Advertisement
How to add spoiler tags, edit posts, add images etc. How to - a user's guide to the new version of Boards
Mods please check the Moderators Group for an important update on Mod tools. If you do not have access to the group, please PM Niamh. Thanks!

Incidence of measles, mumps and rubella all increase due to anti-vaccine campaign

11011121315

Comments



  • Czarcasm wrote: »
    That makes one of you Redzer, but how would that poll look if we were to do a Yes/No on mandatory HIV vaccination? I know you're suggesting I'm making an apples and oranges comparison, but what I'm actually doing is asking adults would they feel the same way if they themselves were faced with mandatory vaccination for HIV?

    You and I would have no issue with voluntarily having the vaccine administered on ourselves, but as much as I'd rather see the back of an insidious disease, I think it would be nothing shy of hubris to speak for anyone else, or to impose my moral and ethical standards on another person, let alone 6.5 billion people.

    Like I said earlier -

    You want the disease eradicated you make vaccination mandatory. Same with smallpox. It's for the greater good and it's the only way to rid the world of such diseases efficiently, to hell what simple minded and ignorant people think. No understanding of the issue and the consequences at large =no opinion. It's for all of our safety as a species.




  • To those selfish enough to not vaccinate their kids who think it won't affect others: vaccines are not 100% effective. There is still a chance, small as it is, that a vaccinated person can still get sick.

    The unvaccinated are the people who will spread these diseases to others, and the more there are of these wilfully negligent, selfish people the more people who will get sick, be hospitalised, and perhaps die.


    And do you honestly think guilt-tripping anyone is going to convince them to get vaccinated? If anything it'll have the opposite effect and alienate them, so your message effectively goes unheard.

    When was the last time you gave anything to a charity collector on the street who called you selfish for not setting up a direct debit for the poor starving children in Africa?




  • The argument in the article link suggests avoiding compulsory vaccinations, not because they think vaccinations are a bad idea (the explicitly state the opposite) but because they believe using a stick rather than a carrot would damage the relationship between doctors and their patients. Perhaps this is a sensible approach but it is not a medical or scientific argument

    It's the opinion of the BMA, and of its many thousand medical scientists, ethicists and educationalists. I never said it was a 'scientific argument'.

    People in this thread continue to ignore their extremely informed and collective 'opinion' though, and continue to argue in favour of compulsory vaccinations. Which is ironic given the comments that some have made about others ignoring established practices from professionals.
    And doesn’t the NHS fund patients who opt for homeopathic “treatments”? Surely this tells you that there is more than medical science at play in the influence of their health policies?

    NHS =/= BMA

    The BMA have on numerous occasions come out against homeopathy, and voted against its inclusion in the NHS, as well as government funding.

    http://www.nursingtimes.net/whats-new-in-nursing/primary-care/bma-votes-against-homeopathy-funding/5016611.article

    Prince Charles, and his lobby groups are the ones responsible for it being included in the NHS.




  • _Redzer_ wrote: »
    You want the disease eradicated you make vaccination mandatory. Same with smallpox. It's for the greater good and it's the only way to rid the world of such diseases efficiently, to hell what simple minded and ignorant people think. No understanding of the issue and the consequences at large =no opinion. It's for all of our safety as a species.


    You're an intelligent guy Redzer, but the world has moved on in the last 40 years since smallpox was eradicated (have you ever actually read up on how the vaccine was developed? That wouldn't fly nowadays either!), so you know as well as I do that your opinion is never going to fly.




  • Czarcasm wrote: »
    You're an intelligent guy Redzer, but the world has moved on in the last 40 years since smallpox was eradicated (have you ever actually read up on how the vaccine was developed? That wouldn't fly nowadays either!), so you know as well as I do that your opinion is never going to fly.

    DNA technology allows us to genetically alter strains of pathogens into severely weakened or inert forms. This can be vaccinated without any ethical issues.
    The world has moved on with regards to medical technology too. Moot point.

    Mandatory vaccination is best for the species. That is fact. Anything else is a half measure and a worthless waste of energy in the end once the strain eventually mutates and everything must be started from scratch because the vaccine is no longer effective.


