MMR & autism Not just bad science but also falsified

conradmum

poet123 wrote: »

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

How much more research would persuade you?

Here is a paper detailing the conclusions of 41 separate research studies relating to this issue

http://www.aap.org/immunization/families/faq/vaccinestudies.pdf

poet123

conradmum wrote: »

How much more research would persuade you?

Here is a paper detailing the conclusions of 41 separate research studies relating to this issue

http://www.aap.org/immunization/families/faq/vaccinestudies.pdf

It isn't personal to me any more, my children are beyong the age for such vaccination so I cannot answer the question, safe to say that the self same authority that publish the compilation of those reports have, quite recently, compensated children for MMR vaccine damage.

How does that work?

conradmum

poet123 wrote: »

It isn't personal to me any more, my children are beyong the age for such vaccination so I cannot answer the question, safe to say that the self same authority that publish the compilation of those reports have, quite recently, compensated children for MMR vaccine damage.

How does that work?

I've no doubt that the reason for compensation was given in the judgement.

Could you answer my question? How much research do you think would be enough?

pwllbwdr

poet123 wrote: »

It isn't personal to me any more, my children are beyong the age for such vaccination so I cannot answer the question, safe to say that the self same authority that publish the compilation of those reports have, quite recently, compensated children for MMR vaccine damage.

How does that work?

You'd have to ask them, but I doubt they would tell you. I work a lot with the legal system (not medicine related), and I can tell you that many cases are settled even when the principals involved believe there is no case to answer. The relevant phrase is "litigation risk", especially when insurance is involved - they simply look at percentages.

Of course, it is possible, as you appear to imply, that they really know that there is a link but are continuing to publish scientific data which shows that there isn't. That would be called lies - are you alleging that? Do you really think the medical establishment would be behind these injections if they knew there was a significant risk?

donteatthat

kazzah60 wrote: »

yes- i did wonder that myself - he will be going to his 1st placement at the end of january and I think it may be to do with ensuring his health and also that of the people undergoing radiotherapy as obviously their immune systems will be severely depleted and he could easily pass something on.

Yes- immunisation is not just about protecting yourself. Measles, mumps etc are catastrophic to those with weak immune systems for example leukaemia, those having chemo etc and I can't believe people still think it is right to not vaccinate their children because of Andrew Wakefield.

When I was very young I had a younger brother who died at 3 months from SIDS. After this my parents decided not to vaccinate me and the next child they had. Basically they were looking for some reason as to why their baby had died. The fact that they both smoked in the house and around their children was not felt by them to be relevant, and later research into cot death showed that he had several more risk factors against him. As far as I. Know there is no link ever suggested between SIDS and vaccinations but both me and my youngest brother both got whooping cough and were extremely poorly for about 3 months with it. I know it is a big regret for my parents that we went through that.
My point is that it is easy as a parent to look for blame and be guided by guilt and grief more than logic.

poet123

conradmum wrote: »

I've no doubt that the reason for compensation was given in the judgement.

Could you answer my question? How much research do you think would be enough?

I think we should continue to research until we have no more medicallly backed (because dont forget to go to court you need medical experts who believe you have a solid case) compensation claims for vaccine damage allied to vaccine xyz.

Regardless of what was in the judgements (which to pay out was obviously that the the cases were proven) do you not accept that the mere fact that these cases exist (and thousands like them are pending) means further research is needed?

It is too easy for us to say all avenues have been exhausted we do not face caring for a vaccine damaged child 24/7.

poet123

pwllbwdr wrote: »

You'd have to ask them, but I doubt they would tell you. I work a lot with the legal system (not medicine related), and I can tell you that many cases are settled even when the principals involved believe there is no case to answer. The relevant phrase is "litigation risk", especially when insurance is involved - they simply look at percentages.

Of course, it is possible, as you appear to imply, that they really know that there is a link but are continuing to publish scientific data which shows that there isn't. That would be called lies - are you alleging that? Do you really think the medical establishment would be behind these injections if they knew there was a significant risk?

I have a lot of legal medical family memevers and am well are of the litigation risk calculation.

However, I am also aware that in this type of case (which could set a precedent) they would not pay out unless the burden of proof is satisfied.

Therefore, these are real children with real vaccine damage issues, not percentages, and they have been paid out.

Unless there was solid, quantifiable evidence they would simply not have done that.

conradmum

poet123 wrote: »

I think we should continue to research until we have no more medicallly backed (because dont forget to go to court yiou need medical experts who beleive you have a solid case) compensation claims for vaccine damage allied to vaccine xyz.

Regardless of what was in the judgements (which to pay out was obviously that the the cases were proven) do you not accept that the mere fact that these cases exist (and thousands like them are pending) means further research is needed?

It is too easy for us to say all avenues have been exhausted we do not face caring for a vaccine damaged child 24/7.

There are known side effects and risks to all medicines. For example, the contraceptive pill can cause strokes and thrombosis. People have died from allergic reactions to antibiotics. The reason the vaccine compensation scheme exists is because it's acknowledged that there is always a very remote possibility a child will have an adverse reaction, the same possibility that there is for anyone taking any pharmaceutical product.

Do you suggest that children shouldn't be vaccinated nor that we should take paracetemol until 'all avenues have been exhausted'?

Where payouts are made, the case does not have to be medically proven. In fact, if, as you allege, it's known that the vaccine caused the damage, then there would be no reason for the additional research you call for, because the mechanism for damage would be established.

donteatthat

poet123 wrote: »

I think we should continue to research until we have no more medicallly backed (because dont forget to go to court yiou need medical experts who beleive you have a solid case) compensation claims for vaccine damage allied to vaccine xyz.

Regardless of what was in the judgements (which to pay out was obviously that the the cases were proven) do you not accept that the mere fact that these cases exist (and thousands like them are pending) means further research is needed?

It is too easy for us to say all avenues have been exhausted we do not face caring for a vaccine damaged child 24/7.

What are your views on the use of antibiotics then? Are you aware that they are mainly unlicensed for use in children to treat infections?

poet123

donteatthat wrote: »

What are your views on the use of antibiotics then? Are you aware that they are mainly unlicensed for use in children to treat infections?

I think they serve a very useful and necessary function. I also think they are vastly overprescribed and also requested far too often by patients who believe they are a panacea for all ills.

I also know that too many antibiotics reduces the effectiveness of them, and means you need ever stronger ones to combat serious infection.

I have four children and can only remember two occasions when any of them have needed such interventions.