Mumsnet has not checked the qualifications of anyone posting here. If you have any medical concerns we suggest you consult your GP.

MMR or not, and where to go for single vaccs? Lone parent, would love advice

(183 Posts)
missperelman Fri 15-Mar-13 19:49:28

hello, i think i have decided to go for single vaccs for mumps and measles for my one year old daughter. i wondered if anyone knew where was best to go for this in London? the childrens immunisation clinic on harley st? is there cheaper, does anyone know? also, would you not bother with rubella until the child itself is of childbearing age. ??
confused as to which way to go, even to have them at all. but i think i will do mumps and measles separately. aaaargh. confused
lone parent

CatherinaJTV Fri 15-Mar-13 20:00:20

I don't want to be a downer, but you'll not be able to get single mumps vaccine - Merck no longer makes it, dodgy imports have been stopped. So either you just get measles now and then get the MMR at school age, or you do the MMR now.

you wont get the mumps one as there are no single mumps vaccines available. Is there a particular reason you dont want the combined MMR?

MolotovCocktail Fri 15-Mar-13 20:08:11

Why do you want to have separate vaccines? If it is because of the "risks", are you aware that the Dr who conducted the massively flawed study was completely discredited? Google it and you'll see.

Anyhow, your dc will be at risk due to longer exposure to measles, mumps and rubella separately. I believe you must leave a 6 week gap between each separate vaccine.

I stand firm: 4yo DD1 had the MMR vaccine aged 13mo and had her MMR pre-school booster in June. DD2 is due her MMR vaccine around May, and she will be having it.

MolotovCocktail Fri 15-Mar-13 20:15:28

And you absolutely must vaccinate against all viruses we're talking about here. I have no comprehension why a parent would not vaccinate against such viruses when they are freely available.

Also, we are parents who chose to vaccinate our children against viruses that can cause great harm to them and other children. It causes great irritation to think that some other parents will not have the courtesy to do the same.

I'm not accusing you personally of this; I'm just wondering whether it's something you've thought about. That you can even consider not vaccinating is a luxury, ironically bought about by having their kids vaccinated.

MolotovCocktail Fri 15-Mar-13 20:17:01

Sorry, 'by others having their kids vaccinated', that should read.

missperelman Sat 16-Mar-13 01:49:02

thanks/ there seems to be so much talk of the 3 being administered together making baby sick. it' just a bit scary on your own with a 1 year old, without a car, but i suppose i could call 999 if anything really awful occurred.

also i read rubella is the mildest of illnesses UNTIL if caught when pregnant with the risk of the baby's deafness. ???? true?


notnagging Sat 16-Mar-13 04:48:37

I don't understand not getting kids vaccinated, especially after watching comic relief. But this is a classic mumsnet debate.

rosi7 Sat 16-Mar-13 07:20:43

Have a look at that information and think about the option of vaccination again.


MolotovCocktail Sat 16-Mar-13 08:30:42

Okay, rosi, if you agree agree enough with Dr. Chopra to link to an article on here, here goes: how many children are you willing to allow to die by not having them vaccinated in order to allow enough time to enable the biological process to evolve?

Following that to it's natural conclusion, if you believe this, you would never take any medication for any ailment.

That is no risk I'm willing to take with my children.

Where do we take this? Deny cancer patients drugs as we wait for natural immunity to cancer develop? Just 'wait it out' whilst tetanus ravages the body; 'wait it out' as measles is causing blindness?

I make no apologies for writing that I Dr. Chopra is utterly short-sighted and wrong. I'd be interested to see what he thinks about vaccines when someone close to him gets sick with a preventable disease.

MolotovCocktail Sat 16-Mar-13 08:38:53

That article is so poorly written - where on earth did you get it from, rosi?

I literally can't believe it's arguing for the body to be allowed to fight off diseases which completely overwhelm the immune system, let alone the immature immune systems of young children.

It just sounds like new-age, idealistic nonsense to me, wrapped up in the fake sincerity of 'well, a microbiolologist thinks this, so it must be true'

rosi7 Sat 16-Mar-13 09:01:13

Stop playing the fear game and pressurizing people by putting them into a box of almost criminals simply because they choose not to vaccinate and take responsibility for themselves.

Your are violating people's right of free choice.

There is a much wider world than the one of pills and vaccination. But it certainly does not exist for you. So how can you judge it without knowing it?

Here is a quote of the great inventor Nikola Tesla:

"The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence".

The holy cow of vaccination has been around long enough - it is time to move on.

MolotovCocktail Sat 16-Mar-13 10:05:59

Dot talk to me about putting fear into people when your whole argument was the headline "VACCINES ARE CLUSTER BOMBS THAT DESTROY THE INTEGRITY OF THE IMMUNE SYSTEM".

You're right: the holy cow of vaccination has been for long enough. And look at all that has been eradicated; controlled and all the lives saved.

When did you last hear of a vaccinated child dying of rubella? Tetanus? Measles? Mumps?

I fail to see what alternate you're offing other than 'let's just wait and see how the body naturally deals with it'. What you're advocating is pitiful.

CatherinaJTV Sat 16-Mar-13 12:24:03

Thank you MolotovCocktail - I totally agree with you!

CatherinaJTV Sat 16-Mar-13 12:30:42

missperelman - don't be so scared. The most likely thing to happen is that your child will have no reaction at all to the MMR. The majority of children who do react will have a fever and/or rash, which is self limiting. Some will be grumpy for a week or so. Nothing that would rush you to hospital. I can totally understand that you are feeling vulnerable without the backup of a partner and without the safety net of fast transport. Discuss with the nurse what things to watch out for and how to react to what. They should be able to prepare you. We can talk you through the process as well (essentially hold hands virtually). Sending hugs and strength!

bruffin Sat 16-Mar-13 17:05:33

The only people who recommend single vaccines make money from selling single vaccines. Wakefield had a patent for a single measles vaccine when he started the MMr scare.

rosi7 Sat 16-Mar-13 20:48:24

MolotovCocktail; "I fail to see what alternate you're offing other than 'let's just wait and see how the body naturally deals with it'.

