[KEEP IT CIVIL MOD WARNING POST#143,218] Lancet finally withdraws Wakefield study

Choke

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8493753.stm

Lancet accepts MMR study 'false'


By Nick Triggle
Health reporter, BBC News


Experts say MMR is completely safe

The medical journal which originally published the discredited research linking autism and MMR has now issued a full retraction of the paper.
The Lancet said it now accepted claims made by the researchers were "false".
It comes after Dr Andrew Wakefield, the lead researcher in the 1998 paper, was ruled last week to have broken research rules by the General Medical Council.
The publication caused vaccination rates to plummet, resulting in a rise in measles.
The Lancet had already issued a partial retraction.
THE WAKEFIELD STORY
MMR is the combined measles, mumps and rubella vaccine which was introduced in the late 1980s
In 1998 the Lancet published a study, led by Dr Andrew Wakefield, which linked the jab with autism and bowel disease
It has since been discredited by medical experts
A newspaper subsequently made allegations about the way the research was carried out
The GMC launched an investigation and ruled he had broken research rules and acted unethically

In 2004, editors argued they had been right to publish it as the journal was there to "raise new ideas".
But they accepted that in hindsight they may not have been, after accusations of a conflict of interest - Dr Wakefield was in the pay of solicitors who were acting for parents who believed their children had been harmed by MMR.
But this move goes further by accepting the research was fundamentally flawed because of a lack of ethical approval and the way the children's illnesses were presented.
The statement added: "We fully retract this paper from the published record."
Last week, the GMC ruled that Dr Wakefield had shown a "callous disregard" for children and acted "dishonestly" while he carried out his research. It will decide later whether to strike him off the medical register.
The regulator only looked at how he acted during the research, not whether the findings were right or wrong - although they have been widely discredited by medical experts across the world in the years since publication.
After the hearing, Dr Wakefield, who now lives and works in the US, said the findings were "unjust and unfounded".
Professor Adam Finn, a leading paediatrician based at the University of Bristol Medical School, said: "This is not before time. Let's hope this will do something to re-establish the good reputation of this excellent vaccine.
"And I hope the country can now draw a line under this particular health scare and move onto new opportunities for vaccination."

Link with video


Proof that idiocy isn't new

Senna

Choke wrote: »

Proof that idiocy isn't new

Did you think it was only a new invention?

Sharpshooter

Hmm..

Now who else starts a thread in AHs and leaves.

This is minister sinister.:pac:

Choke

Sharpshooter wrote: »

This is minister sinister.:pac:

I'm on the list for rejuvenation - I'm having to slum it as a newb for a while though.

Like in Terry Pretchett's Small Gods.

Choke

Senna wrote: »

Did you think it was only a new invention?

That particular brand. I would have thought people would be so delighted with a prevention for smallpox that they would have welcomed vaccination.

Sharpshooter

Rejuvenation is slow, please continue, Choke.

Dave!

Bout time

Unfortunately the damage is done, and now he's gone Stateside where as I understand it he's still being worshipped by the sh*tebags in 'Generation Rescue'.

Sickening tbh

Vaccinations are one of the greatest inventions in human history, a way to stop diseases that had previously killed hundreds of thousands, and now we're seeing a resurgence in some of these diseases thanks to the propaganda of scumbags like Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey.

I'm glad I'm not in the medical profession, because it must be frustrating beyond belief to have parents refusing well-researched and extremely effective vaccines on the basis of some lies they heard on Larry King Live, and consequently endangering their kids' lives.

Bonito

I'm not too sure about this one. Linking the MMR vaccine to autism shouldn't be cast out. Maybe the age at which the vaccine is administered has an effect on it.

Personally I know of 3 kids who developed autism after receiving the vaccine. One didn't receive the vaccin 'til they were turning 4.

The 3 kids were fine before the vaccine and then in the months following it they started to become distant and not themselves. Two even stopped playing with other children completely which was not them at all as they were either only childs or their siblings were too far older/younger for them to play with and the chance of playing with other kids in a créche/playschool/playground was gold dust to them and they'd be running to make friends and talk with all the kids they could see!

