MMR doctor Andrew Wakefield fixed data on autism.

tallaght01 wrote: »

The "HSE" is "overpaid"???

Oh jesus.

Doctors don't want to stick 3 massive needles in one baby, when one will do, because people choose to believe one crackpot over a world of opinion.

It's more expensive to administer single vaccines. We could say "well, we may as well give them to the small amont of parents who are afraid of autism". But then everyone would just go "ah, sure, we may as well get the single vaccines" and the costs would spiral. Anyway, the "research" never said anyhting about single vaccines being safer. If the stuff causes autism, then it causes autism, no matter how many times you jab your kid to get it inside them.

Come on man, doctors are pulling in 60 quid a go for 5 minutes work at a time for writing a prescription or confirming "yes you have the flu" and consultants in the HSE hold the whole health system to ransom, not to mention the absolute shambles of management within it all and complete incompetance and lack of leadership from Harney.

Like I said though, you will find it extremely tough to make many parents sway their opinions on this matter. As such most will take the option of not vaccinating their children. If Irish doctors were allowed to administer the single vaccines and parents paid for them themselves, then wtf is the problem here apart from it all coming back to money and that it's cheaper to give the MMR being provided by whatever drug company who have the rights in Ireland, blah blah.
I would've preferred to go to my local GP and get her to administer the single vaccinations but she couldn't do that as she was not allowed.

I know its off topic but it is kinda related - Does anyone know what the story with Dr. Michael Neary is? Is this butcher gonna get off scott free, as is typical of guys with money/power in Ireland, or is there still a chance he will face justice in the future?

seamus wrote: »

It's tough to say. What would you consider "justice"? The man was ill, very ill, but he ultimately believed that what he was doing was the correct course of medical action at the time. It's easy to prove that a medical action was negligent or ill-advised, and equally easy to prove that a doctor made an error of judgement, but in Neary's case his judgement was just completely faulty - from his POV he hadn't made any errors of judgment and there was no malice in his actions.

What purpose would it serve to incarcerate a mentally ill man (who poses no further threat to society). What happened in his case was horrific, but I see no benefit to society or to him in throwing him in prison.

The benefit is that he is punished for his actions. If your mother/sister/gf had her womb removed by this guy would you not be looking for him to answer for his actions in court? As for being believing what he did was correct, of course thats what he will say, same as Shipman in the UK. At least Shipman was brought to justice for what he did, multiple counts of murder. Why isn't Neary up for multiple counts of GBH or whatever the relevant charge is. He has never been made to answer for his actions in court, all we've heard from him is his side of the story and most criminals have no problem fabricating stories to suit their circumstances.

And one of British consultants who reviewed the case believes there was alot more to it than a doctor who misguidedly believed his actions were correct at the time.

One group of women fell outside the scope of her inquiry, however. They were 62 women whose ovaries -- and in some cases wombs -- had been removed during routine gynaecological procedures performed by Neary.

Mostly women of childbearing age, many had gone to him with minor problems such as cysts or fibroids. They emerged from supposedly routine appointments having gone through major surgery to remove their ovaries.

Knowing the fate that befell these women, Dr Roger Clements, one of two British consultants who reviewed those cases, does not agree with the more benign assessment of Neary's supposed phobias and fear of blood loss. His findings cast the obstetrician's supposed blunders in a far more sinister light.

Neary had explained the hysterectomies to Judge Maureen Clarke by saying that he had been trying to stem the blood loss. How could he explain the gynaecological procedures that resulted in missing ovaries in 62 women?

These patients were not bleeding from childbirth. They were not at death's door, as he claimed so many of his victims were. These patients were told that they had endometriosis or cancer, in order to justify removing their ovaries. In most cases they did not.

"These weren't mistakes, they weren't carelessness. He, for some reason, had to do these operations and I can't understand the motivation," said Roger Clements last year.

