to consider single vaccinations over the MMR when mumps is not available?

[MsKalo]

I had my ds vacinated with single jabs - at the time he had the jabs, all three, measles, mumps and rubella were available. Now it is the time to vaccinate my dd and mumps vaccine is not available and I am unsure how to proceed as I really do not like the thought of the MMR and that big hit of all 3 in one...

Anyone had bad experiences with MMR? Any doctors in the house willing to give an unbiased (ie: not all pro MMR!)opinion?

We may go ahead with the measles and rubella and the chicken pox as there is not mumps vac available or should I just think about the MMR

DECISIONS! AGHHH!

I have read a number of scary stories of high temperatures after the MMR on other forums too

My older 2 have had the mmr and my youngest will as soon as she's old enough. My eldest caught chicken pox and had complications. The vaccine was not available then. My middle child has been vaccinated privately against chicken pox and my youngest will be too once old enough.

Freerange, this isn't a thread about whether or not to vaccinate, I think everyone has posted here has wanted to vaccinate, it's the way those vaccines are administered that is the problem.

Single vaccines save lives too.

Another thing that worried me when I had to make the descision was that I was told by my GP that my dc's would be registered ad unvaccinated if they has singles. That meant that the government were using statistics that were false by telling parents that there was X number of unvaccinated children, thereby reducing the herd immunity and effectively scaring them into having the MMR, when in reality Y number of children were vaccinated.

When you know things like that are going on, it's very hard to trust some of the research that's out there. I'm a Mum, not a doctor, and we all just do what we think is best. Hunches do actually, imho, have quite a big part to play in making descisions where there is no definitive answer. Instinct has never let me down yet.

BagofHolly but are you absolutely sure that Dr Wakefield was suggesting a proven link between MMR and autism? I don't think he ever did at all. The media misrepresented the whole thing IIRC.

The people on this thread and on the many other threads about this subject who do have autistic children do not hold that view but do have concerns that the triple vaccine may have further damaged our children.

There are very well-respected intelligent posters on Mumsnet who have had a child damaged immediately after MMR. People on this forum have written very poignantly about sudden MMR-related regression in their young children. So bear this in mind when you talk about the "facts"

This is AIBU, but be sensitive please.

The GMC, from what I have read, found absolutely nothing wrong with Wakefield's science. Ethically from what I understand it was beyond questionable. But I would like him on my side and what educated person in this day and age doesn't know about media and government witchhunts? I don't know, I don't think anyone will ever know but it happens and it may have happened in this case.

Andrew Wakefield is still supported by the parents of the children he helped and is gainfully employed in the United States of America which is hardly a technologically and medically backward nation.

Not a conclusion I know, I'm a shite debater, just putting a few points forward.

people seem to forget that single vaccines are MORE effective than the triple

and the only reason the government made it 3 in 1 is because it saves MONEY not because it is better

it is all about money

MsKalo, for someone who was after an unbiased opinion, you seem to have a staunch anti-MMR stance.

My DC have had both MMR and chicken pox vax. They're fine.

Or were you only looking for bad MMR experiences?

But it's true! Of courseit's bloody true! Why on earth would we choose, as a country, a triple vax over singles?

It's cheaper to manufacture
better take up as people only have to cme in once to have it
this also saves money in appointment and nurse time.

money money money

Please excuse my atrocious tryping.

"Why on earth would we choose, as a country, a triple vax over singles?"

Well, because all of the vaccines are mixed for a start. Every time your baby presents for jabs they get a bundle.

And because of the attitudes you see earlier in this thread - my ds doesn't need rubella, my dd doesn't need measles, etc - when these are diseases with disastrous consequences.

If we had this sort of thing in the 50s we'd never have eradicated smallpox. The fact is, we're lucky. As a nation we're sanitised from the sheer horror of childhood diseases because of the work of scientists, and now we're in the fortunate position of assuming, after half an hour's Googling, that we know better, only we don't have to test that assumption fully, because our children benefit from the herd immunity brought about by generations of vaccinated children.

But in case you need a reminder, here's Roald Dahl

Agree with above and don;t really understand the vacination debate.

Just to add to your stats: My DD had MMR and was perfectly fine. We hoe there will be a chicken pox vax too.. All of DDs nursery caught chicken pox and DD had a horrid few weeks of being very poorly. SHe has horrid scars, hard nights and we all had to haev time of work. But this did not compare to one of DDs nursery friends ewho was in hospital for 6 weeks with it and still has complications.

We are so lucky, unbelievably lucky to have vaccinations.

And I do believe it is our duty to protect the population as a whole.

Well said Longtail and what a good link.

Re chickenpox DS1 has had chickenpox and is perfectly fine, he had it very mildly. However there is a girl in my son's class whose sister is now severely brain damaged when she contracted it as a toddler. |If it was available on NHS i'd get DS2 protected.

I mean if the vaccine was available

There is some research (if I can find it) that suggests MMR is more effective when given as a triple vaccine.

Remember that babies come into contact with more antigens at birth than they do with any vaccine yet nobody suggest birth causes autism.

