MMR Doctor struck off

[Yeast Lord]

So what causes autism and how comes only kids catch it?

[ewenm]

Yeast Lord said:

So what causes autism and how comes only kids catch it?

Is it even something that can be "caught" rather than an emerging genetic trait as the child ages?

[maddog993]

ewenm said:

Yeast Lord said:

So what causes autism and how comes only kids catch it?

Is it even something that can be "caught" rather than an emerging genetic trait as the child ages?

Research hasn't yet managed to pin it down. The symptoms invariably present before three years of age and often around two, often with regression following, up until then, normal development (this is around the same time that a number of vaccines are given-including MMR- hence the spurious 'link') Evidence suggests a correlation with autism and various genetic and environmental factors (along with the most obvious correlation of gender- i.e. boys are more likely to develop the condition). Thus the causes may be considered 'multifactorial', possibly dependent on any number of such factors. (including gene defects, environmental toxins, having had certain childhood infections and/or the combination of these)

[shoggoth1]

maddog993 said:

Jasandjules said:

So basically the main answer is that MMR is cheaper than three separate jabs.

I think that tells us all we need to know then.

The combined is a more sensible option anyway as individual jabs not only cause more discomfort to the child but expose them to more risk as there must be at least a four week gap between the individual jabs.
The individual jabs are unlicensed and so have not had the rigorous testing of the licenced combined. ie you could be putting any old st in your child.
Finally, the combined mmr has been administered to over 500 million people worldwide and is recognised as one of THE safest vaccines out there.
The fact that it is the cheaper option is merely a bonus.

As mentioned already, you really (that's Jasandjules) want to read the chapter about this 'research' in Bad Science by Ben Goldacre.

Your attitude to MMR I think tells us all we need to know about the damage Wakefield has done.

[Yeast Lord]

Did a child that wasn't vaccinated as a baby ever catch autism or develop it later on?

Is it true Mrs Blair didn't have the mmr given to her kids and why?

This whole thing to me sounds like a cover up. If there was a link, drug companies would be having to pay out trillions so they certainly would need to quiet anyone that's against them.

[Bill]

Yeast Lord said:

Did a child that wasn't vaccinated as a baby ever catch autism or develop it later on?

I know a nurse at a childrens' care home where they have a lot of autistic kids, many of whom haven't had the MMR. As a consequence they've had outbreaks of measles and mumps.

Vaccine companies would make more money from single jabs so why would they cover it up??

[Yeast Lord]

Okay so why have all these parents with autistic kids put 2 and 2 together and got five, what made them focus on the jabs being the cause of their child's disability?

[Bill]

Because autism becomes noticeable around the same age as the jabs get done.

It's human nature to want an answer (and someone/thing to blame) and the MMR is what they've latched on to.

[maddog993]

Yeast Lord said:

Okay so why have all these parents with autistic kids put 2 and 2 together and got five, what made them focus on the jabs being the cause of their child's disability?

Many parents were getting their kids vaccinated (MMR is given around one year old and a second jab pre-school) and then, if their kid went on to develop autism,as it begins to manifest itself shortly after this time period and particularly so if it was regressive autism- (where the child had undergone normal development through to this point before markedly going backwards developmentally) - were unsurprisingly and understandably pointing the finger at the MMR vaccine as the perceived contributory factor. Wakefield merely fuelled this specious reasoning (citing a 'study' of 12 kids with bowel disorder and regressive autism who had the MMR as his evidence) apparently to line his own pockets.

No credible research (and there have been extensive studies) has ever suggested any such link between the two.

Add to this- and just to compound Wakefield's nonsense about the superior efficacy of individual vaccines over combined - there is the fact that in Japan where the combined MMR was discarded in favour of individual jabs, the rates of autism have continued to rise regardless.

Edited by maddog993 on Tuesday 25th May 12:55

[Bill]

maddog993 said:

Wakefield merely fuelled this specious reasoning (citing a 'study' of 12 kids with bowel disorder and regressive autism who had the MMR as his evidence) apparently to line his own pockets.

It was his study IIRC, based on 12 children whose families were trying to sue the manufacturer. Which is why the Lancet has removed the article, the editor of the lancet has had his wrist slapped and Wakefield has now been struck off.

[Jasandjules]

shoggoth1 said:

As mentioned already, you really (that's Jasandjules) want to read the chapter about this 'research' in Bad Science by Ben Goldacre.

Your attitude to MMR I think tells us all we need to know about the damage Wakefield has done.

If I get the time I will take a look.

But I know a few doctors and am aware of certain practices which I don't quite agree with, thus a cover up would suprise me not one jot. Hence my questions.

How many children are killed by measles and mumps each year in the UK? I had measles, mumps, chickenpox and other assorted things when I was a kid and I am still alive now, so are they as serious as people make out? Geniune question.

[NWTony]

JasandJules, the answer to your question is that very few infants die of these diseases. I suspect that's because of the near universal MMR vaccination program however.

[don4l]

When I was young we didn't vaccinate against measels or mumps. I, and most of the kids that I knew caught both without any ill-effect.

