News1 min 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.
Chakka,
I think your reply to me is actually extremely rude. I don't like being talked down to!! I will not comment on your replies to others.
I am not obviously prejudiced and the example I gave of my mother was to illustrate why I think as I do. The flu jab can have no effect whatsoever on millions, but it may well, in fact has, had effect on a small minority. I witnessed what happened and I do believe it was the flu jab. I did not base my belief on the 'gossip' of one nurse. The doctor had denied that my mothers condition was the result of the jab (for obvious reasons): the nurse merely let her know that she had witnessed it in others. (By the way, this happened in the early days of flu jabs being offered). I know the flu jab has nothing to do with MMR! I repeat it was merely an illustration of a similar situation.
I agree your response here is well thought out and I take note of what you say, but there is no need to be disdainful and disrespectful to others and their views.
You obviously think you are 100% correct - I don't think you are and you haven't altered my opinions by your long screeds (which I have read and absorbed carefully!).
I think your reply to me is actually extremely rude. I don't like being talked down to!! I will not comment on your replies to others.
I am not obviously prejudiced and the example I gave of my mother was to illustrate why I think as I do. The flu jab can have no effect whatsoever on millions, but it may well, in fact has, had effect on a small minority. I witnessed what happened and I do believe it was the flu jab. I did not base my belief on the 'gossip' of one nurse. The doctor had denied that my mothers condition was the result of the jab (for obvious reasons): the nurse merely let her know that she had witnessed it in others. (By the way, this happened in the early days of flu jabs being offered). I know the flu jab has nothing to do with MMR! I repeat it was merely an illustration of a similar situation.
I agree your response here is well thought out and I take note of what you say, but there is no need to be disdainful and disrespectful to others and their views.
You obviously think you are 100% correct - I don't think you are and you haven't altered my opinions by your long screeds (which I have read and absorbed carefully!).
First of all, Chakka, in response to your answer to Lonnie's post, I must take issue with you. To describe 'autism' as an 'ailment' is unforgivable. Autism devastates lives - and not only the lives of the children affected.
Just for the record, far from being a 'wretched' man, as you describe him, Andrew Wakefield is a respected transplant surgeon, gastroenterologist and senior lecturer, who was made a fellow of the Royal College of Pathologists in recognition of his research work. His research into MMR was conducted at a world-class gastroenterology unit at the Royal Free Hospital in London, where he worked for 15 years.
You've stated that the claims made by Dr Wakefield are based on nothing, but that isn't true. He has been especially interested in theories of how gut tissue might be affected by measles virus, and his research into a possible connection between MMR and austism/bowel disease began before he became involved with families who believed their children's condition was due to the triple vaccine. The Lancet was perfectly happy to publish his findings until it discovered that he was also working on behalf of those families, when it claimed a potential conflict of interest, and a breach of medical ethics. Andrew Wakefield subsequently resigned his post at the Royal Free.
continued
Just for the record, far from being a 'wretched' man, as you describe him, Andrew Wakefield is a respected transplant surgeon, gastroenterologist and senior lecturer, who was made a fellow of the Royal College of Pathologists in recognition of his research work. His research into MMR was conducted at a world-class gastroenterology unit at the Royal Free Hospital in London, where he worked for 15 years.
You've stated that the claims made by Dr Wakefield are based on nothing, but that isn't true. He has been especially interested in theories of how gut tissue might be affected by measles virus, and his research into a possible connection between MMR and austism/bowel disease began before he became involved with families who believed their children's condition was due to the triple vaccine. The Lancet was perfectly happy to publish his findings until it discovered that he was also working on behalf of those families, when it claimed a potential conflict of interest, and a breach of medical ethics. Andrew Wakefield subsequently resigned his post at the Royal Free.
continued
continued
Andrew Wakefield said 'I'm not saying that the vaccine is definitely to blame but I've seen patients with a new bowel condition who also have autism and it's one explanation that deserves our attention'. He also emphasised that it would be wrong to jump to any hasty conclusions about MMR causing either bowel disease or developmental disorders such as autism, and welcoming moves by the General Medical Council to examine his methods, he said "I not only welcome this, I insist on it." That sounds pretty fair to me.
With regard to his resignation he said, "I have been asked to go because my research results are unpopular....... The clinical and pathological findings in these children stand as reported." He is adamant that the scientific results of his 1998 study are still valid.
Dr Wakefield later published a new paper that questioned whether the MMR vaccine had ever been properly tested for safety. He claimed the tests were too short to pick up long-term problems like autism, but before the study had even been published, the Department of Health went on the offensive and launched a concerted attack on his credibility. Dr Wakefield�s theory is defended by a colleague who said �We are called dangerous for saying that vaccines cause autism, but to me, as a experienced paediatrician, it makes sense. If it�s not mercury, it�s aluminium in the injections.�
continued
Andrew Wakefield said 'I'm not saying that the vaccine is definitely to blame but I've seen patients with a new bowel condition who also have autism and it's one explanation that deserves our attention'. He also emphasised that it would be wrong to jump to any hasty conclusions about MMR causing either bowel disease or developmental disorders such as autism, and welcoming moves by the General Medical Council to examine his methods, he said "I not only welcome this, I insist on it." That sounds pretty fair to me.
