Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

News

New MMR study

84 replies

FairyMum · 03/03/2005 11:38

Sorry, can't do link, but wanted to post this interesting link FYI:

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4311613.stm

OP posts:
Socci · 03/03/2005 14:22

Message withdrawn

Socci · 03/03/2005 14:23

Message withdrawn

hercules · 03/03/2005 14:24

I weighed it up and gave dd the mmr. I did wait until she was 16 months though. I dont regret my decision but can understand why some dont give it.

Toothache · 03/03/2005 14:27

Paolosgirl - I understand, but is what you have read enough to demonstrate that the MMR is actually dangerous? I don't think there is much more that can be done to show parents that it is as safe as it can be.... like all other forms of medication.
What I meant about the paracetamol is that obviously we all know that an overdose is very dangerous. So taking the recommended dosage is as safe as we can ever know.

Is the age lowering got something to do with the fact that measles is very active at the moment and if a baby contracts it it is very serious.... perhaps the idea is to immunise them earlier (don't know, just guessing).

I've had my MMR twice BTW and have had all the illnesses!!! I'm immune.... perhaps I should sell my antibodies?!

Socci · 03/03/2005 17:38

Message withdrawn

Socci · 03/03/2005 17:40

Message withdrawn

lockets · 03/03/2005 17:45

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

Hulababy · 03/03/2005 18:23

I have no idea what to think right now about any of it. I think it is hard to discredit the views of parents who have watched their children change following the MMR.

DD did have the MMR at 13 months and I now really wish we had waited. She did react to it and I believe it is because the MMR pumps too much stuff into a tiny body at one go. This is, however, only my opinion - not a fact. DD will not have the booster as standard. I will have her immunity checked first and then decide.

Ifa nd when we have #2, I will not let them have MMR until nearer 2 years, definitely not at just past 1.

Jimjams · 03/03/2005 18:56

yawn yawn yawn.

wrong hypothesis (again) yawn.

No-one (not even Wakefiled) is suggesting that MMR has caused the rise in autism cases. They suggest it has been a trigger in a small no of cases (about 7%). This study tells us nothing.

Now if we looked at the children and exmined then clinically then we might find something.

Until then if your kids have the MMR and are fine (as 99 point whatever percent will be) then great, lucky you. And if they're not - well sucks to be you, sucks to be your kid even more, and oh well who wants to live independently anyway. I'm sure "normal" life is overated.

Jimjams · 03/03/2005 19:05

Rather worrying as well that the woman who is meant to be setting up the definitive study(which will tell us nothing as it isn't designed to test the subgroup population and isn't sensitive enough to pick up whether small numbers are being affected) has already said that she thinks there's no link. So she'll do her research with an open mind (ha ha ha - sound of bitter laughter) and then announce to great govt fanfare that the research has proved that there is no link. When once again the wrong hypothesis has been tested and the result has been predictable before the study even began (which is lucky as she'd be well stuffed is she actually looked at these kids and found something amiss wouldn't she, and so would the govt and so would the vaccination programme).

Look last June there was a decent study published which gave good evidence that if you are prone to autoimmunity you are best off not being injected with thimerosal as a baby as you're pretty likely to become autistic. A few months later thimerosal is (at last at last) removed from the UK routine paediactirc vaccine schedule (thank god- because I think there you have your real culprit); and did they admit that thimerosal had anything to do with the changes in the vaccine schedule. No they didn't.

Autism is caused by ABV (anything but vaccines) always has been always will.

edam · 03/03/2005 20:21

Toothache, I think part of the confusion is that different sorts of research, which can all be valid in their own different ways, have been confused. Wakefield's original study was, as he always said, clinical research investigating a small number of children who had, IIRC, bowel disease and autism. He found vaccine strain measles in their stomachs. He said it was possible that the two were related and called for more research to investigate the link - all quite correct and in order for a reputable researcher. The media storm was caused when he said, at a press conference, that it might be sensible to stick to single jabs until more research had been done into MMR.
Since then the medical establishment, Government and pharmaceutical companies have produced epidemiological study after epidemiological study to 'prove' that MMR is safe. These, as you may know, are studies of large populations. They can't prove cause and effect, but they will show trends. But Wakefield never said that MMR was the major or only cause of the dramatic increase in autism that has happened in the past few decades. The epidemiological studies are testing the wrong hypothesis, as Jimjams said. They can't test Wakefield's hypothesis because they aren't designed to do that. Why the Government, drug companies and medical big-wigs have never tested Wakefield's actual hypothesis is a question that hasn't been answered, leaving parents to suspect a cover-up.
Personally I'm on the fence here ? there isn't any evidence, and no-one says there is, that MMR is bad for most or many children. There's a possibility it may be the trigger for a problem in a very, very small group of children with some sort of predisposition to auto-immune disease or gut problems. But no-one's trying to find out (anyone who does will find their career is over). And the pharma companies have certainly been very, very guilty of covering up research that would hit their share prices in the past...

FairyMum · 03/03/2005 20:33

"Stuart Notholt, of the National Autistic Society added: "This new research on the MMR vaccination and autism adds to the body of evidence, most of which would support the hypothesis that there is no link between the MMR vaccination and autism."

I understand what Edam and Jimjams are saying. Just wondered why NAS does not mention this. Not on their web site either (or I cannot find it). In fact I find very little about MMR and autism link/research from Autism societies. Would be interested to know ther stand.

OP posts:
Jimjams · 03/03/2005 20:36

The NAS is a wet blanket that toes the party line on everything Bit unfair but to be honest they're not very radical in their lobbying. I can understand why - they have to work with the govt so they argue to be effective they can't stick their neck out (there was a big hoo hah about this a few years ago on one of the autism lists I used to go on- an NAS bigwiig came in for quite a bit of flack).

