Andrew Wakefield Struck off

[ShadeofViolet]

here

Jux - of course! The there would be cause for massive compensation, let alone discrediting the GMC, the government, et al! I just don't understand why people don't get it.

The vested financial interest is greater on the "other" side, the pro-vaccination side. This is without any kind of doubt and utterly unquestionable.

Sorry I'm not really in this conversation but just had to address the undeclared interest bullshit.

well, of course that's true about financial interest. i would LOVE for medicine and drug development to be much more nobly motivated (that's not meant sarcastically). i think big pharma has behaved despicably in, for example, blocking efforts to supply poorer countries with cheaper generic medicines. disagreeing with Wakefield's actions and broadly (ie respecting that there are children whose medical histories would suggest otherwise) thinking that vaccinations are a good thing, does NOT mean unthinking support for "the other side".

but "standing up to" the establishment does not a hero make. it's not "undeclared interest bullshit". if you're going to challenge an orthodoxy, do it WELL and don't give people reason to doubt your honesty, integrity and motivation.

Leonie perhaps you can share with us what response your MP has to your letter about reintroducing singles. I'd be intrigued.

Reasons why single vaccines are much much less effective here

Apparently some of you on here think that the government WANTS our children to be ill and suffering. Do you think govt runs vaccination programmes for its own amusement? Of course not - there is a proven public health benefit to a properly administered effective vaccination programme. FYI for all the reasons in the link above that means MMR and not singles.

Conspiracy theorists generally believe it's all about them though, I get the impression that many of you are convinced that this is all a personal thing and that govt and big pharma are out to 'get' you

Firstly, we're not conspiracy theorists - and we don't believe it's all about us - you're being rather condescending.

They're not 'out to get us' but they are out to cover their arses.

Do you really think they always do everything in the public's interest and that covering up subsequent failings in policy are not about money and reputation?!

this is really interesting - I'm bookmarking.
I've read half of the thread (made myself late too) and want to come back and read the rest properly. Issues raised apply significantly to our family, may come back and say more later.
Would like to say (as un-patronising as possible) thank you to the very well informed and researched posters, it makes informative reading.

If you want some more information complete with studies: www.whale.to/vaccines.html

Novice. again here too.

Do you know the sub group that wakefield identified? Taking a group of autistic children with GI disturbances does not equal replicating wakefield's work.

My dd1 would be included, according to the criteria.of that study you linked to. She is autistic, has received mmr, has GI issues.

But she is nowhere near to being included in the sub group wakefield identified.

Once more autism is not one thing. It is not caused by one thing, and it does mother present in only one way.

Please try to bear this in mind when attempting to "disprove" wakefield's hypothesis.

Maranello. As you say, I cannot know that you are typing whilst holding g a sleepy baby. I apologise for being hasty in criticising you. well, it wasn't really a criticism, but in addressing you personally.

And no, I wasn't meaning you specifically when I talked about ignoring the children at the heart of all this. More venting frustration that people (in general) continue to bring up lies because they found them in the press. The press has continually and consistently lied aboutr this, rift from the start when they originally put words into wakefield's mouth and said he claimed mmr causes autism.

This will go down as a sad and distasteful period of media dictating whatever they please, and manipulating facts to suit their purpose.

Sorry, "it does not present in only one way" not sure how my phone auto corrected that to mother!

Oska, I've been saying that since I was pg with dd - over 10 years ago.

TBH, I would have given dd the MMR - but not until she was 3 and I was happy with her development, and knew more about the strength of her immune system.

There was so much pressure from so many sources though, that we capitulated and paid an arm and a leg for the singles.

I remember a Question Time, when a Gov MP was actually asked directly about the singles; the reply was simply that if you didn't have the MMR you were putting your child at risk. No one from the Govt ever answered the question. I'm afraid this tells me - old cynic that I am - that the reason behind the ban is something they don't want to admit to. Therefore, I am more suspicious about the thing they want me to do.

So then, I think the extraordinary effort put into discrediting the unfortunate Mr Wakefield is made more suspicious.

Great news