Mumsnet has not checked the qualifications of anyone posting here. If you have any medical concerns we suggest you consult your GP.
Reactions to MMR - how long do they last?(606 Posts)
My DD (13 months) had her MMR 11 days ago, she had a bad reaction after about 3 days (high temp and trouble breathing) and we took her to urgent care center. Although this has now passed, she seems to be really out of sorts and has stopped sleeping through. Her normal routine was brilliant as she went down from about 7 - 7. Now she is waking every two hours and is very unhappy. Is this normal? is this because of her MMR or is it just a phase? She has also stopped taking her bottle before bed, is it likely that she has weaned herself? Help! It's been pretty easy going with her up to now so a bit stressed by all this.
I agree with you about personal choices mrshelenbee. People do what they think is right and I wouldn't criticize an individual choice, especially if made together with medical advice.
I do, however, have a huge problem with misinformation, scaremongering, conspiracy theories and distortion which abound on the internet and also on here.
There are many good and authoritative websites you can go to for information on the mmr and side effects. They were linked to on another thread (I'm on my phone so cant get to it). Googling opens up the almost parallel world of the crankosphere.
I couldn't agree more Mrs Geranium!!
I came on here as my DS is having his first round of MMR on Friday, and the side effects are something I've been very anxious about. With so many threads, I hoped I'd feel a bit more prepared for what's to come, but instead of answering the question, the vast majority of entries are so unnecessarily aggressive. Surely we are all individual, with totally individual children of individual needs. Isn't it the job of a good parent to do what YOU feel best for your child, given the information you have.
There is nothing wrong with having an opinion, but no one knows a child better than their parents, and no one else is going to have their best interests more at heart, so who has the right to criticise different parental choices if it works for them and their child? Do we no all want a happy and healthy child? Surely how we support that child in gettng there is own to us.
I am so disappointed that the site which has been so helpful and supportive to me in the last year, has turned into a battle ground. There's nothing wrong with debating but countless threads are just downright rude and inappropriate. Share the facts, that's what we're on here for, but if you can't keep your views civil and constructive to the thousands of parents on here, maybe it would be better not to say it at all.
Gosh there's actually a shocking level of abuse on this thread too.
I would really like to appeal here to the pro-vaccine campaigners in particular to try to avoid the abuse, belittling language, silly comparisons (turnips, red shoes etc) and dismal sneering that seems to fill the posts of certain people.
I think people who take this sensitive and complex subject seriously should be able to behave appropriately on thread, and I'd like to appeal to them to do so.
I suspect there are not lest cases, just less serious cases.
I did work with an older Austrian lady who insisted she was vaccinated against scarlet fever and had a certificate. I looked and there was a vaccine invented in 1924, but it was no longer used from 1940 onwards because of the discovery of antibiotics.
Post, fewer people get it because fewer people have it to spread due to the use of antibiotics. It's still around, just like cholera. The medium for it has been reduced, just like cholera. I'm guessing a number of kids have it, and it's just called "strep" and treated.
Doesn't explain why less people get it though, does it?
Scarlet fever can still be nasty my BIL was very ill for weeks with it.
However scarlet fever is a bacterial disease so anti biotics have played the part in reducing the seriousness of it.
If, as you say, there is no vaccine, then surely that's a Health question, but not a Vaccine question? Aren't you in the wrong forum?
Can anyone explain how diseases such have scarlet fever aren't around any more even though there are no vaccines for them? I'm genuinely curious as I know my mum remembers scarlet fever as more of a killer than measles.
Of course I've noticed it. It's exhausting. And when they've run out of new ideas, they go back to the beginning. I think you've done a great job keeping up with them.
I don't know the literature well enough, which is why I take the lazy approach of focusing on the systematic problems in their approach. Flawed logic, ignorance of basic epidemiology, and the need to verify information.
That's true piglet.
Bruffin, I think it's also an act of defiance, showing individuality. You can't do anything about a lot of things, but you can take a stand against the mmr! That'll show the government! Too bad it involves putting your own child and other children at risk of death and disability.
I'm prepared to believe that throwing in bullshit ideas, preferably vague and unsubstantiated, with no clear statement or point behind them, is intended to create and support vague feelings of fear and mistrust, and hopefully stir up a long discussion about a vague idea that was never clear enough to mean anything.
I'm prepared to believe that it's deliberate.
Turnips and mercury, huh?
It's more than that - every bullshit statement has been countered (like vaccination causing SIDS!) with evidence to the contrary so they just move on to the next bullshit statement. Have you noticed?
Do what you what saintly. Just don't pretend herd immunity doesn't exist to justify your decision. And don't deny that your children benefit from it - since you wish to reduce any environmental challenge I'd assume that you'd be even keener to keep the away from measles, pertussis, mumps, etc. And I'd assume this formed part of your calculations.
