MMR & autism Not just bad science but also falsified

Nicki

poet123 wrote: »

http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/graphs/

"single greatest cause of the significant fall in infant mortality " so access to good nutrition, better sanitation etc, are not more important? and more responsible for the reduction in infant mortality?Then why do very many millions of vaccinated kids die every year in the 3rd world?

I can't actually be bothered to read that link you posted because the language it uses is so extreme, that it is clearly not going to be a balanced consideration of the issue. Looks like some anti-vaccine propaganda website on a very cursory glance.

I would not dispute by the way that good nutrition and better sanitation are also important. I didn't say that vaccination was the sole cause of the improvement, it is clearly one of many causes, but in my opinion, which is not a definite fact just an opinion, it is the most influential.

verysillyguy06

It is a very difficult question and every parent has to come to their own conclusion.

Would I feel worse knowing that my decision has condemed my child to whatever illness/disability they have got?

We weighted up all the pros and cons and did not vaccinate and were able to home nurse our children through the childhoodillnesses. We were lucky that they have not caught any of the more severe complications but having worked with severe disabled children all my life, it was the right one for us

poet123

conradmum wrote: »

Your links are rather unclear. Could you say where the second quote is from? (I do know, actually. Just wondering to see if you dare show it.)

Kennedy alleges that thimerosal causes autism through mercury poisoning. Thimerosal was removed from vaccines in 2000 (and isn't used in MMR anyway) and autism rates continued to rise. That article was written in 2005, at which time he would have been aware of that fact. I think that gives us a good indication of how much credence to give his words.

http://vaers.hhs.gov/data/data/

All contained within these files, sort the data according to vaccine type and collate. These figures are given on many other sites which I presume you refer to;) and thus hint that they are suspect, but check the data for yourself you doubt the stats given.

Sigh.... re the Kennedy article, the purpose of the quote and indeed him writing the article was to show that as with Tobacco there are many other considerations which are givena higher priority than safety. This illustrates that point very well imo, and he is well placed to know.

poet123

Nicki wrote: »

I can't actually be bothered to read that link you posted because the language it uses is so extreme, that it is clearly not going to be a balanced consideration of the issue. Looks like some anti-vaccine propaganda website on a very cursory glance.

I would not dispute by the way that good nutrition and better sanitation are also important. I didn't say that vaccination was the sole cause of the improvement, it is clearly one of many causes, but in my opinion, which is not a definite fact just an opinion, it is the most influential.

Sometimes things are actual factual, so balance is not warranted.

Conjecture, and as you say, opinion, open to debate.

Nicki

poet123 wrote: »

Sometimes things are actual factual, so balance is not warranted.

Conjecture, and as you say, opinion, open to debate.

And sometimes statistics can be manipulated and date misinterpreted or omitted to make the political point you want. Hence why linking to a Looney Tunes website for "facts" is not going to be hugely persuasive.

To use a less controversial example, if I were concerned about some antenatal tests, I wouldn't look on an extreme pro-life or pro-choice website or forum to help interpret them, as I would be unlikely to get a neutral interpretation of the data from either. Rather I'd go to a medical site with no obvious agenda, and would be more likely to trust the information there even though it might turn out to be identical to or very similar to one of the others.

You may regard your statement as factual. It may or may not be true, but if your only source for it is websites such as the one you've posted, then it is open to question.

ford_prefect_3

Nicki wrote: »

Yay, quote button worked this time.

I don't disagree with any of this, but nor does in contradict the point I made, which was that to lump together all Adrs over a 4 year period, and give them equal weight is not a useful measure of assessing a drug or vaccine's safety. 2000 reports of fever and 5 of encephalitis would not be as serious as 5 reports of fever and 2000 of encephalitis to be silly about things for a moment, but the total figure would be the same.

That wasnt the point you made though, you said this in your post:

"I think its misleading to lump all adverse drug reactions over a 4 year period together and conclude from this that the mmr is unsafe. "

The equal weight addition was never part of your previous post.

Ultimately its a mix of both the number of reports and the severity of the ADR's that will lead to safety pronouncements on any drug.

Your example is also somewhat off the mark, fever in small children leading to febrile convulsions can be pretty serious.

Your also missing the key point, no drug is "safe" people even die in drug studies from the placebo because they are allergic to it. There is a degree of risk with any medication but the removal of choice over single jabs did more harm than any knee jerk reaction over links to autism.

Nicki

Um! The reference to lumping the results together was meant to mean giving them all equal weight. What else could you have thought it meant? It's poet who is pronouncing on the safety of the vaccine based on the total number of adrs. As far as I know it's still being administered in the US and hasn't been declared unsafe by the FDA. I'm quite sure poet would have told us if it had.

Fever in small children can lead to febrile convulsions yes. Have there been a large number of cases then of babies dying from febrile convulsions following vaccination then? Or even a statistically significant number? Most parents can manage a post vaccination temp with calpol or similar.

Agreed no drug is 100% safe. You'll find that's what I said in my post you're replying to. Also that I have said that I don't object to single jabs, and that they are still available privately in the Uk for less than £200 which I would think is within the means of most parents if they are genuinely anxious about the MMR but otherwise committed to vaccinating their children.

ford_prefect_3

conradmum wrote: »

What about if the vaccination won't work for you? There's a small percentage of people for whom vaccination won't work or who cannot be vaccinated for health reasons.

Can I ask if you are anti-abortion? Doesn't the unborn child deserve our efforts to protect it from harm, regardless of the mother's level of responsibility?

On your first paragraph thats true not just of adults at risk but also children so your argument has no legs.

In the greater good argument do you risk the health of every male child with an additional vaccination they dont need to protect the much smaller number of women who cannot be vaccinated?

Your actually trying to trade a life for a life with your protection argument and human altruism doesnt stretch that far, we are by nature programmed for self preservation.

Not sure what my viewpoint on abortion has to do with people taking there own responsibility to protect there own health to the best of there ability and given the propensity for the extremists involved in those kind of arguments on both sides its not something I am going to publicise.

poet123

Nicki wrote: »

And sometimes statistics can be manipulated and date misinterpreted or omitted to make the political point you want. Hence why linking to a Looney Tunes website for "facts" is not going to be hugely persuasive.

To use a less controversial example, if I were concerned about some antenatal tests, I wouldn't look on an extreme pro-life or pro-choice website or forum to help interpret them, as I would be unlikely to get a neutral interpretation of the data from either. Rather I'd go to a medical site with no obvious agenda, and would be more likely to trust the information there even though it might turn out to be identical to or very similar to one of the others.

You may regard your statement as factual. It may or may not be true, but if your only source for it is websites such as the one you've posted, then it is open to question.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Infant_mortality.aspx

Will this do? it outlines all the major causes of the drop in child mortality and certainly does not single out vaccinations as the primary cause.

Nicki

poet123 wrote: »

http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Infant_mortality.aspx

Will this do? it outlines all the major causes of the drop in child mortality and certainly does not single out vaccinations as the primary cause.

Much better thank you!

It may not single vaccinations out as the primary cause but nor does it discount their importance as the first link you posted did. I'm happy though to compromise on a statement that the use of vaccinations has contributed to the decrease in infant mortality in recent years, though I'd say significantly, and I suspect you wouldn't concede that point