Singles vaccines, is it true there are no mumps available?

[mummytowillow]

Hi

The time has come for DD to have the MMR and I'm really not happy giving to her, hubby has agreed we will do the singles but on DH2000 website I noticed that the mumps is not coming in until 2009??

So if this is true, any ideas where I can get it? We live in Kent but willing to travel to London etc?

Sorry but think some of you on here are utterly barking mad. Ignoring the evidence which says vaccines are safe for the majority of children.

If you don't want your children protected that's fine but make sure you keep them away from others - you never know who they will pass it onto.

Oh and when they unwittingly give rubella to a pregnant woman who did not know she was susceptible make sure you say "sorry but my child is more important than yours and anyway - you should have been tested"

What a selfish and unfeeling bunch some of you are.

The vaccination programmes in the UK (as in the majority of countries for the majority of jabs) are a public health programme. That is they are designed to protect the largest number of people in the cheapest and most efficient manner. It was found to be more effective to provide rubella as part of the MMR, and that's why it is given that way. Rubella caused miscarriages and congenital abnormalities were found to be reduced through the new programme, probably because uptake was higher in babies than in 12 year olds. My mother had a stillbirth as a result of rubella. My siblings and I all had it sub-clinically, and had passed it to her. She didn't even know she was at risk, as none of us even had spots.

Msd -- you are bang out of order and haven't really thought very hard about what you are saying.

msd - My argument is not that pregnant women should have been better prepared and if they weren't screw them anyway.

My point is that there should be a rubella immunisation program, and it should start for girls at about age 10. When they are likely to need it. Once this has been in place, women will be more aware of the dangers of rubella to their unborn children and will have their immunity checked/get boosters as necessary.

My point is that it is ridiculous to vaccinate the whole population of toddlers simply to protect pregnant women, when we could simply vaccinate girls of a certain age instead.

My main worry with vaccinations is that there is no clear cut advice, no honest opinions from the medical community. I want to know which illnesses are very dangerous, and which are less so, what the danger signs are and what to look out for in complications of something like measles, mumps or rubella. I want to know if it is really worth it to not let my son have the rubella jab and then be able to watch out for it if he gets it and be able to manage it so he might get a natural immunity, which has to be better than a jab. I want to be told, by a doctor, honestly, what that percentages are on the MMRs that don't work, or how long they last.

I just want the truth. And we have become so caught up in the debates and the medical community have become so caught up in not allowing single jabs, or money, or being scared of starting panic, that they won't give a straight answer any more. Which is surely what everyone wants.

I just think that the sensible thing to do is to always question what is best for your child, and sometimes that goes against government guidelines. Because they do not always have your child best interest at heart. I am sure that history shows this.

msd - Is there a name for this planet you are from, where mothers are supposed to care more for the health and well-being of an unknown woman's fetus than their own children?

I am only asking because in this planet, nobody would question the fact that a mother cares first and foremost for her own child's safety.

You are right, though, in saying that vaccines are safe for the majority of children, which means there is a minority who will be terribly affected by these vaccines, with devastating and permanent results.

You should join us in asking why there are no studies to determine for whom vaccines are not safe so these children can be spared a terrible fate, rather than expecting them to be sacrificed for the common good, and calling us "barking mad".

"You are right, though, in saying that vaccines are safe for the majority of children, which means there is a minority who will be terribly affected by these vaccines, with devastating and permanent results."
Equally most children emerge from these childhood illnesses unscathed but a minority do not with equally devastating and permanent results.
As I said before individuals have to decide which outcome they can best live with should the unlikely happen. And let's look at the facts available from both arguments which do show that the majority of children will be ok either way.
My only reservation in this is still for those children who can't have the vaccines and who would be most vunerable where there to be say a measles epidemic. If immunisation levels continue to fall these children and those whose parents chose not to vaccinate, will no longer be able to rely on the cushion of protection provided by those who do.

