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,

Muppet, I am with you on not giving ds2 the jab as I have already said I am not with ds2 either.

Flight, I am glad you can understand where i am coming from.

I still don't understand how it can be safe to give the mmr and yet single jabs have to be 6 weeks apart.

if the body needs to build up its immune system between them then how can the triple be safe?

If the single jabs are given, how is the order decided? Can babies younger than 13 months catch measles mumps or rubella? How do they decide what is given first?

TLE - Your arguments are illogical, as many other posters have pointed out. One question - do you accept that you are putting your children at risk by not having them immunised?

Just read :

"MMR single vaccination gives a higher level of immunity. MMR single jabs achieve 97%, compared to 89% for the MMR. Unlike the combined MMR, mmr single vaccinations are not officially licensed in the UK, and therefore only a doctor can administer a single mmr jab."

I'm starting to think that you could argue that a 6 week gap between each could be better as the immunity is higher anyway??

gabygirl, you said

'There is very good evidence that you are putting your child at risk of serious complications from measles from not having them immunised'

Can I ask what you base this point on and can you post a link to it if possible? I know that measles can cause complications but I don't believe that it is as dangerous as we are led to believe.

And on the point of complications, there are complications that can arise from the illness, yes. But what about vaccine damage? What about the children who are unlucky enough to be triggered by a vaccine?. Most people don't have any problem accepting that an illness can trigger regression. So why not a vaccine?

'Some of them will be more vulnerable than your child'

Who will be more vulnerable? How do we know which children are those vulnerable to vaccine damage? We don't, and nobody bothers to find out and that's the problem.

'It's not just about our children - it's about all children'

I disagree - it certainly is just about my children imo, when I have to decide on their behalf whether I should sign them up to an invasive procedure, on good faith alone and not enough scientific research of the possible outcomes.

It is about them when they and I will have to live with the consequences of a bad reaction and when I would not even be able to expect to get compensation for it in such an event.

If you knew that your child was going to have a bad reaction to a vaccine, you would not decide to give it anyway to protect other people's children would you? People have their children vaccinated because they assume they will not be damaged. But those of us who chose not to feel that we would (for the time being) take our chances with the diseases instead. Everyone would put the personal well being of their child first, whatever you say. And that is how it should be.

Just continued reading at

www.channel4.com/health/microsites/F/family/parenting/qa_mmr.html

One thing to think about is if you go for single jabs and your baby gets rubella before they have the jab and you are pregnant, you could be in for some problems.

goldilocks - is that not a problem in itself? Most of us will have had rubella or a vaccine at 13 years old. Our children, however, have mostly not had it, or they have a vaccine at 18 months.

What is going to happen to our children when they reach child bearing age, as there is currently no program for young adults to have a booster?

We are all very lucky to live in the society we do. To be able to consider that a vaccine MIGHT affect our childs behaviour.

There are thousands of people in the world who are suffering from diseases who would jump at the chance of letting their child have a vaccination but unfortunatly they are not that lucky. We all know vaccinations can and do save childrens lives.

It's difficult isn't it. I do think we have a responsibility to vaccinate our children as we live and benefit in all sorts of ways from living in a "herd" and vaccination is necessary for the management of public health. I think we have a wider responsibilty than just for our own child. But it's very very hard to read some of these threads and then breeze in to get jabs done especially for MMR. My dd has had eczema flare ups after each of her jabs so far, and I read on this thread that's a reason to be considered for single jabs for mmr. But is this true? I would like to do single jabs but have also read concerns about the single jabs too. But I will have her vaccinated one way or the other because I believe I should. I'll just angst as I work out in which way i do and when.

I hate these threads - am waiting with baited breath for my 11 month old to have her MMR - because all of these people who have put a lot of though into NOT giving their children MMR have put MY unimmunised young baby at a terrible risk - but there we are I am very happy that you feel you have done the right thing for YOUR children!

gabygirl, you said

'There is very good evidence that you are putting your child at risk of serious complications from measles from not having them immunised'

Can I ask what you base this point on and can you post a link to it if possible? I know that measles can cause complications but I don't believe that it is as dangerous as we are led to believe."

Here:

www.nhs.uk/conditions/measles/Pages/Introduction.aspx?url=Pages/What%20 is%20it.aspx

"And on the point of complications, there are complications that can arise from the illness, yes. But what about vaccine damage?"

There is no good scientific evidence that children are damaged by vaccines in the way you describe.

'Some of them will be more vulnerable than your child'

'It's not just about our children - it's about all children'

I disagree - it certainly is just about my children imo, when I have to decide on their behalf whether I should sign them up to an invasive procedure, on good faith alone and not enough scientific research of the possible outcomes.

Nobody is asking you to make this decision on 'good faith' alone. There has been a massive amount of research into the safety of vaccination programmes in the UK and in other developed countries over the past few decades. That's why more or less every GP in the entire country is encouraging parents who haven't vaccinated their child to do so.

Everyone would put the personal well being of their child first, whatever you say. And that is how it should be.

But if you are making decisions that could impact on the health of some of the most vunerable children in our communities, and you are making decisions that go against the medical consensus, based on scientific research which is frankly extremely contentious.........? Or no evidence at all but just a hunch or your intuition?

Honestly - if I was a parent with a vulnerable child living somewhere like Wandsworth, where they have the lowest immunisation rates in the country and where there have been measles outbreaks...... I'd be frightened to let them attend school or nursery right now......

