Mumsnet has not checked the qualifications, experience, or professional qualifications of anyone posting on Mumsnet Talk and cannot be held responsible for any advice given on the site. If you have any serious medical concerns, we would urge you to consult your GP.

Would it be really bad for me to not let my son have his second set of MMR?

(44 Posts)
DuelingFanjo Thu 09-Aug-12 11:03:28

He had a really bad reaction to the MMR/12 months vaccinations (They do them at the same time here) and it has made me really reluctant to put him through it again.

ElaineBenes Sat 11-Aug-12 19:36:55

Rubella is not a risk to pregnant women, it's a risk to their unborn children

Yes, every illness has the potential of complications. Some, like measles, are riskier than others. THis is why we vaccinate against them - we dont like to see children dying or being left brain damaged or even blind or deaf.

Apart from a tiny number of children eg those who are immunosuppressed, vaccines are very safe. Much safer than the illness. THis is why we vaccinate.

Pregnant women live in the community. They are have partners, children and parents, all of whom are affected. That's what I mean. It's staggeringly selfish and shortsighted to think that because you are making the decision to vaccinate a child who happens to be a boy, you can do so assuming that they will not be affected.

The Op's child had what sounds like a normal reaction to vaccination. He did not have an allergic response which imo would be the only reasonable cause to defer vaccinating.

bumbleymummy Sat 11-Aug-12 19:48:27

Yes, EB, I did say 'unborn child' in my PP but I said pregnant women in my last so apologies if that was confusing for anyone.

As you know, there are parents on MN who have vaccine damaged children that were not immunocompromised when they were vaccinated so it's not really accurate to say "Apart from a tiny number of children eg those who are immunosuppressed, vaccines are very safe."

Also, in the case of the rubella vaccine it's not given because it is 'safer than the illness' for the child.

NL, the 'greater good' argument doesn't sit well with me. I think everyone should have their own individual child's best interest at heart and I don't think there is anything wrong with being concerned after a bad reaction. Dueling has been offered some good advice wrt testing for immunity etc and I'm sure she will make the decision that she feels is best. She doesn't need to be guilted into worrying about pregnant women in the community who could have protected themselves against rubella.

ElaineBenes Sat 11-Aug-12 20:22:17

OK bubmley let's rephrase it to the scientific evidence shows that vaccine damage is tiny to get past the 'but look at what people say on an anonymous internet forum'

bumbleymummy Sat 11-Aug-12 20:25:34

Better. We could also add 'but there is currently no way of determining whether or not your child will react badly to their first or subsequent vaccinations' if we wanted to be really thorough. smile

Haven't read all this thread - but DD had a bad reaction to MMR first time round - had rash - temp & poorly. Actually ended up in hospital (but she has other complex health issues that contributed to this)
BUT was fine second time round aside from have a seziure in the waiting room afterwards (again this isn't uncommon for her)

Bloody glad she did as school had a measles outbreak this year, alot of very poorly children who hadn't been vacinated.

ElaineBenes Sat 11-Aug-12 20:34:16

Ummm. I'd prefer to say that the scientific evidence says that the risk to your child from a vaccine is tiny and far far far less than the risk from the disease.

We could equally say you don't know if your child will be the unfortunate one who dies from measles. Rare but far less rare than vaccine damage (according to the best scientific evidence).

bumbleymummy Sat 11-Aug-12 20:41:08

Well, that's difficult to say given the under reporting of vaccine reactions but hey ho!

ElaineBenes Sat 11-Aug-12 20:49:10

Not quite as that is only one source of data. You can look at ecological data, retrospective reports, association between exposure and outcome - none of which shows evidence of more than very small amounts of vaccine damage.

bumbleymummy Sat 11-Aug-12 20:50:57

How would they show up vaccine damage that isn't reported?

ElaineBenes Sat 11-Aug-12 20:54:32

You would see an association between exposure to vaccine and x outcome (the damage that the vaccine is hypothesized to cause)

bumbleymummy Sat 11-Aug-12 20:56:48

How, if the reaction/damage isn't recorded?

Btw, I have asked a few questions about Al on the other thread (and started a new one) that you may be able to answer.

ElaineBenes Sat 11-Aug-12 21:09:41

It can't be very serious damage then if it's not recorded anywhere. Certainly death or severe disability would be reported.

ElaineBenes Sat 11-Aug-12 21:11:23

And there are other ways of getting at the data if you're talking about something like developmental delays. What's your hypothesis? What's your outcome of interest? I could then answer with more specifics.

bumbleymummy Sat 11-Aug-12 21:12:41

It may not be attributed to the vaccine though.

ElaineBenes Sat 11-Aug-12 21:29:06

No, but you'd see an association between vaccine exposure and outcome x. You don't.

ElaineBenes Sat 11-Aug-12 21:30:53

Other than very rare cases which ARE picked up and known eg vaccine induced paralytic polio from the opv

bruffin Sat 11-Aug-12 22:13:39

There is evidence that some reactions are over reported by lawyers to make evidence for law suits
There is also evidence that some developmental epilepsy diseases have been reported as vaccine damage.
There are studies that show this but am on phone and can't link.

MousyMouse Sat 11-Aug-12 22:28:05

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now