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.

MMR

(87 Posts)
luckyjames Wed 26-Aug-09 11:15:34

I'm trying to decide whether to give my son the singles or triple vaccine. Some people choose not to vaccinate at all while others choose the triple vaccine and some choose the singles. I'd like to hear from everyone whatever your choices were and the outcome. I would like to hear from parents who believe the triple vaccine has damaged their child. Any parents believe single vaccines have damaged their child? I hear all the time that single vaccines are not safe but has never heard from anyone who has had a problem with them! Many thanks for those who reply.

pofacedandproud Wed 26-Aug-09 11:19:49

If you search under archives there is loads of info at your finger tips. General summary: Wakefield [the original researcher] always said MMR safe for the majority. He said it may not be safe for a small minority, those with a strong history severe gut problems and of family auto immune conditions. In these cases he recommended single vaccines. Single vaccines have a very long safety record - single measles vaccine has been around longer than MMR - and as long as you use a reputable clinic there is no reason why single vaccines are not a good option. If you don't want to vaccinate at all you have to weigh up the risks - where you live for example, as there have been recent outbreaks of measles in some areas. Measles can be mild, it can be very severe, and is unpredictable. HTH.

pofacedandproud Wed 26-Aug-09 11:20:46

I have also tried to research any bad reactions to singles but have not been able to find any.

pofacedandproud Wed 26-Aug-09 11:22:58

Just realises this is your first post. Welcome to MN. Not a journalist by any chance? grin

bamboobutton Wed 26-Aug-09 11:23:24

i have given ds only the measels vaccine so far.

he doesn't need rubella and i'm unwilling to give him a vaccine he doesn't need. he will have mumps jab when he's 9 or 10.

luckyjames Wed 26-Aug-09 11:38:22

Hi pofacedandproud, no not a journalist, just a worried mum!! Thanks for your reply btw

mmrred Wed 26-Aug-09 16:34:56

One of the problems with the singles is that the Mumps vaccine is not available and may not be for at least 2 years. Very little research has been done into singles, and the WHO does not recommend them because apart from having to give children 6 jabs instead of two (not trivial to anyone who has taken their DC's to be jabbed) there is a gap between jabs (6 weeks I think) which means that children are not protected for longer.

Also people 'opt out' of one or more of the vaccines, due to cost or because, like Bamboobutton, people feel they are 'not needed'. Whilst it is true that rubella is a mild disease, would you reconsider, Bamboobutton, if you got pregnant again? The risks of rubella to unborn children are massive. Sorry - don't want to hijack the thread, but feel very strongly about it!

EyeballsintheSky Wed 26-Aug-09 17:04:35

DD has had the single vaccines for measles and rubella so far. No reactions at all and I'm happy with our choice. She'll have the mumps vaccine when it becomes available.

Welcome btw

pofacedandproud Wed 26-Aug-09 17:53:16

rubella is dangerous to the unborn child if the other is not immune. The present schedule makes no sense as it often leaves young women vulnerable at the most crucial stage [when starting to have sex] the rubella vaccine does not guarantee life long immunity. Better to vaccinate all girls at 11 or 12. At present the re is no booster in place for girls at puberty which beggars the question why vaccinate all babies to protect unborn foetuses but not young women who may get pregnant at any time.

pofacedandproud Wed 26-Aug-09 17:53:52

if the mother is not immune!

Musukebba Wed 26-Aug-09 20:18:32

pofaced you should be aware that the system of vaccinating girls at puberty was tried and did not work. Not all girls became immune - due to non-attendance, contra-indication, primary or secondary vaccine failure - and without vaccinating boys as well, the rubella virus was able to circulate in the community and eventually infect those not immune.

Any partially-successful vaccination campaign will push up the average age of infection, so the net effect was that susceptible girls were more likely to get rubella when they were at child-bearing age, rather than before. For these reasons, congenital rubella syndrome was reduced but by no means eliminated.

pofacedandproud Wed 26-Aug-09 21:14:28

I think a booster go adolescent girls would make sense Musukebba, no?

pofacedandproud Wed 26-Aug-09 21:14:51

booster for adolescent girls...

Musukebba Wed 26-Aug-09 22:18:53

Well not really, because it wouldn't cover the serial non-attenders or those not able to receive the vaccine for health reasons.

Without vaccinating boys as well, the virus will always be out there ready to infect these unfortunate susceptibles. The number of these accumulates year after year, and eventually becomes a pool large enough to sustain an epidemic.

mmrred Wed 26-Aug-09 22:42:29

I suppose it depends on how you view society and our place in it. Either we work together to protect the unborn or it is every man (woman/child) for themselves. Alright, boy X doesn't 'need' the vaccine for himself but it's a good job lots of other little boys had it, with no incentive for themselves, when boy X was in the womb.

