'Unprecedented' rise in measles

[27]

link

The BBC this morning have a story about an unprecedented rise in measles cases over the last year.
I'll C+P to save you clicking the link

----------

There is an "unprecedented increase" in measles cases in England and Wales, experts report.

Data from the Health Protection Agency showed there were 1,217 cases of measles from January to November 2008.

And 75% of the 115 cases diagnosed in November were outside the traditional hotspot of London - in the north west, west midlands and south east.

The HPA's Dr Mary Ramsay said the rise in cases was due to "relatively low" MMR uptake over the past decade.

I've tried to explain why I think that. Even look at the link you have posted I think you would see why someone might think that, for example this paragraph:

Professor Sir Michael Rutter is Professor of Developmental Psychopathology at the Institute of Psychiatry, Kings College, London. He has been a consultant psychiatrist at the Maudsley Hospital since 1966, and was Professor of Child Psychiatry at the Institute of Psychiatry from 1973 to 1998. He set up the Medical Research Council Child Psychiatry Research Unit in 1984 and the Social, Genetic and Developmental Psychiatry Centre 10 years later, being honorary director of both until October 1998. His research has included the genetics of autism; the study of both school and family influences on children?s behaviour; the links between mental disorders in childhood and adult life; epidemiological approaches to test causal hypotheses; and gene-environment interplay. He was Deputy Chairman of the Wellcome Trust from 1999 to 2004, and has been a Trustee of the Nuffield Foundation since 1992. He was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society in 1987 and an honorary member of the British Academy in 2002. He was a Founding Fellow of the Academia Europaea and the Academy of Medical Sciences, of which he is currently Clinical Vice-President. He has received numerous international honours and has published some 40 books and over 400 scientific papers and chapters.

Also given Rutters research background I am apparently not the only one to think that he might be an obvious choice.

I suspect that we are going to have to agree to disagree on this.

OK, thanks 27.

I would have thought that considering his numerous and weighty conflict of interest issues and the fact that aspects of his professional reputation are tied up in autism not being a form of environmental illness would make him a bad choice.

Whatever, I guess it doesn't really matter because the study he ended up producing actually scored an own goal.

www.autismresearchcentre.com/arc/default.asp

www.thoughtfulhouse.org

Beach

Are you saying there are no relevent genetic aspects to autism?

As far as I can make out Rutter believes that the cause of autism is multifactorial. He doesnt say the envionment doesnt have a role.

the only apparent genetic aspect to my sons autism seems to be auto-immune.
We have no other ASD/aspergers/ADHD in my very large extended family.
And DS was NT and regressed 18months, and developed his gut issues at the same time.
So his issues were triggered rather than genetic.
The only genetic element was his misfortune to be born to a mother with poor immune systen which, in spite of my breast feeding - left him vulnerable

And I still have no idea what a psychiatrist would be able to add to his condition...

Beachcomber. You are very thoughtful. These threads are a little difficult but it needs to be talked about tbh . I just dip in and out

shall I add a link too? Why not - I'm sure those of you with affected children know already but for those who don't, here you are.

autism research unit at Sunderland University - Dr. Paul Shattock has a son with autism.

I have to admit reading this thread I am deeply shocked at how quick people are to decide that certain scientists are biased and 'in the pay' of big pharma companies and basically calling them corrupt - I would find it deeply insulting if I was one of these scientists.

To my mind, all scientists have their personal beliefs/hunches about their topics etc which they pursue through their research, but that's why we need lots of them. How is Rutter different from Wakefield - Wakefield believes one thing about MMR, Rutter believes another, they are both in pursuit of the evidence to prove one theory or another.

I don't align myself with Ben Goldacre's belief that alternative therapy is all a load of hippy nonsense, for example, but I'm very glad he's around to offer the alternative view on the crappy science reporting that we see every day in the media, and to point the way to other studies that the media conveniently forget to talk about because they're not headline material.

Taking one person's opinion is never the way to build up a considered picture of such a complex topic. Rather than dismissing all people who don't agree with us out of hand as being corrupt or paid stooges, we should be weighing up all the evidence and its validity before coming to a conclusion.

Having had a look through the sources and links provided, I've got to say that this theory about Goldacre being in the pay of big pharma looks flimsy. For instance, is everyone who is nominated for a Science Writers award is a stooge of GSK? Does this apply to advocates of CAM such as Jerome Burne, who has both won and been nominated for the award? How does Goldacre's thoughtful discussion of the usefulness of of sugar-and-water medical placebos tie in with his role as drug company salesman? Or, to reiterate, his long-running campaign for a universal open register of drug trials?

Basically, Goldacre disagrees with the majority view on threads like this, and he tends to do so in a pungent and quite possibly smug way. But it is a large and dishonourable leap to accuse him of financially-motivated dishonesty on such tenuous grounds.

For the benefit of any lurkers who might be taking the information posted here at face value, the Institute of Psychiatry is a five-star research insitution attached to Kings College London, one of the most eminent universities in the country.

PW, that still doesn't excuse Goldacre's basic dishonesty in terms of barefaced lying about information received, purely because it doesn't suit his agenda.

With respect though, thumbwitch, we only have your testimony on that front, so although I absolutely respect your right to hold your opinion of him, I can't really use it to much purpose for my own opinions.

When you take your DC's to the surgery for jabs,it is presumed that you understand what they have been called for,and the reason you have made the appointment and turned up,is "implied Consent", rightly or wrongly.

Even so any health professional should detail what they are about to give and ensure that you understand what is supposed to be given.

The appointment/invitation comes from the Child Health dept. nothing to do with the GP surgery,although thats where you'd attend to have the jabs.

If you have "ignored" the invitation for the MMR,no-one knows why you haven't followed through and made an appointment.Quite often,mums tell us "in passing" that DC hasn't had the MMR but has had Singles,I always note this down,but we are not informed of this by any other way.

Like women that don't wish to have a Smear done,it is your "right" to be invited for one,and legally will be invited at least 3 times before you become a "defaulter" and invitations are suspended.

All GP surgeries have "Targets" to reach,and must strive to reach these "defaulters",so will keep attempting to "persuade" you to take up the invitations.

TW, you really cannot accuse Goldacre of dishonesty while refusing to reveal the source of your orignal argument. If you can't do it and don't want to be challenged on in, stop it. You can't have it both ways

This was in answer to some threads earlier....

yes I can. Just because i don't choose to expose my RL identity, does not make me a liar!

yes she can. ever heard of an anonymous (but credible) source???

Where did I call you a "liar" TW?

you didn't exactly - you implied that you have no need to believe me if I am not prepared to expose myself for verification.

Thanks sophable.

lol Soph. When you have heard of a credible but anonymous source wake me up

I'm not at all sure about Goldacre as tool of Big Pharma. However, on the subject of MMR I find him far less convincing than jimjams and others on here.

Wish we could get MNHQ to persuade him on here for webchat.

[it'll never happen emoticon]

this is the article in which he states he has had no response from certain institutions to his request for information. He lied.

however, to prove that he lied I would have to copy and paste all the emails that passed between us, which I am not going to.

If you choose not to believe me, that is your issue, not mine. I know the truth of the situation and I would not have posted it if it weren't true.

It's not a quesion of belief TW.

BG doesn't say he had no response, he said some institutions refused to answer specific questions abotu their courses.
that is quite a different statement.
it is possible to respond and not answer a substantive question.

sorry, we did answer specific questions, in detail, as much as he wanted, several times. So he still lied.