Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
Why does naomi not trust MMR?
121 Answers
naomi, in a separate thread you said that you don't trust MMR. What follows is not just to show my disagreement with you, but to make a very important point which I'll leave until last. Here goes:
No-one has shown any connection between MMR and autism. One doctor and a small team (who have since deserted him) made that suggestion but produced no evidence. His 'results' were impossible to reproduce, his methods were shown to be deeply flawed and his motives suspect. Not since Piltdown Man was revealed as a hoax has any scientific theory been so comprehensively debunked.
By 2001, 500,000,000 MMR jabs had been given world-wide (heaven knows what the figure is now) with no detectable adverse effects; autism surfaces just as often in children that have not had the jab as in those that have.
In the USA, where they are notoriously neurotic about their health, they have such confidence in it that in some states you may not send your children to school until they have had the jab.
That autism sometimes appears after the jab does not mean that it appears because of it . That is the old post-hoc-ergo-propter-hoc fallacy. Since the vaccination takes place early in a child's life it precedes all the other ailments that that child might later suffer from. Do we blame chicken-pox, asthma, leukaemia, migraines etc. on MMR? Of course not. So why autism?
cont'd�
No-one has shown any connection between MMR and autism. One doctor and a small team (who have since deserted him) made that suggestion but produced no evidence. His 'results' were impossible to reproduce, his methods were shown to be deeply flawed and his motives suspect. Not since Piltdown Man was revealed as a hoax has any scientific theory been so comprehensively debunked.
By 2001, 500,000,000 MMR jabs had been given world-wide (heaven knows what the figure is now) with no detectable adverse effects; autism surfaces just as often in children that have not had the jab as in those that have.
In the USA, where they are notoriously neurotic about their health, they have such confidence in it that in some states you may not send your children to school until they have had the jab.
That autism sometimes appears after the jab does not mean that it appears because of it . That is the old post-hoc-ergo-propter-hoc fallacy. Since the vaccination takes place early in a child's life it precedes all the other ailments that that child might later suffer from. Do we blame chicken-pox, asthma, leukaemia, migraines etc. on MMR? Of course not. So why autism?
cont'd�
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by chakka35. 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.
Squaddy, I don't want to get involved in any arguments, but that link did say he was a Transplant Surgeon and that he became a fellow of the Royal Collect of Surgeons in 1985:
"He studied medicine and spent the early years of his professional career in Canada, qualifying in 1981.
He specialised in surgery and became a fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons in 1985."
"Dr Wakefield worked as a transplant surgeon before heading back to the UK in the late 1980s, where he decided to devote more of his time to research"
He became a fellow of the Royal College of Pathologists in 2001 in respect of his research.
"He studied medicine and spent the early years of his professional career in Canada, qualifying in 1981.
He specialised in surgery and became a fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons in 1985."
"Dr Wakefield worked as a transplant surgeon before heading back to the UK in the late 1980s, where he decided to devote more of his time to research"
He became a fellow of the Royal College of Pathologists in 2001 in respect of his research.
lofty, I do accept the contents of that link, but anyone with any knowledge of surgical training would immediately think that something was wrong.....it just didn't sound factually correct.
lofty,,,transplant surgeon in 4yrs from qualification?...commonsense here would certainly dispel that claim.
The tryade form someone who is I doubt medically qualified was too much for me.
lofty,,,transplant surgeon in 4yrs from qualification?...commonsense here would certainly dispel that claim.
The tryade form someone who is I doubt medically qualified was too much for me.
naomi and Lottie, thanks for your words on that link, I must admit that everyso often, when a thread talks about Autism, I do tend to put that up
Now, about Dr Wakefield, before he said there may be a link, there were quite a few parents, (myself and my wife included) that put the blame for their childs condition on the MMR.
One of the most common causees of this condition, (not proved), is lack of Oxygen to the brain, the brain of a child only a few months old, and its my belief, that in overloading the tots system, the MMR does just that,
I'm not a medical expert, and don't have the time to do that much research, but thats what I think.
Now, about Dr Wakefield, before he said there may be a link, there were quite a few parents, (myself and my wife included) that put the blame for their childs condition on the MMR.
One of the most common causees of this condition, (not proved), is lack of Oxygen to the brain, the brain of a child only a few months old, and its my belief, that in overloading the tots system, the MMR does just that,
I'm not a medical expert, and don't have the time to do that much research, but thats what I think.