All these kids have been diagnosed with autism after they received the MMR vaccine and didn't show any signs of autism beforehand.

Choke

Bonito wrote: »

I'm not too sure about this one. Linking the MMR vaccine to autism shouldn't be cast out. Maybe the age at which the vaccine is administered has an effect on it.

Personally I know of 3 kids who developed autism after receiving the vaccine. One didn't receive the vaccin 'til they were turning 4.

The 3 kids were fine before the vaccine and then in the months following it they started to become distant and not themselves. Two even stopped playing with other children completely which was not them at all as they were either only childs or their siblings were too far older/younger for them to play with and the chance of playing with other kids in a créche/playschool/playground was gold dust to them and they'd be running to make friends and talk with all the kids they could see!

All these kids have been diagnosed with autism after they received the MMR vaccine and didn't show any signs of autism beforehand.

But you see, millions of dollars of research money has been pumped into researching a link between Autism and MMR - none has been found.

There is plenty of anecdotal evidence, because the vaccine is given around the time that symptoms of autism tends to be diagnosed. There is however, no scientific evidence, which is much more trustworthy.

hooradiation

Bonito wrote: »

Linking the MMR vaccine to autism shouldn't be cast out.

Yes it should. It's stupid and based on nothing.

Choke

Bonito wrote: »

I'm not too sure about this one. Linking the MMR vaccine to autism shouldn't be cast out. Maybe the age at which the vaccine is administered has an effect on it.

Personally I know of 3 kids who developed autism after receiving the vaccine. One didn't receive the vaccin 'til they were turning 4.

The 3 kids were fine before the vaccine and then in the months following it they started to become distant and not themselves. Two even stopped playing with other children completely which was not them at all as they were either only childs or their siblings were too far older/younger for them to play with and the chance of playing with other kids in a créche/playschool/playground was gold dust to them and they'd be running to make friends and talk with all the kids they could see!

All these kids have been diagnosed with autism after they received the MMR vaccine and didn't show any signs of autism beforehand.

I refer you to the below post, from this thread:

chasm wrote: »

+1
My nephew is autistic, and i must admit we thought that maybe the 3-in-1 jab was possibly linked but a few years ago when we watched some home movies of him (pre-jab) we could see the "signs" of autism where already there, its just that we were blind to it- I dont think i had ever really read anything about autism until my nephew was diagnosed.

I also think that the fact that the jab is given shortly before a "development check" leads people to assume that if there is a problem, that it is linked to the jab.

Bonito

hooradiation wrote: »

Yes it should. It's stupid and based on nothing.

Ok, lets look at it this way. Hypothectically lets say you have a child. You dote on it, see him/her progress amazingly each day. You're proud of their behaviour, will to learn, will to interact with other children.

3 years later, Ooops we missed the date for the MMR we better get it done now. You're child gets the vaccine. After vaccine your child starts to show signs of autism. You hear word on the wire from other parents that the same thing happened to a child they know after they got the vaccine.

Here's the question. Are you going to blame A. Your genes. B. The vaccine or C. Go ah well it's just a coincidence that they happened to develop autism after they received the vaccine?

Even though signs of autism start at 6-8 months and as the child progresses socially, mentally and physically they get more noticeable.

toiletduck

Wonder if Patricia McKenna and her ilk will finally accept this?

hooradiation

Bonito wrote: »

Ok, lets look at it this way. Hypothectically lets say you have a child. You dote on it, see him/her progress amazingly each day. You're proud of their behaviour, will to learn, will to interact with other children.

3 years later, Ooops we missed the date for the MMR we better get it done now. You're child gets the vaccine. After vaccine your child starts to show signs of autism. You hear word on the wire from other parents that the same thing happened to a child they know after they got the vaccine.

Here's the question. Are you going to blame A. Your genes. B. The vaccine or C. Go ah well it's just a coincidence that they happened to develop autism after they received the vaccine?