"Neary was not a bad doctor. He wasn't bad at his job. He was perfectly competent and the staff around him thought he was a wonderful doctor. I think there can't be any doubt that this was a will to do something, rather than slipshod medicine."

Neary should be tried in court and then we'll see how his claims that he didn't think he was doing any wrong stack up. People shouldn't just be able to say 'I thought what I was doing was ok' and then have it left at that - when you butcher over 100 women and ruin countless lives you should be made to answer for it in court. Should be, but wont. As usual, if this was the U.S. or the U.K. he wouldve been made to face these charges long ago.

astrofool wrote: »

Risk is bringing kids up in a world where their parents believe a crackpot. The MMR jab is not a risk.

...but I don't believe what was wrote and probably an awful lot more parents don't either but it created enough doubt as to sway people away from getting the jab for their kids.
So you either sit on your hands and do nothing but piss and moan about it, or you implement single vaccinations as an option (with extra costs to be incurred by parents who opt for it) to achieve "herd immunity" levels.

Nehaxak wrote: »

...and that's what I'm saying isn't good enough. I would prefer them to come out and just say "we don't know what exactly or how exactly Autism is casued but we do know, 100% correct in our knowledge, that it is not caused, cannot be caused and never was caused by the MMR vaccinations".

Pick something that is common scientific knowledge. Say evolution. We all agree that the theory of evolution is sound scientific knowledge right? But you can't say evolution theory is 100% correct, it is in the end a theory, subject to revision and research. Nothing is 100% true or correct in science, and if you are going to subject every vaccine to that sort of scrutiny then you are cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Nehaxak wrote: »

Not that I doubt you, but could you provide a link to that anywhere with reputable and well respected scientific sources, for my own piece of mind ?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article3308485.ece
http://www.nhs.uk/news/2008/09September/Pages/ResearchshowsnoMMRautismlink.aspx
http://www.newscientist.com/search?doSearch=true&query=mmr+autism

3 different links. Each saying essentially the same thing. To the best of our knowledge no link between autism and MMR.

The last one is a link to a New Scientist search on the subject which will give you loads of info on the subject.

Nehaxak wrote: »

Government
HSE
Drug Companies

All the above I do not trust and if there is any doubt whatsoever and an alternative available, I will not put my kids at ANY possible risk/doubt on the word of anyone from the above mentioned, particularly the first two groups of muppets.

Even if you don't trust the Government or the HSE on this matter trust the people who spent their life doing this kind of work and are expert in the fields. They have no vested interest other than the truth.

I seriously don't see why one of the most successful vaccination schemes in this country should be changed considering there is NO RISK. If something ain't broke don't fix it.

Nehaxak wrote: »

I also do not place any trust in the paper that was wrote by Wakefield ? I don't know where you got that from. I said it created doubt in my mind and enough doubt at that for me to seek alternatives for the vaccinations. Whereas other parents did the same, yet more opted for no vaccinations at all.

You must place some level of trust in his paper since you have a doubt. I have zero trust in his paper ergo I have zero doubt. Perhaps if it was the only study done I might have some small level of doubt but other larger, more scientific studies have shown zero link.

Also your risk argument does not stand up for someone who does not get the vaccine as the simple fact is they put their child at more risk by not getting the jab than by getting it - even if their was a slight risk of developing autism (which there isn't ) there is a larger risk of getting measles, mumps or rubella.

Nehaxak wrote: »

You haven't given an answer to any argument, merely stated your opinion again based purely on costs.
Given you seem to be based in this field of expertise, can you please explain why GP's are not allowed administer the single vaccinations in this country ? I might add also that funnily enough the single vaccinations were made by a different drug company, surprise surprise. The words "cosy little cartel" and "brown envelopes" spring to mind, purely because there is no other explanation as to why GP's are not allowed administer the single vaccinations in Ireland.