  • Advertisement


  • Czarcasm wrote: »
    You still haven't shown a shred of evidence that not having the vaccine is guaranteed to harm others.
    Actually

    the difference between America and Europe is that America has more or less eradicated measles.

    At this stage 99% of the measles cases in the US are imported.
    Over in Wales people have died recently from it.

    http://www.cdc.gov/measles/travelers.html
    Measles remains a common disease in many parts of the world, including areas in Europe, Asia, the Pacific, and Africa. In the United States, most of the measles cases result from international travel. The disease is brought into the United States by people who get infected in other countries. They spread the disease to others, which can cause measles outbreaks.

    ...
    Measles—United States, January 1-August 24, 2013
    During the first 8 months of 2013, 159 people in the United States were reported to have measles. About 99% of these cases were associated with importations from other countries. MMWR. Sep 13, 2013




  • Listen I'm for educating people but not everyone will make the decision to vaccinate even with education. What is the solution to those that don't.




  • _Redzer_ wrote: »
    DNA technology allows us to genetically alter strains of pathogens into severely weakened or inert forms. This can be vaccinated without any ethical issues.
    The world has moved on with regards to medical technology too. Moot point.

    Mandatory vaccination is best for the species. That is fact. Anything else is a half measure and a worthless waste of energy in the end once the strain eventually mutates and everything must be started from scratch because the vaccine is no longer effective.


    What's not a moot point though, is that after all these mandatory vaccinations, MMR and HIV to start with, then we move down the list in an attempt to eradicate all possibly fatal diseases, and have you considered what that will do to our bodies natural immunity? At least I still have my SARS mask, just in case!

    Or, we could just go to the final solution and eradicate all the simple minded and ignorant people who stand in the way of your plan to introduce mandatory vaccinations for all diseases?

    That'll learn 'em...




  • It's the opinion of the BMA, and of its many thousand medical scientists, ethicists and educationalists.
    That’s a bit of a stretch. It is the position of the BMA. It is almost certainly not shared by all, any more than the any position taken by any organisation is shared by all of its members.

    Any you need to look at their reason for taking this position. They are not making any argument about human rights violations or infringement of the autonomy of the parent as some are here.

    They do not argue against compulsory vaccinations per se, rather that it would cause an incidental and undesirable impact (a damaging of the doctor patient relationship). And unless this is the reason you take issue with compulsory vaccinations it is disingenuous to be citing the BMA to support the argument you are making.

    There are frequently, unrelated practical reasons why a reasonable course of action should be deferred or perhaps not taken at all. This is not an argument against the merits of the course of action.
    NHS =/= BMA
    No, they are not. But the homeopathy business reveals something about the British health system. In particular, that policies and positions adapted by medical organisations have to be cognisant of the fact many people are not overburdened with capabilities of logic and reason.




  • Czarcasm wrote: »
    What's not a moot point though, is that after all these mandatory vaccinations, MMR and HIV to start with, then we move down the list in an attempt to eradicate all possibly fatal diseases, and have you considered what that will do to our bodies natural immunity? At least I still have my SARS mask, just in case!

    Or, we could just go to the final solution and eradicate all the simple minded and ignorant people who stand in the way of your plan to introduce mandatory vaccinations for all diseases?

    That'll learn 'em...

    That's your slippery slope to Godwin right there. Others are interested in defining parameters within reason, not ad absurdum.


  • Advertisement


  • Actually

    the difference between America and Europe is that America has more or less eradicated measles.

    At this stage 99% of the measles cases in the US are imported.
    Over in Wales people have died recently from it.

    http://www.cdc.gov/measles/travelers.html


    I think people are misunderstanding when I say guarantee, as what's been provided so far is only evidence of increased risk, but to give a hypothetical example-

    Take one un-vaccinated child. Without the ability to predict the future, nobody can guarantee that child will develop MMR, there is only the possibility that they might. There's any number of possibilities and risks they are exposed to on a daily basis. Are we to follow children around making sure they are protected until they get into adulthood? And then what? Well, they risk all manner of diseases and they are increasing risks to their neighbours if they don't make the right lifestyle choices, so we'd better make mandatory lifestyle decisions for them, such as mandatory exercise, mandatory diet, mandatory sexual partners (because it's all about the greater good after all, couldn't do to have them passing on any mutant genes), that reminds me - mandatory genetic therapy to eradicate genetic diseases and disorders...