FairyMum · 03/03/2005 20:37

Right. Thanks Jimjams. So I guess you did set up an MMR/thread alert then;-)

OP posts:
Newyearmum · 03/03/2005 20:39

What's interesting is that this (Japanese) research finds no difference at all in autism rates where single vaccines have been given, i.e. single vaccines don't seem to be any safer or less safe than MMR.

Even though I offended people last time with a 'hard-line' stance in favour of MMR, I really was influenced by the argument - both ways.

As a consequence I asked someone I know who makes high-quality documentary programmes on contraversial issues whether he'd ever considered doing one about MMR. It turns out he did a ton of research about the subject but wasn't able to get a commission at the time because it had been done over and over again. He's since moved on to other issues of course.

He doesn't have any kind of agenda so I was interested in his opinion. What he told me was very interesting. I don't know whether or not it's true so please feel free to contradict what he said if you know better.

He basically referred to a Danish study. He said that in the UK MMR is stored in a specific kind of mercury. I assume its the same product which the DTP vaccines were stored in until last year. What he found in his research was that, in a tiny, tiny, tiny percentage of children who already had a genetic tendancy towards autism, this minute amount of mercury changed the absorption of the measles vaccine and made those particular children more vulnerable to autism.

So my next question to him was, if we're the only country who still uses this type of mercury, then why isn't that changed?

To which he responded that this was the question he wanted to ask in the documentary which was never made.

He said if he had to vaccinate his kids now, he'd take them to Europe to do it (but still give the MMR rather than single vaccine)

Now I'm more confused than ever (and considering a holiday in Paris )

Jimjams · 03/03/2005 20:39

ah no vacciination threads never escape me- I've just been living RL today so got to it a bit late I've even flounced from a few, said I'm never discussing the toipc again and... ho hum..... here I am

frogs · 03/03/2005 20:42

But jimjams, do you really think that everybody should refuse MMR for their kids because a small percentage might be affected by a mechanism that we don't really understand? (re: Your post of 6.56).

NOT NOT NOT trying to start a fight -- genuinely trying to understand whether you do actually mean that the costs to that small percentage are so great that the cost-benefit equation is weighted against MMR for the entire population. And if so, whether the single jabs present a different equation and why.

Jimjams · 03/03/2005 20:45

NYM certainly interested in that as MMR isn't meant to contain thimerosal.

Wakefield has suggested that a subgroup of children receiving thimerosal may be knocked off course following a later exposure to a virus (wild or vaccine derived). Just a theory.

I think the mercury issue is likely to be more relevant. Research in the states has shown that 99% of people with autism have problems with the proteins that transport heavy metals. When the MMR was introduced the vax schedule in this country was changed from DTP (plus mercury) being goiven over the course of one year to it being given at 8, 12 and 16 weeks. If you have problems excretiing heavy metals it isn't rocket science too work out that this may not have a great effect on you...

Jimjams · 03/03/2005 20:47

No frogs I don't (although I would question the risk benefit ratio when the toss up is between measles or severe autism- give me measles anyday).

However I do think that if a child is vaccine damaged (or lets say if they develop seizures within days of having the jab, then regress, lose words etc) that they should be adequately compensated. I don't think their mother's should be labelled as raving loonies who are out to destroy the vaccination programme.

Jimjams · 03/03/2005 20:48

should say that post about measles assumes a well fed, healthy child in a developed country.

frogs · 03/03/2005 20:51

Are there any indications beforehand to indicate which children might be potentially more vulnerable (apart from family history of adverse reactions, presumably)?

Jimjams · 03/03/2005 20:54

Re-read my post of 6:56- I'm bitter about the fact that if you do the "good" thing and it goes wrong for your kid then you are stuffed. These children have lost everything and the effect on the family is enormous. Severe autism is a truly horrendous condition. it affects pretty much every minute of every day of every member of the family when ds1 is home. it affects how we get in the car, it affects where we go (hardly anywhere), it affects friendships (hardly any "normal" ones left), it affects siblings and realtionships with their friends, it affects sleep, it affects you right up to adulthood(I can't die until I know ds1 is somewhere safe and caring) it is truly truly truly horrendous. And I think if someone has been put in that position because of a vaccination they deserve to have that recognised.

Jimjams · 03/03/2005 20:56

Family history of autoimmunity seems to be a good indicator. Now they've removed the jabs with thimerosal it may be less of a problem.

There are those that think that thimerosal is responsible for more hidden conditions as well such as ADD, ADHD and mild learning difficulties.

frogs · 03/03/2005 21:04

I did take that on board jimjams -- I nearly referred to it in my response and then couldn't find a phrasing that didn't sound trite. It's bad enough to have a situation like yours brought about by birth injury or accident of genetics, both of which we have in our extended family. To have it brought about by factors which might have been known about at some level and not admitted is beyond imagining.

I think I probably will have dd2 mmr'd once she's got over her current bad bout of not-wellness. But I'm frustrated by the pre-vaccination version of the dishonesty you describe: the fact that no-one is prepared to accept that there is a small group of children who might be more vulnerable, and discuss ways of potentially identifying which children they might be.

Jimjams · 03/03/2005 21:09

yes precisely. I think prediction of who may be at risk would be relatively easy but may (at this stage) exempt too many children. I find something that is hard to swallow is that the "state" (for want of a better way of putting it) damages your child and then offers no help in picking up the pieces. It's just battle after battle after vattle. it's like rubbing salt in the wound. If they stepped in with loads of therapy to help your child reach tnheir (revised) potential it would be easier to take! Instead you get told you're a loony!