When only girls were vaccinated the figures for congenital rubella were much higher. When MMR was introduced it reduced congenital rubella by 90%. I just don't see how these figures can be argued with. Congenital rubella causes Autism - and that is one of the better case outcomes. No question, no dodgy science.

Not everyone can have vaccinations. In the 10 years before MMR, 50% of children who dies from measles had Leukaemia.

pofacedandproud Wed 26-Aug-09 23:20:30

Getting it done at school [with parental consent form] may avoid those pitfalls.

I am arguing for a booster at puberty, not for not vaccinating with MMR.

mmrred Wed 26-Aug-09 23:29:38

How does it avoid those pitfalls?

worriedaboutbuses Wed 26-Aug-09 23:39:46

Some time ago I read about an increase in congenital rubella syndrome. The mothers were contracting rubella after catching it not from children, but from their partners.
I admit, this was quite a while ago. The article surmised that this was probably due to vaccine failure among men and women. It wasn't an MMR piece -- it was just a shortie about how people should be ensuring they got boosters.

I read it differently: I read it as, basically, the vaccines at one and two years are utterly pointless, if they are going to fail just when they are needed.

Pofaced you have put it very well. Also I thought your first post was extremely balanced.

Musukkebba your reasons are poor: contraindication? primary or secondary failure? these apply to vaccines at any age. Non attendance? we were rounded up at school. The non-attendance reason basically comes down to : babies are easier. Convenience is no reason to risk the adverse reactions of MMR.

It's unfair to make infants take risks that adults are not prepared to accept.

worriedaboutbuses Wed 26-Aug-09 23:56:09

ps i assumed journo or researcher also!

pofacedandproud Wed 26-Aug-09 23:57:04

I meant if you did the booster at school you would avoid the non attendance problem.

I do wonder though if adults can't have the jab for health reasons but babies can, then there must be something in the idea that some babies should not have certain vaccines for health reasons. Unless you are only talking about leukemia/cancer in which case I cannot imagine not vaccinating those few people would have a serious effect on herd immunity.

worriedaboutbuses Thu 27-Aug-09 00:17:53

Have just read a study which said the adverse vaccine reaction is greater for an adult.

I don't believe it. It will be more noticeable, more obvious with an adult. Babies reactions are dismissed as normal, background, coincidence. The baby would have turned out like this/had this condition anyway. Whatever. Whereas with an adult it's different, you can't brush it under the carpet. You know if an adult is different afterwards.

Musukebba Thu 27-Aug-09 00:20:42

@worriedaboutbuses: so you read something somewhere that was quite short and quite a while ago, and something was surmised but you read it differently. Well that is very difficult to argue with, since we don't even know what vaccine strategy is being looked at for one thing. And you imply my arguments are poor?

The main point - which I haven't seen anyone address yet - is that you can't control a disease like congenital rubella syndrome just by trying to immunise only half the population against rubella. It's been tried and didn't work, despite you thinking your experience of being 'rounded up' was likely to have been universal.

skidoodle Thu 27-Aug-09 00:25:31

"Have just read a study which said the adverse vaccine reaction is greater for an adult.

I don't believe it. It will be more noticeable, more obvious with an adult. Babies reactions are dismissed as normal, background, coincidence. The baby would have turned out like this/had this condition anyway. Whatever. Whereas with an adult it's different, you can't brush it under the carpet. You know if an adult is different afterwards"

PMSL

Why read studies if you are just going to disbelieve what you read?

Do you really think scientists are so stupid that they just look at a baby and an adult and say "oh this baby is just the same, but that adult is different from before"

Jesus, no wonder measles is making a comeback. Best sweep that under the carpet, eh?

worriedaboutbuses Thu 27-Aug-09 01:14:12

Yes, i did read something that was short and a piece of news and not anti mmr. Yes it informed my opinion, so what?

I can link you the other study if you want.

Pmsl? you think this issue is funny? really? you really pissed yourself laughing? Address my point about adult reactions being more noticeable than child reactions. Go on, if you can pick yourself up off the floor.

Skidoodle, I'm open minded. Unlike you or Musukebba.

worriedaboutbuses Thu 27-Aug-09 01:19:48

Do you really think scientists are so stupid that they just look at a baby and an adult and say "oh this baby is just the same, but that adult is different from before"

Actually I had a conversation with a pro-vaxer on testing not that long ago.

She said it would not only be very difficult to know if a particular reaction (death, in the case we were talking about) was due to the vaccine -- in fact she "couldn't get her head around the idea" of how you would find out.

So -- what about those omniscient scientists? Do you honestly think a baby's reaction is as easy to decipher as an adults? Particularly when you have a vested interest in deciding that the reaction was not a reaction at all, but a coincidental event.

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