MMR & autism Not just bad science but also falsified

conradmum

ford_prefect wrote: »

And thats the whole problem, MMR in children only stops children passing Rubella around, anyone older can be a carrier so the bottom line is that women must take responsibility.

Even the NHS say that!

You also have to look at the cost benefit analysis on economic cost of babies with CRS versus the costs of ADR in children through excessive vaccination and the cost of vaccination overall.

Rubella in pregnancy fell dramatically from 1970 onwards even without vaccinating males as this BMJ short summary shows

http://www.bmj.com/content/318/7186/769.full

The graph is pretty poor but what it does highlight is that since the Rubella vaccine was introduced in the early 70's incidences of Rubella in pregnancy have fallen.

In 1988 MMR came into play in the UK and we see that rate of decline actually decreases and becomes flatter, so despite the wholesale mass vaccination of boys and girls with MMR its made almost no difference.

And thats for two reasons, the first is that its not only kids that carry and spread the disease and secondly those that have been vaccinated do lose immunity.

If giving everyone MMR had made a huge statistical difference over the old approach of single jabs and the schoolgirl programme on rubella we would be seeing all sorts of studies to back that but they are not forthcoming for the simple reason they show statistically no difference.

From your link


The decline in reports of congenital rubella has resulted in a higher proportion of cases associated with infection acquired abroad or occurring in women with previous vaccination or infection (neither of which confers absolute protection). Immigrant women are more susceptible than the indigenous population; targeting them for immunisation may be appropriate.


The increased incidence of rubella in spring 1996—concentrated in young men who had never been offered vaccination—was followed by an increase in congenital rubella, with all but one baby (whose mother acquired infection abroad) born between the end of July and mid-October. Uptake of the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine has declined since 1995 (with the largest decrease in 1997-83) because of public anxiety about vaccine safety.4 If high uptake is not maintained, rubella could once again circulate among young children. Women and health professionals must be aware of the potentially devastating effects of rubella infection. An “immune” result after routine antenatal testing does not preclude recent or current infection, and all pregnant women with suspected symptoms or exposure in the first four months of pregnancy should be offered diagnostic investigation.

ford_prefect_3

conradmum wrote: »

From your link


The decline in reports of congenital rubella has resulted in a higher proportion of cases associated with infection acquired abroad or occurring in women with previous vaccination or infection (neither of which confers absolute protection). Immigrant women are more susceptible than the indigenous population; targeting them for immunisation may be appropriate.


The increased incidence of rubella in spring 1996—concentrated in young men who had never been offered vaccination—was followed by an increase in congenital rubella, with all but one baby (whose mother acquired infection abroad) born between the end of July and mid-October. Uptake of the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine has declined since 1995 (with the largest decrease in 1997-83) because of public anxiety about vaccine safety.4 If high uptake is not maintained, rubella could once again circulate among young children. Women and health professionals must be aware of the potentially devastating effects of rubella infection. An “immune” result after routine antenatal testing does not preclude recent or current infection, and all pregnant women with suspected symptoms or exposure in the first four months of pregnancy should be offered diagnostic investigation.

Read closely what you have quoted and then come back and explain why women should not take personal responsibility for vaccination, immunity testing and boosters for Rubella.

Note in particular that immunity is not life long from either vaccination or previous illness. Then explain how your going to maintain herd immunity when the immunity wears off and we dont have a booster programme for all.

You will also notice if you re read the paragraphs that no figures where given, for reference according to the article the 1996 total figure of children born was 12 with 2 of acquiring infection overseas. Looking at the graph thats the same level as 1989 a year in from the MMR when the vast majority of UK males had not been vaccinated but the schoolgirl programme had just ended. In other words, no real difference.

Rubella nicely highlights the myth of herd immunity which doesnt account for travel or inward population mobility or the minor problem of not giving boosters.

Bottom line, if your a woman and you dont take responsibility for your own health you only have yourself to blame really.

melancholly

ford_prefect wrote: »

Bottom line, if your a woman and you dont take responsibility for your own health you only have yourself to blame really.

that's true in every aspect of healthcare! although as a general point i don't think it means men can be devoid of responsibility

amazing how the thread has moved from Wakefield making things up to an education in rubella vaccination programmes!

should we, in general, be concerned about the lack of booster programmes for some vaccinations? most people getting them have no idea that they run out. hard to take personal responsiblity if the information is difficult to come by.....

i know about all my jabs thanks to going through a thorough occupational health check (and because all my childhood records were kept carefully by my mother and never thrown out!) but i guess most people would assume their GP would contact them if there was a problem....

ford_prefect_3

melancholly wrote: »

that's true in every aspect of healthcare! although as a general point i don't think it means men can be devoid of responsibility

amazing how the thread has moved from Wakefield making things up to an education in rubella vaccination programmes!

should we, in general, be concerned about the lack of booster programmes for some vaccinations? most people getting them have no idea that they run out. hard to take personal responsiblity if the information is difficult to come by.....

i know about all my jabs thanks to going through a thorough occupational health check (and because all my childhood records were kept carefully by my mother and never thrown out!) but i guess most people would assume their GP would contact them if there was a problem....

