We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
MMR & autism Not just bad science but also falsified
Comments
-
There is very little point continuing this debate with you. I answer your questions, and you turn the questions into different ones with your responses.
You asked why a VDU was set up, I give you the possible reasons, you respond with a glib irrelevant comment. I know the numbers are a matter of public record, and they are such that the other Govt depts could not cope with the number of cases, so a new specific dept was set up. .
The discussion on the VDU stemmed from your comment
Do you not think it pertinent that a specific vaccine dmage payment unit exists?
I failed to see the pertinency of that fact, which is why I was asking you why you thought one had been set up and making the point that the number of claims made is on the public record. I am still not clear about the relevancy of the fact that a VDU exists.
Is it a fact that the VDU was set up because of the sheer number of claims? Can I ask how you know that?I do agree there is a lot of nonsene of the net;) but none moreso than comparing the incidence of alien abduction with the incidence of vaccine damage, and suggesting there was as much substance in the former as the latter in an attempt to score points or minimise the horrible reality of the latter. It does you no credit.
You have incorrectly paraphrased my words. I said that there was a lot of nonsense on the net about vaccination. Do you agree or not?You said it might have it might have been unwise to vaccinate. The judgement says quite clearly that there was a causal relationship between the vaccination (MMR) and the disability suffered. You really cannot get away form that no matter how hard you try to.
No, the judgement says that the court decided the stronger evidence lay with the conclusion that the vaccine had caused an increase in the child's disability. That is quite different from establishing a cause/effect in the scientific sense.
As I said, it's also true that if the vaccine did bring on a fit, either due to high temperature or the measles component, the little boy would have stood no chance against real measles, or any of the other infectious diseases that healthy children are vaccinated against.0 -
The discussion on the VDU stemmed from your comment
Do you not think it pertinent that a specific vaccine dmage payment unit exists?
I failed to see the pertinency of that fact, which is why I was asking you why you thought one had been set up and making the point that the number of claims made is on the public record. I am still not clear about the relevancy of the fact that a VDU exists.
Sigh;)you said that not only vaccines cause damage but that other medication has similar/untoward side effects, my point was that no other medication had specific units set up to compensate the victims.Is it a fact that the VDU was set up because of the sheer number of claims? Can I ask how you know that?
It was set up after the MP Jack Ashley lobbied for it when (initially)300 parents contacted him as they felt their claims were not being taken seriously enough by the existing depts. That number rose to 650 approx thereafter.
He agreed and concluded that no existing dept could cope with the volume and complexity of claims so was instrumental in forming the VDU. The unit was based at Norcross near Blackpool and was where I did part of my Civil service training.You have incorrectly paraphrased my words. I said that there was a lot of nonsense on the net about vaccination. Do you agree or not?.
"I think that given the media hype and the amount of nonsense that's available on the internet it's inevitable that there has been a large number of claims made."
That was what you said originally, not a specific reference to vaccination. I do agree that there is a lot of nonesense on the net about many things including vaccination. I suspect we will disagree about the categorisation of some of the information though.No, the judgement says that the court decided the stronger evidence lay with the conclusion that the vaccine had caused an increase in the child's disability. That is quite different from establishing a cause/effect in the scientific sense.
.
It uses the term causation in its scientific and medical usage with reference to the MMR. As seen here;
"The logical sequela of these findings of fact is that Petitioners have carried their burden of proof on the issue of vaccine-related causation."
You failed to give us your medical, or for that matter scientific quals that render your interpretation more valid than that of the involved medical professionals.As I said, it's also true that if the vaccine did bring on a fit, either due to high temperature or the measles component, the little boy would have stood no chance against real measles, or any of the other infectious diseases that healthy children are vaccinated against.
It may or may not be true, are you qualified to make such a medical judgement? As that hypothesis was not part of the case it is also irrelevant.0 -
the article is very old - the same info was quoted in an article in the guardian in 2006, with the same author. not worth reading! none of the work in the article is published anywhere i can find it!If fact as much as I have little regard to tabloid reporting, this was in the Daily Mail today:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-388051/Scientists-fear-MMR-link-autism.html:happyhear0 -
melancholly wrote: »the article is very old - the same info was quoted in an article in the guardian in 2006, with the same author. not worth reading! none of the work in the article is published anywhere i can find it!
