Jump to content
bid

Genetic key to autism found?

Recommended Posts

I wonder how this will pan out?

real breakthrough? wind and water? moral dilemma's/eugenics?

and it is the daily mail on a slow news week... :unsure:

 

One can o' worms that leapt straight out of the page (even neatly placed together for easy copy/pasting):

 

Particular combinations of the genes may also set the scene for the condition to be triggered by environmental factors such as pesticides and infections.

 

Controversial research linking the MMR jab to autism has now been widely discredited.

 

??? so... 'may set the scene for the conmdition to be triggered by environmental factors such as pesticides (chemicals) and infections (i.e. measles mumps and rubella - all historically liked with autism...) AND controversial research linking The MMR jab (containing measles mumps and rubella viruses and a cocktail of chemicals) has now been widely discredited?

erm... is it just me or... :unsure:

still, it is the daily mail on a slow news week....

 

L&P

 

BD :D

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Am I the only one who finds this news slightly disturbing? I am admittedly anti-cure (when it comes to higher-functioning autism at least, as that is all I have experience with), and the idea that nobody else may be born in future with AS is a little disheartening. It may have many downsides, but I personally would not ever take a cure if it was offered. :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks bid. :thumbs:

That is the research they were talking about in the vague post I posted on five live but could not find information on.Karen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Am I the only one who finds this news slightly disturbing? I am admittedly anti-cure (when it comes to higher-functioning autism at least, as that is all I have experience with), and the idea that nobody else may be born in future with AS is a little disheartening. It may have many downsides, but I personally would not ever take a cure if it was offered. :unsure:

Not the only one. Might be a bit melodramatic but it makes me sad to think that, in a potential future, I (and indeed all people with an ASD) wouldn't exist. :(

 

That said, just because they might have found a connection doesn't mean that it'll lead to anything. :pray:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the little we have read it would appear even if they are right, it can only help in 15% of the cases, and the 'cure' is basically in those cases not alleviation but no autistic born. AS with advances with the deaf gene research there are moral dilemmas to face regarding parents getting the 'rogue' gene identified, and the issue of then acting on the information. Deaf went to Parliament over it after deafness was stated as a 'serious illness', they had that wording removed, the legislation basically covered IVF, but had obvious implications in that if the gene could accurately be ID'd then other potential parents might request the test too, and act on that. Americans actually have this choice and have had for years.... Initially there was a government suggestion any embryo with a deaf gene could not be selected by the prospective parent, that would grow to a deaf child. The state who provided IVF treatment said they had an obligation to not help create children who would need lifelong support afterwards.

 

Obviously cultural deaf people made heated objection to that, demanding the right to have a deaf child by using the genetic ID test to de-select a hearing embryo, sauce for the goose etc ! Objections went all over, but an American deaf lesbian deliberately sought out a gay man with the deaf gene and had deaf children by him, they want the deaf culture to continue..... If hearing parents could choose a hearing child, then deaf wanted the same choice for them. Basically the fear was abortion once the gene is Id'd. This was s a real 'threat' to the culture, and I suggest the same dilemmas would face parents of Autistics who carry the rogue gene. We love our kids to bits, how many would carry having them if the choice exists ? It is highly contentious, but with genetic advancement, questions we are going to be forced to answer. Sooner rather than later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm, this seems to be a bit of a double edged blade to me!

 

On the one hand, I am a bit unnerved by the whole idea of a cure (at least, for the high functioning end of the spectrum which is where my main experience is), I wouldn't want to cure my son of his autism any more that I'd want to cure him of his blonde hair or stubborn streak! To me it's just a part of the person he is and while the autism may cause difficulties, so does his stubborn streak! :lol:

 

The thought of a potential cull on the autistic genotype is more than a little horrorfying to me (as it would be for any such situation).

 

But.. on the other hand, we have found the genetic basis on many illnesses, none of which have been actively bred out of the genepool. The findings have, however, led to better understanding and treatments, and have given people personal choice, something which everyone should have the right to!

 

I wish I could get my hands on those research papers though! It would be very interesting to see what relevance they have to my own theories. I guess I'll just have to wait a few years until I've done my degree and started my Phd lol!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not the only one. Might be a bit melodramatic but it makes me sad to think that, in a potential future, I (and indeed all people with an ASD) wouldn't exist. :(

 

That said, just because they might have found a connection doesn't mean that it'll lead to anything. :pray:

 

Indeed. I'm convinced that producing GM humans with a 'perfect' selection of genes will become available in the next 30 years. Chances are that the process will be first deployed in China rather than the US or Europe. Contrary to popular belief, the government of China is not communist but fascist. It draws its inspiration from 1930s Germany and toys with the concepts of Eugenics and the creation of a master race. With advancements in the knowledge of genetics and DNA compared to the 1930s then victory is probably on the horizon. The Chinese authorities may even punish parents who choose to reproduce naturally once the process for producing perfect GM humans is commercially available. After all, China wants to be the number one winner of Olympic gold medals and Nobel Prizes. If rare genes for athletic and intellectual success can be tracked down then GM will enable them to become commonplace in the population.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi All.I have just had a conversation with Ben.Ben has obviously been thinking about this issue.

