Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
Mmr Jab And The Non-Existent Link With Autism
http://
It would seem that there still some people that believe that there is a link between the MMR jab and autism. Why is this urban myth taking so long to die ?
It would seem that there still some people that believe that there is a link between the MMR jab and autism. Why is this urban myth taking so long to die ?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by mikey4444. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Thanks Lazygun, you've filled in a few holes in my understanding (and that's before I've followed up the links)
My overwhelming impression was that the root of the furore was because MMR was a "government-imposed ~thing~" and parents wanted this much vaunted "patient choice". They wanted it done the old way, separate jabs.
When it was explain that three visits per child, three vaccine products (three manufacturers, all with profit margins to make) and three syringes adds up to "too much expense, nationwide", people got angry and rejected MMR even harder, seeing it as the government just being a cheapskate.
As you say, it was a grubby marketing ploy for Wakefield's own product.
It has cost at least 1 life so far (South Wales). Let's hope the catch-up vaccinations do their job in double-quick time.
My overwhelming impression was that the root of the furore was because MMR was a "government-imposed ~thing~" and parents wanted this much vaunted "patient choice". They wanted it done the old way, separate jabs.
When it was explain that three visits per child, three vaccine products (three manufacturers, all with profit margins to make) and three syringes adds up to "too much expense, nationwide", people got angry and rejected MMR even harder, seeing it as the government just being a cheapskate.
As you say, it was a grubby marketing ploy for Wakefield's own product.
It has cost at least 1 life so far (South Wales). Let's hope the catch-up vaccinations do their job in double-quick time.
Right on cue, and an illustration of how even well-educated (though not in medicine) people can be scared. A friend in Canada rang me to say that simvastin and other statins were dangerous, so why were NHS doctors dishing them out to the likes of me? The answer is that the risk from them is quite small. The benefit is that they are very likely to prevent the circumstances which give rise to heart attacks and strokes in men of my age group (65 up) who show even borderline high level cholesterol. [Have I got that right Sqad ?] Taking that to be so, the answer is obvious, but that didn't stop the Toronto Star or some other paper trumpeting the 'danger'.
Fred
\\\The benefit is that they are very likely to prevent the circumstances which give rise to heart attacks and strokes in men of my age group (65 up) who show even borderline high level cholesterol.\\\
I ALMOST agree Fred.....ALMOST.
If there is a history of strokes or heart attack OR a family history....then i agree.
Borderline cholesterol, I would question.............just a personal view you understand.
\\\The benefit is that they are very likely to prevent the circumstances which give rise to heart attacks and strokes in men of my age group (65 up) who show even borderline high level cholesterol.\\\
I ALMOST agree Fred.....ALMOST.
If there is a history of strokes or heart attack OR a family history....then i agree.
Borderline cholesterol, I would question.............just a personal view you understand.
Thanks everybody, especially the AB Medical Respondent, Mr Sqad !
I would have to agree that this whole business has a very murky and complicated past, and the media has to shoulder its fair share of blame. But it still comes down to people being told by their GP's that the kids needed the MMR jab, but those parents preferring not to believe the Doctor and to ignore the advice, thus putting their children at serious risk. It should be noted that the vast majority of those parents didn't then opt for 3 separate jabs but actually declined the vaccinations altogether ! I'm not sure what health problems that complete omission to vaccinate actually resulted in, but I am sure that the figures exist somewhere in the NHS.
If I took my car into a garage and was told that it needed a £1000 spent on it, I might get a second opinion. Garages don't have the best of reputations when it comes to treating customers fairly. But if my Doctor told me to do something, I don't think I would hesitate. After all, who am I to gainsay someone who has spent 7 years qualifying to be a GP ?
That there are still people prepared to arrange for their children to have 3 separate injections, at great monetary expense to themselves rather proves that this urban myth still has legs, even after all the publicity. The Children's Immunisation Centre must be laughing all the way to the bank. The cost of 3 separate injections comes £340 according to their website !
This website is still perpetuating the myth of a link between MMR and autism :::
http://
I would have to agree that this whole business has a very murky and complicated past, and the media has to shoulder its fair share of blame. But it still comes down to people being told by their GP's that the kids needed the MMR jab, but those parents preferring not to believe the Doctor and to ignore the advice, thus putting their children at serious risk. It should be noted that the vast majority of those parents didn't then opt for 3 separate jabs but actually declined the vaccinations altogether ! I'm not sure what health problems that complete omission to vaccinate actually resulted in, but I am sure that the figures exist somewhere in the NHS.
