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,

Fantastic...as far as I am aware that natural immunity wears of at around 6month old....

Juliette should consider that little babies should not bear the burden of adult women's irresponsibility.

What burden which woman? What should I consider?

I feel like I have highjacked. I wanted to give an example of the power of a virus.

Everyone who says "You are putting my child at risk"

well DS1 is 10 and had the mmr he caught measles and was quite poorly with it so this proves that the MMR does not prevent them catching the illness. His behaviour did change drastically after having it. You have also seen on this thread other people saying their children have had side affects etc including Muppetgirl who has a ds who is still suffering 6 months on and he is not a baby.

My sister had both of her sons immunised. her ds1 is 3yrs older than her ds2, he was immunised and yet her ds2 still caught measles at the age of 10months. So being around a child who has been immnunised does not stop another child catching it.

I do find it odd that if you have the immunisations seperatly you have to wait 6 weeks between but if you have the triple it is meant to be ok!

For those who say you are putting my child at risk....well they are at risk of many things..colds, flu, sickness etc it comes in many shapes and forms. I found this on a site earlier and wanted to share it with you all. It is info on the SINGLE vaccinations.

MEASLES

This is a viral disease of childhood that presents with a rash and fever (often with initial cough and cold symptoms).

It can cause significant illness in children, and complications include ear infections, pneumonia, meningitis and encephalitis. Death occurs in 1 in 2,500-5,000 cases. A severe degenerative condition of the brain (sub-acute sclerosing pan-encephalitis) causing permanent severe brain damage occurs in 1 in 8,000 cases under the age of 2.

Measles can be prevented by MMR single vaccination. MMR single vaccination is a safe alternative to the NHS MMR schedule. Single MMR jabs are given at six week intervals. We recommend that either Rubella single mmr jab or the measles single mmr jab is given first. We suggest that the Mumps single mmr jab is left to the end of each course, as this single mmr jab is often more irritant to the child.

Two courses of single mmr jabs are required for permanent immunity: the first single mmr course is given between 13-18 months, the second ?booster? course is given at 3 ½ years onwards (the ?pre-school? single mmr vaccination).

This single mmr vaccination schedule is identical to that recommended by the NHS, apart from using single jabs as opposed to the NHS combined MMR vaccine.

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.

MMR single vaccinations are manufactured in the USA, France and India. All mmr single vaccinations are approved by the World Health Organisation (WHO), and mmr single vaccinations have a specific import licence granted by the Medicines Health Regulatory Agency (MHRA), the body that maintains strict control on the use of medicines and vaccines in the UK.

MMR single jabs are specially imported and stored at temperatures between 2-8 C., to ensure that their effectiveness is maintained.

Mumps

This is an infection caused by the myxovirus which causes enlarged salivary glands in the cheeks on top of the lower jaw, with a temperature, headache and difficulty in swallowing.

Infection after puberty can also cause testicular swelling and tenderness and could reduce fertility.

In rare cases, mumps can cause miscarriage in pregnant women. Also, it can cause pancreatitis, meningitis and encephalitis, all with potentially fatal consequences.

Mumps can be prevented by MMR single vaccination. MMR single vaccination is a safe alternative to the NHS MMR schedule. Single MMR jabs are given at six week intervals. We recommend that either Rubella single mmr jab or the measles single mmr jab is given first. We suggest that the Mumps single mmr jab is left to the end of each course, as this single mmr jab is often more irritant to the child.

Two courses of single mmr jabs are required for permanent immunity: the first single mmr course is given between 13-18 months, the second ?booster? course is given at 3 ½ years onwards (the ?pre-school? single mmr vaccination).

This single mmr vaccination schedule is identical to that recommended by the NHS, apart from using single jabs as opposed to the NHS combined MMR vaccine.

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.

MMR single vaccinations are manufactured in the USA, France and India. All mmr single vaccinations are approved by the World Health Organisation (WHO), and mmr single vaccinations have a specific import licence granted by the Medicines Health Regulatory Agency (MHRA), the body that maintains strict control on the use of medicines and vaccines in the UK.

MMR single jabs are specially imported and stored at temperatures between 2-8 C., to ensure that their effectiveness is maintained.

Rubella

This is a mild viral infection that causes a fever, rash and joint pains (adults only).

It is a trivial disease generally, but the main problem is that exposure in early pregnancy to non-immune women can cause multiple defects in a developing baby. The potential damage not only includes deafness, eye problems, and significant heart defects, but also Rubella can cause miscarriage and stillbirth.