Are you seriously expecting me to offer you the whole bandwidth of healing methods and ways of supporting people to stay healthy? I guess you are intelligent enough to find out for yourself - but I understand this is a difficult task for people who believe a world beyond pills and vaccination does not exist.

missperelman Sat 16-Mar-13 21:07:15

i feel more inclined not to do it really but there sees such a huge weight of pressure to - and guilt! thankyou for all your interesting thoughts. x

missperelman Sat 16-Mar-13 21:17:10

it's a shame the anti vaccine articles are written so badly yes. it takes some of the sting out of their argument. i'd love an 'orthodox' gp, using gp style hardcore medicalised but clear language, to tell me his or her misgivings about vaccines, and also his/her reasons for doing it. so i can weigh things up more clearly in my mind. i will ask mine next week in the hope she will be honest. x

rosi7 Sun 17-Mar-13 06:23:39

What do you mean by honest, missperelman?

She can only give you the information she has been given - and you must be aware that the pharmaceutical companies are neither honest nor transparent in their conduct. If they were, doctors would not need to take them to court as they are doing now for the first time in human history because they had been misinformed over years about the dangers of a remedy.

Trust your gut feeling - that one will certainly be honest with you.

seeker Sun 17-Mar-13 06:35:26

"Trust your gut feeling - that one will certainly be honest with you."

That is such a stupid thing to say. Our "gut feeling" will tell us not to do something which might give our child momentary pain, and might make them feel a little unwell for a day or two. Our "gut feeling" tells us to protect our children from the tiniest discomfort. But in the case of vaccination, our "gut feeling" would be wrong. We can protect our children and others from illnesses which are unpleasant at best, dangerous at worst. We can protect other people's unborn babies from harm. We've already eradicated smallpox and nearly eradicated polio.

lightrain Sun 17-Mar-13 06:42:31

Rosi - what a huge pile of absolute crap. The pharmaceutical industry is the one of most heavily regulated industries in the world. Huge, vast reams of evidence for efficacy, safety, and proof that a drug does what it's supposed to do must exist before it will be approved for use by regulatory bodies. It's in the pharma company's interests to make sure what they are selling is safe too - apart from the fact that millions of normal, kind people work for these companies and would certainly not want to see harm come to others where at all preventable, pharma is a business too and it wouldn't be great for GSK, Roche, etc. shares and profits if people start to keel over from using their drugs, would it?

Why, why, why is there this ridiculous conspiracy theory perpetuated about pharma, constantly? Ordinary people work for them, just like every other industry. If it was all so evil, don't you think somebody would have raised issue about this before now?

KittieCat Sun 17-Mar-13 06:42:59

I am pro vaccine. Not blindly but I have a background in science comms and have looked into this subject by reading lots of decent peer reviewed published papers, attending debates and lectures and speaking with people on both sides of the debate.

I agree whole heartedly agree with the poster up thread who said the only people advocating single vaccines for the masses are those who have a vested financial interest.

The likelihood is that a child won't react and if they do, then more often than not it's a mild fever or a lump at the injection site.

I'd get it done early in the day, have the Calpol on standby and try not to worry.

Further links for interest:

KittieCat Sun 17-Mar-13 06:47:49

Sorry, extra agree slipped in there!

lightrain Sun 17-Mar-13 06:49:25

Missperelman - you won't hear misgivings from an orthodox GP about vaccination, because the benefits vs the risks have already been weighed up, before the drug was approved for use by regulatory bodies. They weighed up all of the huge wads of scientific data and agreed that benefit was much greater than risk.

That doesn't mean that ere aren't mild side effects possible, of course. But they're just that - mild. Nothing that a tiny bit of calpol couldn't make better in most cases. I know you're worried about coping alone in case anything worse happens, but think how many millions of kids have had this vaccine and how they coped with it. The overwhelming majority didn't give it a second thought (my DC didn't even cry at the needle!). It will be fine.

seeker Sun 17-Mar-13 06:53:23

"thanks/ there seems to be so much talk of the 3 being administered together making baby sick. it' just a bit scary on your own with a 1 year old, without a car, but i suppose i could call 999 if anything really awful occurred. "

Is there? I don't actually know of any child who's had to be rusted to hospital with a reaction to vaccines. You're far more likely to need 999 if she falls downstairs- and that's pretty unlikely!

rosi7 Sun 17-Mar-13 07:53:13

The pharmaceutical companyGlaxoSmithKline GSK is taken to court by doctors. It is a fact - if some people want to ignore it - fine - but do not expect well-informed people to join into that and buy the fear game for much longer.

And certainly it is all a conspiracy theory - but strange enough - even the medical profession seems to become part of it now.

bruffin Sun 17-Mar-13 07:55:45

from mmr

iom adverse effects of vaccines:evidence and causality
There is also a recent study that found a far higher risk of anaphylaxis in single vaccines than the triple mmr

this one refers to anaphylaxis only found in single vaccines

seeker Sun 17-Mar-13 08:04:04

What are doctors taking GSK to court about? Link please.

rosi7 Sun 17-Mar-13 08:09:03
WinkyWinkola Sun 17-Mar-13 08:10:12

My dcs have had the MMR but I don't for a minute believe mumps is the big killer everyone bleats hysterically about.

90% of cases are actually asymptomatic.

I'm worried that they'll get it as adults which is far worse and slightly risky then for their fertility.

There is a lot of bull put about by all different groups. It is hard to sift through.

rosi7 Sun 17-Mar-13 08:10:33

What do we expect to happen if honest and well-meaning people are working in a dishonest and corrupt system?

WinkyWinkola Sun 17-Mar-13 08:10:59

And the blind faith in pharmaceutical companies is risible too.

Welovegrapes Sun 17-Mar-13 08:14:54

I'm not doing mmr - no evidence-based reasons why not, but DS reacted very badly to earlier vaccines and we have a lot of autoimmune conditions in the family. We are doing this:

Single measles now
MMR at 3 or 4 to mop up mumps and rubella

Offering singles in London are Babyjabs and City doc - I think City doc is cheaper.

BLOO3Z Sun 17-Mar-13 08:24:32

I dI'd put off the mmr my dcs where 8 an 10. When they had first dose, I left it late as dc1 had health issues at the time an I felt, the three together was just too much to take..they have just had their second dose at 14 an 16 as school was pestering me to get it done, I feel this was the right decision for us an neither have had any side effects as I feel that their immune systems coped better as they where older, I probably don't recommend leaving it as long as I have an I would probably get first one done pre school at least.

seeker Sun 17-Mar-13 08:31:31

"And the blind faith in pharmaceutical companies is risible too."


