Why does naomi not trust MMR?

[chakka35]

naomi, in a separate thread you said that you don't trust MMR. What follows is not just to show my disagreement with you, but to make a very important point which I'll leave until last. Here goes:

No-one has shown any connection between MMR and autism. One doctor and a small team (who have since deserted him) made that suggestion but produced no evidence. His 'results' were impossible to reproduce, his methods were shown to be deeply flawed and his motives suspect. Not since Piltdown Man was revealed as a hoax has any scientific theory been so comprehensively debunked.

By 2001, 500,000,000 MMR jabs had been given world-wide (heaven knows what the figure is now) with no detectable adverse effects; autism surfaces just as often in children that have not had the jab as in those that have.
In the USA, where they are notoriously neurotic about their health, they have such confidence in it that in some states you may not send your children to school until they have had the jab.

That autism sometimes appears after the jab does not mean that it appears because of it . That is the old post-hoc-ergo-propter-hoc fallacy. Since the vaccination takes place early in a child's life it precedes all the other ailments that that child might later suffer from. Do we blame chicken-pox, asthma, leukaemia, migraines etc. on MMR? Of course not. So why autism?

cont'd�

[chakka35]

Let me deal for now (before I get on with some of the other things) with this business of the separate jabs, which I meant to include in my first post but forgot.

Where did this idea come from? From the very doctor who started the MMR/autism fallacy in the first place. At his press conference he introduced this idea out of the blue, astonishing his fellow doctors in the process, and once again produced no justification for it. Yet so many of you seem to accept it as some sort of mantra. Why?

It is not only pointless but dangerous (and does put children at risk, naomi).

His suggestion was that the six injections should be given at yearly intervals, which means that such a child would go all through nursery school and well into primary school either unprotected or only partially protected from one or more of those three diseases. Outbreaks would be inevitable.

To offer such an inadequate protection on the Health Service would be medically irresponsible when full protection is available with MMR. It is also more expensive (as The Sherman says), which would make it financially irresponsible as well.

Since that doctor (for now I won't dignify him with his name) produced no justification for his idea, and no-one has produced any reason why it makes any sense at all, why do so many of you accept it as some sort of 'alternative'?

Would you please explain.

[flip_flop]

The explanation for me, Chakka, is very very simple: peace of mind.

I fully accept what you are saying, and indeed agree with it. This quack has got an awful lot to answer for.

But, and this is an extremely important but, despite rationally knowing the link is not there, I am happy to hold my hands up and state I am an irrational parent, and for that very simple reason, I will be paying for the single jabs.

My right and my choice.

[Octavius]

Because people should have the right to choose what they believe is best for their child.


�It is possible that a child will become immune to all 3 diseases with the 3-in-1 injection but this includes the risk of overburdening his or her immune system, which could lead to serious side effects, including new food sensitivities and bowel disease. The measles vaccine is known to be an immunosuppressant and this means that, if given at the same time as other vaccines, it may reduce their effectiveness. Giving the vaccines separately can reduce the burden on the immune system and decrease the risk of complications.�

There are both sides to every argument, and this one comes down to personal choice, experience, preference, suspicion. Are you just trying to argue the toss under your 'logical/illogical' crusade?

[jno]

I expect Karen Matthews did what she believed was best for her child too. And Jehovah's Witnesses. Perhaps parents shouldn't always have the final say?

Interesting piece here on the way newspapers simply refuse to publish anything about MMR unless it's a shock horror story

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/d ec/06/bad-science-mmr-vaccine

[flip_flop]

That's a specious argument jno.

[Octavius]

So because of Sharon Matthews and a few JWs, all parents should be stripped of their individual right to choose what is best for their child?

Jeepers jno, you don�t arf come out with some.

[daffy654]

flip_flop * as a mother of a child who has Aspegers Syndrome I am very offended and quite upset by you saying the syndrome doesn't exist. Don't make comments on things you obviously know nothing about. I'm happy for you that your daughter doesn't have Aspergers but I can assure you it is very real. My son couldn't speak until he was 4 years old,I wouldn't call that an idiosyncracy.

[naomi24]

^^ here, here, Octavius.

Octavius and Flip Flop seem to have summed it up nicely. I don't believe I have anything to add.

