MMR, Jeni Barnett and Bad Science.

Discussion in 'Off Topic Area' started by Smitfire, Feb 6, 2009.

  1. Moi

    Moi Warriors live forever x

    Get them done seperately. Those illnesses are on the increase.
     
  2. CKava

    CKava Just one more thing... Supporter

    It's hard to respond to personal anecdotes because any response will be taken... well personally. However, I think you have to realise that personal anecdotes regarding the MMR vaccine are very likely to be retrospectively altered once someone decides vaccines are harmful. On top of this adverse reactions to vaccines do occur but they are temporary and once again there is no scientific evidence that they result in the kind of longterm illnesses or change of personality that you and MD are reporting.

    Personal anecdote simply doesn't trump large scale clinical trials and scientific studies. I also strongly suspect that alot of personal anecdotes are unconsciously and consciously highly influenced by folks buying into the anti-vaccine movement.

    MD what age was your daughter when she got the jab and what changed? I suffered from a whole variety of illnesses when I was a child and if I wanted to I could probably correlate them to a whole variety of things and I'm sure my parents could correlate a whole host of medical treatments with vague 'personality changes' if they really wanted to. Correlation does not equal causation. And once again it's important to bear in mind... the science is in on this topic. Arguing that MMR vaccines are dangerous to a child's health is on the same level scientifically as arguing that HIV does not cause Aids.

    I'll look at the articles you post up laugarfist but I think I know what's coming. Also, from what you've posted would I be right in guessing that your father is agains the MMR jab and may have been the person who introduced you to the 'controversy'?
     
  3. CKava

    CKava Just one more thing... Supporter

    Yep that's right. Get them done seperately and ignore the medical studies that show that there is absolutely no benefit to doing so and that various risks are increased by doing so. It's best to just follow what Andrew Wakefield suggested regardless of the fact that the scientific community has shown his position to be entirely unsupported by the evidence.
     
  4. Topher

    Topher allo!

    Parents are legally required to provide a sufficient standard of medical care for their children. This means evidence-based medicine. When the child is of legal age to make their own decisions they can do what ever they like (such as seek alternative medicine and reject scientific medicine), however until that day comes parents cannot make that choice for them.

    The harm is putting them at risk of catching a disease.
     
    Last edited: Feb 7, 2009
  5. holyheadjch

    holyheadjch Valued Member

    if that's the case then pony up the money for the separate jabs. I caught mumps in 2004 during the student epidemic and I kid you not, it was probably the worst week of my entire life and I still haven't completely recovered. If my parents had told me that they hadn't got me vaccinated because of a bogus newspaper story, I would have gone Christian Bale on their asses. As it is, I fell into the uber rare 'didn't acquire immunity' category.

    Failing to do everything you can to protect your children makes you a bad parent, failing to vaccinate your children against diseases because of an unproven connection between the vaccination and autism, which in the absolute worst case scenario is still miniscule makes you a bad parent.
     
    Last edited: Feb 7, 2009
  6. CannibalCrowley

    CannibalCrowley Valued Member

    Can you just post the double-blind study that showed a link between the vaccine and autism?
     
  7. Moi

    Moi Warriors live forever x

    Can't remember what age they have them done. Just a baby.
     
  8. Moi

    Moi Warriors live forever x

    1 in a million have serious side effects, 1 in 1000 have a fit.
    The reason the doctors like it is because it's much cheaper and it's more likely that more children would be fully covered than having to take kids on 3 seperate occasions. The chances of missing one is increased.
    My younget still had the MMR but now if I had the choice I'd pay for seperates. A light risk but one that can be ruled out with a couple of quid is worth it.
     
  9. CKava

    CKava Just one more thing... Supporter

    Giving the kids 3 seperate injections once again provides no benefit and is no safer. The claims that it would be safer was made by Andrew Wakefield and no scientific evidence or clinical trials support this position. Andrew Wakefield has also been thoroughly discredited as a reliable source.

    As for doctors being against 3 jabs it's because it's a waste of time and money and it's only even considered because on discredited statements from a completely discredited researcher. Also, wouldn't doctors motivated by profit be in favor of 3 seperate jabs?
     
  10. Topher

    Topher allo!

    Well well well...it turns out Dr Wakefield (the doctor who originally started this whole debacle) may be DELIBERATELY FAKED this research in order to claim vaccines cause autism!

