Jump to content

Doctor Who Linked MMR and Autism Struck Off


Ackey

Recommended Posts

Yeah that played a part but a lot of it was down to the age of the students- they were too old to get the MMR vaccine, quite a few of them would have had a single measles vaccine (I know I did), some of the young ladies would have had the rubella vaccine and I would think some had already had the mumps (so didn't need vaccinating). Another factor was the behaviour of students- mumps spreads nicely when there is a lot of kissing etc. going on (certainly why there was a big outbreak at my uni about 5 years ago).

 

In some ways Dr. Wakefield isn't responsible for the outbreak- he didn't tell a bunch of non-science graduates to print it in their papers. (Something I think you might be familar with- since you are a big fan of Dr. Goldacre's work).

Herd immunity played a huge part. I have no idea what it was called, but I read a paper on it that a doctor friend of mine provided. It basically showed how the lack of immunity in those who could have the MMR provided a hotbed of virus which once those who'd missed the virus (in the ways you point out above) came together multiplied the risk exponentially.

 

A simplistic way to look at it is that if you have a family of four and Son (Uni age) wasn't vaccinated but Daughter (school age) is then the risk of Son being affected is reduced. If Parents didn't vaccinate Daughter due to MMR-Autism fears then Son becomes more susceptible. When Son goes to University his lack of protection (herd immunity) at home means he carries the virus with him... as others who also lack the vaccine come together it spreads like wildfire.

 

I'm sure I don't need to tell you that's why 'Freshers Flu' is a real event and not just a turn of phrase.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 62
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Herd immunity played a huge part. I have no idea what it was called, but I read a paper on it that a doctor friend of mine provided. It basically showed how the lack of immunity in those who could have the MMR provided a hotbed of virus which once those who'd missed the virus (in the ways you point out above) came together multiplied the risk exponentially.

 

A simplistic way to look at it is that if you have a family of four and Son (Uni age) wasn't vaccinated but Daughter (school age) is then the risk of Son being affected is reduced. If Parents didn't vaccinate Daughter due to MMR-Autism fears then Son becomes more susceptible. When Son goes to University his lack of protection (herd immunity) at home means he carries the virus with him... as others who also lack the vaccine come together it spreads like wildfire.

 

I'm sure I don't need to tell you that's why 'Freshers Flu' is a real event and not just a turn of phrase.

 

I get your point but herd immunity didn't play as big a role as the simple fact they got missed. Most of the students were into their teenage years when Wakefield's paper came out- they got missed because the public health bods didn't remind them well enough some years previously- when the vaccine was mainstream.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get your point but herd immunity didn't play as big a role as the simple fact they got missed. Most of the students were into their teenage years when Wakefield's paper came out- they got missed because the public health bods didn't remind them well enough some years previously- when the vaccine was mainstream.

But herd immunity is about percentages. There were un-vaccinated people before the MMR-Autism claim reduced the level of immunisation on the whole. It was this reduction, this study showed, which led to the increase in cases amongst Uni students. Herd immunity prevents those who can't be vaccinated (those allergic to the vaccine for example) from becoming infected because the virus can't propagate amongst the population as a whole.

 

As per my example above - had those eligible for the MMR vaccine had it - instead of being scared off by this research - then the impact amongst Uni students would have been reduced.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But herd immunity is about percentages. There were un-vaccinated people before the MMR-Autism claim reduced the level of immunisation on the whole. It was this reduction, this study showed, which led to the increase in cases amongst Uni students. Herd immunity prevents those who can't be vaccinated (those allergic to the vaccine for example) from becoming infected because the virus can't propagate amongst the population as a whole.

 

As per my example above - had those eligible for the MMR vaccine had it - instead of being scared off by this research - then the impact amongst Uni students would have been reduced.

 

Look I really get your point but its a simple fact that lots of students didn't get vaccinated properly because they were missed- not that they didn't show up, they were missed. You can't blame thousands of young people not being vaccinated before Wakefield's paper on Wakefield the blame lies elsewhere. Herd Immunity doesn't just apply to the general population it applies to that plus specific populations.

 

I've just looked it up- and it clearly says MMR was first introduced in 1988 (so therefore those who were older than 1 then wouldn't have had it- exactly the same age as the people involved in the outbreak). They introduced a 2nd dose in 1996 (before Wakefields paper) for those aged 3-4 (and they did some catch up then amongst older children). You need to have had both doses minimum to be immune to mumps (something they probably found out in between the first dose introduction and the second dose introduction). Therefore a whole bunch of students who were in their teens and early 20s a couple of years ago didn't get enough doses of the vaccine. Hence why there was a big outbreak amongst students (and this is still going)

 

Herd immunity will have made this outbreak worse but it wasn't the cataylst- the fact that loads of student aged children didn't get vaccinated is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... which has failed to prove (or disprove) the theory.

 

While that remains the case I will remain on the fence.

 

Science is not a popularity contest.

 

I feel I need to correct a misconception that exists on this board.

Science does not deal with proof. What the scientific process delivers is a theory to explain the evidence. It is the amount and strength of the evidence that attests to the strength of the theory. This theory must make predictions and be falsifiable through experimentation. You can then attempt to disprove the theory via this falsifiability.

 

A theory needs to be adjusted or thrown out if it is disproved somehow. What climate change deniars (much like creationists) have failed to do so far is:

 

a ) Succesfully disprove the current climate change model (that increases in man made atmospheric CO2 are responsible for temperature increases)

b ) Come up with their own logically sound theory that better fits the evidence

 

This is why a scientific consensus exists on this issue.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Baby had her first injections last week and it really didn't sit well on her :( Made her ill :(

 

I am not enjoying this if I am honest. Horrible time to be a parent.

Take comfort in the knowledge that you're doing the right thing not only for your daughter but also her future classmates, friends and the population as a whole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Take comfort in the knowledge that you're doing the right thing not only for your daughter but also her future classmates, friends and the population as a whole.

 

Yup that is the sensible thought, it honestly isn't much comfort right now when you see her with a sad little face :(

 

All that said, last two days she has perked right back up. Just in time for Daddy to sod off to Africa :( God I am going to miss her :(

Edited by oafc0000
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Baby had her first injections last week and it really didn't sit well on her :( Made her ill :(

 

I am not enjoying this if I am honest. Horrible time to be a parent.

 

There are certain injections which are more likely to give those immunised a febrile illness for a couple of days because of how they work. I'm fairly certain pneumococcal is one of them (which gets given in the first lot but not in the second). A temperature is a known side effect after all vaccinations but with some its more common than others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...