Mother's warning on the MMR vaccine

I do not think you are seeing the implications of what I have written.
1. Dr Wakefield did not start the controvercy. His study brought it to the public domain.

2. There are good reasons why people do not and,(in my opinion), should not rely on the British Government (Labour or Tory) to 'protect them' from scientific studies that appear to contradict government advice.

3. The objections to the MMR are not based on the fact that it is proven to be connected to Autism. It is based on the fact that it is not proven to be safe and there are reasonable grounds for believing it is dangerous - with or without mercury or Thimerosol.

4. The objections can be overcome by offering the injections separately over a period of time. This is an affordable option, even if some charge has to be made for it. This government rejects it out of hand.

5. UKGov has a history of backing the wrong scientific opinion, e.g. CJD.

6. The idea that MMR and Autism might be linked is far from 'debunked'. Quite the reverse. The idea that the UKGov is always correct in taking decisions on what is safe and what is not - that is thoroughly de-bunked.

7. You still have not suggested a more likely cause of the rise in autism cases in the UK.(Not that I think the MMR is the only cause, just one possible one).

So don't limit yourself to UK research. Plenty other countries that offer more.

What I think the over-all cause of autism is really doesn't matter. So far, no study has found concrete prove to what causes autism and that includes the MMR.

In this article, the mother stated her child already had autism prior to the MMR which that child had not at the recommned age, but at age 3. So, if the child already had autism, how did the MMR cause it?

friend wrote:

So don't limit yourself to UK research. Plenty other countries that offer more.
What I think the over-all cause of autism is really doesn't matter. So far, no study has found concrete prove to what causes autism and that includes the MMR.
In this article, the mother stated her child already had autism prior to the MMR which that child had not at the recommned age, but at age 3. So, if the child already had autism, how did the MMR cause it?

I do not know 'how the MMR caused it'. At least, not specifically that I can explain in one post on Topix. I do not know if the MMR caused it. I am saying that studies such as those of the New Jersey Medical School suggest that the MMR can affect the development of the immune system in ways that are still the subject of research.

You write: So far, no study has found concrete prove [sic] to what causes autism and that includes the MMR.-
That is what I am talking about, see points 2 to 6 above. That does not mean that the MMR definitely causes no cases of autism to occur. I am aware of some foreign research. My links indicated the Japanese and US findings, did they not?

friend wrote:

...
In this article, the mother stated her child already had autism prior to the MMR which that child had not at the recommned age, but at age 3. So, if the child already had autism, how did the MMR cause it?

The article began: "A MOTHER who claims her son’s autism was worsened by the MMR vaccination.."

The title of the article is 'Didcot mother warns other mums to be careful with MMR vaccine'.

Well, you can read many accounts where a child's autism worsened by this or that, but does that mean every child would be affected that same way? And most kids don't even get the MMR at age 3. My child's autism worsened and regressed every week end he went to his dad's, should I assume other kids would react the same and warn other parents of that?? Every time we go to the clinic, vaccine or not, my child regresses and his autism get's worse. When a child has autism, they often regress to begin with. You go steps forward, and the child ends up going back and many things can contribute to this.

This mother believes Kaylan was born with the genetic pre-disposition, and any mumber of things could exacerbated the symptoms of autism including contracting the actual measles.

The thing is, no one can base choices and medical outcomes on other people's experiences without having the science to back it and determining who would be most at risk, and if their medical history even compares to others.

friend wrote:

The title of the article is 'Didcot mother warns other mums to be careful with MMR vaccine'.
Well, you can read many accounts where a child's autism worsened by this or that, but does that mean every child would be affected that same way? And most kids don't even get the MMR at age 3. My child's autism worsened and regressed every week end he went to his dad's,..

Agreed.

friend wrote:

should I assume other kids would react the same and warn other parents of that??

No.

friend wrote:

Every time we go to the clinic, vaccine or not, my child regresses and his autism get's worse. When a child has autism, they often regress to begin with. You go steps forward, and the child ends up going back and many things can contribute to this.
This mother believes Kaylan was born with the genetic pre-disposition,and any mumber of things could exacerbated the symptoms of autism including contracting the actual measles.

Agreed. And if he had a pre-disposition to autism..? Did you not read any of my links? The Study in question indicates why he may have been especially at risk from the MMR.

friend wrote:

The thing is, no one can base choices and medical outcomes on other people's experiences without having the science to back it and determining who would be most at risk, and if their medical history even compares to others.

Agreed. That is why I would recommend getting separate, periodic injections and avoiding the MMR. The science is there, but it conflicts with current advice. I repeat again, one should not wait until the MMR is proven to be safe. I prefer to act on the assumption it may be a risk until the concerns are proven false, based on ALL the science available - not just the science that government ministers favour.

Not sure which link you mean. I looked at all your links, if there's one you want me to pay close attention to, which link is it?

I wouldn't recommend any thing to any one. Separate jabs can have their own risks, let along your jabbing a child with 3 different needles. That along can throw any kid into a meltdown, X 3.

