It Will Never Make It To Strictly
ChatterBank5 mins 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.
I will read, but I won't despair, Chakka. I've no doubt that there are many distraught parents who would not be responsible for their actions if the champions of MMR walked into their rooms.
Peter Hitchens writes today:
The Health Protection Agency has been trying to crank up a scare about measles for some time, in the hope of frightening doubters into letting their children have the MMR vaccine. We�re also now told that the vaccine is proven to be safe. Well, tell that to Heather Edwards, whose son Josh developed severe bowel problems and autism after his first MMR, and then suffered the same thing redoubled after the second jab. Coincidence? Twice? Maybe. We�ll never know. Poor Josh, though much-loved, is now in a terrible way, desperately thin and missing much of his insides. Are the authorities really so sure the MMR is completely safe? Well, listen to Vivienne Parry, a member of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, who candidly admitted back in 2007: �There�s a small risk with all vaccines.
'No one has ever said that any vaccine is completely without side effects. But we have to decide whether the benefits outweigh the risks.
'If we had measles, it would kill lots of children. If you have a vaccine, it will damage some children, but a very small number.�
Will measles kill lots of children? I doubt it.
In very rare cases, it can lead to fatal complications but in general it doesn�t.
It is precisely because the authorities insist on exaggerating the threat that I continue to mistrust them.
I'm with him.
Peter Hitchens writes today:
The Health Protection Agency has been trying to crank up a scare about measles for some time, in the hope of frightening doubters into letting their children have the MMR vaccine. We�re also now told that the vaccine is proven to be safe. Well, tell that to Heather Edwards, whose son Josh developed severe bowel problems and autism after his first MMR, and then suffered the same thing redoubled after the second jab. Coincidence? Twice? Maybe. We�ll never know. Poor Josh, though much-loved, is now in a terrible way, desperately thin and missing much of his insides. Are the authorities really so sure the MMR is completely safe? Well, listen to Vivienne Parry, a member of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, who candidly admitted back in 2007: �There�s a small risk with all vaccines.
'No one has ever said that any vaccine is completely without side effects. But we have to decide whether the benefits outweigh the risks.
'If we had measles, it would kill lots of children. If you have a vaccine, it will damage some children, but a very small number.�
Will measles kill lots of children? I doubt it.
In very rare cases, it can lead to fatal complications but in general it doesn�t.
It is precisely because the authorities insist on exaggerating the threat that I continue to mistrust them.
I'm with him.
Interesting, isn't it, that all I asked was whether people had read the latest information giving even more confirmation that Wakefields' work was valueless?
No, seems to be the answer.
As I have said many times before - and it should be screamingly obvious anyway - the onset of autism after MMR does not mean that it was caused by the MMR. Otherwise every illness a child experiences for the rest of its life can be laid at MMR's door. In any case, dozens of tests and trials have shown that there is no connection whatsoever.
Meanwhile the rest of the world gets on happily with giving hundreds of millions of MMR jabs with no adverse effects except the odd case of allergy - which can happen with any vaccination, medicine or food.
But I am not interested in doling out all that reason and logic again; some minds are obviously closed for ever on the subject.
I merely want to know whether people are keeping up-to-date on the facts about the flawed and phony work which started it all.
No, seems to be the answer.
As I have said many times before - and it should be screamingly obvious anyway - the onset of autism after MMR does not mean that it was caused by the MMR. Otherwise every illness a child experiences for the rest of its life can be laid at MMR's door. In any case, dozens of tests and trials have shown that there is no connection whatsoever.
Meanwhile the rest of the world gets on happily with giving hundreds of millions of MMR jabs with no adverse effects except the odd case of allergy - which can happen with any vaccination, medicine or food.
But I am not interested in doling out all that reason and logic again; some minds are obviously closed for ever on the subject.
I merely want to know whether people are keeping up-to-date on the facts about the flawed and phony work which started it all.
The whole MMR business is symptomatic of the fact that we can't trust a single word the government (and pretty much everyone in authority) tells us. That's every government by the way not just this current one.
Years of being lied to or having different versions of the truth spun at us from every angle have left the public so jaded and cynical that every official pronouncement is pretty much treated as a lie from the outset.
The government says MMR is safe? - oh ok, that means it probably isn't then. There's no BSE in Beef? - yeah right, there obviously is then. Weapons of Mass destruction? - I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out there aren't any.
Global warming? - pull the other one.
