MMR doctor Andrew Wakefield fixed data on autism.

javaboy wrote: »

I mean if an editor was prefacing the study itself with such a disclaimer.

Well then it'd be a pretty idiotic editorial piece to be printed in the first place, much like Wakefields report.

I see your point. I really do. And I know that kids shouldn't be forced to pay the price for their parents' paranoia. And ideally we could achieve herd immunisation levels etc.

But imo the primary responsibility for a child's well being lies with their parents. The bulk of the blame for the failure to achieve 100% immunisation levels lies with the parents who put so much faith in one discredited and debunked paper and so little in the overwhelming majority of the scientific community.

Sure the state could cater to the paranoid. But that's tantamount to state sanctioned paranoia. The best available medical solution is available. Why should the state give any credence to these baseless fears by providing a poorer solution. Let some private company do that if there is demand.

Ah man it's not that, people here are so set on basing all their beliefs that parents have the fear of MMR purely on Wakefield's flawed paper. It creates nothing but doubt for me but I base most of my own thinking on what I've seen myself, friends'/neighbors' (thankfully no immediate family) kids' who got Autism after they had the MMR vaccine and I could point out at least 3 of them, not to mention those with whom I've met or indeed worked with. It's a small enough country with a high enough rate of autism for the size of population we have, it's not hard to find parents with autistic kids and ask them yourself if given the choice then, would they have chosen the MMR over single vaccinations. An awfully hard subject for some of them to even approach but I doubt you'd find many who if they could go back in time, wouldn't have chosen the single vaccinations instead of the MMR.
Of course maybe their children would still contract autism, who knows, but if you have any doubt over such a thing as bad as autism effecting your children and you have a CHOICE of getting the single vaccinations then at the very least you have that choice and you can make up your own mind whether you believe the "coincidence" of it all and the flawed research or you don't take the risk at all, however small it may be, and choose the single vaccinations instead (or in the worst case, none at all, which does nobody any good).

I've nothing more to say on this matter, nobody has answered my question or given any credible reason whatsoever that isn't based on costs and laziness and/or vested interests as to why exactly GP's are not allowed to administer the single vaccinations as a choice to parents worried (however wrongly some think they may be) about the MMR.
It's a sensitive subject for a lot of people and a lot of the people on here are insensitive, argumentative just for the sake of it or just plain ignorant to a parents fears that they might have. I'm done with arguing with keyboard warriors and NRS sufferers, I'll pick and choose with whom I'll debate with on this subject in any future posts as otherwise I'll only end up replying on an off moment and call someone a cnut, however rightly they might deserve that response, I'll lose the "keyboard warrior battle" and they'll fap away to themselves while notching up another knife cut on their computer table.:rolleyes:

tallaght01 wrote: »

Nehaxak, if you want to keep making snotty cliched, uneducated remarks about doctors pay that have no basis in relaity then come over to the biology+medicine forum and talk to us about it there, and we'll tell you exactly what we do for our money.

Good for you there now in Australia, I was talking about Ireland.
Come back someday and sure pay a visit to your local GP while you're here, then ask them to explain why they're taking 60 quid from you for 5 minutes work telling you you had the flu and here's a prescription for augmentin.

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.

I see you're still reeling from your last ban and insistent on flame baiting your posts to me. Let me know when you've grown up a little and I might start to take anything you say with some seriousness. I was actually thanking your first post for being constructive until I got to the last couple of lines quoted in the fist lines in this post where it became more evident of your intentions.
You as a pediatrician should be more respective and caring towards parents and helping to alleviate their fears, if you can't you should as a person at the very least be supportive of parents needs for alternative choice (single vaccines) to achieve what should be the end result of immunisation of children.

If you can't do that well then I guess that's just your humanity or lack thereof.

I'm putting you back on ignore btw as I can't be bothered arguing with immaturity and you've nothing to say that's worthy of me wasting time reading.

oceanclub wrote: »

Now you've just decended into paranoia.

P.

I'm under your bed.

N.

Nehaxak wrote: »

There's too many "but what if's" and "but would you if" yet nobody has given a credible answer to the simple question as to why GP's in this country are not allowed administer the single vaccinations as a choice to parents who do wish to immunise their children but have doubts about the MMR, whether they read it, heard about it or have seen themselves the "possible" consequences of a child getting autism from the MMR.

