Advanced search

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.

ilovepowerhoop Fri 15-Mar-13 20:01:26

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.

Join the discussion

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

Register now »

Already registered? Log in with: