Talk

Advanced search

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

If you gave your child single vaccines can I just ask what your reasoning was?

(87 Posts)
Tipex Sat 29-Sep-07 22:17:47

Im trying to get a clearer idea of what it is that worries parents about the MMR specifically compared to single vaccines. Not criticising at all, merely asking. Thanks.

NAB3 Sat 29-Sep-07 22:18:23

Why do you ask?

Tipex Sat 29-Sep-07 22:27:03

was just discussing it with a friend yesterday and was trying to get an understanding of what the current perception is. there has been such alot of differing opinion over time on the MMR but still quite a number of parents opting for singles. i see very little information/reasearch on the singles but am sure parents who opt for this have very clear reasons in their minds. honestly, Im not being arguementative merely asking. I dont know anyone who has had singles. Everyone I know either had nothing or MMR.

FrannyandZooey Sat 29-Sep-07 22:29:08

I feel unhappy about safety of MMR

however feel measles is a serious disease and did not partic want to risk ds getting it / spreading it

he has had single measles vaccine only

Flamesparrow Sat 29-Sep-07 22:34:14

I couldn't raise the money for the singles. My reason for wanting them though is that I don't like all of the diseases being shoved in together.

I have been told all the "Oooh your body fights thousands of bacteria etc every day" arguement, but logic tells me that if it is bad enough for us to need to vaccinate against it then it shouldn't be all shoved into one.

I feel the same about the early jabs too btw.

GrannyWeatherwax Sat 29-Sep-07 22:39:24

I think that exposing kids to many illnesses at the same time is bad for their systems. Just the way I feel and the single vaccine clinic I go to demand a gap between each injection, I can't be totally mad. I'm also a bit concerned about what they put in these vaccines for such small children.

dinny Sat 29-Sep-07 22:42:18

yes, agree with the posts below - was my gut instinct that it is too much to cope with at one time and would rather err on side of caution. Also, will wait till dd older for rubella and won't give it to ds.

also, the rubella part of MMR can act as an adjuvant and inrease the severity of symptoms.

Tipex Sun 30-Sep-07 16:59:05

thanks all for answering.

Twiglett Sun 30-Sep-07 17:09:17

gave DS sepvax as first set because DH has an immune-system disorder and we felt he could potentially be at risk

then we let him have MMR booster and he was fine

when DD's turn came around, we fought hard to have thimerosal free primary jabs (felt the latest research showed more issues with the mercury as stabiliser and this was before the 5-in-1 jab, without thimerosal, came out) .. then delayed her MMR till 18 months because we felt that she would be more robust and more chance of the measles jab taking .. 10 days later she was admitted to hospital with pneumonia which every doctor was at pains to comment, without us raising the point, was not connected with the MMR ... I actually think her immune response was lowered by the MMR and she was unable to fight off this virus as well

am now pondering what to do with regards to boosters

Tartanmam Sun 30-Sep-07 20:11:22

I'm not comfortable with giving three 'live' vaccines at one go, for various reasons i'm not convinced my ds's immune system would handle it very well, also there are some indications that the effectiveness and of the mumps and lifespan of both the mumps and rubella vaccines are not as good as originally thought.

vole3 Sun 30-Sep-07 20:18:44

Twiglett - what is the thinking behind the MMR and immune-system disorders?

I ask as I have rheumatoid arthritis and although ds is a year away from MMR it is something DH and I are thinking about. We both had single rubella jabs and I had single measles (he's too old to have had that grin) and we both got mumps.

nospeak Sun 30-Sep-07 20:33:55

I researched it and in my humble opinion I felt that the MMR was on the whole safe for children with normal immune systems. We did however decide that ds would have the single vaccinations as we were not 100% comfortable with the idea of giving a 3 in 1 jab although we felt it was probably safe most of our friends/families children had suffered a minor reaction to it and we wanted to minimise the reaction and therefore felt that the single jabs was the best option.

Not sure what to do about the booster will have to a bit of research shortly as ds will be due his soon.

I get a bit peeved with a minority of medical professionals who seem to have this view that parents give the single jab as a knee jerk reaction to some of the bad reporting of the MMR in the media. Most parents carry out some research into the MMR/alternatives and are capable of making an informed decision.

nospeak Sun 30-Sep-07 20:36:16

Although reading back my post, I feel I need a few lessons in grammar! blush

edam Sun 30-Sep-07 20:45:12

I researched it very carefully. I worked with medical researchers so had access to resources such as expert reviewers. The Cochrane Collaboration and Drug and Therapeutics Bulletin both said MMR was safe as far as anyone could tell but the safety studies weren't great - not enough of them and not brilliantly designed. The campaign to villify Wakefield smacked of the campaign to villify researchers who worked out there were major safety issues with Seroxat (antidepressant that it has now been shown increases the risk of suicide in young people). Tactics used were similar. The researchers were right about Seroxat. No idea whether Wakefield is actually right about MMR, but the campaign was enough to make me suspicious.

I went for singles because I didn't completely trust MMR but didn't want ds to infect children who cannot be vaccinated due to suppressed immunity etc. etc. - didn't want anything on my conscience. It's not evidence-based - there's no evidence that singles are any safer. So I feel a bit embarassed about it. But might well do the same again.

Ds has now had MMR as a pre-school booster - felt alright about that as he's older and clearly not autistic, thank heavens. If there is a link, I think it affects children who have risk factors for autism which would have shown up by ds's age, IYSWIM.

newy Sun 30-Sep-07 20:54:35

Its up to parents to decide how their kids are vaccinated, as long as they are vaccinated. There has been problems of a 'herd mentality' (not my phrase) where parents think their kids are safer to not be vaccinated as everyone else is. This has led to increase in measles with one death so far. There are also people that are unable to have the vaccines for various reasons and this puts them at greater risk. Its also important to have the mumps and rubella vaccines to protect others as well as your own children (eg pregnant women).

I had measles as a child and I was very unwell and it effected me badly. Wouldn't want anyone else to be in that situation.

I know that's not the original question but thought it was worth mentioning.

iwearflairs Sun 30-Sep-07 21:00:25

We did it because we were a bit scared about autism (although this is not proved) but told ourselves it was because allergies run free in DH's family and we 'didn't want to overload DS's immune system'....

margoandjerry Sun 30-Sep-07 21:04:43

I am thinking about it because I have an auto-immune disease and so does my mother (not the same one but hers is quite serious) so I'm a bit concerned about immunity issues in our family.

Tartanmam Sun 30-Sep-07 22:07:22

Newy,

The problem with the 'herd immunity' argument for mumps at least is that it is only approx 65% effective after one injection, increasing to an estimated 85% after the booster at age four. Even if 100% of the population are vaccinated - which would never happen anyway - we would not have the 95% coverage needed to wipe out the disease. And you also need to remember that vaccine immunity does not last forever, it will wear off.

edam Sun 30-Sep-07 22:11:24

If you have auto-immune conditions in the family, I would go for separate vaccinations, personally. Do a search for 'MMR' and 'Jimjams', IIRC she gave quite a thorough analysis of the situation.

Heartmum2Jamie Sun 30-Sep-07 22:46:56

We gave our ds 1 the single vaccines 5 years ago now and will admit that at first it was a knee jerk reaction to the Dr Wakefield reports. However, on doing some research, we didn't like the idea of overloading his body with so many vaccines at once. When ds2 came along, he was alsready behind on his vaccination programme as he was so poorly as a baby. When the time finally came to give the MMR, we knew that we could not do for 1 what we were not prepared to do for the other. So even though we were absolutely broke, we scrimped, saved and borrowed to vaccinate him against measles and ruebella. He is as yet unvaccinated against mumps as the clinic didn't want to take a risk with ds2's egg allergy.

DS1 has had his mealses booster as a single. We will get their imminuty tested to see if they need any other boosters.

tori32 Sun 30-Sep-07 22:58:02

I personally thought initially about Gulf War Syndrome, when service men and women were vaccinated with lots of vaccines and it had huge side effects. I thought 'If this is how adults react, how will a small babies immune system cope'. However, they have been doing MMR in the states for years and since their society is one that sues the medical profession for anything, I felt that the link must be weak or there would be more law suits over it and they would have reverted back to single vaccines. In the end I decided on MMR because it involved less injections for my dd. No Autistic symptoms yet at 20mths. smile

HonoriaGlossop Sun 30-Sep-07 23:03:29

When DS was first due for MMR we felt the debate was still hot and I felt that as single jabs were available we would make use of that while the debate raged on. I heard various things that concerned me, as detailed by Edam, and that together with a history of allergies in the family, convinced me to go for singles. As a final impetus for doing it, one of the dads I worked with stood in front of me in tears about his autistic daughter, who had been utterly, completely developmentally normal before MMR, was regressing within a week of having it and he was completely convinced it was related.

It was hard to ignore the personal power of that story, I know it's unscientific....but singles were available and we felt it was a safer choice.

edam Sun 30-Sep-07 23:08:57

tori, the Americans did withdraw thimerosal from the 8, 12 and 16 week jabs much earlier than our govt, though. One of the theories is that some children at risk of developing autism have a problem with transporting heavy metals - mercury in thimerosal - out of their body. So the old infant jabs (DTP) were the 'original insult' but it was MMR later that flicked the switch, IYSWIM. Now the govt. has finally stopped insisting we all poison our newborns with mercury, if that theory is true, MMR may cause fewer reactions. If it ever did in the first place.

One of the things that worried me about the govt. propaganda was the flat denial that vaccines could ever cause any harm at all, ever, no sirree. Like any other medicine (complementary or orthodox) vaccines can cause unwanted side effects. There are plenty of people who are recorded as vaccine-damaged. The old whooping cough vaccine was withdraw because it harmed some children (is too late at night for me to look this up and post supporting evidence). My sister works with people with learning disabilities and plenty of the adults have vaccine damage during childhood recorded as the cause of their disabilty.

The argument used to be that any child was far more at risk from catching whooping cough or polio or whatever than of being damaged by the vaccine. Which is probably true. But the fact that after the MMR scandal the govt. started to tell barefaced lies really worried me.

tori32 Sun 30-Sep-07 23:12:30

Tartanmam, the whole idea of introducing live vaccines in small quantities means that the body produces the immune response to the organism of whichever disease. This then means that if you get the disease later in life the body already 'recognises' the organism and triggers an immediate response to fight the disease before it takes a firm grip in the body. My point being that this can make the difference between life and death. Therefore your reasoning about vaccines 'wearing off' is irrelevant. Its the bodies response which is key. There used to be many fatalities from all of these diseases before innoculation, therefore, to abstain rather than having MMR is putting children at risk.

TinyGang Sun 30-Sep-07 23:15:49

Dt's had singles 5 years ago. At that time there was near hysteria about MMR. No-one could definatively say it was safe.

I wanted them vaccinated and protected, but didn't want to take the risk at that age with the MMR, so singles were the best option.

I remember some of the official reasons for the MMR presented at the time annoyed me hugely. The argument that parents would not remember to bring a child along for three separate vaccines seemed so patronising to me.

I also suspected - and still do - that MMR is cheaper than singles and economics may have played some part (not all, but some) in it's promotion by the Govt. but of course that was never mentioned.

I believe in a free choice and become suspicious of motives when that choice is taken from me.

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