Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
Have you read the latest on Wakefield?
68 Answers
Those of you who still think, against all the evidence, that there is a link between the MMR jab and autism should read the double-page spread in the Sunday Times today about that doctor's devious methods.
Among many other things, we learn that the 'facts' he published in his Lancet article (which the editor has disowned and apologised for) were not the real facts which came out of his research. Most damning is this:
Wakefield never claimed to have produced evidence of a MMR/autism link, merely the convictions of the parents of 12 (carefully selected) children he investigated. That conviction was based on an alleged very short time between the jab and the onset of the autism (not that that proves anything anyway, as I have explained before).
Now it turns out that many of those 12 had been displaying symptoms of autism and other mental problems, and were being treated by their own doctors for them, even before they had even received the MMR jab!
Read it and despair. I have tears in my eyes when I think of all those parents (some of whom are quoted) who still blame themselves for their child's condition when it had nothing to do with the MMR jab at all.
I am far from being a violent man but I'm not sure that I'd be responsible for my actions if Wakefied walked into this room.
Among many other things, we learn that the 'facts' he published in his Lancet article (which the editor has disowned and apologised for) were not the real facts which came out of his research. Most damning is this:
Wakefield never claimed to have produced evidence of a MMR/autism link, merely the convictions of the parents of 12 (carefully selected) children he investigated. That conviction was based on an alleged very short time between the jab and the onset of the autism (not that that proves anything anyway, as I have explained before).
Now it turns out that many of those 12 had been displaying symptoms of autism and other mental problems, and were being treated by their own doctors for them, even before they had even received the MMR jab!
Read it and despair. I have tears in my eyes when I think of all those parents (some of whom are quoted) who still blame themselves for their child's condition when it had nothing to do with the MMR jab at all.
I am far from being a violent man but I'm not sure that I'd be responsible for my actions if Wakefied walked into this room.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by chakka35. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Ludwig does make a good point.
There's not a lot of difference between faith in God and faith in science (or scientists) in my book.
Fred we're all entitled to disagree or opine about something. If you follow that logic through then there should be a means test on voting as some people might'nt be deemed clever enough to understand the issues.
There are people who quite earnestly believe there's a correlation between the 2, and like Octavius said what if there is no autism in the non-vaccinated children ?
What would that signify?
If you're going to be injected with this, if you're going to inject someone with this then you should be allowed to say how you feel about it.
I believe it's safe (along with many others), Naomi believes it might'nt be (along with some) others believe it is'nt (along with many others) are any of us Peter Hitchens included truly qualified to make a judgement?
Scientifically probably not, but morally yes, because it affects us all.
There's not a lot of difference between faith in God and faith in science (or scientists) in my book.
Fred we're all entitled to disagree or opine about something. If you follow that logic through then there should be a means test on voting as some people might'nt be deemed clever enough to understand the issues.
There are people who quite earnestly believe there's a correlation between the 2, and like Octavius said what if there is no autism in the non-vaccinated children ?
What would that signify?
If you're going to be injected with this, if you're going to inject someone with this then you should be allowed to say how you feel about it.
I believe it's safe (along with many others), Naomi believes it might'nt be (along with some) others believe it is'nt (along with many others) are any of us Peter Hitchens included truly qualified to make a judgement?
Scientifically probably not, but morally yes, because it affects us all.
Sorry chakka35 for hijacking your thread. I was just googling and came about this discussion about MMR and autism and found a lot of people giving their opinions. Personally as a mum of an autistic child I implore all of you to please fill up the following link which if successful will make our lives in the future a lot more better. Thank you very much indeed. And once again apologies to chakka35 for putting it on your post.
http://www.campaigns.autism.org.uk/ea-campaign /clientcampaign.do?ea.client.id=10&ea.campaign .id=2285
http://www.campaigns.autism.org.uk/ea-campaign /clientcampaign.do?ea.client.id=10&ea.campaign .id=2285
No apology necessary, gromitdoo. I�ll certainly study that NAS site.
Newcomers to this subject on AB should know that it was thoroughly discussed here some months ago, during which discussion I explained in great detail how and why we know that MMR does not cause autism. I don�t intend to go over all that again. The facts are out there for you all to see.
This thread was merely to alert the anti-MRR lobby to the latest scandalous revelations about Wakefield.
ludwig and 123everton, the answer you want is arrived at by simple logic, thus:
MMR does not cause autism. The jabs are irrelevant to autism.
