There is no way prove it either way as there are to many confounders.
Um no, the science would not reccomend to take the vaccine if there was nio way to prove it. As Graham S says, informed consent is what is needed, by the sounds of it your educators have failed you at some point and you do not understand the science. Stick around, we will help you to get to grips with it.
As a very junior Dr Death I worked for Dr Wakefield's brother (also a doctor and a surgeon to boot). I'll never forget the day in the theatre coffee room when my Reg was sticking the boot into Dr Wakefield about some news story in the papers and all the bother he had caused, without realising that Mr Wakefield was his brother.... Who should walk into this conversation half way through... Mr Wakefield. Silence around the coffee room and a very embarrassed looking Reg when he said 'He's my brother you know'. I think if the ground could have opened up and swallowed him there and then he'd have been fairly relieved....
As an aside, GP's get 'paid incentives' for all sorts of things in the form of points which mean payments into their practice... Doing well man clinics, checking everyone's blood pressure, asking everyone about their gambling habits.... Doesn't mean they give a fig about any of them, and they will all just keep doing what is best for the patient. The reason they offer the combined vaccine is because it's cheaper and has the same amount of side effects.... i.e bugger all of any great shakes.... as the separate vaccines. Vaccines have a shelf life and getting in the single vaccines for the daily wail readers would lead to more wastage, even if you paid the extra, and adds more hassle to their otherwise ridiculously busy day. Not worth the extra workload.
Following on from cyclo's post, vaccines do have documented side effects, these can be severe in some cases and are generally seen as "worth it" on a balance of risks. His point about anti-depressents is well known. Look also at the circumstances around Thalidomide and the medical profession and drug companies responce to that.
I personally have had many vaccinations (a nunber fairlky recently as a result of travelling extensively in Asia) but I accept there is a risk. I elected for my youngest daughter not to have the combined MMR vacine. I don't take the flu jabs when offered for example.
Single vaccines are not available on the NHS in the UK because there is a risk that fewer children would receive all the necessary injections, increasing the levels of measles, mumps and rubella in the UK.
The delay in having six separate injections would also put more children at risk of developing the conditions, as well as increasing the amount of work and inconvenience for parents and those administering the vaccines.
So it saves money and lives or its to cover up something ill defined without any supportign evidence
Sorry for what happened to your child but it is no reason to abandon reason.
vaccines do have documented side effects
Everything does and everything has risks
they are factors lower than the risks of the actual illness though.
Time for an infographic:
[img] 
[/img]
The drop in death from measles is particularly staggering, down from 2.6 MILLION in 1980 (when many of us would have been babies) to just 122,000 in 2012 (with 84% vaccinated).
Doesn't mean they give a fig about any of them, and they will all just keep doing what is best for the patient.
@Dr Death, my good friend who's a GP says in her experience Drs give a very large fig about them and do all they can to maximise revenue
@imnot - yes I do understand the difference, I did a maths degree, so lots of pure maths and stats too. I actually think the way stats are used in medical research is pretty dodgy in a lot of cases btw. EDIT @Graham see that point in the grpahic about statistically vaild - a huge amount of medial work isn't statistically valid, what happens is Doctors and researches draw conclusions based upon their beliefs, by the time you had statistically valid data in many cases it would have taken years and years. Dr Wakefield published a paper based upon a very limited sample, he said as much.
I said I did not believe a link could be proven, however we made a choice based upon that particular experience. I think doctors and medicine is a profession like any other, sometimes they are right, sometimes they are wrong.
Different countries have different medical practices, there are many areas where there are differences of opinion
I get the point about costs and time etc. That's why we paid for separate injections privately.
Hasn't it be shown that there is a link (albeit statistically insignificant) between the MMR jab and a lower incidence of autism?
I ****ing laughed my balls off when that came up in a lecture.
@imnot - yes I do understand the difference, I did a maths degree, so lots of pure maths and stats too. I actually think the way stats are used in medical research is pretty dodgy in a lot of cases btw. EDIT @Graham see that point in the grpahic about statistically vaild - a huge amount of medial work isn't statistically valid, what happens is Doctors and researches draw conclusions based upon their beliefs, by the time you had statistically valid data in many cases it would have taken years and years.
