blonde poker forum

From the Beeb: (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7226763.stm)


More here: (http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/feb/05/health.children)


However, I doubt that this study will get the same feverish tabloid coverage than the discredited one that linked the two in the first place. 

Many parents are still not getting their children vaccinated, and leaving them vulnerable to measles...

Report from last August: (http://tinyurl.com/2cvpdo)


It's amazing how a single, unsubstantiated study can be picked up by the press, and then cause such widespread panic amongst the public.  Then when science shows that the panic or anxiety is unnecessary, people are still convinced in their minds that MMR is 'bad' and ignore the scientific and medical advice.  Bonkers.

It's too easy to say not having the MMR jab is bonkers, there are many different reasons that parents have to refrain from giving their child the vaccine, not everything is so black and white

It IS a concern to many parents, and would be solved for many by simply offering 3 injections rather than the current single option.

i think parents who refuse to let there children have the jab should realise its only the parents who have allowed there children to be vaccinated which is keeping there children safe, the diseases have never gone away or never will, i understand there concerns but the more parents who refuse, the more certain an epidemic will break out ,

There's a lot of interesting stuff about the MMR/autism thing from a psychology point of view.

How people intrinsically put a higher value on isolated data with a human face (a parent interviewed on the TV with an autistic child who was given the jab) as opposed to a larger, more statistically significant set of data which doesn't have a human face (a study in a medical journal).

How the risk of something bad happening which is perceived as having a proximate cause (autism following an MMR jab) is seen as greater than something which is seen as 'just happening' (child catching measles) even though the actual risk to the child from measles is far, far higher than of that from autism.

A lot more about the MMR/autism thing here - http://www.badscience.net/?cat=21 (http://www.badscience.net/?cat=21)

my 10 year old son is severly autistic,he had the MMR jab..my 5 year old daughter did not have it..my choice.it cost me 210pounds for her to have them done seperatly.i feel every parent should have the choice how their child is vaccinated.
im not saying the MMR jab caused Josephs autism but it was my decision not to get Lily immunised the same way.it was a purly selfish reason and one i do not regret for a second.

I'm not saying that parents having a concern about their children having the MMR jab is bonkers, I was talking about the way an unsupported (and now disproved) 'truth' spreads like an epidemic and yet the scientific studies (and there are many of them) that prove that there is no link between MMR and autism do not carry the same impact.



Measles should be a concern for many parents, yet there are many who aren't getting their children immunised (with either MMR or 3 separate injections) because of this irrational fear.  Getting the separate vaccinations is a valid alternative if the parent thinks it's necessary, but why should it provided as standard in place of a perfectly safe alternative?

I can understand why you did that, and I don't think anyone would be critical or question what you did. 

If you had another child, would you consider having them vaccinated with MMR or not?

was almost impossible to obtain a couple of years ago anyway, government had somehow stopped supplies getting in the country or something

Yes, it certainly was impossible to obtain. I was quite surprised when Fran stated that she had managed to use this method as we were refused (and told we would have to go into Europe to get it) As a result, my two girls have never had this vaccine to date, and won't for the foreseeable future unless I can get the single vaccine - nothing to do with the autism risk though.

no i would still go private and have them done seperatly like i did with Lily.

i had to go private Jane.

At the time we were trying to get it for the girls there was no way at all of getting it in the country, we were told flat out that we had no chance of getting it in the UK. Looks like it's time to look into it again.

i dont see how that can be the case..Lily is 5 now so this was over 3 years ago.it was a doctor in York that did them.

The last time I requested the single vaccines would be about 2 years ago (before my move, so might be a little longer) at Booth Hall Children's Hospital, Manchester. I've been after the single vaccine now for MANY years, as my eldest daughter is now 14.

The last time I was refused I was told I would HAVE to agree to the triple, and that the girls would be admitted to a ward, have a team on standby, with adrenalin shots ready for both of them....

Is it any wonder I said no?

thats discusting that they would say that to you..im not surprised you said no.

My youngest is autistic and the research came out around just after he was diagnosed with autism,
At the time we questioned if it was the MMR that would have been responsible,but through the lack
of substantiated evidence,and listening to the specialist involved we didn't think it was viable to put
it down to that, although at the time it would have been comforting to have been able to pinpoint the
blame onto something.

The best way that the MMR jab was described to us was that it was like taking a drink of whisky gin
and vodka all ok on their own but put them all in 1 glass and give it to 100 people to drink and see
the different reactions it has on everybody.Although not a scientific explanation easy to understand.
Autism affects the frontal lobes of the brain and how information is received and processed and there
is a wide spectrum that it covers depending on how severe/mild someone has it,a typical case is Bill
Gates who has aspergers syndrome which is a form of autism but the high functioning side of autism
is rare.

The only trouble i see now as the same as back then is that the research only covered about 250
children aged 10-12 and depending on whose research you read the actual figure of children affected
by autism differs between 1 in 58 and 1 in 1000 from my dealings i would guess about 1 in 750 isn't
far off.

if i were to have another child (which I'm not) i would get the 3 separate jabs,i know they do it abroad
and there are some Dr's who will get the vaccines and do it over here.