I'm sorry, rosi- I don't speak German.

rosi7 Sun 17-Mar-13 08:39:26

Pity, yes, seeker, that this information has not been picked up by mainstream media nor by the English speaking world.

Is it not important?

seeker Sun 17-Mar-13 08:43:17

I don't know whether it's important or not- because I don't speak German. It could be the biggest scandal of the century or utterly trivial- you haven't given me th tools to find out.

there was a button on the page to translate to English. It wasnt about vaccines though but about a Diabetes drug (Avaandia) that was linked to heart attacks and broken bones

sorry Avandia not Avaandia

CatherinaJTV Sun 17-Mar-13 08:55:55

That Swiss article is not about vaccines, it is about the diabetes medicine Avandia. Those "brave" doctors are jumping the gravy train. There are single and tort suits in the tens of thousands in the US already. "Testing Medicines" has a chapter about this. Nothing to do with vaccines at all (but granted, with commercial interests and general sloppiness of regulatory oversight and failures in the publications process).

CatherinaJTV Sun 17-Mar-13 08:56:29

and I do read German grin

seeker Sun 17-Mar-13 08:57:18

But I thought the Avandia thing was widely known about? I certainly knew about it and I have no specialist interest or knowledge. I thought Rosi's link must have new information in it?

bruffin Sun 17-Mar-13 09:04:14

I feel this was the right decision for us an neither have had any side effects as I feel that their immune systems coped better as they where older

this is the most ridiculous statement i have ever heard. you think their immune system cant stand up to the tiny amount of antigen in a vaccine, but quite happily expect their immune system to stand up to the full blown disease.
information on how the immune system works re vaccines

CatherinaJTV Sun 17-Mar-13 09:05:40

nope, you are right seeker - there is no specialist knowledge about it. As said, it has made it into at least one book as an example already and the usual cloud of US lawyers (if we are rolling out the stereotypes this morning) is circulating the patients.

runningforthebusinheels Sun 17-Mar-13 09:57:47

I clicked on that 'cluster bomb' article thinking it was going to be a spoof.

seeker Sun 17-Mar-13 10:04:42

I hope it was!

BLOO3Z Sun 17-Mar-13 11:30:36

Bruffin I am well aware of the effects of children catching measles etc, I am not anti immunization! My reason not to do it was based on my child's past medical history, which you know nothing about! with hindsight I feel that they could of had it pre school at 4 but I still would not of given them it as a baby..especially for child who had other stuff to deal with.. I dI'd not have a crystal ball at the time!

Welovegrapes Sun 17-Mar-13 11:32:13

Thing is Blo, what you say makes perfect sense to me.

bruffin Sun 17-Mar-13 11:44:47

Why didn't you say that in the first place.
Its a oft repeated myth that babies immune systems can't cope with vaccines or mmr and they want to put if off until the immune system is stronger.
There are very few reasons for delaying vaccines if your children have them fair enough but you shouldn't be recommending it for no reason.

Bunbaker Sun 17-Mar-13 11:58:49

rosi7 I am not medically qualified to make important decisions about my daughter's health and prefer to talk to medical professionals about whether to have my child vaccinated rather than believe all the scaremongering I can read in the press or on the internet.

I take it you have spent 5 years plus studying medicine so that you can make decisions about your child's health without having to talk to your GP.

Welovegrapes Sun 17-Mar-13 12:16:17

I appreciate vaccination is a subject on which people feel strongly, but it is interesting to see that the attitudes displayed to medical advice on the childbirth board are markedly different. on the childbirth board people are generally considered entitled to question an obstetrician seeking to induce /do a c section etc etc.

Why should vaccination be different?

I have 3 good friends who are GPs and I think the medical profession as a whole is very knowledgeable and very well intentioned.

However, I have seen a lot of medical negligence in my time and have twice been misdiagnosed. I was prescribed something incorrectly only this week and told to use it internally. Luckily I double checked as it sounded wrong and yes, it had been incorrectly prescribed. Drs are not infallible.

All I can do is make the decision that seems right for DS. He will be protected from measles as he will have the single jab. Mumps and rubella are usually mild in pre school age boys. Before he goes to school he will have mmr.

bruffin Sun 17-Mar-13 12:28:33

There is nothing wrong with questioning. But there are unfortunately there is a glut of misinformation on the web about vaccines. It is pure scaremongering with no evidence to back it up.
There is no evidence whatsoever for the need for single vaccines.

seeker Sun 17-Mar-13 12:30:09

Rubella may be mild for your child, but it may not be mild for the unborn child of the woman who sits next to him on the bus......

WinkyWinkola Sun 17-Mar-13 12:49:12

But then that woman can get the rubella jab as a teen. Just like we all did at school.

And if she's not been brought up in this country, then she can go to her G.P. and get the jab before she gets pg.

I'm not really comfortable with being held responsible for other people's life choices.

The immuno suppressed are another issue, however.

Bunbaker Sun 17-Mar-13 12:50:27

That's an interesting point Winky. Why do boys need the rubella jab if all girls are offered it?

seeker Sun 17-Mar-13 12:51:12

Wow. What a socially responsible attitude. hmm

Flojobunny Sun 17-Mar-13 12:54:41

OP 'makes them a bit sick'. How sick do you think she'll be if she has mumps?
I'm a lone parent and think using that as an reason is ridiculous. If you are that bothered about having no car then why not get one? Simple.

WinkyWinkola Sun 17-Mar-13 12:58:10

I think all of us need to be socially responsible. Including the pregnant woman on the bus who hasn't had the rubella jab. That's her choice. Not mine.

I'm saying this as someone who is pro vax btw. I detest the blaming of some individuals and not others.

And the constant claiming of moral high ground from the self righteous.

It doesn't achieve anything.

And mumps rarely makes children very ill. Adults - terrible illness to get.

bruffin Sun 17-Mar-13 13:18:32

Even if you go with the high ground arguement, there is plenty of reasons for creating herd immunity for those who can't be vaccinated or are immune deficient.
There is no arguement whatever for singles but if you want to pay for them more fool you.
Mumps is not always mild for small children it used to be the leading cause of deafness and does cause encephylitis.

bruffin Sun 17-Mar-13 13:24:02

Even if you don't go with high ground

WinkyWinkola Sun 17-Mar-13 13:24:02

Those side effects of mumps are extremely extremely rare.

bruffin Sun 17-Mar-13 13:29:23

And the side effects of mmr are rarer.

