Was the Wakefield study on MMR really fake? - Page 3

[kiara7]

Yeah, thank you. That seems to be the standard answer.

If you have anything truly interesting, I'm sure there are plenty of people on here who would love to take a look and talk about it.

There are two sides of this issue. Neither can prove anything to the other side's satisfaction, both are entitled to their own opinions.

The day I see a long-term, double-blind, TRUE placebo controlled study on any one vax, that's the day we'll have more to talk about..........

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by Super Glue Mommy

not eveyone gets MMR at 15 months, so I dont think its coincidental timing.

Surely what your saying is that there is a statistically significant association between the MMR and the onset of autism. It could be a conspiracy, but surely that is what the official studies say doesn't exist.

Originally Posted by Super Glue Mommy

I also don't see how a child can be ADVANCED 1 week, get a shot, then regress and turn into a completely different child. what else happens at the same time they get a shot that would cause this, and make it coincidental?

It's very hard to say. There certainly is an argument that says a lot of people misremember the chronology and there were in fact earlier indications. Taking what you say as an accurate desciption of events, could it not be that there is a cause, just not the MMR. People get sick, sometimes very quickly, there is always a cause, we don't always know what it is. If MMR is acusing autism then surely there should be a statistically significant link. The official position is that there isn't one. I don't see how as an individual it is possible to tell.

Originally Posted by Super Glue Mommy

and thank you Kiara. I dont see why we have to prove these vaccines are dangerous when they have not yet proved they are safe. it is their responsibility to prove they are safe, and they are not being accountable to that fact.

Surely it's their job to balance risk. The known risk of not vaccinating, against the known risks of a vaccine and the *unknown* risks.

Is it worse to cause harm through action or inaction? I don't think it should make a difference whether my son comes to harm because I choose to do something, or choose not to do something. Perhaps it does. The impact on him would be just the same. I don't want him to be harmed by measles, or mumps or to spread rubella, or to become autistic. There is no risk free choice that might not leave me feeling horribly guilty.

[kiara7]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

Surely it's their job to balance risk. The known risk of not vaccinating, against the known risks of a vaccine and the *unknown* risks.

Is it worse to cause harm through action or inaction? I don't think it should make a difference whether my son comes to harm because I choose to do something, or choose not to do something. Perhaps it does. The impact on him would be just the same. I don't want him to be harmed by measles, or mumps or to spread rubella, or to become autistic. There is no risk free choice that might not leave me feeling horribly guilty.

It's not THEIR job to balance risk for us. It is OUR job to balance risk fr ourselves and our children.

[claddaghmom]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

The impact on him would be just the same. I don't want him to be harmed by measles, or mumps or to spread rubella, or to become autistic. There is no risk free choice that might not leave me feeling horribly guilty.

And this is where the research really matters. Let's see, mumps or autism. Hmmm..

Let's not even talk about Autism, as that is most likely caused by multiple factors including genetic predisposition.

Let's just pare it down to: vaccine effects vs. disease effects.

That's the big debate. Right there.

I haven't found a disease that I find to be worse than the vaccinations.

You have found a disease (or several) that you find to be worse than the vaccinations.

Or, if you have a different viewpoint, maybe you haven't found a vaccination that you find to be worse than the disease.

It's risk assessment. Unfortunately, those who view the vaccines as a bigger risk than the disease are sidelined as irresponsible, uneducated conspiracy freaks. No respect for their risk assessment.

BTW, I know next to nothing about Wakefield. I only know something, completely anectdotal. What I saw certainly won't be dismissed by whatever happens in this case.

[Super Glue Mommy]

what is the official position in your eyes? the cdc says themselves there is a POSSIBLE link that they are unable to discredit. I agree with Kiara, show us a LEGITIMATE long-term double blind study with true placebos.

you say "Is it worse to cause harm through action or inaction?"
IMO, its worse to cuase harm through unneccessary action - such as vaccines. I would take measles mumps and rubella over autism any day. You are right, there is no "risk free" choice - but these diseases are not the "big deal" they are made out to be. the same way they now make chicken pox out to be a a big deal. autism is a big deal. autism doesn't go away in a few weeks. the impact is NOT the same. I respect you believe this, but as a parent to a child who was harmed by vaccines to "protect" him from something he may never get and that if he did get would not cause permanent damage was not worth the risk I unknowingly took.

As someone said in another thread - "I'd rather treat a sick child than damage a healthy one."

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by kiara7

There are two sides of this issue. Neither can prove anything to the other side's satisfaction, both are entitled to their own opinions.

Are they entitled to their opinion. One or the other is taking a huge risk with public health.

Originally Posted by kiara7

The day I see a long-term, double-blind, TRUE placebo controlled study on any one vax, that's the day we'll have more to talk about..........