If I took my car into a garage and was told that it needed a £1000 spent on it, I might get a second opinion. Garages don't have the best of reputations when it comes to treating customers fairly. But if my Doctor told me to do something, I don't think I would hesitate. After all, who am I to gainsay someone who has spent 7 years qualifying to be a GP ?
That there are still people prepared to arrange for their children to have 3 separate injections, at great monetary expense to themselves rather proves that this urban myth still has legs, even after all the publicity. The Children's Immunisation Centre must be laughing all the way to the bank. The cost of 3 separate injections comes £340 according to their website !
This website is still perpetuating the myth of a link between MMR and autism :::
http://
has there ever ever been any incidence of a vaccination causing the same side effects as the actual childhood disease? I remember a neighbours child being vaccinated when I was in my late teens, so 40 + years ago, who became ill and whose eyesight was affected. I can't remember which vaccination, she would have been around 3 or 4. I know that medicine moves on but if there is this kind of memory around that might explain the MMR autism longevity. Of course the other thing to say is that medicine and research don't always get it right first shot....
Of course research isn't necessarily right, especially initial research - but it's hardly any more likely to be wrong than no research at all, or people who just rely on anecdote to influence their decisions.
The volume of research that shows no link between MMR and Autism is so great that it's highly unlikely to be wrong. One significant study is in the entire nation of Japan, where the MMR mixed vaccine was withdrawn with no (measurable) influence on rates of Autism. By contrast Wakefield's initial study, such as it was, was based on twelve children. I know which one I place more trust in.
The volume of research that shows no link between MMR and Autism is so great that it's highly unlikely to be wrong. One significant study is in the entire nation of Japan, where the MMR mixed vaccine was withdrawn with no (measurable) influence on rates of Autism. By contrast Wakefield's initial study, such as it was, was based on twelve children. I know which one I place more trust in.
Ever heard of Emily Moller, Hannah Poling, Bailey Banks, Misty Hyatt, Kienan Freeman, Valentino Bocca, and Julia Grimes? They are all children who won compensation following vaccine-related brain injury that involved MMR and resulted in autism. All of which the governments conceded or the court ruled that vaccines had caused brain injury. Kept all that very quiet in the media didn't they? So not an urban myth; nor is Dr Wakefield's work as "discredited" as people say. He made powerful enemies. It may not cross the "evidencial proof" barrier they demand. But at least one or two governments (however grudgingly) and some courts think Dr Wakefield was right.
// The centerpiece of the “courts confirm” article is the 2012 finding of a local Italian court that a child was diagnosed with autism a year after receiving an MMR. The court, in linking the two things, relied very heavily on the retracted and fraudulent 1998 Wakefield MMR Lancet paper and the testimony of a single physician, hired by the plaintiff’s attorney (widely known for advising parents on how to avoid compulsory vaccinations). The physician, Massimo Montinari, it seems, has written a book on how vaccines cause autism and peddles an autism “cure” that he’s devised.
Italian courts, provincial or otherwise, are not known for basing their rulings in science. They are, after all, part of the system that led to a manslaughter conviction of six scientists for not predicting the 2009 L’Aquila earthquake, disregarding completely the obvious fact that such predictions are not, in fact, scientifically possible. In a similar way, the Italian court that made the MMR-autism ruling–the centerpiece of this latest “courts confirm” tripe–ignored completely the science made available to it and focused almost solely on the retracted Wakefield paper and a physician with a COI in making its decision. A decision that is, by the way, under appeal. //
http://
Italian courts, provincial or otherwise, are not known for basing their rulings in science. They are, after all, part of the system that led to a manslaughter conviction of six scientists for not predicting the 2009 L’Aquila earthquake, disregarding completely the obvious fact that such predictions are not, in fact, scientifically possible. In a similar way, the Italian court that made the MMR-autism ruling–the centerpiece of this latest “courts confirm” tripe–ignored completely the science made available to it and focused almost solely on the retracted Wakefield paper and a physician with a COI in making its decision. A decision that is, by the way, under appeal. //
http://
The reason it persists is because at the time, parents were scared, the prime minister refused to say if his child had had the MMR or individual injections.
