to not allow ds2 to have mmr jab?

[TheLadyEvenstar]

I don't think I am, after ds1 had it i noticed a major difference in his behaviour and don't want to go through it again,

Just got in after a long day out and came back to look at the thread. I've read a couple of pages after my 1st post and not 1 poster apart from Tles has even referred to what I wrote. I believe my son has been ill for the past 6 months after having the MMR jab. As dh says it could be a coincidence but is a fact that he became ill 6 weeks after having it. We are being referred to the paediatrician for the 2nd time since ds becoming ill as school have now said he is incredibly tired and they have given us the option of to reducing his hours to 2 afternoons less. Mention this to my Dr and she says there is no link. Mention it to the paed and he doesn't even want to think about it. No link.

I am not uneducated nor am I ignorant but I would like all avenues as to my son's illness explored as both my husband and I are more than prepared for this not to be linked to ds's MMR jab but no one will* explore the possibility we do not want to blame anyone but merely find out what the heck is wrong with our beautiful boy.

I cannot have ds 2 given the combined vaccination until I know that it wasn't the cause of my first son's illness.

All vaccinations carry the possibility of side effects as does the taking of any drugs, even the nhs website lists possible side effects of the MMR (which ds has many) and I am not talking about autism. Ds is extremely tired, has swollen glands (for 6 months now) had a rash, diarrhoea bouts, ear infections, paleness, tearfulness, joint aches since about 6 weeks after having the jab. He's had the most antibiotics he's ever had since it, had the most visits to the Dr, practice nurse and school nurse plus (will be) 2 visits to a paediatrician. Yet no one wants to think that a previously healthy boy who now has a shot to pieces immune system may have been harmed by giving him a triple dose of 3 nasty viruses.

Muppet I did refer to your ds1 as I know from our thread how worried you are about him and we all are too. I think it is terrible that the dr's will not explore the possibility (although seems pretty definate) of the MMR causing his illness especially as most of his symptons are mentioned on the nhs site.

I really hope you get an answer soon

By jimjamshaslefttheyurt on Sat 29-Nov-08 16:47:47
Well I think there are children out there who shouldn't be vaccinated at all. And there are immunologists etc who will tell you the same. The difficulty is getting to see them.

Allergies aren't such a huge problem for the MMR, although might be worth taking into consideration. I'd worry more about family history of crohns or autoimmunity.

Ds's aunty has MS which is an autoimmune condition. This was never mentioned before the MMR jab was given.

not getting an you tles and I did notice you referred to it xxx
Just feel this is how it'll be until ds illness goes or I go away!

I haven't had DS3 vaccinated at all. And yes it's through fear. I am terrified he'll be one of those few that that have a serious reaction, I'm also terrified he'll catch one of the diseases and have a serious reaction. I feel incapable of making a decision as it could be the wrong one.

I don't need people telling me I'm an idiot or irresponsible or any the other things that always get thrown about on these sorts of threads.

The posts giving facts on both sides do help and I am leaning towards getting at least some of the vaccinations for DS3 after reading some of the responses.

I gave DS1 all his vaccinations without a worry but since my DS2 died I seem to have become very over protective of DS3.

I know most people have debated perfectly nicely but some comments have been horrible.

I need someone to hold my hand and help me make sensible decisions (as am struggling to do that) not say things about how by not having vaccinated I'm risking everyone else's child and am a selfish, selfish person.

HedgeWitch - yes I also believe there must be some sort of predisposition but then surely that gives people every right to be cautious of triggers, if that is the case. And with respect it's not for you to decide what criteria a child should meet for their parent to wish to avoid vaccination.

pregnant hedgewich Aspergers- epsecially when there is AS and/or the broader autism phenotype in the family (multiplex families) is caused by multiple genes and usually does not have a very big environmental factor.

This is different from simplex autism (where no one else in the family history has autism) and in many cases of regressive autism. Here the genetics seems to suggest single genes at play with environmental factors playing a larger role in some cases.

You can't talk about 'true' autism and 'not autism' as there is no such thing. It's not one condition- it's defined by the triad of impairments which doesn't necessarily relate to brain damage. You may be thinking of cases of mitochondrial disorder where there are other more severe disabilities as well.

