To be a bit worried and consider splitting the m m r jabs

[scarednoob]

DD is only 5 months but it is playing on my mind already, as a fair few people have said they won't be vaccinating their babies at all and hinted ominously about doing my research.

I had measles quite badly as a little girl; i wouldn't wish it on anyone. So I am certainly not saying she won't be having the jabs. But from the reading I'm doing, the m m r does seen like a lot to give a little body all in one go.

I was wondering what people thought - is there any benefit to spreading them out? Am I being daft/unreasonable to worry? (I know it would mean going privately; that's not an issue.)

Thanks all!

As an aside, I'm always amazed at the faith people put in drug companies before any drug or vaccine comes to market.

There was a thread MN about side effects of the Gardasil vaccine and the reporting of some very serious problems after it. Many of these side effects have been downplayed and this doesn't help anyone.

Many of us display a healthy scepticism to big pharma. That doesn't make us quacks or stupid. It is up to all of us to allow healthy debate on these subjects without fear of ridicule

Op, I understand how you feel. DS is due his first MMR jab on Thursday and I am worried about it, even though I am a GP myself and would never consider not vaccinating my child. But the anti-vaxxers arguments do stick in my mind, even though I find them completely removed from reality.

Having said that, I would worry even more if DS weren't vaccinated because there are a few facts about childhood diseases which really scare me.

Let's take measles for example, which anti-vaxxers sustain is a harmless disease :

• Measles are so contagious 99% of unvaccinated children get them when exposed to an infected person
• measles are caused by a virus, which means there is no treatment!
• It is lethal in 1 out of 1000 children. That's nowadays, not 100 years ago!

I live in Germany, there was a measles epidemic here last year and 900 children were affected, out of which one sadly died.

There is a risk to the MMR jab, as to all vaccines. The risks of the three diseases it protects against are much higher though, so I know which one I'm going to choose.

I hope my example shows that getting the facts right regarding vaccines is easy. You don't need a degree!

Years of extensive research is required before a vaccine is passed.

You mean like how the whooping cough vaccine was tested extensively on pregnant women before being introduced in the UK?

Your statement is misleading, at best.

But nothing is ever tested on pregnant women - it wouldn't get past the ethics committee.

yanbu to be worried

But read proper research and not hippy take some lemon juice clap trap

But nothing is ever tested on pregnant women - it wouldn't get past the ethics committee.

And yet we are lied to told its "safe".

scarednoob please give your child all the prescribed vaccinations.

My children have had all they are permitted by the NHS and also ones that are good for them but were not available at the time on the NHS (and which we paid for), Pneumococcal, flu, and Chicken Pox.

There are a lot of scare mongers out there, when you read up what really happened with Andrew Wakefield and the MMR you will be horrified that there is no evidence of a link to autism, indeed "The scientific consensus is the MMR vaccine has no link to the development of autism, and that this vaccine's benefits greatly outweigh its risks."

Please see....

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMR_vaccine_controversy

"The MMR vaccine controversy started with the 1998 publication of a fraudulent research paper in the medical journal The Lancet that lent support to the later discredited claim that colitis and autism spectrum disorders are linked to the combined measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine.[1] The media have been criticized for their naïve reporting and for lending undue credibility to the architect of the fraud, Andrew Wakefield.

Investigations by Sunday Times journalist Brian Deer reported that Andrew Wakefield, the author of the original research paper, had multiple undeclared conflicts of interest,[2][3] had manipulated evidence,[4] and had broken other ethical codes. The Lancet paper was partially retracted in 2004, and fully retracted in 2010, when The Lancet's editor-in-chief Richard Horton described it as "utterly false" and said that the journal had been "deceived."[5] Wakefield was found guilty by the General Medical Council of serious professional misconduct in May 2010 and was struck off the Medical Register, meaning he could no longer practice as a doctor in the UK.[6] In 2011, Deer provided further information on Wakefield's improper research practices to the British medical journal, BMJ, which in a signed editorial described the original paper as fraudulent.[7][8] The scientific consensus is the MMR vaccine has no link to the development of autism, and that this vaccine's benefits greatly outweigh its risks."

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/7970199/Mother-wins-MMR-payout-after-18-years.html

Do you think she's 'scaremongering' Italian?