    They'll live a long and healthy life as long as they live according to our moral and ethical standards, because autonomy is only for selfish individuals who do not see that the greater good is for their own good.




  • Czarcasm wrote: »
    I think people are misunderstanding when I say guarantee, as what's been provided so far is only evidence of increased risk, but to give a hypothetical example-

    Take one un-vaccinated child. Without the ability to predict the future, nobody can guarantee that child will develop MMR, there is only the possibility that they might. There's any number of possibilities and risks they are exposed to on a daily basis. Are we to follow children around making sure they are protected until they get into adulthood? And then what? Well, they risk all manner of diseases and they are increasing risks to their neighbours if they don't make the right lifestyle choices, so we'd better make mandatory lifestyle decisions for them, such as mandatory exercise, mandatory diet, mandatory sexual partners (because it's all about the greater good after all, couldn't do to have them passing on any mutant genes), that reminds me - mandatory genetic therapy to eradicate genetic diseases and disorders...

    They'll live a long and healthy life as long as they live according to our moral and ethical standards, because autonomy is only for selfish individuals who do not see that the greater good is for their own good.

    alright Abraham, go on up the mountain and risk your own kid.




  • Muise... wrote: »
    That's your slippery slope to Godwin right there. Others are interested in defining parameters within reason, not ad absurdum.


    It's not MY slippery slope at all, this was where things started to go downhill when people start adjudicating like this for people that don't agree with them -

    _Redzer_ wrote: »
    You want the disease eradicated you make vaccination mandatory. Same with smallpox. It's for the greater good and it's the only way to rid the world of such diseases efficiently, to hell what simple minded and ignorant people think. No understanding of the issue and the consequences at large =no opinion. It's for all of our safety as a species.


    The smell of Godwin off that! Does that sound like defining parameters within reason to you?

    For 6.5 billion people...




  • steddyeddy wrote: »
    Listen I'm for educating people but not everyone will make the decision to vaccinate even with education. What is the solution to those that don't.


    There is no solution, you have to accept that some people are unwilling to bend to your will.

    Muise... wrote: »
    alright Abraham, go on up the mountain and risk your own kid.


    Well that was a short lived idea of a reasonable discussion. I've already said I'm pro-vaccination btw.




  • Czarcasm wrote: »
    It's not MY slippery slope at all, this was where things started to go downhill when people start adjudicating like this for people that don't agree with them -

    The smell of Godwin off that! Does that sound like defining parameters within reason to you?

    For 6.5 billion people...


    Refutation is not the same as disagreement.

    A virus does not give a fcuk about your opinion.

    You might think people are entitled to piss in the well if it's their heartfelt belief that it is a good thing; the ensuing sicknesses will not bother to argue with you.




  • Czarcasm wrote: »
    I think people are misunderstanding when I say guarantee, as what's been provided so far is only evidence of increased risk, but to give a hypothetical example-
    It's pretty f**king clear.

    99% of the cases of measles in the USA are from people from areas where the vaccination rate is lower.

    No one gets smallpox anymore.
    A disease that killed over 300 million people last century.


    The safest thing is not taking a vaccine, BUT ONLY if everyone else gets vaccinated. And this is what happens to people with suppressed immune systems. And unless everyone else gets vaccinate they are exposed.

    The next safest thing is to get vaccinated. The risk level is more or less unmeasurable against the background of other risks. We don't know if banning all vaccines would save any lives.

    The most dangerous thing is to refuse vaccines when you live in an area where there are disease outbreaks on a regular basis because there isn't a herd immunity to protect you. Places like Europe. We've had multiple fatalities from measles in Ireland nevermind Wales.




  • Muise... wrote: »
    Refutation is not the same as disagreement.

    A virus does not give a fcuk about your opinion.

    You might think people are entitled to piss in the well if it's their heartfelt belief that it is a good thing; the ensuing sicknesses will not bother to argue with you.


