[News] MMR, Vaccinate or not.

[pauli cee]

Anyone who actually bother to look at his evidence rather than read about it in the Daily Mail would have seen it was deeply flawed. The data sample was tiny, the cause and effect completely spurious and the conclusions downright ridiculous.
This is was not the "scientific evidence" at the time, this was utter tosh hyped up by the press (who *never* understand science).

Agreed, but at that time how many people had the insight / capabilities / understanding to check this data and process it properly?

( I have no kids by the way, and none of them have been vaccinated)

 

[GT49er]

Medical Science specialists who looked at his evidence rather than read about it in the Daily Mail might have seen it was deeply flawed. Thousands of ordinary parents without this particular knowledge would not; they had to make up their minds on the evidence presented by reputable news sources, that there was a report by a respected scientist calling into question the safety of the MMR jabs.The data sample was tiny, the cause and effect completely spurious and the conclusions downright ridiculous.

Corrected to reflect the actual situation at the time, not your apparent "expert" view that everyone should have known the paper was bollox.

This is was not the "scientific evidence" at the time, this was utter tosh hyped up by the press (who *never* understand science).

Cobblers. It was the evidence available to parents at the time - and fvck the Daily Mail - don't you read the whole thread before replying to one post. The 'fake news' that this was just a Daily Mail scare story has been debunked; it was on the BBC news, ITV, and it was in The Lancet - another fact that was reported on the BBC and ITV. Thousands of parents who never read the Daily Mail (or the S*n or whatever) spent long hours agonising over which way to go for the best, to vaccinate or not.
Still, as long as you can just yell 'Daily Mail reader' at anybody who doesn't conform to your view, that's probably OK, eh.

 

[CliveWalkerWingWizard]

That was the scientific evidence at the time; or at least one side of the scientific argument. :Facepalm:

Yes, we know it has been proved wrong now. Oh, the smugness of hindsight!

Is it smug to have an understanding of reliability and validity of data?The sample was a group of 12 autistic children that had the mmr and had traces of the vaccine in their guts. There was no control group, the same 12 autistic children probably liked chocolate, so it must cause autism ? The paper should have never been published in the lancet, it was not an epidemiological study with peer reviews etc. This is why it is important that the public are scientifically literate, which is why it is now included in the curriculum.

You may think that a paper is scientific evidence, but if it is floored unfortunately it is not.

 

[beorhthelm]

Is it smug to have an understanding of reliability and validity of data?The sample was a group of 12 autistic children that had the mmr and had traces of the vaccine in their guts. There was no control group, the same 12 autistic children probably liked chocolate, so it must cause autism ? The paper should have never been published in the lancet, it was not an epidemiological study with peer reviews etc. This is why it is important that the public are scientifically literate, which is why it is now included in the curriculum.

You may think that a paper is scientific evidence, but if it is floored unfortunately it is not.

anyone with an A level in a science subject could has seen the original paper was flawed, or at least not draw strong conclusions from it. sadly too many without A levels in sciences go on to be journalist or other positions with influence. newspapers hold a lot of the responsibility on this as they'd rather hype a story than check the sources and get credible views.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Just to show I practise what I preach, I had the shingles jab yesterday. A sore slightly swollen lump on my arm, but all good otherwise.

 

[drew]

That was the scientific evidence at the time; or at least one side of the scientific argument. :Facepalm:

Yes, we know it has been proved wrong now. Oh, the smugness of hindsight!

Wasn't it proved wrong in 2004 yet still people don't get vaccinated?

 

[El Presidente]

Thread from the Middle Ages

If you'd ever met the OP you would know why...

 

[El Presidente]

Wakefield, who wrote the orginal paper that appeared in The Lancet was a crook, trying to use the paper as a means of generating lawsuits against health authorities and lining his own pocket. He is media savvy and charismatic and the TV companies and other media outlets lapped it up just as they do for politicians who have similar traits and peddle lies. The 'Establisment' in medical research at the time thought that discrediting his work in medical journals would deal with the issue, but were at best naive.

 

[Spicy]

In My Opinion people who refuse to vaccinate their kids are idiots.

Agree and putting other children at risk.

 

[GT49er]

Wasn't it proved wrong in 2004 yet still people don't get vaccinated?

We're talking about the 1990s, when the (subsequently found to be flawed - badly) Wakefield report came out. Thousands of parents had difficult decisions to make based on conflicting evidence between 1998 and 2004.

As I said, anyone choosing not to vaccinate now is a fool, and likewise anybody pouring scorn on parents who made decisions in the circumstances that applied 20 years ago is a toital snowflake.

 

[TSB]

In My Opinion people who refuse to vaccinate their kids are idiots.

Is the correct answer.