With regard to his resignation he said, "I have been asked to go because my research results are unpopular....... The clinical and pathological findings in these children stand as reported." He is adamant that the scientific results of his 1998 study are still valid.
Dr Wakefield later published a new paper that questioned whether the MMR vaccine had ever been properly tested for safety. He claimed the tests were too short to pick up long-term problems like autism, but before the study had even been published, the Department of Health went on the offensive and launched a concerted attack on his credibility. Dr Wakefield�s theory is defended by a colleague who said �We are called dangerous for saying that vaccines cause autism, but to me, as a experienced paediatrician, it makes sense. If it�s not mercury, it�s aluminium in the injections.�
continued
continued
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. If it subsequently transpires that only one child in ten thousand is affected by MMR, then despite guidelines, principles, or economics, these vaccinations should be administered in three separate doses. No principle and no amount of money is worth risking a child's life for - but then of course, as we all know, it only ever happens to someone else, doesn't it, Lonnie?
continued
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. If it subsequently transpires that only one child in ten thousand is affected by MMR, then despite guidelines, principles, or economics, these vaccinations should be administered in three separate doses. No principle and no amount of money is worth risking a child's life for - but then of course, as we all know, it only ever happens to someone else, doesn't it, Lonnie?
continued
continued
You asked ��.when it is pointed out that their choice is not best for their children should they take some notice?�, and my answer to that is 'not necessarily' - it depends who�s doing the pointing. The fact remains there is no concrete proof to support that advice, so it seems were back to the old religious cherry of the difference between belief and proof. Since I will not compromise my principles for science, or religion, or for anything else, I want to see the proof - as would any Court of Law.
(Incidentally, doesn't it strike you as odd that from the very small cross-section of society we have here on this thread, two have experience of children succumbing to autism shortly after receiving the vaccine? Just a thought).
To sum up, M'Lud, this whole shambles smacks of nothing short of a witch hunt. I have to ask why an eminent man like Andrew Wakefield would put his career and his reputation at risk in order to perpetrate a blatant lie? He carried out genuine research into the possibility that MMR can have far-reaching effects, but it seems that since his findings were highly inconvenient to the establishment and contradicted the status quo, he has been thoroughly and disgracefully demonised. All I can say is shame on the establishment.
I freely admit to having filched the larger part of this information from the internet - mostly from the BBC website - and despite your contention, Chakka, that I have succumbed to the adverse effects of the FR jab, I would say that in your efforts to be seen as totally logical, you have allowed yourself to become a victim of a plethora of outrageously dishonest propaganda. I therefore maintain my original opinion on the subject, and I rest my case.
You asked ��.when it is pointed out that their choice is not best for their children should they take some notice?�, and my answer to that is 'not necessarily' - it depends who�s doing the pointing. The fact remains there is no concrete proof to support that advice, so it seems were back to the old religious cherry of the difference between belief and proof. Since I will not compromise my principles for science, or religion, or for anything else, I want to see the proof - as would any Court of Law.
(Incidentally, doesn't it strike you as odd that from the very small cross-section of society we have here on this thread, two have experience of children succumbing to autism shortly after receiving the vaccine? Just a thought).
To sum up, M'Lud, this whole shambles smacks of nothing short of a witch hunt. I have to ask why an eminent man like Andrew Wakefield would put his career and his reputation at risk in order to perpetrate a blatant lie? He carried out genuine research into the possibility that MMR can have far-reaching effects, but it seems that since his findings were highly inconvenient to the establishment and contradicted the status quo, he has been thoroughly and disgracefully demonised. All I can say is shame on the establishment.
I freely admit to having filched the larger part of this information from the internet - mostly from the BBC website - and despite your contention, Chakka, that I have succumbed to the adverse effects of the FR jab, I would say that in your efforts to be seen as totally logical, you have allowed yourself to become a victim of a plethora of outrageously dishonest propaganda. I therefore maintain my original opinion on the subject, and I rest my case.
Chakka- most people have an opinion, and that's all any of these are, opinions.. mine, lonnie's, yours, naomi's and we're all entitled to them without being spoken down to as though we, who don't agree that the triple is necessarily safe, are some manner of national disgrace.
My own son, Ciaran, is in the autistic spectrum and we share many of the experiences that lonnie does, so when our daughter was born she had her jabs singly.
It is every parent's job, no, duty, to do what they earnestly consider best for their child, and if you had had the same experiences as some of us, you would not be blindly trumpeting about how marvellous the triple is and how blind and irrational we all are. We are simply trying to be the best parents that we can be, and I for one respect your rights to choose what happens to your child ( within reason) and I think it's time you respected other people's opions as well, because that's all it is, an opinion based on our own individual experiences. We just make the best judegments available to us based on what we know, and the truth is NONE of us KNOWS... but that includes you.
My own son, Ciaran, is in the autistic spectrum and we share many of the experiences that lonnie does, so when our daughter was born she had her jabs singly.