Im too tired to take in all the details but this is one subject that will always get my back up so I wont be able to go to bed without saying something.

A survey of 250 kids?? what a joke!!!!

Both my youngest kids are autistic and I am convinced the MMR caused it.

Why?? Because I have my daughter on video a week before her vaccination at 18 months as a happy wee soul laughing, chatting and very active...3 weeks later she says nothing, she sits in 1 spot rocking back and forth and screams when I touch her.

Then she had these spots..I took her to the doctor when she was 3ish saying she kept getting these spots and i pointed out about a dozen on her body. Thats measles he said but dont worry shes picked up a mild infection..she is now 10 nearly 11 and still has measles. I can post a pic and would love a second opinion if there are any doctors out there.

Why is it so bizarre to believe that a multi concoction of 3 deadly diseases injected into a baby would do no harm?

Havent we all seen on the news about some poor kids who tried drugs for the first time and ended up dead!! what made that kid so different?

I could go on and on and if I didnt have so many problems of my own right now I would.

My advise TANK and all the other new parents...its not that expensive (£200ish)...take the jabs seperate.

Don't know about how it for others but I could easily have had the 3 seperate jabs instead of one. I live in Sussex. Would had to of paid obviously.
Saying that I still went for the combined MMR dose.

Obviously it can be an emotive subject and I certainly wouldn't want to offend your feelings, but, within 3 lines you denigrated the report the BBC were reporting on because the sample size was only 250 - but have then given your evidence based on a sample size of 2, just your kids.

In terms of looking at sample size it should be remembered that this is the largest study, but it isn't the only one - every other of the (admittedly small) studies have also came up with the same result. And that the original report which started the MMR scare was based on a sample size of only 12.

It's true that injecting babies with all the chemicals they receive when they get all their jabs could be expected to cause some adverse reaction some of the time, but what a lot of these studies show isn't that the MMR jab is safe but that it is no greater risk (and no less risk) than taking them separately.

The risk of Autism ISN'T the only argument for single vaccines (though I acknowledge it's the topic of this thread), it IS NOT SAFE for some children for other reasons. The only safe method would be to have separate vaccines, and then only have 2 of the 3.

Sorry, you did suggest that earlier - I defer to your greater knowledge on the broader perspective.

My post does just stand on the autism argument.

i am in such a quandry at the moment. and in a difficult position as well.
my daughter is due the mmr soon and i have major reservations on it  on several fronts
1st is the autism link  - we have family experience of post mmr autism that was very close to the jab and therefore diccicult to rule out mmr as a cause
secondly i have a wife who works in the community(nursing) and who has also got reservations on it - as a last position she will have my daighter vacinnated but that is on the grounds that she will not tolerate the chances of catching measles as she has seen what effect it can have on young kids
BUT
there is a unspoken(except in private) feeling amongst a lot of her doctors that there may well be a link but they cannot voice their concern as there is at present no real large study that has found a link - and the intial publisher has been targetted for report. so no doctor will say what they may feel  - that they would like parents to have a choice.

in summing i am so annoyed that for whatever reason there is no alternative(i do not know whether this is by deliberate design or genuine supply issues)

it seems choice is not a choice, which is sad when you consider that you only get one chance to get it right and the though of having to take the risk when there could be a choice for me is fairly bitter and unpalatable to have to make.

Doctors putting 'feelings' ahead of 'evidence' - WTF are they teaching at medical school these days?

Andrew...shame on you sir for the sarcasm....i believ some of the best research and diagnosis can be based on a hunch or feeling intially..and i believe is the first rule of medicine is first do no harm

what i believe i was trying to impart is that there are  a few doctors who having seen pre and post mmr babies/kids are uncomfortable with the position at present that there is no link(but voicing it seems to be a dangerous route). if that is at a local level what is the national position
the fact(and i acknowledge on the basis of study to date) that there seems to be no link does not make it 100% there is not...facts change over time.....as does medicine and medical fact

i would hate to be in the position similar to thalidomide was it? where it was safe - no problem - until it wasn't

so i believe what i am saying is surely there is room for choice for parents until we have had a wide spread wide ranging study into mmr. 
i would not be of a mind to say hey ho hindsight is a wonderful thing if my or another child was to end up with aspergers or serious autism for the want of a choice and and exhaustive study.

open minded i am both ways but i believe in choice ;)

now i`m at work  so need to be on here sparingly so will return

But there haven't been ANY studies that have shown a correlation.

To expand on what Kinboshi was saying: Essentially this was the basis of the original 'scare', but GP's are not specialists.

It was right for them to question whether there was a link based on their observation, but now that specialists have investigated it and found that there isn't one you should be able to expect a scientific profession to accept these results.

That said, there should be a choice because it's always better to have a choice.

i have not argued with the fact that to date with the exception of the discredited author that there are no studies that show a link.
I only point out that there was and remains unease at grass roots level over mmr and not just from parents.

that however does not convince me that there will never be a study that shows a link - i dont doubt that there are studies ongoing at present in various forms and scope of investigations -  and to that end as john states there should always be a choice -

that is what i find troubling  - for whatever reason financial,policy or supply no option has been offered by government..its a one choice field...


