to be bl**dy furious that my DD has measles because other parents won't vaccinate?

[elportodelgato]

poor DD is only 11 mo and has horrid measles all over her, full of cold, streaming eyes, diarrhea, very unhappy and sleepy and limp. I am so so for her, but more I am absolutely bloody with idiot parents who won't have the MMR!

The doctor actually told me this morning that the reason it is so prevalent in our area is because of stupid people refusing to vaccinate their children and compromising the immunity of the whole group. So now my LO, who is only 2 months off having the vaccination herself, is really really sick because of other people's stupidity. It's making my blood boil! Do people not realise how dangerous it can be in little babies? And does anyone still seriously believe the so called "research" which claimed a link between MMR and autism? It has been so completely discredited in recent years you would think people would have got over it by now and started vaccinating again

Arrgh!!

[gets sucked in]

Saying life has risks is totally different to saying you vaccinated your child primarily out of your angelic social conscience. You vaccinate primarily to protect your child. If it has a very nice secondary benefit of being socially responsible that is lovely for you. But don't pretend it is the primary reason you vaccinate. If you thought for a moment it may hurt your child you would not do it.

The goverment's own study into MMR safety, the Cochrane report, concluded safety research into MMR was, and I quote, 'woefully inadequate'

Wakefield has not been dicredited. His research, which was a small study which required further development, was halted and the media took it and ran. He has lost his career in the UK as a result. Large scale statistical studies fail to show up the small number of children [maybe around 7% of all autism] that may have been affected by MMR.

Don't you bloody dare say that parents who have seen their child change overnight just wanted somebody to blame, or never noticed it before. MMR is safe for the majority yes. Fuck the minority then.

If you want to rant at someone, rant at the government for failing to provide single vaccines to the public.

Just out of interest if your child is not vaccinated with either MMR or single vaccines because of the possibility of them developing an ASD or related disorder but then go on to catch measles whilst still young are they more likely to suffer the more severe side effects/lasting effects of measles than non-immunised children who have no links to ASDs?

Saintly agree wholeheartedly with you. To me as a complete layperson, the family history thing seems screamingly vital. And Devendra, I did plenty of research before deciding to go ahead with the MMR.

OP - YANBU. Sadly, this is going to become a more and more common situation.

I respect parents rights to decide what is best for their child but non-jabbers need to be prepared for jabbers resenting them for lowering the overall herd immunity which means that their DC's are being exposed to the MMR illnesses more than they otherwise might have been.

What is really terrifying is that once herd immunity gets low, there becomes a very real risk to young babies (of both jabbers and non-jabbers). They are too young to have the vax and they are most at risk of serious complications if they contract these illnesses.
I find it awful that I can't protect my young DD from the risk which is now higher than it ought to be.

"if it's known that there are lots of unvaccinated children in the area surely that means the risks of NOT vaccinating your own child are higher"

That depends on which you think is a riskier outcome - actually catching these diseases, or being damaged by MMR.

Mathematically put:

Risk = probability x your assessment of how bad an outcome is

Making up the numbers here:

So risk of measles = 20% (probability of DC catching it) x 4 (my assessment of how bad that outcome is - she will suffer for a week, but will then be fine, and will have lifelong immunity) = 0.8

Risk of MMR = 1% (probability of DC being damaged by MMR) x 20 (it would be a horrible result indeed) = 0.2

To each their own assessment of these risks, but just to show you that: (1) probability is but one component of the risk calculation, and (2) it is entirely possible to see risk of MMR to be higher than risk of measles.

Oh I laugh at the 'never noticed it before' comments . It is the most arrogant comment anyone can make. And then I think of the 3 year old who stopped talking post MMR. And the parents of the child with seizures.

I'm not interested in blaming anyone for my child's regression. I'm interested in understanding it so it doesn't happen again.

didnt now about that one MrsT- so even less point topping up DS3's as the LEA begs us then.

Like that is going to happen! Lost speech after first dose, in SNU now, but heck bring him back for more...

Who would actually do that?

But Cote, none of the studies on MMR so far don't support anything like that risk calculation.

"Just out of interest if your child is not vaccinated with either MMR or single vaccines because of the possibility of them developing an ASD or related disorder but then go on to catch measles whilst still young are they more likely to suffer the more severe side effects/lasting effects of measles than non-immunised children who have no links to ASDs?"

The 50 million dollar question. Although for an ASD to develop the brain damage (I am talking severe ASD now- which in the case of my son includes things like problems with muscle spasms - probably reflecting some sort of brain damage - as well as the more usual loss of speech) has to occur pretty early on, so if my 7 year old was to be damaged by measles it wouldn't be an ASD he would get - although he could certainly be brain damaged.

There are treatments though - such as vitamin A.

And the risk also depends on how likely my children are to get the disease. I probably will give ds2 a single measles vaccination before puberty (when measles risks increase) but not so sure about ds3 (who shares many physiological features of ds1).

loads of vaccinated children get measles

it's none of your business what other parents do with their children

none of your business at all

But the risk calculation is different for each family reach. DS1 has demonstrated he has problems with viruses. This may well be a genetic predisposition. If it is chances are high that his brother's share it.

The population risk factor doesn't interest me.

lowrib - That is a dumb example indeed. Out of everyone you know, vast majority will have caught STDs, at least HPV which lives in more than half of the sexually active population.