Surely the whole point of this is to immunise children, so if the parents have doubts about the MMR, then in the national interests of immunising as many children as possible - parent should be given the choice of opting for the single vaccinations instead. I cannot understand why you people do not understand that, really, are you just arguing for the sake of arguing ?

Yes the reason that the single jabs aren't available is simply because of cost. The government has provided a perfectly good immunisation programme. If people don't take it up it's their fault. We can encourage them and assuage them all we like but in the end it's their choice.
If the government was to provide the single jabs it would cost and that money would have to come from other parts of the health service budget. Essentially taking money away from people who need it and giving to over-protective, ignorant parents for no good reason.

Nehaxak wrote: »

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

Unfortunately you would see any good scientist making such a claim - only bad scientists. All we can say is extensive, statistical studies have shown to the best of our knowledge and ability that there is no link between the two. I mean it is possible that there is a one is 100 billion chance that it causes autism but was missed by these studies so you can never say 100%.

Nehaxak wrote: »

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.

Except it is solely from this paper whether directly or indirectly. No-one ever associated the two until this paper came out so whether directly or indirectly your doubt has been created by this paper

Nehaxak wrote: »

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.
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.

If English GP can administer the drug in Ireland then the drug is legal in Ireland. The reason the drug is not available through Irish doctors is because the Government will not include it on their immunisation scheme.
I must assume then that for an Irish GP to give it they must source and buy the drug themselves and then give it to the patient. This means a lot of cost on the patient and the doctor as he would have to have a stock of these.
So doctors may just refuse to buy in this drug, which is not available on the government immunisation scheme, and provide it to the patient as their is no medical, ethical or cost basis to do so.
The 10 euro a pop you refer to is for the doctors time not for the cost of the drug which is provided to GP's by the government

Nehaxak wrote: »

Ah man it's not that, people here are so set on basing all their beliefs that parents have the fear of MMR purely on Wakefield's flawed paper. It creates nothing but doubt for me but I base most of my own thinking on what I've seen myself, friends'/neighbors' (thankfully no immediate family) kids' who got Autism after they had the MMR vaccine and I could point out at least 3 of them, not to mention those with whom I've met or indeed worked with. It's a small enough country with a high enough rate of autism for the size of population we have, it's not hard to find parents with autistic kids and ask them yourself if given the choice then, would they have chosen the MMR over single vaccinations. An awfully hard subject for some of them to even approach but I doubt you'd find many who if they could go back in time, wouldn't have chosen the single vaccinations instead of the MMR.
Of course maybe their children would still contract autism, who knows, but if you have any doubt over such a thing as bad as autism effecting your children and you have a CHOICE of getting the single vaccinations then at the very least you have that choice and you can make up your own mind whether you believe the "coincidence" of it all and the flawed research or you don't take the risk at all, however small it may be, and choose the single vaccinations instead (or in the worst case, none at all, which does nobody any good).

I've nothing more to say on this matter, nobody has answered my question or given any credible reason whatsoever that isn't based on costs and laziness and/or vested interests as to why exactly GP's are not allowed to administer the single vaccinations as a choice to parents worried (however wrongly some think they may be) about the MMR.
It's a sensitive subject for a lot of people and a lot of the people on here are insensitive, argumentative just for the sake of it or just plain ignorant to a parents fears that they might have. I'm done with arguing with keyboard warriors and NRS sufferers, I'll pick and choose with whom I'll debate with on this subject in any future posts as otherwise I'll only end up replying on an off moment and call someone a cnut, however rightly they might deserve that response, I'll lose the "keyboard warrior battle" and they'll fap away to themselves while notching up another knife cut on their computer table.:rolleyes:

Just because autism is diagnosed after the MMR jab does not mean it causes it. Autism is often not seen in babies and most kids aren't diagnosed with it until they are ~2 yrs old. This means most have had their jabs at this stage.

It is a sensitive subject and thats exactly the reason why it should be debated in a calm, logical and reasonable manner. This means not being emotive and not throwing out examples of poor kids who have autism as some "proof of doubt".

I'm not ignorant of parents fear in fact I'm trying to assuage those fears so that they're kids will get the best care. As for arguing this issue on this board I feel it is up to people to show that all proper scientific studies have shown no link, rather than letting fearmongers give parents a skewed view on such important matters.