MMR & autism Not just bad science but also falsified

poet123

Nicki wrote: »

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

No, I am happy with the word significantly;) though I would qualify that by saying it is location dependent. I personally would say that better nutrition seems more likely to be the primary cause.

Nicki

poet123 wrote: »

No, I am happy with the word significantly;) though I would qualify that by saying it is location dependent. I personally would say that better nutrition seems more likely to be the primary cause.

Good Grief. We have gone from nearly killing each other to finding some common ground all in the space of 24 hours. Who'd have thought! By the weekend you'll have all 3 of your kids down at the surgery having their jabs . (that was a joke before we get off on the wrong footing again....)

On the strength of this unprecedented point of agreement I'm off to bed. Will pick up the thread again tomorrow no doubt if it still rages on.

poet123

I was thinking the self same thing.....off to make an appointment.

Seriously, none of my comments were meant offend and certainly not to imply guilt, just playing devils advocate really. and tuirning the question back to you.

Night night!!

conradmum

poet123 wrote: »

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.

Thanks. I had a look on the website and didn't bother collating the results because of this statement on the home page.

VAERS data contains coincidental events and those truly caused by vaccines.

• More than 10 million vaccines per year are given to children less than 1 year old, usually between 2 and 6 months of age. At this age, infants are at greatest risk for certain medical adverse events, including high fevers, seizures, and sudden infant death syndrome. Some infants will experience these medical events shortly after a vaccination by coincidence.
• These coincidences make it difficult to know whether a particular adverse event resulted from a medical condition or from a vaccination. Therefore, vaccine providers are encouraged to report all adverse events following vaccination, whether or not they believe the vaccination was the cause.

Needless to say this disclaimer didn't appear on the website you derived your original quote from, nor on the post you made. Another example of biased misinformation from the anti-vacc crowd.

poet123 wrote: »

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

If Mr.Kennedy would like to be taken seriously he should try his hand at unprejudiced reporting that gives all pertinent facts.

If those with concerns about the impact of vaccinations on public health would restrict themselves to clear, unbiased information from reputable sources they would make a lot more headway in their campaign. It's exactly the kind of reportage mentioned above that discredits the movement.

For example, I read recently that in Taiwan children are tested for potential allergic reactions to vaccines before they're administered. That seems like a really good idea to me.

Apart from that I'm not sure what else could be done to improve the already low level of side effects. From my reading of the types of reactions, they're symptoms that children who contract the disease suffer from, just in far fewer numbers, so even without vaccination they would probably suffer the same fate, of not worse. If research isn't being carried out, perhaps this is why.

I would certainly not support further research on any autism/mmr link. Too much money, time and effort wasted on this red herring already.

conradmum

ford_prefect wrote: »

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

The reason that we have a vaccination programme is because it allows us to protect those for whom vaccination won't work or who cannot be vaccinated, whether they are children or adults. Where vaccine uptake is high enough we can protect all individuals, adults or children. So those women who can't achieve immunity to rubella through vaccination won't contract it from anyone else, if we have eradicated it from the community.

ford_prefect wrote: »

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.

But we aren't talking about people taking their own responsibility for their own health, are we? We're talking about society taking responsibility for the health of unborn children. That's the anti-abortion argument and I thought it applied here too. Clearly not.

I do think the tiny risk to the health of boys of vaccinating them against rubella is worth it to protect against the much larger risk of deformity and death to developing babies in the womb, even if they're the babies of strangers. Having had three boys who have all been vaccinated against rubella, I can attest to this fact. 'A life for a life' is a ridiculous exaggeration.

tooldle

In response to Poet 123 I did not say that few people die from chicken pox (the point that you dispute). My exact words were that people can die from chicken pox but it is extremely rare.
I chose the words carefully, rare meaning not frequently encountered. Few means what exactly, not many but more than one. To give it a real meaning you would need a comparitor and I very deliberately did not draw one.
As before, I don't wish to argue but I also do not wish to have my words misinterpreted or misunderstood.

ford_prefect_3

conradmum wrote: »

The reason that we have a vaccination programme is because it allows us to protect those for whom vaccination won't work or who cannot be vaccinated, whether they are children or adults. Where vaccine uptake is high enough we can protect all individuals, adults or children. So those women who can't achieve immunity to rubella through vaccination won't contract it from anyone else, if we have eradicated it from the community.




But we aren't talking about people taking their own responsibility for their own health, are we? We're talking about society taking responsibility for the health of unborn children. That's the anti-abortion argument and I thought it applied here too. Clearly not.

I do think the tiny risk to the health of boys of vaccinating them against rubella is worth it to protect against the much larger risk of deformity and death to developing babies in the womb, even if they're the babies of strangers. Having had three boys who have all been vaccinated against rubella, I can attest to this fact. 'A life for a life' is a ridiculous exaggeration.

On your first paragraph perhaps you can explain then why prior to the MMR jab when we all received single jabs males where not immunised against Rubella?

