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,

My grandmother was deaf in one ear since childhood de to measles as a child.

My DH caught mumps out of the blue as an adult. He - a healthy strong 28 year old - was very very sick for months and we faced the real possibility that he was infertile. He was lucky on that score but other men arent. I understand the reservations but important not to underestimate how nasty these run of the mill "childhood" diseases can be.

As I understand it, many cases of autism are not family related but arise from spontaneous mutations in genetic material which is why most parents of (low functioning) autistic children cannot identity a family member with autism. I would agree that in general terms, only high functioning autistic people are likely to pass on their own mutation to another generation which then creates a pattern of familial genetic autism. Rare reactions to vaccintations do happen to autistic children and to non autistic children alike so with regard to OP it's not unreasonable to have fears and concerns but there is no such thing as a risk free lunch.

ChristmasFairy - re "Cote, to your last point about mumps and infertility...I believe that is NOT a myth! I am pretty sure it isn't a myth"

Mumps very VERY rarely causes infertility when it infects adults (after puberty). It does not cause infertility in children.

I don't know what you mean by "I believe" - mumps isn't a religion. You either know, or you don't know.

And obviously you are in the latter camp if you "believe" mumps causes infertility in children. You clearly have internet connection, why don't you read up on it.

There's a lot more work on the immune system than random genetic mutations (which are never going to have huge effect).

Here's an example here

I just have to second Kerala. I know someone (a man) who caught mumps aged 12 and was rendered infertile becasue of it. Just because it's rare doesn;t male it mythical. Complications from MMR are rare. That's what this whole debate is about.

Can you people read?

Nobody is saying mumps doesn't very rarely cause infertility in men if caught after puberty.

It Does Not Cause Infertility In Children.

ahh Cote
discussing the MMR can occasionally cause blue discolouration around the face and neck.
Additionally neck injuries from repeatedly beating head against computer keyboard.

Hmm. Would I prefer DS2 had caught mumps and become infertile?
Well he will never be a father anyway so ....
Yes . I am pretty sure I would swap with infetility

Unbelievable.

I think I would take anything but death over autism.

Here, pagwatch, have a very un-Cote hug. I can't believe what you must have lived through, and how painful it must still be.

Marla - from what I know it can get quite complicated if you decide you want a particular strain of vaccination. There are three main types I understand - the Shwarz (sp?) being the same one as is used in MMR I think. But I am not as knowledgeable as others on here and am sure they can tell you more....I do know that if you go abroad there is in some countries more widespread use of mercury-based vaccines which some people are concerned about.

Cote..pag had already explained what you meant, and I already had that lightbulb moment....
I wasn't trying to be argumentative....I just misunderstood your comment, iykwim...

By the way, re someone's reference to much emotion affecting parents' decision on MMR and "risk" of autism being lower than "risk" of catching measles, mumps, rubella:

That risk assessment tells me that some people here are confusing risk and probability.

Probability = The likelihood of an event occurring
Risk = Probability x Impact of an event

Take Russian Roulette.
Probability of getting the bullet = 1/6 = 17% (low)
Risk = Enormous. 1/6 x certain death (very high)

Coming back to MMR example:
Probability of catching m, m, or r: let's say 80%.
Risk = 80% x a childhood illness (a week of illness, but nothing major, as long as you take DC to hospital at first sign of anything unexpected)

Probability of autism = very low, let's say 0.1%.
Risk = Enormous. 0.1% x losing your child (mentally), irreversibly.

Therefore, while probability of catching measles, mumps, and rubella is certainly lower than one's child regressing into autism, risk of the latter is much higher.

Mums have an instinctive understanding of the above (that no illness is worth chancing autism, no matter how small the possibility) but can't explain it and hence are branded "emotional" in their decision. It isn't so.

I think the NHS should offer single vaccines.

It is obvious that a lot of people are dubious about the MMR and will continue to refuse to have their children vaccinated causing another world of problems.

My DS had single jabs as my sis is debilitated with Crohn's so strong family link there. It cost a a bit but wasn't worth the eensy teensy risk that something may happen as a result.

Also, when DS had his first set of singles, I was told that he could have a blood test just before his boosters to see if he needed to have them or not.

They would see if he was fully immunised from the first lot first.

That might be an option to all those who cannot afford boosters.