 

If there was a link between MMR and autism it would show up in at least one, if not most studies. It has been proved in none.

As I said earlier, we are subject to various biases in our perception of the world which renders our view of things as incorrect. Biases which a lot of anti-MMR posters on this thread have clearly shown in their posts.


The way science works is someone has a hunch or feeling, then conducts research to see if evidence supports their hunch. If it does, then maybe the hunch is good. If not, the hunch is wrong and it's dropped.

I hope your doctor doesn't routinely use hunches for which every study has found no link.


Thalidomide is an entirely erroneous comparison to draw. The problems with Thalidomide were caused precisely by the fact it wasn't tested on humans before going on sale. If it had been, then the birth deformities would have been discovered.

Your position is analagous to a doctor who would prescribe Thalidomide after studies had shown it to cause birth defects because 'he has a hunch the studies are wrong'.

Im sure there are loads people that are upset about these findings..im too tired to care.

But never too tired to care for the kiddies..

approximately 600,000 babies born each year and 250 kids surveyed =0.041% is that an acceptable level on to publish findings????

And the report which originally started the scare was based on 12 kids - is that better?

Far from it.

 but it highlighted the need for a proper study into it,surely no too much too ask??

http://www.jr2.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/booth/Vaccines/MMRUK.html

And so the study was done.

And the clinical trials into it?

FYI i am not against the MMR but just would like to see a proper clinical trial into it.

 As a parent of an autistic child you do tend to look at this topic differently.

I understand that people with an autistic child will look at the subject emotionally, but dare I say subjectively as well?

Let me put it this way.  If that (now discredited) 'study' of 12 children hadn't taken place, and the press hysteria that accompanied it had also never happened, would there be this resounding 'belief' that MMR causes autism?  What is the basis for this belief?

That's kind of been my point throughout the thread.

It's only natural for someone to let their personal experience affect their judgement. That's how we get through life - we are but the sum of our experiences.

However, when it comes to scientific matters, these experiences hinder, not help us, which is why outside influences and personal thoughts are removed as much as possible.

I am not looking at this emotionally or subjectively but rationally,surely a comprehensive clinical trial/study would then eradicate any doubt or prove the link?

I'm sure if it wasn't Andrew Wakefields study then someone else would have done 1 because of  the increase of autism cases being diagnosed.IMO the increase is due to better diagnosis of autism rather than what was previously perceived notion of unruly/difficult children,lets not forget yesteryear when autistic children/adults were institutionalised in mental homes.

Is that not how autism often develops (in children who do or don't have the MMR vaccination?  I must admit, I'm not an expert on autism and I hope that a lot of money is being spent on looking at the condition and at what causes it.

I went to Wales to play poker last month, and came back with the flu.  Does that mean that if anyone goes to Wales they catch the flu?

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg18524895.300

Precisely - correlation does not imply causation.

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg18524895.300

I quote from the above "The study cannot rule out the possibility that MMR triggers autism in a tiny number of children"

In the same way it can't rule out that milk might cause autism in a tiny number of children.

As I mentioned before, the studies vindicating MMR aren't generally testing whether there is a possibility that it could trigger autism, they are comparing whether it is better or worse than having the vaccinations separately.

So a "tiny number of children" may have autism triggered by MMR, but it is not a higher number than if they had the jabs separately.

Guys I think you're being far to "Scientific study will prove right" here.

Science is imperfect & it is very difficult for any human being to be objective - almost every study has an 'expected' result.

Also there can be misquoting of statistics.

I don't consider a study of 250 kids which says the occurence of autism is in line with the national average as any kind of proof tbh.

A study of autistic kids and looking at how and when the autism was diagnosed & when the MMR vaccine was recieved would be a far more reliable study IMHO.

To completely plagarise Simon Singh, in the OJ simpson trial the stat was used by his defense that "only 1 in 1000 abused wives are murdered by their husband", so arguing that proof he abused his wife was too tenuous a link to say he killed her.

A mathemetician after the case realised that was not the relevant stat. The relevant stat was "of murdered abused wives, 80% are killed by their husband".

Simliarly of kids who get the MMR vaccine 1 in 10000 develop symptoms of Autism * is not too relevant - of kids who develop autism X% did so soon after the MMR vaccine would be the stat I'd need to build me any confidence.

* completely made up for illustration purposes.

like this one you mean? -


Which found that it was usually 4 years between being given the vaccine and the onset of autism.

The point is, it's not just this latest study of 250 - it's every study, whether it's been measured in dozens, hundreds or thousands - they've all came up with the same conclusion.

But Suzanne's just given you DIRECT evidence that her daughter showed symptoms very soon after - but no kids who showed it after was in the study?

Also diagnosis of autism/aspergers in toddlers is very difficult - the parents may know something's wrong, but proving it is hard for the doctors. I've known of parents who knew something was wrong not getting a diagnosis for 2-3 years.

Wonder why I'm not too convinced.