If Wakefield found measles within the intestines of his 12 study participants, one would assume the better answer than 3 separtae jabs would be to avoid the measles vaccine all together. But that's not what he suggested (since he did apply for a measles vaccine patent) and he also never really determined why the mumps and rubella made a difference to the measles portion and he never determined if that mealses in the intestines were from vaccines or natural exposure to measles.

I don't live in the UK but it doesn't seem to matter where you live, the Government within any country is blamed for with holding, and being in cohoots with the Horrible Pharma's.

I personally do not make medical choices on assumptions, nor some one else's experiences. The mealses and my son's autism would be horrible if combined. If I chose not to give him that vaccine, his risk then to being exposed to another who was not vaccinated, contracted mealses and then gave it to my child would increase. The mealses out breaks are all over the place, just not only to the UK. Most kids could fair well if they contracted it at an older age, providing they didn't have other health issues to complicate the matter but exposing infants could be deadly for them, and it has been.

Hmm. I felt sure I read that in one of the links.(Maybe it was one I did not post?) I do apologise. I thought everyone familiar with the debate was aware of the argument that the affect of MMR on the digestive and immune systems might trigger a pre-disposition rather than be the cause itself? That was so obvious to me, I did not realise it was not made clear in the links I posted. Anyway, my apologies and here are some articles (I hope) that make that clear..
From:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4311613.stm
“He said the research did not deal with the suggestion that there is a small group of children who are unusually vulnerable in whom MMR triggers autism - but there was no evidence that this was the case”.
From:
http://health.dailynewscentral.com/content/vi...
“Researchers in the Japanese study reportedly acknowledged that MMR might trigger autism in a very small number of children. Although they found no evidence to support that hypothesis, they were unable to rule it out”.

This article is interesting because it puts the shoe on the other foot..
http://www.ich.ucl.ac.uk/immunisation/mmr_aut...
It asks “is this regimen safe?”, i.e giving the vaccines separately.

The above also makes the point that I do not reject the idea that MMR is safe, nor that it is safer than giving the injections separately. I do object to being told that I cannot consider the risks for myself and must be forced to agree with the scientists in the majority. I wish to consider (as with CJD) that the minority of scientific opinion may be correct.

And the evidence of the majority looks formidable:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMR_vaccine_cont...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/155676...
However, in one study,(link above) Dr Fiona Scott and Dr Carol Stott have reportedly said they think the jab, given to children between 12 and 15 months, could be responsible for growing numbers of children apparently exhibiting symptoms of the disorder. The other five, including team leader Professor Simon Baron-Cohen, rejected their view. Such divergence of opinion is not uncommon amongst scientists and I have read a very convincing article (cannot now find it on the Internet) that explained why the Japanese study should not be considered to have disproved the idea that MMR could be linked to autism. The debate is quieter now and I am not saying I am sure that the MMR is not safer than separate injections. The lack of recent research is a problem, but with politicians in this country determined to ‘get their message across’ that is to be expected. What I do say is that I do not trust the UKGov, nor the British Medical Council to always be right.

friend wrote:

..I personally do not make medical choices on assumptions..

This comment seems to imply that I am basing my views on assumptions where you are not? That is not true. I said,“I prefer to act on the assumption it may be a risk until the concerns are proven false, based on ALL the science available - not just the science that government ministers favour”. It would be a misunderstanding to infer from that I am making assumptions where you are not. Neither of us assume the MMR is safe or dangerous. We weigh the risks of MMR against those of separate single injections.

This article is interesting – and more up to date:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8268302.stm
Quote: "It also suggests that, among adults, rates of autism remain broadly constant across age groups.” And “The latest findings, based on nearly 7,500 adults, suggests that prevalence of autism spectrum disorder remains broadly level across all age bands.”
Does that mean that there was always roughly the same proportion of people with autism as 30, 40, or 50 years ago? Or does it mean that most of the older generation with autism developed it in later life? Tim Staughan said,“..despite popular perceptions, rates of autism are not increasing,.” This suggests to me that he thinks there has always been roughly the same proportion of people with autism in the UK population?

Opposing this idea is the anecdotal evidence which should not be dismissed simply because it is unscientific. Almost everyone I discuss this with points out how common autism is nowadays compared with decades ago. That there has been a huge increase in cases of autism also seems to be backed by some scientific studies.

This, from the article is also apparently untrue:“Concern over the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine was sparked by a paper published in The Lancet in 1998 by Dr Andrew Wakefield...This research has since been discredited.”
The basic findings of his research, as far as I know, have never been discredited. He has retracted some of his findings, but almost any report would suffer that given such critical scrutiny. Any basically unsound report would have been demolished. It was a very limited report. It is only the inference that his research proves that the MMR is dangerous that is discredited, but that was never the merit in his study. The attacks on him have been personal. Indeed, there is the report I indicated that suggest that his experiment has been replicated, although I would prefer to read that this has been stated per se by the New Jersey Hospital. Even if his findings had been discredited, that does not mean that the MMR is not dangerous.

I do not see why these “latest autism figures should dispel any fears about the MMR jab being linked to the condition”, unless one is pre-disposed to that view.

I keep an open mind, but am still currently more inclined to the view that separate single injections are a safer option.