"THE knives are out for Andrew Wakefield, the doctor who linked autism to the MMR vaccine. Over the last few weeks, various reports have indicated serious flaws in his research. News has also emerged that he received (but did not disclose) £55,000 from a legal aid project set up to look for links between the vaccine and the disorder. Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet, admitted that his journal would not have published Wakefield?s paper in February 1998 had it known about his conflict of interest. Stated simply, for the last six years parents have been tortured by a myth."
Except this is crap. The whoe funding thing has been blown out of proportion. Read further down the list. He did disclose it - it didn't cause a rucus at the time. The people writing pro MMR articles often have far bigger conflicts of interest than this- again in article further donwn. Anyway that is by the by.
"Coverage now stands at 79%, leading to fears that epidemics of measles, mumps and rubella will result."
This is manipulation. Coverage of MMR is 79%. What is coverage of measles and rubella? I bet its close to the figures they want. Mumps isn't, but then it wouldn;t be as the government is restricting the supply. If you don't believe me- ring a single jabs clinic and ask them.
"The flaws in Wakefield?s research are huge. His sample consisted of just 12 children, all of whom displayed autistic symptoms. In other words, there was no control group of healthy children for comparison. The way the children were selected also seems suspicious. In nine cases, the parents or paediatrician speculated that the MMR vaccine had contributed to behavioural problems. So they were already disposed to the idea of a connection. These children were referred to Wakefield, rather than being a random sample of autistic children. Furthermore, in four cases, the symptoms of autism pre-dated the administration of the vaccine."
The problems with sample size were mentioned in the orginal research paper. The children were chosen according to clinical need. The reference to MMR in the paper was passing line. The paper focused on the the bowel condition of these children- it described a novel type of bowel disease in the child.
" even at the risk of exposure to measles, mumps or rubella, which have potentially more catastrophic consequences than autism."
Eh? Mumps has potentially more catastrophic consequences than autism??? Really? well I don;t know which form of autism he's sharing a house with but I'd take a sterile child any day over an autistic one. Sorry but I would.
Measles is the most serious of the diseases (except rubella in pregnant women but there are other ways to protect girls). And this is from a medical family book I have written by a consultant. Dates from the 80's- my reprint in 1990. "MOst children catch measles....between the ages of one and six......Having the disease once provides immunity for life....few escape it. In most communities of the world (where measles has been established for centuries), the condition is mild, and hardly ever dangerous" The it goes onto say complications can be treated with anitbiotics "but may in a few cases require hospital admission". Hardly the mass state of hysteria that surrounds measles now. My mum had measles complications, but when I had it she didn't wring her hands expecting me to die. In fact once I was over the worst she went back to work and left me with my friend's mum as my friend was off school with whooping cough.
"To maintain suspicion requires not only ignoring the flaws in Wakefield?s research, but also turning a blind eye to the large number of studies which show no causal link."
I assume this person is no statistican. The other studies show the jab is safe for most people that's all. Doesn;t show whether people have been damaged by it.
"The conclusions of these studies are remarkably similar: all show that, during the period under investigation, the incidence of autism has increased dramatically, while the level of MMR vaccination has remained virtually constant. If there were a link, one would expect the shape of the MMR level of immunisation curve to be very similar to the autism case numbers, which it is not."
No no no- not true- because of the time delay in diagnosis. Youd would expect the incidence to level off after an initial increase which is what has happened.
.
"In the most comprehensive research, all children born in Denmark between January 1991 and December 1998 were studied. Of 537,303 children, 440,655 received the MMR shot, while 96,648 did not. Researchers found no difference in the incidence of autism between the two groups."
Well
its epidemiological again. So again it shows us that MMR is safe for most children which we know. There are problems of diagnosis here. For starters children in Denmark aren't generally diasgnosed with autism until school age (is that 6 or 7 in Denamrk)? So who knows. The effect may well be too small to be statictically significant anyway.
"Some parents are nevertheless inclined to trust Wakefield?s skewed sample of 12 rather than the conclusions drawn from studying hundreds of thousands of children around the world."
Because Wakefiled (along with others - who have found similar reuslts) LOOKED AT THE CHILDREN.
"As far as I can tell, doctors have nothing to gain from administering the MMR, other than the noble one of protecting the population from dreadful diseases."
No but drugs conpanies do, The other problem is that if the govt now turns round as says "oh whoops" then it will put the entire vaccination programme at risk (especially if as seems likely- thimerosil reveals itself to be a problem as well). Better a bit of collateral damage.
"The MMR myth is, I think, a symptom of our compensation culture."
This is simply offensive
"People nowadays believe that all ailments should have explanation and cure. When they do not, the doctors are blamed, and compensation is sought."
Offensive again. I don't waste my time on looking for a cure. Autism is lifelong - that's fine. HOwever I still don't think my son was born autistic (and no I'm not seeking compensation)
"While this might seem attractive to individuals, applied across the country it would mean multiplying the number of doctor visits by three, which would overwhelm NHS resources."
Would be a damm sight cheaper than providing a lifetime of care to damaged children/adults. Not to mention the costs in terms of family breakdown and therefore reliance on the state (8 out of 10 parents with an autistic child divorce)
"More importantly, it would mean that, while waiting for the series of injections to be completed, children would be vulnerable to dangerous diseases."
Which serious diseases? Mumps was very rare before MMR introduction and couldn't be classed as serious anyway.
"According to the Center for Disease Control, if phased injections were instituted in the US, four million children would be exposed to rubella for an additional six to 12 months."
And? Surely the only problem is the number of first trimester pregnancies where the mother has no antibodies. Why not test teenage girls for antibodies?
"Autism is a mysterious condition. It arrives virtually without warning, utterly transforming a seemingly normal child."
Not without warning. In cases where it has been present since birth there are ample signs almost from day one. I caqn pinpoint the month my child slipped into autism and yep I'm happy to share the videos. Bring a psychologist they can explaint he importance of gaze monitering (which he's doing then he isn't).
"But explanation of the condition, whether based on solid science or suspicious myth, does not change the child."
I'm not trying to change my child. I'd like him to learn some language. Does that consitute change?
"I don?t know why my son is autistic. I suspect it has something to do with his mysterious genes."
Well did he show signs of autism from an early age? If so maybe. even if the effect was environmental then of course it will have a genetic component as well. As does yoiur risk of developing lung cancer if you smoke 80 a day.
"instead of pouring energy and money into finding a culprit we can instead direct resources toward finding a cure."
Oh dear oh dear oh dear. This made me draw breath. There is no cure. (You can work damm hard to correct gut problems, or to teacxh your child using a method they will understand- but cure? no)