Crosswords1 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.
So the HVA should be suspended too then?
I'm illogical (I accept it) I'm happy for people to believe that the MMR is unsafe (even though I don't agree) just so long as they're aware of the illogical nature of their dissent given it's admitted lack of credence.
If they wish to opt for the separate jabs, good luck to em, just don't ask the NHS to pay for it.
I'm illogical (I accept it) I'm happy for people to believe that the MMR is unsafe (even though I don't agree) just so long as they're aware of the illogical nature of their dissent given it's admitted lack of credence.
If they wish to opt for the separate jabs, good luck to em, just don't ask the NHS to pay for it.
All of the anti-MMR views expressed above have been comprehensively dealt with when we last debated this subject and I have no intention of repeating here the evidence and the reasoning that demonstrates no connection between MMR and autism.
I merely thought that people might want to know the latest revelations regarding the irresponsible Wakefield and his discredited work .
But there has been no comment on them at all. Very odd.
Anyway, the important and encouraging thing is that the take up of the MMR vaccine is on the rise again as modern parents increasingly see the facts and eschew the prejudice. It's still too slow and there is a band of older unprotected children from the early days of the hysteria who will probably now never be protected.
Because of this there were 1348 cases of measles in UK last year, a disgraceful number for a civilised country.
And you'll notice (or more likely, many of you won't) that there was no decrease in the per capita onset of autism while the MMR take-ups were low.
I won't raise the subject again no matter how much more I learn about it. I'll stick to collecting the facts and leave the rest of you (with a few honourable exceptions) to what David Aaronovitch in The Times this morning calls "the absurd prejudice of the anti-MMR lobby".
I merely thought that people might want to know the latest revelations regarding the irresponsible Wakefield and his discredited work .
But there has been no comment on them at all. Very odd.
Anyway, the important and encouraging thing is that the take up of the MMR vaccine is on the rise again as modern parents increasingly see the facts and eschew the prejudice. It's still too slow and there is a band of older unprotected children from the early days of the hysteria who will probably now never be protected.
Because of this there were 1348 cases of measles in UK last year, a disgraceful number for a civilised country.
And you'll notice (or more likely, many of you won't) that there was no decrease in the per capita onset of autism while the MMR take-ups were low.
I won't raise the subject again no matter how much more I learn about it. I'll stick to collecting the facts and leave the rest of you (with a few honourable exceptions) to what David Aaronovitch in The Times this morning calls "the absurd prejudice of the anti-MMR lobby".
I think the last �debate�, you lambasted me for my support for informed choice and decision making by parents, yet here you refer to � modern parents increasingly see the facts and eschew the prejudice� . Isn�t that more or less advocating the same thing?
For most if not all parents, it will either be a decision made on known or explained facts, personal experience, or an educated and conscientious balance of both. If someone is convinced of an autistic link through personal experience, then why should they not still be entitled to go for the 3 separate jabs after being made aware of all the evidence, if they cannot be satisfactorily convinced otherwise? This is what I said the first time round.
For most if not all parents, it will either be a decision made on known or explained facts, personal experience, or an educated and conscientious balance of both. If someone is convinced of an autistic link through personal experience, then why should they not still be entitled to go for the 3 separate jabs after being made aware of all the evidence, if they cannot be satisfactorily convinced otherwise? This is what I said the first time round.
Chakka, I beg to differ. I commented on the latest revelations, albeit briefly. The thing is, you demonise parents who prefer to opt for separate vaccines, but they are neither stupid, as you intimate, nor as The Times would have it, absurd. The very reason they make that choice is because they care about the well-being of their children and rather than accept advice from what they, with good reason, deem to be dubious sources, they take the trouble to think a little deeper . I agree with Octavius completely. Why shouldn�t they have a choice? Because the powers that be, and the supporters of MMR say they shouldn�t? Well, to hell with that. In my book, children come before politics, principles, or money.
I have to ask why do so many children appear to succumb to autism immediately after receiving MMR? We have two examples here on this thread, and I personally know of another. So now we have three people out of the dozen or so who have contributed here, not necessarily blaming MMR, but nevertheless saying that symptoms developed immediately after these children received the triple vaccine, and we also have two more parents who haven�t told us whether their children�s autism presented immediately after MMR or not. And you wonder why some still doubt official guidelines? Well, if I�m considered stupid, irrational, illogical, absurd, or anything else that MMR supporters feel applies to people like me, then so be it. In this instance, I am very happy to live with that.
Incidentally, no one has answered my question yet. Why would a respected doctor ruin his reputation and his career for a theory he knows to be false?
I have to ask why do so many children appear to succumb to autism immediately after receiving MMR? We have two examples here on this thread, and I personally know of another. So now we have three people out of the dozen or so who have contributed here, not necessarily blaming MMR, but nevertheless saying that symptoms developed immediately after these children received the triple vaccine, and we also have two more parents who haven�t told us whether their children�s autism presented immediately after MMR or not. And you wonder why some still doubt official guidelines? Well, if I�m considered stupid, irrational, illogical, absurd, or anything else that MMR supporters feel applies to people like me, then so be it. In this instance, I am very happy to live with that.
Incidentally, no one has answered my question yet. Why would a respected doctor ruin his reputation and his career for a theory he knows to be false?
I'm surprised nobody has checked to see the levels of autism in children who have had 3 separate jabs and the same again for those that have had no jab.
In essence what you have is an experiment 2 choices and a control group.
Why is'nt this information being promoted or reviewed or even sought by either side?
In essence what you have is an experiment 2 choices and a control group.
Why is'nt this information being promoted or reviewed or even sought by either side?
