MMR & autism Not just bad science but also falsified

poet123

http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/2011/01/06/rebuttal-of-bmj-lancet-paper-wakefield-fraud-claims-naa-uk-news-release/

Rebuttal of the OP

pwllbwdr

poet123 wrote: »

http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/2011/01/06/rebuttal-of-bmj-lancet-paper-wakefield-fraud-claims-naa-uk-news-release/

Rebuttal of the OP

I'm looking for a rebuttal of the OP in there, and I don't see it. I see separate evidence, which it is said supports a connection between autism and MMR. A rebuttal of the BMJ article would involve taking the points made by the BMJ article (by the journalist) and showing that they are incorrect. That isn't there.

poet123

I think you are being slightly pedantic there, it is headed "rebuttal" and I took that to refer to the alleged fraud elememt of the allegations. So, as the evidence presented in the article seems to corroborate certain findings that are now being referred to as fraudulent that would qualify as a rebuttal of that element to me. Additionally, there is some intersting info contained therein imo.

barbiedoll

There's no doubt that many parents suspect that the MMR jab has caused/exacerbated their child's autism despite any evidence proving a definite link. I think the saddest aspect of the whole Wakefield/MMR case is the suspicion by many parents that ALL vaccinations are somehow suspect and are only given to enable GP's to collect their cash bonus. The fact remains that worldwide vaccination has been the single biggest cause of increased child health and the fact that only a very few, already sick children have died of measles in recent years, owes more to the fact that we can now treat the complications of measles more effectively than we could before. Diseases such as whooping cough, diptheria and polio had been virtually eradicated here until the MMR vaccine scare, suddenly many parents were declining the usual childhood vaccines on the basis that they were all unsafe.

Personally, I suspect that Wakefield may have been onto something and I think that the Government acted very irresponsibly by banning the single vaccines. The spurious excuse that parents won't keep to the vaccination schedule was ridiculous, I deal with parents from many different backgrounds, cultures and income bands and I have yet to meet one who isn't keen to know when and how to get their child vaccinated, (apart from a few religious zealots who insist that because there may be alcohol in the vaccines, their child can't possibly have them.) Even those parents who have reservations about vaccination in general are keen to know if there are alternatives, and want to know which websites to visit, who they can talk to and where to get clear and accurate advice. Unfortunately, many people still appear to get their health advice and guidance from the Daily Mail, rather than from an unbiased and accurate source.

pwllbwdr

poet123 wrote: »

I think you are being slightly pedantic there, it is headed "rebuttal" and I took that to refer to the alleged fraud elememt of the allegations. So, as the evidence presented in the article seems to corroborate certain findings that are now being referred to as fraudulent that would qualify as a rebuttal of that element to me. Additionally, there is some intersting info contained therein imo.

I'm not being pedantic at all. That is what a rebuttal is. Further evidence which comes to the same conclusion as the original article is not a rebuttal and never will be.

Have you read the BMJ article? It discusses the data originally put forward in the Wakefield paper and states that the medical data was not what the Wakefield paper said it was. It is entirely feasible for the Wakefield data to be fiddled yet for the underlying conclusion to be true.

This is science. Rigour and logic MATTER, as does honesty.

poet123

pwllbwdr wrote: »

I'm not being pedantic at all. That is what a rebuttal is. Further evidence which comes to the same conclusion as the original article is not a rebuttal and never will be.

Have you read the BMJ article? It discusses the data originally put forward in the Wakefield paper and states that the medical data was not what the Wakefield paper said it was. It is entirely feasible for the Wakefield data to be fiddled yet for the underlying conclusion to be true.

This is science. Rigour and logic MATTER, as does honesty .

Fair points, and maybe that is what happened. I used the word rebuttal in my post as that was the title of the article.

With regard to your last point, I think these are the very issues parents feel are not being addressed.

pwllbwdr

poet123 wrote: »

Fair points, and maybe that is what happened.

Perhaps. I would want to see a lot more evidence showing a link between the jabs and autism (or anything else) before coming to that conclusion. As far as I am aware, studies into this have tended to show the absence of a link.

I mean proper evidence, not anecdotal evidence.

verysillyguy06

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/109/1/124?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=addressing+parents%27+concerns&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&resourcetype=HWCIT

Current studies do not support the hypothesis that multiple vaccines overwhelm, weaken, or "use up" the immune system. On the contrary, young infants have an enormous capacity to respond to multiple vaccines, as well as to the many other challenges present in the environment. By providing protection against a number of bacterial and viral pathogens, vaccines prevent the "weakening" of the immune system and consequent secondary bacterial infections occasionally caused by natural infection.


Conclusion from the link which looked fairly convincing to me

poet123

pwllbwdr wrote: »

Perhaps. I would want to see a lot more evidence showing a link between the jabs and autism (or anything else) before coming to that conclusion. As far as I am aware, studies into this have tended to show the absence of a link.

I mean proper evidence, not anecdotal evidence.

Then further research is required, which is all those if us who have reservations about the increase of children with Spld issues would advocate.

hulagirl79

In 1997 i began nannying for a family who had a one year old and a newborn, the one year old was very advanced for her age ( walking at 9 months, talking in sentances at 13 months, knowing numbers and letters by 20 months) she didnt have her mmr till 22 months. Within 2 months of having it, she had regressed to not talking, looking at you getting hystrical if taken somewhere new.
At the age of 3 she was diagnosed as autistic.
I always thought there was a connection.