I agree that there are risks both ways and that we each evaluate them differently, which is why I would never insult the intelligence of those who go the MMR way, nor call them "barking mad".

My understanding of the risks of measles & mumps is that (1) complications are extremely rare, (2) if complications arise, they are well understood and effectively treated, given that you have the good sense to take your kid to hospital in time. The only person/child who died from measles since 1992 was a traveller with underlying health conditions.

On the other hand, complications that arise from vaccines are not not well understood at all. Basically, children who show adverse reactions to MMR and develop severe conditions are abandoned to their fate, their parents told "Oh he must have already had that gut condition and you didn't notice" or "So he regressed after MMR? Well, autism develops at this age, anyway".

And there is Nothing To Do. Medical establishment does not know enough about these conditions brought on by MMR in a small percentage of children to be able to treat them.

This is why I would rather take my chances with measles and mumps, the actual diseases which I had and so did everyone I know, with no adverse reactions. If there are any problems, at least, there are solutions.

I don't think it is really valid to quote recent mortality rates bearing in mind that there hasn't been a recent measles epidemic. I believe the real risk will only become apparant if and when such an epidemic happens. And the brunt of that risk will be borne by those either not well enough or old enough to have the vaccine.
For the majority catching measles or mumps will do no long term harm but then neither will the vaccine for the majority.
Sadly I don't think any government will ever spend public money on research in to adverse reactions to vaccines....Not fair but a fact of life.
I too would never call someone "barking mad" for the choices they have made so long as those choices are well thought out and they don't try to influence the decisions of others on a subject where there clearly is no right or wrong choice just a personal choice.
You have chosen to take your chances with the illnesses and hopefully your dcs won't be amoung the minority who do suffer long term side effects should they catch them. I chose to have the MMR for my children and risk the possible side effects which thankfully didn't happen. I respect your right to make that choice as I'm sure you respect my right to make the choice I did. I don't agree with you obviously but the choices you have made for your children are simply that. So long as they don't affect my dcs which, as they have been vaccinated and I have no plans to have anymore who could be exposed to measles or mumps before they are old enough to have the vaccine, they won't.

There are about a hundred cases of measles every year and it is meaningful to note that there has been only one death in 18 years. The conclusion is that it is not a terribly mortal disease. If there are complications, you go to hospital, you get the necessary care, and you are fine afterwards.

My point (which you have not answered) was that, in contrast, complications resulting from MMR are very poorly understood, unresearched, and have no treatment, let alone cure. Effects are life changing and permanent.

This is the difference between complications of measles/mumps and complications of vaccines.

I haven't answered your question about the complications resulting from MMR because I have no experience of a child being in such a position and concede that you are obviously much better informed on that subject given that you have chosen the route that you have. The alledged link between MMR and autism and bowel disease came to the press after my children had been vaccinated so was not a huge concern for me at that time (except in the case of my dd who has just recently had her MMR booster because I had concerns re rubella immunity). I concede that had my children been younger I may have felt differently and would have certainly reasearch the subject as I did before my dcs had the DPT vaccine. My only direct experience of alleged vaccine damage involved the whooping cough vaccine.
We will have to agree to disagree about the relevance of recent mortality rates. I still believe that should herd immunity fall below the levels required to prevent an epidemic the rates of significant long term injury and death would inevitably increase. I appreciate that you don't share this view and respect your opinion.

It wasn't a question. It was a point. Personal experience was not necessary to comment on it.

Cote
I agree. My Ds's reactions to the MMR were considerably more than just severe ASD - and yet no one at any point has expressed any interest in investigating his other symptoms.
Those parents who have tried to get symptoms investigated have had to work bloomin hard to get any support.
I would love to have the children like mine identified so that people can recognise those vulnerable to jabs rather than having to make assumption and best guesses.