WinkyWinkola Sun 17-Mar-13 13:40:19

Well, we don't actually know how often the side effects of the MMR occur.

It's very difficult to (dis)prove reactions happen as a result of the MMR.

My dcs have had it with only slight temperature 8 hours later. Was this rise in temp definitely due to the MMR? Who knows. I assume it was because of the jab but I can't be sure.

My nephew on the other hand had a convulsion 11 hours after his MMR aged 5. This was dismissed by the G.P. as coincidence.

Who knows?

But we do know that all this certainty about vax etc is quite unfounded at times.

I wonder how many damaged by vaccines - and there is a vaccine damage fund - are regarded as coincidence.

We just don't know enough to be so very sure.

bruffin Sun 17-Mar-13 13:46:09

A febrike convulsion is not a serious side affect i should know my ds has had over 20 of them.
If you look at the iom i linked above there is plenty of evidence about the side effects of mmr. There is actually a greater risk of anaphylaxis from singles. There is also less official reporting of side effects from private doctors who give singles.

bruffin Sun 17-Mar-13 13:50:32

My Dss first febrile convulsion was within weeks of his mmr. Normally febrile convulsions are not the same day from mmr it over a week or so after.

Welovegrapes Sun 17-Mar-13 13:55:25

Almost no men in my age group have had the rubella jab because the jab was only offered to girls when we were young. Is that socially irresponsible too?

All I can do is take the actions I think are right for DS.

WinkyWinkola Sun 17-Mar-13 14:05:56

Bruffin, the severity of the side effects wasn't my point.

WinkyWinkola Sun 17-Mar-13 14:07:02

Good point grapes. ALL men should get the rubella jab to be socially responsible in that case.

bruffin Sun 17-Mar-13 14:29:32

I dont get your point as you are happy to go with unlicensed singles which have not been tested in the UK.

WinkyWinkola Sun 17-Mar-13 14:38:34

I'm not happy to go with unlicensed singles. Where did you get that from?

Please read my posts.

My dcs have had the MMR.

bruffin Sun 17-Mar-13 14:48:47

Too many Ws i am getting confused with Welovesgrapes.

rosi7 Mon 18-Mar-13 05:51:12

Reading all of these comments - I am again truly amazed how powerfully some people are still defending a dishonest system.

In the end does not matter if a pharmaceutical company lies about the side effects of vaccinations or remedies - and I had clearly stated that it was about a remedy, Catherina, I never claimed it was about a vaccine - the fact that even doctors start fighting against the powers in place shows the we are slowly waking up.

seeker Mon 18-Mar-13 06:04:25

I don't defend a dishonest system. But I do believe that scientists can be and usually are, honest. And that properly peer reviewed scientific papers can usually be trusted. They are certainly more trustworthy than anti science speculative bullshit, like the Chopra thing linked to earlier.

bruffin Mon 18-Mar-13 06:38:26

If rosi had her way we would all be relying on a totally unregulated system. Using therapies that never cured anything that wasnt self limiting wink in the first place.
Nobody said the system was perfect but people are no surviving diseases that within my lifetime were once killers.

Anyone who saw the little boy with tetanus on comic relief would realise how thankful we can prevent horrible disease

RooneyMara Mon 18-Mar-13 06:41:51

I don't feel very trusting towards my own GP, who was totally unaware of the risk of stopping breathing in infants when given the 8 week vaccinations.

It is in the leaflet FFS

I asked her prior to the jabs, she said never heard of that. He had the jabs and then I realised it was printed in the insert she'd given me presumably without bothering to read it.

Thankfully he is Ok but I have read of other babies who were not. hmm

How is this something I can trust

seeker Mon 18-Mar-13 09:47:04

You're read of babies who stopped breathing after their 8 week inoculations? Could we have a link please?

bruffin Mon 18-Mar-13 09:50:25

There is a listed risk of apnea in preterms Seeker.

shallweshop Mon 18-Mar-13 10:03:15

Bruffin, I felt exactly the same when I saw the boy with tetanus on Comic Relief. Watching the queue of desparate mothers waiting for the chance to give their children the vaccine made me think of all the heated debates here on mumsnet about whether or not to vaccinate. We are extremely lucky to have the privilege of choice but if we all decided to abandon vaccination, I wonder how long it would be before previously wiped out diseases (in this country) returned.

seeker Mon 18-Mar-13 10:04:54

There is for practically any procedure in a pre term. Rooney certainly implied, if not actually said, that she knew of babies who had died immediately post vaccination. Which needs backing up on a thread that people might come to looking for facts.

RooneyMara Mon 18-Mar-13 10:49:03

Yes I read about it about a fortnight ago - the baby didn't die at that point, I cannot remember if he died at a later date. But he stopped breathing and needed CPR and was taken to hospital.

I can't remember where I read it or I would link.

seeker Mon 18-Mar-13 11:00:17

So if you have no details and can't remember anything about it, it's a bit alarmist, don't you think? On a tread where a moth is seeking information?

RooneyMara Mon 18-Mar-13 11:01:29

I didn't intend it to be alarmist. I was myself alarmed though to find how little my GP knew about the side effects.

CatherinaJTV Mon 18-Mar-13 12:49:45

apnea is a risk in infants that were born >70 days prematurely, so 30 weekers or younger.

seeker Mon 18-Mar-13 13:34:59

Not so alarmed that you can remember where you read about this baby stopping breathing a mere two weeks latr?

RooneyMara Mon 18-Mar-13 13:56:51

That doesn't even make logical sense Seeker.

seeker Mon 18-Mar-13 14:39:53

You were really alarmed about something.

You read something that confirmed your reason to be alarmed.

But 2 weeks later you can't remember any of the details or where you read it.

Welovegrapes Mon 18-Mar-13 14:56:42

Seeker, it's already been explained that the apnea is a well known though very rare side effect, so what is your point?

Welovegrapes Mon 18-Mar-13 14:58:46

And btw the op had already decided to go for singles. What she was asking for was clinics and costs and when people would do rubella. She wasn't debating whether to go for mmr, so I hardly think she would be 'alarmed' by the post you object to, seeker.

seeker Mon 18-Mar-13 15:02:42

My point is that you can't just fling "oh, I read about it somewhere so it happened" on a thread which is going to be read by people looking for information- not just the OP. Rooney was talking about 8 week vaccinations, not MMR anyway- and implied that a baby had recently died of apnea. Which is irresponsible unless she can present the facts.

bruffin Mon 18-Mar-13 15:48:57

I got the impression op changed her mind and was going to talk to her gp.