My son bears little relation to someone with Aspergers in terms of his brain damage (I suspect many with AS would not describe themselves as 'damaged'), he is brain damaged, the factors that affected him, the genetics underlying it or the way in which his autism was triggeredor developed. He still has autism. None of that is controversial btw. I attended a talk in May with a world expert who talked about the different genetics of autism and the differences between multi gene and single gene autism. And the differences betweeen multiplex and simplex families.

Wakefield's research has not been discredited. It still stands. Read the details from the GMC hearings. I suspect its libel to suggest he's insane and dangerous.

Chubbydick - of course you're not selfish. I have met a lot of people who have vaccinated an older child without question then something has happened which has made them question that decision. (Fall into that camp myself). Not sure if its been mentioned but Richard Halvorsen's book the truth about vaccinations is very good. I'm going to go and see him before giving ds2 or ds3 any (and get him to do them).

I sometimes feel that at the moment, with the lack of research on Autism, we are in the situation that people were in in the 19th century when they talked about people dying of a 'Fever'

Superficially there are connections between a variety of diseases, but the causal factors proved to be wildly disparate.

Same I feel with ASD, some similarity of symptomology, but probably a vast range of real conditions at play that at the moemnet we know bugger all about

I would be grateful if you could link to research that tests Wakefield's hypothesis (there is none). The research supposedly discrediting Wakefiled's research actually shows that MMR is safe for the majority of children. Wakefield does not disagree with this. His concern is with a small subset of children. (about 7% of those with an autism diagnosis). His hypothesis - that MMR triggers autism in a small subset of children has not been tested, so therefore cannot have been discredited .

All Wakefield has ever said (the thing that caused this fuss) was that single vaccinations should be given whilst further research was carried out on the MMR. That's it. He has never suggested not vaccinating. Hardly mad or dangerous (striving for the safest means of vaccination- how radical )

And if you actually read the goings on at the GMC trial you will find that Richard Horton -editor of the Lancet- says the paper still stands. The GMC hearings actually makes scary reading. In the main as to how on earth the 3 doctors ended up on trial when there is very little to haul them up on.

The paper has never been withdrawn - 'an interpretation' of the paper was withdrawn by some. Which is ludicrous doublespeak. I can interpet something however I wish, doesn't mean the author needs to withdraw that interpretation.

The Wakefield thing is an example of where the media have obscured the debate and missed the important points entirely.

For example one of the papers supposedly discrediting Wakefields' research is Taylor et als. Oft cited. REad the blasted thing. It says in the discussion that their research has not ruled out the possibility of a rare idiosyncratic reaction in a small number of children. THAT is Wakefield's hypothesis. That's it. That is what he is saying. So a paper supposedly discrediting actually says he might be right

Infertility as a rare complication of mumps happens only when it infects adult males for the first time.

Mumps does not cause infertility in children.

As said before, MMR only bestows 80% immunity against mumps, AND the immunity (hopefully) gained does not last a lifetime. So you run the risk of immunity running out at a time when men are most vulnerable to infertility as a side-effect.

Like with rubella: Stop mass vaccinations. Vast majority will have mumps in childhood and will be immune for life. Within the small portion who didn't get it, test only the boys at age 8-9 and vaccinate those who are not immune.

yes, jimjam, I think it's mad the way wakefield was demonised and mocked. All he did was some research, and the government didn't like his findings.

OH the wicked man what use is science if the scientists are under presure to get a certain result before they've begun.

My DC are unvaccinated and will remain so. It has nothing to do with Wakefield, autism, or recent controversy.

Has anyone ever seen these graphs showing the decline in deaths from infectious diseases over the hundred years or so before the vaccines were introduced. They are fascinating.

In 1987, the MMR vaccine was introduced in Denmark. By 1991, the number of cases of autism had begun to rise sharply in four year old children

Fortunately, the NEJM article included some of the raw data from the study. An excerpt with out comments is included on the left below. On the right, some clarifying comments have been superimposed. Note the middle column of each table excerpt: 440,655 vaccinated children are the group that received six vaccines in the first year of life plus the seventh vaccine, the MMR, at a median age of 17 months. The right hand column, labeled 96,648 unvaccinated children actually were vaccinated with 6 vaccines in the first year of life but who did not receive the MMR.