It is every parent's job, no, duty, to do what they earnestly consider best for their child, and if you had had the same experiences as some of us, you would not be blindly trumpeting about how marvellous the triple is and how blind and irrational we all are. We are simply trying to be the best parents that we can be, and I for one respect your rights to choose what happens to your child ( within reason) and I think it's time you respected other people's opions as well, because that's all it is, an opinion based on our own individual experiences. We just make the best judegments available to us based on what we know, and the truth is NONE of us KNOWS... but that includes you.
There's a man who sits and drinks Tennants Super by the bus stop who says that dummies give babies leukaemia.
He's looked into it and has found numerous cases where kids have developed the illness and many of them had sucked dummies shortly before. He believes that to be more than just coincidence.
His evidence has been discredited by the establishment but they would wouldn't they? His findings don't suit them.
Until there's a full study of several thousand babies that proves that dummies don't give babies leukaemia, I won't be allowing them anywhere near my child. And nor would any other good parent.
That's where the burden of proof should lie after all. These are children's lives we're talking about.
He's looked into it and has found numerous cases where kids have developed the illness and many of them had sucked dummies shortly before. He believes that to be more than just coincidence.
His evidence has been discredited by the establishment but they would wouldn't they? His findings don't suit them.
Until there's a full study of several thousand babies that proves that dummies don't give babies leukaemia, I won't be allowing them anywhere near my child. And nor would any other good parent.
That's where the burden of proof should lie after all. These are children's lives we're talking about.
Nox, great to see you around. I would just take the time to compliment the latest respective posts of Lotty, Naomi, and nox.
Chakka, regardless of your views of me I gave honest opinions (as a parent) on yet another matter that you hail as your �I am right you are wrong� crusade. I remain unaffected by your disregard of my views, and unchanged in my view of the issue.
Adieu
Chakka, regardless of your views of me I gave honest opinions (as a parent) on yet another matter that you hail as your �I am right you are wrong� crusade. I remain unaffected by your disregard of my views, and unchanged in my view of the issue.
Adieu
To follow on from naomi's most excellent post, my daughter was tested for Hirschsprungs Disease (a bowel disease), before finally being diagnosed with Autism at nine years old, we knew what was wrong with her, but the 'experts' didn't want to commit themselves.
Anyway, i've put this up a couple of times before, and thought you may want to have a look, the photo was taken six years ago,
http://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/Body-and-Soul/Q uestion349010.html
Anyway, i've put this up a couple of times before, and thought you may want to have a look, the photo was taken six years ago,
http://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/Body-and-Soul/Q uestion349010.html
Sqad, yes he was. This from the BBC profile.
Dr Wakefield worked as a transplant surgeon before heading back to the UK in the late 1980s, where he decided to devote more of his time to research.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3513365.stm
Dr Wakefield worked as a transplant surgeon before heading back to the UK in the late 1980s, where he decided to devote more of his time to research.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3513365.stm
Sqad, I believe the BBC would have checked its facts before putting the information on its website. However, you have illustrated my point about a witch hunt admirably. You�ve given a personal opinion which is not only unsubstantiated and, therefore, irrelevant - it�s completely and utterly fabricated. You have absolutely no idea what he did in Canada, but it seems you�ll make it up as you go along if it means a chance to join the rest of the baying mob in doing your utmost to discredit him. Apart from that, so enthusiastic are you to jump on the bandwagon, that you haven�t even bothered to read my post properly. I didn�t say he was an �eminent� transplant surgeon. I said he was a respected transplant surgeon - and I�ve no doubt he was respected, since he subsequently came to work in England and was made a Fellow of the Royal College of Pathologists. As such, yes I would say he is now an eminent man - which is what I said nearer to the end of my post.
naomi.I was going to leave it there but why the h.ll should I take that abuse from you.
"You�ve given a personal opinion which is not only unsubstantiated and, therefore, irrelevant - it�s completely and utterly fabricated."
Many people who come onto this site are doctord, surgeons who HAVE been through a rigorous surgical training and not just 4yrs after qualification to become a "transplant surgeon". To say that my comments are unsubstantiated , irrelevant and utterly fabricated is libelous and astonishingly crass.
The Royal College of Pathologists have NOTHING to do with surgery and he was made a fellow on publications.
"Jump on the bandwagon?" madam I couldn't care a toss about Dr. Wakefield one way or another, but i do object to be told how to suck eggs by the likes of you.
"You�ve given a personal opinion which is not only unsubstantiated and, therefore, irrelevant - it�s completely and utterly fabricated."
Many people who come onto this site are doctord, surgeons who HAVE been through a rigorous surgical training and not just 4yrs after qualification to become a "transplant surgeon". To say that my comments are unsubstantiated , irrelevant and utterly fabricated is libelous and astonishingly crass.
The Royal College of Pathologists have NOTHING to do with surgery and he was made a fellow on publications.
"Jump on the bandwagon?" madam I couldn't care a toss about Dr. Wakefield one way or another, but i do object to be told how to suck eggs by the likes of you.
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.