Rubella can be prevented by MMR single vaccination. MMR single vaccination is a safe alternative to the NHS MMR schedule. Single MMR jabs are given at six week intervals. We recommend that either Rubella single mmr jab or the measles single mmr jab is given first. We suggest that the Mumps single mmr jab is left to the end of each course, as this single mmr jab is often more irritant to the child.

Two courses of single mmr jabs are required for permanent immunity: the first single mmr course is given between 13-18 months, the second ?booster? course is given at 3 ½ years onwards (the ?pre-school? single mmr vaccination).

This single mmr vaccination schedule is identical to that recommended by the NHS, apart from using single jabs as opposed to the NHS combined MMR vaccine.

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.

MMR single vaccinations are manufactured in the USA, France and India. All mmr single vaccinations are approved by the World Health Organisation (WHO), and mmr single vaccinations have a specific import licence granted by the Medicines Health Regulatory Agency (MHRA), the body that maintains strict control on the use of medicines and vaccines in the UK.

MMR single jabs are specially imported and stored at temperatures between 2-8 C., to ensure that their effectiveness is maintained

Obviously my body wasn't 'clever' enough to protect my baby. Dear god.

OK, I just read that and it is very sad. It is understandable that losing a baby because of a viral disease would fire her to argue that everyone should be vaccinated for every disease so that no pregnant woman ever has to live through what she did.

Still, her terrible experience with Slapped Cheek Disease is (although emotional and I'm sure feels very right to her) not a sound argument for why every baby should get MMR jabs.

If we didn't insist on vaccinating kids with rubella, all girls would have rubella before they reach childbearing age and be immune. Problem solved.

Instead, you are saying that even baby boys need to be injected with the rubella virus, and why? So as to avoid the minute possibility that they would catch rubella and be around a pregnant woman while contagious, the same woman who wouldn't be vulnerable if her MMR immunity didn't run out in the first place. It's insane!

just wondering - does being vaccinated against a disease mean that you cannot infect others with it if you've been in contact with someone with it?

To put it more succinctly; if DS1 had the mmr, does this mean that he would be unable to pass it onto DS2 who is 12 weeks?

Juliette - I'm sorry for what must be a very painful experience, and I'm sure that all discussion about all viral diseases feels like it is about you and your terrible experience with Slapped Cheek Diseases, but this thread is about MMR.

When people say adult women should bear the responsibility of their own health (i.e. check their immunity and vaccinate if necessary) rather than expecting babies to never be infectious, we are talking about MMR. Not Slapped Cheek Disease.

TheLady....the vaccinations will never give a 100% protection, but that is why heard immunity is important , if you avoid the outbreaks than even if the vaccine fails, there is no risk of infection, because the disease would not happen in the first place....

Cote....but not everyone would get rubella as a child , even if not vaccinated....so, those would still be at risk...unless you then say all females aged 18 or over need to get vaccinated... but what about those that can't have the vaccine?

bohemian - If your DS1 is immune (not the same thing as 'vaccinated'), he will not catch the disease. And if he doesn't catch, he can't give it to your DS2.

bohemian, I think you are only infectious if you actually have the disease, not if you got in contact with it, are immunised and therefore don't contract it....

FairLady - Girls above a certain age can easily be checked for rubella immunity and those not immune can easily be vaccinated at that point.

Boys will not be vaccinated and yet will have lifelong immunity. The vVast majority of girls will not need to be vaccinated, either, and they will also have lifelong immunity.

What is not to like?

I don't understand the "your child, your choice" thing. If you choose not to get your child vaccinated, then you contribute to the lessening of mass immunity, increasing the risk for all babies too young to have the MMR and all of the children for whom the vaccine doesn't produce immunity (about 5% I think).

So it should be "your child, your choice to potentially infect lots of babies with a potentially fatal disease".

Why do people think that the NHS is deliberately setting out to damage and injure children? Why would that be their aim? Reading this puts me in mind of luddites, or the people who claim that condoms can't stop HIV. Why are people scared of science? Why do people think the medical profession wants to hurt their kids? And why are people claiming that the effects of measles are "exaggerated"?

This is all nuts.

I have a friend of mine here with me atm and i am discussing with her the mmr. She has also raised a point made on here.

When we were 13 we had the rubella jab....as teenage girls.I don't like the idea of putting something in ds2 at such a young age.

That is given to teenagers because it is an attempt to catch all of them before any of them gets pg. I don't think it's about them being able to cope with the vaccine.

Are they not phasing it out anyway now that most people have the MMR?

I never said that I think everyone should go with the MMR. Not at all.

On the contrary, I think everyone is naturally informed by their own experiences, good and bad, pro and anti vaccines.