The group of children who received 7 vaccines, had a total of 269 cases of autistic disorder. The group of children who received 6 vaccines (no MMR), had a total of 47 cases of autistic disorder. These difficult to read figures translate to: 61 cases of autistic disorder per 100,000 children in the group that received the MMR vaccine. 48.6 cases of autistic disorder per 100,000 children in the group that did NOT receive MMR vaccine. Clearly the MMR vaccine contributed to autism but of course was not the only cause.

www.vaclib.org/basic/mmr-errors.htm

Stewie - As jimjams has said, those studies tested the hypothesis of whether or not MMR caused autism. No it doesn't, not in the general population.

What Wakefield said was that a small percentage of children were vulnerable to MMR and digressed into autism following the vaccine. There has been no study, anywhere, that looked into this small subset.

That study in Sweden etc that you refer to look at the general population and concludes that it is safe for the general population. The numbers are too small to be statistically significant in such studies.

It's just an editorial piece, I'll have a look for the actual research.

Anyway, The Lancet, which published the original Autism-MMR link research (which has since been decredited) says:

Is the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine safe? Yes, acceptably so, is the only conclusion possible to reach in the face of the totality of the epidemiological evidence. There are no substantiated data to suggest that the MMR vaccine causes autism, enterocolitis, or the syndrome first described by Andrew Wakefield and his colleagues in The Lancet in 1998. New research from some of the same authors as the 1998 Lancet report, in conjunction with a Dublin group led by Prof John O'Leary, has been published early online in Molecular Pathology. Fragments of the measles virus genome are reported in 75 of 91 children with ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, enterocolitis, and developmental disorder, compared with five of 70 control children. But, crucially, these data do not support any link to the MMR vaccine, since no vaccine-specific strain data are presented for measles, mumps, or rubella. This latest twist has prompted Prof John Walker-Smith to end his silence since the publication of the first 1998 paper, of which he was the senior author. In this week's Correspondence columns (see page 705), Walker-Smith endorses the use of MMR, and calls for an independent research agenda into the causes of the bowel and behavioural disorders in this small and select group of children.
Sadly, a balanced scientific debate has given way to personal attacks and unreasoned demands for single vaccines. Public faith in the MMR vaccine has been eroded, leading to falls in its uptake and now outbreaks of measles in the UK. Unless public opinion swiftly changes, measles, mumps, and rubella cases will become commonplace, with their resultant deaths and sometimes serious morbidity, mirroring the pertussis vaccine scare in the 1970s. Doctors need to present all of the evidence to parents to allow them to make informed decisions, and that evidence comes down in favour of MMR.
But the debate also needs to move beyond the safety of MMR. What of autism and the burden it brings to children and parents? As Walker-Smith highlights, these children are ill-served by the current fear that MMR causes autism. The UK Department of Health announced last week that £2·5 million was to be given to the Medical Research Council to support autism research, following publication of the MRC's report on autism in December, 2001, which documents that six per 1000 children under 8 have an autism-spectrum disorder. Whether the actual number of cases is increasing or whether this high prevalence is due to increased awareness will be an important area for future research.
What is clear from the MRC report is just how much is unknown about the physical and psychological abnormalities that may underlie autism, let alone the possible causes. Functional brain-imaging studies have shown underactivation in areas associated with planning and control of complex actions, and in areas linked with processing socioemotional information. Brain neurotransmitter abnormalities have been reported. Psychological theories focus on social understanding, control of behaviour, and ability to focus on detail, but there are large gaps between theory and practice. A genetic component to autism-spectrum disorders is established, and the search for autism-susceptibility genes is underway. But the complexity of the autism-behavioural phenotype and the lack of knowledge about the developmental processes that are disrupted in autism are hampering molecular research. In addition to infections, prenatal exposure to drugs, perinatal complications, and diet have all been suggested as environmental triggers of autism, but independent replication will be critical in establishing whether any of these factors is relevant.
In 1998 in The Lancet, calling for an effective pharmacovigilance system for detecting vaccine-associated adverse events, Robert Chen and Frank DeStefano said ?Without such a system, vaccine-safety concerns such as that reported by Wakefield and colleagues may snowball into societal tragedies when the media and the public confuse association with causality and shun immunisation?. Unfortunately, this is exactly what has happened with MMR. In addition to such a system, a clear research agenda into the causes, developmental abnormalities, and treatments of the autism-spectrum disorders is needed.