I'll listen to decent Biostatisticians when it comes things like this, cheers.
I get the point about costs and time etc. That's why we paid for separate injections privately.
This is an important point and is what separates you (a parent with perfectly understandable concerns over safety) from the true "anti-vaxers" who refuse ALL vaccines and regard them as some kind of plot.
There is no proven link between laughing too hard and your balls falling off. Stop scaremongering. 🙂
@Graham - see my post about having had lots of vacinations, no doubt some vaccines work very well. The question is do all and do some have a higher incidence of side effect ?
I think there was a big public reaction to the MMR jab and potential side effects because people had a genuine concern which was not addressed.
I think there was a big public reaction to the MMR jab and potential side effects because people had a genuine concern which was not addressed.
It was addressed, the public were repeatedly bashed over the head with decent science yet the papers continued to run with the story (and still do) and people listen to them.
Sorry for what happened to your child but it is no reason to abandon reason.
Whilst we are nicking quotes I'll have this one. I like it.
I think the belief in vaccine denialism essentially boils down to two basic types of people
1) Thickies who all see scientists as this - lacking in "common sense"
[img] 
[/img]
2) Intelligent middle class types who did well at university, have been told they are clever all their lives and have unwittingly adopted cognitive biases whereby they are always right and they know better than everyone else.
I think there was a big public reaction to the MMR jab and potential side effects because people had a genuine concern which was not addressed.
I think it was probably just a product of its time. People were becoming increasingly openly cynical about governments and "big pharma". X-Files was in its prime. The internet was just starting to make an impact. Everyone had a pet conspiracy.
It was a time just right for a big [i]"revelation"[/i] of this type and the papers ran it with glee.
Tom, like it, astute.
I think this applies to me, number 2) I mean. I am always having to check myself that I am not just reiterating my own cognitive bias.
@dbcooper brah do you even science? you can't prove something does't have an effect. you can say something was not observed but that is not proof. Of course, you can prove a vaccine has an positive affect and they will have gone through clinical trials.
I'm surprised by the tone of your posts particularity against the poster who think vaccines may have played a role in their child's autism.
I don't remember any mention of a mercury preservative when the offspring had his shots. If I'd known about it, this might have rung alarm bells, at least enough to result in questions being asked.
particularity against the poster who think vaccines may have played a role in their child's autism.
Who was that? ninfan?
He said both his kids had been diagnosed on the autistic spectrum [i][b]despite[/b][/i] one having the MMR jab and the other getting separates.
I think it was probably just a product of its time. People were becoming increasingly openly cynical about governments and "big pharma". X-Files was in its prime. The internet was just starting to make an impact. Everyone had a pet conspiracy.
There was also the very clear memory of vCJD / BSE when the governments chief scientists had been very heavily involved in politics, and unequivocal reassurances were made by them in public statements that were not backed up by the science (on which the jury was very much still out). Who can forget Selwyn-Gummers kid eating that burger (and to be fair to the blairs, that scene would have to have played on their mind at the time when they refused to say)
I also recall the govt chief scientist giving unequivocal assurances of safety about MMR at the time, which was a very unscientific statement (rather than 'there is no evidence of a link') which hardly reassured anyone, as they went for a simple and clear message rather than the much more complex discussion that they really ought to have had in the light of the BSE debacle. certainly this deliberate obfustication played a part in us getting separate vaccines at the time, (working in a pharma research company at the time and discussing it with several of the countries top toxicologists..).
Edit: GrahamS, precisely!
Perhaps it is because it is less effectiveI think the resistance of the NHS to return to seperate injections or at least offer then even for an extra charge suggests intransigence and trying to hide something
This is from a guardian article
source can be found [url= https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/mmr-vaccine-dispelling-myths ]here[/url]When single vaccines were last used in the UK, coverage was only around 60%. Within a few years of the introduction of MMR, it had soared to over 90%. The reason for this is basic maths – getting 6 vaccinations instead of 2 requires three times as many trips to the GP, three times as many painful pricks in the arm for the kid, and three times as many opportunities to drop out
In preparation for working abroad I had seven various inoculations on the same day. I felt awful afterwards. Thinking about that now, I'd be happier if newer family members had spaced-out shots.