My grandad suffered from silicosis & died of breathing problems. Dr's report into his death - NO mention of silicosis.

Sorry mate - and the " it's every study, whether it's been measured in dozens, hundreds or thousands - they've all came up with the same conclusion" - where's the study of thousands?

Did you look at the massive study carried out in Japan?

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg18524895.300

Even in that report - "Other experts disagree, saying the apparent rise could be the result of changing diagnostic criteria and the rising profile of the disorder".

And it's still not a study of:

• Date kid has MMR
• Date Kids shows first symptoms - as noticed by parents
• Date Doctors diagnose Autism

Also the fact that it was withdrawn through links to meningitis isn't going to boost the confidence in the jab.

Also doesn't address the fact that 3 jabs are available (and should be in this country).

It's a statistically insignificant number who showed it straight after.

This was also dealt with, they didn't measure it from final diagnosis.

NO - they only used the diagnosis by a doctor, NOT parents who saw the difference in their kids.

Diagnosis of Autism and other PDDs is done by observation, not medically, so getting a doctor's diagnosis is very difficult particularly with under 2 year olds. Going from memory of Kinboshi's link (not working right now) the majority of the kids were given MMR between 1 & 2 years old. Doctors find it very difficult to diagnose any PDD at that age. An obvious falibility in the study.

Read it again.  Read what they are disagreeing about.  Both agree that there is no link between MMR and autism, and they are looking at what is causing the rise in cases of autism in Japan.

This rise CANNOT be due to MMR, as it was not used during this period.

I did read it, I did read what they are disagreeing about. They are disagreeing that the continued rise is due to 'other causes' and that the rise can be due to better awareness of autism, from the medical proffesion and the layman.

So, if that's the case what's the 'proof' that MMR does not cause Autism in a small amount of kids? 2+2=6 methinks.

Also the quoting of the time between the MMR jag and the diagnosis of autism is disingenuous at least in both the studies.

Bear in mind that autism isn't a disease where a doctor can do a blood test or similar and say 'yes, this child has autism - he developed it two weeks ago' - it is necessarily a fuzzy diagnosis on a fuzzy timescale, meaning there is plenty of scope for interpretation (and misinterpretation).

Some things are more or less certain.

Some children who receive the MMR jab will develop autism
Some children who receive the three separate jabs will develop autism
Many children who receive the MMR jab will not develop autism
Many children who receive the three separate jabs will not develop autism

People can very easily pick and choose between these to make definitive statements.

Scientists are not saying (and can never say) 'the MMR jab definitely 100% doesn't not have any effect on whether a child is autistic' - all they can ever say is 'no study has ever found a link between the two', which can always be countered by an anti-MMR advocate with 'you need to do more research then you'll find a link'. The anti-MMR stance is unfalsifiable.

Many similarities with a religious debate (including the fervour displayed by people).

LOL - and the foundation for MMR causing a rise in the number of cases of autism is..... where?


Can you show me a study that shows a direct cause and effect between MMR and autism?

There aren't any studies that prove the link.  When studies show that rises in autism are not related to MMR, you say they are irrelevant. 

I say that milk causes autism in a small number of kids.  I have no proof, but I'll put it forward anyway.  Now YOU have to show me a study that disproves this, otherwise it must be true.

Yeah, but goddidit.

You are missing my point completely.

Reports that go to great lengths to point out that there was a long time between MMR jab and autism but omit the problems with diagnosis of autism seem far more like propoganda than proper scientific study to me. Is there a definite link? I don't know but I do think there needs to be a correct study studying the right things in kids who are autistic and whose parents are the best judge of when the symptoms developed.

I've got friends and familly who have benefitted from Buteyko breathing techniques to halp their asthma. No clinical study has been accepted in the UK on the benefits of this technique. Who funds clinical trials in the UK? THe manufacturers of asthma medicines (none of which cure asthma). The one person to fund one (who is an Asthma nurse) had to sell her house to do so. Her study was picked apart and not accepted despite the technique being used to great success in Australia, New Zealand and the former USSR.

The link between coalmining and silicosis took a long time to be proved scientifically, why? Possibly cost to the Government (the whole reason for demanding that parents only choice is MMR).

In the end blind faith in religion, science, Government are all risky.

The title of the thread is  "MMR does NOT cause autism"

Can this be stated to be categorically true in every case ?

I'm not, but I think you're missing mine.  Lots of parents are willingly leaving their children susceptible to diseases that kill because of the hysteria surrounding one discredited report.  That was my initial point.


Like I said, I hope a lot of money is being pumped in to find what causes autism.  However, as the Japanese study shows, there are lots of cases of autism that aren't being caused by MMR.  I'd love for them to find out what is causing the majority of these - wouldn't you agree?


I agree with this.  It's the same in a lot of areas, there is no funding to find proper solutions or determine the real causes of many illnesses and diseases.  Ulcerative Colitis is one.  The doctors aren't interested in providing a solution that looks at the cause, and are only concerned with treating the symptoms.  I have been to see 'specialists' in this field with a family member, and the specialist completely discredited the idea of diet having an impact.  Strange that, a bowel disorder being completely unrelated to diet.  His argument was that no proof of a link to diet had been proven.  But like you say, that's because no studies have been done.  Who would benefit?  Not the pharmaceutical companies who want their medicines to be used to treat the symptoms, rather than dealing with the causes.