Parents made a bigger issue of it than us kids. The main thing was that you got a few days off school.

I believe that if adults catch these diseases, then they can be more serious.

Don
--

[Jasandjules]

NWTony said:

JasandJules, the answer to your question is that very few infants die of these diseases. I suspect that's because of the near universal MMR vaccination program however.

Sorry for being dumb here, but I like information to make a better decision on. Do you mean that all countries in the world have an MMR vaccination or that few infants die in the UK where we have the vaccine. Then do you know how many die in other countries where they don't have the MMR jab?

Just trying to piece together exactly how dangerous it is to have three individual jabs.

[DrTre]

Jasandjules said:

Just trying to piece together exactly how dangerous it is to have three individual jabs.

Long and short of it is, there's a higher risk of catching the diseases, MMR is a more efficient and safer way of delivering protection than three separate jabs.

To my mind there's healthy skepticism and there's misplaced paranoia...you're erring strongly toward the latter IMO, not everything everyone "in power" does is for nefarious reasons...

However, to answer your query in a roundabout way, let me ask whether you'd sooner put your own children at higher risk of the following (and I know the mumps one isn't "bad" for young children):

Mumps:
Mumps is a highly contagious infection, and people who are infected are most contagious for 1-2 days before the onset of symptoms and for five days afterwards.

During this time, it is important to prevent spreading the infection to others, particularly those with a high risk of developing complications such as:

* teenagers and young adults who have not been vaccinated, and
* pregnant women.

The outlook for young children with mumps is generally good because the symptoms should pass within two weeks without causing any long-term problems.

The outlook for teenagers and adults with mumps is slightly less positive because they have a higher risk of developing complications, some of which can be serious.

Complications of mumps include:

* painful swelling of the testicles (in boys and men),
* secondary infection of the membranes of the brain (meningitis), or the brain itself (encephalitis), and
* hearing loss.

Measles: http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Measles/Pages/Complic...

Common complications

Some of the common complications of measles are:

* diarrhoea,
* vomiting,
* eye infection (conjunctivitis), and
* inflammation of the voice box (laryngitis).

Inner ear infection and inflammation (otitis media), which often causes earache, may also be a complication of measles.

Fits that are caused by a fever (febrile convulsions) are also possible complications of measles. However, the fits, although alarming, are not usually dangerous.
Less common complications

Less common complications of measles are:

* meningitis,
* pneumonia (lung infection), signs of which are fast, difficult breathing, chest pain and deteriorating condition,
* hepatitis (liver infection),
* encephalitis (inflammation of the brain), which can be fatal, so watch for drowsiness, headache and vomiting,
* low platelet (white blood cell) count, known medically as thrombocytopenia, which affects the blood's ability to clot,
* bronchitis and croup (infection of the airways), characterised by a hacking or barking cough, and
* squint, if the virus affects the nerves and muscles of the eye.

Rare complications

In rare cases, measles can lead to the following conditions:

* serious eye disorders, such as an infection of the optic nerve (the nerve that transmits information from the eye to the brain), known as optic neuritis, which can lead to blindness,
* heart and nervous system problems,
* a serious brain complication known as subacute sclerosing panencephalitis (SSPE), which can sometimes occur several years after measles. Although the condition is fatal, it is very rare, occurring in only 1 in every 100,000 cases of measles.


Rubella: http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Rubella/Pages/Complic...

Common complications of rubella include:

* diarrhoea and vomiting,
* inner ear infection (otitis media) and inflammation, and
* convulsions - a sudden involuntary movement in a part of a body that is brought on by fever

Some other, less common, complications of rubella are described below.

* Pneumonia - inflammation in the lungs caused by an infection. It causes fast, laboured breathing and chest pain.
* Bronchitis - an infection of the main airways (the bronchi) in the lungs. This causes a cough, which may bring up yellowy-grey mucus.
* Croup - an infection that affects the voice box (larynx) and the airway to the lungs (trachea). This causes a barking cough and a rasping sound when you breathe in.
* Encephalitis - inflammation of the brain. This is a rare but serious complication, affecting one person in every 6,000 people who are infected with rubella.
* Thrombocytopenia - an abnormal drop in the number of platelets in your blood (platelets are cells that help your blood to clot). Thrombocytopaenia can cause bleeding into your vital areas, such as your eyes or your brain. It can affect one person in every 3,000 with rubella, and is slightly more common in children.


ETA Forgive me for playing the "think of the children" card, I really do detest it but it's apt in this case IMO.

Edited by DrTre on Tuesday 25th May 14:28

Edited by DrTre on Tuesday 25th May 14:33

[N Dentressangle]

There's no cover up.

There's barely what you could call a 'medical establishment' - doctors are a diverse and very heterogenous professional group. It would be like herding cats. They won't unite to save their own jobs, pay and conditions, let alone to exercise some massive deception on the general public.

Doctors have children too. All the ones I know have gone for the combined MMR. I know no doctors or other health professionals personally who have chosen single injections.

Research into this kind of area isn't just carried out by doctors, but by scientists, academics and many others. They are not all involved in some kind of conspiracy or cover up - think about it.