    There's plenty I don't agree with people doing, so I'm already working off the default assumption that they aren't going to give a fcuk for my opinion, so all I can do (all any of us can do!) is lead by example and educate people that are open to being educated. You won't achieve anything by force, or by making vaccinations mandatory.

    Let's be honest, there are far smarter people than me working for the WHO, wouldn't it stand to reason that they would've reintroduced mass eradication if they thought it would be an effective method of eradicating diseases already?

    They've had 40 years to mull it over.




  • Czarcasm wrote: »
    There's plenty I don't agree with people doing, so I'm already working off the default assumption that they aren't going to give a fcuk for my opinion, so all I can do (all any of us can do!) is lead by example and educate people that are open to being educated. You won't achieve anything by force, or by making vaccinations mandatory.

    Let's be honest, there are far smarter people than me working for the WHO, wouldn't it stand to reason that they would've reintroduced mass eradication if they thought it would be an effective method of eradicating diseases already?

    They've had 40 years to mull it over.

    They're busy with aids, malaria and polio in developing countries. Western countries are supposed to be able to look after themselves. It's people like you who are causing stupid stuff like measles to come back.




  • They're busy with aids, malaria and polio in developing countries. Western countries are supposed to be able to look after themselves.


    So... World Health Organisation is a complete misnomer then?

    Pesky Western countries, left to their own devices they only go and develop coronary heart disease with their unhealthy lifestyle choices.

    It's people like you who are causing stupid stuff like measles to come back.


    Surprise surprise, another personalised swipe based on nothing more than you think you know me based on my opinion on one single issue.

    Next thing you'll be saying "people like you" are responsible for stupid stuff like tuberculosis coming back, but you'd be wrong about that too.

    Antimicrobial resistance


    Would you care to take a stab at what happens when you introduce mandatory vaccinations against all diseases?




  • Czarcasm wrote: »
    Would you care to take a stab at what happens when you introduce mandatory vaccinations against all diseases?

    You'd make extinct a lot of virulent strains. Completly eradicating a disease if you kept the vaccination rate consistent.


  • Advertisement


  • MilanPan!c wrote: »
    I'm not sure if you're intentionally lying or just ignorant.

    Funny that. I was just about to say the same thing about yourself.
    Wakefield repeatedly changed the data.

    And as proof of that, you link me to an article by Brian Deer??

    The same guy who has been caught lying so many times now it is laughable? The same guy that the GMC based their entire case on? A case so paper thin one judge labelled a farce, quashed the charges of professional misconduct, saying they were based on "inadequate and superficial reasoning". And you are holding up anything that clown had to say?

    Did you know that he went around some the Lancet 12's family homes, lying about who he was. Gaining access under the guise of being a sympathetic journalist?
    He also rounded up anti-MMR parents for the trial, claimed he'd discovered the link BEFORE doing any tests and was part of a lawsuit against MMR - which earned him 50k in fees - before and during the research.

    And you have the cheek to say I am lying?

    Wakefield was a doctor for 14 years before he dealt with autism. The parents were ALL referred to the Royal Free and he took an interest in their cases as he was a a senior lecturer and surgeon at the Royal Free at the time. The fees came from the Legal Aid Board and went into the Royal Free's accounts, NOT into his pocket. Studies have to be funded, and autism research is a grossly underfunded area of medicine. He declared his conflict of interest to his colleagues at the time and this has been acknowledged and indeed, is on record at the Lancet, so much so that during evidence at the BMJ hearings the argument then became about the dates this was revealed (pre-'98 or not).
    On the other hand Smith was later re-instated as a doctor.

    Yes, which is my point and why I brought him up. The case against Prof Walker-Smith was based on the same shoddy nonsense that the case against Wakefield was based on and had Wakefield's being able to afford to cover the legal costs of the appeal (or more to the point: being able to afford losing the appeal) then he too would have been reinstated, perhaps with a slap on the wrist for some of the more minor offences.
    Wakefield is CLEARLY the person behind the entire scam. He was clearly the person falsifying the histories. He clearly cherry picked some of the subjects based on their anti-MMR beliefs. And he clearly was making money from a law firm, while preparing a lawsuit he was also part of, which no one else involved knew about.

    More lies.

    He didn't make money and yes, you can go pop off and come back with media quotes from Deer and the like saying he did, but he didn't and if you trawl through the evidence which was giving during the hearings you too will see that he didn't. In fact, one of the accounts of the Royal Free gave evidence saying they signed a check which had been endorsed to the Royal Free by Wakefield that had come from the Legal Aid Board.
    Wakefield:

    "The grant of £55,000 was paid not me but to the Royal Free Hospital Special Trustees for my research group to conduct studies on behalf of the Legal Aid Board. These research funds were properly administered through the Royal Free Hospital Special Trustees.

    "The Legal Aid research grant to my group was used exclusively for the purpose of conducting an examination of any possible connection between the component viruses of the MMR - particularly measles virus - and the bowel disease in these children. This is entirely in line with other studies that have been funded by the Legal Aid Board (latterly the Legal Services Commission) and reported in the BMJ. "


    Dr Mac Armstrong, the BMA ethics committee chairman of the time,backed that up when he stated that it was quite logical and above board for Wakefield to be funded to do the research and that there was nothing unusual in it whatsever.

    As for Wakefield fabricating test results. That is such BS. John O'Leary here in Dublin did the PCR tests for Measles (which have been challenged themselves for an error the lab made - sure blame Wakefield on that also) and the biopsy tests showing bowel inflammation was carried out by Dr.Paul Dhillon at the Royal Free. NEITHER of these two doctors have stated that the Wakefield exaggerated or in any way altered their findings. On the contrary, they have gave evidence which endorsed the results were represented in Wakefield's paper.

    A research paper which stated:
    "We did not prove an association between measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine and the syndrome (autistic enterocolitis) described. We have identified a chronic enterocolitis in children that may be related to neuropsychiatric dysfunction. In most cases, onset of symptoms was after measles, mumps, and rubella immunisation. Further investigations are needed to examine this syndrome and its possible relation to this vaccine.

    Nothing whatsoever saying the MMR is the cause of Autism of course, but sure why let the truth get in the way of a witch hunt. Indeed, the whole case was conducted on the back of a smear campaign by Brian Deer who was commissioned to investigate Wakefield (wonder why) and when he couldn't find evidence of misconduct, he manufactured it, with the clever use of smoke and omission mirrors, which is why the judge in Prof Walker-Smith's had such harsh words for the BMC.

    Some testimony from that appeal which is quite telling:
    Q. In relation to the 12 children in the Lancet paper, … on what basis did your department investigate these children?

    A. We investigated them exactly on that basis of clinical need. These children had symptoms and signs. We did not know what they were due to. We undertook a series of investigations to find out what was the problem with the child and there were outcomes from these investigations and they came in the traditional way. We made a diagnosis and eventually, where it was appropriate we gave treatment. …

    What is quite astonishing about this review of children is the high evidence of abnormality. In suspected Crohn's disease [another GI disease]… we had a lower incidence of abnormality. Here we have mucosal abnormality in 47 of 50 children investigated with the autistic spectrum [the first 12 comprised the Lancet series], which almost suggests that this could be a feature of autism per se, although these are children all with bowel problems.

    The children were all investigated specifically and exclusively by clinical means to determine whether bowel inflammation was present that could then be appropriately treated. …


    Q. As time went on, and you were not encountering Crohn’s disease, what did you understand to be the condition or the problem that you were encountering? If it was not Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis, what did you believe that you were finding?

    A. Just like many times in my career before, we were finding a new disorder. … We were beginning to see a new syndrome, fairly clear features of children presenting with diarrhoea, very often abdominal pain which often was not diagnosed by other doctors. Sometimes [that] was because of the children not speaking and the fact that screaming and other manifestations were not obvious. [Those] were the chief symptoms. Then, as we found, constipation or, more appropriately in some ways, faecal loading or certainly something interfering with gut transit was a feature as well. There is a characteristic symptom pattern.

    Then, rather more remarkably in a way, there was a remarkable homogeneity in the histopathology [microscopic examinations]. It is a subtle pathology, the cardinal features being particularly ileal lymphoid nodular hyperplasia [swollen lymph nodes], very often colonic lymphoid nodular hyperplasia, and a general increase in inflammatory cells in the lamina propria, and there was evidence of acute events with cryptitis and abscess formation from time to time. It was an entity not so different from an adult practice called microscopic colitis, but clearly in the context of autism we felt something new was coming, and that is the motivation, of course, for us clinicians to feel that it was appropriate for Andy Wakefield to take the lead, and write these features for publication.


