Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Behaviour/development

Talk to others about child development and behaviour stages here. You can find more information on our development calendar.

Flip

1 2 3 4

Original poster

MMR - thoughts

96 replies

Idoitforthelove · 05/10/2015 19:29

I have two friends (one a GP) who are convinced that this particular vaccine caused, or was a factor in causing, their children's (severe) autism. They believe that Andrew Wakefield's research was valid and that the drugs companies are simply holding the NHS to ransom.

Thoughts?

My one year old is due to have the MMR next week and I don't think I'm going to be able to take her. It feels utterly unnatural to fill her tiny body with three vaccines at the same time, even if I hadn't spoken to my friends about it.

OP posts:

PurpleDaisies · 05/10/2015 20:42

You cannot distinguish between flawed methodology and flawed science. That shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how science works.

Roonerspism · 05/10/2015 20:44

The methodology was unethical. Therefore the results discounted.
But the results still stand.

You can bleat on all you like about bad science. But until further research is done to disprove Wakefield's results, then the controversy will remain and parents will choose single vaccines.

lljkk · 05/10/2015 20:48

I got jabs for 6 different diseases last week. I wonder from where my new blue horns will sprout.

Since my kids are vaccinated, they're safe from unvaccd people. Why should I care what risk you put yours to, OP? Do vaccinate or don't. Take whichever risk you like with your kids' lives. Choose the expensive extra jabs if you prefer them and don't mind your tots crying at extra pain. My arms only ached for 2 days with each jab.

Ubik1 · 05/10/2015 20:51

The results still stand?

Methodology is about more than ethics. If methodology is flawed then the results do not 'stand'

Original poster

Idoitforthelove · 05/10/2015 20:53

Lljk- I'm assuming that you aren't a one year old and that, therefore, your body is better equipped to accept a triple vaccination.
The question isn't whether or not I will vaccinate my child - but thank you for being so caring, that was really kind - it's whether or not I should investigate an alternative.

OP posts:

Roonerspism · 05/10/2015 20:55

No one has disproved Wakefield's findings. You will argue they don't need to.

I will say they do - and should. However he found it out, it is true that the kids with gut inflammation had the measles virus in their guts.

That requires further research in my books. And no one is doing it. So I choose the single vaccine.

Sidge · 05/10/2015 21:02

I don't understand the worries about having three at once.

Your immune system is exposed to thousands of pathogens daily. That's how it works.

At their 8, 12 and 16 week jabs they are vaccinated against combinations of 13 types of pneumonia, diphtheria, tetanus, polio, pertussis, hib meningitis, meningitis c, meningitis b and rotavirus. They can cope with that so coping with measles, mumps and rubella shouldn't be a concern in terms of vaccine overload.

Maybe discuss your concerns with another doctor, or ask to speak to your CCGs immunologist?

Needaninsight · 05/10/2015 21:03

I follow this lady on FB.

www.facebook.com/vaccineinfo?ref=ts&fref=ts

About vaccines in general, not just MMR.

I won't let either of mine anywhere near the MMR. Or the HPV vaccine for that matter. And as for sending my two year old for a flu jab - won't be happening.

Vaccines are not 'safe' as people keep pushing. There's a calculated risk to anything you inject into yourself, or your child. For those worried about dying from measles/mumps/rubella, there is a far far greater risk of being permanently damaged from the vaccine.

PJ67 · 05/10/2015 21:06

Hi. I understand where you are coming from and think it can be very difficult to decide. My oldest son had the mmr and my younger two have had all their vaccinations except the mmr. My oldest son developed gingivostomatitis after his mmr and was quite unwell as his gums were swollen and sore and he couldn't eat well. He recovered but the GP seemed to accept this was related and was happy not to give him the booster.
With my younger two I've just been a bit cautious, especially when another GP told me her friend's dd lost all her hair after the mmr. I don't know about autism but I just feel uncomfortable with it now. In some ways I wish I'd just gone ahead without giving it too much thought, but when you start researching it just makes you more confused. I think there are serious side effects but they're probably rare, I just can't bring myself to do it. I'm still trying to decide about the single jabs.

Let us know how you get on and what you decide. My niece and nephew age 1 and 3 have both had their mmr's with no problem but it's just such a difficult decision.

Roonerspism · 05/10/2015 21:17

sidge please note that the MMR is a "live" vaccine. The 5 in 1 is not. You are comparing apples and pears.

