MMR & autism Not just bad science but also falsified

cgk1

There is no point arguing with the anti-vac crowd, they are like creationists in that no amount of scientific evidence will shift their position.

poet123

Nicki wrote: »

I will repeat again I made no personal attacks on you and yours. If you can find one on this thread of anywhere on MSE, then report it to abuse with my blessing.

I have disagreed with both you and VSG on the points you have made, but only you have chosen to take it as a personal issue. I still do not consider pointing out that an unvaccinated child could infect others more at risk to be either a nasty hypothesis or a personal attack. It is rather a major reason why vaccination is a keystone of public health. If you aren't prepared to accept it as a possibility, then you haven't considered all the issues in the debate.


As for not knowing my child was autistic, I mentioned that on several posts i've made in this thread, which you have been reading and posting on from the start, the first time several days ago.

You stated your child had a disability a few posts in, then when I said I was sorry about that and stated I did not know what the cause of that was, you stated, in answer, that it was autism.

I cannot speak for VSG but I feel sure if you had directed the same comments to him about his child he would have been similarly offended.

I have considered it as a possibility and discounted it as unlikely given the stats. Probably in much the same way you have with the vaccine damage question. They are either both valid questions (depending on how emotively they are phrased, and again I feel you could have asked that same question with much more sensitivity) or neither is. You cannot have it both ways.

For the record, I am pro vaccination for diseases which kill here in the UK, Meningitis for example. My kids have all been vaccinated against that.

JC9297

Just a quick reminder that a lot of parents who did not want to give the MMR would have been happy to have single vaccines (so not anti-vaccines), therefore maintaining the herd immunity and not increasing the risks to immuno-compromised individuals, but the government wouldn't allow this on the NHS

Nicki

Post 68 on this thread, my first post, made at a time you were actively posting and reading it, stated unambiguously that I had an Asd child and was pro vaccination. However this continued debate is a side issue. Report any post that you consider to be a personal attack as I have said and I am sure if the abuse team agree they will remove them. If they stay I'm more than prepared to stand by them and I'm happy to leave yours here, as I am happy for you to be judged on your own words.

Vaccinating your children against diseases which you think might kill them is not really the point we are discussing though. At the time your children were young, the single vacs for measles mumps and rubella were all still available were they not, and no concerns had been raised about their safety? So for you at least it wasn't a stark choice between mmr or nothing, and it would seem therefore that it was a conscious decision on your part not to take part in the public health aspect of the vaccination programme.

poet123

Nicki wrote: »

Post 68 on this thread, my first post, made at a time you were actively posting and reading it, stated unambiguously that I had an Asd child and was pro vaccination. However this continued debate is a side issue. Report any post that you consider to be a personal attack as I have said and I am sure if the abuse team agree they will remove them. If they stay I'm more than prepared to stand by them and I'm happy to leave yours here, as I am happy for you to be judged on your own words.

Vaccinating your children against diseases which you think might kill them is not really the point we are discussing though. At the time your children were young, the single vacs for measles mumps and rubella were all still available were they not, and no concerns had been raised about their safety? So for you at least it wasn't a stark choice between mmr or nothing, and it would seem therefore that it was a conscious decision on your part not to take part in the public health aspect of the vaccination programme.

Why would I want to have your abusive posts removed and for mine (which you consider abusive) to remain?

The whole thing needs to remain in situ for others to get a balanced view and judge whose comments were couched in inappropriate or insensitive language.

I too am happy to be judged on my comments, so we are in accord.

I have never said anything other than it was a conscious choice. Although the MMR around when my children were younger. My reasons for not vaccinating were never to do with the MMR per se (for my own children) but because of previously stated reasons. Although I do have reservations about the MMR.

ETA Yes, I see you did mention your child's disability in post 68, but I must not have noticed, which us why I asked you again. On second reading what the posts which come after show is that yet another poster felt insulted by your turn of phrase, and has actually refrained from posting since.

Nicki

So back on topic.

I think it is fairly universally agreed that the gold standard for scientific research requires that the sample size is statistically significant, the researcher has no pecuniary interest in the outcome, that there is a control group, that the research is peer reviewed and that it can be replicated. Research which meets all these criteria tends to be accepted as proof of the hypothesis investigated. Andrew Wakefield's research met none of these standards and no one anywhere in the world has ever been able to replicate his findings.