However, I can say that the science shows that measles is caused by a virus, and a vaccination can be used to prevent measles in a child.  Without that vaccine, the child is in serious danger.  Choosing not to vaccinate your children against measles without a bloody good reason is defenceless (IMO).


So what was the agenda behind the study in Japan that looked into the rise of autism?


Blind faith in science?  That's surely a paradox.  The whole point of science is to look for the truth through putting forward a theory and testing it using the most advanced technologies and knowledge.  Science uses evidence to back up a theory, and if new evidence comes along that shows that a previously accepted 'truth' was in fact false, then science celebrates the development.  That's scientific progress. 

It's not based on 'blind faith'.  Science can be misused and also misrepresented, in the same way as statistics can be put forward to support both sides of a debate from the same study or piece of data.  This selective use of information can certainly be dangerous.  Which is what my original point was...

I've done that before, when I worked as a statistician in Insurance - from a statistical point of view, those 2 reports were my magnum opus :D

Obviously this topic is closer to some peoples hearts than others due to some of our own expierences,
 i am starting to question what my view would be if someone now done a study like the original 1 by Andrew Wakefield into any possible connection between 3 seperate jabs and autism.

Does it really matter at the end of the day.

If you have an autistic child did the MMR cause it?

Was he/she born with it?

Even if you can point the blame at someone else and say its your fault my child is the way he/she is..does it make any difference?

I love my kids for who they are....the end.

 :goodpost:

(had the mother of all kick offs this morning after Thomas' brother made his toast and and cut it in half! ) Thomas only eats BIG TOAST)which is toast uncut WOAH good start to sunday NOT lol

As a community pharmacists I get asked asked my views on the MMR vaccine V's single jabs all the time.

My advice to all considering the single jabs is to be very careful. Single jabs are a unlicensed medicine. They therefore have to be imported from abroad. As they can't be prescribed on a NHS script you have to get them from private clinics.

As a vaccine needs to be refridgerated, I would be worried about whether the cold storage during transit had been adequate.

The triple jab is in place purely for compliance purposes as parents may not complete all 3 jabs for their child (dependant or more clinical trials) or may simply forget. The time left between the jabs could leave open the risk of infection from the other infections.

Do your research on the clinics and Doctor. I remember the case of the Doctor who ran a private clinic and used his own child's blood tests (who had the triple MMR) to prove to parents that their children were vaccinated!
 

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/conditions/03/07/autism.vaccines.analysis.ap/index.html?iref=24hours

Confirmation bias?

I thought it was relevant to the thread, and may be of interest to some people.

Yes I certainly think that this is relevant to the thread.

It is relevant, but I don't think it adds anything new.

The news reports and the topic title may be slightly misleading but there hasn't really been any argument saying that MMR - just like any other inoculation jabs - might, in a very small number of cases contribute to the onset of autism, which is more or less what this article covers (although there has never been anything other than anecdotal evidence to suggest that this could happen at all).

The primary argument is that their is no evidence that having combined jabs increases the likelihood of it happening compared to having them separately, and there is nothing in this article which contradicts this.

It is an interesting article though.

I didnt really want to get into this argument as I dont want to sway any parents with babies/toddlers but maybe this will help.

If there is a 24hr bug going around. I have it for 76 hours and my kids are the same, we all take a little bit longer to fight infection.

When I was a kid the vaccinations were much widely spread apart, I was 14 when I had my MMR.

Through hours/weeks and months of searching the internet and countless hours with psychiatrists, physiologists,family therapy, groups for this that and any other bloody thing (i have tried them all) I have come to this conclusion...I now recognize that I am autistic too, I find it very hard to communicate with people and was very much a housemouse till i ventured into poker. I force myself to play live but to be honest I feel very uncomfortable around people.

So the question is did my kids "get it" from me?

Maybe they did but Im more inclined to think we all have a suppressed immune system and some are higher than othersl.

Obviously I'm no expert but I'm not sure that 'feeling a bit awkward around people' = autism.

And I don't think it was the MMR you had at 14, but the BCG anti-TB vaccine, which most teenagers have. Nothing unusual there.

For info many people have a mild version of Autism which can go undiagnosed. I have a friend who was diagnosed with Aspergers Syndrome at the age of 28.

Also Autism is heritable.

Yes you are right Andrew, it wasnt the MMR back then, it was a vaccination for german measles as I recall. Rubella was considered to be a risk to all pregnant women so all 13/14 year old girls were given the jab.

The MMR is a jab for measles, german measles and mumps...a very lethal concoction. Im sure the government run extensive tests before they gave the go ahead.