Even though signs of autism start at 6-8 months and as the child progresses socially, mentally and physically they get more noticeable.

So... because you are a parent you get to ignore the mountains of evidence that say your hunch is wrong?

Your scenario is bollox, it's the common fallacy of correlation equals causation.

In fact it's such a load of bad reasoning, coupled with the "ohh what if you had a child" plea, that i actually despair for people who think like this.

You're supposed to be an adult, start to reason like one.

Dave!

Bonito wrote: »

Ok, lets look at it this way. Hypothectically lets say you have a child. You dote on it, see him/her progress amazingly each day. You're proud of their behaviour, will to learn, will to interact with other children.

3 years later, Ooops we missed the date for the MMR we better get it done now. You're child gets the vaccine. After vaccine your child starts to show signs of autism. You hear word on the wire from other parents that the same thing happened to a child they know after they got the vaccine.

Here's the question. Are you going to blame A. Your genes. B. The vaccine or C. Go ah well it's just a coincidence that they happened to develop autism after they received the vaccine?

Even though signs of autism start at 6-8 months and as the child progresses socially, mentally and physically they get more noticeable.

Your anecdotes are irrelevant, there has been considerable research done on this, with a pool of hundreds of thousands of children.

Group A, recieved vaccinations
Group B, did not recieve vaccinations
Any significant difference in autism rates between the two?
No

Plus it looks like autism has a rather large genetic component
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_autism

And read up on this, because it's the logical fallacy you're using at the moment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc

ChemOC

I notice that when kids go into secondary school they develop acne. Therefore secondary school causes acne!! The list of things that work on this basis is endless.

Why do so many people think that Medicine and Science is working to harm them?

I hate people so much.

Cool Mo D

The most convincing evidence that MMR has nothing to do with autism is also the simplest.

The MMR vaccine was introduced in the 1970s. We suddenly went from having no children vaccinated with it, to nearly every child vaccinated. If it causes autism, we would expect autism rates to have shot up soon after it was introduced, and then remained constant with a constant vaccination rate.

Instead, during the last 50 years, there has been a slow steady increase in autism rates. This rate did not increase when nearly every child was vaccinated, and it did not decline when recently parents avoided getting their children vaccinated. MMR uptake rates have had no visible affect on the trend of constantly rising autism rates in the western world.

As to why autism rates have been rising -that is a mystery. Although I suspect a lot comes down to us only really understanding what autism is in the last 50 years - before that it would be ignored, or ascribed to something else.

Dave!

Cool Mo D wrote: »

The most convincing evidence that MMR has nothing to do with autism is also the simplest.

The MMR vaccine was introduced in the 1970s. We suddenly went from having no children vaccinated with it, to nearly every child vaccinated. If it causes autism, we would expect autism rates to have shot up soon after it was introduced, and then remained constant with a constant vaccination rate.

Instead, during the last 50 years, there has been a slow steady increase in autism rates. This rate did not increase when nearly every child was vaccinated, and it did not decline when recently parents avoided getting their children vaccinated. MMR uptake rates have had no visible affect on the trend of constantly rising autism rates in the western world.

As to why autism rates have been rising -that is a mystery. Although I suspect a lot comes down to us only really understanding what autism is in the last 50 years - before that it would be ignored, or ascribed to something else.

More awareness, better diagnosis, better understanding of the disorder. More study is certainly needed though.

Bonito

hooradiation wrote: »

So... because you are a parent you get to ignore the mountains of evidence that say your hunch is wrong?

Your scenario is bollox, it's the common fallacy of correlation equals causation.

In fact it's such a load of bad reasoning, coupled with the "ohh what if you had a child" plea, that i actually despair for people who think like this.

You're supposed to be an adult, start to reason like one.

Language like this is not needed. It's not an argument but a discussion with questions that I had which some posters were kind enough to source for me.

Perhaps you're the one who needs to grow up here.

Dave!