Does one really have to add disclaimers on every post: 'excepting those who don't vaccinate on medical advice', 'I don't believe in indiscriminate compulsory vaccination', 'I'm against eating babies'. Can these provisos not just be taken as read given that no-one, or next to no-one, believes in them?
saintly we've already been into exactly this on another recent thread, so you know full well that I don't think people should vaccinate against medical advice. Why do you pretend otherwise? Can anyone, find any post, on any thread, where anyone, has said people should vaccinate against medical advice?
In many cases, vaccinating is is your own personal best interest (means you will probably not get the disease) and also in the best interests of your own genes (you will probably live to have and bring up your children, and there is less chance that they will get the disease) and also in the best interests of the community (you will probably not pass the disease on to others, and you may help to eradicate it).
For example if you live in an area where Polio is endemic, it will be fairly difficult to construct a case where not vaccinating will have a better probability of a good outcome, than not.
It is not unusual for people to have both selfish and altruistic desires.
Of course not vaccinating is selfish but so is vaccinating! I don't buy the line that people do it for the greater social good. Most people don't. They do it so their child has a chance at not getting these diseases.
Saintly stop playing the victim. Nobody has ever said anyone that has a legitimate medical reason for not vaccinating should feel guilty for not doing so.However children who do have medical problems do need to be protected from the diseases themselves as they are more likely to have have suffer more for the side effects , so spending an inordinate amount of time finding an excuse and persuading others not to vaccinate does not really make much sense.
But there is an element on these boards of people who think that being a non vaccinate makes them appear intelligent because they have supposedly done their research. The fact that the places they do their research ie Whale, Halverson Age of Autism, Natural News, Mercola , Vera Schneiber et all just show that they don't actually understand what they are reading and have a very poor understanding of statistics.
Tbh I'm not fine with being called selfish for not vaccinating by people who have absolutely zero understanding of our day to day reality. Funnily enough people who do know a little about our situation don't use that word. I've even had a few HCP's say 'I would have done the same in your situation'. And those who don't say that have said variations of 'I understand your concern and you're asking these questions a few years too early - we may be able to answer them in ten or twenty years time'.
Selfish? Bah it's easy to be smug and 'unselfish' and risk your child to the adverse reaction when you don't for a moment assume they're risking anything. Been there, done that, came out with the 'selfish' crap myself.
I also am fine with people not vaccinating. Yes it's a bit selfish, but we all do selfish things.
I'm less fine with people trying to influence vaccine debates on a public forum with unfounded speculation and basic misunderstandings. Leonie says she can't be arsed to verify what she posts, and sossiges posts something which is total bollocks (no herd immunity beneath the herd immunity threshold) to justify why she's not selfish. When this is pointed out, there's no pause for breath, no humility, just an insult.
They keep talking about sheep because they think sheep do what they are told, thereby demonstrating they no as little about sheep as they do about vaccines. Sheep eat turnips. The fools.
Since you pride yourself on independent thinking, sossgies, what do you think happens to the probability of disease transmission when, say, 90% of people are immune? Is the probability the same as when none are immune? How about 80? What happens to the probability of your susceptible child coming into contact with an infected individual? Is it the same as when the whole population is susceptible? Of course it isn't! As has been explained to you, nothing magic happens below 95%, it's just the threshold for elimination of the measles virus. I don't think you think for yourself, rather have soaked up what you've read on the crankosphere with no thought as to whether it even makes sense! look at tabithas question - here is the answer.
I know the idea of herd immunity is distasteful to you. I know you'd rather there was no social impact of your decision. It does not however stop it existing.
In any case, the primary beneficiary of vaccination is the vaccinated child. I have no problem with you exposing our own child to the risk of preventable disease. I have a huge problem with misinformation, distortion and outright lies. I also feel very sorry for the children who cannot be vaccinated who, by your actions, are being exposed to diseases through no fault of their own.
Can you explain to me the baaas and the sheep references? I'm not sure what you are suggesting or if you're trying to be funny.
I think it's my duty to ensure that the potential dangers of turnips are brought to public attention. Everybody knows that lung cancer is a major killer, and a high proportion of victims have eaten turnips.
Unlike, for example, mercury in vaccines where numerous studies have searched and failed to find any correlation.
The turnip industry fails to publish any studies into the danger. Why is this?
I am entitled to 100% guarantees of turnip safety. Where is my guarantee?
Even if one sheep was vaccinated, I bet it would still turn around to all the other sheep and say "why don't you get vaccinated, I have, now you're all just piggybacking off my herd immunity" baaa
Piglet doesn't eat turnips because of lung cancer - whatever - fine by me. But I'm not getting all angry and upset because she doesn't eat turnips and has no intention of ever eating turnips. That's her choice. Whereas you are all getting your knickers twisted if someone doesn't want to vaccinate (which is no guarantee of protection from disease anyway). Thankfully in this country we still have a choice.
You don't understand one of the basics of the debate: the difference between herd immunity and the herd immunity threshold. You are quoting figures for the threshold, the point after which viral reproduction is less than 1. There is always herd immunity, even if only one sheep gets vaccinated.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.