Any vaccine like any other thing we put into our children's bodies carries a risk - however small. I believe that some children are damaged as a result of vaccines just as some children are damaged as a result of eating the wrong thing. Anyone who says vaccines are completely safe is foolish.

However, mumps used to be the leading cause of viral meningitis (the milder form of meningitis) and encephalitis. It's not always a mild illness.

Am hearing (via MN) that it's possible to source the mumps vaccine from France at present.

Remember also that although the number of vaccines has increased the actual number of antigens babies are exposed to has decreased as technology and scince has evolved. Worth thinking about when looking at the whole debate over how much we put into children's bodies - we put less antigens in than we have ever done.

www.badscience.net/2008/08/the-medias-mmr-hoax/

It seems that there are 2 people in the world:

1. the sensible rational parents who take the advice, study the facts and make the obvious informed decision that the MMR is a least-intrusive, most effective and least distressing way of protecting their offspring from these awful diseases.

2. members of the flat-earth society who are obviously trying to prove that they have joined the middle / chattering classes by trying to be different. How did these people breed? Did Mummy and Daddy love each other very much, and then one day the stork left baby Tarquin under the gooseberry bush? That's how it happens - it's a scientific fact! It says so in the bumper book of nursery rhymes!

For heavens sake - the idiot who proposed this theory was struck off by the GMC. Would you want this man as your GP...?

"The GMC, from what I have read, found absolutely nothing wrong with Wakefield's science."

Science isn't just about the conclusion written at the end. The method used is crucial.

He had no ethics approval for his study. He recruited children for blood tests at his sons birthday party and gave them money. He subjected children to highly invasive tests which can have negative consequences without clinical rationale or ethical approval i.e lumbar puncture. His results couldn't be replicated by anyone else (validity). The original paper which sparked this debacle was an observational report of 12 children.

Sadly it seems that many people have decided they are against the MMR, multiple vaccines or both, and having argued the toss are actually a bit embarrassed to say they have changed their minds and now accept the scientific and medical advice.

Don't be embarrassed or feel silly or whatever. You don't even have to tell your friends you have changed your mind as the GP/practice nurse won't tell anyone.

Triple vaccines mean fewer needles stuck in children. There is no hidden agenda. Just proven empirical fact.

I am sure that there are intelligent MN here who have had children develop autism after the MMR. However it doesn't mean that the MMR was the cause. Autism manifests itself at around the same age that the MMR is given. You could just as easily say that you gave your child spag bol for tea for the first time, and then they woke up the next morning with autism, ergo it was the spag bol wot done it...

What a load of shit you spout Extractorfan - what are you even saying?

Just because you believe the MMR is as you say the 'least-intrusive, most effective and least distressing way of protecting their offspring from these awful diseases'

it doesnt mean this is fact and everything else is shit

single vacs are ACTUALLY more effective and I am glad I had my son vaccinated against measles mumps rubella AND chicken pox (did you vac against chicken pox or just the ones that were free?) and the only dilemma now is do i forgoe the mumps until it becomes available so stop trying to sound clever like you know what you are talking about

An excellent and highly grammatical point MsKalo. Would you be able to provide the peer-reviewed articles that show that single vacs are ACTUALLY more effective? Unfortunately I was unable to find any when I was faced with the choice.

Then we may all be able to make an informed decision :)

Maybe we ought to ask Vanessa Whitburn to include this debate when Helen Archer's baby is born...?

We did seperate vaccs and only had first mumps vacc as it was still available when we had first round. I'm not worried.

Extractorfan, I think your post was somewhat patronising and assumes that you are right, and everyone who disagrees is wrong...

Purplewednesday great posts.

You've literally said everything that needs to be said, but I fear that people don't want to hear.

But does it not come the the whole thread that those who are for the triple vaccine are informed, and those who are against are slightly irrational?

As far as patronising goes, may I quote MsKalo?

'(did you vac against chicken pox or just the ones that were free?) - it reminds me of that old Harry Enfield catch-line, 'We are CONSIDERABLY richer than Yow' (spoken in a Black Country accent)

MsKalo - combined vaccines are more effective - only slightly I think but more effective nonetheless.
None of this lot matters a jot though if you are uncomfortable with it. I feel for parents now with all the bad media of the past few years. Even as a HV I had a difficult time making the decision about MMR - I did give MMR as I felt on balance it was safe. My son is autistic but has always been so - the autistic issues which he has have always been there.

I am still persuaded though by parents who say that their child changed after the MMR. It stands to reason that some children will be damaged by vaccines - just as they can be damaged by anything else. It all comes down to risks and benefits. Do the benefits outweigh the risks. With MMR I believe they do but that's MY belief and may not be yours - each to their own. I personally know someone whose child was damaged by encephalistis 6 weeks after the MMR. The doctors don't think it was caused by the MMR she believes it was. I listen to her and believe her. Just about the only reason I'd like her to listen to the doctors is because it might give her peace of mind and prevent her from continuing to blame herself.