My objection, emotion and anger was at a poster who was basing a decision on NO experience, and in my opinion, a rather dangerous premise.

I certianly didn't mean to me me me the thread and subvert it to parvovirus.

My only other point was to highlight the reality of what a virus can do-just as people have highlighted the reality of what a vaccine can do. So often we talk of viruses in an abstract form and I wanted to tell my own story of a virus. Rare, I admit, but I think of it a bit like a plane crash...very very unlikely to happen but pretty fatal if it does.

Thanks for the good wishes for this pregnancy; I'll bow out here.

chukkypig

Let me ask you does the MMR protect your child or anyone elses from every potential danger in life?

I know for a fact when many of our parents were growing up they never had mmr vaccinations, they had polio, whooping cough and 1 other. And yet that generation are still going strong. Well my mum is at 62yrs old, and I am sure many of your parents are as well.

Totally agree ChukkyPig. Thanks too to Juliette for sharing her terrible experience and trying to widen this discussion.

I would have had my kids vaccinated for chicken pox too and think that should be available on the NHS.

Cote, there are reasons that it is preferable to try and get rubella out of the population.

No vaccine is 100% effective, there will always be people for whom it does not "take". They will therefore be at risk of contracting the virus while pregnant.

Not all people in the country are fully engaged with the healthcare regime in the county, for many reasons. Some people aren't interested, some people are recent immigrants, some are immigrants who don't speak English and don't really understand about the NHS. Some people are in situations where for whatever reason they aren't in touch with doctors etc. They will probably not be immune and therefore will be at risk of developing the illness while pregnant.

A very small number of girls fall pregnant whne very young - I don't know what age you were thinking of carrying out the screening but a lot of parents wouldn't want it too young (see the debate about the HPV jab for ref) and some girls would end up being prgnant without immunity.

The results of contracting Rubella while pregnant are so extremely terrible that a decision has been made to go for herd immunity to the disease, in addition to testing when pregant, to try to avoid any of these terrible tragedies.

It's not 'nuts'. It's called Game Theory - different players have different objectives and strategies that make sense for them.

There is a very small percentage of children who will be negatively affected by MMR. They will regress and have developmental problems.

I am the State: The cost of supporting that small number of children for life is much less than the cost of disease outbreaks. So I support MMR for all babies.

I am a parent: There is a possibility, however small, that my baby might be one of those rare children who will forever be damaged by MMR. As such, I refuse MMR and take my chances with the actual diseases, which will not be life threatening as long as I take him to hospital at first sign that something is not right.

Here is a study on Vaccination and Game Theory. Its conclusion:

"This finding formalizes an argument that has previously been made qualitatively; namely, it is impossible to eradicate a disease through voluntary vaccination when individuals act according to their own interests. In situations where vaccination is perceived to be more risky than contracting the disease (r > 1), one would expect, even without the aid of a model, that no parents would vaccinate their children."

Evenstar - lots of children used to DIE. Our parent's generation had pretty good healthcare and some vaccinations - you need to look to our grandparent's generation and those before. Loads and loads of children died. In my own family my great grandmother lost 4 or 5 of her 11 I think...

And as for protecting against everything in life - of course not. On that basis you shouldn't teach your children how to cross the road safely or stay away from strangers, yuo shouldn't teach them not to play in deep ponds, you shouldn't tell them not to play on the train tracks. To say that no one thing will protect children against everything so therefore they should not have any one thing is baffling. I don't really understand what you're getting at.

ChuckyPig - Your argument makes no sense.

As you say "no vaccine is 100% effective, there will always be people for whom it does not "take"". So even if 100% of population is vaccinated, there will still be risk to pregnant women.

And we haven't even come to the point about vaccine immunity wearing off. Usually by childbearing age, when you most need it.

Since rubella is only dangerous to non-immune pregnant women, it makes better sense to identify and vaccinate those girls. If their vaccine doesn't take, do it again.

And if a few people are "not interested", they will have to suffer the consequences. Sorry but it is entirely unreasonable to expect a whole country (the world???) to be immunised to protect them from their irresponsibility.

(Which won't even work, because as you said, no vaccine is 100% effective)

So the ideal is for everybody to choose whether or not to get vaccinated based on flawed scientific research and scaremongering in the papers, combined with a huge underestimation of the dangers posed by the illnesses being vaccinated against.

And for instance the eradication of smallpox was a bad thing which went against freedom of choice and was a "game" played by the world health people.

Cote if enough people are vaccintaed, there will be herd immunity. So the fact that the vaccine hasn't worked for everyone will be OK because so many people will be immune the illness just won't be in the community for them to catch.

It is the same with all vaccinations AFAIK.