The only painful injection I recall recently was the one into my non-existing spare tyre. They seem mild done into the arms, compared with distant memories.
[quote=jambalaya ]I get the point about costs and time etc. That's why we paid for separate injections privately.
Which means you're not part of the problem, and is a perfectly valid thing to do if it makes you feel better. Though as has been explained on this thread, there's no perceptible advantage from doing so, and even if it really is the case that the MMR gave your daughter IBS (which is extremely unlikely), that doesn't make it any more likely that your youngest would also have that problem.
What isn't valid is using that as a basis for arguing that single vaccines should be available on the NHS, when all the available evidence is that levels of vaccination will be lower and costs will be higher, for no quantifiable benefit.
I think what they said about CJD was "there is no evidence" that's a great swerve because the fact is they hadn't looked for any evidence.
parents can make their own choice about whether they want to balance that risk against the risks of contracting a disease
Why would parents know anything about medicine or science?
At work I would not expect a banker to make decisions about java heap management, that's what they pay me for. Why would parents be able to make a good decision about vaccines?
Parents make emotional decisions based on hearsay and bad science reporting...
If it helps, both my kids had mmr and both are fine.. Proof.
Although.. One of them has a nasty temper.. Hmm..
Jambalaya - some great reading on that here
@dbcooper brah do you even science? you can't prove something does't have an effect
in her defence, brah do you even read?
She said
Um no, the science would not reccomend to take the vaccine if there was nio way to prove it
IE if there was no effect, then it would not recommend it? The statement does not require anything to be disproved, it rely's on proving it. Sounds like the scientific method to me?
Personally I like her tone.
molgrips, parents could make an informed decision, i.e. if they new about the relevant research and it's methods.
What gets my boil pissing is people questioning the efficacy of vaccines when they have not bothered to find out how the vaccine was developed or researched or peer reviewed (ie they don't understand the scientific method) .
I love this thread.
In answer to dbcooper, I would like to see a root and branch reform of education including all kids to learn more about science and its role in society/health.
(along with understanding finance/banking/the press etc)
RIP to all the Polish homeless that took part in the H5N1 bird-flu virus inoculation trials ..
yea but wasn't that perpetuated by dodgy Dr's who went to prison for it? That's not an issue with science or vaccines is it, its an issue with arseholes.
RIP to all the Polish homeless that took part in the H5N1 bird-flu virus inoculation trials ..
Excellent work.
Literally one small step away from "Hitler did medical experiments on people in concentration camps, therefore all medicine must be evil".
Are you talking about the indirect mass murderer ****pig Andrew Wakefield, or is this something else?
Well, he would appear to be the genesis for it all.
Not quite the genesis - he was being paid. The genesis would be the motives of the people paying him. They got absolutely astonishing value for money.
Here's the thing.
No-one (your actual scientists or armchair experts on here) is going to deny that [s]politicians[/s] Big Pharma™ are dishonest, self-serving, money-grubbing bastards.
No-one is going to argue that there isn't an outside risk of side-effects with some vaccinations.
However, the critical thing here is that you cannot then use these conditions as justification for making up any old shit and presenting it as fact. Vaccines have been around for a very long time and very, very rigorously tested. See the infographic earlier.
There is no link between MMR and IBS. There [i]is[/i] a link between Autism and IBS, which is probably where this pish comes from, but as we've overwhelmingly proved there is no link between Autism incidence and MMR (or any other vaccine).
Your logical fallacy is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc
My brother in law refuses to let my niece have the HPV vaccine, apparently he's worried about side effects. I can't think of any side effects that compete with cervical cancer.
My brother in law refuses to let my niece have the HPV vaccine, apparently he's worried about side effects. I can't think of any side effects that compete with cervical cancer.
He may also be locking her in the cellar so she can't meet boys, in which case his risk judgement is more appropriate. 🙂
I was shocked to find out my ex's niece has missed a chunk of vaccines because "she doesn't like needles" face and palm moment there.
going back to tom1987's second category - the lowest vaccination rates in this city are in some of the wealthiest neighborhoods - educated enough to look for stuff on Facebook, not educated enough to understand why it's rubbish
dbcooper - Member
The plural of anecdote is anecdotes. It is not science.