It's the same reason there's a conspiracy theory about absolutely everything these days. It's a really sad state of affairs but that's the way it is.
Years of being lied to or having different versions of the truth spun at us from every angle have left the public so jaded and cynical that every official pronouncement is pretty much treated as a lie from the outset.
The government says MMR is safe? - oh ok, that means it probably isn't then. There's no BSE in Beef? - yeah right, there obviously is then. Weapons of Mass destruction? - I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out there aren't any.
Global warming? - pull the other one.
It's the same reason there's a conspiracy theory about absolutely everything these days. It's a really sad state of affairs but that's the way it is.
Chakka, the latest information simply endorses what's gone before. Ludwig's right. The simple answer is if you trust this government to tell you the truth, then take its advice. Personally I wouldn't trust it an inch, and from its track record, I can't imagine how, logically, anyone could.
How do you know that children in the rest of the world aren't suffering adverse effects? You don't. If other governments are as deceitful as ours, they're hardly likely to advertise the number of adverse reactions to MMR are they? As for 'every illness a child experiences for the rest of its life can be laid at MMR's door', every illness is not autism. We are not talking about allergies or colds - we're talking about serious conditions that totally devastate lives - and if the risk is only one in ten thousand, then it's one too many.
The only reason that these three vaccinations are given together is to save money - if it wasn't then MMR wouldn't be an issue. I think the last time we discussed this, someone said that the three vaccinations given separately cost about �70 - and in my opinion, rather than risk the well-being of any child, that's cheap at the price. If it means paying privately for peace of mind, then so be it.
Just a final thought. Why would Andrew Wakefield, a respected doctor, lecturer and researcher, ruin his career for no apparent reason?
How do you know that children in the rest of the world aren't suffering adverse effects? You don't. If other governments are as deceitful as ours, they're hardly likely to advertise the number of adverse reactions to MMR are they? As for 'every illness a child experiences for the rest of its life can be laid at MMR's door', every illness is not autism. We are not talking about allergies or colds - we're talking about serious conditions that totally devastate lives - and if the risk is only one in ten thousand, then it's one too many.
The only reason that these three vaccinations are given together is to save money - if it wasn't then MMR wouldn't be an issue. I think the last time we discussed this, someone said that the three vaccinations given separately cost about �70 - and in my opinion, rather than risk the well-being of any child, that's cheap at the price. If it means paying privately for peace of mind, then so be it.
Just a final thought. Why would Andrew Wakefield, a respected doctor, lecturer and researcher, ruin his career for no apparent reason?
We were told that autism can't be diagnosed properly in a very young child. Our baby seemed fine. Then he had the MMR jab, and shortly afterwards, we noticed that he wasn't responding to sudden noises behind or next to him. We took him for hearing tests, but there was nothing wrong. He has autism. He's not had any other jabs, because of the lurking feeling that the other one might've done something to him. Nobody knows, but even if they did, I think the goverments'd gloss over their findings. The level of compensation'd be astronomical.
I ask you see because if for example someone published a supposed link between say cot death and forceps delivery anyone who had a child that died suddenly and had a forceps delivery would not need much convincing that that was the reason.
It's only when you apply serious statistics to a really large set of examples that you can start to see whether or not there's a real causal link.
It's only when you apply serious statistics to a really large set of examples that you can start to see whether or not there's a real causal link.
No that's not true Naomi statistics are an incredibly reliable way of interpreting data - in fact the only way.
But politicians are real devils for twisting statistics and manipulating them for their ends.
The sort of statistics you read in newspapers aren't normally worth a fig - the ones that come out of reputable scientific journals are a whole different thing.
But my point remains you cannot prove a cause and effect on something like this from personal experience.
There are people out there with autistic children who did not have the MMR jab - what do you think their opinion would be if they had given their children the MMR jab?
I'll bet you they'd be convinced it caused it - any odds?
But politicians are real devils for twisting statistics and manipulating them for their ends.
The sort of statistics you read in newspapers aren't normally worth a fig - the ones that come out of reputable scientific journals are a whole different thing.
But my point remains you cannot prove a cause and effect on something like this from personal experience.
There are people out there with autistic children who did not have the MMR jab - what do you think their opinion would be if they had given their children the MMR jab?
I'll bet you they'd be convinced it caused it - any odds?
jake, yes, my daughter did have the Polio jab, and as I said before, I haven't blamed the MMR, I believe there's a very strong possibility that it is to blame, but its impossible to prove, and after twenty four years, i'm not interested in persuing it.
