To think Andrew Wakefield has blood on his hands for causing so much distrust over the MMR?

[chicaguapa]

That's it really. He's caused so much damage with his stupid little study. It was years ago, he was struck off, the study was discredited, but people still don't get the MMR because of it.

Nobelgirafe, it was some years ago but we researched a lot and were happy that the single jabs were safer than the MMR. Personal choice and affects nobody else.

I would go the same route again, the money spent on the jabs was worth it to us for peace of mind.

I have no doubt that some children do regress after having the MMR. My point is that those children are probably highly likely to develop autism anyway and that anything could have triggered off the regression. There is a lot of evidence pointing to genetics and the Wakefield study results -to my knowledge - have not been replicated.

So did the single jabs people do single jabs for every single vaccination or just MMR? If not, then if the MMR is 'too much at once' then why aren't the vast number of jabs given at a much earlier age?

Genuine question, btw, as I've only ever seen the single jabs route touted for the MMR, with the overload reason.

"There is absolutely no reason for single vaccines"

There is, and it has been said several times on this very thread, but some people just ignore what doesn't agree with their world view.

Vaccinating a baby against rubella is completely unnecessary, and I'm not in the business of injecting my babies unnecessarily an taking unnecessary risks on their behalf. That is why they have not had the MMR.

The other reason is that I am not prepared to dismiss intelligent, articulate, very knowledgeable people like Jjimjams and Pagwatch as clueless dimwits and liars when they describe how their children have regressed following vaccinations.

I don't care if Wakefield was a martyr or a crook. All that debate served was to make me learn about and question vaccines.

I had measles when I was two. I ended up in hospital and it has affected my eyesight (which is getting progressively worse). For this reason I wanted my children to be vaccinated - I didn't want them to have to go through this. I think, as measles is relatively rare these days, most people think of it as being "a few spots". It has serious side effects. But I do agree that parents should be given the option of having separate vaccines if they would prefer to do so, rather than just leaving their children unvaccinated and relying on the (diminishing) herd immunity to ensure that they don't catch it.

Dilemma my point is that I don't believe the MMR causes autism but rather triggers it off in individuals who are already predisposed.

NobleGiraffe:
Can anyone who opted for the single jabs explain why giving the same 3 vaccines separately is any safer than giving them all together?

As I already pointed out up-thread, not all the components of the multi-jabs are necessary or even desirable.

I wouldn't give rubella as others have explained it's unnecessary to a small baby. better that it's given to adolescent girls so that they still have immunity when they decide to have babies.

I would prefer to have the option to give only those innoculations that are necessary for my individual child and my individual circumstances. It does become frightening doesn't it when you see exactly HOW MANY individual components of these multi-jabs there are?

There are valid reasons why some children can't be immunised.

IMHO the government did nothing to adequately inform/reassure parents that the MMR was safe, and by refusing to provide single jabs, or at least be willing to advise on them are at least as responsible as Wakefield for the subsequent reduced uptake of the MMR.

So booboo. Imagine you had a child & you were told that they had an 80% chance of a lifelong disability from that vaccination. The vaccination you were being asked to give would protect them from a mild illness which could have serious consequences for others. You would give them that vaccine? Really? Nonsense. Of course you wouldn't. And would you really think it was 'the right thing to do'.

You are assuming that the risk from the vaccination is equal & very low for everyone. It is not. I know large families where 100% of those who were vaccinated with MMR reacted badly enough to end up in hospital and then regressed into severe disability. While 100% of their unvaccinated siblings are NT. It seems (to me) that they would be an interesting family to study to see whether it was just coincidence, but no-one has really asked those questions.

Roll on genomics. Maybe one day individual risk will be assessed prior to vaccination (or medication come to that).

'Vaccinating a baby against rubella is completely unnecessary, and I'm not in the business of injecting my babies unnecessarily an taking unnecessary risks on their behalf'

No, much better other people's babies should die or be profoundly damaged in the womb than your healthy, living, child receive a safe and widely used injection.

I don't agree crash doll. DS3 had worrying signs, the same immune red flags as DS1 and worse gut problems. I believe that had we done the same with ds3 as we did with ds1 (and I'm not just talking vaccinations) he would be autistic. He's NT.

I still see the same immune red flags & I wouldn't be surprised if he developed an autoimmune or inflammatory type problem at some stage but I think that yes we did save him from autism.

YANBU

There is no scientific evidence that MMR and autism are linked! None at all. If there is please can the 'knowledgeable' people on this thread link to it. Proper evidence based evidence. Thanks!

"No, much better other people's babies should die or be profoundly damaged in the womb than your healthy, living, child receive a safe and widely used injection. hmm"

But as an adult YOU can choose to have a rubella vaccination before you decide to start a family. You could even test to see if you are already immune, thus negating the need for the innculation at all.

So only half the population would need the injection, and then not all of them.
Much better don't you think?

Northernlurker - what do you think should happen to children left 'profoundly damaged' by vaccination?

saintly I see you often in these threads and I respect your opinion but there's no possible way of knowing you 'saved' someone from autism. In the same way, there is no real knowing if the MMR is the cause of autism in some people. If there was a direct link between MMR and autism, why have further studies not proved this?

That said, I respect every parent's right to choose what they feel is best for their child. However, I wonder if statistically, a child is at higher risk of autism from the jab or severe disability from one of the diseases?

'But as an adult YOU can choose to have a rubella vaccination before you decide to start a family. You could even test to see if you are already immune, thus negating the need for the innculation at all.'

Oh right yes of course. Becaus every pregnancy is planned isn't it

Saintly - sorry what's your question? Obviously the very small number of children who have developed medical problems as a direct result of vaccination should be financially compensated as appropriate by the government scheme and supported to live in our society, as every disabled person should be. Their situation was not forseeable and therefore preventable. A ruebella outbreak is both of those things.

If you do it at 12 or 13 you'd get everyone.

So yes.

No you wouldn't. The vaccination for ruebella used to be delivered at that age to girls. It wasn't as effective. Females under 12 can and do get pregnant btw.

Crash doll - well we may well be able to tell in the future when we know why ds1 regressed. I strongly suspect it is related to his immune response & the neurologist indicated that he felt we would have answers in 20 years or so. If ds3 is found to have the same issues (he demonstrates them already - and presumably there may be a test/marker in the future) and we avoided those triggers - then yes, we may be able to tell that we prevented it. For now I'm just grateful we have a continent, talking junior school child.

There haven't been studies looking at the children who regressed. 'Autism' is not one thing so studies looking at MMR rates & autism rates are nonsense. No one is suggesting that MMR has increased the autism rate (which most of these papers examine). And there have been individual payouts.

Northernlurker I'm just struck by your concern for those damaged by rubella but lack of concern for those damaged by vaccination. I know a rubella 'baby'. He's an adult with a family now, still with issues but doing a lot better than the kids I know personally who regressed post MMR. The compensation system is really very I adequate here (most people do recognise this). For example there would be no compensation given if your child died from the MMR given at 13 months as you have to be over 2 to claim compensation for death. Okay money isn't going to make it better, but it seems a slap in the face. It's also very very difficult to get a payout - which seems very wrong considering what families are dealing with already.

*inadequate - oh how I wish it was adequate