No link between MMR and Autism
Discussion
968 said:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4311613.stm
Hopefully people can now put this non-issue to rest.
Apart from those affected by it......
who number precisely zero...
If:
1) people weren't so thick and understood science and scientific methods better/at all
2) the media weren't so irresponsible/stupid
this would never have happened.
How much money has been spent on funding MMR/autism non-link research that could have been spent on something useful?
If:
1) people weren't so thick and understood science and scientific methods better/at all
2) the media weren't so irresponsible/stupid
this would never have happened.
How much money has been spent on funding MMR/autism non-link research that could have been spent on something useful?
From the same people who brought you: "Gulf war syndrome dosent exist" and " British Beef has no inherent risks to human health"....and not forgetting thalidomide.... Sometimes the link isnt as clear as it might appear, it dosent follow there is not link though, the converse is true.
In any case, anyone who takes anything this pack of liars say at face value really needs their head examining.
Blame the Daily Mail and their ilk for brainwashing with mass hysteria. The current mumps epidemic is doing lots of harm and is their fault. My consultant Paediatrician wife says there is no connection between autism and MMR, so there is no connection. She has looked at the science and is trained to know what it means.
When I went through my world travel phase I had every immunisation going including MMR and I still haven't gone all autistic.
When I went through my world travel phase I had every immunisation going including MMR and I still haven't gone all autistic.
Deltafox said:
Sometimes the link isnt as clear as it might appear, it dosent follow there is not link though, the converse is true.
In any case, anyone who takes anything this pack of liars say at face value really needs their head examining.
Your examples are slightly different.
Gulf War syndrome obviously has the government heavily involved. I don't think any researchers dispute the fact that "Gulf War Syndrome" exists - the government does, becuase of course if it didn't it would have some massive bills to pay and some difficult questions to answer.
"British beef has no inherent risks to human health"
How many people have contracted CJD? Again, this is a government denying what scientists are saying... that there could have been risks from BSE crossing into humans.
In the case of the alledged MMR/autism link, the original claim was based on a study with very small samples. The author of this study has since admitted his paper was flawed and that he now believes there to be no link between MMR and autism. Several much more thorough, much larger national studies have been published since then that have found NO LINK between MMR and autism.
If your child is autisitic I imagine it is helpful to have something to blame, but in this case I don't think it is realistic or correct or sensible to blame it on a vaccine that does not appear to have any link with autism.
As far as safety goes its all a balance - is it safe to cross the road? Is it safe to fly planes? Is it safe for me to pour heavy metals down the sink? Nothing is absolute and all benefits have to weighed against all downsides...
Deltafox said:
Sometimes the link isnt as clear as it might appear, it dosent follow there is not link though, the converse is true.
In any case, anyone who takes anything this pack of liars say at face value really needs their head examining.
clapexplain to me why a scientist researching this would lie:
1) examine the data, find no link, publish, don't get more funding for further studies because you found a solid conclusion.
2) examine the data, find a link, publish, get media coverage, get lots of funding, do more studies, get more funding etc.
Now... any decent scientist is going to want to find the truth... most scientists are decent ethically, just curious people. Why would they lie?
Go and read the papers for yourself, its just statistics... not hard. Equip yourself with the facts and make your own decision - you don't have to agree with their conclusions but you should at least examine the same data, not just beleive what you read in the papers.
1) examine the data, find no link, publish, don't get more funding for further studies because you found a solid conclusion.
2) examine the data, find a link, publish, get media coverage, get lots of funding, do more studies, get more funding etc.
Now... any decent scientist is going to want to find the truth... most scientists are decent ethically, just curious people. Why would they lie?
Go and read the papers for yourself, its just statistics... not hard. Equip yourself with the facts and make your own decision - you don't have to agree with their conclusions but you should at least examine the same data, not just beleive what you read in the papers.
I don't think any medical research is useless. It ALL has a use, often the scientists will discover something by accident which will save lives.
It's a common trait to say XYZ was a waste of money with hindsight, but other similar projects that started on not the best of foundations, have gone on to find wonder cures and other fantastic achievements.
If you need to moan at the government for wasting money, don't moan about medical research. Moan about bus lanes, congestion charging and other issues that don't help humanity as a whole.
It's a common trait to say XYZ was a waste of money with hindsight, but other similar projects that started on not the best of foundations, have gone on to find wonder cures and other fantastic achievements.
If you need to moan at the government for wasting money, don't moan about medical research. Moan about bus lanes, congestion charging and other issues that don't help humanity as a whole.
Deltafox said:
There is a big difference between what politicians say (ie your example) and what scientists say (the original story).
There is an even bigger difference between the public's ability to comprehend such things, and their sheep-like acceptance of what they read in the press.
One scientist with a dodgy study of TWELVE children, and you think hes more plausible than the Finnish study of 12 million people, or the recent Japanese study?
