Study linking MMR and Autsim a fraud...

[deleted account] ( 5 moms have responded )

I just saw this article

Those who know me on here already know my stance on vaccines... but that isn't the point. It's more of the shock that they went THAT far to alter their findings. So really it isn't so much of a "oh see you should have," but more of a what other things are fraudulent when it comes to not only our children's health but our own?

That in itself is kind of scary.

For instance, the when you should feed your child nuts to avoid allergies, has gone back to the "as long as they can eat it and there is no history it is fine." I can't imagine if my cousin had listen to this advice... her son wouldn't be alive as he is extremely allergic to peanuts and they only reason they found out was because he would avoid his father after he ate some; because it smelt bad. At the same time my own daughter loves nuts and hasn't had any problems at all.

Then there is the soy debate. That it could cause horrible hormonal problems to girls especially, and that soy and it's products should be avoided. There is a reason almond milk and rice milk have become more popular.

It worries me that someone could have the power to easily change some seemingly small detail of an experiment or research and find a completely different and perhaps a more pleasing conclusion. After all many of them are more interested in hightening their own carriers than helping those around them. Finding out that your hypothesis is wrong can be devastating to a researcher and sometimes a careered ruiner.


Jodi - posted on 01/08/2011




Brittany, this is the reason you should do your own research when you make such decisions, not rely on the results of a single study which was on shaky ground to begin with.

Wakefield's study was the ONLY study that showed this link between MMR and autism. By virtue of the fact that there were MANY other studies denying this, that no-one had ever been able to replicate the study, Dr Wakefield is NOT a specialist in autism, neurology, or any of the behaviour sciences, or even a pediatrician, and the study was only on a total sample of 12 children (hardly what I would call a sufficient sample to be able to generalise across the population), then I am surprised anyone took it for its word anyway. There has always been a lot more evidence that his study should not have been the basis for such a movement. If you do your research properly, you shouldn't have an issue.


View replies by

Iridescent - posted on 01/09/2011




Another point regarding that study - people believe what they want to, and hundreds of people wanted to believe this. They believed it prior to the study, so they saw it as "proof" they were right.

Katherine - posted on 01/09/2011




@ Jodi, I don't think a lot of people think the way you do as far as research goes. You know how to pick it apart and decipher the actual study. Most people don't. So that's why so many people believed it.

Iridescent - posted on 01/08/2011




Both soy and lavender have bad side effects (hormonal).

Soy - random article with a lot of research sources listed at the bottom in footnotes. Not sure of who put it on, but it is also taught as fact in nursing school (not that that means it is entirely accurate, but generally the FDA will force things they are pushing into a positive light to nursing students, not a negative - example, dairy)

Lavender - - two reputable sources with separate studies showing. This is for ingested AND topical (shampoo, soaps) use.

Belinda - posted on 01/08/2011




Regarding the Soy issue, I am finding some articles that say that unfermented soy is bad for you, however is there a legitimate study or article out there that supports this? Has anyone come across anything?

Join Circle of Moms

Sign up for Circle of Moms and be a part of this community! Membership is just one click away.

Join Circle of Moms