Firstly I'm not an expert in this particular field but I am doing a PhD in science so I have a fair degree of expertise in scientific method and a large degree of trust in scientists who by and large I have found to be some of the most logical and sensible people around.

I don't know if the single vaccines are available in this country or not. However all of the MMR jabs are bought by the government so their is no cost to the doctor - considering that why would he go to his own expense of getting single vaccinations when he knows the 3-in-1 is a better and cheaper way of going about it.
Also it may be possible that the single vaccines haven't been passed by the Irish Medicines Board who may simply have decided not to waste their time passing drugs like this when better ones are already provided by the government.
Again I don't know these are some possible reasons I thought off the top of my head. Could you please tell me where you got the information about the single vaccines not being available in this country?

Nehaxak wrote: »

Might want to hop down off that high horse sometime and brush that chip off your shoulder while you're at it.
YOU and others like you that hold similar views are ignorant towards parents, their kids and the doubts and fears that they have. Rather than address them in a proper manner, you'd rather call them ignorant morons and dismiss them. Good job, you'll go far for sure...

No I'm not ignorant towards parents or their doubts. I can tell them that I 100% back the MMR and that no scientific reason has ever been found to doubt it. I can also tell them with 100% certainty that if I ever have children they will get the 3-in-1. After that I can do no more. If they don't trust me or their doctor or the overwhelming majority of the experts in this area there is nothing more I can do.
And tbh I would be a little angry with them because not only are they putting their own child at risk they would also be putting any of my children at risk also.
As for the ignorant comments I completely stand by them. You can be extremely smart and well educated but still be ignorant about many things. I know I'm ignorant about loads of things - but I trust the people who are expert in these things and will take their word on the matter.
Also I never called anyone a moron I said they were ignorant of scientific method and practice - which most people are simply because they don't do science on an everyday basis. That's not their fault, they may be extremely knowledgeable in other areas but ignorant on this issue.

kevmy wrote: »

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article3308485.ece
http://www.nhs.uk/news/2008/09September/Pages/ResearchshowsnoMMRautismlink.aspx
http://www.newscientist.com/search?doSearch=true&query=mmr+autism

3 different links. Each saying essentially the same thing. To the best of our knowledge no link between autism and MMR.

The last one is a link to a New Scientist search on the subject which will give you loads of info on the subject.

Thank you.

Third comment on the first link you gave reads as follows...

My cousin was a perfectly healthy, normal, bouncing baby until she was vaccinated. Straight after (in the same day and following weeks), she became incredibly ill and is now severely autistic, is 10 years old but has the mental capacity of less than a 2 year old. I realise that this could be a flaw of causation but nevertheless studies must be done of all of these cases to find out the truth. The flaw of causation has also been used to 'prove' that vaccines have lowered diseases such as measles, polio etc, and it needs to be addressed from both sides.

I know personally of numerous cases of people having reactions to vaccinations and it is no wonder when you discover what is in vaccine ingredients. I am glad I have not been vaccinated and personally feel that my good health is probably linked.

Annabelle, Brentwood,

Which to me, as a non scientist now but as a parent, again brings up doubt about the MMR.

Even if you don't trust the Government or the HSE on this matter trust the people who spent their life doing this kind of work and are expert in the fields. They have no vested interest other than the truth.

I won't disagree with you on that one but I would still at this stage like to see hard factual 100% evidential proof beyond any shadow of a doubt whatsoever, that the MMR vaccination is not a cause in any way of autism.
I'm not saying it is a cause, I'm saying I am not 100% sure it is not a cause.
Sure you can bring up the whole farleys rusks theory again but I'd rather multiple, respected, trusted and authorative actual factual links/guides/material/publications to read as I would like to have my doubts as a parent alleviated - in turn passing on what I have learned to others rather than just revert to blaming farleys rusks

I seriously don't see why one of the most successful vaccination schemes in this country should be changed considering there is NO RISK. If something ain't broke don't fix it.