Therefore the autism figures are not altered by whether children have no jab, full jabs or partial jabs.
I�d have thought you could have worked that out for yourselves.
That is positively my last word on the subject until there is some new development.
Newcomers to this subject on AB should know that it was thoroughly discussed here some months ago, during which discussion I explained in great detail how and why we know that MMR does not cause autism. I don�t intend to go over all that again. The facts are out there for you all to see.
This thread was merely to alert the anti-MRR lobby to the latest scandalous revelations about Wakefield.
ludwig and 123everton, the answer you want is arrived at by simple logic, thus:
MMR does not cause autism. The jabs are irrelevant to autism.
Therefore the autism figures are not altered by whether children have no jab, full jabs or partial jabs.
I�d have thought you could have worked that out for yourselves.
That is positively my last word on the subject until there is some new development.
I'm sorry chakka, but simply repeating the statement you made doesn't count as corroboration.
I'm looking for some kind of independent supporting evidence - a link to something, a quote from somebody, the name of a study, anything at all.
As you've said your last word though I'm assuming there's nothing more forthcoming and you were simply confusing your own opinion with fact (a bit like that Wakefield bloke perhaps). That's a shame because as I said we probably could have settled the whole question once and for all.
As long as there's some degree of doubt I thinks it's perfectly reasonable for people to err on the side of caution and opt for separate jabs if they want. What would be bad is if people are put off from taking any of them by what later turns out to be dodgy evidence and a child suffers or dies as a result.
I'm looking for some kind of independent supporting evidence - a link to something, a quote from somebody, the name of a study, anything at all.
As you've said your last word though I'm assuming there's nothing more forthcoming and you were simply confusing your own opinion with fact (a bit like that Wakefield bloke perhaps). That's a shame because as I said we probably could have settled the whole question once and for all.
As long as there's some degree of doubt I thinks it's perfectly reasonable for people to err on the side of caution and opt for separate jabs if they want. What would be bad is if people are put off from taking any of them by what later turns out to be dodgy evidence and a child suffers or dies as a result.
Chakka, old boy. In your post to me you said �Giving no protection, or partial protection through single jabs, is not an informed choice: it is an uninformed choice because it goes against the information available�
So does the whole issue and purpose of this thread, conclude with your point that single jabs are ok and MMR is too, but that people who opt for single jabs are just plain silly - rather than irresponsible (as you inferred previously)?
So does the whole issue and purpose of this thread, conclude with your point that single jabs are ok and MMR is too, but that people who opt for single jabs are just plain silly - rather than irresponsible (as you inferred previously)?
Chakka, just as the onus of providing proof that God exists is on those who claim it, the onus of providing proof that MMR is safe is, on this occasion, on you. Where is this proof that you say exists?
I have tried to find reports of independent studies, with little success, but I'll repeat what I said the last time we discussed this, which I believe was late last year.
The latest study I can find is from a team led by London's Guy's and St Thomas's Hospital which looked at any differences in the immune response from the MMR jab to see if it could have triggered autism. Researchers looked at 240 children aged 10 to 12. They found no difference between children with autism and those without, and concluded the study showed there was no link. However, if, for example, MMR may affect, say one in one thousand (and that is only a figure I've grasped out of the air), in my opinion 240 is not a large enough number to conduct a study of this nature.
I don't believe any serious researcher would consider a study conducted with such a small number of children to be either comprehensive, or conclusive, but if you have details of more in-depth independent reports, I would be interested in reading them.
I have tried to find reports of independent studies, with little success, but I'll repeat what I said the last time we discussed this, which I believe was late last year.
The latest study I can find is from a team led by London's Guy's and St Thomas's Hospital which looked at any differences in the immune response from the MMR jab to see if it could have triggered autism. Researchers looked at 240 children aged 10 to 12. They found no difference between children with autism and those without, and concluded the study showed there was no link. However, if, for example, MMR may affect, say one in one thousand (and that is only a figure I've grasped out of the air), in my opinion 240 is not a large enough number to conduct a study of this nature.
I don't believe any serious researcher would consider a study conducted with such a small number of children to be either comprehensive, or conclusive, but if you have details of more in-depth independent reports, I would be interested in reading them.
naomi, you have that completely the wrong way round. The onus is on the other foot, so to speak.