POSTED 6 HOURS AGO # REPORT-POST
isn't the plural anecdotae?
educated enough to look for stuff on Facebook, not educated enough to understand why it's rubbish
[img]
[/img]
"the one wise quote you should send to all your friends!"
I run research trials for "big Pharma".
The issue here is whether parents (as an entire demographic) are adequately informed enough to make decisions about how their child is treated. In this case you have parents weighing up a perceived risk/benefit that they are just not equipped to understand. Imagining that every parent is going to invest the time to review all the available evidence in order to adequately understand is just deluded. Particularly when you are talking about population health vs personal risk.
Vaccines and Autism are two things that the general public just don't understand. Add "statistics" and "Children" to that mix and play on peoples fears about some sort of conspiracy involving the government and pharma companies (probably lizards/Jimmy Saville as well).... no wonder this has all got out of hand.
Personally, I think that what we are seeing is a correlation between when children receive their MMR, and when children tend to be diagnosed with Autism.
Cover-ups exist and have existed as long as there have been banks, governments, corporations and secret societies.batfink - Member
Vaccines and Autism are two things that the general public just don't understand. Add "statistics" and "Children" to that mix and play on peoples fears about some sort of conspiracy involving the government and pharma companies (probably lizards/Jimmy Saville as well).... no wonder this has all got out of hand.
[url= http://www.naturalnews.com/046630_CDC_whistleblower_public_confession_Dr_William_Thompson.html ]CDC whistleblower confesses to MMR vaccine research fraud in historic public statement[/url]
Cover-ups exist and have existed as long as there have been banks, governments, corporations and secret societies.
Having read the "article" in the link it doesn't give us the data, put the data up for consideration or review. It's also at odds with every other study into a link between MMR and Autism. If you look for a conspiracy you can find/invent one. As many have said causation and correlation are not the same thing, the onset or diagnosis of autism (which was something that would never have even be diagnosed in most cases 30 years ago) may correlate with the timing of vaccination. The prevalence of autism in a particular genetic/socioeconomic group may also be down to a huge range of other factors.
Cover-ups exist and have existed as long as there have been banks, governments, corporations and secret societies.
CDC whistleblower confesses to MMR vaccine research fraud in historic public statement
Errr..... I agree. But do you agree that not EVERYTHING is a cover up?
Here's a picture of a cat doing a rubic's cube that was also on the internet:
[img] 
[/img]
I love the irony that the website that you are linking to - claiming that regulators are misrepresenting the scientific data - is running an advert (directly under the headline) that says:
"1 fruit that kills diabetes! Prevent or reverse type 2 diabetes by eating this 1 food from the grocery store"
So.... your mother/father/child has type 2 diabetes - you see this "advertorial" on one of your favourite websites, with all sorts of compelling testimonials, links to other sources that say: "wow, this stuff is amazing!", "I am cured!" and "don't pollute your body with medicines, use this natural alternative!".
So do you take your Mother/father/child off of their diabetes medication and give them some goji berries instead? This is essentially what this is about - just the other way around.
BTW: that fruit-based advert would be illegal in the UK - it's making a medical claim that (I am assuming) the manufacturer does not have a licence/data to support.
[img] 
?oh=ae683a31e47db5bc1863be1d6409946d&oe=551328AB[/img]
That "CDC Whistleblower" stuff is an example of the utter claptrap that breaks my heart.
The irony of course is that Facebook provided a link to this site in the recommended links beneath when that link was shared:
Of course, it is just one doctor's counterpoint, but he raises some key points about statistical analysis. Yes, it's not as easy to digest or sexy as "OMG Big Pharma conspiracy eats our babies", but that is science for you.
Oh, and in some sort of perfect circle, I have seen this morning that the infographic posted above has been making the rounds, and had been dismissed as "oversimplified".
Very interesting gents but... geniune question.
Why did Wakefield publish?
Someone has said becuase he was paid to do so.
So who paid him and why ?