Paul Offit explains it the best

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9tDhJkd1ag

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irVw8HJz4io

gigawatt

people should have a right to have these vaccines administered separately if that is their wish. if they are willing to pay because they believe there could be a risk, let them pay. it is a fairly basic human right to have a choice in their treatment.
in the opinion of many people new vaccines are rushed through without adequate trialling. the fda didnt approve the latest flu jabs but the european agencies did. there is huge debate about that now. makes you wonder doesnt it. i know of a pulmonary consultant who in his opinion believes there is a link between flu jabs and sudden onset lung disease, where the immune system attcks the lungs in previously healthy adults.. go figure.. no research to support it its just an opinion. any treatmenthas a risk it might be one in a billion but its there. so thats the choice, take a chance on highly contagious killer diseases or take a chance on a vaccine having side effects. many would feel the side effects are preferable!

ChemOC

Recently with the swine flu vaccine there were these small posters around Dublin city center telling you about all the terrible things that go into the vaccine.

These dreadful chemicals include NaCl ohhhh no not salt!!!!

That said it is easy enough to scare the general public, the posters also said that it contained genetically modified animal and human components. Which is true but that is how all recombinant drugs are made.

The main issue I think is that to the lay person Science is now so advance that they can't keep up at all. So when a lay person delves in any depth into a subject (eg vaccines) there is no way that they can interpret all the data and they get it wrong which leads to scares. Although as to why vaccines have been targeted recently I have no idea.

hooradiation

Bonito wrote: »

Language like this is not needed. It's not an argument but a discussion with questions that I had which some posters were kind enough to source for me.

Perhaps you're the one who needs to grow up here.

I have a low tolerance of Anti-vaxxers, because they are dangerous people and shouldn't be pandered to at all.

If it was an actual question then fair enough, if you believe the scenario you posted then all you have my contempt.

people should have a right to have these vaccines administered separately if that is their wish. if they are willing to pay because they believe there could be a risk, let them pay. it is a fairly basic human right to have a choice in their treatment.
in the opinion of many people new vaccines are rushed through without adequate trialling. the fda didnt approve the latest flu jabs but the european agencies did. there is huge debate about that now. makes you wonder doesnt it. i know of a pulmonary consultant who in his opinion believes there is a link between flu jabs and sudden onset lung disease, where the immune system attcks the lungs in previously healthy adults.. go figure.. no research to support it its just an opinion. any treatmenthas a risk it might be one in a billion but its there. so thats the choice, take a chance on highly contagious killer diseases or take a chance on a vaccine having side effects. many would feel the side effects are preferable!

People are generally very poorly equipped to make decisions like this as your last line demonstrates, this is why we have the rigors of the scientific method and double blind trials and all that.

For some odd reason this concept of the average person on the streets opinion being of equal validity to that of people with years of experience and evidence behind it only seems to be tolerated in the field of medicine.

I mean when one person acting on dodgy science said that the experiments at CERN searching for the higgs boson is something we shouldn't do for because it'll create a blackhole and kill us all, they were laughed at and ignored. Yet wakefields study, being equally if not more dubious has managed to gain traction and just won't fuck off.

Bonito

hooradiation wrote: »

I have a low tolerance of Anti-vaxxers, because they are dangerous people and shouldn't be pandered to at all.

If it was an actual question then fair enough, if you believe the scenario you posted then all you have my contempt.



People are generally very poorly equipped to make decisions like this as your last line demonstrates, this is why we have the rigors of the scientific method and double blind trials and all that.

For some odd reason this concept of the average person on the streets opinion being of equal validity to that of people with years of experience and evidence behind it only seems to be tolerated in the field of medicine.

I mean when one person acting on dodgy science said that the experiments at CERN searching for the higgs boson is something we shouldn't do for because it'll create a blackhole and kill us all, they were laughed at and ignored. Yet wakefields study, being equally if not more dubious has managed to gain traction and just won't fuck off.