 

[Pinkie Brown]

I had the MMR just a few months ago on a visit to my Doc on another matter. I'm still breathing. I can't understand the mentality of anyone who would refuse their kids to be immunised. The recent outbreak of measles in New York is testament to that. I'll take my chances following advice of the medical world rather than a bunch of unhinged conspiracy theorists who probably deny global warming and think the world is flat.

 

[Deportivo Seagull]

We're talking about the 1990s, when the (subsequently found to be flawed - badly) Wakefield report came out. Thousands of parents had difficult decisions to make based on conflicting evidence between 1998 and 2004.

As I said, anyone choosing not to vaccinate now is a fool, and likewise anybody pouring scorn on parents who made decisions in the circumstances that applied 20 years ago is a toital snowflake.

My son fell into that time period.
My issue was that a number of couples that I knew took the Wakefield report at face value and didn’t dig deeper. Information was available if you looked. To many went on gut feel ...
TBF This wasn’t helped by the media who always like a story to get the masses going. Private Eye was also pushing the Wakefield report even after it was discredited. It was the reason I cancelled my PE subscription.
I wouldn’t call anyone a snowflake over this but IMHO there was enough questions flying around that would make digging deeper a sensible course of action. Granted not everyone is able to do this but a number of people were and did not. It took me an evening of digging around the lancet website which had plenty of links to research papers covering MMR safety. I shared what I had found to whoever wanted.
I’m a tad opinionated on this only because I had measles at two. Of course I can’t remember but apparently I stayed at home as the hospital didn’t want measles flying around. I nearly died (touch and go for 12 hours). Upset my parents so much that they very rarely talked about it and were always on my case regards vaccinations for my kids.

I agree that 20 years the decision wasn’t anywhere near as easy as it is now. There were genuine concerns then, however now it’s those who are more than willing to have medical care when it suits them but not when they don’t like it ....... criminal negligence.





Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[GT49er]

My son fell into that time period.
My issue was that a number of couples that I knew took the Wakefield report at face value and didn’t dig deeper. Information was available if you looked. To many went on gut feel ...
TBF This wasn’t helped by the media who always like a story to get the masses going. Private Eye was also pushing the Wakefield report even after it was discredited. It was the reason I cancelled my PE subscription.
I wouldn’t call anyone a snowflake over this but IMHO there was enough questions flying around that would make digging deeper a sensible course of action. Granted not everyone is able to do this but a number of people were and did not. It took me an evening of digging around the lancet website which had plenty of links to research papers covering MMR safety. I shared what I had found to whoever wanted.
I’m a tad opinionated on this only because I had measles at two. Of course I can’t remember but apparently I stayed at home as the hospital didn’t want measles flying around. I nearly died (touch and go for 12 hours). Upset my parents so much that they very rarely talked about it and were always on my case regards vaccinations for my kids.

I agree that 20 years the decision wasn’t anywhere near as easy as it is now. There were genuine concerns then, however now it’s those who are more than willing to have medical care when it suits them but not when they don’t like it ....... criminal negligence.

I wonder just how many parents 20 years ago had access to the internet though? Not that many, I would have thought - we certainly weren't connected to it 20 years ago, and as far as I can remember, none of our friends or acquaintances were either. I think it was only really in the noughties that the mass usage of PCs connected to the internet took off, and mobile phones that did more than just make phone calls.
Now that Wakefield has been shown to be talking bollox, there is no excuse, but it does nark me when people judge what happened years ago by today's standards, or relative to what we now know. Like in 20 years time a new generation of snowflakes will probably be ranting against people who bought diesel cars in good faith in the 1990s because they were more economical and were believed to be safer (even the emission measurements were deliberately falsified by the manufacturers, but the car buyers didn't have that information).

 

[Deportivo Seagull]

I wonder just how many parents 20 years ago had access to the internet though? Not that many, I would have thought - we certainly weren't connected to it 20 years ago, and as far as I can remember, none of our friends or acquaintances were either. I think it was only really in the noughties that the mass usage of PCs connected to the internet took off, and mobile phones that did more than just make phone calls.
Now that Wakefield has been shown to be talking bollox, there is no excuse, but it does nark me when people judge what happened years ago by today's standards, or relative to what we now know. Like in 20 years time a new generation of snowflakes will probably be ranting against people who bought diesel cars in good faith in the 1990s because they were more economical and were believed to be safer (even the emission measurements were deliberately falsified by the manufacturers, but the car buyers didn't have that information).

My lad would have had the jab around 2003, so more info was available than in 1998. I also worked for a tech company so had access to the net etc.

My issue is with those couples (I knew a few) who had access and the knowledge but didn’t take the time investigate when they could easily have done. If you didn’t have access to the net then sadly you were at a distinct disadvantage. Certainly can’t be blamed for being confused.

The media certainly played their part in muddying the waters and have IMHO never been taken to task over it.






Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Bold Seagull]

Well done Antivaxxers. A disease that we can eliminate is back.

Never too late to have an MMR if you've never had one, or not even sure.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-50659893