Perhaps if I posted a picture of my daughters back, legs and belly with todays paper you might believe me? She has measle spots all the time, she is 10 yrs old now.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/13/opinion/13fri2.html?_r=1

http://www.eurosurveillance.org/ViewArticle.aspx?ArticleId=19118

http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/02/11/autism.vaccines/index.html

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/child_health/article5674974.ece

and the one you need to read if you can't be bothered reading the others:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article5683671.ece

I have only read the last link and will read the rest tomorrow but what total poppycock

"In most of the 12 cases, the children’s ailments as described in The Lancet were different from their hospital and GP records. Although the research paper claimed that problems came on within days of the jab, in only one case did medical records suggest this was true, and in many of the cases medical concerns had been raised before the children were vaccinated."

When I noticed the change in my daughter I didnt take her to my GP as she was not "ill", she had had a temperature and was unwell for a few days after the jab which I was told could be expected and gave her Calpol. I put her behaviour down to her not being well and waited a few weeks hoping to see her back to her normal self but had this niggling doubt that something was not right. I contacted my health visitor who came to see her and she said "Im sure she will be fine, she has an age assessment in a couple of months so we will see how that goes".

The "age assessment" didnt go well as she was uncooperative.

Meanwhile my son was 3 years old (there is 18months between them) as it was suspected that he was autistic. I had an appointment with a child physiologist for him and had my daughter there too (no babysitter)...she spotted straight away that there was a BIGGER problem with my daughter but said until she was 2 years old she could not be referred. Nothing at all was on record until she got her own appointment 1 year after the jab. I said at the time that I thought it was the MMR that "changed" her but was told it was coincidence. This was all before the Wakefield study.

Not read this whole thread

Our first daughter was born 10/2002 this was quite big news (MMR) at he time so
we paid £310 for the seperate injections then got a call a year later for another
£290 for a booster. We then had another daughter in 09/2005. So £1000 spent.
Looking at there wesite today prices have come down alot now MMR is OK

Kids seem fine. I don't really know if they've benefited from this or not our Dr must be
happy making good margins on parents fears of whats best to do for their children.

If time was moved on I'd be £1000 better off. You do get a discount for more than one child   

We used wellcare but our Local GP is doing the injections himself now for around £140 a pop.
He was the welcare Dr in our area.




Regards

M

surely for £140 as long as you can afford it there is no question imo

An interesting document produced by the charity Sense (http://www.sense.org.uk):

http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/pdf/MMRPolicyBriefing.pdf

Along the same lines of the media-generated hysteria regarding MMR, we've had the Cervarix scare following the death of  a teenager from something completely unrelated to the vaccine.  But still there are thousands of parents who are now reluctant to allow their daughters to receive the vaccine. 

Wonder if the media will be running in stories in 10 years time with the headline "Thousands of avoidable cancer deaths due to people listening to journalists rather than doctors"?

Good to see that some of the media is not aboard the 'anti-vax' bandwagon:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/columnists/routledge/2009/10/02/no-point-being-scared-of-vaccine-jabs-115875-21716061/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8483865.stm

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article7006302.ece

Q&A: the Wakefield MMR scare

There was never going to be any other outcome regardless as to what Dr Wakefield did or didnt discover because the compensation claims would have been HUGE. Who knows if the guy is a complete nutter or not but the claims that he paid £5 at a kids party for blood samples does seem a bit OTT dont you think? We will never know if his "scare" saved a few from autistm or not. I dont think we have heard the last on this subject.

 

My daughter came home from school with a consent form for me to sign for her to have 3 injections to prevent her from having cervical cancer.... She says "You have to sign this form so I wont get cancer". I try to explain as best I can that not having the injection doesnt mean she will get cancer but I cant get that through to her. If I dont sign the form then she is going to die and it will be my fault. She is as I have mentioned before autistic and goes to a special school for autism so why was I not consulted before this form went out? I knew nothing about this jab until I read the letter. My daughter cried and cried as she thought she was going to die if I didnt sign the letter so in the end I felt I had no choice but to sign. A moment of weakness that I might regret someday.

Yes I think that's the reason why they decided that asbestos isn't harmful

What compensation claims?  Although there might be a lot of people numerically with autism, it's a small proportion of the population, if that then got narrowed down to the people who had the MMR jab - and then further narrowed down to those where a link could be shown, the result would be large payouts for a small number of people. In the greater scheme of things it really wouldn't be very expensive at all.

As for the cervical cancer injections - yes, journalists aren't the only one's who can create scare stories - but, are you trying to avoid every single medical treatment, just in case it might have harmful side effects?

How would you narrow it down? I have already explained how I saw a change in my daughter within days after the MMR but none of it is on record.

IF Dr Wakefileds claims had have been proven then it would have opened doors for every parent with a "difficult child" to blame it on the MMR jab and they would be intitled to have their child investigated

That cost alone would have been MASSIVE to the NHS never mind the court costs.

As for my kids...I have had a few years to search the net and can only speak from a personal point of view. I would never say to any parent NOT to have the MMR as I beleive most kids will benefit from it. I bit my tongue and said nothing when it was time for my first grandson to have his injections because at the end of the day we love our kids for who they are and it was not my place to say anything.