YABU

You have the opportunity to give your child protection against hideous diseases, which vary in their seriousness case to case.

You are willing to put your child, and many other children at risk, because of an irrational fear that has no proof despite rigorous research.

I wouldn't want to look my child in the eye and tell them that I could have taken action which would have prevented them from suffering.

If a child had a tendency to autism which was triggered by the jabs, then at least they are safe from everything else.

Do you really think our government would shell out on vaccinations for our children if the illnesses weren't truly horrific?

We moan about our government, then don't take the help offered.

I was in hospital with DD2, and they told me that the previous week a baby had died. The mum had been diagnosed breech, but mum wanted a home birth. Hospital said that although c-section preferred, they were willing to offer hospital vaginal birth. Mum's response? "I trust my body. I trust my instincts".

Home birth went horrifically wrong, and baby had huge brain damage resulting in death after 10 days.

When discussing it, Mum said "I have to trust my instincts, and believe that I took the right decision, because if I don't I couldn't live with myself."

I sometimes think that "trusting your instincts" is a cop out for choosing not to take action which is a bit uncomfortable.

Mac I was quite angry when my son got measles at 10mo, because I felt it was likely he had got it from another child who had not been immunised.

However the govt can't expcet uptake levels to be great when the vaccine has all this rumour and angst surrounding it. it's not clearly a Good Thing in so many parents' minds, it's no wonder people don't want it.

they need to sort it out. It's like prescribing stuff that has awful side effects - people stop the drug halfway, then people wonder why bacteria get resistant.

You can still get measles etc even if you have been vaccinated.

Lou, your post is good to read, makes me feel better about mmr - i wonder do you think it would be unreasonable to get single jabs?

Where shall I lay the blame them??

I gave J the single jabs. He still has autism.

BUT I didn't get him the booster because I was worried it would make it worse. I have seen and read about too many mothers who feel their child changed after the MMR. I feel that mothers know more about their children than anyone, and the stories I've read about regression after the MMR are just too convincing - loss of language etc.

So I went for the single jabs - he may not have the full immunity as he's had no booster, but it was the choice I felt happiest with.

Teenagers round here have just had the MMR booster (14/15 year olds)

'We are all very lucky to live in the society we do. To be able to consider that a vaccine MIGHT affect our child's behaviour'

Sorry - I don't really understand what you are saying, there. Are you suggesting that adverse reactions to vaccines do not happen? That my view of vaccination policy in the UK arises because I am 'lucky enough' to be able make it a hobby of mine and that it is not a legitimate concern? If so, then I find that rather offensive. Sorry if I misunderstood, however...

Pehaps you are lucky not to know a child who has been damaged by a vaccine.

My concern about vaccination policy in this country is borne out of my observations of the way 'choices' are presented and the misinformation which is frequently perpetuated by the authorities. I don't trust the official line.

For example, the UK was using mercury in baby vaccines until quite recently, even though the WHO advised that they should be removed from paediatric vaccines. There is also no clinical reason why babies have DTP at 2,3 and 4 months - except that they should be vaccinated before their mothers return to work.

These are not the only reasons, but are examples of where things don't add up, and certainly do not do anything to persuade me that the authorities think first about a child's well being.

While the 'herd immunity' argument is all very well - and that vaccination would seem to generally reduce the incidence of a disease I do not believe that it 'wipes it out' as we are so frequently told -- or that any of this is justification for some children to be sacrificed in the process for some 'greater good', or that their families should have to live with the consequences...

Why don't the gov't just offer single jabs? I had to pay hundreds for J's and most people can't afford that. They're flogging a dead horse with the MMR now because some people just won't do it but would do single ones.

...My DD had weird reactions to her first sets of jabs (the diptheria ones) so I asked my GP about whether I should MMR.
He advised not to have the MMR (off the record) and to get singles.
I had to go private of course, and it cost a lot of money, but she did not have any reactions to the singles, even though the doc said the measles one could give her a temperature for 24 hours.
The single jabs use a different kind of carrier to the MMR and the doc said the carrier is the issue with some children.
I also had her immunised against chicken pox while I was at it...

Ds has had all his jabs.

I was never in any doubt, but I do understand why some people have concerns.

I think the media have a lot to answer for.

I try not to get annoyed that people hang on to the flimsiest piece of evidence against mmr in the face of overwhelming evidence that it is safe.

It is your child and your choice to an extent, but without herd immunity children who are really unwell and cannot recieve the immunisations are also being put at risk. I think that is sometimes overlooked.

Because we live are lucky to live in a fairly sanitised, healthy environment we generally don't appreciate how serious a virus is. It is not 'just chicken-pox' or 'just measles'. The reason we have mass vaccination programmes are beause these are the things that killed and caused blindness, deafness and many other things on a grand scale.

Have your toddlers ever had 'slapped cheek' syndrome? Yes, an airborn virus-very common-parvovirus. I contracted it from someone else's child ( could have been anywhere, on a train, in a friends house )when I was 5 months pregnant. I never felt ill but my baby stopped moving the following week and was stillborn days later.

I wasn't immune. I couldn't have been immunised....but , my point is, do not undrestimate how powerful and insidious a virus is. It is right and correct to hold their threat as a genuine fear. I am pregant again and have no doubt that my children will be immunised.