I am not an "anti-vaxxer". I never put a personal word against the vaccine or any other vaccine for that matter as I have had all of my vaccinations. I merely gave the situation of a third party. It's because of your own self righteousness that you failed to see the concern that, not I, but these parents had and that, in itself, did you not give you a right to turn in to a keyboard warrior.

hooradiation

Bonito wrote: »

I am not an "anti-vaxxer". I never put a personal word against the vaccine or any other vaccine for that matter as I have had all of my vaccinations. I merely gave the situation of a third party. It's because of your own self righteousness that you failed to see the concern that, not I, but these parents had and that, in itself, did you not give you a right to turn in to a keyboard warrior.

I'm enjoying your furious backpedaling.
Please keep it up.

Bonito

hooradiation wrote: »

I'm enjoying your furious backpedaling.
Please keep it up.

Rather than waste my time arguing and resulting in one or both of us being banned/receiving an infraction I'll leave you with this.

Charter. Rules and guidelines.
I know people don't ever tend to read these things and I understand that it's just a boring necessity but if you only take away one thing from this charter let it be this:

Don't be a dick.

If you can do that you're unlikely to encounter any problems here.

How To Be A Better Poster


Contribute in a constructive way.

Nobody is interested in your laser sharp ability to cut someone down. Nobody is interested in the funny thing your cat did, unless it’s a thread on funny things cats do (basically, we mean cut down on the LOLCats). The odd humourous comment thrown into a thread is fine but consistently contributing nothing but noise/negativity is not helpful. One word answers aren’t useful. Please use the "rate thread" feature to vote on a thread instead of jumping in and posting 'this subject is silly and pointless'. If you like what a poster had to say, use the thanks system.
Comment on the post not the poster.

Responding to someone's point with personal attacks, regardless of how "witty" you think they are, is not big or clever. It just comes across, at best, as being an ass and at worst a bully with a small doodah (we mean “mind” of course).
It’s much better to stay on the topic of their post, not on the person who posted it. People will respect you for that, take your opinion more seriously and you put the ball back in their court to answer your points.
Abuse is tantamount to saying "you have beaten me with your argument; I can only resort to name calling".
If someone abuses you, don’t respond in kind. Report the post and a moderator will swing by to review it. Abusing them back simply drops you to their level and will probably get you both infracted and/or banned.
Respect/manners go a long way.

Around these parts, people recognise good contribution. This isn’t YouTube or 4chan (*). Being respectful, mannerly and even occasionally acknowledging that someone has made you consider something in a different light, is going to win friends and influence people a lot more than being yet another rude "anonymous" internet keyboard warrior. No one wants to be around that guy.

Have a nice day.

Pace2008

From your post and the charter

Comment on the post not the poster.

It's hard to take someone seriously when they believe anecdote is a match for empiricism.

Dave!

Ahh lads, let's all be friends ! Spread information, not hate !

Bonito

Bonito wrote: »

I'm not too sure about this one. Linking the MMR vaccine to autism shouldn't be cast out. Maybe the age at which the vaccine is administered has an effect on it.

Personally I know of 3 kids who developed autism after receiving the vaccine. One didn't receive the vaccin 'til they were turning 4.

The 3 kids were fine before the vaccine and then in the months following it they started to become distant and not themselves. Two even stopped playing with other children completely which was not them at all as they were either only childs or their siblings were too far older/younger for them to play with and the chance of playing with other kids in a créche/playschool/playground was gold dust to them and they'd be running to make friends and talk with all the kids they could see!

All these kids have been diagnosed with autism after they received the MMR vaccine and didn't show any signs of autism beforehand.

Did these kids also have teddy bears? Yes? Well there you have it, teddy bears cause autism.

There was a measles outbreak in Cork a few years ago. The virus was able to spread because of low immunisation rates as a result of the hype over Wakefield's "study". Several children died. Absolutley criminal.

sam34

Bonito wrote: »

I'm not too sure about this one. Linking the MMR vaccine to autism shouldn't be cast out. Maybe the age at which the vaccine is administered has an effect on it.

Personally I know of 3 kids who developed autism after receiving the vaccine. One didn't receive the vaccin 'til they were turning 4.