Not to mention that the press are notorious for misunderstanding science and reporting the outcomes of studies incorrectly.
Poet123 you seem to be confusing something being upheld in court as the same thing as a hypothesis being proved (or disproved). Have you read Bad Science by Ben Goldacre?Whether you think you can, or think you can't, you are usually right.0 -
donteatthat wrote: »Not to mention that the press are notorious for misunderstanding science and reporting the outcomes of studies incorrectly.
Poet123 you seem to be confusing something being upheld in court as the same thing as a hypothesis being proved (or disproved). Have you read Bad Science by Ben Goldacre?
I am not confusing scientific prrof with legal proof, there is of course a difference. However, causation is a medico legal term defined as;
"causation,n the act or agency which produces an effect."
The fact is that in the case detailed above( and in other cases) causation is established as being due to MMR after all relevant medical evidence has been examined.
You may not like it, but that is a fact.0 -
Sigh;)you said that not only vaccines cause damage but that other medication has similar/untoward side effects, my point was that no other medication had specific units set up to compensate the victims.
But no other medication has a national programme involved in administering it to millions.It was set up after the MP Jack Ashley lobbied for it when (initially)300 parents contacted him as they felt their claims were not being taken seriously enough by the existing depts. That number rose to 650 approx thereafter.
He agreed and concluded that no existing dept could cope with the volume and complexity of claims so was instrumental in forming the VDU. The unit was based at Norcross near Blackpool and was where I did part of my Civil service training.
It's always a little concerning when decisions like this are taken due to public pressure. There is so much scaremongering and inaccurate reporting in the tabloids and nowadays so much tripe on the internet."I think that given the media hype and the amount of nonsense that's available on the internet it's inevitable that there has been a large number of claims made."
That was what you said originally, not a specific reference to vaccination. I do agree that there is a lot of nonesense on the net about many things including vaccination. I suspect we will disagree about the categorisation of some of the information though.
Was it really necessary to your comprehension that I specifically named vaccination, given that this discussion is about vaccination and I did write 'the number of claims made'?It uses the term causation in its scientific and medical usage with reference to the MMR. As seen here;
"The logical sequela of these findings of fact is that Petitioners have carried their burden of proof on the issue of vaccine-related causation."
You failed to give us your medical, or for that matter scientific quals that render your interpretation more valid than that of the involved medical professionals.
There is nothing whatsoever in the entire court judgement that mentions the mechanism of the causation. The summary itself speculates as to whether it was vaccine-induced fever or the measles component that prompted the initial fit. Can you explain how, if causation was scientifically established, it could be a choice of two possibilities? A choice of two possibilities is not a fact.
I dread the day when legal decisions are taken as irrefutable fact. Think of all the wrongly convicted prisoners with no hope of release!It may or may not be true, are you qualified to make such a medical judgement? As that hypothesis was not part of the case it is also irrelevant.
As the judgement states, one of two things caused his fit - a fever or the measles vaccine. Given that the measles vaccine is a much weakened form of the virus it stands to reason that actual measles would be at least as damaging, if not more so.
Are you suggesting that a child with significant congenital brain abnormalities would sail through measles, mumps, or rubella if contracted? Whenever measles deaths are brought up in these debates you're always quick to point out that it's children with underlying health problems that have died. Is Ben Zeller somehow exempt from that category?
It is remarkable to me that this poor little boy and other children are held up as examples of the fact that 'more research is needed'. It seems to me rather that more healthy children need to be vaccinated to protect children like him.
In any case, if more research were carried out, it would not now be on any link between MMR and autism. If there were even subsets of children with a genetic predisposition to develop autism from vaccination, this would show up in a correlation between autism and vaccination. There is none, as was shown very clearly in Japan. When MMR vaccination ceased in 1993, autism rates actually rose. Even with small numbers of susceptible children, this would not have been the case.0 -
The judgement says quite clearly that there was a causal relationship between the vaccination (MMR) and the disability suffered. You really cannot get away form that no matter how hard you try.
The judges are not scientists nor they are doctors. They are also not infalliable. They decided it is so and so, it doesn't mean they are right. They could also have their personal views on that matter. They based their opinion on a doctor's opinion - but as far as I understand, different doctors had different opinions. On what basis did the judges choose this one over the other one? We don't know.
Are you really so law abiding that you agree with the judges whatever they say??From Poland...with love.