So, once again, there's no cover up. There is no scientific evidence to support Wakefield's suggestions. None at all. Only his own conjecture and his own highly partial, statistically insignificant research.

Save your sympathy for better doctors than Wakefield. Save it for the real whistleblowers, like those who exposed the Bristol heart scandal and were badly treated, but not Wakefield. He's a charlatan who should be up before a court, never mind being struck off.

[Jasandjules]

N Dentressangle said:

Research into this kind of area isn't just carried out by doctors, but by scientists, academics and many others. They are not all involved in some kind of conspiracy or cover up - think about it.
.

Unfortunately my tinfoil hat needs an airing. You see, the "fact" of AGW has been dealt with by academics and scientists and many others. Who are all involved in a conspiracy.

I am also aware of other cover-ups engaged upon by doctors - Alderhay IIRC for example.

Whilst I appreciate that these conditions can adversely affect adults, I had pretty much all of them as a kid, and so did my siblings, and we had a few others besides... We were just quarantined in our rooms etc..

Oh, and at this point I don't have kids, I am asking for purely academic reasons.

[Magog]

I always get a bit suspicious when there is a complete concensus on something being incorrect. Particularly when it was up to a point supported. I don't know the ins and outs of the case in absoloute detail, nor exactly the details as yo why he was struck of. But it seems that his report had 12 co-authors to start of with, surely one of these would have been flagged up if their was something wrong with their article. According to the Lancet, they wouldn't have published the article had those involved in the peer review process known. Now surely any medical paper should stand or fall on the quality of it's content only, I would have thought that any bias should be apparent in the paper itself were the motives of it's author questionable. It strikes me that a lot of people have backpeddled over their positions in the last decade, perhaps for political expediency rather than any greater motive.

It seems that Dr Wakefield had a relatively successful career, up until the point that he became involved with the link between MMR and Autism. I find it hard to believe that he didn't genuinely feel that there might be a link and that it should be investigated further. Perhaps the funding did colour his judgement, but he didn't completely make things up just to get his hands on the money.

Part of me worries that these events might discourage scientists and doctors from taking on difficult and potentially unpopular investigations into the side effects of other drugs.

I don't believe that there has been a cover up, it seems that the matter has been thoroughly investigated in the last ten years. It does seem that there is a slight whiff of witchunt to this, as well as a lot of arse covering.

[hairykrishna]

Jasandjules said:

NWTony said:

JasandJules, the answer to your question is that very few infants die of these diseases. I suspect that's because of the near universal MMR vaccination program however.

Sorry for being dumb here, but I like information to make a better decision on. Do you mean that all countries in the world have an MMR vaccination or that few infants die in the UK where we have the vaccine. Then do you know how many die in other countries where they don't have the MMR jab?

Two seconds on google would take you to the WHO page on measles;

World Health Organization said:

Key facts

* Measles is one of the leading causes of death among young children even though a safe and cost-effective vaccine is available.
* In 2008, there were 164 000 measles deaths globally – nearly 450 deaths every day or 18 deaths every hour.
* More than 95% of measles deaths occur in low-income countries with weak health infrastructures.
* Measles vaccination resulted in a 78% drop in measles deaths between 2000 and 2008 worldwide.
* In 2008, about 83% of the world's children received one dose of measles vaccine by their first birthday through routine health services – up from 72% in 2000.

Measles can be a serious disease, anything that delays vaccination is a bad thing. There is no reason to believe that combined MMR is dangerous. Wakefields study was, put simply, nonsense.

[hairykrishna]

Magog said:

I always get a bit suspicious when there is a complete concensus on something being incorrect. Particularly when it was up to a point supported. I don't know the ins and outs of the case in absoloute detail, nor exactly the details as yo why he was struck of. But it seems that his report had 12 co-authors to start of with, surely one of these would have been flagged up if their was something wrong with their article. According to the Lancet, they wouldn't have published the article had those involved in the peer review process known. Now surely any medical paper should stand or fall on the quality of it's content only, I would have thought that any bias should be apparent in the paper itself were the motives of it's author questionable. It strikes me that a lot of people have backpeddled over their positions in the last decade, perhaps for political expediency rather than any greater motive.

It seems that Dr Wakefield had a relatively successful career, up until the point that he became involved with the link between MMR and Autism. I find it hard to believe that he didn't genuinely feel that there might be a link and that it should be investigated further. Perhaps the funding did colour his judgement, but he didn't completely make things up just to get his hands on the money.

Part of me worries that these events might discourage scientists and doctors from taking on difficult and potentially unpopular investigations into the side effects of other drugs.

I don't believe that there has been a cover up, it seems that the matter has been thoroughly investigated in the last ten years. It does seem that there is a slight whiff of witchunt to this, as well as a lot of arse covering.

His study was rubbish, 12 cases non randomly selected, but it was mostly the medias fault. It makes a lot more sense if you read the account of what happened, extract from Ben Goldacres excellent book;

http://www.badscience.net/2008/08/the-medias-mmr-h...