hi all,
just a question and wondered what parents thought about it,
my daughter is due her single mmr vaccine, and the manufacturers have halted production on the mumps vaccine, i have read up on the immunisations, and they have said that if your child has already been given the first dose when a baby, 80% of children will of built up an immunity to mumps, the 2nd dose is given to the 20% that may not of built up an immunity to it, i was just wondering if there were any parents or health professionals that have a view on what is the best course of action, i read that you can have a blood test done to see how your childs immunity is to the mumps virus but i am now a little confused if not scared as to what to do next!!!
Laylaxx:confused::confused:
I haven't seen the court transcripts, but the question we should be asking is how much did the GMC rely on the evidence of the BMJ now mentioned?
I gave the link in post #8, so actually quite shocked that you don't what Wakefield misconduct tribunal was about and what he was charged with.
The GMC is not a court, it is a statutory regulatory body and therefore has legal powers to protect patients by removing doctors from the register.
HTH,
Myarka
Well once you've gotten over your incredulity you could re-read what I put and perhaps look up the meaning of the word transcript.
I should correct my post as I forgot it was the Lancet and not the BMJ that withdrew Wakefield's article. My apologies. I need to have another look and see what difference that makes to things.
Well once you've gotten over your incredulity you could re-read what I put and perhaps look up the meaning of the word transcript.
Yes I do understand transcript a transcript is, but it appeared that you didn't actually know what Wakefield was charged with, i.e it was nothing to do with publications, it was to do with his conduct.... which is all explained in the GMC judgement.
Myarka.
I see where I got a wire crossed now.
So this revelation, as you say, brings into question the quality of reporting, indeed. However, the journal concerned does depend for its existence on a reputation for a high degree of objectivity and neutrality, and is highly influential.
The other point however is that it doesn't exactly lay to rest suggestions that there may have been some kind of a witch hunt, which is a shame, or at least that Wakefield-bashing is considered safe intellectual territory in some quite prestigious circles.
Worth noting that the peer-reviewed literature now contains reference to vaccination as a 'documented cause' of autism (one of several).
See this review in the Journal of Immunotoxicology:
sorry didnt mention that my little girl is due her booster, as already had the 1st single mmr when she was about 18 months