The 3 kids were fine before the vaccine and then in the months following it they started to become distant and not themselves. Two even stopped playing with other children completely which was not them at all as they were either only childs or their siblings were too far older/younger for them to play with and the chance of playing with other kids in a créche/playschool/playground was gold dust to them and they'd be running to make friends and talk with all the kids they could see!

All these kids have been diagnosed with autism after they received the MMR vaccine and didn't show any signs of autism beforehand.

if i got the cervical cancer vaccine and then two days later while crossing the road i failed to look to my left and got knocked down, would you think that the vaccine had caused me to be incapable of looking to my left?

Nevyn

Bonito wrote: »

Ok, lets look at it this way. Hypothectically lets say you have a child. You dote on it, see him/her progress amazingly each day. You're proud of their behaviour, will to learn, will to interact with other children.

3 years later, Ooops we missed the date for the MMR we better get it done now. You're child gets the vaccine. After vaccine your child starts to show signs of autism. You hear word on the wire from other parents that the same thing happened to a child they know after they got the vaccine.

Here's the question. Are you going to blame A. Your genes. B. The vaccine or C. Go ah well it's just a coincidence that they happened to develop autism after they received the vaccine?

Even though signs of autism start at 6-8 months and as the child progresses socially, mentally and physically they get more noticeable.

That had been the storys told by parents, it was the same pattern with one of my cousins, as a result I didn't get the MMR for my kids.

I am glad the report has been sorted out as being false but I still believe I did the right thing, as my son was later diagnosed as being on the spectrum and
I at least know for a fact that the MMR had nothing to do with it.

Bonito

Thaedydal wrote: »

That had been the storys told by parents, it was the same pattern with one of my cousins, as a result I didn't get the MMR for my kids.

I am glad the report has been sorted out as being false but I still believe I did the right thing, as my son was later diagnosed as being on the spectrum and
I at least know for a fact that the MMR had nothing to do with it.

Thanks for that. An awful lot of people have failed to realise how much fear was put in to parents to stop them immunising their kids. Then in the odd cases where the child was immunised and they later developed autism the parents went on the whole "Oh my god janet and barry were right I never should have got peter his MMR jab*"

*All made up names.

At the time it created massive concerns. Now that it has been cast out maybe immunisations will go up BUT, I can guarantee that some parents will STILL believe the story of "The MMR vaccine may cause your child to become autistic" and their children wont be immunised.

Nevyn

That is because this news will not get the same publicity, put I have posted about in the parenting forum, cos it is important that parents know.

kelle

Thaedydal wrote: »

That had been the storys told by parents, it was the same pattern with one of my cousins, as a result I didn't get the MMR for my kids.

I am glad the report has been sorted out as being false but I still believe I did the right thing, as my son was later diagnosed as being on the spectrum and
I at least know for a fact that the MMR had nothing to do with it.

Same here, Thaedydal. I didn't get my children immunised until they were 4yo, my older daughter was diagnosed with mild ASD last year at the age of 6 and questionnaires we did showed she had symptoms of it going back to when she was 2-3 years old. So i was relieved she had not had the MMR at that stage, I'm not thinking "What if".

goose2005

Thaedydal wrote: »

That had been the storys told by parents, it was the same pattern with one of my cousins, as a result I didn't get the MMR for my kids.

I am glad the report has been sorted out as being false but I still believe I did the right thing, as my son was later diagnosed as being on the spectrum and
I at least know for a fact that the MMR had nothing to do with it.

No, you did the wrong thing. Your son could have died, or been made infertile by mumps.

Thaedydal

Thaedydal wrote: »

That had been the storys told by parents, it was the same pattern with one of my cousins, as a result I didn't get the MMR for my kids.

I am glad the report has been sorted out as being false but I still believe I did the right thing, as my son was later diagnosed as being on the spectrum and
I at least know for a fact that the MMR had nothing to do with it.

If he had gotten the vaccine, it would have made no difference to where he was on the spectrum, but he would have been immune to measles, mumps and rubella. I don't blame you. The fear was insidious and preyed on parents protective instincts for their children, but children died as a direct result of Wakefield's "study" and he can never be forgiven for that.