Well, I cannot see why single vaccinations cannot be given instead, I have not had anyone give me any actual reason why that is unrelated to costs, laziness or (what I assume are...) vested interests.

You must place some level of trust in his paper since you have a doubt. I have zero trust in his paper ergo I have zero doubt. Perhaps if it was the only study done I might have some small level of doubt but other larger, more scientific studies have shown zero link.

It's not just that paper though, it's all the stories both second hand and from those unfortunately you might hear form friends and family about their kids contracting autism very soon after they get the jab. Sure, can easily say coincidence but the doubt/fear nonetheless is there.

Also your risk argument does not stand up for someone who does not get the vaccine as the simple fact is they put their child at more risk by not getting the jab than by getting it - even if their was a slight risk of developing autism (which there isn't ) there is a larger risk of getting measles, mumps or rubella.

Thing is, many a parent would risk their kids getting measeles, mumps or rubella rather than see them destroyed with autism. Not sure of your age but I suppose anyone over the age of 30 would have probably got measles and mumps as a kid and survived thankfully, equally so many of the parents around also who don't get the MMR for their kids.
Rather than even take that risk, I chose the route of the single vaccinations for my own kids. Others though cannot afford it or even know how to go about getting the single vaccinations from the UK. If GP's were allowed administer the single vaccinations, even if the cost was incurred by parents, then I'm sure we would have this "herd immunity". I seriously fail to understand why they are not allowed (the GP's in Ireland) to do this.

(...) I don't know if the single vaccines are available in this country or not.

They are, but only through private clinics run by UK doctors who travel over here every few months (well to Dublin at least). I am not sure if this is still in operation as my kids are older now and it's been a few years since we got them the single vaccinations.

However all of the MMR jabs are bought by the government so their is no cost to the doctor - considering that why would he go to his own expense of getting single vaccinations when he knows the 3-in-1 is a better and cheaper way of going about it.

There would still be no cost (any GP on here who could verify ?) to the doctor as the parents would pay for the single vaccinations, 10 euro a pop, not a lot to pay.

Again I don't know these are some possible reasons I thought off the top of my head. Could you please tell me where you got the information about the single vaccines not being available in this country?

My own GP, our GP before that, the GP near my parents and a GP in Santry close enough to us. We got the details of the private UK clinic from the Citizens Information place in town and contacted them. We would've had to have travelled over to London to get the single vaccinations 2 months from then but they called us back within the month to let us know that they had so much interest from Irish parents that it was in their own interests to come to Dublin themselves to administer the single vaccinations.

Redpunto wrote: »

I dont quite see what youre arguing against. Is it that you expect the taxpayers to subsidise a single vaccines becuase you are paranoid over the non-existent risk of your child developing autism.

Many a parent with autistic children would differ with your "opinion" on the "non existent risk" associated with MMR and autism.

I'm "arguing" as you say it, against the refusal of the Irish government and the HSE to allow Irish doctors to administer the single vaccinations.

While I don't agree with abortion, I am pro choice.
While I don't believe in God, I have my doubts as to whether there is none.
While I don't believe in wakefields report, I have my doubts as to the safety of the MMR.

I'm so sorry I don't trust our overlords without any questions or doubts as to their integrity...

Where's that sheep smiley...:rolleyes:

oceanclub wrote: »

So, presumably you won't be sending your children to the hospital if ill then? I mean, it is those "complete and utter morons" who run those too.

P.

My my, an awful lot of HSE interests on boards being very defensive these days...looking forward to that new SSIA pension fund pay cut are we ?

Nehaxak wrote: »

My my, an awful lot of HSE interests on boards being very defensive these days...looking forward to that new SSIA pension fund pay cut are we ?

The words of a man who, and I hate to say it, has now been reduced to simple playground remarks.

At least now, parents won't take any of your other posts seriously.

LOL @ HSE "interests" btw. Most people who work for the HSE have no interest in the defending them!!! Quite the opposite.