 

Ben said ''So if I wasn't aspie I wouldn't be Ben really would I ? ''

 

After a pause in which I debated what might be the most helpful response to a question that came out of nowhere before my breakfast :)

''Well no I don't think you would be Ben really I think I could not imagine a Ben without the aspie bits ''

[please do not give opinions of whether this was the best response....see above :)

 

Ben then said after a brief pause.

''Well I don't think I want to be cured of the aspie bits if there is one..........I would like the dyspraxic bits to be better though.''

 

I am offer to ponder how I seperate the aspie bits from the dyspraxic bits.

Those of you who have been around and know bits of Ben's story might know that it was thought that Ben might have some sort of attachment disorder.The plan was that after psychotherapy Ben would not meet the criteria for an AS diagnosis.As you know things did not work out as anticipated and it turned out that Ben did have AS after all.

I am now wondering whether psychotherapy amongst other things might have helped Ben to know himself well enough to be able to say what he said this morning.

 

I have spent most of my life attempting to change things that I don't like or that don't fit with peoples expectations.I could learn from my son. ;):)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't be without my daughter and love her to bits, autism and all.

 

However if you ask me would I like it if she didn't have the difficulties that she has, then my answer would be yes in a heartbeat! Is that the same as wanting a cure?

 

I love her to bits, and have no problems with her personality, as she is a little star, but her life would undoubtedly be easier for her if she were able to talk and communicate easily, make herself and her needs understood to all, not be distressed and disorientated by everyday noises which are a little louder than she expects, able to cope easily with minor change in her life, etc, etc Who wouldn't want that for their child?

 

I think when debates like this start, there is a tendency to think of high functioning people with ASD who are able to lead a measure of independent life, or who have found a way to cope with their difficulties. Not all those with ASD are so lucky however, and the statistics on depression and suicide amongst adults with ASD show that a lot of adults with ASD find their lives very hard to intolerable.

 

Is it right therefore, because some people with ASDs and some parents of people with ASD are happy with the status quo, to say that no one should be able to access genetic screening, and that no work should be done to identify environmental triggers (if they in fact exist) so that these can be minimised?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is it right therefore, because some people with ASDs and some parents of people with ASD are happy with the status quo, to say that no one should be able to access genetic screening, and that no work should be done to identify environmental triggers (if they in fact exist) so that these can be minimised?

 

Hi Emum. That's the moral dilemma. What you are talking about is people making judgements about the quality of other people's lives. How do you measure somebody elses quality of life? What right has anyone to make that choice based on his or own standards/expectations; which may be totally irrelevent to the person they are making that judgement about? If somebody is so unhappy at some point in their life that they try to take their own life, however ill considered that action might be

(depression may make someone feel that way but is not necesarilly a permenent state) it is a personal act. For somebody perfectly fit and healthy to make that choice for another person based on their external perceptions of that person's life is a completely different thing. i don't know how you measure 'joy' or 'happiness', but i suspect a very small dose of it cancels out a huge number of negatives otherwise none of us would make the journey. You also have to factor into that the person being judged has a completely different set of expectations and standards.

Identifying and reducing environmental 'triggers' is what you described for your daughter: taking away factors that may complicate her life and making things easier or better for her. fantastic! and big :thumbs:

Screening is potentially completely different - it means identifying a possible problem, making a (by definition biased) judgement about the implications of that problem if it does materialise on behalf of the person with the possible problem and then terminating or negating a potentially happy and fulfilled life based on that (by definition biased) judgement.

I can look around the world and see BILLIONS of lives I would not want to live. I cannot possibly imagine (no matter how much empathy I might like to think I have) how i would feel about living that life if it was the life that had been handed to me, but every indication is from looking at the world that i would want it and live it and fight tooth and claw to preserve it, regardless of the 'other me's' opinion.

 

Hope that makes sense. Complex stuff!

 

L&P

 

BD :D

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe that from this discovery,that it won't be long before they do have a pre natal test. Although i do see children with downs syndrome,but not a lot. The result for people with the autism gene.,could mean non-existence.The information that is given to the parents about the test and spectrum, may not be the whole story,leaving vuneralbe mothers with a possible awful decicion to make. The tests will not show to what degree the babys disablities are likely to be as it grows up,so therefore people that show the gene,like steven Wiltshire a brilliant artist or any of the fine grown up people in uni on here may not exist in the future and what a terrible loss to human society that would be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I read an article yesterday that said in more than 50% of cases, Children with Aspergers were starved of oxygen at birth.