If you feel more comfortable giving single vaccines then go for that. Single mumps and rubella aren't currently available though ( a measles-rubella vaccine is available) but some people are happy enough to not give those in early childhood because they are usually mild in childhood.

The single measles vaccine (Rouvax) is effective and is manufactured by sanofi-Pasteur (the same manufacturer as the 5 in 1)

She had the third round of baby jabs yesterday (I cried more than she did!), but seems ok today. The men b one gave her a nasty reaction at 8 weeks, but touch wood has been fine this time.

I do find all the stuff about vaccine damage worrying, but I also find the diseases terrifying. My measles turned to encephalitis when i was 3; I know I was lucky to have no long lasting effects. Mumps I just remember as a very sore throat for a couple of days - but of course it is dangerous for little boys. Conclusion: we will definitely have the jabs, but I will be worried about it!

You can't get single vaccinations any more for them all but you can get a measles single and a mumps & rubella together.

I get the whole argument for them all but some people are uneasy about it, instead of trying to berate these people why not just give them singles? I think the stance the govt take and the pharmaceutical companies take is one of bullying - do it our way or you get nothing...and as for other people in boards like MN berating people you are also bullying someone else to force individuals to give them a medical procedure they don't want to however they are happy to take another route to get the the same place as you are in.

The question you should be asking is how can we help you take an alternate route not why aren't you doing it our way.

poppies that is very, very sad.

Whenever the MMR is discussed, people scream "autism" and that there is no link, which seems reasonable.

But vaccine damage - however rare - takes other forms and they aren't discussed but of course it happens. This was why I chose single vaccines.

Italian the very fact you have pointed people to Wikipedia shows how much of an Arse you actually are - Wikipedia isnt a recognised source of validated information, it's just a site where people can put on what they want.

If there is not danger in vaccines why do the govt. pay out £3.5milliom per year to people Who have been affected by vaccines? Do people just make this stuff up - no of course they don't and its idiotic to suggest otherwise.

I agree the singles should be available privately for those that want the choice. Measles is always given first and the chances of picking up mumps or rubella in between the four weekly doses are remote.

MN is very anti the single jabs. It's the anti vac people they need go target not those that choose to do it via a different method.

My daughter reacted badly to her first MMR jab and has not yet had the booster (she's 4 - the doctor though non-commital said that they would not blame me for waiting til she was a bit older, which is what I intend to do). My younger son has had the MMR too - I am all for vaccination normally and obviously he is a different child, so rationally I knew he would probably not react the same. I did however opt to have his mmr done a few weeks after the other jabs they get at 12-13m, there is probably no scientific benefit to that whatsoever but it did make me feel better, that he wasn't having 3 injections with their combined side effects all at the same time. He only had the usual minor reaction to all the jabs, mmr included (slight temperature, bit grotty for a few days).

I would assume that the MMR is one of the safest vaccinations out there... Just think, all the testing that would be been done for it before it was released, and then all of the other testing and research done on it after that idiot spouted nonsense that was stupidly believed purely for profitable gain. Compared to other things that our children will encounter, it'll probably be the safest thing!

I also that the single vaccine should have been kept available. It was a really bad idea to remove it when there were concerns about the MMR.

Excited, the other side of that is that people are very quick to dismiss any concerns about the MMR. Some MNers have reported reactions to their doctors only to be told it couldn't have possibly been the vaccine. That makes me uneasy given that under reporting of reactions is already an issue.

Maybe they're quick to dismiss them because there really isn't an issue?? Any child can have X symptom at any given time, get it just after the MMR and due to the insane publicity surrounding it they will think it's from that.

My issue with these debates is the aggressive, nasty tone used whenever anyone has any kind of doubt. Its unnecssary and utterly counterproductive to any reasonable conversation. Sneering and sarcasm rarely work as motivators to change peoples opinion.

Excited, yes, some may be coincidences but you can't automatically dismiss everything as a coincidence just because it's the MMR vaccine.

My issue with these debates is the aggressive, nasty tone used whenever anyone has any kind of doubt. Its unnecssary and utterly counterproductive to any reasonable conversation. Sneering and sarcasm rarely work as motivators to change peoples opinion.

Very true.