If the parents' request at the time for the choice of individual vaccinations or MMR had been allowed, instead of almost forcing the parents into MMR, by the time this report was discredited people would just have the MMR. Instead, by removing the choice it felt dictatorial and shady. Like they were pushing an agenda.
If the parents' request at the time for the choice of individual vaccinations or MMR had been allowed, instead of almost forcing the parents into MMR, by the time this report was discredited people would just have the MMR. Instead, by removing the choice it felt dictatorial and shady. Like they were pushing an agenda.
jim360 said "....the larger body of evidence indicates no link between the jab and the disease...." ***** Just because the larger body of children appear to suffer no harm? So - what are we to make of the smaller body of evidence that does indicate harm?
And another thing people may not be aware of - the safety tests for the three vaccines were done separately. The mix was judge "safe" on those tests!!!
No - regardless of the comments here - this issue is going to go on and on and on. Until the proper tests are done - the very tests Dr Wakefield's team was doing until the funding was withdrawn.
daffy654 said - "...Rubbish, all his (Dr Wakefield's) so called work on this study has been thoroughly discredited. Where is your evidence to the contrary?
By "discredited" do you mean he and his team had their funding withdrawn so they couldn't continue their work? Far as I can see Dr. Wakefield acted with integrity every inch of the way. He never pretended his results were complete - only that they demonstrated possible problems with the MMR which he reasonably felt needed to be reported as a matter of public safety. Those results have never been disproved - only criticised as inadequate. When he said (in answer to a question from a member of the public) that he would only give the jabs separately to his own children did the frenzy against him break out.
Wow, a rare beast indeed, someone prepared to defend Andrew Wakefield.
Lets have a recap of Andrew Wakefield, or to give him his full title, Andrew Wakefield, shall we?
At his GMC meeting where he was struck off, the GMC panel concluded that
"The panel is satisfied that your conduct was irresponsible and dishonest".
His study was a case study, of just 12 children, all of whom were selected and steered his way by a lawyer attempting to set up a class action suit against the Vaccines Court in the US. They were predisposed to try and find a correlation.
A review of the laboratory used by Wakefield to perform the DNA profiling of the sample isolates provided from the trial showed some major problems and fundamental errors within the laboratory itself, leading to serious issues of cross contamination. The results were unreliable.
The BMJ declared his research fraudulent.
The findings of his case study - a study of just 12 children - in no way justified the comments Wakefield made to the media and the TV. It was those scaremongering comments that precipitated the panic about MMR.
He had multiple conflicts of interest. He was paid half a million pounds by a lawyer trying to organise a class action suit against the Vaccines Court in the US - so clearly they were seeking a positive result to support their class action. Further, Wakefield had an additional conflict of interest - he had filed a patent on a single dose measles vaccine, so potentially could have benefited financially from MMR being rejected.
The study was unethical. He had not consulted with the ethics committee at the Royal Free prior to conducting the study. These children were subjected to an invasive procedure without ethical approval.
The Hannah Poling case does not prove any kind of causal link between the MMR vaccine and autism. You really should read the detail. She received a whole host of vaccines all the same day; DTaP,varicalla, polio, MMR and Hib. Some months later she developed encephelopathy caused by a mitochondrial disorder.
Here's the problem though. Encephalopathy and mitochondrial disorder are not something commonly associated with autism. Nor is there any kind of plausible mechanism or any clinical trial data to support the notion that vaccines can cause mitochondrial disorder. Despite this, the Vaccine Court decided to offer a generous settlement to Hannah Polings family, but this does not establish a cause and effect relationship.
Millions upon millions of doses of the MMR vaccine have been given around the world. The data supports its safety and shows no correlation between the vaccine and autism. The only link is that chronological. The earliest a child can usually be diagnosed with autism is between their first and second year. The first does of MMR is given at around the same time.
So. No evidence, despite millions of doses. No corroboration of any of Wakefields findings, despite several similar studies. His work declared fraudulent and tainted by conflicts of interest.
It is highly irresponsible to continue to support Wakefield and promote the idea that their is any kind of link between MMR and autism.
Lets have a recap of Andrew Wakefield, or to give him his full title, Andrew Wakefield, shall we?