 

My son was born blue after 24 hours in labour, it seemed ages before they stopped giving him oxygen and he started to cry. :crying:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes, my son was born with the cord round his neck and blue, until they sorted it out. My friends asd daughter was starved of oxygen and as a result has no enamel on her teeth, her identical twin is fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We live in a world dominated these days by media images of 'perfection' Be it brainwashing the female to fit some stereotype seen on films and manufactured in the operating theatre, or what is 'acceptable behaviour' the 'norm'. Even if the western world is unanimous in opting for choices, the fact remains the choice can go either way. we are told in one aspect, neither parent nor state will make the real choices, but insurance companies will. By refusing to insure a parent for care, if they made a conscious choice not to chose a child that wouldn't need it. The State would be forced to follow, to get costs met or to cut costs to the state.

 

American has suggested a cleft lip can be 'bred out'.. others want designer children, that look like film stars etc ! believe it because it already happens. Then we have rogue states, or China Russia even Spain has gone against the moral dilemma issue and simply stated they are going to create these options whether there is opposition or not, these countries do not have our sensitivities, and may not even be democracies anyway. Once the western world sees these countries forging ahead, they will HAVE to follow, because as we see in Britain, if our medical profession has reservations on some issues, there are more than enough other countries quite prepared to go ahead anyway. Euthanasia is banned here, but people can fly elsewhere and still do it, and IVF issues in Spain are contentious as they implant 66yr old females and talk about going higher still. A leading geneticist in Spain advertised he could eliminate many genes that cause disability ! No-one really knows whati mpact removal/replacement will do...

 

In reality we read that American got envious of British advances in genetics, and set up a foundation itself, now what we won't try until many years of safe testing they will offer next week on the street anyway, America is the land of free choice. Obama 'allowed' stem cell research, (So he claimed !), in reality it never stopped it was just illegal to offer the advances it made. Once the floodgates get opened up by one country we are all forced to follow. Autism or disability, if parents are offered a real choice, then they are going to take that choice. The research is more likely to offer these choices prior to birth or during pregnancy, not after.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
yes, my son was born with the cord round his neck and blue, until they sorted it out. My friends asd daughter was starved of oxygen and as a result has no enamel on her teeth, her identical twin is fine.

Really? My son had the cord wrapped around his neck too, Also he was in the OP position (back to back) and so no matter how much i pushed he wasnt gonna budge!!!

They insisted I kept going for 6 hours though and eventually tugged him out with ventouse and forceps!

Kind of makes me angry to think if his birth had been handled better things would be different.......oh well, wouldnt change DS for the world!

Its interesting to see how many other people experienced a similar birth, and have a child with AS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Really? My son had the cord wrapped around his neck too, Also he was in the OP position (back to back) and so no matter how much i pushed he wasnt gonna budge!!!

They insisted I kept going for 6 hours though and eventually tugged him out with ventouse and forceps!

Kind of makes me angry to think if his birth had been handled better things would be different.......oh well, wouldnt change DS for the world!

Its interesting to see how many other people experienced a similar birth, and have a child with AS.

 

Hi.I had a similar time.....with my elder [NT] son.Ended up having an emergency caesarean and he was born with a head that was the most swollen the midwives had ever seen.

My younger [AS] son was born by elective section. :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Really? My son had the cord wrapped around his neck too, Also he was in the OP position (back to back) and so no matter how much i pushed he wasnt gonna budge!!!

They insisted I kept going for 6 hours though and eventually tugged him out with ventouse and forceps!

Kind of makes me angry to think if his birth had been handled better things would be different.......oh well, wouldnt change DS for the world!

Its interesting to see how many other people experienced a similar birth, and have a child with AS.

 

 

My son had the cord wrapped around his neck tightly at birth. There is a link between difficult birth, cord around neck and ASD or related conditions. Not sure why yet. Is it the final physical insult in a genetically susceptible child so the difficult birth and mild lack of oxygen from cord around neck knocks off a few more brain cells to trigger autism? Or is it the other way round that the difficutl birth is a result of the autism not the cause, that the baby because of its autism doesn't 'know' how to be born so ends up in the wrong position or gets distressed.