     
  11. axelb

    axelb Master of Office Chair Fu

    My older sister had a very bad reaction to MMR, my mum said it changed her alot overnight and now she is mentally handicapped.

    we will most likely be doing our childs seperatly. We can afford to do it seperately rather then risk an unneccesary change to our daughter.
     
  12. CKava

    CKava Just one more thing... Supporter

    I'm glad that people are going to vaccinate their kids even if it is in 3 seperate sessions however what I really don't get is why people think that doing it that way is any safer. All the studies have shown it is the EXACT same with the only difference being extra injections, extra inconvienance and 2 extra chances for bad side effects. The man who proposed it has been completely discredited and his research has been shown to have been severely flawed not to mention seemingly motivated by money provided by lawyers preparing an anti-MMR law case!

    Mother's intuition simply doesn't trump clinical evidence and science and sadly neither does personal anecdote. People like to think that they have a perfect memory and that their mothers know best but the fact is mothers can be wrong just as much as any other human and their memories are just as fallible too.
     
  13. Moi

    Moi Warriors live forever x

    I don't know how they can do the double blind trials due to the fact they cannot leave children unvaccinated.
    Parents can tell when a child is ill usually just by looking at them, long before a doctor would diagnose anything.
     
  14. Burnsey

    Burnsey Armchair liberal

    I have to say that at first I did share your scepticism with the presence of control groups. However a number of studies have been done against those with placebo. Unfortunately I could not find the full texts off the web, so here are some of the summaries (these articles are all included in the cochrane review I posted before):

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/e...ion&term=PEDIATRICS[ta] AND 68[vi] AND 18[pg]
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/e...itation&term=LANCET[ta] AND 1[vi] AND 939[pg] (fourth one down).
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/e...m=AM J DIS CHILD[ta] AND 129[vi] AND 1408[pg]

    For more information, this is the full cochrane review
    http://mrw.interscience.wiley.com/cochrane/clsysrev/articles/CD004407/frame.html

    I have to say that I am a little confused by this point. I would imagine that parents would realise that something was wrong with their children before a doctor seeing as they have to take their children to a doctor. Also telling that a child is ill is one thing, diagnosis with an actual illness is another.
     
  15. Moi

    Moi Warriors live forever x

    That's where the doctor comes in with usually the cure all of Calpol.
    Without any virus showing any illness or change in a child cannot be measured with any scientific means, doesn't mean nothing has happened.
     
  16. CKava

    CKava Just one more thing... Supporter

    Good post Burnsey... Martial Dad I think it's worth considering in particular the implications of the 2nd trial in which worse side effects were reported for the placebo treatment. This would strongly support the argument that most side effects experienced are not causally related to the actual vaccines.
     
  17. Moi

    Moi Warriors live forever x

    So to sum up the report the MMR vaccine does a great job but......

    That isn't saying it's safe, the report states better testing and more evidence needs to be collected.

    Does that mean there is still a risk?
     
  18. Topher

    Topher allo!

    No one is denying that there aren't risks or side effects with vaccines, however they are safe on the issue of autism, i.e. vaccines do not cause autism, which is what is typically meant when it is said that vaccines are safe. Over 10 years of research has been done by scientists around the world and the evidence is conclusive.
     
  19. roblen

    roblen Valued Member

    right, here goes

    as the step father of a young man (now 20) with severe learning difficulties, severe autism and high level (medically controlled) epliepsy i implore all who havent immunised their own children to do so now. mmr is safe and every single critique of it has either been rubbished or proved to be anecdotal.

    we have a very large peer group here, indeed my wife set up a charity that got so large it got absorbed into a major charity, and almost (not all) every parent believes mmr had nothing to do with their childs condition.
    some parents do believe that it was triggered but the evidence especially from Japan and the US is beyond overwhelming. all the uk "evidence" of a problem has been wholly ridiculed. the japanese study was huge and i mean beyond vast in its scale. it even showed that with single jabs rates went up. many believe that autism is now becoming more of a blanket term to no ones benefit.

    again i implore you that if you havent had your child immunised do so now and dont let the tabloids (for that is where all the info was propogated) form your opinion. the tabloids only print/benefit from bad news and by their own reputation they are regarded with only less contempt than politicians. however politicians arent anonymous who then move on to the next story assigned by their editor. when the stories were eventually found to be baseless nothing was printed because "good news is no news". i had a few friends in fleet street and the image of woodward and bernstein it aint.

    you are placing you own child at great risk from wholly preventable conditions by your well meant but flawed and uninformed reasoning.
     
  20. Topher

    Topher allo!

Share This Page