I lack your confidence that people would accept it. At least with MMR people can't claim that the study needs to be done over a longer timescale, but they can always claim that there is an as yet unidentified subgroup that are being harmed.

Incidentally, you say "study on any one vax". I'm puzzled by the wording. Do you mean you think all vaccines are dangerous and you want proof that any vaccine is safe? Do you think all vaccines cause autism and you want proof they are safe? Do you doubt any vaccine is effective?

Apologies if I'm coming in here all guns blazing. I don't know who anybody is so I may be getting the wrong end of the stick. Also, I'm used to getting mauled on science/skeptic blogs where the atmosphere is a bit more confrontational. It's just kind of nice to go somewhere else once in a while.

[Super Glue Mommy]

you are definitely too all over the place shuttit. slow down.

Do you mean you think all vaccines are dangerous and you want proof that any vaccine is safe?

would you take a medication that was never properly studied? do you know how they actually determine the safety a vaccines? its unlike any thing else, and its the closest thing to mandatory drugs there is. you would think that would make the studies more strict. in reality, vaccines belong on an infomercial. their studies are sloppy.

Do you think all vaccines cause autism and you want proof they are safe?
me personally, I do think that some vaccines can cause more of an "overload" on the system then others. I don't think MMR is the only one that can trigger autism in a predispositioned person. I dont think vaccines CAUSE autism... triggers is a more appropriate term.. do I want proof vaccines are safe? I know they aren't 100% safe or without side effects - no medication is - but I do want to know what the REAL side effects are and what the true efficiacy rate is - by means of a long term dboule blind true placebo study. it's better to perform a risk analysis with that information, though due to deeper searching into my religion, It would not change my choice regardless what those results were.

Do you doubt any vaccine is effective? I think vaccines are effective, but that true efficiacy has not been determined - and this is speaking for the population. For an individual, I realize that when it comes to humans (especially medicine/sports), you can't make these kinds of conclusions. See here for more information on the way statistics and probability effect people http://www.shodor.org/interactivate/...ilityVsStatis/

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by Super Glue Mommy

what is the official position in your eyes?

I guess this depends on where you look for official information. There is no department with THE MAN written over the door. I hang out mainly in the science/skeptic community and their claim is that in as much as Science has a single opinion on anything, it is that the evidence is heavily against any link between autism and MMR.

Originally Posted by Super Glue Mommy

the cdc says themselves there is a POSSIBLE link that they are unable to discredit.

The CDC also say "The weight of the evidence indicates that vaccines are not associated with autism". It will never be technically correct to say that there is no POSSIBLE link. I presume that and a wish to acknowledge peoples genuinely held concerns is behind their hedging. If you have a stronger quote from them, I would be most interested.

Originally Posted by Super Glue Mommy

I agree with Kiara, show us a LEGITIMATE long-term double blind study with true placebos.

I don't see why long term studies are important. People are claiming MMR causes autism within days/weeks. I still don't understand why you want this kind of study. Could you explain how your ideal experiment would run. You know, I'd get 500 children under 6 months, randomly divide them into two groups etc.....

Originally Posted by Super Glue Mommy

IMO, its worse to cuase harm through unneccessary action - such as vaccines.

Well this is a point where we differ. If you don't think Measles, Mumps or Rubella are bad, then that changes the cost/benifit. If I agreed with you on that, then I wouldn't be half so convinced about vaccination. I did see an interesting argument that epidemics are self limiting and that that vaccines only 'appear' to work in the same way that homeopathic water appears to cure self-limiting conditions. There are some legs in that argument, but to say diseases we vaccinate against aren't bad troubles me. Sure most children are fine, but you aren't claiming anything other than a tiny minority of kids are harmed by vaccines. For people whose immune system is damaged falling vaccination levels are big trouble.

Originally Posted by Super Glue Mommy

autism doesn't go away in a few weeks. the impact is NOT the same.

neither does congenital rubella, sterility, brain damage, miscarriage or death.

Originally Posted by Super Glue Mommy

I respect you believe this, but as a parent to a child who was harmed by vaccines to "protect" him from something he may never get and that if he did get would not cause permanent damage was not worth the risk I unknowingly took.

OK. Accepting for a minute that a vaccine did do what you say, it might still be the case that vaccination is to the general good. For you specifically you would have been better off without the vaccine, but you can't know that until after. You could just as easily be posting about a child who was harmed by one of these illnesses.

Originally Posted by Super Glue Mommy

As someone said in another thread - "I'd rather treat a sick child than damage a healthy one."

For the purpose of clarifying your position.
1. Is it better that more harm (death, brain damage, etc...) be caused by inaction, than a lesser amount of harm through action (autism).
2. Is it better to damage public health at large in order to slightly reduce the risk of your own child coming to harm.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by Super Glue Mommy

you are definitely too all over the place shuttit. slow down.

Will do. It's all the additives in the junk food making me hyper.