My sister is about as severely autistic as one can get, I wasn't for one minute convinced that there was anything worth talking about here. I've read my books and talked to the specialists and I have no idea how such an irrelevant load of shite managed to make news.
It was just another hyped up load of media pseudo-science. Someone gets a bright idea and it's like a load of sheep following, with a bit of chinese whispers thrown in for good measure as well as a dash of sensationalism. Looking at the media recently, I'm ashamed to call myself a scientist, what are they on? This rubbish doesn't add up at all, hinging massive conclusions on insufficient data. It seems to prevail at the public edge of every important subject.
They all need hitting with sticks.
It was just another hyped up load of media pseudo-science. Someone gets a bright idea and it's like a load of sheep following, with a bit of chinese whispers thrown in for good measure as well as a dash of sensationalism. Looking at the media recently, I'm ashamed to call myself a scientist, what are they on? This rubbish doesn't add up at all, hinging massive conclusions on insufficient data. It seems to prevail at the public edge of every important subject.
They all need hitting with sticks.
In my view the media have a lot to answer for in most of the 'scares' that we live with daily these days.
Half of them come about because instruments become available that can measure at previously undetectable levels.
We laud the concept of saving lives (except in Africa where many simply ignore the very addressable problem of malaria for example) in ways that can never be justified as cost effective. I guess it's good to live in a developed environment that can afford such luxury.
Of course soon we will all be dropping like flies because of radiation from phone masts. Being a fairly ubiquitous technology and having been around for some time it seems strange we are not seeing more obvious effects already - maybe we are? Perhaps that's how chavs come about?
BSE? A theory with no proof that I am aware of but, having spent so much on culling animals and with no other explanation we may as well stick with it. Unless there is about to be a sudden outbreak of cases the threatened epedemic is just not about to happen.
Passive smoking? Hmm. Think I would rather be in a smoky pub in London than walking the streets breathing the stuff that exits the exhausts on buses.
Sudan 1? Current estimated cost (via insurance, so us then) 100 million. Now given the shipment in qustion was some years ago I reckon the distribution would be almost completely delivered to the consumer by now so little point in scrapping on that basis alone. That and the consideration that the 'possible link' to cancer is based on gross force feeding of rats which themselves are bred to be susceptible to tumours pretty much any time someone looks at them. (I may be exaggerating slightly there!)
Since no doubt much of the rest of the world is less concerned by such matters (unless they can be used as political footballs.) I would suggest we are all very careful what we eat when travelling. In fact I would suggest no travelling at all. If the Sudan 1 doesn't get you the tsunami probably will. Or avian flu.
You might be OK in the States though the idea of so many people on planes with books of matches rather than lighters does not appeal to me much.
The problem with a lot of research - especially that which gets released via media contacts (for the headline) in advance of the papers being published and some never are it seems - is that future funding relies upon 'proving' something that requires further research. On top of this certain activists, for their own reasons, are particularly adept at manipulating the media by offering scare headlines and so build secure careers and become 'famous'. This is especially true in the States where celebrity is all.
The scientific part of the research seems to take a back seat.
As for medical advance - some good stuff in surgery coames about by practitioners developing and enhancing tools and techniques and the approach they can take with improved anaesthetics and antibiotics, etc.
In terms of drugs - it seems that for almost every one that hits the market as a great advance another is adjudged to be a failure or worse just a few years after introduction.
Few if any new drugs are the result of individual inspiration during laboratory research these days. Mostly they appear from a batch of a few thousand computer generated ideas for compounds and may get further testing and cost effectiveness consideration which leads to them progressing to the testing phase. Many fail at that point - the slightest worry about a possible side effect, no matter what the prime benefits might be, and they will be dropped. Word is there is all sorts of stuff that might be wonderful in the right circumstances but will never see the light of day due to some potential doubt about it passing some obscure clinical assessment.
Whilst I have no doubt that this particular govt. are past masters at being extremely economical with the truth I am very sure that the media are as well. So we have very few sources we can turn to and trust these days and probably mostly lack the rather specialised knowledge to understand what they are telling us anyway. Unless you are an expert in the field and have an unbiased view.
Half of them come about because instruments become available that can measure at previously undetectable levels.
We laud the concept of saving lives (except in Africa where many simply ignore the very addressable problem of malaria for example) in ways that can never be justified as cost effective. I guess it's good to live in a developed environment that can afford such luxury.
Of course soon we will all be dropping like flies because of radiation from phone masts. Being a fairly ubiquitous technology and having been around for some time it seems strange we are not seeing more obvious effects already - maybe we are? Perhaps that's how chavs come about?
BSE? A theory with no proof that I am aware of but, having spent so much on culling animals and with no other explanation we may as well stick with it. Unless there is about to be a sudden outbreak of cases the threatened epedemic is just not about to happen.
Passive smoking? Hmm. Think I would rather be in a smoky pub in London than walking the streets breathing the stuff that exits the exhausts on buses.