    Q. Having gone through the histology reports, the synthesis of those reports in the histology meetings, it is clear that there are abnormalities there ---?

    A. Yes.


    Q. They are not, as you accept, either Crohn’s or ulcerative colitis?

    A. That is true.


    Q. But can one say, really they are not terribly serious? They do not really matter very much because they are not more florid than what has been described in the histology reports?

    A. No. They clearly matter. I can say they really matter because of the subsequent work led by Simon Murch. Ralph Furlano’s memorable paper published, I think, in the Journal of Paediatrics, which established significant immuno-pathology of a great[er] severity than is apparent with the light microscope. …

    In fact, I think Simon Murch had called this “a subtle enteropathy”. We did have to educate Sue Davies at the Royal Free in the interpretation of small bowel biopsies as well U]her reports finding no problems was the basis for Deer’s claim that Wakefield altered the pathology reports to falsely show bowel disease[/U. On that occasion, Alan Phillips played a major part, because he was an expert on the small intestinal morphology. So it was not a surprise to me in any way that these were new findings, new findings emerging, as we saw a group of children we had not studied before.


    Q. Is the size – perhaps that is the wrong word. Is the extent of the inflammation found proportional to the symptoms that the child suffers? In other words, is there a relationship, that if you get big lesions, if you happen to have cryptitis, crypt abscesses, it is going to be more painful and more uncomfortable than something more minor?

    A. No, no. There is never that simplistic agreement between pathology and clinical findings. But furthermore, what are you doing with biopsies? It is like taking a post stamp out of a tennis court, and the endoscopist is taking little pieces of tissue, and giving them to a histologist to look down the microscope. The great importance of endoscopy is that you can see the whole of the colon, for example, and we saw in one circumstance, when Simon Murch saw a number of lymphoid follicles in the colon but by chance none of them were present on histology. That was because, by chance, he had not biopsied from an area where there were these findings. So we cannot expect a simplistic correlation between little pieces of tissue and the global picture. The more biopsies you take, of course the better chance there will be.


    Q. What about the suggestion that in fact all you are seeing is a normal variant of the gut pathology that children would have in any event? So this is not really indicative of inflammation at all, that this, particularly lymphoid nodular hyperplasia is simply a variant of normal, with no clinical significance. I stress clinical significance.

    A. I rely in terms of pathology on Professor Paul Dhillon, a very distinguished histopathologist, co-author of the Lancet paper. I had nothing whatever to do or knowledge of the histology that he and his team did but his opinion is that there is significant histopathology there. My role as a clinician is the taking account of those significant, in his judgment, histopathological findings. I regard them as serious and worthy of treatment.

    The difficult area in relation to lymphoid nodular hyperplasia relates to the ileum, not the colon. In Professor Dhillon’s view, in my view, it is clearly an abnormal finding, even though the mucosa is otherwise histologically normal. On the issue of the severity of ileal lymphoid nodular hyperplasia, I have to bow to my endoscopy colleagues, because I relied upon them. When the diagnosis of lymphoid nodular hyperplasia was made, I relied on the judgment of Simon Murch and Mike Thomson, apart from those cases in which I relied on the radiologist when the lymphoid nodular hyperplasia was diagnosed on barium study.


    Q Can we just look at what you wrote. … “A statement by Professor John Walker-Smith: I deny the allegation that there was systematic bias in the pattern of referral for the children in the 1998 Lancet paper. No children were invited to participate in this study. Upon review of the Centre for Paediatric Gastroenterology, Royal Free Hospital, work book entitled ‘Biopsies Vi 4/9/95 to 21/7/97’, we confirm that the children who were reported in The Lancet paper of 1998 were the first 12 children consecutively referred to the university department of paediatric gastroenterology with autism and related disorders, who had gastrointestinal symptoms requiring ileo-colonoscopy to exclude chronic bowel inflammation.” …

    [Quoting from another letter by Walker-Smith] “In relation to this department, we are all in agreement with the description of a new syndrome of ileal lymphoid nodular hyperplasia and non-specific colitis in a cohort of self-selected (ie parent selected) patients. We have sent a paper to the Lancet and I enclose a copy for you. In some there is a clear historic link to MMR.

    “In another paper Andy is preparing, he is describing the evidence for measles virus. This is far, far stronger than for Crohn’s disease in histochemical studies etc. I believe in this small number of patients who may be at risk in any event of autoimmune disease, measles may have played a role. [This paper was not published.]

    “Like you I am very concerned at any weakening of MMR uptake in the community. However, I have personally seen all these ‘autistic’ children and in some at least there seems to be a strong presumptive evidence of an MMR link.”

    And so, as you can see. Prof Walker-Smith was very much hands on and has never once uttered a bad word about Wakefield, let alone suggest he believes the data was "fabricated" by him. Why would he? When he had personal dealing with the doctors involved and was discussing their findings with them on a daily basis.

    Dr Stephen Walker has also done similar studies on autistic children and made the following statements on the back of his research back in 2006:
    "Of the handful of results we have in so far, all are vaccine strain and none are wild measles. This research proves that in the gastrointestinal tract of a number of children who have been diagnosed with regressive autism, there is evidence of measles virus.

    "What it means is that the study done earlier by Dr Wakefield and published in 1998 is correct. That study didn’t draw any conclusions about specifically what it means to find measles virus in the gut, but the implication is it may be coming from the MMR vaccine.

    "If that’s the case, and this live virus is residing in the gastrointestinal tract of some children, and then they have GI inflammation and other problems, it may be related to the MMR."

    So, further research in this area would be most welcome now. Seems to be sadly lacking.

    In the meantime, single vaccines should be reintroduced, just to be on the safe side. Might not make a difference, as they could still potentially cause a similar about of vaccine damage as they currently are doing, but best to play safe with the public's health.

    The demand for the single vaccine rose dramatically in '98 on the back of the concerns for multiple vaccinations made by Wakefield and it's a shame the UK government didn't capitalize on that to relay the fears of the parents. That way uptake of he measles vaccine may never have dropped. Instead, they choose to with the import licences, despite the manufacturer of the single vaccine (who also manufacturer the MMR) making it public that they could not keep up with demand.

    Course, when you have Wakefield in the wings, who you can pretty much blame anything on, why bother facing uncomfortable truths. Last year Government officials even blamed him for the cases of measles in Wales:




    What a difference a decade makes, as in 2003, they actually saw fit to make a movie about the guy back in 2003:



    I'm not trying to suggest that Wakefield was some great medical pioneer and actually think the movie was inappropriate, as it gave too much unsubstantiated hope to parents. Although there was a lot of good in it also in that many familes first heard about ABA thought and also how the GF/CF diet could potentially help control many common autism behavioral symptoms but in the main, the way this guy is seen is laughable.


    Although, I much preferred the docu which showed Brian Deer to be the liar he undoubtedly is:




    The truth will out eventually I guess (good, bad and indifferent) and when it does, I really hope that those that have smugly pontificated about how safe vaccines are down the years, and particularly with regard to how strenuously they debated how vaccines couldn't possibly play a role in the development of ASDs.. one day choke on their words, as each and every one of them will have without doubt played their part in delaying society's willingness to take a thorough look at the role that are playing in autism regression (be that a large one or very small one).

    Even if it be a case where it is the latter, that is still a shockingly large number of children who will have either been denied a proper diagnosis or caused to suffer from it.. just because some science bloggers had nothing better to do than to align themselves with big pharma and current scientific consensus, as it made them feel good and powerful about themselves and gave their otherwise sad smug lives, meaning.

    Simply put: false claims on either side are extremely unhelpful.

    Evidence suggests, at the very least, that autistic children need further testing in this area, and beyond, and it's about time it was done and not in the half assed way in which it has been so far.

    Prof Walker-Smith put it nicely when he said:
    “Am I too naïve to ask all people of goodwill on both sides of this debate to speedily agree on an independent research agenda that will finally resolve this matter? Such an agenda must involve non-epidemiological research focusing on the bowels of these children. It is self evident that this whole question is going on far too long and is causing so much heart-ache in parents.”




