03-03-2004, 11:55 AM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3512195.stm
This is old, I know, but once again is a concern.
Firstly, I had my other 2 children in SA, where this is not a problem at all (or is it simply not reported?), although the schedule for MMR is different - the first one is at 9 months and the second at 15 months. Could this be a contributing factor?
I know that the culture used in SA is exactly the same as here, so I wondered what your views on MMR jabs and this scientist's report are? Particularly in light of the following quote...
The Lancet says it was never told that Dr Wakefield was carrying out another study at the time of his controversial research.
Dr Wakefield was being paid by Legal Aid to examine whether parents who claim their children were damaged by MMR had a case. Some children were involved in both studies. The Lancet says it was never told of this.
Interesting, innit?
This is old, I know, but once again is a concern.
Firstly, I had my other 2 children in SA, where this is not a problem at all (or is it simply not reported?), although the schedule for MMR is different - the first one is at 9 months and the second at 15 months. Could this be a contributing factor?
I know that the culture used in SA is exactly the same as here, so I wondered what your views on MMR jabs and this scientist's report are? Particularly in light of the following quote...
The Lancet says it was never told that Dr Wakefield was carrying out another study at the time of his controversial research.
Dr Wakefield was being paid by Legal Aid to examine whether parents who claim their children were damaged by MMR had a case. Some children were involved in both studies. The Lancet says it was never told of this.
Interesting, innit?