And YES it was my intention to avoid as many medical treatments as possible as my kids seem to react very badly to any medication. I was speaking from a personal point of view and I am very angry that my daughter was brainwashed into having the Cervarix jab by her teachers.

I guess I am more disappointed at myself that I gave into the pressure and didnt fight hard enough, these injections should be a personnel choice and i felt like this one was taken out of my hands.

Why is UK the only country where there has been mass hysteria about the MMR vaccine and a link to autism?

Also, when did the hysteria really start in the UK? Was it when Wakefield's nonsense was first published? No.  It was when the Blairs refused to say if their child had been given MMR or not, and it became a big story in the UK media.

As to Wakefield paying kids for blood tests, why's that so hard to believe?  He also carried out invasive tests on childrenthat carried a great deal of risk. Completely unecessary tests and the parents weren't warned of the dangers.

Again, no fear of law suits in every other country that is still using MMR.

Some conspiracy that is.

Giving you the benefit of the doubt that this isn't confirmation bias at work here, it's worth bearing in mind that correlation does not necessarily imply causation.

Post hoc ergo proctor hoc (for the fans of Latin and/or The West Wing)

LOL talk in a language I understand Tom but yes I get what you mean. If I ever figure out how to put video on to You Tube I could show you footage of my daughter pre MMR jab toddling around saying 1..2 ...FREEEE and getting into everything. After her jab she didnt talk again till she was nearly 4yrs old, she would sit all day in her chair "flapping" and had no interest outside of her own little world..but like you said I have no proof it was the MMR that did it which is why I have no ulterior motive other than to tell what happened to me.

Kin im just curious but why are you such a disbeliever that this or any other injection could not do harm to some?

We are all different...I am munching on a bag of peanuts right now and yet there are thousands of people that could die with just a trace of peanut in their food!!

All medicine (and like you suggest, a lot of non medicine) can cause harm to some people.

But in the particular case of MMR and autism.

One study of 12 children has concluded that there might be a link

Several studies involving millions of vaccinated and unvaccinated children has shown that there is no difference in the rates of autism between the two groups.

What seems more likely; the single study in favour is wrong? or the numerous studies against the idea?

I have said all i am going to say on the subject.

Anyone needing advice on autistic kids, DONT pm me coz I still havent figured it out.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100216091009.htm

Give it a rest eh.

Kinboshi can't help it - this relentless pursuit of one single topic to the exclusion of all others started just after he got an immunisation for something or other.

No-one here is qualified to comment on any of this stuff anyway, people should just disregard the opinions on here and if it affects you directly go ask someone who is qualified.(http://www.gashing.com/smile/indifferent/indifferent0013.gif)

time to retire andrew, go out at the top. pretty sure you'll never beat that post

To be fair I think that has been the accepted general idea for some time, i.e. the timing of the MMR jab and the notice of Autism are just unfortunate coincidences

That's the point though isn't it?

I hope so. I work in a medicine related field, and there is nothing worse than this sort of tittle tattle that people read that could influence what they end up doing. Go see your GP if your unsure.............

Is anyone actually qualified in this?

There have been scientific studies carried out that suggest that one thing is more likely than another but that's all they are, studies.

Nobody can say for 100% certain that MMR does or doesn't cause autism or any other problem in 100% of cases.

There's been a big numbers game going on that suggests that it doesn't.

To state that MMR does NOT cause autism is a bit arrogant imo. You just don't know and you can't know and you never will know. Not 100% anyway.

"A scientific study suggests that MMR does NOT cause autism" is a statement of fact.

"MMR does NOT cause autism" is an educated guess based on a scientifc study.

But your GP doesn't know either. He/she only has access to the same studies that Dan has so can only ever give an opinion.

Nobody knows for certain.

He knows better than anyone on here and will have been given specific advice by the Dept of Health based on the best available evidence.

...and they'll definitely know more than the Daily Mail.

fyp, specially for Kinboshi

Sorry but why does a GP know more about this? GP's only know what they are taught and practice daily.

There is nothing a GP knows that I can't find out for myself with a bit of research. The daily mail have access to the same text as GP's so they have the same knowledge available.

If I was to ask 2 random people for health advice and one happened to be a GP then obviously I'll go with the GP as he has the knowledge in his head. If I'm asking people questions who have time and inclination to go out and access the same knowledge base that the GP has then surely their advice is just as good?

Of course, science cannot state categorically that one thing doesn't cause another (as Jon kindly extrapolated with regards to god).  But when false studies state categorically that there is a direct causation between MMR & Autism, and these are repeated in the media, then a statement saying that there's no current evidence that suggests there is a correlation and that the studies that have been put forward are inaccurate isn't really going to sway many of the general public into reconsidering their opinion on something as important as this.

As for the studies Matt, you can read a lot of what's out there and you're intelligent enough to interpret the statistics and make an educated decision based on that.  Unfortunately, these studies don't make as interesting headlines as the scare stories and so they don't get the public's attention.  The title of this thread was a parody of the tabloid headlines that surrounded the Wakefield study (I use the word study loosely), but maybe I should have gone for the catchier "Numerous studies provide strong evidence against the hypothesis that MMR vaccination causes autism. Discuss."