Sqad, This transplant surgeon issue is completely irrelevant to the question we�re discussing, so I really don�t understand why you harped on about it at all. However, you did - and you misquoted me. I didn�t refer to him as an �eminent� transplant surgeon, as you suggested, and the link doesn�t suggest that he was a �lofty� transplant surgeon as you�ve said either. It simply referred to him as a transplant surgeon (and incidentally, both The Times and the Guardian have referred to him similarly). It�s nonsense to say my comments are libellous. I don�t claim to be an expert in the field of medicine, but I do know quite a bit about the law. In saying you think the link meant he worked as a junior doctor you weren�t stating a fact - you were giving a personal and (still) unsubstantiated opinion, and one which was less than complimentary. Additionally, there�s little point in intimating that you are qualified to judge these matters when, again, you offer no evidence or explanation in support of that.
That said, this is only a discussion, but since I feel very strongly about this subject and your post came across as distinctly unfavourable, I was angry and I felt that it warranted the response I gave. I can assure you, though, that no personal offence was intended. I love debate, which is why I like AB, but I see no advantage to anyone in continuing completely unnecessary arguments.
Have a good weekend, Lottie.
Lonnie, I don�t know the medical explanation for why this might happen, but I strongly suspect it does. Much love to you. x
Chakka, M�Lud, where are you?
That said, this is only a discussion, but since I feel very strongly about this subject and your post came across as distinctly unfavourable, I was angry and I felt that it warranted the response I gave. I can assure you, though, that no personal offence was intended. I love debate, which is why I like AB, but I see no advantage to anyone in continuing completely unnecessary arguments.
Have a good weekend, Lottie.
Lonnie, I don�t know the medical explanation for why this might happen, but I strongly suspect it does. Much love to you. x
Chakka, M�Lud, where are you?
There's a book that I hold as one, of the best about this subject, I don't know if anyone on here has read it, but its well worth the time and trouble to get it, i've had it for some years, and every so often I re-read it, because in times of stress it serves as a really good tonic, but its not politically correct, and doesn't fit in with todays thinking.
'For the Love of Ann', by James Copeland.
An incredible story.
'For the Love of Ann', by James Copeland.
An incredible story.
Just to add my tuppence worth....I too dont trust the MMR. Had them for first two sons (one got meningitis - thankfully recovered.) When my youngest, a daughter, was due for same I refused the injections and she had measles, whooping cough & scarlet fever and recovered from all with no ill affects. Rather the illness than the slightest chance of autism.
It's a personal choice we are entitled to.
Incidentally, I too suffered my daughters illnesses as a child, when MMR was unavailable.
It's a personal choice we are entitled to.
Incidentally, I too suffered my daughters illnesses as a child, when MMR was unavailable.
Were this a court of law and I the defence counsel (it was for the prosecution that you needed an adjournment, naomi) I would now ask the judge to dismiss the case on the grounds that the prosecution had produced no evidence to support their charge. Since that is plainly true, I don�t see how he could refuse.
But this is not a court, so courtesy requires that I reply to at least some of your posts.
LoftyLottie, I�m sorry that you thought me rude. Your post on 09/12 at 09.25 was certainly prejudiced. I sympathised about your mother and merely pointed out (and thank heaven that this is the last time I shall have to do so!) that the fact that her deterioration occurred after the jab does not mean that it occurred because of it. Nevertheless, I apologise without reservation if I offended you.
lonnie, it isn�t a question of proving things one way or the other. The accusation that the state has been giving children jabs which cause autism is a shocking and scandalous one, which, to be given credulity, has to be supported by the most rigorous evidence. There is no such evidence. Neither is there evidence that MMR �overloads the tot�s system�. If you don�t have time to do the research then why offer such opinions?
obNOXious, I am naturally sorry about your son, but opinions are not all of equal worth as you imply. Some are based on fact and reason, others are not. And those facts and those reasons do not change whether you are a lucky parent like me or not. As a matter of record, I have not been �blindly trumpeting� anything; my �opinions� are anything but blind.
�cont�d
But this is not a court, so courtesy requires that I reply to at least some of your posts.
LoftyLottie, I�m sorry that you thought me rude. Your post on 09/12 at 09.25 was certainly prejudiced. I sympathised about your mother and merely pointed out (and thank heaven that this is the last time I shall have to do so!) that the fact that her deterioration occurred after the jab does not mean that it occurred because of it. Nevertheless, I apologise without reservation if I offended you.
lonnie, it isn�t a question of proving things one way or the other. The accusation that the state has been giving children jabs which cause autism is a shocking and scandalous one, which, to be given credulity, has to be supported by the most rigorous evidence. There is no such evidence. Neither is there evidence that MMR �overloads the tot�s system�. If you don�t have time to do the research then why offer such opinions?
obNOXious, I am naturally sorry about your son, but opinions are not all of equal worth as you imply. Some are based on fact and reason, others are not. And those facts and those reasons do not change whether you are a lucky parent like me or not. As a matter of record, I have not been �blindly trumpeting� anything; my �opinions� are anything but blind.