Bonito

Bonito wrote: »

Ok, lets look at it this way. Hypothectically lets say you have a child. You dote on it, see him/her progress amazingly each day. You're proud of their behaviour, will to learn, will to interact with other children.

3 years later, Ooops we missed the date for the MMR we better get it done now. You're child gets the vaccine. After vaccine your child starts to show signs of autism. You hear word on the wire from other parents that the same thing happened to a child they know after they got the vaccine.

Here's the question. Are you going to blame A. Your genes. B. The vaccine or C. Go ah well it's just a coincidence that they happened to develop autism after they received the vaccine?

Even though signs of autism start at 6-8 months and as the child progresses socially, mentally and physically they get more noticeable.

This.

Nevyn

Deleted User wrote: »

If he had gotten the vaccine, it would have made no difference to where he was on the spectrum, but he would have been immune to measles, mumps and rubella. I don't blame you. The fear was insidious and preyed on parents protective instincts for their children, but children died as a direct result of Wakefield's "study" and he can never be forgiven for that.

Yes but for years I would have been concerned and guilt ridden that getting the vaccine had been a contributing factor. Now I know he is how he is due to being non neruotypical, I know a hell of a lot more and with the news on this I will be making sure both of mine get the MMR.

I still think given the information I had 10 years ago I made the right call.
Given the information I have now I am choosing to make a different call.

Thaedydal

Thaedydal wrote: »

Yes but for years I would have been concerned and guilt ridden that getting the vaccine had been a contributing factor. Now I know he is how he is due to being non neruotypical, I know a hell of a lot more and with the news on this I will be making sure both of mine get the MMR.

I still think given the information I had 10 years ago I made the right call.
Given the information I have now I am choosing to make a different call.

The information 10 years ago was not information, it was mis-information, but as I said I don't blame you, it's parental instinct to be very suspicious of anything that gets injected into their kids. My parents made the same decision. When I was about 10 or 11 I got the mumps and it was fúcking horrible. I was really sick for nearly a month. I got it from a friend of mine living across the road who was never immunised due to Wakefail hype, who in turn got it off a kid in school that was never immunised due to Wakefail hype, who in turn.... etc etc.

The exact same thing happened a few years ago with measles here in Cork, and it cost several children their lives. That is what really gets me about the whole thing, it's not just some lofty academic exercise on the merits of various research etc., it prevented massive amounts of children from recieving a life saving vaccine.

Nevyn

That mis information wasn't the only information I had, my decision wasn't easily swayed but that bit of information and at the time the internet was not as extensive as it is now and it was not as easy to get access to medical journals and publications with out going into a university library.

Mumps sucks I had it as a kid, I also had measles as did all my siblings and cousins.
I knew at the time a lot about mumps and mealses and fúck all about the autism spectrum. I had no issues wiht any other vaccinations up until that point, my kids have had all the rest are due for the swinefly and the melingitis ones shortly and now that this is knocked totally on the head they will be getting the MMR.

Bonito

Deleted User wrote: »

The information 10 years ago was not information, it was mis-information, but as I said I don't blame you, it's parental instinct to be very suspicious of anything that gets injected into their kids. My parents made the same decision. When I was about 10 or 11 I got the mumps and it was fúcking horrible. I was really sick for nearly a month. I got it from a friend of mine living across the road who was never immunised due to Wakefail hype, who in turn got it off a kid in school that was never immunised due to Wakefail hype, who in turn.... etc etc.

The exact same thing happened a few years ago with measles here in Cork, and it cost several children their lives. That is what really gets me about the whole thing, it's not just some lofty academic exercise on the merits of various research etc., it prevented massive amounts of children from recieving a life saving vaccine.

+1 It was the, what we know now to be mis-information, information that caused the fear and problems. Obviously you had cases then of even though a child was vaccinated they could have still contracted the infection - I know I did. I had the german measles and mumps after my immunisation. Not consecutively but I still got them. In saying that, it never put me or my parents off vaccines. I just so happened to be one of those one-in-whatever cases.