  • Meanwhile polio is coming back in areas where people aren't vaccinated.




  • Meanwhile polio is coming back in areas where people aren't vaccinated.

    Yay \o/




  • This is why we vaccinate... no more crippled children from things like Polio. Enough pandering to hippies and cranks - vaccinate your fcuking kids!

    The fact that not doing it is even a choice parents have in this day and age bothers me...

    Nobodies going to tell you how to raise your kids 99% of the time - that comes to an end and the State should step in when your choices as a parent fall under the criteria of reckless endangerment, and especially when that endangerment potentially presents a public health issue for everyone else.

    Not vaccinating shouldn't be a choice parents have available - if some are too stupid to be rational about this then making it compulsory and universal reduces the scope for said stupidity endangering the child and others...




  • Up here in the north you get the MMR around 12/13 months of age and the next one at either 3 or 4 years of age, before you start primary school. I caught measles at 2 years of age, before I was fully immunised because of people not vaccinating. I was really sick - not at deaths door but really poorly. Imagine I had been a child with other health problems. It's so important to vaccinate, you are putting others at risk if you don't and its so damn irresponsible not to.




  • Foxhound38 wrote: »
    Not vaccinating shouldn't be a choice parents have available

    And you'd go about ensuring that, how exactly?

    Lot's of opinion in the many abrasive and patronising replies here, but little in the way of workable solutions to the problem that underlies most of this. People's lack of understanding of the issue, and a general distrust of whatever it is 'they believe' to be malevolent or profit driven agendas.

    Here's one person's 'solution' to those underlying problems
    MilanPan!c wrote: »
    Force the parents to have their kids vaccinated, if they don't remove the kids, vaccinate them, then order the parents to attend classes about vaccinations

    This thread is a great laugh altogether really. Such humane and understanding people discussing how they intend to trample on others for the sake of the rest. AH at its finest really.





  • This thread is a great laugh altogether really. Such humane and understanding people discussing how they intend to trample on others for the sake of the rest. AH at its finest really.

    It wouldn't be Ah without somebody ignoring the huge majority of perfectly reasonable posts and focusing on the small minority of extreme posts.




  • K-9 wrote: »
    It wouldn't be Ah without somebody ignoring the huge majority of perfectly reasonable posts and focusing on the small minority of extreme posts.

    The 'huge majority' being those who know that vaccinations are a good idea. There has only being one person (and I'm not even sure he was) disagreeing with that fact.

    The thread is about whether or not they should be mandatory / compulsory / forced. Most seem to agree that they should be, yet nobody has explained how it could be achieved within the various legal and constitutional confines that already exist. Let alone attempt to deal with the social and ethical issues surrounding the idea, or the effect that such a massive change would have.

    Are you going to step up and have a go at solving it?




  • The 'huge majority' being those who know that vaccinations are a good idea. There has only being one person (and I'm not even sure he was) disagreeing with that fact.

    The thread is about whether or not they should be mandatory / compulsory / forced. Most seem to agree that they should be, yet nobody has explained how it could be achieved within the various legal and constitutional confines that already exist. Let alone attempt to deal with the social and ethical issues surrounding the idea, or the effect that such a massive change would have.

    Are you going to step up and have a go at solving it?

    The compulsory/forced was actually for two different, important, categories. The first for children. The second for adults. The parenting aspect is much a greyer area. The adult one might have an attainable resolution.


  • Advertisement


  • The 'huge majority' being those who know that vaccinations are a good idea. There has only being one person (and I'm not even sure he was) disagreeing with that fact.

    The thread is about whether or not they should be mandatory / compulsory / forced. Most seem to agree that they should be, yet nobody has explained how it could be achieved within the various legal and constitutional confines that already exist. Let alone attempt to deal with the social and ethical issues surrounding the idea, or the effect that such a massive change would have.

    Are you going to step up and have a go at solving it?

    I don't believe most have on this thread at all, plus it isn't a position I hold, so nope, I'm not going to step up and answer a question that:

    1) a vociferous minority hold and
    2) a position that I don't believe in.


Advertisement