Zideq Mon 18-Mar-13 16:07:30

While the Cochrane review expressed a need for improved design and reporting of safety outcomes in MMR vaccine studies, it concluded that the evidence of the safety and effectiveness of MMR in the prevention of diseases that still carry a heavy burden of morbidity and mortality justifies its global use, and that the lack of confidence in the vaccine has damaged public health.

RooneyMara Mon 18-Mar-13 16:18:26

You've no more qualification on this subject than I have as far as I'm aware, Seeker, yet you're presenting your views on it as strongly, if not moreso than I am.

I have already stated I do not know if the baby, or babies I read about died, I cannot remember where I read the article, and if anyone reading the thread wants to google it for themselves I'm sure they will find stories and examples all over the shop of people who consider that their children have been adversely affected by vaccines.

I don'tthink I am being at all irresponsible and in any case what does it matter whether I have a photographic memory for web addresses or not - do you really need to read it for yourself to believe that I saw it?

RooneyMara Mon 18-Mar-13 16:19:52

because that does appear to be the point that you are labouring here.

seeker Mon 18-Mar-13 17:04:00

No, I don't have any more qualifications than you- for all I know I have less. And I am labouring the point because this subject is seething with rumours and gossip. You raise the case of a baby who stopped breathing after its 8 week vaccinations-not MMR. Potentially alarming for any undecided parents reading- and completely without foundation or background.

RooneyMara Mon 18-Mar-13 18:24:16

I apologise if I have alarmed anyone - I myself am unsure whether to go ahead with the second and third vaccs. I'm not in any sort of position of authority. I'm as clueless as the next person.

But I didn't realise when I was reading whatever it was a couple of weeks back that I'd be required to produce it as evidence when writing about my GP's minimal knowledge of the side effects mentioned on the leaflet.

There's hysteria on both sides, I take neither - my take on it has for a long while been that none of us is given enough information with which to make an informed decision, and this results in a lot of infighting, which neatly takes any pressure off the powers that be while we busily throttle one another.

seeker Mon 18-Mar-13 18:55:29

Don't be unsure, Rooney- I'm old enough to remember polio, we really, really don't want to go back there.

Tabitha8 Mon 18-Mar-13 19:17:15
"Very rarely, a vaccine may cause an allergic reaction, such as a rash or itching affecting some or all of the body. Even more rarely, children may have a severe reaction within a few minutes of the immunisation, causing difficulty breathing and possibly collapse. This is called anaphylaxis. A recent study has shown that one case of anaphylaxis is reported in about half a million immunisations given. Although allergic reactions can be worrying, treatment leads to a rapid and full recovery."

Is that alarmist?

bruffin Mon 18-Mar-13 19:26:36

No because it shows how rare the reaction. It is in perspective. Although that isn't the reaction Rooney is talking about.
If we are talking about mmr a recent study found a disproportionate risk of anaphylaxis in single to mmr. I can't find the study at the moment but will try and link later. Even so it was an incredibly rare reaction.

seeker Mon 18-Mar-13 19:29:24

No, that's not alarmist. Everyone knows that the are side effects to everything sometimes.

But that is a proper measured, records, documented side effect. Not "I read somewhere that a baby died. i think. Or maybe it didn't. But anyway, I read it. Somewhere."

Tabitha8 Mon 18-Mar-13 19:55:59

I should've been clear. The quote was regarding jabs at 8 weeks, not the MMR.

Are parents given this information at jab time?

bruffin Mon 18-Mar-13 19:59:39

Anaphylaxis isn't the same as apnea.

[[ anaphylaxis after childhood vaccines]]

bruffin Mon 18-Mar-13 20:00:20
Gooseysgirl Mon 18-Mar-13 20:07:37

Rosi you are totally deluded. These threads are really starting to bore me.

RooneyMara Tue 19-Mar-13 07:03:49

just stop it seeker. Do you want me to get down on my knees and be whipped or something?

monkeysbignuts Tue 19-Mar-13 07:12:30

By not having the rubella vaccine you are putting pregnant women at risk.
I was wondering whether to have the triple vaccine with my first 6 year's ago and decided to go ahead. I am glad I did as he's fine. I have also had my 2nd vaccinated which is protecting my 3rd (5 months) until he is old enough for his vaccine

WinkyWinkola Tue 19-Mar-13 12:09:56

Monkeys, one is putting pregnant women at risk by not having the rubella jab?

You mean the unborn children of unvaccinated pregnant women, right? Or those without immunity to rubella? You'll have some people thinking all pregnant women's unborn babies are at risk.

So, could the woman have got vaccinated and taken some responsibility herself too?

I just find it odd that some groups of people are deemed more responsible for the health of others when those others are perfectly capable (or should be) of protecting themselves.

I think one should be careful who to 'blame', as it were. It all seems to be about blame, doesn't it?

Toasttoppers Tue 19-Mar-13 12:22:20

No measles vaccine for me and I got measles and encephalitis as a child and suffered minor brain damage. I recovered but forgot how to count, read, tell the time and other basic cognitive functions and had to relearn it all. I also got mumps as a teenager and was incredibly ill.

My dc all had mmr vaccine.

seeker Tue 19-Mar-13 13:15:24

At the beginning of the 20th century, 1 baby in 5 died before their 1st birthday.