[Super Glue Mommy]

how current is your standpoint from the CDC. that sounds like what they used to say back when I first started researching, but not like what I heard from them most recently.

long term studies are important because there is more to worry about then just autism. also, it gives the chance to repeat the study on different groups, born at different times. depends on the study as far as what it would consititute. A study for safety would need to have a true placebo (not comparing one vaccines to another vaccines you are presuming is safe, but comparing one vaccine to nothing) (and also not assuming that if x vaccine is safe by itself, and y vaccine is safe by itself, then x and y are safe together. that is just plain sloppy!) to determine efficiency you would need to compare 1/3 vaccinated, 1/3 under vaccinated, and 1/3 fully vaccinated. there are so many factors I dont think there is ONE study and sounds like you are looking for too simple of an answer - which is why you are probably content with the ways the studies are currently performed.

the diseases we are vaccinating against are NOT that bad. another thing that would help is if in these studies when they were determining how dangerous a disease is, injury rates, etc - it they seperated it by otherwise healthy verus not, good living conditions (sanitation) versus bad, immune deficient versus not, well fed versus malnourished, etc. your concerns are extreme cases which are simply not likely in an otherwise healthy child. it is more likely for an otherwise healthy child to be adversely effected by a vaccine (as far as long term goes)

"1. Is it better that more harm (death, brain damage, etc...) be caused by inaction, than a lesser amount of harm through action (autism)."
but that is simply not TRUE and you are just talking about autism, there are other damages that take place, often they do not get proper diagnosis.
"2. Is it better to damage public health at large in order to slightly reduce the risk of your own child coming to harm. "
if vaccines work, then their children are a harm to mine, not the other way around. and while I dont wish for anyone to die, why should I sacrafice my healthy child for someone who is unhealthy? who gets to choose who lives and dies? I am putting my trust in God for this, not the government. not to mention herd immunity isnt even posible with vaccinating. it would have been better if we had well enough left everything alone, let nature taken its course, and had natural immunity as a whole for these things. Explaining this concept is a very long post I dont have time for right now, perhaps someone can post you some link explaining how this works for you.

[Super Glue Mommy]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

Will do. It's all the additives in the junk food making me hyper.

you are concerned about issues of health, and yet you are eating junk food? I hope that is a joke

we eat healthy, breastfeed our children, and take care of our bodies in other ways to keep our immune systems up.

are you up to date on your boosters? if not, you should consider yourself more of a risk to your child then my children are. so many people (not saying you, I dont know you) think my child is the risk to society but if their theory is correct they should be just as worried about all these adults who are not up to date on their boosters.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by Super Glue Mommy

you are concerned about issues of health, and yet you are eating junk food? I hope that is a joke

I exaggerate somewhat for comic effect. I don't take half as much care of myself as I should though, but to some degree that is my choice. I have insurance, only me and my family will be harmed by my foolishness. My son on the other hand has hardly seen an additive.

More power to you for taking good care of yourself.

[kiara7]

Shuttlt,

what I'm saying is that before you take that ambien, claritin or vicodin you know that there were proper double-blind control studies of these drugs. A group of people was given the drug and another was given a sugar pill.
This has never been done with vaccines. And no, autism is not the only thing that the vast majority of us are worried about. MS, JRA, juvenile diabetes, asthma, allergies, the list goes on and on.

And no, I have no responsibility for the health of the public. My sole responsibility is to protect the health of my family.

[peainthepod]

Originally Posted by kiara7

Shuttlt,

what I'm saying is that before you take that ambien, claritin or vicodin you know that there were proper double-blind control studies of these drugs. A group of people was given the drug and another was given a sugar pill.
This has never been done with vaccines. And no, autism is not the only thing that the vast majority of us are worried about. MS, JRA, juvenile diabetes, asthma, allergies, the list goes on and on.

And no, I have no responsibility for the health of the public. My sole responsibility is to protect the health of my family.

This is pretty much a summary of what I was going to post. Well said, kiara.

[Jadzia]

Originally Posted by kiara7

what I'm saying is that before you take that ambien, claritin or vicodin you know that there were proper double-blind control studies of these drugs. A group of people was given the drug and another was given a sugar pill.
This has never been done with vaccines.

And in the case of Gardasil, the "placebo" group was given the same dosage of aluminum that is in the vaccine shot. So that way, they could point to adverse side effects in the control group as being the same as in the vaccine group. Absolutely despicable that is the kind of "science" that is used to test vaccines for safety.

[claddaghmom]

neither does congenital rubella, sterility, brain damage, miscarriage or death.

Shuttit,

1. Congenital Rubella

Women who are sexually active can easily have their titres checked. If titres are low, they can get the vaccine or immunoglobulin. Seeing as how the only routinely vaccinated group in our population is that of children, this is an inconsistent argument.

2. Sterility

The incidence of sterility is so low that no one has a statistic on it.