To add to cotes post- the risk of autism from the MMR is not the same for every child. Most children will have a very very low risk. A very few children might have a very high risk

at cote giving un-cote like hugs.

Thank you Cote. Much appreciated.

jimjam - You just set the stage for more of my lecture on probability and risk

Most children will have low probability of autism following MMR. Few children will have high probability of autism following MMR.

The risk will be high for both groups, regardless of the difference in probabilities, because the possible outcome is so terrible.

Would you play Russian Roulette on your child? What if the bullet was 1/1,000? Would you pull the trigger if chances of getting the bullet was 1/10,000?

I wouldn't. And it wouldn't matter if chances of killing DD were 1/6 or 1/100 or 1/1,000,000. Lower probability doesn't mean much when the possible outcome is so horrible, and hence the risk remains unacceptable regardless of the probability of getting that outcome.

htmotedazur- fertility is a possibilty and has happened. Yes it is quite rare, however, it can happen.
see here
Cmumps.researchtoday.net/about-mumps. along with other potential risks it is worth 'risking' vaccination.
www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs286/en/index.html
The above link shows the potential for severe complications in un vaccinated children.
pathmicro.med.sc.edu/mhunt/rubella.htm
The last link is a fairly convincing reason to vaccinate. It may only present a risk to pregnant women, however, since it is most damaging at the beginning of pregnancy when many women are unaware of being pregnant it could potentially affect lots of womens fetuses if the disease became widespread due to poor uptake of vaccination.
You are extremely ignorant of the very real risks posed by these diseases. The reason that death rates are so low is because most developed countries vaccinate.
Since the latest figures for Scotland suggest that 35 per 10,000 children have autism and only 6% of these are potentially due to MMR. It would suggest that the risk to an unvaccinated child are far greater from the diseases than autism.

mytether
do you just keep posting without reading what anyone else says.

Do you seriously think that my 6 year old DD is at a greater risk from mumps than from the catastrophic effects that the MMR had on her sibling?

Seriously?
And would you vaccinate her given her brothers confirmed regression from NT 18 month old?

I am interested.

"The reason that death rates are so low is because most developed countries vaccinate."

No it's not. The reason measles death rate is low is because we are generally well nourished, well housed & measles has been in the community for hundreds of years.

Neither rubella nor mumps is dangerous to the child who has it.

Risk and probability are statistical terms used to assess whether suppositions have evidence to support them - they cannot tell you whether an event is possible in itself. A risk analysis of children being eaten by pink blancmanges would not tell you whether pink blancmanges can eat children - only that there is a low risk of it happening - although it might also be that further research would find evidence of sabre toothed blancmanges.

mytether - Congratulations, you have linked to a site that says exactly what I said.

Repeat after me:

Children.
Mumps.
Not Infertile.

Teenagers.
And.
Adult men.
Mumps.
VERY RARELY.
Infertile.

"You are extremely ignorant of the very real risks posed by these diseases. The reason that death rates are so low is because most developed countries vaccinate."

Heavens help me

Let's address your (very persistent) ignorance.

(1) RATE by definition, means FREQUENCY - i.e. number of occurrences being low (following high vaccination rates) does NOT affect the death rate, which is in PERCENTAGE.

Death rate is low because these diseases are just not that deadly, and has declined over the years, because we have better access to hospitals, better diagnostic tools, and better medicine.

and

(2) I was born and raised in a developing country. I am 37 years old. Back then, there was no such thing as MMR, nor even single vaccines. I had measles (twice), mumps (both sides), chicken pox, and rubella. Everybody I know also had all of these childhood diseases. We were sent to play with children who had these diseases so we would have them early, fgs. Nobody had any complications whatsoever. And Turkey in the '70s was hardly the pinnacle of health and medicine.

Comparing this to MMR/autism, I personally know several children who severely regressed after MMR, two of which are now severely autistic.

Suffice it to say, very politely, that I know a bit more about these childhood illnesses than little miss tether, whose "knowledge" is based on internet access and Googling ability.

after years of mothers who had witnessed sabre toothed blancmanges being dismissed as hysterical and needing someone to blame the munch marks in their children. And of people identifying a new syndrome where blancmange shaped bites spontaneously appear in otherwise normally developing children.

And then there is blancmange by proxy where mothers bite their own children to....

I've taken it too far now haven't I?