The whole Wakefield saga is linked in that it has highlighted significant issues with vaccination programmes and there overall efficacy.

The one thing it highlighted to me is that herd immunity is illness dependent and works well with some diseases and less well with others, in particular those where the vaccination effect has a finite life span.

What has been interesting is what I call the Autism smokescreen in that by saying MMR doesnt cause Autism its "safe" when the lists of reported ADR's with MMR is long and contains some unpleasant stuff.

Wakefields original publication didnt say there was a link, it said the MMR jab needed further exploration as did the theory that vaccine ADR was the primary issue, fast forward 12 years and he has been struck off and punished in a variety of ways.

But compare and contrast that with the fabricated research paper on DNA retention done by the Jill Dando institute for the Home Office consultation on DNA retention and you have the CEO admitting that they made the it all up, If Wakefield is guilty of fraudulent science where does that leave the government funded Jill Dando Institute?

Here is a quote from Gloria Laycock the head of the Jill Dando Institute:

"We were under pressure from the Home Office to publish, and felt we had no option but to allow them to use this work," Jill Dando Institute director Gloria Laycock told The Register.
"That was probably a mistake with hindsight," she said in another interview. "We should have just said 'you might as well just stick your finger in the air and think of a number."


If the government like your research you get to keep going even if you admit to being a fraud, but if they dont they will use all and every method they can to destroy you.

conradmum

ford_prefect wrote: »

Read closely what you have quoted and then come back and explain why women should not take personal responsibility for vaccination, immunity testing and boosters for Rubella.

That would be these parts I highlighted:
occurring in women with previous vaccination or infection (neither of which confers absolute protection).

An “immune” result after routine antenatal testing does not preclude recent or current infection

ford_prefect wrote: »

Note in particular that immunity is not life long from either vaccination or previous illness. Then explain how your going to maintain herd immunity when the immunity wears off and we dont have a booster programme for all.

There will always be the possibility of infection being brought in from abroad, but we can maintain a very high level of protection to unborn children by vaccinating as many people as possible. In many other areas of life we seek to minimise risk while recognising that it can never be totally eliminated.

ford_prefect wrote: »

You will also notice if you re read the paragraphs that no figures where given, for reference according to the article the 1996 total figure of children born was 12 with 2 of acquiring infection overseas. Looking at the graph thats the same level as 1989 a year in from the MMR when the vast majority of UK males had not been vaccinated but the schoolgirl programme had just ended. In other words, no real difference.

You're being extremely selective with the stats you choose to quote. Yes, the figure for '89 is the same as '96 yet, as the article points out:

In 1996, however, after a resurgence of rubella infection in the community, 12 births and nine terminations were reported.

So that's 9 fetuses terminated and 12 children born with disabilities in that year, due to a resurgence of rubella.. Yes, an increase in rubella circulating in the community, no doubt some of which was due to the Wakefield report. In the previous year there were no live births of rubella-damaged babies.

ford_prefect wrote: »

Rubella nicely highlights the myth of herd immunity which doesnt account for travel or inward population mobility or the minor problem of not giving boosters.

Herd immunity is not a myth. We have achieved it with many diseases which are no longer seen in this country, such as diptheria and polio, while other diseases we don't vaccinate against, such as chicken pox, are still prevalent, despite improvements in health, nutrition and sanitation.

ford_prefect wrote: »

Bottom line, if your a woman and you dont take responsibility for your own health you only have yourself to blame really.

The bottom line is, even if you have a vaccination for rubella, and even if you get your immunity status checked before getting pregnant, you're still at risk of contracting rubella from your community if the male children aren't routinely vaccinated.

And of course the babies of women who can't be vaccinated for health reasons are at high risk.

melancholly

ford_prefect wrote: »

If the government like your research you get to keep going even if you admit to being a fraud, but if they dont they will use all and every method they can to destroy you.

well on that i disagree. most research isn't funded for government reports. if research is high impact and highly cited, that gets you money! the people who make decisions on what funding to give from funding bodies are scientists and it's fair to say that they aren't always that interested in government opinions, as the David Nutt situation nicely illustrated.

anyone can take one example, but that doesn't prove a conspiracy!

ford_prefect_3

conradmum wrote: »

That would be these parts I highlighted:
occurring in women with previous vaccination or infection (neither of which confers absolute protection).

An “immune” result after routine antenatal testing does not preclude recent or current infection



There will always be the possibility of infection being brought in from abroad, but we can maintain a very high level of protection to unborn children by vaccinating as many people as possible. In many other areas of life we seek to minimise risk while recognising that it can never be totally eliminated.



You're being extremely selective with the stats you choose to quote. Yes, the figure for '89 is the same as '96 yet, as the article points out:

In 1996, however, after a resurgence of rubella infection in the community, 12 births and nine terminations were reported.

So that's 9 fetuses terminated and 12 children born with disabilities in that year, due to a resurgence of rubella.. Yes, an increase in rubella circulating in the community, no doubt some of which was due to the Wakefield report. In the previous year there were no live births of rubella-damaged babies.



Herd immunity is not a myth. We have achieved it with many diseases which are no longer seen in this country, such as diptheria and polio, while other diseases we don't vaccinate against, such as chicken pox, are still prevalent, despite improvements in health, nutrition and sanitation.



The bottom line is, even if you have a vaccination for rubella, and even if you get your immunity status checked before getting pregnant, you're still at risk of contracting rubella from your community if the male children aren't routinely vaccinated.

And of course the babies of women who can't be vaccinated for health reasons are at high risk.

If you look at the figures from the 1970's before any form of Rubella vaccination and then look at the change that was introduced with the girls only vaccination by 1989 which was the changeover point you will see that the girls only jab was working fine.

Even with the intro of MMR its would need a further 15 plus years of consistent vaccination to bring every person under the age of 20 in that cohort into the vaccinated group. By 1996 a significant number of those in the under 20 age group (the ones still likely to be at home) would still not be vaccinated so its impossible to put the 1996 figures down to what Wakefield did.

Especially as the figures post 1989 have bounced around the same range.

But the real reason why you wont eradicate Rubella(CRS) is that immunity wears off and we dont have a booster programme, thats why we dont have herd immunity for that condition, the vaccination has a finite lifespan.

Just looking on it from a grand scheme of things perspective and using the 1996 figures is it worth the risk to immunize all boys with the inherent risks that has to leave us in a position no better or worse than when only girls where immunized?

ford_prefect_3

melancholly wrote: »

well on that i disagree. most research isn't funded for government reports. if research is high impact and highly cited, that gets you money! the people who make decisions on what funding to give from funding bodies are scientists and it's fair to say that they aren't always that interested in government opinions, as the David Nutt situation nicely illustrated.

anyone can take one example, but that doesn't prove a conspiracy!

The issue with the JDI research was it was government funded and commissioned and was then torn to pieces by the scientific and legal community as being nothing more than a fraud and this was admitted by the JDI itself!

Wakefield was also torn apart by the scientific community in much the same way and also accused of fraud, struck off etc etc.

No difference in the overall fraud but the outcomes for the two parties is very different.

David Nutt is a good example, he didnt toe the party line and got the boot, Gloria Laycock did the governments bidding and produced fraudulent research and zip happens.

conradmum

ford_prefect wrote: »

If you look at the figures from the 1970's before any form of Rubella vaccination and then look at the change that was introduced with the girls only vaccination by 1989 which was the changeover point you will see that the girls only jab was working fine.

Even with the intro of MMR its would need a further 15 plus years of consistent vaccination to bring every person under the age of 20 in that cohort into the vaccinated group. By 1996 a significant number of those in the under 20 age group (the ones still likely to be at home) would still not be vaccinated so its impossible to put the 1996 figures down to what Wakefield did.

Especially as the figures post 1989 have bounced around the same range.

But the real reason why you wont eradicate Rubella(CRS) is that immunity wears off and we dont have a booster programme, thats why we dont have herd immunity for that condition, the vaccination has a finite lifespan.

Just looking on it from a grand scheme of things perspective and using the 1996 figures is it worth the risk to immunize all boys with the inherent risks that has to leave us in a position no better or worse than when only girls where immunized?

If you read Sense's history of rubella vaccination that I posted earlier, you will see that there was a catch-up programme in 1994:

In 1994 there was a mass measles and rubella vaccination to catch those who had not been eligible for MMR (they were too old when it was introduced) and who had missed out on the single rubella jab.

It's by no means impossible to put the 1996 figures down to what Wakefield did. As your link states, there was an increase in rubella in 1996. Of course the fewer babies received MMR, the more disease was in the community. Why is that so difficult to understand?

If we won't eradicate rubella through vaccination, can you please explain how we have eradicated polio and diptheria?

poet123

conradmum wrote: »

If you read Sense's history of rubella vaccination that I posted earlier, you will see that there was a catch-up programme in 1994:

In 1994 there was a mass measles and rubella vaccination to catch those who had not been eligible for MMR (they were too old when it was introduced) and who had missed out on the single rubella jab.

It's by no means impossible to put the 1996 figures down to what Wakefield did. As your link states, there was an increase in rubella in 1996. Of course the fewer babies received MMR, the more disease was in the community. Why is that so difficult to understand?

If we won't eradicate rubella through vaccination, can you please explain how we have eradicated polio and diptheria?

Because both of those vaccines need a maximum of one booster to confer lifelong immunity. In the case of Polio, lifelong immunity is usual, in the case of Diptheria,the normal childhood series of vaccines also confers lifelong immunity. So unlike Rubella where immunity lasts for approx 10/15 years max, once vaccinated against those two diseases you are immune for life.

The diseases are not comparable in that sense.