I've said before, to cover ancient ground, my daughter appeared normal, until after the MMR, here's something I haven't said before, as a baby (new born and after), she cried tears, after the MMR to now, she has never cried tears.
Coincidence or blame, i'm not really interested now, just saying what happened, and when.
I've said before, to cover ancient ground, my daughter appeared normal, until after the MMR, here's something I haven't said before, as a baby (new born and after), she cried tears, after the MMR to now, she has never cried tears.
Coincidence or blame, i'm not really interested now, just saying what happened, and when.
Jake, I am aware of the value of statistics if they're constructed honestly - but I doubt government figures on any subject are constructed honestly. There's always an agenda.
There are parents of autistic children who, for some strange reason, do believe government statistics, and don't blame MMR, so no, no odds. However, since no one can guarantee that the triple vaccine is completely safe, those who do have concerns must be given the opportunity to do what they feel is right for their children without being demonised. For the sake of a principle, and for the sake of a little expenditure, and for the government to save face, I wouldn't want to see any child ending up as a statistic on the wrong side of a graph. It's far wiser to err on the side of caution - and there's no valid reason why we shouldn't.
There are parents of autistic children who, for some strange reason, do believe government statistics, and don't blame MMR, so no, no odds. However, since no one can guarantee that the triple vaccine is completely safe, those who do have concerns must be given the opportunity to do what they feel is right for their children without being demonised. For the sake of a principle, and for the sake of a little expenditure, and for the government to save face, I wouldn't want to see any child ending up as a statistic on the wrong side of a graph. It's far wiser to err on the side of caution - and there's no valid reason why we shouldn't.
it looks as if this was some sort of con job. The really troubling thing was that the Lancet got involved. As jake says, statistics are the only way of measuring things, but they have to be accumulated and assessed properly and offering them to peer-review journals like the Lancet is one way of ensuring this is done. Only in this case the article was wrong. It didn't actually say a link was proved but Wakefield claimed at the same time that there was enough evidence to justify giving separate injections. I have no idea if the jab is connected to autism; but there is no proper evidence of it evidence of it and quite a lot against it.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4743-con troversial-mmr-and-autism-study-retracted.html
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4743-con troversial-mmr-and-autism-study-retracted.html
Opinions on this or any other subject or event are based entirely one one's own prejudice.
If you don't trust the vaccine then that's fine by me, just don't pretend that you're logical or preach about the value the value of scientific proof when you diregard it because it does'nt agree with your own ideas is nothing more than "cherry picking".
My personal opinion on the subject is based on my experiences with people, many find it hard to accept their child had this and seek to attach it to something added to that the diagnosis for autism has changed as the word "spectrum" evinces. Similarly that autism begins to show at around the same time as the vaccination offers a greater chance of coincidence.
I also dislike statistics and I view with contempt people who produce statistics adhoc to try and prove a tenuous point politically, but science is different. Scientists talk principally to themselves (we just eavesdrop) so their stats are a bit harder to fabricate, of course I wonder how many children have had the sparate vaccinations and have gone on to develop autism? Or one's who are unvaccinated and developed autism?
If someone produces that information we may finally produce more light than heat.
I know someone whose daughter is now crippled after having the HVA vaccine, should we suspend that now?
If you don't trust the vaccine then that's fine by me, just don't pretend that you're logical or preach about the value the value of scientific proof when you diregard it because it does'nt agree with your own ideas is nothing more than "cherry picking".
My personal opinion on the subject is based on my experiences with people, many find it hard to accept their child had this and seek to attach it to something added to that the diagnosis for autism has changed as the word "spectrum" evinces. Similarly that autism begins to show at around the same time as the vaccination offers a greater chance of coincidence.
I also dislike statistics and I view with contempt people who produce statistics adhoc to try and prove a tenuous point politically, but science is different. Scientists talk principally to themselves (we just eavesdrop) so their stats are a bit harder to fabricate, of course I wonder how many children have had the sparate vaccinations and have gone on to develop autism? Or one's who are unvaccinated and developed autism?
If someone produces that information we may finally produce more light than heat.
I know someone whose daughter is now crippled after having the HVA vaccine, should we suspend that now?
Latest Posts
News5 mins ago
ChatterBank6 mins ago
ChatterBank7 mins ago
So Lets Shaft Our Farmers.....
News7 mins ago
News15 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.