Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
Why does naomi not trust MMR?
121 Answers
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�
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�
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.
�cont�d
You say that �rather than gamble with a child�s life, however small the risk may be, I�d rather err on the side of caution.� But how does leaving a child unprotected from M, M,and R do that? You leave a child open to the very real risks of diseases that can be serious (measles alone can cause deafness, blindness, brain damage and even death) to avoid the purely imaginary risks of MMR. The risk of MMR is not �however small�; it is zero as far as human testing can determine.
Now here is my very very important point � the main reason I am saying all this:
The burden carried by the parents of an autistic child is obviously very great. It therefore behoves everyone else to ensure that that burden is not made unnecessarily greater by allowing them to think that they might have been at fault for agreeing to the MMR vaccination.
They were not. MMR did not cause the autism. This should be repeated to them as often as possible by doctors, social workers, relatives and friends.
You cannot ease their main burden very much. But you can prevent its being augmented by an entirely misplaced feeling of guilt.
That�s what their friends and sympathisers should do.
You say that �rather than gamble with a child�s life, however small the risk may be, I�d rather err on the side of caution.� But how does leaving a child unprotected from M, M,and R do that? You leave a child open to the very real risks of diseases that can be serious (measles alone can cause deafness, blindness, brain damage and even death) to avoid the purely imaginary risks of MMR. The risk of MMR is not �however small�; it is zero as far as human testing can determine.
Now here is my very very important point � the main reason I am saying all this:
The burden carried by the parents of an autistic child is obviously very great. It therefore behoves everyone else to ensure that that burden is not made unnecessarily greater by allowing them to think that they might have been at fault for agreeing to the MMR vaccination.
They were not. MMR did not cause the autism. This should be repeated to them as often as possible by doctors, social workers, relatives and friends.
You cannot ease their main burden very much. But you can prevent its being augmented by an entirely misplaced feeling of guilt.
That�s what their friends and sympathisers should do.
I'd like to put in my two pennyworth if I may, I haven't read what naomi has said, but thee's no actual proof one way or t'other, My personal opinion, for what its worth, is that the MMR does cause Autism in children, but only a small percentage, me being a parent whose child was progressing normally until after the injection.
Almost as soon as it had been administered, my daughter stopped feeding, after developing normally, she regressed, and to this day, twentyfour years later, she has neither spoken, (she has a full range of vocal chords), or wept tears.
There is a lot more, but I won't bore you with the details.
All this, straight after the MMR, so even though we (her parents) can't prove it, we believe it was as a result of the injection.
Almost as soon as it had been administered, my daughter stopped feeding, after developing normally, she regressed, and to this day, twentyfour years later, she has neither spoken, (she has a full range of vocal chords), or wept tears.
There is a lot more, but I won't bore you with the details.
All this, straight after the MMR, so even though we (her parents) can't prove it, we believe it was as a result of the injection.
Chakka, You've given the impression that I would leave a child unprotected, and that simply isn't true. I never for one moment suggested that any child should be left unprotected. The quote you've given is accurate, but you've failed to highlight what I also said, and for your information, here it is.
It is, of course, very important that children are vaccinated, but it isn't essential that these three are given in one hit, and since I can see no reason to take unnecessary risks with any child's well-being, or future, I would plump for separate vaccinations.
You say The risk of MMR is not �however small�; it is zero as far as human testing can determine. The operative words there are 'as far as human testing can determine. The same was no doubt said of Thalidomide, or if you want a more recent example, I would offer the case of Tamoxifen, which has been used for many years to fight breast cancer, but has now been found to cause tumours to spread in a small number of women.
continued
It is, of course, very important that children are vaccinated, but it isn't essential that these three are given in one hit, and since I can see no reason to take unnecessary risks with any child's well-being, or future, I would plump for separate vaccinations.
You say The risk of MMR is not �however small�; it is zero as far as human testing can determine. The operative words there are 'as far as human testing can determine. The same was no doubt said of Thalidomide, or if you want a more recent example, I would offer the case of Tamoxifen, which has been used for many years to fight breast cancer, but has now been found to cause tumours to spread in a small number of women.
continued
continued
Lonnie has outlined his experience, and that is precisely the experience of people I know. Therefore, since there is no valid reason that these vaccines cannot be administered separately, if there is the slightest shadow of a doubt that given together they may carry risks, even to only a few children, then that option should be avoided at all costs.
The choice of whether or not to allow the triple vaccine to be given must be the parents' alone, and I would not discourage anyone - and since all good parents do what they think is best for their child, neither would I blame anyone if that choice resulted in adverse consequences. However, if I were making the decision on behalf of my own child, since incontrovertible proof that MMR is safe is not available, then I would choose to have the vaccines administered in three separate doses, and therefore my opinion remains unchanged. As much as I admire science, it is not my religion, and I am not so blind, or so stupid, that I will back it regardless of the consequences. It does make mistakes - and quite clearly, it has made mistakes.
Incidentally, Chakka, you really don't need to tell me what friends and sympathisers should do. I'm a pretty good friend to have - even if I do say so myself.
Lonnie has outlined his experience, and that is precisely the experience of people I know. Therefore, since there is no valid reason that these vaccines cannot be administered separately, if there is the slightest shadow of a doubt that given together they may carry risks, even to only a few children, then that option should be avoided at all costs.
The choice of whether or not to allow the triple vaccine to be given must be the parents' alone, and I would not discourage anyone - and since all good parents do what they think is best for their child, neither would I blame anyone if that choice resulted in adverse consequences. However, if I were making the decision on behalf of my own child, since incontrovertible proof that MMR is safe is not available, then I would choose to have the vaccines administered in three separate doses, and therefore my opinion remains unchanged. As much as I admire science, it is not my religion, and I am not so blind, or so stupid, that I will back it regardless of the consequences. It does make mistakes - and quite clearly, it has made mistakes.
Incidentally, Chakka, you really don't need to tell me what friends and sympathisers should do. I'm a pretty good friend to have - even if I do say so myself.
I'm with you chakka35, and did you know that parameters for autism have been widened since the MMR vaccine came out, it just means that more children are now being diagnosed as being in the autism spectrum than before, because of better knowledge of autism, not because the MMR vaccine gives children autism.
My head tells me there is no risk, but when my seven week old son is due for his MMR he will be having separate jabs.
My five year old daughter had the MMR, and although she is a happy, emotionally secure, bright, normal five year old, when she was at nursery it was flagged up she might have Asperger's.
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 - my daughter's signs of Asperger's are that she's pretty shy (so was I at her age), it takes a long time for her to feel comfortable around her peers (same as me to this day), she enjoys imaginitive play on her own (so effing what), she is very bright (well good, I wouldn't want he being an idiot) plus a few other things too things too trifling to even bother mentioning). I should mention she is very popular with her peers and has lots of friends, so is not a loner, which is, apparently, another 'sign'.
Her nursery (WTF business is it of a load of glorified babysitters to 'diagnose' such things) have completely spoiled some aspects of my daughter's growing up for me. She enjoys jigsaw puzzles, and is extremely good at them, managing to complete jigsaws aimed at children much older than her, but as opposed to being proud of this, I automatically think (and I know it is wrong, but I simply can't help it) that is this ability because of 'Asperger's'.
Sorry, I've digressed - as autism is more prevelant in boys, I will not be taking any chances and he will be having the single jabs.
This is nobody's business other than ours - he will be jabbed, just not with the triple vaccine.
My five year old daughter had the MMR, and although she is a happy, emotionally secure, bright, normal five year old, when she was at nursery it was flagged up she might have Asperger's.
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 - my daughter's signs of Asperger's are that she's pretty shy (so was I at her age), it takes a long time for her to feel comfortable around her peers (same as me to this day), she enjoys imaginitive play on her own (so effing what), she is very bright (well good, I wouldn't want he being an idiot) plus a few other things too things too trifling to even bother mentioning). I should mention she is very popular with her peers and has lots of friends, so is not a loner, which is, apparently, another 'sign'.
Her nursery (WTF business is it of a load of glorified babysitters to 'diagnose' such things) have completely spoiled some aspects of my daughter's growing up for me. She enjoys jigsaw puzzles, and is extremely good at them, managing to complete jigsaws aimed at children much older than her, but as opposed to being proud of this, I automatically think (and I know it is wrong, but I simply can't help it) that is this ability because of 'Asperger's'.
Sorry, I've digressed - as autism is more prevelant in boys, I will not be taking any chances and he will be having the single jabs.
This is nobody's business other than ours - he will be jabbed, just not with the triple vaccine.
Can someone post a link please to the original thread.
MMR was not available when my children were young. Knowing what I know know and taking account of all available information, I would definitely opt for separate vaccinations and avoid the three in one jab for developing children.
However, my son had the MMR job at 14 when his measles vaccine had to be done again.
MMR was not available when my children were young. Knowing what I know know and taking account of all available information, I would definitely opt for separate vaccinations and avoid the three in one jab for developing children.
However, my son had the MMR job at 14 when his measles vaccine had to be done again.
My understanding from that thread was that the reluctance in the use of the 3-in-1 jab was from naomi�s personal experience and suspicions. Where the outcome of a particular treatment coincides with any chance of such a side effect - as described by Lonnie � then it would make sense to go with the alternative when one is available. This is sadly not an option in hindsight.
Thanks naomi.
I took a calculated risk when my children were small and took the option of not including Whooping Cough element in their vaccinations, as we had epilepsy in the family.
I personally believe that children have been affected by the MMR jab, and that the risks are not purely immaginary. As you say it has not been proved beyond doubt that the jab is safe.
It is being a responsible parent to opt for three jabs instead of one in my opinion.
I took a calculated risk when my children were small and took the option of not including Whooping Cough element in their vaccinations, as we had epilepsy in the family.
I personally believe that children have been affected by the MMR jab, and that the risks are not purely immaginary. As you say it has not been proved beyond doubt that the jab is safe.
It is being a responsible parent to opt for three jabs instead of one in my opinion.
Latest Posts
Crosswords6 mins ago
Other Sports7 mins ago
As The World Snooker Championship Is In...
Music20 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.