Sudan 1? Current estimated cost (via insurance, so us then) 100 million. Now given the shipment in qustion was some years ago I reckon the distribution would be almost completely delivered to the consumer by now so little point in scrapping on that basis alone. That and the consideration that the 'possible link' to cancer is based on gross force feeding of rats which themselves are bred to be susceptible to tumours pretty much any time someone looks at them. (I may be exaggerating slightly there!)
Since no doubt much of the rest of the world is less concerned by such matters (unless they can be used as political footballs.) I would suggest we are all very careful what we eat when travelling. In fact I would suggest no travelling at all. If the Sudan 1 doesn't get you the tsunami probably will. Or avian flu.
You might be OK in the States though the idea of so many people on planes with books of matches rather than lighters does not appeal to me much.
The problem with a lot of research - especially that which gets released via media contacts (for the headline) in advance of the papers being published and some never are it seems - is that future funding relies upon 'proving' something that requires further research. On top of this certain activists, for their own reasons, are particularly adept at manipulating the media by offering scare headlines and so build secure careers and become 'famous'. This is especially true in the States where celebrity is all.
The scientific part of the research seems to take a back seat.
As for medical advance - some good stuff in surgery coames about by practitioners developing and enhancing tools and techniques and the approach they can take with improved anaesthetics and antibiotics, etc.
In terms of drugs - it seems that for almost every one that hits the market as a great advance another is adjudged to be a failure or worse just a few years after introduction.
Few if any new drugs are the result of individual inspiration during laboratory research these days. Mostly they appear from a batch of a few thousand computer generated ideas for compounds and may get further testing and cost effectiveness consideration which leads to them progressing to the testing phase. Many fail at that point - the slightest worry about a possible side effect, no matter what the prime benefits might be, and they will be dropped. Word is there is all sorts of stuff that might be wonderful in the right circumstances but will never see the light of day due to some potential doubt about it passing some obscure clinical assessment.
Whilst I have no doubt that this particular govt. are past masters at being extremely economical with the truth I am very sure that the media are as well. So we have very few sources we can turn to and trust these days and probably mostly lack the rather specialised knowledge to understand what they are telling us anyway. Unless you are an expert in the field and have an unbiased view.
968 said:
<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4311613.stm">http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4311613.stm</a>
Hopefully people can now put this non-issue to rest.
Why hopefully?, and which particular half of the link are you refering to as a non-issue?. (ref: deltafox's remark)
>> Edited by Dr Strangelove on Friday 4th March 00:49
Deltafox said:
Sometimes the link isnt as clear as it might appear, it dosent follow there is not link though, the converse is true.
In any case, anyone who takes anything this pack of liars say at face value really needs their head examining.
There geniunely are NO links though.
The chap that caused the scare in the first place made a public apology telling the world that his research was incomplete when he made the link.
12,000 cases were studied, it was noted that the common link between each case was that those studied lived in houses. The conclusion therefore is that there may be a link with living in houses. Clothes manufacturers may also have to shoulder some of the blame, as in every single case, clothes were being worn, and had been for some considerable time. The clothing industry denies any link.
We are all entitled to our opinions.
Somehow though the British media seems more interested in blowing things out of proportion to sell more copies.
Anyone remember:
Dangerous dogs (kill them all)
Creuzfeldt jacob disease (it'll kill you all)
Mad cow disease (Eat one and you'll die)
mobile phone masts (your kids will all get brain tumours)
And of course the MMR jab (your kids will all get autism)
This is just of course my opinion, I have no intention of degrading other peoples. I'm struck by how many people this affected though. Friends of mine were frightened to get their daughter innoculated, despite reassurance from a GP friend of ours.
For the record,we did get our daughter done, although this was before the press got hold of it. Unfortunately, now of course there are people who don't trust anybody in authority to not lie to them, and are unlikely to consider any new evidence that comes along, from either side of the fence. I am of course referring to my friends who have not let their daughter have the jab. These are not stupid people either, he is a sea captain, she is a manageress.
I wonder what the next big "scare" will be?
Phil
Somehow though the British media seems more interested in blowing things out of proportion to sell more copies.
Anyone remember:
Dangerous dogs (kill them all)
Creuzfeldt jacob disease (it'll kill you all)
Mad cow disease (Eat one and you'll die)
mobile phone masts (your kids will all get brain tumours)
And of course the MMR jab (your kids will all get autism)
This is just of course my opinion, I have no intention of degrading other peoples. I'm struck by how many people this affected though. Friends of mine were frightened to get their daughter innoculated, despite reassurance from a GP friend of ours.
For the record,we did get our daughter done, although this was before the press got hold of it. Unfortunately, now of course there are people who don't trust anybody in authority to not lie to them, and are unlikely to consider any new evidence that comes along, from either side of the fence. I am of course referring to my friends who have not let their daughter have the jab. These are not stupid people either, he is a sea captain, she is a manageress.
I wonder what the next big "scare" will be?
Phil
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff