The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Here we are again, another month, another chance to air the same old story by citing a poorly documented case.
The fact that scares me this time is that it was run in the Daily Mail the day that the Prince album appeared. This means that more people than ever would have bought the Daily Mail and may have read the scare stories in a column that should come with its own health warning.
Yet again, the subject mentioned Dr Wakefield, the discredited gastroenterology specialist who's initial claims on tests carried out with 12 children rocked the medical world. His research was driven by a legal case where he was being paid to prove a link between autism and MMR.
To date, many government and independent research works have time and again found no direct link between autism and the MMR jab. Many of the findings refer back to genetics being the main factor in autistic children, backed up by the evidence that when one or more autistic family members are present in a family, then it is far more likely to find further children with the condition.
While I sympathise with parents whose children have autism in any degree, playing on their fears and making money in the process is not the ideal way to carry out research and produce 'evidence' for your own benefit.
While there is no 100% proof that the MMR does not contribute in some way to Autism, it points towards any child with symptoms having first had signs of autism within their genes prior to any medical treatment. The fact that Autism is hard to detect in young children and tends to be first detected around the same time as the first or second MMR jab makes it harder to distance the two.
My arguement is that the press should be held to presenting all the facts in any story they produce. Freedom of speech can be cited (though this doesn't exist in the UK, anyway) as a get-out clause, but stories like this err on the side of libel or at the least mis-representation of the facts.
The fact that scares me this time is that it was run in the Daily Mail the day that the Prince album appeared. This means that more people than ever would have bought the Daily Mail and may have read the scare stories in a column that should come with its own health warning.
Yet again, the subject mentioned Dr Wakefield, the discredited gastroenterology specialist who's initial claims on tests carried out with 12 children rocked the medical world. His research was driven by a legal case where he was being paid to prove a link between autism and MMR.
To date, many government and independent research works have time and again found no direct link between autism and the MMR jab. Many of the findings refer back to genetics being the main factor in autistic children, backed up by the evidence that when one or more autistic family members are present in a family, then it is far more likely to find further children with the condition.
While I sympathise with parents whose children have autism in any degree, playing on their fears and making money in the process is not the ideal way to carry out research and produce 'evidence' for your own benefit.
While there is no 100% proof that the MMR does not contribute in some way to Autism, it points towards any child with symptoms having first had signs of autism within their genes prior to any medical treatment. The fact that Autism is hard to detect in young children and tends to be first detected around the same time as the first or second MMR jab makes it harder to distance the two.
My arguement is that the press should be held to presenting all the facts in any story they produce. Freedom of speech can be cited (though this doesn't exist in the UK, anyway) as a get-out clause, but stories like this err on the side of libel or at the least mis-representation of the facts.
Grix Thraves wrote:
> I have a rather foolish faith that people don't on general pay
> attention to what the Daily Mail tells them
>
> Or, well, any newspaper really. Facts and facts alone, and even
> then you can never be sure.
Unfortuanately, I know too many people who take their daily newspaper as gospel. My grandfather was one of them, he read the Sun. We managed to drag him away from his brainwashing in the end though...
> I have a rather foolish faith that people don't on general pay
> attention to what the Daily Mail tells them
>
> Or, well, any newspaper really. Facts and facts alone, and even
> then you can never be sure.
Unfortuanately, I know too many people who take their daily newspaper as gospel. My grandfather was one of them, he read the Sun. We managed to drag him away from his brainwashing in the end though...
I have a rather foolish faith that people don't on general pay attention to what the Daily Mail tells them
Or, well, any newspaper really. Facts and facts alone, and even then you can never be sure.
Or, well, any newspaper really. Facts and facts alone, and even then you can never be sure.
I really am sick of this. It's very unlikely that there's any link other than coincidence, and that this wasn't much of a study, to my eyes at least - and through insinuating that the jab is dangerous, of course kids may well end up being at risk of catching some nasty diseases.
I had the MMR, and it never did me any damage, nor could I imagine it doing so - having been around for so long, the autism link, were it genuinely a big problem, would have now highlighted some time ago?
I'll admit to little understanding of medicine, but it's been going on ages, caused hysteria and been generally irritating. Let's see this finished off!
Though, that said, my faith in the NHS and innoculations isn't brilliant, as they once forgot to give me a booster shot...
I had the MMR, and it never did me any damage, nor could I imagine it doing so - having been around for so long, the autism link, were it genuinely a big problem, would have now highlighted some time ago?
I'll admit to little understanding of medicine, but it's been going on ages, caused hysteria and been generally irritating. Let's see this finished off!
Though, that said, my faith in the NHS and innoculations isn't brilliant, as they once forgot to give me a booster shot...
Here we are again, another month, another chance to air the same old story by citing a poorly documented case.
The fact that scares me this time is that it was run in the Daily Mail the day that the Prince album appeared. This means that more people than ever would have bought the Daily Mail and may have read the scare stories in a column that should come with its own health warning.
Yet again, the subject mentioned Dr Wakefield, the discredited gastroenterology specialist who's initial claims on tests carried out with 12 children rocked the medical world. His research was driven by a legal case where he was being paid to prove a link between autism and MMR.
To date, many government and independent research works have time and again found no direct link between autism and the MMR jab. Many of the findings refer back to genetics being the main factor in autistic children, backed up by the evidence that when one or more autistic family members are present in a family, then it is far more likely to find further children with the condition.
While I sympathise with parents whose children have autism in any degree, playing on their fears and making money in the process is not the ideal way to carry out research and produce 'evidence' for your own benefit.
While there is no 100% proof that the MMR does not contribute in some way to Autism, it points towards any child with symptoms having first had signs of autism within their genes prior to any medical treatment. The fact that Autism is hard to detect in young children and tends to be first detected around the same time as the first or second MMR jab makes it harder to distance the two.
My arguement is that the press should be held to presenting all the facts in any story they produce. Freedom of speech can be cited (though this doesn't exist in the UK, anyway) as a get-out clause, but stories like this err on the side of libel or at the least mis-representation of the facts.
The fact that scares me this time is that it was run in the Daily Mail the day that the Prince album appeared. This means that more people than ever would have bought the Daily Mail and may have read the scare stories in a column that should come with its own health warning.
Yet again, the subject mentioned Dr Wakefield, the discredited gastroenterology specialist who's initial claims on tests carried out with 12 children rocked the medical world. His research was driven by a legal case where he was being paid to prove a link between autism and MMR.
To date, many government and independent research works have time and again found no direct link between autism and the MMR jab. Many of the findings refer back to genetics being the main factor in autistic children, backed up by the evidence that when one or more autistic family members are present in a family, then it is far more likely to find further children with the condition.
While I sympathise with parents whose children have autism in any degree, playing on their fears and making money in the process is not the ideal way to carry out research and produce 'evidence' for your own benefit.
While there is no 100% proof that the MMR does not contribute in some way to Autism, it points towards any child with symptoms having first had signs of autism within their genes prior to any medical treatment. The fact that Autism is hard to detect in young children and tends to be first detected around the same time as the first or second MMR jab makes it harder to distance the two.
My arguement is that the press should be held to presenting all the facts in any story they produce. Freedom of speech can be cited (though this doesn't exist in the UK, anyway) as a get-out clause, but stories like this err on the side of libel or at the least mis-representation of the facts.