Autism rates of diagnosis are increasing yearly. This is not just in the UK and not restricted to countries where the MMR is in use.

The anti-vaccination brigade believe that the MMR overloads the immune system by delivering 3 separate immunisations in one shot. There is no scientific evidence meeting the criteria set out above which supports that assertion, and other vaccinations are routinely administered in threes and have been for a large number of years.

Some children with compromised immune systems could be harmed by the administration of live vaccines and are advised medically not to have the MMR. If immunisations rates in the general population are above a certain percentage the conditions will be virtually eradicated in the country, and those children who can't be vaccinated will be protected by herd immunity. Not enough children are currently being vaccinated with the MMR in this country to protect those vulnerable children.

The only evidence which the anti vaccination proponents on this thread (as opposed to belief or unproven assertions) are a small number of civil judgments in the United States for vaccine damage. Civil suits are heard by non medically qualified personnel, the expert evidence which is presented is bought by the interested parties (and not paid for if not in line with that party's case), and the burden of proof is only just over 50/50. None of the evidence presented in the US meets the gold standard set out above. There are no such judgments in the UK where independent expert evidence can be ordered by the court.

The government of the UK, both Labour and Conservative, are prepared to fund a universal immunisations programme and have commissioned research into the MMR on more than one occasion, and in each case those studies which do meet the gold standard have found no link between MMR and autism.

What have I missed?

ford_prefect_3

Whether Wakefield was right or wrong is actually pretty immaterial, what people forget is that his research being proven or not proven doesnt make MMR safe (or any other multi jab vaccination for that matter)

A simple read of the adverse reactions lists for MMR and other triple and more jabs will tell you that.

MMR is nothing more than a cost saving measure, it needs less doctor visits to administer and booster and uses less physical material at the point of delivery but it is no more or less effective than single jabs and does carry a heightened risk of auto immune conditions such as idiopathic thrombocytopeania purpurra (ITP) amongst other rather nasty conditions.

Having a triple jab is like being exposed to three diseases at once and thats a lot for any immune system to cope with, hence why post vaccination auto immune conditions like ITP

The only reason to vaccinate boys against Rubella (The R part of MMR) is to provide herd immunity to women who dont bother getting the jab themselves. As all vaccinations carry a risk why is every boy asked to take a risk thats not needed to protect someone else?

Measles and Mumps are nasty diseases and when I was a lad we where vaccinated against those and only the girls got rubella jabs to protect them against german measles in pregnancy.

We should have the option to only vaccinate as needed, so ladies, if you need protecting from German measles dont expect my son to risk his health on your behalf!

Nicki

The increased risk of ITP within 6 weeks of MMR is 1 in 25,000

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1884189/

And the condition varies greatly in severity, often clearing up of it's own accord without treatment according to wiki (must confess I had never previously heard of it). I am not sure I would describe that as a significant risk to be honest!

poet123

Nicki wrote: »

So back on topic.

I think it is fairly universally agreed that the gold standard for scientific research requires that the sample size is statistically significant, the researcher has no pecuniary interest in the outcome, that there is a control group, that the research is peer reviewed and that it can be replicated. Research which meets all these criteria tends to be accepted as proof of the hypothesis investigated.

It is rare that every one of those criteria is met, can you give definitive links to such studies.

Nicki wrote: »

Andrew Wakefield's research met none of these standards and no one anywhere in the world has ever been able to replicate his findings.

As yet. That misses the point however,in that there are issues, many other issues, that need to be studied and researched. Is that happening?

Nicki wrote: »

Autism rates of diagnosis are increasing yearly. This is not just in the UK and not restricted to countries where the MMR is in use.

Then surely more research into all sides of the question should be a priority?

Nicki wrote: »

The anti-vaccination brigade believe that the MMR overloads the immune system by delivering 3 separate immunisations in one shot. There is no scientific evidence meeting the criteria set out above which supports that assertion, and other vaccinations are routinely administered in threes and have been for a large number of years.