I can't fault you for the title of the thread. It was designed to bring attention to the subject and did it very well.

Rather than being 100% truthful it was intended to generate interest and so it achieved it's goal.

Just like the tabloids do I suppose.....

..yes.  Although they then disregard the science and write according to their agenda.  They adopt a position to start (such as being anti-vax) and then cherry-pick the research to suit that argument (or ignore the overwhelming evidence contradicting their view) and talk about it as though it's undeniable truth.  This is the opposite way round to how science should work, and how science reporting should work as well.

Byron posted an interesting link to someone arguing about saturated fats not being a contributory factor towards heart disease.  This goes against the mainstream thinking (obviously), but seemed to be from a source that wasn't a quack denialist.  I don't know about the science involved and if it's flawed or not, but I'm investigating the 'evidence' and trying to see how the science backs up each side of the argument.  That's how science works.

Matt, you were saying on the RED thread that the bankroll was your pet. Is kinboshi your pet now also?

Thought you'd had enough of reading my thoughts on this and this thread?

because I agree with you on this and this it's much harder to disagree with you  :(

Shall I start another thread?  What subject can we disagree to agree on?

militant atheism I'm not too big a fan of but that's been kind of hashed out to death already.

I'm probably to the right of you on abortion, cctv and female genital mutilation in Africa. I don't usually come across very well in those debates though so I'll stick with live straddles today thx.

:D

Live straddles it is then.  Then we can move on to female genital mutilation.  When I say move on, I mean the debate.

Apologies Matt but your wrong. Your GP will have been given advice by the Dept of Health on this issue based on best available evidence, I know this is the case. It maybe ok for you or the Daily Mail or yourself to access the information, but understanding and interpreting it correctly is the important thing. If you don't want to take my word for it fine, I'm not going to argue about it.............

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article7133807.ece

Wakefield to be struck off tomorrow.  Vile, dangerous man motivated by selfish greed.

Not a case of 'bad science' but deliberate and elaborate fraud by Wakefield.

http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c5347.full

Anyone who is not sure about the lack of validity of his so-called study should read that.

Its interesting that of the UK websites only the telegraph mentions it (if you search very hard), there is nothing on the BBC, sky, mail, guardian.

But it is story 4th on fox"news", 1st on ABCnews, 5th on NSNBC, 1st on CNN international, 3rd on CBSnews.

I wonder why the UK press is so scared about writing about it.

Yes, it is interesting.

The media were culpable for creating the mass hysteria and giving Wakefield a platform he didn't deserve.  The time when the hysteria was the greatest (and there was the lowest take up of the MMR jab in the UK) wasn't when Wakefield first produced and published his report - but when the media went mad on the Blairs and whether their son had the jab or not.  It shows their role in this.

The point of this thread was to highlight the media's lack of massive headlines and report after report when Wakefield was discredited compared to their mass coverage in the first place.

http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2011/01/why-does-it-matter-what-happens-to-andrew-wakefield/

They say it far better than I can.

The media (this time the Express) are at it again with their anti-vax bull:

http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/222000/Child-flu-vaccine-contains-mercury

There have been NO proper studies showing the miniscule amounts of mercury cause any harm at all to children (or anyone), but we all know how dangerous influenza can be, especially to children under 5.

Very dangerous and misguided journalism.

http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2011/01/secrets-of-the-mmr-scare-how-the-vaccine-crisis-was-meant-to-make-money/

Wakefield's fraud was a plan to make him tens of millions. The cost, the lives of children.

this is my favourite diary on blonde

http://m.gizmodo.com/5752880/bill-gates-says-its-an-absolute-lie-to-link-vaccines-and-autism

Full interview here:

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/02/03/gupta.gates.vaccines.world.health/

This. I just love Kin fighting the tabloids and other ignoramuses that still believe this MMR nonsense

My daughter is having the triple MMR vaccine this morning - IMO any child who has not had the vaccine (in 1 lump or 3) should not be allowed into schools.

Think its impossible to have it seperately nowadays, due to no mumps vaccine.

What would you do?

Regardless of how many links are posted I DO believe the MMR had an effect on my daughter as I have previously posted and I really dont want to start up that old argument again Dan :) x

My daughter is now 18yrs old. She went to an excellent school for autistic children and did really well, I could not praise the school enough to do it justice. She then did a "step up" course at our local college to learn about different job choices and the following year she did a beauty course which did not work out well and she left mid year. I was at this point thinking wtf do we do now!

Thankfully the school she attended has connections with our local hospital and they run a scheme to help young autistic adults into work and I managed to get her onto this years list.

Here is the problem...working in a hospital you have to be up to date with all immunisations. They have picked up on the fact that she did not get her MMR 2nd booster and have now scheduled her for another 1st jab next month. I was told many years ago her first jab at 18mths covered her 92% and the booster was only 7% so was comfortable knowing she was mostly covered without risking more damage.

So what do I do?

This course is the best chance she has of getting a job and the chance of a "normal" life. She is obviously much older so maybe it will be okay but how do I live with myself if she reacts badly?