We are exposed directly to bugs every day. But not plunged into the bloodstream.

Perhaps none of this matters. But perhaps it does.

WanderingTrolley1 · 05/10/2015 21:24

My youngest 2 are having separate jabs - and later than scheduled.

PurpleDaisies · 05/10/2015 21:24

MMR is a live attenuated vaccine meaning the viruses have been weakened. The immune system is exposed to the antigens so it can form memory cells without the risk of contracting the diseases. If you are going to assert something as true it is important to be correct.

Andcake · 05/10/2015 21:28

I was anxious about mmr despite reading all the research - ds was a long awaited child and I was v scared of hurting him. I just feel not enough is really known and have a few friends who belief mmr could have been a trigger.
Rather than do seperate jabs I waiting a year and had ds vaccinated at 2. Dr seemed fine with my decision.
Basically I wanted to see how ds was developing before the vac.
I had ds vaccinated at 2 and it was fine.

Roonerspism · 05/10/2015 21:29

It is different to the 5 in 1 though, isn't it.

Andcake · 05/10/2015 21:30

I waited a year because at 2 I felt ds would be more robust to deal with it all as well

VashtaNerada · 05/10/2015 21:39

For those worried about dying from measles/mumps/rubella, there is a far far greater risk of being permanently damaged from the vaccine.

That can't be true! I'm sure that isn't true. (Any doctors / scientists around to back me up..?)

Sidge · 05/10/2015 21:42

I'm very aware of how the MMR and 5 in 1 vaccines differ thanks. I've been giving them for 15 years.

Yes the vaccines are different in that they are dealt with by the immune system in a different way due to how the virus acts, and so MMR has to be live. Bacteria and viruses behave differently so to create immunity they have to be given differently.

Having a live vaccine isn't in itself inherently more dangerous.

Oh and vaccines aren't "plunged into the bloodstream". They're injected into the muscle or subcutaneous layer, or given orally.

LottieDoubtie · 05/10/2015 21:48

Vashta, of course it isn't true!

The vast majority of 1 year olds in the UK have the MMR. And have done for quite some years. If there was an actual problem with it, it would be abundantly clear to the medical profession and the world at large by now.

My 1 year old had his last week. He's fine (obviously). We were lucky, he didn't even get a noticeably sore arm or a temp.

Original poster

Idoitforthelove · 05/10/2015 21:51

VashtaNerada - no, that can't be true. I don't believe that for a second.

OP posts:

PunkrockerGirl · 05/10/2015 21:58

Of course it's not true Vashta
Ignore the drivel that's being spouted yet again by some posters on here.

sparechange · 05/10/2015 22:03

For those worried about dying from measles/mumps/rubella, there is a far far greater risk of being permanently damaged from the vaccine

Absolute and total nonsense. And death isn't the only thing to fear from catching one of those diseases. DH's mum delayed his vaccinations and he caught mumps.
As a result, he is totally infertile. We've had 4 years of heart ache, a still born baby and our life savings spent on medical bills because he didn't get an injection when he should have done.
Getting diagnosed has put strain on their relationship. She caused this problem with her neglect, as far as we are concerned.

WorzelsCornyBrows · 05/10/2015 22:07

I personally have no problems with the NHS vaccination schedule and my DCs are fully vaccinated in accordance with it.

Ultimately you are the mother here and if you're uncomfortable with the MMR then by all means pay for the single vaccines, but for goodness sake don't avoid all together. There are children out there who are unable to have vaccinations for genuine reasons and they're protected to some extent by everyone else being vaccinated.

I think it should be compulsory for all children to be vaccinated before they're allowed entry to childcare and education settings, unless they have a medical note stating that they are unable to be vaccinated.

Original poster

Idoitforthelove · 05/10/2015 22:11

Sparechange - I'm incredibly sorry for your pain and heartache. You must've been to hell and back.
The MMR was introduced in this country in 1989, so unless your DH is 26 or under can your terrible problems be blamed on him not having this particular vaccine?

OP posts:

PunkrockerGirl · 05/10/2015 22:12

I think it should be compulsory too, Worzels.
I also think that if you refuse vaccination, you should pay for Nhs treatment should your child contract one of those diseases.

Original poster

Idoitforthelove · 05/10/2015 22:13

Worzels - I'm not considering not vaccinating. Don't worry.

OP posts:

Flip

1 2 3 4