That is a sweeping generalisation of the beliefs of people who have issues with vaccination, and not all would categorise themselves as anti vax by any stretch of the imagination. It is a good soundbite though;) and quite dismissive.

Nicki wrote: »

Some children with compromised immune systems could be harmed by the administration of live vaccines and are advised medically not to have the MMR. If immunisations rates in the general population are above a certain percentage the conditions will be virtually eradicated in the country, and those children who can't be vaccinated will be protected by herd immunity. Not enough children are currently being vaccinated with the MMR in this country to protect those vulnerable children.

And yet that coverage would almost certainly be achieved by allowing the single vaccine. Instead the license has been allowed to lapse in favour of the more expensive MMR.

Nicki wrote: »

The only evidence which the anti vaccination proponents on this thread (as opposed to belief or unproven assertions) are a small number of civil judgments in the United States for vaccine damage. Civil suits are heard by non medically qualified personnel, the expert evidence which is presented is bought by the interested parties (and not paid for if not in line with that party's case), and the burden of proof is only just over 50/50. None of the evidence presented in the US meets the gold standard set out above. There are no such judgments in the UK where independent expert evidence can be ordered by the court.

The Vaccine court in the US has medics sitting as judges when applicable, not just legal experts. Do you understand its remit and reason for being formed?

"The US Court ruled [July 2008] in favour of this little boy Benjamin Zeller that as a result of the MMR vaccination received on 17 November 2004, Benjamin, suffered persistent, intractable seizures, encephalopathy, and developmental delay.



other published decisions are found here. Please note that:
a. ...the standard of proof being applied in this special US Court is identical to that in the English Court.

1. ...just like the English Court, these cases are decided by judge alone sitting without a jury."

This is a UK case, there have also been payouts for death due to MMR.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1307095/Family-win-18-year-fight-MMR-damage-son--90-000-payout-concerns-vaccine-surfaced.html

Nicki wrote: »

The government of the UK, both Labour and Conservative, are prepared to fund a universal immunisations programme and have commissioned research into the MMR on more than one occasion, and in each case those studies which do meet the gold standard have found no link between MMR and autism.

Do you have links to those independent studies and bios of their contributors?

Where does your info re the willingness of the Govt to fund this research come from?

Nicki wrote: »

What have I missed?

Possibly this?

"From July 1990 thro' April 1994, 5799 ADRs following MMR vaccination were reported to US Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS); including 3063 cases requiring emergency medical treatment, 616 hospitalisations, 309 who did not recover, 54 children left disabled and 30 deaths. Due to massive underreporting these are considered only 10-15% of the total number of ADRs (6)"

Or this;

"While most anti-vaccination scares are not supported by scientific evidence, public concern about the safety of new vaccines is understandable. American infectious diseases expert and vaccinologist Dr Paul Offit traces public distrust of vaccines to the so-called Cutter incident during the 1950s, when thousands of people in the USA developed vaccine-induced polio as a result of being given vaccine containing live polio virus from Cutter Laboratories. In his 2007 book entitled The Cutter Incident, Offit recalls that of 220 000 people infected – including about 100 000 children – 70 000 developed muscle weakness, 164 were severely paralysed and 10 died."


Just a couple of links to show there is a basis for parents having doubts about mass vaccination.

My other comment would be that as the WHO routinely use the monovalent form of measles vaccine and state it is just as effective as the MMR why does the Govt not acquiese to parental demands and allow single vaccines?

Surely, if herd immunity is so vital any method of achieving this is the way forward.?

Additionally, it is cheaper, and Rubella could be targetted solely at females and Mumps at boys who suffer the most side effects from the disease. it seems odd to me to pump both genders full of uneccesary vaccines when it could be gender specific.

So,to me, as an unaffected, but interested observer, it seems there are still many avenues to be explored and many questions to answer.

plumpmouse

ford_prefect wrote: »

We should have the option to only vaccinate as needed, so ladies, if you need protecting from German measles dont expect my son to risk his health on your behalf!

Not wanting to get drawn into any debate as sides in these arguements will never agree, but I do find this comment odd

I think you probably find that it is your son's future children that you could be protecting as Rubella is more serious for unborn babies!!!