If I were to announce to the world tomorrow that eating cabbage causes asthma, it would not be up to others to run around disproving it; it would be for me to produce evidence of it. And if I couldn't ,that would be the end of it.
The last time I checked, world-wide take-up of MMR amounted to 500,000,000 jabs (it will be more by now) with no increase in the incidence of autism. That is considerably more than 240. But we have been through this before.
I have already made clear that I am not prepared to repeat all that information and argument I gave last year. So let us put things on a proper footing:
If anyone out there thinks that MMR causes autism then please produce the evidence. And I mean evidence, not suspicion, belief, hunches or rumour. No-one has so far, so you could be the first.
I will get on with other things while you do that, and then comment when you've all finished. Not before then. That's the way round it should be. 'Bye for now.
If I were to announce to the world tomorrow that eating cabbage causes asthma, it would not be up to others to run around disproving it; it would be for me to produce evidence of it. And if I couldn't ,that would be the end of it.
The last time I checked, world-wide take-up of MMR amounted to 500,000,000 jabs (it will be more by now) with no increase in the incidence of autism. That is considerably more than 240. But we have been through this before.
I have already made clear that I am not prepared to repeat all that information and argument I gave last year. So let us put things on a proper footing:
If anyone out there thinks that MMR causes autism then please produce the evidence. And I mean evidence, not suspicion, belief, hunches or rumour. No-one has so far, so you could be the first.
I will get on with other things while you do that, and then comment when you've all finished. Not before then. That's the way round it should be. 'Bye for now.
No, Chakka, you have it the wrong way around. You're the believer - we're the doubters.
If I were to announce to the world tomorrow that eating cabbage causes asthma, it would not be up to others to run around disproving it; it would be for me to produce evidence of it. And if I couldn't ,that would be the end of it.
That's precisely what you're doing here. Since you're declaring that MMR is entirely safe, the onus is on you to provide your proof, but despite being asked several times, it hasn't materialised. As Ludwig says, simply repeating statements doesn't amount to corroboration.
If I were to announce to the world tomorrow that eating cabbage causes asthma, it would not be up to others to run around disproving it; it would be for me to produce evidence of it. And if I couldn't ,that would be the end of it.
That's precisely what you're doing here. Since you're declaring that MMR is entirely safe, the onus is on you to provide your proof, but despite being asked several times, it hasn't materialised. As Ludwig says, simply repeating statements doesn't amount to corroboration.
Just a thought.
We are all aware of these points aren't we
1/ Wakefields co-authors retracted the part of the report of that suggested the link
http://www.kids-care.com/Vaccines/mmr-autism%2 0retraction.htm
2/ Some of the parents of the 12 children were recruited by a US attourney preparing a lawsuit against the producers of the MMR jab, and that Wakefield had been paid �400,000 which he had not disclosed.
3/ due to the above Wakefield was charged with serioous professional misconduct
4/ As Chakka says he's now accused of fixing the data
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_styl e/health/article5683671.ece
5/ Finally guess what? before the study Wakefield appears to have filed a patent for a single vaccine
http://briandeer.com/wakefield/vaccine-patent. htm
Now I loathe to rush to judgment before a man's had a chance to defend himself but he has a heck of a lot of explaining to do
We are all aware of these points aren't we
1/ Wakefields co-authors retracted the part of the report of that suggested the link
http://www.kids-care.com/Vaccines/mmr-autism%2 0retraction.htm
2/ Some of the parents of the 12 children were recruited by a US attourney preparing a lawsuit against the producers of the MMR jab, and that Wakefield had been paid �400,000 which he had not disclosed.
3/ due to the above Wakefield was charged with serioous professional misconduct
4/ As Chakka says he's now accused of fixing the data
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_styl e/health/article5683671.ece
5/ Finally guess what? before the study Wakefield appears to have filed a patent for a single vaccine
http://briandeer.com/wakefield/vaccine-patent. htm
Now I loathe to rush to judgment before a man's had a chance to defend himself but he has a heck of a lot of explaining to do
I can�t speak for anyone else here, but I�m certainly aware of these points, Jake, and they can all be answered satisfactorily.
1. Not true. Once the furore started, most (probably fearful of being demonised as Dr Wakefield has been) did retract the part of the statement that referred to the link, but two did not.
2. The purpose of the contract was to conduct a scientific study to look for measles virus proteins in the bowel of children, and the payment he received was the reason the Lancet initially withdrew the report. They saw it as a conflict of interest. Additionally, Dr Wakefield says �Any payment that I received over the course of working for more than 7 years as a expert to the UK courts in the MMR litigation � substantially less than the sum Deer claims � was donated to an initiative to build a new centre for the investigation and care of patients with inflammatory bowel disease at the Royal Free.
3. Brian Deer is conducting a Witch Hunt and has been doing do so since 2004. The Times report continually refers to �many�. Many is not all, but strangely enough, Brian Deer offers no explanation for the rest.
Continued
1. Not true. Once the furore started, most (probably fearful of being demonised as Dr Wakefield has been) did retract the part of the statement that referred to the link, but two did not.
2. The purpose of the contract was to conduct a scientific study to look for measles virus proteins in the bowel of children, and the payment he received was the reason the Lancet initially withdrew the report. They saw it as a conflict of interest. Additionally, Dr Wakefield says �Any payment that I received over the course of working for more than 7 years as a expert to the UK courts in the MMR litigation � substantially less than the sum Deer claims � was donated to an initiative to build a new centre for the investigation and care of patients with inflammatory bowel disease at the Royal Free.
3. Brian Deer is conducting a Witch Hunt and has been doing do so since 2004. The Times report continually refers to �many�. Many is not all, but strangely enough, Brian Deer offers no explanation for the rest.
Continued
Continued
4. It appears the patent applied for relates to an improved measles vaccine to be used as part of the triple vaccine. Since the patent was applied for before the results of Wakefield�s studies into MMR were completed, I fail to see your point in highlighting this. It seems to me that at that time he was unaware of the potential connection between MMR and autism, and intended simply to eliminate the negative side effects of the measles vaccine.
I do believe Dr Wakefield has been treated most shamefully by the establishment, and if he hasn�t, then my question still remains unanswered. Why would a respected doctor, lecturer and researcher risk his reputation and his whole career for something he knows to be untrue? You say rather sarcastically that you�re loathe to rush judgement, and that the man has a lot of explaining to do. Well, I would say there�s no reason to rush judgement because he�s explained himself many, many times, but it seems his opponents just aren�t listening. Here you are. Between Dr Wakefield and Brian Deer, I know whose word I�d rather trust.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/334 6281/the-witchhunt-against-andrew-wakefield.th tml
Incidentally, you�re quick enough to jump on the witch hunt bandwagon, but we still don�t have this much heralded proof of safety that MMR�s supporters say is available.
4. It appears the patent applied for relates to an improved measles vaccine to be used as part of the triple vaccine. Since the patent was applied for before the results of Wakefield�s studies into MMR were completed, I fail to see your point in highlighting this. It seems to me that at that time he was unaware of the potential connection between MMR and autism, and intended simply to eliminate the negative side effects of the measles vaccine.
I do believe Dr Wakefield has been treated most shamefully by the establishment, and if he hasn�t, then my question still remains unanswered. Why would a respected doctor, lecturer and researcher risk his reputation and his whole career for something he knows to be untrue? You say rather sarcastically that you�re loathe to rush judgement, and that the man has a lot of explaining to do. Well, I would say there�s no reason to rush judgement because he�s explained himself many, many times, but it seems his opponents just aren�t listening. Here you are. Between Dr Wakefield and Brian Deer, I know whose word I�d rather trust.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/334 6281/the-witchhunt-against-andrew-wakefield.th tml
Incidentally, you�re quick enough to jump on the witch hunt bandwagon, but we still don�t have this much heralded proof of safety that MMR�s supporters say is available.
I shan't answer these latest posts until those who think they have evidence that MMR causes autism have had a chance to produce it.
I just popped in to point out that The Times this morning (Saturday) has a double-page spread on the Wakefield/MMR/autism affair for those who want an excellent summary of it all.
It's available on the paper's website. Don't forget to explore the links. David Aaronovitch' Comment is particularly astringent.
I just popped in to point out that The Times this morning (Saturday) has a double-page spread on the Wakefield/MMR/autism affair for those who want an excellent summary of it all.
It's available on the paper's website. Don't forget to explore the links. David Aaronovitch' Comment is particularly astringent.
Latest Posts
Developing Fast': Britain Facing...
News4 mins ago
Jobs & Education5 mins ago
Animals & Nature12 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.