At his GMC meeting where he was struck off, the GMC panel concluded that
"The panel is satisfied that your conduct was irresponsible and dishonest".
His study was a case study, of just 12 children, all of whom were selected and steered his way by a lawyer attempting to set up a class action suit against the Vaccines Court in the US. They were predisposed to try and find a correlation.
A review of the laboratory used by Wakefield to perform the DNA profiling of the sample isolates provided from the trial showed some major problems and fundamental errors within the laboratory itself, leading to serious issues of cross contamination. The results were unreliable.
The BMJ declared his research fraudulent.
The findings of his case study - a study of just 12 children - in no way justified the comments Wakefield made to the media and the TV. It was those scaremongering comments that precipitated the panic about MMR.
He had multiple conflicts of interest. He was paid half a million pounds by a lawyer trying to organise a class action suit against the Vaccines Court in the US - so clearly they were seeking a positive result to support their class action. Further, Wakefield had an additional conflict of interest - he had filed a patent on a single dose measles vaccine, so potentially could have benefited financially from MMR being rejected.
The study was unethical. He had not consulted with the ethics committee at the Royal Free prior to conducting the study. These children were subjected to an invasive procedure without ethical approval.
The Hannah Poling case does not prove any kind of causal link between the MMR vaccine and autism. You really should read the detail. She received a whole host of vaccines all the same day; DTaP,varicalla, polio, MMR and Hib. Some months later she developed encephelopathy caused by a mitochondrial disorder.
Here's the problem though. Encephalopathy and mitochondrial disorder are not something commonly associated with autism. Nor is there any kind of plausible mechanism or any clinical trial data to support the notion that vaccines can cause mitochondrial disorder. Despite this, the Vaccine Court decided to offer a generous settlement to Hannah Polings family, but this does not establish a cause and effect relationship.
Millions upon millions of doses of the MMR vaccine have been given around the world. The data supports its safety and shows no correlation between the vaccine and autism. The only link is that chronological. The earliest a child can usually be diagnosed with autism is between their first and second year. The first does of MMR is given at around the same time.
So. No evidence, despite millions of doses. No corroboration of any of Wakefields findings, despite several similar studies. His work declared fraudulent and tainted by conflicts of interest.
It is highly irresponsible to continue to support Wakefield and promote the idea that their is any kind of link between MMR and autism.
@CllrChris
//Just because the larger body of children appear to suffer no harm? //
The way I read it, jim's reference to "larger body of evidence" was to do with what was trialled in Japan.
MMR was withdrawn from use totally... a small proportion of kids developed autism, regardless.
What conclusions do you draw from that?
//Just because the larger body of children appear to suffer no harm? //
The way I read it, jim's reference to "larger body of evidence" was to do with what was trialled in Japan.
MMR was withdrawn from use totally... a small proportion of kids developed autism, regardless.
What conclusions do you draw from that?
Hypognosis said - "... MMR was withdrawn from use totally... a small proportion of kids developed autism, regardless. What conclusions do you draw from that? "
I draw the obvious conclusion - that although MMR may be a factor in autism it is by no means an only cause. Dr Wakefield's work concentrated of autism involving gut problems - a small sector of the subject - I wonder what the Japanese outcome was on that side of autism?
Lazy Guns reply is well informed. I could argue it out - but I doubt this is the correct place to do it.
However she makes my case - which is not so much that Dr Wakefield was right (although I certainly think he was onto something) - only that this controversy will continue - not so much because of urban myths (although there may be some here!) that won't die, but because his work was never completed. And that directly addresses the question asked by the OP.
If you want a long winded comment on the legal and technical issues then this might be a useful website. http://
BTW - Dr Wakefield may have got well up the noses of the BMC and the international pharmaceutical establishment - but all they could do was stop his work. His degree and qualifications were never withdrawn - he remains a Dr. - however much to the annoyance of his ardent critics!
Mikey, I think the reason the myth is taking so long to die is that some people can't admit that they were wrong through either ignorance, stupidity or sheer bloody minded perversity. Most people don't stay in the educational system long enought to understand what science actually is and were unable to understandd how Wakefields reasoning was flawed. It is human nature to continue to accept something as true even though the support for that truth has vanished. We don't re-evaluate all our assumptions every time we acquire a new fact...sadly, I know I don't.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.