As for miscarriage and death, I'll take my chances with childhood mumps, measles, chickenpox and the like over being a long-term social experiment. (That's what Dr. Harper, who is behind the Guardasil vaccine, called it).

[Scattershoot]

Is anybody important denying that Autism has a physical basis? Surely one reason for diagnosing it in terms of behaviour is that there is no physical or chemical test for autism. Or have I missed something?

If there is no physical or chemical test then yes, important people will deny that autism has a physical basis. As a matter of fact, a mass of the professionals involved with autism believe behavioral medication (psychotropic) and some behavior modification is the remedy.

This is the whole point of why Wakefield is being dragged through the mud. As a gastroenterologist, he was trying to find out what that link may be to physical problems. That's a big part of the ethical attacks on him at the GMC hearing. He supposedly ordered risky medical procedures that weren't called for because the children should been referred to (or back to) a psychiatrist. Of course, the children's gp's had more common sense then that and knew this wasn't just emotional or behavioral.

The autism diagnosis is found in the DSM. That is a mental health diagnostic manual. The professionals who utilize that book for diagnosing are not medically trained (aside from psychiatrists). They are not trained to look for physical problems. This, in and of itself, proves a lot of people don't admit a physical component.

If they thought it was a real, physical problem, a neurologist would be brought in from the beginning or someone with Wakefield's credentials and training.

I understand that some people mention there may be a genetic predisposition or mitochondrial something or other, but that it just talk (you hear "may", "might" and "could be" an awful lot). The proof is in where the diagnosis is found. It's like some people arguing that ADHD might have a genetic component or be a physical condition. But it is not treated as such as long as it is diagnosed from the DSM. The problem is once it finds residence in the DSM, important people will automatically assume it's mental. The diagnostic criteria for autism involve restricited social interaction, communication issues and repetitive behaviors.

[Scattershoot]

If you don't think Measles, Mumps or Rubella are bad, then that changes the cost/benifit.

This may challenge your perspective of reality a little, but not only are measles, chicken pox, rubella, and measles not bad, they are normal childhood developmental stages. If people can just say they are "diseases," then I can say they are normal childhood developmental stages. We are convinced we should stave off illness at all costs, but illness is actually healing. Fevers, rashes, feeling tired or throwing up are healing techniques the body employs. They are purgings. With each healing, the body grows stronger and prepares us for a long life.

We essentially don't know anything about how the body really works (one can visit a children's hospital and witness the hopelessness the staff often feels to fully grasp this). Especially immune function. We just assume an awful lot. What if bacteria and viruses are not only not bad, but they are employed by our bodies for constructive reasons? I know this sounds insane to many who are taught about the "disease" process, but it makes more sense to me than medical practices such as poisoning the body (chemotherapy), destroying the DNA (AZT) and flooding the system with a mass of toxic agents (vaccination).

[stacyann_1]

"I haven't found a disease that I find to be worse than the vaccinations. "

How about Polio?

To spend one more second on consideration for the MMR/Autism link is too much. It's done, Wakefield has hurt people, hurt countries with his *work*.. and in the end, at some point in the future, maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, no one will be standing behind him.

[Scattershoot]

Originally Posted by stacyann_1

How about Polio?

To spend one more second on consideration for the MMR/Autism link is too much. It's done, Wakefield has hurt people, hurt countries with his *work*.. and in the end, at some point in the future, maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, no one will be standing behind him.

The answer to your first question is long and sordid. First of all, people still suffer paralysis (which is what most people imagine and fear from polio). I personally know 4 people who have suffered paralysis and all of them would have been given that diagnosis during the polio era, but now that polio no longer exists here in America, they were given other diagnoses. Aseptic meningitis and guillain-barre to name two diagnoses to get around polio. Also, a stiff neck and fever was once diagnosed as polio. Now the diagnostic criteria has changed (they did this right after the introduction of the vaccine) to make it much harder to give that diagnosis. Thirdly, they don't spray DDT all over the place any more with little kids running behind the truck sucking in the plume of DDT smoke. Interestingly, DDT poisoning mimics polio symptoms. There is much more, but that is just the start.

If you think spending any more time on an autism/MMR link is too much, then I doubt you have watched your wonderfully healthy and talkative child regress after the shot. For how many decades did they deny smoking had anything to do with lung cancer? Vioxx somehow passed all the safety tests.

All Wakefield and others at the Royal Free did was suggest more research was needed. They even went out of their way to say their studies DID NOT prove a link. The doctors simply followed up on the symptoms and what the parents said. What appeared in the Lancet were simply case studies. And only 12 of them. The way the medical community has completely freaked out over this and gone after Wakefield and his two colleagues just shows that vaccinations are untouchable. To even suggest more research is unthinkable. The only research obviously allowed is that which sets out to prove vaccinations can't possibly be linked.