They just don't tell you they have STDs. Wake up.

That is very different than saying nobody I have ever known, nor anyone in their family, has DIED from measles. Surely I would have noticed.

Go to HPA website and check out the number of confirmed measles cases in England and Wales over the years. None of those have died, either.

What does that tell you? Could I be right that measles isn't such a killer disease in the western world, where we have access to medicine and, if necessary, a hospital?

I'll give ds4 the singles jab when either I or Dh are working again.

Frankly< i'd quite like not to but seems to me I should, can't do much about the money aspect though (he's due next month for the jab, but Dh finishes work at some random point in the next few weeks, and is off to Uni in September.

Yes, I do agree with you. I was thinking from the perspective of someone who had no genetic predisposition.

I have decided not to have my 15 month old given the MMR vaccine. He will be having the single measles vaccine instead.

Isn't it a matter of accessing risk for your child and doing what is best. In my area (Surrey) the MMR immunity is reported to be in the low sevenites percent. This is not high enough to protect him, especially now that he no longer has any antibodies from me. My decision is to vaccinate. I will also be avoiding toddler activities and contact until I know what his immune response is (I'm risk adverse when it comes to my child).

Only in Jan of this year, my local NHS hospital had an outbreak of measles in the on-site nursery. The local paper reported that a child with measles had been turned away because the only available doctors were pregnant. They had been told to go to another hospital. This is hardly a reassuring service from my local paediatric A&E.

novicemama - I am so sorry your little girl is ill. It is absolutely HORRID when a child is ill and I know how helpless you can feel sometimes.

But, on the subject of measles, I have done quite a bit of research on this, and in a healthy, well-nourished child, measles is very, very unlikely to lead to any long-term problems.

There was a lot of furore in the press in 2006 about the fact that "children were dying" of measles. Actually, one 13 year old boy died, but what the press chose not to report was that he was profoundly disabled, immuno-compromised and had an underlying lung condition. Basically, a common cold could have killed him.

There is a lot of opinion saying that Vitamin A supplements would be a much safer and cheaper way of reducing measles deaths in the Third World than any amount of vaccination. Vaccinations are NOT always safe and reliable and let's not forget: pharmaceutical companies make an absolute fortune from vaccines, they have very powerful lobby groups; and your friendly family doctor gets a cash bonus every year for meeting vaccination targets.

All that aside, your daughter is ill, and that is understandably all that matters to you at the moment. I would probably feel exactly the same in your position.

I don't think you are being unreasonable

So sorry for your poor baby girl

I have had all of my children vaccinated with he MMR

and Devendra I was NOT a sheep........ my ds1 is 1, and this all blew up the week before he was due for his vaccination.....

I spoke to my GP, and asked him lots of questions..... I wrote a list......

I asked about single vaccs..... He told me that unless you give them at least a year apart, then you may as well give them all at the same time, as the cumulative effect is the same. If you do his, obviously you run the risk of them catching one of the diseases in the mean time.

Not to mention that the strains used in the single vaccines are not the same as the ones used in the triple jab

After much soul searching I had them all vaccinated, because to be blunt I would rather risk having an autistic child than a dead one! and that is what it comes down to at the end of the day!

Also you can have their immunity checked prior to giving them the pre - school booster if you so wish

in some places the NHS is offering single vaccine - my DS has been offered it for measles at 12 months ...

Ruty - I think it oversimplifies the situation to say that 'If you thought for a moment it may hurt your child you would not do it'.

I have autism in my immediate family and yet I realise that statistically there is a lower risk associated with having the vax compared to not having the vax - which is not to say that vax damage isn't absolutely devastating for the families effected.

I will be giving my DD the MMR, though I know it MIGHT damage her.

That being said, I absolutely agree that to maintain a safe level of herd immunity that the NHS ought to make separate shots available. In the long run I think it is probably cheaper to offer the separate jabs than to cope with the fallout of a major epidemic and the long term health problems that could affect a entire generation of children if there is an epidemic.

CoteDAzur that's totally spurious! You've just made up some figures. (The good news is life is much less risky than you think! 20% and even 1% are very high risks indeed in this scenario, and bear no relation to reality).

But you're right that this is (again) an issue of PERCEPTION of risk vs real risk.

"I asked about single vaccs..... He told me that unless you give them at least a year apart, then you may as well give them all at the same time, as the cumulative effect is the same. If you do his, obviously you run the risk of them catching one of the diseases in the mean time.

Not to mention that the strains used in the single vaccines are not the same as the ones used in the triple jab"

The GP was half right. Yes they should be given a year apart (something many private practices don't do) but the strains used are the same as in the triple jab.

that should be that my ds1 is 12

reach4sky - The point is that there have been NO studies to show which children are at risk from MMR. All we know is that there seems to be a minority of children who are quite terribly and irreversibly damaged by it.

Yes, probability of being in that minority is small. But we don't know how small. On the other hand, the outcome, if DC is indeed in that minority, is quite horrible. So the calculated risk can be substantial.

Meanwhile, catching MMR diseases can have a much higher probability in comparison, but the outcome is not that bad at all. Especially for rubella, such a mild disease that some people don't even know they've had it. Or mumps, which is only really dangerous pubescent boys and adult men, not children.

What I was trying to say was that these risk calculations are unconsciously done by each of us and nobody has the right to call others "idiots" because they have arrived at a different risk number.