Antibiotics, vaccination, better medical knowledge all contributed to reducing that rate drastically. Let's not be part of the generation where it starts going up again............

rosi7 Tue 19-Mar-13 18:26:03

In 1871-1872, England, with 98% of the population aged between 2 and 50 vaccinated against smallpox, it experienced its worst ever smallpox outbreak with 45,000 deaths. During the same period in Germany, with a vaccination rate of 96%, there were over 125,000 deaths from smallpox. ( The Hadwen Documents)

rosi7 Tue 19-Mar-13 18:26:41

In 1967, Ghana was declared measles free by the World Health Organisation after 96% of its population was vaccinated. In 1972, Ghana experienced one of its worst measles outbreaks with its highest ever mortality rate. (Dr H Albonico, MMR Vaccine Campaign in Switzerland, March 1990)

rosi7 Tue 19-Mar-13 18:27:45

In the UK between 1970 and 1990, over 200,000 cases of whooping cough occurred in fully vaccinated children. (Community Disease Surveillance Centre, UK)

rosi7 Tue 19-Mar-13 18:28:57

In 1977, Dr Jonas Salk who developed the first polio vaccine, testified along with other scientists, that mass inoculation against polio was the cause of most polio cases throughout the USA since 1961. (Science 4/4/77 "Abstracts" )

rosi7 Tue 19-Mar-13 18:31:51

In 1978, a survey of 30 States in the US revealed that more than half of the children who contracted measles had been adequately vaccinated. (The People's Doctor, Dr R Mendelsohn)

seeker Tue 19-Mar-13 18:37:14

Any instances less than 40 years old?

bruffin Tue 19-Mar-13 18:46:44

they are copied and pasted from "whales" website which means

they are ether

1. completely out of context ie 98% of population means 98% of babies due to immunised that year not 98% of the full population

2. figures that have been fiddled. Whale has known to leave out years of data to make graphs fit what he is saying

3. its just made up ie vera schreibner

Bibs123 Tue 19-Mar-13 18:47:20

molotovcocktail makes the point brilliantly in response to rosi's rubbish. I don't think rosi has answered any of the questions yet though. Some people are bonkers.

rosi7 Tue 19-Mar-13 18:48:06

In 1979, Sweden abandoned the whooping cough vaccine due to its ineffectiveness. Out of 5,140 cases in 1978, it was found that 84% had been vaccinated three times! (BMJ 283:696-697, 1981)

rosi7 Tue 19-Mar-13 18:48:34

The February 1981 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association found that 90% of obstetricians and 66% of pediatricians refused to take the rubella vaccine.

rosi7 Tue 19-Mar-13 18:49:18

In the USA, the cost of a single DPT shot had risen from 11 cents in 1982 to $11.40 in 1987. The manufacturers of the vaccine were putting aside $8 per shot to cover legal costs and damages they were paying out to parents of brain damaged children and children who died after vaccination. (The Vine, Issue 7, January 1994, Nambour, Qld)

rosi7 Tue 19-Mar-13 18:49:41

In Oman between 1988 and 1989, a polio outbreak occurred amongst thousands of fully vaccinated children. The region with the highest attack rate had the highest vaccine coverage. The region with the lowest attack rate had the lowest vaccine coverage. (The Lancet, 21/9/91)

rosi7 Tue 19-Mar-13 18:50:14

In 1990, a UK survey involving 598 doctors revealed that over 50% of them refused to have the Hepatitis B vaccine despite belonging to the high risk group urged to be vaccinated. (British Med Jnl, 27/1/1990)

rosi7 Tue 19-Mar-13 18:50:39

In 1990, the Journal of the American Medical Association had an article on measles which stated " Although more than 95% of school-aged children in the US are vaccinated against measles, large measles outbreaks continue to occur in schools and most cases in this setting occur among previously vaccinated children." (JAMA, 21/11/90)

rosi7 Tue 19-Mar-13 18:51:25

In the USA, from July 1990 to November 1993, the US Food and Drug Administration counted a total of 54,072 adverse reactions following vaccination. The FDA admitted that this number represented only 10% of the real total, because most doctors were refusing to report vaccine injuries. In other words, adverse reactions for this period exceeded half a million! (National Vaccine Information Centre, March 2, 1994)

rosi7 Tue 19-Mar-13 18:51:45

In the New England Journal of Medicine July 1994 issue a study found that over 80% of children under 5 years of age who had contracted whooping cough had been fully vaccinated.

seeker Tue 19-Mar-13 18:52:43

Life's too short to refute every example of misinformation Rosi is posting. I urge you to choose one and google it and from your own conclusions.

The one about polio is particularly interesting.

bruffin Tue 19-Mar-13 18:53:11

So you can copy and paste from "whale" how clever - have you ever bothered to find out how accurate the information is?

Bibs123 Tue 19-Mar-13 18:53:14

Rosi you are plucking bits of information from the internet that you obviously have no understanding of. You should have watched Red Nose Day at the weekend and you might have been grateful for the inmunisation programme that we have in this country. The consequences of not having immunisations would be children dying needlesly on a massive scale. Why would any sane person advocate that?

rosi7 Tue 19-Mar-13 18:57:07

My deluded world to me seems much more honest and real than the success story of vaccination.

seeker Tue 19-Mar-13 18:58:32

"In 1977, Dr Jonas Salk who developed the first polio vaccine, testified along with other scientists, that mass inoculation against polio was the cause of most polio cases throughout the USA since 1961. (Science 4/4/77 "Abstracts" )"

Rosi- could you say a bit more about this please? Some facts about the Salk and Sabin vaccines and the differences between them, the number of cases we are talking about and the number of cases before 1961 would be a good start.

seeker Tue 19-Mar-13 19:00:22

Oh, and could you explain why the only countries in the world where cases of polio are rising are places where vaccination programmes have been halted by religious fundamentalists?

rosi7 Tue 19-Mar-13 19:03:03

The sources are no less reliable than the official sources withholding data and information - meaning lying intentionally.

seeker Tue 19-Mar-13 19:03:47

Could you answer my questions please?

rosi7 Tue 19-Mar-13 19:09:49

Ah - and where does that statement come from, Seeker?

seeker Tue 19-Mar-13 19:17:09

Are you saying it's not true?

Please will you say some more about the Salk/Sabin vaccines, and the level of polio cases pre and post 1960?

seeker Tue 19-Mar-13 19:18:07

Just a few supporting sentences in your own words explaining would be fine.

specialsubject Tue 19-Mar-13 19:26:49

'In 1977, Dr Jonas Salk who developed the first polio vaccine, testified along with other scientists, that mass inoculation against polio was the cause of most polio cases throughout the USA since 1961. (Science 4/4/77 "Abstracts" ) '

Rosi7 - that is not what Salk said. He said that the LIVE polio vaccine was a cause of polio. The DEAD one that Salk advocated was and remains a massive, massive lifesaver.

Rosi, are YOU vaccinated? Have YOU ever had polio, tetanus, measles, mumps, rubella, diphtheria? Would you want YOUR children to have these terrible diseases? How do you think that smallpox was eliminated?