�cont�d
�cont�d
Octavius, in matters like this it is the facts that show who is right or wrong, not the personalities concerned. I have the facts and the evidence on my side. You have only belief and �opinions� to which you are, of course, entitled. But don�t you feel the slightest desire to back them up?
terambulam If you could show that there was the �slightest chance of autism� from MMR then you would obviously be right. As it is, you are gambling with the very real dangers of M, M and R against no risk of autism that anyone has shown to exist.
And now naomi with whom I started all this: I much appreciate the time and trouble you put into your lengthy response. As you say, the facts about Wakefield are in the public domain and you can be sure that I have been doing my homework on him ever since this whole things started years ago. So I will waste no time going over his story again.
But when all is said and done, the happy truth is that neither he nor anyone else has produced any evidence that MMR causes autism, the unhappy truth being that many people (as this thread has shown), stubbornly and against all reason, refuse to accept that � while at the same time failing to produce any evidence of their own.
Regarding single jabs, what more can I say except that the whole of medical science has stated quite firmly that they serve no purpose compared with MMR. And you�ll notice that no-one on this site, including you, has even tried to give us details of what that purpose might be. (lonnie did mention overloading, which has been dismissed as making no medical sense). And you don�t need to be an expert to see that the long gap between jabs leaves such children vulnerable.
�cont�d
Octavius, in matters like this it is the facts that show who is right or wrong, not the personalities concerned. I have the facts and the evidence on my side. You have only belief and �opinions� to which you are, of course, entitled. But don�t you feel the slightest desire to back them up?
terambulam If you could show that there was the �slightest chance of autism� from MMR then you would obviously be right. As it is, you are gambling with the very real dangers of M, M and R against no risk of autism that anyone has shown to exist.
And now naomi with whom I started all this: I much appreciate the time and trouble you put into your lengthy response. As you say, the facts about Wakefield are in the public domain and you can be sure that I have been doing my homework on him ever since this whole things started years ago. So I will waste no time going over his story again.
But when all is said and done, the happy truth is that neither he nor anyone else has produced any evidence that MMR causes autism, the unhappy truth being that many people (as this thread has shown), stubbornly and against all reason, refuse to accept that � while at the same time failing to produce any evidence of their own.
Regarding single jabs, what more can I say except that the whole of medical science has stated quite firmly that they serve no purpose compared with MMR. And you�ll notice that no-one on this site, including you, has even tried to give us details of what that purpose might be. (lonnie did mention overloading, which has been dismissed as making no medical sense). And you don�t need to be an expert to see that the long gap between jabs leaves such children vulnerable.
�cont�d
�cont�d
The judge has retired to his chambers to sip brandy and study the racing form. I shall pack up my papers, doff my gown and wig and amble across The Strand to the Wig & Pen for a large, crisp gin-and-tonic.
But I shan�t relax that much. There are still thousands of children out there who are being refused protection against measles, mumps and rubella by parents who have been seriously misled.
And that is very sad.
The judge has retired to his chambers to sip brandy and study the racing form. I shall pack up my papers, doff my gown and wig and amble across The Strand to the Wig & Pen for a large, crisp gin-and-tonic.
But I shan�t relax that much. There are still thousands of children out there who are being refused protection against measles, mumps and rubella by parents who have been seriously misled.
And that is very sad.
Sorry Chakka. Since you posed the question and had me under arrest, I assumed that I was defending my case. Didn't realise I was the prosecution.
I don't believe I am maintaining my stance against all opposition. 'The whole of medical science' isn't in agreement, as you've said. Dr Wakefield may be one of few voices in the wilderness, but history tells us this sometimes happens. He believes he has evidence and says he doesn't believe enough research has been carried out. I truly hope you're right, but perhaps subjected to more intense study it may be discovered that the three vaccinations combined react adversely against one another, and/or that they overload the system. As far as I can tell, substantial, long-term, research hasn't been carried out, and there's no doubt whatsoever that Dr Wakefield has most definitely been demonised. I ask again, why would he risk his career and reputation if he didn't have serious doubts? As for children being put at risk, here is no real reason that these vaccinations cannot be given separately - and it will be sadder still if you're wrong.
Now will you please take these handcuffs off - they're chaffing.
Enjoy your G&T.
(By-the-by - the quiz results should be back soon. I'll look for your name in the results, but if it isn't there, do let me know how you did.)
I don't believe I am maintaining my stance against all opposition. 'The whole of medical science' isn't in agreement, as you've said. Dr Wakefield may be one of few voices in the wilderness, but history tells us this sometimes happens. He believes he has evidence and says he doesn't believe enough research has been carried out. I truly hope you're right, but perhaps subjected to more intense study it may be discovered that the three vaccinations combined react adversely against one another, and/or that they overload the system. As far as I can tell, substantial, long-term, research hasn't been carried out, and there's no doubt whatsoever that Dr Wakefield has most definitely been demonised. I ask again, why would he risk his career and reputation if he didn't have serious doubts? As for children being put at risk, here is no real reason that these vaccinations cannot be given separately - and it will be sadder still if you're wrong.
