Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Site stuff

Join our Innovation Panel to try new features early and help make Mumsnet better.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

Could we please have a vaccination place please..PLEASE...PLEASE...

85 replies

pagwatch · 29/04/2009 15:56

....so that all the people who want to be rude about me, be sarcastic about autism, suggest holding down my DD and jabbing her against my wishes, call me deluded or a liar can form their own club and have meetings AND I CAN HIDE IT.

Other sections are created because they are sensitive and this is now a regular and often nasty subject.

I know I can hide thread but that is always so hard once I have seen them ( and soemtimes people want advice or experiences) but it is just getting so vile now..

Please? Pretty plaese?

OP posts:
stuffitlllama · 01/05/2009 19:53

By safe haven I mean, it will be good to have a place where research and experiences can be exchanged without it necessarily turning into a debate, as often/usually happens. And hopefully less hostility. But, you know. Who knows.

I think people know what Mumsnet is all about. I wouldn't want to keep anyone out of anywhere unless they're being ghastly rude.

gussymooloo · 01/05/2009 20:18

Can someone post me a link to a medical site which supports Andrew wakefields research?

Thanks.

saintlydamemrsturnip · 01/05/2009 20:19

Have you read the thread AllBuggiedOut. The research linked to is proper peer reviewed etc etc.

It would be a HUGE task. For starters it's something that's constantly changing. And there would need to be a critique of all the papers that get wheeled out each time as supposedly proving Wakefield wrong when they don't even test his hypothesis.

Not only would it be a huge task I've been on enough vaccination threads to know it would be a fairly thankless task.

There are other safe-havens that are respected - the termination threads spring to mind.

saintlydamemrsturnip · 01/05/2009 20:20

oh here we go.

gussymooloo · 01/05/2009 20:37

I cant find that thread, (although im still trying to get to grips with the site!) ive seen afew but all the links are more antedoctal.

Thanks anyway, will continue to search the medi engine!

saintlydamemrsturnip · 01/05/2009 20:47

Well the main evidence really is that the Lancet paper has never (despite claims to the contrary) been discredited because Wakefield's hypothesis has never been tested. Plenty of research telling you MMR is safe for most children- but everyone knows that anyway. None of the papers take on board the idea of a small subgroup (except one but they didn't identify the subgroup correctly anyway).

The issue is particularly complicated because it depends on whether you're talking just about the Wakefield mechanism or MMR in general. Recent research for example suggests that up to 1 in 10 children with autism could have a mitochondrial disorder which would give them an increased risk of regression following a virus (live or vaccine). There's not a huge amount published on that (although google Kennedy Kreiger institute), although I have been to conference presentations and spoken to people in the States and there has been payouts in the States.

There have been other suggestions by other groups of different roles that vaccines may play. The University of California, Davis has done quite a bit on autism and the immune system and if you search say last years IMFAR abstracts you may well find more (certainly the role of vaccinations was discussed although it will probably show up in fewer abstracts that talks it appeared in).

The area is huge tbh. You won't get clear answers because they're not there. If you look at something like Autism Speaks, or the IMFAR abstracts, you will get more idea of the sort of work being done now.

Saint2shoes · 01/05/2009 20:50

saintlydamemrsturnip IMO it wouldn't be safe, the trouble is people will not listen to anything out side their own buble( I know this as I used to be like this until my bubble got bigger)
I remember the first person who told me their was a link, dd was diddy and I was so caught up with that, i hate to say it but I looked at her as if she was mad iynwim.
It is only since expanding my bubble that I now can see the link, sadly not every one gets that chance and still live in the "it won't happen to me bubble"

gussymooloo · 01/05/2009 20:58

I have been reading some research by Chen and DeStefano who have critiqued Wakefields research and have recreated their own, which was interesting.

Ive found it really does depend on how you search for info, ive found some studies into inflammatory bowel disease and autism which are also very good.

Thanks for that, will keep searching.

AllBuggiedOut · 01/05/2009 21:07

I haven't read the thread, Saintly, couldn't find it when I did a quick search earlier.

stuffitlllama · 01/05/2009 21:19

enjoy ..many didn't

AllBuggiedOut · 01/05/2009 21:30

Ta. Don't suppose I will enjoy it

ruty · 01/05/2009 21:40

Saintly. I honestly don't know how the fuck you do it.

ruty · 01/05/2009 21:41

[I'm glad you do though]

Original poster
pagwatch · 01/05/2009 21:42

Allbuggiedout.

I have no problem - no problem at all with the views of "pro-vaccinators".
I am actually not anti-vaccine.

People can disagree with a link between MMR and ASD - a perfectly valid and reasonable view in my opinion.
I just sometimes want to avoid the vitriol and the abuse.If you read the thread you will find a great deal of abuse, sarcasm as well as some pretty sad 'jokes' and some comments about my DD being jabbed against my will. Not terribly nice really.
Although I did call one woman a twat in response ( but i think it was justified )
one thing that interests me though0 - I have always believed that those who are the most aggresive, the most abusive and the most vitriolic are usually feeling defensive about something.

I just want to be able sometimes to log on without having someone call me a liar and comment that my sons difficulties are a minority and therefore unimportant. Just sometimes.

OP posts:
saintlydamemrsturnip · 01/05/2009 21:45

Chen and deStefano were asking things like 'was the rate of ASD different in vaccinated vs unvaccinated populations' though which is entirely the wrong way of looking at the question. It treats autism as one thing (it's not) and suggests that Wakefield and others think that the rise in autism is due to MMR (they don't). They (iirc) misunderstood that Wakefield was talking about a small subgroup of the autism population.

saintlydamemrsturnip · 01/05/2009 21:47

I think chen and de stefano also (iirc) suggested that parents just hadn't noticed their children were autistic and so imagined the regression as well - to which I say .

ruty · 01/05/2009 21:48

I would really like you to write a book saintly. I think so many people would buy it.

gussymooloo · 01/05/2009 21:49

Yeah i can see what your saying, makes some heavy duty reading.. thanks for you help.

gussymooloo · 01/05/2009 21:50

I havent read that yet!

AllBuggiedOut · 01/05/2009 22:35

I can understand why you would want that, Pagwatch. But don't understand why you would have a public discussion if you don't want the people who are inevitably going to react like that, to join in.

stuffitlllama · 02/05/2009 02:08

well the discussion was started with somebody else, if you have a look, and they had point of view which many felt was unreasonable

i think it's fair to expect to be able to have a public discussion without ugliness, or at least to hope for it

abo that comment was a little bit

it sounds like "don't tell us your story if you don't want us to be horrid about it"

you can't possibly have meant it that way, I'm sure you didn't, nobody would

stuffitlllama · 02/05/2009 02:36

by somebody else

CoteDAzur · 02/05/2009 08:03

Although I understand why pagwatch and others in her position would want to hide the Vaccination topic, I think their contribution is vital and hope they will continue to educate share their knowledge and experience.

Many on MN (myself included) knew nothing about possible adverse effects of vaccinations before reading their posts.

CoteDAzur · 02/05/2009 08:03

Although I understand why pagwatch and others in her position would want to hide the Vaccination topic, I think their contribution is vital and hope they will continue to educate share their knowledge and experience.

Many on MN (myself included) knew nothing about possible adverse effects of vaccinations before reading their posts.

CoteDAzur · 02/05/2009 08:03

Although I understand why pagwatch and others in her position would want to hide the Vaccination topic, I think their contribution is vital and hope they will continue to educate share their knowledge and experience.

Many on MN (myself included) knew nothing about possible adverse effects of vaccinations before reading their posts.