 

I certainly noticed a difference when pg with both my sons - DS1 (ASD) very erratic movements from manic to nothing, tranvserse lie until 36 weeks then as soon as engaged went into labour at 37 weeks, waters went early, cord around neck, ventouse delivery. DS2 (NT) had regular movements, head down from 32 weeks, born at 40+ weeks, quick intervention free delivery. I'm sure DS1 wasn't quite right from being a foetus though whether his birth contributed to his autism who knows :huh:

 

Lx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Emum. That's the moral dilemma. What you are talking about is people making judgements about the quality of other people's lives. How do you measure somebody elses quality of life? What right has anyone to make that choice based on his or own standards/expectations; which may be totally irrelevent to the person they are making that judgement about?

 

But aren't the anti-cure, anti-screening advocates making exactly that call too?

 

I don't profess to be able to measure the quality of anyone's life, whether with an ASD or not, nor do I profess to be able to say whether someone should or shouldn't have been born. And speaking for myself I wouldn't terminate a pregnancy for ASD or Downs for that matter.

 

But, would I refuse a "cure" for autism if it were offered for my daughter? Personally, I think I would not, because the way in which her autism affects my daughter is to cause her extreme anxiety, and severely inhibit her ability to lead a full life. So I wouldn't turn down a cure for that, any more than if she had a serious illness impacting on her quality of life.

 

And if I were undergoing IVF treatment and had a choice of selecting which embryos to put back, I am afraid that I would screen, and choose to put back the ones who didn't carry the ASD gene or any chromosomal or other detectable disabilities or propensities to serious illness. I am sorry if that upsets anyone, but most parents don't start off their pregnancies with a wish to have a child who will face extra hardship and difficulty in their life. Speaking as someone who is currently pregnant, if my next child is born with ASD, or any other learning difficulty or disability, I will love them just as much as I love my two existing children, one ASD and one NT, and there is no question that they would be terminated or not accepted into our family as an equal family member, but whilst I planned this pregnancy in the full knowledge that another child could be disabled, it wasn't my hope or express intention that he or she would be.

 

The only point my first post (and this one) was trying to make is that not all ASDs are equal, and that I personally feel that a blanket condemnation of a "cure" for autism or a wish to prevent all screening for ASDs, with the potential knock on effect of stifling further research into what causes the condition, is not helpful.

Edited by Emum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But aren't the anti-cure, anti-screening advocates making exactly that call too?

 

I don't profess to be able to measure the quality of anyone's life, whether with an ASD or not, nor do I profess to be able to say whether someone should or shouldn't have been born. And speaking for myself I wouldn't terminate a pregnancy for ASD or Downs for that matter.

 

But, would I refuse a "cure" for autism if it were offered for my daughter? Personally, I think I would not, because the way in which her autism affects my daughter is to cause her extreme anxiety, and severely inhibit her ability to lead a full life. So I wouldn't turn down a cure for that, any more than if she had a serious illness impacting on her quality of life.

 

And if I were undergoing IVF treatment and had a choice of selecting which embryos to put back, I am afraid that I would screen, and choose to put back the ones who didn't carry the ASD gene or any chromosomal or other detectable disabilities or propensities to serious illness. I am sorry if that upsets anyone, but most parents don't start off their pregnancies with a wish to have a child who will face extra hardship and difficulty in their life. Speaking as someone who is currently pregnant, if my next child is born with ASD, or any other learning difficulty or disability, I will love them just as much as I love my two existing children, one ASD and one NT, and there is no question that they would be terminated or not accepted into our family as an equal family member, but whilst I planned this pregnancy in the full knowledge that another child could be disabled, it wasn't my hope or express intention that he or she would be.

 

The only point my first post (and this one) was trying to make is that not all ASDs are equal, and that I personally feel that a blanket condemnation of a "cure" for autism or a wish to prevent all screening for ASDs, with the potential knock on effect of stifling further research into what causes the condition, is not helpful.

 

It's a tough call to make, but in my opinion a cure is entirely wrong. Once somebody has been born with an ASD you are effectively taking away a part of who they are. A lot of my personality is due to my Aspergers, and I wouldn't give it away for the world. I don't believe parents have any right to decide this for their children, as it is such a fundamental part of who they are (a contentious ideal I suppose, but I'm not going to change that any time soon).

 

As to screening, it is back to this concept of 'designer babies'. It's eugenics, and fundamentally wrong, that people would try to change a child before they are even born just to suit society's norms. If a pre-natal test were ever developed (and I hope to God that it isn't) then it is a slippery-slope from there for it to become a mandatory test -- after all, once it is available what would be the point in having people that society views as 'defective' in some way.

 

I am all for therapy and treatments (non-medical) to assist with severe disability caused by autism, but I think it is wrong to cure something that has no direct disabling effects. Society as it is currently structured is not something that is geared towards a person with an ASD, and as a result certain factors are raised that cause them to be disabling.

 

And towards the final part of your post you mention "a blanket condemnation of a "cure" for autism or a wish to prevent all screening for ASDs" -- indeed I would condemn it, as the causes of this ASDs are the same; one cannot be cured without the effect of curing another.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I respect what you say Tom but autism is a spectrum as you know and you are clearly very able. I am talking about whether it is right to have a blanket view, based on the abilities and expressed views of those least severely affected, which denies the prospect of any relief to those most severely disabled.

 

My DD is unable to communicate basic needs and wants to any but her nearest and dearest. She can't speak, has only a few signs, doesn't use PECs and can't read or write either. She is likely to be completely dependent on someone correctly guessing her needs and wants, and looking after her for the whole of her life. My husband and I were both 32 when she was born, so there will come a time when we are not alive to look after her, and what will her life be then? She can't tolerate unexpected noises - a police car going past the window sends her heart racing and her into a complete panic - nor can she cope with any changes to her routine - us going back to the house to pick up a forgotten object would be sufficient to have to abandon a whole day out as she would be so distraught. If I could "cure" all these things which would improve the quality of her life, and still leave behind the loving little girl who tries really hard to master new skills which most toddlers have got cracked, I'd do it.

 

Autism is not the sum total of my DD, but for her it is the biggest struggle in her life. That might not be the case for everyone on the spectrum, but equally she is not alone in this. We don't say that curing childhood cancer/disfigurement/physical impairment is eugenics, or creating a "designer baby", and I myself cannot see why relieving some of the crippling effects of autism is in any way different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I respect what you say Tom but autism is a spectrum as you know and you are clearly very able. I am talking about whether it is right to have a blanket view, based on the abilities and expressed views of those least severely affected, which denies the prospect of any relief to those most severely disabled.

 

My DD is unable to communicate basic needs and wants to any but her nearest and dearest. She can't speak, has only a few signs, doesn't use PECs and can't read or write either. She is likely to be completely dependent on someone correctly guessing her needs and wants, and looking after her for the whole of her life. My husband and I were both 32 when she was born, so there will come a time when we are not alive to look after her, and what will her life be then? She can't tolerate unexpected noises - a police car going past the window sends her heart racing and her into a complete panic - nor can she cope with any changes to her routine - us going back to the house to pick up a forgotten object would be sufficient to have to abandon a whole day out as she would be so distraught. If I could "cure" all these things which would improve the quality of her life, and still leave behind the loving little girl who tries really hard to master new skills which most toddlers have got cracked, I'd do it.

 

Autism is not the sum total of my DD, but for her it is the biggest struggle in her life. That might not be the case for everyone on the spectrum, but equally she is not alone in this. We don't say that curing childhood cancer/disfigurement/physical impairment is eugenics, or creating a "designer baby", and I myself cannot see why relieving some of the crippling effects of autism is in any way different.

 

I can understand what you're saying, but there is no way to create a cure that would only cure those undesirable aspects or would only cure those with more severe forms of autism. My opinions on the idea of a cure stem only from what I go through myself, however because it is a spectrum of conditions I can't only focus on that one area -- anything that I believe, I have to apply to everything else.

 

It's a hard choice between the desirable and undesirable aspects at times; there have been times in the past where I've felt that I would quite happily give up certain parts of my personality to cure others -- I have very severe sensory issues (especially with touch, I can't even accept a hug from my mum without a lot of effort).

 

We don't say that curing childhood cancer/disfigurement/physical impairment is eugenics, or creating a "designer baby", and I myself cannot see why relieving some of the crippling effects of autism is in any way different.

 

I think you're taking what I said wrongly; I am only applying that to the idea of pre-natal testing (something I disagree with for absolutely everything, no matter what the condition). It is eugenics to either abort or 'modify' a foetus in order to remove undesirable aspects. My opinions on a cure are separate to this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i really should stop reading the comments on daily mail articles about autism :wallbash: :wallbash: :wallbash:

 

How patronising and incredibly rude.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How patronising and incredibly rude.

 

I think its the comments at the end of the article being referred to (some of which are rather ill-informed) rather than the comments on here.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think its the comments at the end of the article being referred to (some of which are rather ill-informed) rather than the comments on here.

 

:wacko:

 

:lol:

 

Bid :hypno:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Particular combinations of the genes may also set the scene for the condition to be triggered by environmental factors such as pesticides and infections.

Controversial research linking the MMR jab to autism has now been widely discredited

 

That is completely contradictory on the one hand they say the combination of genes set the scene for the condition to be trigger by environmental factors such as pesticides and infections and then on the other say research linking MMR jab to autism is discredited, the jab has lots of poisons such as alluminum and mercury and worse, plus the viruses, which makes this an enironmental factor for those predisposed. I kind of resonate with that, I had an extremely bad reaction to ssri drug seroxat as many people have done,which has left me permanently harmed for certain in addition to the asd, as I now have severe organisational and memory problems, dizziness blurred vision, loss of 30points of iq, tremors, lots of people on paxil progress have been left permanetly harmed most not as bad as me but most have not got asd, I also have a lot of allergies as do all the asd kids in our family, asthma etc

 

yes, my son was born with the cord round his neck and blue

 

My son was also born with cord round the neck and not breathing, but he also had bad reaction to first MMR , his leg swelled up and became feverish and went into coma with booster, he just developed high fever projectile vomited and became delirious. It is very difficult to know what causes what, I think there are so many factors, and no one has the same.

 

My 2 nephews also had birth problems and both had bad reactions to MMR , both different reactions.

Edited by florrie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NO vaccination is without any risk, it is what the Health Board state themselves, so why do they then come out and declare there is NO adverse reaction to MMR, clearly there is on number of levels. Seroxat was 'approved' as well as thalidomide ! both turned out rather nasty for those that took them. The fact was the medical profession were in deep because the adverse reaction to MMR was a drastic reduction in take up. so were they then content to ridicule our fears for the greater good ? I've spent my son's lifetime looking into this thing and dealing with it 24/7 I had no sign whatever of autism in my child or family until MMR then days (72 hours), later a complete shut down, what would any other reasonable person assume ? Saying 'this is how it happens' it just kicks in, deal with it !" then stating the MMR could not possibly have been a factor, is treating us as idiots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NO vaccination is without any risk, it is what the Health Board state themselves, so why do they then come out and declare there is NO adverse reaction to MMR, clearly there is on number of levels. Seroxat was 'approved' as well as thalidomide ! both turned out rather nasty for those that took them. The fact was the medical profession were in deep because the adverse reaction to MMR was a drastic reduction in take up. so were they then content to ridicule our fears for the greater good ? I've spent my son's lifetime looking into this thing and dealing with it 24/7 I had no sign whatever of autism in my child or family until MMR then days (72 hours), later a complete shut down, what would any other reasonable person assume ? Saying 'this is how it happens' it just kicks in, deal with it !" then stating the MMR could not possibly have been a factor, is treating us as idiots.

 

Hi.Whilst I respect your opionion I thought I would offer another perspective on the issue.In the last few weeks both of my sons have brought letters home from school stating that there have been confirmed cases of measles in both schools.Measles can be a killer.It was unheard of until a few moths ago in our area.There is a strong posibilty that some children may die from measles because as in our borough immunisation levels have dropped to a level where measles is on the increase.Measles is currently a far greater risk to children in my area than the pig influenza. :tearful: There have also been one ot two cases of mumps.

Surely any balanced evaluation of risk has to include an evaluation of the risk of not being immunized.Karen.

Edited by Karen A

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another perspective. It has to be about balance. How many children damaged by MMR v dying or being disabled from measles? I think, (but I may be wrong as I dont have any statistics) 1 in around 100 children develop autism? ( not necessarily/always from MMR), do 1 in 100 children die or become disabled from measles in this country? I dont know, probably not? I wouldnt risk the MMR, personally. That is just my opinion .

Edited by lisac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Another perspective. It has to be about balance. How many children damaged by MMR v dying or being disabled from measles? I think, (but I may be wrong as I dont have any statistics) 1 in around 100 children develop autism? ( not necessarily from MMR), do 1 in 100 children die or become disabled from measles in this country? I dont know, probably not? I wouldnt risk the MMR, personally. Sorry if any one is offended .

 

Hi.I am respect your view but am not sure regarding your interpretation of statistics.

Very few children die or are disabled by measles now because of immunisations.Up until last year measles was unheard of.Before immunisation the mortality and incidence of serious disability was much higher hence the need for immunisation.

It will be intesting to see whether if the immunisation rate continues to go down the incidence of ASD also declines.It is currently increasing whilst the immunisation rate for the MMR declines.

Both my boys were immunised before I knew about ASD.However immunisations are being offered to children in my borough who are not immunised in order to attempt to prevent a major measles outbreak.We would probably have taken up the offer.Karen.

Edited by Karen A

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi.I am respect your view but am not sure regarding your interpretation of statistics.

Very few children die or are disabled by measles now because of immunisations.Up until last year measles was unheard of.Before immunisation the mortality and incidence of serious disability was much higher hence the need for immunisation.

It will be intesting to see whether if the immunisation rate continues to go down the incidence of ASD also declines.It is currently increasing whilst the immunisation rate for the MMR declines.

Both my boys were immunised before I knew about ASD.However immunisations are being offered to children in my borough who are not immunised in order to attempt to prevent a major measles outbreak.We would probably have taken up the offer.Karen.

 

Actually, and with no intent other than accuracy, measles etc were never that big an issue prior to the introduction of vaccines. Of course, in terms of numbers it was much higher than now, but statistically it was tiny (which is why parents would have 'measles parties' to get it over and done with - I think the number of guests attending those parties would have been miniscule if people had considered the percentages too heavily stacked against their child?)...

It's a similar situation now with the new cervical cancer innoculation - the manufacturers in fact based their whole advertising campaign and budget around convincing public opinion that no matter how small the number of people it saved, if your child was in that number the expense, time and 'other' risks involved would seem worth it to you. They (with government backing) knew that the only way they would be successful in convincing people would be to make it 'personal' - the exact opposite of the 'herd protection' justification used for MMR...

Considering the tiny, tiny numbers of people involved, and the official public statistics on known vaccine damage published by the gov's vaccine damage payment unit the whole thing is a massively expensive game of swings and roundabouts. From the government POV, though, it looks like a lovely health incentive at a time when the general population is very critical about health services, it generates huge amounts of income for one of the few remaining industry sectors this country still has and ensures the 'goodwill' of those same, huge, money making machines when the time comes round for public sector contributions to party funds. Oh, and of course they all have large numbers of peers, MP's, ex-MP's and other possibly less than impartial 'players' on their boards or employed as external advisors. :) There's lovely! :thumbs:

While there were occassional deaths from measles etc and/or other damage, the single factor that does seem to be consistently overlooked is that all three components of MMR - with or without the 'added ingredients like mercury etc - were historically linked to autism - Measles and Rubella as direct causes, and mumps indirectly through encephalitis, a known side-effect of mumps and an historical trigger for autism. That's not in later editions of Lorna Wing's books but was there in the early editions :)

 

As I say, not arguing yeah or nay re MMR, but there is a lot of manipulation and spin concerning the facts and figures

 

L&P

 

BD :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi.Well I just checked NHS direct.They say there are 1million deaths from measles worlwide each year.That does not sound like a small number to me.As I said measles in now in my borough and is a major concern for parents at both of the schools that my sons attend.I do not think people will be having measles parties any more than they would be pig flu parties.As I said in my borough measles is now a major concern.Karen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As I said in my borough measles is now a major concern.Karen.

We've got measles and mumps here at the moment - and they appear to be quite dangerous - enough to hospitalise some students and we all have to have the MMR. (Well I guess they can't force, but there doesn't seem to be an opt out clause, which I think it good given the close proximity students live in).

 

I know personal anecdotes aren't facts, but my sister was the only one to have the MMR (as a baby - I had mine as a student a few years ago) in our family and she's the only NT. Neither my brother nor I had the MMR and we're both ASD.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually, and with no intent other than accuracy, measles etc were never that big an issue prior to the introduction of vaccines. Of course, in terms of numbers it was much higher than now, but statistically it was tiny (which is why parents would have 'measles parties' to get it over and done with - I think the number of guests attending those parties would have been miniscule if people had considered the percentages too heavily stacked against their child?)...

It's a similar situation now with the new cervical cancer innoculation - the manufacturers in fact based their whole advertising campaign and budget around convincing public opinion that no matter how small the number of people it saved, if your child was in that number the expense, time and 'other' risks involved would seem worth it to you. They (with government backing) knew that the only way they would be successful in convincing people would be to make it 'personal' - the exact opposite of the 'herd protection' justification used for MMR...

Considering the tiny, tiny numbers of people involved, and the official public statistics on known vaccine damage published by the gov's vaccine damage payment unit the whole thing is a massively expensive game of swings and roundabouts. From the government POV, though, it looks like a lovely health incentive at a time when the general population is very critical about health services, it generates huge amounts of income for one of the few remaining industry sectors this country still has and ensures the 'goodwill' of those same, huge, money making machines when the time comes round for public sector contributions to party funds. Oh, and of course they all have large numbers of peers, MP's, ex-MP's and other possibly less than impartial 'players' on their boards or employed as external advisors. :) There's lovely! :thumbs:

While there were occassional deaths from measles etc and/or other damage, the single factor that does seem to be consistently overlooked is that all three components of MMR - with or without the 'added ingredients like mercury etc - were historically linked to autism - Measles and Rubella as direct causes, and mumps indirectly through encephalitis, a known side-effect of mumps and an historical trigger for autism. That's not in later editions of Lorna Wing's books but was there in the early editions :)

 

As I say, not arguing yeah or nay re MMR, but there is a lot of manipulation and spin concerning the facts and figures

 

L&P

 

BD :D

 

Hi.I thought I should add.I have nursed women ,some of them young women in the final stages of terminal cancer.If you have had that experience then however small the number saved I think you might consider it worth it.My mum died of a condition called mylodysplasia which developed into acute leukemia in the later stages of her illness.It is so rare that there are only a few cases each year in the world.Many consultants never see a case in their career.Perhaps I am the wrong person to talk to about small numbers not being significant or how to make a balanced decision regarding risk .

Regarding the Government and the Health Service I am unable to comment as my other half is a deputy director of finance in the NHS. :o:lol:;)

Not sure you were aware of that.All I can say is he is an extremely dedicated extremely hard working individual.Karen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point was not about having MMR banned as such, although some wanted it done differently, but the way they moved far too quickly to destroy and ignore our worries and made out there was NO risk, of course there IS a risk with MMR,and with any other vaccination, it is an 'acceptable' risk, just tough on those of us who make up the minority for whom the worst happened ? the medical profession agree with risk, since 100% safe doesn't exist, they tried to make it it DID regarding MMR, so we were suspicious of that. Now there is no way they properly research the autism link because if there is a sniff of doubt MMR will be reduced again and they know it, I don't feel they persuaded ME the MMR made no contribution, it did NOT Fit the autistic pattern,and occurred hours after the jab... My son was well away till that. The BMA has NOT convinced many of us parents there is no link. They are only concerned win most-lose some, it's a numbers game to them, it's our kids life to us. Obviously I wouldn't want measles everywhere or any other illness, but we never had the truth or the real research done, now they make out the parents fault, 'bad genes' the reason of all ills !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi.Well I just checked NHS direct.They say there are 1million deaths from measles worlwide each year.That does not sound like a small number to me.As I said measles in now in my borough and is a major concern for parents at both of the schools that my sons attend.I do not think people will be having measles parties any more than they would be pig flu parties.As I said in my borough measles is now a major concern.Karen.

 

As i said - numbers sound scary... I've just looked similar statistics to yourself on the web, but in context, and in developing countries (with poor standards of food/hygience/medical support etc) fatalities from measles in typically stand at between 1 - 5 % of those infected.

In europe despite regular outbreaks deaths are rare: in 2005 in the whole of the european union - 12 fatalities.... this is not from a source that 'opposes' inoculation, it was from the first google hit i found that had statistics, and is in fact taken from a report on the efficacy of the immunisation programme:

 

linky plinky

 

Again, as i said, the statistics on the cervical cancer are so tiny that the only way the manufacturer's could 'pitch' the idea was to personalise it. Of course that will convince anyone who has been personally touched by the illness, but remember this vaccine only protects against one type of cervical cancer and that is one that had an absolutely miniscule mortality rate in the first place: effectively it's like including swine flu in statistics for 'death by colds'. Another way of looking at it would be to say that all car travel should be banned - because the number of fatalities per head attributable to RTA's among those who travel regularly are, statistically, much much higher than the number of fatalities that could be attributed to this type of cervical cancer among the half of the population who could develop it. I hope you will realise that I am in no way trivialising the impact that cervical cancer would have on someone who developed it or on their family. I am just commenting on the way that statistics can be manipulated to steer public opinion and perceptions.

 

L&P

 

BD :D

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The point was not about having MMR banned as such, although some wanted it done differently, but the way they moved far too quickly to destroy and ignore our worries and made out there was NO risk, of course there IS a risk with MMR,and with any other vaccination, it is an 'acceptable' risk, just tough on those of us who make up the minority for whom the worst happened ? the medical profession agree with risk, since 100% safe doesn't exist, they tried to make it it DID regarding MMR, so we were suspicious of that. Now there is no way they properly research the autism link because if there is a sniff of doubt MMR will be reduced again and they know it, I don't feel they persuaded ME the MMR made no contribution, it did NOT Fit the autistic pattern,and occurred hours after the jab... My son was well away till that. The BMA has NOT convinced many of us parents there is no link. They are only concerned win most-lose some, it's a numbers game to them, it's our kids life to us. Obviously I wouldn't want measles everywhere or any other illness, but we never had the truth or the real research done, now they make out the parents fault, 'bad genes' the reason of all ills !

 

Hi.I do not understand.How can genes be anyone's fault ? I am confused.I thought that the idea that ASD could be caused by particular styles of parenting or lack of parenting would support the theory that it could be a parents fault.Surely the fact that ASD could be partly genetic supports the idea that it is nobodies fault.How can the way a person is wired be anyones fault.My parents both died from similar consditions.There is the possibility that their conditions could be partly genetic.The fact that they both lived for many years in a town with a neuclear power station could in theory increase the risk of environmental influences effecting the genetics more likely.So in theory I having grown up in the same town could be more at risk.How could that be my parent's fault ?

Karen.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...