Sorry didn't necessarily mean personal experience although I do have personal experience re whooping cough. I simply meant that you have obviously done much more research about the links between MMR and resulting possible complications. The only research I have seen has fairly whole heartedly discredited any significant link. But, as I said my dcs had had the vaccine before any info on the alledged link came to light, so I didn't have the same motivation to look in to the links as someone with dcs that age might. All I am convinced about though is that the risks are very small and just as the risks from the diseases can be dismissed as minute so can he risks from the vaccine.
I also know that there are people out there who do rely on the protection from other immunised children to protect their unimmunised dcs. In the case of those too young or unwell to be immunised I think this is a good thing. But those who use herd immunity when making their decision not to immunise and not expose their dcs to the perceived risk from the vaccines...that doesn't sit quite so easily with me. I'm not implying that this is the case with you btw.

Your posts are very measured. But it is hard to accept some of the points you make because they are not well researched. You shouldn't be convinced that the risks are very small. How do you know if you haven't done the research? It's just like researchers saying: Well we don't know what is causing this autism epidemic -- but we know FOR SURE it's not the vaccine. How do they know, when they don't know what the cause is? It's impossible, and it's nonsense.

I would also question your faith in herd immunity. I do believe mlud that herd immunity in a vaccinated population (as opposed to an unvaccinated) is a load of old tosh.

Sorry that last bit wasn't very measured.

bleugh
I did once as a paed how it was that he had not a goddamn clue what had caused my sons violent regression and onset of bowel problems yet remained convinced that the one single thing that had not caused it was the MMR.

lol
did he blither rather unconvincingly or did he chuck you out

he muttered and hurrumphed.
We had made our point
but then DH got all carried away and started asking "perhaps it was marmite or ..or maybe M&S babygrows...or teletubbies - could it be the telitubbies? They started about the same time. Yes it was . It was Tinky goddam winky"

and then the moral high ground was gone.
We just got our coats

I take your point ...I think my main motivation for posting is that I once had a conversation with a dad who firmly sat in the "well everyone else can immunise their children so I don't have to" school of opinion which very much annoyed me as I think it is a selfish attitude to take.

Why is herd immunity a load of old tosh? As it is the reason why I was annoyed with mentioned parent would like to know if and why I am wrong to believe what I do.

Anyway to the business in hand.

Let's just say that MMR is 95 pc effective (it's not, but let's just say it). We're told that 95 per cent take up is necessary for herd immunity. That means If 1000 children in a school are vaccinated, 50 will be non immune. My unvaccinated child will be much more likely to catch measles from one of those, than they will be from him. If there is 95 pc take up, then out of 1000 children in a school, about 900 will be non immune. The rest should be immune. An outbreak will not affect those. So the numbers of vaccinated nonimmune and non-vaccinated non immune will be the same. So one group is being asked to take an unknown risk for another group the same size, and is currently asking -- why? If the numbers of non-vaccinated (thus non-immune) grow, then you are asking a larger group to take a unknown risk for a smaller group, and they will be more likely to ask why.

This is not about the hypothetical boy next door with leukaemia, this is about the normal vaccinated or unvaccinated child.

If you are immune, you are immune. If you are vulnerable, you are vulnerable. Exposed to one measles case or exposed to a hundred, measles is so contagious you will almost certainly catch it.

I like your dh
facetiousness in the face of harrumphery -- excellent

Sorry if I'm being really thick here and concede that is quite likely . But why would about 900 of 1000 children be non immune if the vaccine take up was 95%?
"If there is 95 pc take up, then out of 1000 children in a school, about 900 will be non immune."
"My unvaccinated child will be much more likely to catch measles from one of those, than they will be from him." Why?

95 pc take up. And 95 pc of those are given immunity. Leaving about 100 non-immune, half of them vaccinated and half of them not.

It's not likely that you're thick but it's very likely that I'm boring sorry about that, can't help it on this subject..

Your figures don't add up.

Out of 1000 children, 950 will be vaccinated (95% take up). Of those 950, 902.5 will be immune (95% effective), leaving 97.5 who are non-immune.