If YOU are vaccinated then what allows you to deny it to your children? And what allows you to risk other people's children?

seeker Tue 19-Mar-13 19:31:48

There you go, Rosi- specialistsubject's done it for you. Could you now tell us why you think that polio has been practically eradicated since 1960, and why it still only remains a serious problem in countries which are resistant to vaccination programmes?

Skygirls Tue 19-Mar-13 19:34:39

If it's any help to you missperelman I had single vaccines for DS1 when he was 13 months.

This was because I was scared by rumours of autism, caused by that silly doctor. DS1 had rubella vac first and then measles vac 5 weeks later.

When it was time for his mumps vaccine, I was informed by the Children's Immunisation Centre that there wasn't any, due to non manufacture in favour of swine flu vaccine. They said they would be expecting a shipment the following year. That never manifested and so he has never had a single mumps vaccine.

When DS1 was 3yrs 4 months, I took him to have an MMR (pre-school booster) and he was fine. So, vaccine- wise, he's covered, but only has had one dose of the mumps.

DS2 has had mmr's both times. I didn't bother with single vaccines with him, as with hindsight, it was a waste of time and money.

Before anyone has a go at me, yes, my DS1 was not fully protected from mumps, but if the autism thing was a real possibility, I would never have forgiven myself. (I did more research into it and thus was happy for DS2 to have MMR both times)

I have spoken to a paediatrician about this, who said that two doses of the mumps vac is recommended, as one dose only causes immunity in about 70% of children. The second dose is to bring that % closer to 95% out of those 30% who didn't get immunity the first time around.

I am still hoping that a univalent mumps vac will become avail, but if not, then in the summer, DS1 will go for another MMR to cover him fully for mumps.

Again, the paediatrician said that I should not worry about him having a 3rd dose of measles and rubella, as they will do no harm.

The point of my story is that I really wouldn't go down the single vaccine route, because you CAN'T get hold of a mumps vaccine in this country. The Children's immunisation Centre still haven't got any. DS1 is now approaching 6 and I won't wait any longer.

If you think about it, thousands of kids have been mmr'd with no serious consequences that have been reported ( as far as I'm aware).
Don't give yourself the heartache of the single vaccine route because it will only cause more injections than necessary.

Of course, you must make your own decision for your child's welfare, but as someone who has done what you're wanting to do, it really is not worth it. Go for the MMR in my opinion.

rosi7 Tue 19-Mar-13 19:34:54

Specialsubject, I don't do the fear game anymore sorry - neither the blame game. Take responsibility for yourself, get all the vaccinations and be happy - why do you complain about people not accepting that model as true anymore. You are protected - why are you still afraid?

rosi7 Tue 19-Mar-13 19:39:41

BTW - the only real polio case I personally have come across in my life is a friend of mine who got polio as a child after having been vaccinated. In the process of her illness her mother got ill with polio and died.

I do trust that source more than any official figures, indeed.

Bunbaker Tue 19-Mar-13 19:50:03

rosi Are you old enough to remember seeing children and young people walking around in calipers because they contracted polio. Have you got crap eyesight because you had measles as a child? Do you understand how smallpox was eradicated?

I can answer yes to questions one and two unfortunately. If you seriously don't believe that vaccination hasn't eradicated smallpox then you are deluded.

Have you ever wondered why you are in a minority? Do you never talk to medical specialists? Are you a medical professional in possession of all the facts in order to enable you to make decisions about your children's health?

rosi7 Tue 19-Mar-13 20:12:11

Bunbaker, everybody has to make a choice which path to follow. I made the choice for a change 25 years ago when my first child at that time was ill and it did not improve with the orthodox path. I had good results - why should I go back?

In more than 25 years of experience with my four children I have learned so much - I came across such a huge variety of effective healing methods. Tell me, why on earth should I choose the one model bearing so many risks?

The world is so much wider - we do have so much potential as human beings. And I do truly wonder why I am a minority - there is so much to miss if you do not know about it because you are limited to a tiny little world of fear filled with pills and vaccines.

Bunbaker Tue 19-Mar-13 20:14:21


CatherinaJTV Tue 19-Mar-13 20:17:06

popcorn anyone?

missperelman Tue 19-Mar-13 20:31:17

well thanks all. i can't seem to form sentences around this, except to say thanks.t eh goldacre article is good. he's a good crossover - scientist/journalist... perhaps one of the only really good ones . thanks again everyone

seeker Tue 19-Mar-13 21:39:15

Interesting that rosi avoids addressing any questions about her "facts".

Why is polio practically eradicated in all parts of the world except those where vaccine programmes are resisted for religious reasons?

Why was polio rampant until 1961, then rapidly declined?

Bunbaker Wed 20-Mar-13 06:57:01

The problem is weeding out unbiased articles on the internet, which is why I always talk to a medical professional if I have any concerns about vaccinations.

seeker Wed 20-Mar-13 06:59:44

I just find the scattergun approach of the anti-science brigade so irritating I always engage, both on here and in real life. And I almost always regret it.

I just hate people like Salk being misrepresented- he did such an amazing thing and having his achievement rubbished like this is heartbreaking.

RooneyMara Thu 21-Mar-13 09:01:58

How on earth do you find an unbiased medical professional though? Every single one I've tried to ask about this goes into autopilot when the word 'safe' somes up and reels off the same identical diatribe about thingy being discredited and all that. They have a script, just like HVs do on co sleeping - they can be in serious trouble if they tell you anything different.

So who do we trust?

seeker Thu 21-Mar-13 10:08:40

There are loads of properly peer reviewed scientific papers produced by proper academic scientists on the subject- do you have a specific concern? If you do, there are plenty of people on here who could point you in the right direction.

What do you mean doctors could be in serious trouble?

Zideq Thu 21-Mar-13 11:23:38

Multiple large epidemiological studies have been undertaken a good place to start is and if you don't belive the content follow the references.

RooneyMara Thu 21-Mar-13 11:30:38

Thanks. I was told by the HV a few weeks ago that she had to tell me the government line on things like that. Otherwise she could get into trouble if something went wrong.

I assume it's the same with practice nurses etc.

I could ask on here but look what happened when the OP did that.

seeker Thu 21-Mar-13 11:42:36

But thingy has been discredited!

RooneyMara Thu 21-Mar-13 11:51:52

That's not the point seeker - maybe he has. But it's like they are only allowed to say that and not even discuss the things I am worried about. iyswim

I have tried hard to ask about various aspects for reassurance but get met with the same script over and over again. I just want an honest conversation about it with someone but no one will do that and tbh that makes me feel very distrustful.

RooneyMara Thu 21-Mar-13 11:53:49

Ok here are my concerns : that I am potentially damaging my baby's immune system by giving him these artificial products

that I've read that a lot of vaccines are inefficient at actually preventing the diseases they are meant to

that the injection itself may therefore be pointless and could be doing him some harm with its nasty ingredients

Those are the basics

RooneyMara Thu 21-Mar-13 11:55:16

Also I'd like to defer these vaccines till he is older as he was a very upset and screamy baby from the off, just started to settle and then he had his 8 week injections and went backwards.

I can't put him through that again. I just can't do it. Can you defer till they are a bit older? Will it still work?

RooneyMara Thu 21-Mar-13 11:55:43

and why do they need three shots of each?

seeker Thu 21-Mar-13 11:56:29

I think the OP got sensible advice- apart from the scattergun poster!

seeker Thu 21-Mar-13 12:03:30

Rooney- have a look at this and see what you think.

rosi7 Thu 21-Mar-13 12:06:33

What is worse? The scattergun or the heavily armed warlike approach of the vaccination industry putting so much fear an pressure on parents?

seeker Thu 21-Mar-13 12:08:59
seeker Thu 21-Mar-13 12:11:08

Trouble is, Rosi, the scattergun is completely unhelpful. And in your case, as I and others have pointed out, factually inaccurate. One or two well argued posts that could stimulate debate would be a really good thing for you to produce. Oh, and I'm still waiting for your comments on the Salk/Sabin issue.

Bunbaker Thu 21-Mar-13 13:38:17

"that I've read that a lot of vaccines are inefficient at actually preventing the diseases they are meant to"

If that is the case why do we no longer see: smallpox, polio, diphtheria and tetanus? Did you see the little boy on Comic Relief with tetanus?

RooneyMara Thu 21-Mar-13 17:03:56

Fair point Bun. What about measles though? lots of kids seem to get that regardless?

Thankyou for the links Seeker. It is so hard to tell what is a pro site and what is anti and what is totally unbiased.

seeker Thu 21-Mar-13 17:16:57

Rooney- I don't think you can be unbiased on this subject- all the science and proper research points one way. All you can do is read the evidence.

And yes, kids do still get measles. But a) the vaccine protects about 85% of children, and reduces the severity of the illness in most of the remaining 15%.

No vaccine is 100% effective. Nothing is 100% effective.

rosi7 Thu 21-Mar-13 17:36:11

Seeker - do you really expect me to dig out the information you want to have - I am sure you can do that yourself. Besides that you have not answered my question either.

The proper research you refer to for me is no more valid than all of the experiences parents and doctors have made in their lives even if it is not based on proper scientific research.

If you feel it is not a big thing if doctors take a pharmaceutical company to court just because you already seem to know about it - that is an interesting viewpoint.

seeker Thu 21-Mar-13 17:41:05

Which question was that?

seeker Thu 21-Mar-13 17:56:26

I don't want you to dig for information, Rosi- I just wanted to understand your point of view. Which I why I suggested you express it in a short paragraph. Then we can talk about it.

rosi7 Thu 21-Mar-13 18:10:38


seeker Thu 21-Mar-13 18:12:35

Yes, really. But hey ho, if you don't want to, you don't want to. I, and others, will extrapolate that you think that your position is indefensible.

rosi7 Thu 21-Mar-13 18:24:49

Why then don't you ask what you would like to know but expect me to deliver all kinds of data?

seeker Thu 21-Mar-13 19:36:28

I don't expect you to "extrapolate all kinds of data" you flooded the thread with unsupported statements. I challenged one in particular which I know to be misleading at best, but you haven't yet produced any supporting evidence.

I would just like to know what your standpoint is. Why is that so difficult?

rosi7 Thu 21-Mar-13 20:42:44

It is so difficult, Seeker, because you what you wrote earlier and what you write now is something different. If you want to know all the details you asked for why do you say later you wanted to know my standpoint?

Your messages create huge confusion and then you put the responsibility on the one who should answer your question.

seeker Thu 21-Mar-13 20:56:14

I have said all along that I want to know your standpoint.

I have also asked you several times to back up your statement about Joseph Salk. I would like to ask you to back up all the statements you made, but one will do.

rosi7 Thu 21-Mar-13 21:48:34

RooneyMara, there is good reason to be concerned if you have a look at the poor framework behind vaccination:

seeker Thu 21-Mar-13 22:35:02

So you are ignoring any requests for you to support your comments?

WinkyWinkola Thu 21-Mar-13 22:57:39

As a pro vac person, I find the certainty of the MMR most definitely reducing the severity of the illness in the majority of the remaining 15% unprotected by the vaccine a pretty tricky claim to prove.

rosi7 Fri 22-Mar-13 05:23:26

Right, Seeker, I am ignoring it as you do not seem to be able to take it for what it is: A simple description of Dr. Salk about his own work.

rosi7 Fri 22-Mar-13 05:50:01

And btw, Seeker, there is no need to answer my question anymore as I will be travelling the next couple of days and therfore unable to go online at all.

seeker Fri 22-Mar-13 06:10:39

I wonder why the anti vaccination brigade are so...tricksy? Why won't they debate properly?

Drlinenic Sat 06-Apr-13 22:00:15

Interesting debate. No doubt very topical with current outbreak of measles in South Wales where large number of parents had chosen not to vaccinate their kids and babies. Now they are lining up to get their kids and all vaccinated.
My father was posted in Africa and Asia for work and my parents made sure we were vaccinated on time. I have seen my share of tragedies - friends who had childhood polio to deaths from brain haemorrhage due to various preventable illnesses including malaria.
I am concerned because I have friends who have kids under 12 months of age and they live in Wales. They will be exposed to measles even before they have a chance to be vaccinated and they did not make a choice to not get vaccinated.
It is ridiculous how some people want to be carrier of bad news (read serious illnesses) by refusing to vaccinate themselves and their kids. These people have no answer when you challenge them with scientific studies and data which shows that many parts of this world have managed to eradicate diseases by careful and persistent vaccinations across generations.

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