Now will you please take these handcuffs off - they're chaffing.
Enjoy your G&T.
(By-the-by - the quiz results should be back soon. I'll look for your name in the results, but if it isn't there, do let me know how you did.)
Thanks for that, naomi. Yes, you were the prosecutor, charging MMR with committing a very serious offence. I was defending it.
If you want to reverse the roles I would be very happy to launch a vigorous case against single jabs, whereupon you can be defense counsel. Up to you.
I'll certainly let you know on the Q&P site how well/badly I did in the quiz.
If you want to reverse the roles I would be very happy to launch a vigorous case against single jabs, whereupon you can be defense counsel. Up to you.
I'll certainly let you know on the Q&P site how well/badly I did in the quiz.
Is there any point? On this, at least, we're never going to agree, Chakka.
If you're going to post a message for me on Q&P, best to post one in R&S to let me know it's there, otherwise I'll miss it, as I did before. That's the problem with Q&P - so many questions that they soon whizz off the front page.
If you're going to post a message for me on Q&P, best to post one in R&S to let me know it's there, otherwise I'll miss it, as I did before. That's the problem with Q&P - so many questions that they soon whizz off the front page.
Well, it's certainly an emotive subject. But actually, naomi, you've completely misunderstood me.
My point was that, after a 114-post debate which I thoroughly enjoyed, it's fair to conclude that the thoughts of someone affected directly (even if it's, by his own admission, a hunch) isn't going swayed by evidence-based arguments.
Which is why I said 'boiled down to' before pasting that direct quote.
My point was that, after a 114-post debate which I thoroughly enjoyed, it's fair to conclude that the thoughts of someone affected directly (even if it's, by his own admission, a hunch) isn't going swayed by evidence-based arguments.
Which is why I said 'boiled down to' before pasting that direct quote.
Fair enough, naomi, I wouldn't want to waste your time or mine if your mind is implacably made up.
Just one final thought from me: it is possible to have the utmost sympathy and compassion for lonnie, your friends and others who had had to suffer the burden of autism in the family, while at the same time recognising that such a dreadful happening does not give them special knowledge or insight into why the autism occurred. Into the autism, yes; into its cause, no.
In fact, the brutal truth is that those who have been so much more fortunate can look at the possible cause more objectively, and without that understandable emotion, as this thread has revealed so clearly.
Just one final thought from me: it is possible to have the utmost sympathy and compassion for lonnie, your friends and others who had had to suffer the burden of autism in the family, while at the same time recognising that such a dreadful happening does not give them special knowledge or insight into why the autism occurred. Into the autism, yes; into its cause, no.
In fact, the brutal truth is that those who have been so much more fortunate can look at the possible cause more objectively, and without that understandable emotion, as this thread has revealed so clearly.
Quinlad, if I misunderstood your post, my profound apologies.
Chakka, Although I have every sympathy for the parents of children with autism, caution rather than emotion dictates my feelings on this subject. I realise parents don�t have special knowledge or insight, although I do believe their instincts should be considered. They were there when their children succumbed to autism - we weren�t.
One question that I�ve asked more than once has remained unanswered. Dr Wakefield is clearly no fool, so why would he risk his reputation and his career unless he genuinely thinks there is a link? My fear is in knowing that mistakes have been made in the past, and I�ve already given a couple of examples. Scientists have been ridiculed and demonized before, but have subsequently been proven to have been right all along. If due to a lack of proper, long-term, investigation, a mistake has been made in this case, the medical profession will have a lot to answer for. I wouldn�t want that responsibility on my hands.
Lottie, yep, we're still at it. Good discussion though.
Chakka, Although I have every sympathy for the parents of children with autism, caution rather than emotion dictates my feelings on this subject. I realise parents don�t have special knowledge or insight, although I do believe their instincts should be considered. They were there when their children succumbed to autism - we weren�t.
One question that I�ve asked more than once has remained unanswered. Dr Wakefield is clearly no fool, so why would he risk his reputation and his career unless he genuinely thinks there is a link? My fear is in knowing that mistakes have been made in the past, and I�ve already given a couple of examples. Scientists have been ridiculed and demonized before, but have subsequently been proven to have been right all along. If due to a lack of proper, long-term, investigation, a mistake has been made in this case, the medical profession will have a lot to answer for. I wouldn�t want that responsibility on my hands.
Lottie, yep, we're still at it. Good discussion though.
Latest Posts
Society & Culture3 mins ago
ChatterBank3 mins ago
Saturday Punt - 2 November 2024
Other Sports4 mins ago
And As Expected Down Goes The Market
News14 mins ago
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.