They are (they're) sitting on the floor.
Their books are lying on the floor.
The books are sitting just there on the floor.0 -
But no other medication has a national programme involved in administering it to millions.
True, which is why your comparison was flawed.It's always a little concerning when decisions like this are taken due to public pressure. There is so much scaremongering and inaccurate reporting in the tabloids and nowadays so much tripe on the internet.
Was it really necessary to your comprehension that I specifically named vaccination, given that this discussion is about vaccination and I did write 'the number of claims made'?
Given that you also made the statement highlighted above it seems you do not only mean vaccination, but tripe in general, which was my initial understanding.There is nothing whatsoever in the entire court judgement that mentions the mechanism of the causation. The summary itself speculates as to whether it was vaccine-induced fever or the measles component that prompted the initial fit. Can you explain how, if causation was scientifically established, it could be a choice of two possibilities? A choice of two possibilities is not a fact.
The summary makes several points but the conclusion is that causation is the MMR. A fever induced by vaccine ( and the resulting fit and susequent damage) is the same as the disability being caused by the vaccine. The component is not specified it is the combined vaccine which is cited.I dread the day when legal decisions are taken as irrefutable fact. Think of all the wrongly convicted prisoners with no hope of release!
The usual (legal) test is beyond reasonable doubt, and most medical diagnosis have only that level of certainty before there is intervention of a specific tailored kind.As the judgement states, one of two things caused his fit - a fever or the measles vaccine. Given that the measles vaccine is a much weakened form of the virus it stands to reason that actual measles would be at least as damaging, if not more so.
There is however always the very real possibility that he may not have contracted Measles.Are you suggesting that a child with significant congenital brain abnormalities would sail through measles, mumps, or rubella if contracted? Whenever measles deaths are brought up in these debates you're always quick to point out that it's children with underlying health problems that have died. Is Ben Zeller somehow exempt from that category?
See above, and it does not alter the court findings that in this instance the MMR was deemed responsible not any underlying issues (all of which were examined and discounted as per the summary)It is remarkable to me that this poor little boy and other children are held up as examples of the fact that 'more research is needed'. It seems to me rather that more healthy children need to be vaccinated to protect children like him.
Would it not also be wise to research genetic issues that may lead to vaccines being contra indicated or is that not necessary or desirable in your opinion?In any case, if more research were carried out, it would not now be on any link between MMR and autism. If there were even subsets of children with a genetic predisposition to develop autism from vaccination, this would show up in a correlation between autism and vaccination.
It may not be Autism per se but rather a PDD or a mitrochondrial disorder,and surely those children deserve to have their issues researched?There is none, as was shown very clearly in Japan. When MMR vaccination ceased in 1993, autism rates actually rose. Even with small numbers of susceptible children, this would not have been the case.
I have never said MMR causes autism, and this admittedly comprehensive ( but stand alone and isolated) study does seem to suggest that may not be the case. However, the fact remains autism rates have vastly increased and we dont know why. Similarly, vaccine damage does occur because of the supposedly "universally safe" MMR and we dont know why.
So, yes I do strongly believe more research is needed, into both areas, and tbh imo anyone who doesn't has no feeling for those children and parents who have to live with the consequences of either issue.0 -
The legal test for a medical negligence claim is not beyond reasonable doubt which is the criminal test, but on the balance of probability. Which means 51% more likely than not, or any percentage higher than that.0
-
PolishBigSpender wrote: »The judges are not scientists nor they are doctors. They are also not infalliable. They decided it is so and so, it doesn't mean they are right. They could also have their personal views on that matter. They based their opinion on a doctor's opinion - but as far as I understand, different doctors had different opinions. On what basis did the judges choose this one over the other one? We don't know.
Are you really so law abiding that you agree with the judges whatever they say??
I assume they were swayed by the medical evidence, or lack thereof to support the opposing contention. I wouldnt expect such a far reaching judgement to be based on anything other than medical evidence. Would you?
So it is not a question of trusting everything a judge says, but rather accepting that in such cases all the evidence will have been evaluated by those qualified to do so. And lets face it, no one likes paying out money without just cause do they? so I assume that eventuality was also factored into the result.
Why payout $$$$ without reason?0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 354.5K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.5K Spending & Discounts
- 247.4K Work, Benefits & Business
- 604.2K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.5K Life & Family
- 261.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards