MMR & autism Not just bad science but also falsified

conradmum

ford_prefect wrote: »

We have never eradicated measles, I would refer you to both the HPA figures on measles cases and the ONS figures on death rates. Its a myth that you can eradicate disease in the manner you imagine.

It was my point that we have failed to eradicate measles here in the UK but continue to export it to countries that have eradicated it in their native populations, e.g. Finland. If you mean you can't eradicate disease globally through vaccination then you are incorrect.

ford_prefect wrote: »

MMR was introduced as a cost saving measure over single jabs, it saves in transport, storage and delivery to the patient in terms of hardware and doctors visits.

It would be less cost effective to have an MM vaccine just for boys and an MMR for girls so it was lumped into a one size fits all approach. Nothing to do with clinical need and all to do with economics in terms of delivery.

If you care to look at the goverments own figures for measles post Wakefield measles cases rocketed when access to single jabs was removed by the NHS.

Sorry, not sure what point you're making here. When I agreed with you that the Government was trying to save costs, e.g. through the fewer disabled babies born due to males being vaccinated against rubella, you said that the vaccination programme was very expensive. Now you're back to saying that giving rubella to boys too is to save money again.

Actually, I really don't care. It makes a huge amount of sense to vaccinate boys against rubella, whether it's cheap or expensive to do so. I'm sure that all pregnant women are thankful there is far less rubella circulating in the community than there was when I was a child and it was a common disease.

conradmum

ford_prefect wrote: »

according to the NHS information children under 1 are immune to measles mumps and rubella and so dont need the jab until 13 months *

Can you provide an NHS source for that information.

donteatthat

ford_prefect wrote: »

Sorry, didnt make that totally clear.

Wakefield published in 1998 so for the 2008 stats 10 years later anyone over the age of 11 would have been innoculated pre the scare and those under 1 wouldnt have started yet. Interestingly according to the NHS information children under 1 are immune to measles mumps and rubella and so dont need the jab until 13 months but I guess no one told the 112 inconvenient under 1's that did get measles!

So 286 aged 12 to 18 and the 250 over 18 can be discounted as can the 112 pre 1 years old.

Wakefield published in 1998 yet cases post 1998 fluctuated up and down from 56 to 400 and back down again until 2006 when they rose dramatically.

1998
56
1999
92
2000
100
2001
70
2002
319
2003
437
2004
188
2005
78
2006
740
2007
990
2008
1348*

Thanks. Could the figures be distorted also by the inclusion of misdiagnosis, or repeat infection? My brother had the MMR aged 13, my mother simultaneously got measles and as a result her whole school vaccination program (she was a primary school teacher). She had been vaccinated for measles/rubella as a child but contracted measles twice and rubella (rubella whilst pregnant)

donteatthat

conradmum wrote: »

Can you provide an NHS source for that information.

Perhaps only those children who have mothers with immunity, and are breastfeeding long enough.

ford_prefect_3

conradmum wrote: »

Can you provide an NHS source for that information.

A proper source on an MSE forum? I that it was standard to find the most obscure and random link in the interwebs possible to back stuff up on here!

Here is the text:

"Babies are immune to measles, mumps, and rubella during the first 12 months of life, so children are given the MMR vaccination at 13 months of age, followed by a booster injection before they start school."

and here is the link:

http://www.nhs.uk/chq/Pages/1034.aspx?CategoryID=62&SubCategoryID=63

poet123

conradmum wrote: »

Neither of us know about anything else that may cause autism either. In the area of vaccination, correlation has been substantively disproved. When you say all avenues, you don't actually mean all avenues, you mean the avenues that the public dictate. All avenues could mean anything at all, and there simply isn't enough money in existence to fund research in anything that could be related to autism. .

I agree neither of us knows about anything else that may cause autism. Where did I say anything to give the impression that only vaccination could be the cause?

Since when has it been wrong to include in research progs issues which are of public concern and which have an effect on public confidence? We find money for many areas that are less important socially, financially and morally than funding studies into autism. Do you have any idea of the overall financial cost of educational resources for autisic children?

conradmum wrote: »

Still you adhere to the adhere to the notion that mmr may cause autism. If that was the case, why has the rate of autism continued to rise in Japan when the mmr was withdrawn in 1993, and why has the rate of autism continued to rise here in the UK despite the reduced uptake due to the scare? This would apply whether there are subsets of children affected or not..

You see, I lose respect for your argument when you use dismissive words like"notion" it is akin to "whim" and implies none of the arguments are thought out or sincerely held beliefs.

To be clear, I dont have the "notion" I have concerns about those cases which have gone through the courts have been awarded damages and had MMR cited as causative.

Even if we use your yardstick of liklihood or balance of probabilities as a measure, that still disturbs me. it still causes me pause for thought that experts believe that it is likely, (not note possible but likely) that damage was due to MMR. And yet you are sanguine about that.

conradmum wrote: »

When the most basic, commonsense arguments go unanswered or twisted, that is when it becomes difficult to remain respectful of people's stances. Rather than answering the question, we get stories of how individual children have suffered. Those stories are tragic, but they don't answer extremely basic large, statistical facts. We're either talking in the sphere of scientific study or we aren't. If you want me to agree that a court case found a particular causation more likely than another, I will agree with you. When you try to tell me that this demonstrates some kind of scientific fact, I will lose respect for your argument.

And when people like yiou refuse to accept that there are still many unanswered questions, it makes me think you are either quite callous or oblivious to the possibilities that we have not yet uncovered all there is to know about vaccine damage.

Every court decsion (of this nature) is based on the balance of probability, no one is saying it equates to a definitive scientific study, I certainly have never said that, so any twisitng of words is not coming form my side of the argument.

Likely means more probable than not, does that really not worry you? in any other sphere if you were told that the damage to xyz was likely to have been caused by x would you keep doing x without further thought?

conradmum wrote: »

What is your basis for accepting all this as truth. Are there any links in the article to the research mentioned? Were the studies published in peer-reviewed journals? Are there records of the meetings held? How do you know any of it happened, other than the fact that this man has written it down.

Yes, actually there is a document that I discovered late last night. It is 262 pages in length and I have not finished reading it. However, it certainly does confirm the initial facts of the report, ie who was present, when, where and why it was held, and who made the presentation re Thimerasol. I will try to get to read it all later and post the link. It was only released after a freedom of information request.

conradmum wrote: »

As I said before, thimerosal was removed from vaccines in the US in 2000. Since then autism rates have continued to rise. That is a fact. Not a speculation, not a conspiracy theory, not a an article. It's easily accessible information out there in the public domain. The least informed layman would understand from that that thimerosal does not cause autism.

Yet, rather than believe that, you revert to this article. Then you ask me to respect your argument.

And as I said, the purpose of the article was to show the priorities of those making decisions which affect children, not the outcome of later studies surrounding the issue.

poet123

conradmum wrote: »

Can you provide an NHS source for that information.

That is a very well known fact. Natural immunity from the mother wanes after 12 months, prior to that if the mother is immune the child is likely;) to be so too.

ford_prefect_3

conradmum wrote: »

It was my point that we have failed to eradicate measles here in the UK but continue to export it to countries that have eradicated it in their native populations, e.g. Finland. If you mean you can't eradicate disease globally through vaccination then you are incorrect.



Sorry, not sure what point you're making here. When I agreed with you that the Government was trying to save costs, e.g. through the fewer disabled babies born due to males being vaccinated against rubella, you said that the vaccination programme was very expensive. Now you're back to saying that giving rubella to boys too is to save money again.

Actually, I really don't care. It makes a huge amount of sense to vaccinate boys against rubella, whether it's cheap or expensive to do so. I'm sure that all pregnant women are thankful there is far less rubella circulating in the community than there was when I was a child and it was a common disease.

The cost saving from using a single vaccine source like MMR with only two visits to the doctor for administration is nothing to do with disabled babies.

Simple economics, using single vaccines requires more syringes, more ampoules, more transport, more storage space, more manufacturing costs etc etc.

As for Rubella and who should be vaccinated you might want to avail yourself of the NHS own advice:

http://www.nhs.uk/chq/Pages/1104.aspx?CategoryID=54&SubCategoryID=137

And in particular

"If you are planning to get pregnant, you should have the rubella immunity test first. Even if you were vaccinated at school, immunity does not last as long as previously thought, and the effects of the vaccine may have worn off."

So even the NHS agrees that the onus is on the woman to be vaccinated and to check that immunity remains.

Which is why vaccinating boys against Rubella has made no difference to the exposure risk for women and why its not actually needed in the first place.

This is further proven by the incidence of Rubella(CRS) in the UK from the WHO stats:

http://apps.who.int/immunization_monitoring/en/globalsummary/timeseries/TSincidenceByCountry.cfm?C=GBR

Since 2000 there have been 11 cases of Rcrs and for Rubella not in pregnancy it ranges from 75 down to 17 per year.

Interestingly in the years when measles peaked in 2007 and 2008 Rubella was at the lower end.

So despite all the MMR vaccine ups and downs and all the other hoo haa the WHO stats show its made no difference to Rubella(CRS) incidence because the person who needs to be immune is the mother.

If you wanted to be a complete stats nazi you could argue that the lower uptake of MMR has actually lowered the incidence or Rubella and Rubella(CRS)!

I am not anti vaccination btw but I am of the view that you vaccinate based on the individual need, not on an economics model.

conradmum

poet123 wrote: »

I agree neither of us knows about anything else that may cause autism. Where did I say anything to give the impression that only vaccination could be the cause?