MingulayJohnny

I think that the most important factor that missing in this debate is that whats good for one individual is not necessarily good for another. It's that rare child who happens to have an extra sensitive system or some kind of genetic proclivity that is activated when exposed to certain vaccines and\or their ingredients. I've reacted very badly to any vaccine I've ever got and when I got to the age of consent I decided not to be vaccinated again and if I was in a situation where I needed a certain vaccine to travel I'd have to find one that was free from Thimerosal which I think is a causal factor in autism cases in SOME cases. You have to treat the individual as exactly that and lumping millions of people into easy categories will not get to the root of the issue.

Dudess

I can't begin to fathom the pain this must have caused parents whose children received the vaccine and were then diagnosed (probably the wrong word - can't think of an alternative) with autism. The fact the study has been discredited is no doubt a comfort, but I doubt the feeling is something that would just go away completely overnight...

bodice ripper

Kelle 2 wrote: »

So i was relieved she had not had the MMR at that stage, I'm not thinking "What if".

you were also lucky not to be left thinking, "what if I had had her immunised, she might not have dropped dead of measles?"

A Dub in Glasgo

Everyone should have known for years now that this MMR = Autism is the biggest load of ****e. Good to see the gob****es have been proved wrong

Dave!

MingulayJohnny wrote: »

I think that the most important factor that missing in this debate is that whats good for one individual is not necessarily good for another. It's that rare child who happens to have an extra sensitive system or some kind of genetic proclivity that is activated when exposed to certain vaccines and\or their ingredients.

If you're allergic to any components in the vaccine then you shouldn't take it.

You're right, not everyone can be vaccinated. Some people have underlying illnesses that prevent it, some people are, as I said, allergic, and some people are getting treatment for eg. cancer, and so they can't handle vaccination.

That's where herd immunity comes in -- healthy people don't just get vaccinated for themselves, they get vaccinated to protect those who can't get the vaccine, because those are the people who are relying on the rest of us.

If I'm not mistaken, research has shown that you're less likely to contract one of these viruses as an unimmunized person if you're surrounded by immunzed people, than if you're an immunized person in a group of unimmunized people. That's because good as vaccines are, they're still not 100% effective.

MingulayJohnny wrote: »

I've reacted very badly to any vaccine I've ever got and when I got to the age of consent I decided not to be vaccinated again and if I was in a situation where I needed a certain vaccine to travel I'd have to find one that was free from Thimerosal which I think is a causal factor in autism cases in SOME cases. You have to treat the individual as exactly that and lumping millions of people into easy categories will not get to the root of the issue.

Oh FFS, substantiate that bullsh*t with research or else shut up. Thimerosal has been shown time and again to be safe. There is more mercury in a tuna sandwich than in a Thimerosal-containing dose of vaccine.

Truthrevolution

I think some of you need to take a look at this article, id advise to read the FULL article, i may get into trouble over this as it caused a bit of controversy already and subsequently got my thread closed.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055821209

Dave!

Truthrevolution wrote: »

I think some of you need to take a look at this article, id advise to read the FULL article, i may get into trouble over this as it caused a bit of controversy already and subsequently got my thread closed.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055821209

/checks link

/sees Wakefield's endorsement by Jim Carey and Jenny McCarthy being claimed as a good thing

/sees reference to naturalnews.com , the home of antiscience quakery

/dies a little inside

K-9

The media’s MMR hoax – Bad Science

I thought that was a good piece on it. The media have a lot to blame on this.

Truthrevolution

Dave! wrote: »

/checks link

/sees Wakefield's endorsement by Jim Carey and Jenny McCarthy being claimed as a good thing

/sees reference to naturalnews.com , the home of antiscience quakery

/dies a little inside

Looks like your just falling for the BigPharma propaganda they are talking about here

http://www.naturalnews.com/028101_The_Lancet_Dr_Wakefield.html

I know i may be wasting my time as you probably wont even read it but its there in black and white anyway