[naomi24]

Oops, sorry Daffy. I didn't see you there when I pressed submit. I was referring to jno's post.

[naomi24]

If it's any consolation to you, Daffy, Einstein didn't speak until he was four - and he turned out to be a very special human being indeed.

[daffy654]

No problem Naomi :)
I just get vey annoyed when people say things like flip_flop did.lol
BTW....my son did have the triple vaccine,as did both of my daughters(both girls are fine) but I do not believe that his Aspergers Syndrome was caused by the vaccine. I do support the rights of parents to pay for the vaccine to be administered seperately if they so wish.

[jno]

well, you'll have to decide whether parents get the final say or not. Matthews was left free to bring up her child as she chose and look what happened. Jehovah's Witnesses may refuse treatment for a dying child. You may refuse an MMR jab for your child. Who gets overruled and who doesn't? You tell me.

[daffy654]

*very*
Naomi,my son is actually really bright but has serious social problems which means he has to be supervised the whole time he is awake.

[Octavius]

Daffy, I took that as flip flop saying they couldn�t accept that their daughter has aspergers and was generally cynical about it, not that the syndrome was an outright fallacy. Why so offended?

Jno, are you going to bring up Baby P next? I really don�t see how the choice between separate treatments of a 3-in-1 jab and 3 separate jabs can be comparable to the abhorrent actions of the few you mention.

[daffy654]

Octavius,there was no misunderstanding on my part,how can this be interpreted any other way?:

*Now, ignoring the fact that having done an awful lot of research on this 'syndrome', I'm pretty cynical about it existing at all (for Asperger's Syndrome, read 'foibles' or, if you like, idiosyncracies *

[naomi24]

I don't know much about it Daffy, but I do know that people with the syndrome have social problems of various kinds. I know a man who has always found it difficult to mix with others, and he has recently been told he may have Aspergers. He is very intelligent too, and a seriously great thinker. Perhaps there's something about it that we don't know.

jno, no one here who opposes MMR has suggested any child be left unprotected. Yes, some parents aren't the best, but I think you'd be moving down a very slippery slope if you removed all parental responsibility.

[flip_flop]

I am geuninely sorry to have offended you Daffy - when this was flagged up by the nursery I did an awful lot of research, I don't mean a quick look on the internet: I have a library, probably a dozen or so books on this one subject, and I couldn't understand why the nursery were saying my child was on the spectrum.

My one and only experience of Asperger's is with my child, so I can only speak from experience, and yes some of her foibles are on 'the list', but so are many of mine, so are many of her mother's, her friends, my friends - basically pretty much everybody has 'signs' of Asperger's and it really really pi55ed me off that the nursery were trying to 'label' a little girl who display a few idiosyncracies.

It is the labelling mentality I hate above all else.

A child displays certain foilbles - they've got Aspegers.
A child displays some behaviour issues - they've got ADHD.
A child struggles with words - they're dyslexic (sp?).

And because of this, because this bloody nursery raised this, I have turned into paranoid parent - and I bloody hate them for that.

[LoftyLottie]

jno, I must admit your remarks about Sharon Matthews surprised me. You can't honestly say that she thought she did the right thing for her child!!

[jno]

Octavius, I'm not comparing actions, abhorrent or otherwise. I'm asking whether the state has the right to prescribe them in advance. (The state can outlaw whatever it pleases, and no doubt Matthews will be punished for breaking the law; but I'm asking what preventative steps it should take in advance to stop things happening.)

You say it doesn't; you stand up for your right to decide for yourself how to bring up your children. But a JW would say exactly the same. So might a Muslim insist on his right to send his child to a school where anti-western beliefs are taught (Nothing illegal, just anti-western.) Can the state interfere or not? Or is the answer just 'I demand the right to bring up my own child but the state should monitor everyone else's'<i/>?

[Octavius]

Oh I see Daffy. Perhaps flip flop is incensed that they have been told their daughter appears to have aspergers, whereby they just see the symptoms of a normally functioning and developing child. I don�t know, really. Maybe you are right. I was equally perturbed when a teacher told me my niece might be dyslexic. I thought it was perfectly acceptable just to be not that good at spelling without being labelled. Incidentally she isn�t, she just has very bad English.