Since when has it been wrong to include in research progs issues which are of public concern and which have an effect on public confidence? We find money for many areas that are less important socially, financially and morally than funding studies into autism. Do you have any idea of the overall financial cost of educational resources for autisic children?

You see, I lose respect for your argument when you use dismissive words like"notion" it is akin to "whim" and implies none of the arguments are thought out or sincerely held beliefs.

To be clear, I dont have the "notion" I have concerns about those cases which have gone through the courts have been awarded damages and had MMR cited as causative.

Even if we use your yardstick of liklihood or balance of probabilities as a measure, that still disturbs me. it still causes me pause for thought that experts believe that it is likely, (not note possible but likely) that damage was due to MMR. And yet you are sanguine about that.

And when people like yiou refuse to accept that there are still many unanswered questions, it makes me think you are either quite callous or oblivious to the possibilities that we have not yet uncovered all there is to know about vaccine damage.

Every court decsion (of this nature) is based on the balance of probability, no one is saying it equates to a definitive scientific study, I certainly have never said that, so any twisitng of words is not coming form my side of the argument.

Likely means more probable than not, does that really not worry you? in any other sphere if you were told that the damage to xyz was likely to have been caused by x would you keep doing x without further thought?

Yes, actually there is a document that I discovered late last night. It is 262 pages in length and I have not finished reading it. However, it certainly does confirm the initial facts of the report, ie who was present, when, where and why it was held, and who made the presentation re Thimerasol. I will try to get to read it all later and post the link. It was only released after a freedom of information request.

And as I said, the purpose of the article was to show the priorities of those making decisions which affect children, not the outcome of later studies surrounding the issue.

Still you refuse to answer the fact that thimerosal was removed from vaccines in the US in 2000 and autism rates have continued to rise, and the fact that MMR was withdrawn from Japan in 1993 with the same effect.

These are the most pertinent facts, but you won't address them.

As to stating that a legal proof is not a scientific proof, thanks for that, but that was not your stance just a few pages back where you continued to repeat your opinion that the word 'causation' meant that the vaccination definitely caused the child's problems, and chided me for saying 'If'.

Please do not refer to me as callous. If I didn't care about the children that are inappropriately remaining unvaccinated I wouldn't even bother to enter these debates. And nowhere have I denied that there are unanswered questions. My only intent is to counter the misinformation and scaremongering that abounds in threads such as this.

conradmum

ford_prefect wrote: »

The cost saving from using a single vaccine source like MMR with only two visits to the doctor for administration is nothing to do with disabled babies.

Simple economics, using single vaccines requires more syringes, more ampoules, more transport, more storage space, more manufacturing costs etc etc.

As for Rubella and who should be vaccinated you might want to avail yourself of the NHS own advice:

http://www.nhs.uk/chq/Pages/1104.aspx?CategoryID=54&SubCategoryID=137

And in particular

"If you are planning to get pregnant, you should have the rubella immunity test first. Even if you were vaccinated at school, immunity does not last as long as previously thought, and the effects of the vaccine may have worn off."

So even the NHS agrees that the onus is on the woman to be vaccinated and to check that immunity remains.

Which is why vaccinating boys against Rubella has made no difference to the exposure risk for women and why its not actually needed in the first place.

This is further proven by the incidence of Rubella(CRS) in the UK from the WHO stats:

http://apps.who.int/immunization_monitoring/en/globalsummary/timeseries/TSincidenceByCountry.cfm?C=GBR

Since 2000 there have been 11 cases of Rcrs and for Rubella not in pregnancy it ranges from 75 down to 17 per year.

Interestingly in the years when measles peaked in 2007 and 2008 Rubella was at the lower end.

So despite all the MMR vaccine ups and downs and all the other hoo haa the WHO stats show its made no difference to Rubella(CRS) incidence because the person who needs to be immune is the mother.

If you wanted to be a complete stats nazi you could argue that the lower uptake of MMR has actually lowered the incidence or Rubella and Rubella(CRS)!

I am not anti vaccination btw but I am of the view that you vaccinate based on the individual need, not on an economics model.

Can I ask you where you got your information that the reason behind the decision to vaccinate boys against rubella was a cost-saving exercise?

You see, it's quite simple. If you have 50% of the population potentially able to pass on rubella, then you will continue to get rubella in the community. If you have most of the population vaccinated, rubella will be eradicated. Yes, you will get occasional tourists bringing it in from countries without adequate vaccination programmes. But essentially you get far, far less disease.

The WHO stats you give only start at 2000, long after the introduction of MMR, so I'm not clear on the point you're making about the figures.

This sentence doesn't make any sense as it stands:

So despite all the MMR vaccine ups and downs and all the other hoo haa the WHO stats show its made no difference to Rubella(CRS) incidence because the person who needs to be immune is the mother.