I really shouldn�t be doing this: I should be too wily an old trout to rise to the moth-eaten old flies I have looked at and rejected before. (Not you, folks, but your arguments.) But, fool that I am, I�ll have one more go:
Octavius, I have never denied that a parent has a right to make such decisions for the child, but I reserve the right to comment on those decisions. 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.
And there is no such thing as �an autistic link through personal experience�. Autism can be experienced, but not a link to MMR because there isn�t one, only the groundless fear of one.
naomi, I cannot believe that you live the rest of your life according to the mantra that if A precedes B then A causes B. Do you blame your sore knee this morning on the apple pie you ate last night, or your tummy-ache yesterday on the cough mixture you drank three weeks ago? Of course you don�t; you wouldn�t be so irrational. Yet that is how irrational you are being when you say that because a baby became autistic after the MMR jab it became so because of it.
I have no idea what Wakefield�s motive was, but what has that got to do with what he actually did? Why would Jeffrey Archer risk years in prison by telling a court things he knows to be false? Dunno, but he did.
In this purely scientific matter it is facts that matter, and we have them in full.
Ah, facts, you can�t beat �em.
Cont�d�
Octavius, I have never denied that a parent has a right to make such decisions for the child, but I reserve the right to comment on those decisions. 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.
And there is no such thing as �an autistic link through personal experience�. Autism can be experienced, but not a link to MMR because there isn�t one, only the groundless fear of one.
naomi, I cannot believe that you live the rest of your life according to the mantra that if A precedes B then A causes B. Do you blame your sore knee this morning on the apple pie you ate last night, or your tummy-ache yesterday on the cough mixture you drank three weeks ago? Of course you don�t; you wouldn�t be so irrational. Yet that is how irrational you are being when you say that because a baby became autistic after the MMR jab it became so because of it.
I have no idea what Wakefield�s motive was, but what has that got to do with what he actually did? Why would Jeffrey Archer risk years in prison by telling a court things he knows to be false? Dunno, but he did.
In this purely scientific matter it is facts that matter, and we have them in full.
Ah, facts, you can�t beat �em.
Cont�d�
�Cont�d
123everton, there is no difference in the levels of autism in jabless children, the fully protected (2 MMR jabs) and the partially protected (6 separate jabs) for the very simple reason that there is no connection between autism and the jabs anyway.
The differences lie in the number in each group who succumb to the three separate diseases.
That�s it from me on this subject for a while. I look forward to seeing the MMR take-up reaching the herd-immunity level of 95%, so that all our children are safe from those potentially serious diseases.
123everton, there is no difference in the levels of autism in jabless children, the fully protected (2 MMR jabs) and the partially protected (6 separate jabs) for the very simple reason that there is no connection between autism and the jabs anyway.
The differences lie in the number in each group who succumb to the three separate diseases.
That�s it from me on this subject for a while. I look forward to seeing the MMR take-up reaching the herd-immunity level of 95%, so that all our children are safe from those potentially serious diseases.
Chakka, �only the groundless fear of one [autistic link]�. For some - around 22% of parents - this is enough reason to look at or choose the alternatives where available.
The potential risks lie between vaccinations, or children not finishing the course. A survey of 800 GPs found that 94 per cent of those questioned believed the MMR vaccine was safe, 45 per cent supported the option of single jabs.
The world is not made up of two types of people, the Chakkas and the Thickos - although you do seem to constantly assume it.
The potential risks lie between vaccinations, or children not finishing the course. A survey of 800 GPs found that 94 per cent of those questioned believed the MMR vaccine was safe, 45 per cent supported the option of single jabs.
The world is not made up of two types of people, the Chakkas and the Thickos - although you do seem to constantly assume it.
Chakka, that is very naughty. Shame on you. I overlooked your declaration that the editor of the Lancet disowned the article and apologised for printing it because it was wrong, when in fact he withdrew the article because he saw it's publication as a conflict of interest, but I really can't accept you accusing me of saying that because a baby became autistic after the MMR jab it became so because of it. I said no such thing, and I've never said such a thing. I simply said I have my doubts. If you need to distort facts in order to support your argument, then your case clearly doesn't stand up to honest and open scrutiny. Yes, you can't beat facts, that's for sure - but however you try, you can't make 'em up either!
Can someone explain the scientific principle that 3 seperate jabs will not bring on autism?
is the fact that you get 3 seperate injections?
a different type of needle?
the time difference from when the vaccines aare administered?
what is the scientific evidence that 3 jabs doesn't bring on autism? why would the seperate jabs be safer ireally don't understand?
is the fact that you get 3 seperate injections?
a different type of needle?
the time difference from when the vaccines aare administered?
what is the scientific evidence that 3 jabs doesn't bring on autism? why would the seperate jabs be safer ireally don't understand?
Just out if interest, what has believing or not believing the government got to do with any of this?
What we are being asked to 'believe' is the opinion of scentists and specialist doctors, backed by extensive research, including, it must be said,at least 10 of the 13 original signatories to the Wakefield paper (two of them, including Wakefield, still refuse to retract it). Why has an element of the general public decided that they know more than the doctors?
The general public, over centuries, has held any number of beliefs which are utterly false and have been proved so. What makes these objectors so well qualified?
What we are being asked to 'believe' is the opinion of scentists and specialist doctors, backed by extensive research, including, it must be said,at least 10 of the 13 original signatories to the Wakefield paper (two of them, including Wakefield, still refuse to retract it). Why has an element of the general public decided that they know more than the doctors?
The general public, over centuries, has held any number of beliefs which are utterly false and have been proved so. What makes these objectors so well qualified?
Latest Posts
ChatterBank12 mins ago
Has Sunak Already Made Plans To Leave...
News22 mins ago
They Just Can't Help It Can They
News23 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.