If its a problem to not vaccinate boys against Rubella now why was it fine not to 25 years ago?

The reality is that its a cost saving measure, it would cost more to produce a specific MM version for boys so we all get a vanilla vaccination approach regardless of the risks.

conradmum

ford_prefect wrote: »

On your first paragraph perhaps you can explain then why prior to the MMR jab when we all received single jabs males where not immunised against Rubella?

If its a problem to not vaccinate boys against Rubella now why was it fine not to 25 years ago?

The reality is that its a cost saving measure, it would cost more to produce a specific MM version for boys so we all get a vanilla vaccination approach regardless of the risks.

I should imagine it was because with the previous approach there were still children being deformed in the wombs of women on whom the rubella vaccination hadn't worked. Immunising half of a population allows the disease to still circulate in the community.

There are many things that were done differently in the past. That doesn't make them the best way.

I'm sure the Government does want to save money, and they're doing that by minimising the numbers of disabled babies being born.

poet123

tooldle wrote: »

In response to Poet 123 I did not say that few people die from chicken pox (the point that you dispute). My exact words were that people can die from chicken pox but it is extremely rare.
I chose the words carefully, rare meaning not frequently encountered. Few means what exactly, not many but more than one. To give it a real meaning you would need a comparitor and I very deliberately did not draw one.
As before, I don't wish to argue but I also do not wish to have my words misinterpreted or misunderstood.

So I assume from the above that you consider 100 deaths per year to be a rare occurrence?

As the main thrust of this debate concerns Measles the comparitor was already in situ. The facts are that Measles causes far fewer deaths than chicken pox, and that in fact the deaths from measles could be construed as rare occurrences rather than the deaths from Chicken pox.

No one wishes to argue,(this is a debate) but you cannot make a statement which is patently incorrect and expect it to pass without comment.

poet123

conradmum wrote: »

Thanks. I had a look on the website and didn't bother collating the results because of this statement on the home page.

VAERS data contains coincidental events and those truly caused by vaccines.

• More than 10 million vaccines per year are given to children less than 1 year old, usually between 2 and 6 months of age. At this age, infants are at greatest risk for certain medical adverse events, including high fevers, seizures, and sudden infant death syndrome. Some infants will experience these medical events shortly after a vaccination by coincidence.
• These coincidences make it difficult to know whether a particular adverse event resulted from a medical condition or from a vaccination. Therefore, vaccine providers are encouraged to report all adverse events following vaccination, whether or not they believe the vaccination was the cause.

Needless to say this disclaimer didn't appear on the website you derived your original quote from, nor on the post you made. Another example of biased misinformation from the anti-vacc crowd.



If Mr.Kennedy would like to be taken seriously he should try his hand at unprejudiced reporting that gives all pertinent facts.

If those with concerns about the impact of vaccinations on public health would restrict themselves to clear, unbiased information from reputable sources they would make a lot more headway in their campaign. It's exactly the kind of reportage mentioned above that discredits the movement.

For example, I read recently that in Taiwan children are tested for potential allergic reactions to vaccines before they're administered. That seems like a really good idea to me.

Apart from that I'm not sure what else could be done to improve the already low level of side effects. From my reading of the types of reactions, they're symptoms that children who contract the disease suffer from, just in far fewer numbers, so even without vaccination they would probably suffer the same fate, of not worse. If research isn't being carried out, perhaps this is why.

I would certainly not support further research on any autism/mmr link. Too much money, time and effort wasted on this red herring already.

The facts are that those reports re MMR were made, they are then examined and adjudicated on, but although the reports are in the public domain the results of the adjudications are not.

Why do you suppose that is if the vaccine is vindicated? Could it be another example of fudging the issue?

Re Mr Kennedy; Surely the fact that secret meetings have taken place at which the health of the nations children is not the primary factor (for those charged with protecting it) is a matter any politician worth his salt should be commenting on? It makes quite damning reading imo.

Do you not believe this meeting took place or that the facts of the meeting were untrue?

I don't think anyone is saying research should be as specific or narrow as that confined to autism/mmr. I personally believe that it is time to do more research into possible genetic pre disposition to vaccine damage. This would inevitably throw up any, as yet, undiscovered autism links, as in many cases vaccine damage results in a child being on the spectrum.

I think it is interesting that most lawyers who are winning their cases for compensation are deliberately omitting the word "autism" from their submissions as they fear the mere mention of the word will bias the decision against their clients. This is in spite of many of the children being diagnosed as being on the spectrum, they are simply detailing the symptomes without attaching the label. And this tack seems to be working.

The omnibus autism case is still going through the courts, but in excess of 1300 stand alone cases of children with the same or similar diagnosis have been paid out. The difference?........... it is all in a name apparently;)

I think it is very easy for those who are not affected to say enough money has been spent on research.

Are you in favour of research into autism at all or has enough time and money been expended there as well?