Why are SINGLE Vacs safer? is there still autism risk with singles?

[kalo12]

Can someone tell me the pros and cons.

my ds reacted badly to the 4 mth jabs, and has very sensitive stomach and quite allergy prone so i'm a bit hesitant about the next lot at 12 mths.

You're right, Cat, you did. Apologies. I don't think the load argument holds, that's quite a reductionist (?) viewpoint, i.e. if one load is bad for the immune system (and it's not, that's what the immune system does), then 3 doses of different vaccines at once must be that much worse. There have been sensible posts on this thread, I just felt a bit snowed under by personal attacks rather than any scientific arguments. And hereby I change "hysteria" to "furore", so I hope that's settled too.

my understanding is that the serious after effects of measles are more common and in some cases more severe than the serious effects of the MMR. Thus the chance is that your child will more at risk from measles than the MMR. This coupled with the fact that non having the MMR increasing the likelihood of other children getting it (including v. young babies for whom it is a very dangerous disease) makes vacination a no-brainer for most children imho.

I recently attended an international scientific conference on autism and yes the role of vaccinations (not just MMR) was openly discussed without anyone going off on one. And the basic opinion was that the jury is still out. Vaccinations may play a role in some situations.

If you want the in and outs of the MMR then the transcripts from the GMC trial and worth a read. Actually you can't read the transcripts because they haven't been released but you can read a report of the trial - on a biased website (Cry Shame) but if you stick to what was actually said then you can get some information. The most interesting thing for me so far was Richard Horton's comments. He was the editor of the Lancet- he is no fan of Wakefield's, but he said the original publication was 'excellent science' which 'still stands'.

What the published results show us is that MMR is safe for the majoirty of children. This comes under the heading of 'no shit sherlock' in my mind. What it doesn't tell you is whether MMR was involved in the 7% of autism cases where the gut is severely ulcerated.

Cochrane (very respected by the medics) have recommended that MMR continues to be used - but also said that the safety trials were wholly inadequate. Usually you see the first bit quoted (continue to use) but then they 'forget' the bit about the safety trials.

So why would singles be safer? Wakefield originally worked on Crohns diseases and found that an 'atypical exposure' to measles virus increased the likelihood of Crohns by a considerable % (can';t remember how much now). This was highly respected work and he was publishing a lot at the time - it was on wild measles virus not vaccine so not political). His belief was that the MMR was an example of an 'atypical exposure' that this was then causing the gut problems at a time when the child was developmentally vulnerable to crashing into autism. He felt that a single jab would be a more 'normal' exposure and therefore safer.

If you look through the literature you'll find lots out there now in highly respected journals on the role of the gut in the pathology of diseases and conditions such as type 1 diabetes, certain types of arthritis, MS, and yes autism (providing you don't talk about vaccines inducing the gut problems you are free to research and publish).

So the question isn't really whether MMR causes autism, but whether the MMR is more likely to trigger a gut reaction which results in a cascade of effects - the end point being autism.

The MMR stuff is now being researched in the States with funding (millions of it) that has come in the main from parents. Not sure how easy it will be to get the results published, but at least the work is taking place funded by an independent body.

It's only likely to have affected 7% of autistic kids. So providing your kid isn't one the the 7% then no problems (and if they are, well no-one will believe you anyway etc etc, much less care).

Of the people I know personally btw who link their child's condition with the MMR, the reactions were medically extreme - some involving stays in HDU or ICU. In one case the paediatrician involved in the child's care did say he thought that MMR was the cause (of the regression).

"MMR increasing the likelihood of other children getting it (including v. young babies for whom it is a very dangerous disease)"

If the mother has good immunity (which is far less likely in the days of vaccination) then the baby will have protection from measles that should last around a year.

Here's the report about Horton's evidence relating to Wakefield at the trial from the Cry Shame Website.. I was surprised, I knew he didn't like Wakefield and didn't agree with Wakefield's comments at the press conference so was very surprised by this:

"When Horton moved to talking about the paper published in the Lancet, it became clear that he had the highest regard for the method which the ?case series? used and the way in which it was presented. If the prosecution was expecting him to say that the paper was full of poor science, they must have been surprised when he said the absolute opposite.

Horton said that the Lancet paper was an excellent example of a ?case series?. That this was a standard and entirely reputable way of reporting on a possible new syndrome. He likened it to how the first cases of HIV/AIDS were reported in the early 80s and how the new variant CJD issue broke more recently. He said unequivocally that the science reported in the 1998 Lancet paper ?still stands? and that he 'wished, wished, wished' that the clock could be turned back and the paper be considered in the light it was first presented, without everything that followed.

Defence council spent a considerable time cross examining Horton about the declaration of ?conflict of interest? issue. Over the years this has become one of the most important issues associated with the Lancet paper. At the end of a long session, the worst that Horton could adduce was that Dr Wakefield was genuinely surprised that there was the need for him to reveal funding from the Legal Aid Board, which anyway hadn?t been used in this case-series, or at all at that point.

Horton was happy to say that Dr Wakefield had been honest throughout his dealings with the Lancet and that he had not declared any conflict of interest because he genuinely believed (and believes still) that there was no conflict to be declared. While Horton personally disagreed with Dr Wakefield?s interpretation of this, as did Professor Simon Murch and Professor Walker-Smith, he acknowledged clearly that it could be seen as a matter of opinion and not a reflection on Dr Wakefield?s honesty."

blimey jumjams that is really unequivocal.

jumjams? That has a ring to it

I have many issues with vacciations:
I can't believe that they are %100 safe. NO medicines are %100 safe. People can be allergic to Calpol, or have a reaction to cough medicine...why is it hard for some people to believe that something injected DIRECTLY into a small baby's blood stream also can cause problems?
Nothing is one size fits all.

I have issues with how the vaccines are preserved. There was information about Thimerasol and how toxic it was in the 1920's, and its only just been taken out of use. I believe they still use formaldahyde (although I could be wrong), and substances that people would NEVER allow their children to ingest. And yet they are being injected into their bloodstream.

I did my reading ages ago, so my brain is a bit fuzzy, but I remember reading about a vaccine that was cultured in monkey tissue. Years later a virus that was previously only found to in monkeys was found in Brain Tumours - of small children.

My GP (when my ds was a baby) gave me the best advice - read all you can and follow your gut.

Its a decision everyone should make, and its not easy -no matter which one you make.

MY DS6 received the MMR as soon as he could at 13 months for a couple of reasons. One being the experiences of a good friend, who had a child six weeks older then my DS. He caught Measels from a child at nursery (before he was old enough to have MMR) and was in intensive care for several days. He recovered but in the year following measels his immunity was so low he was constantly unwell and also admitted to hospital with pneumonia. At times it was very touch and go and it made me believe the risks of MMR were less than the threat to life if a child contracts measels.

The second experience which persuaded me to have MMR was that one of the twelve children in the original Wakefield study had the same GP as my family. My GP explained that this child was autistic, but so were others in his family, there was also family history of Munchausens (probably spelt incorrectly!), and several mental health issues. He felt this particular child was going to be autistic if any child was, and felt the study which caused the media 'furore' (I think this is the expression we are using), was therefore not credible due to both the small number, and circumstances of children involved.

I think it is all about weighing up the % chances of different choices you take when it comes to vaccinating, or not vaccinating. As has been said, these are all different if your child has allergy problems or other problems which may be exacerbated by vaccination. These are all very difficult decisions for everyone.

We recently had a letter from our local health authority, distributed through schools in our area explaining that there has been an outbreak of Measels. They don't believe children who have had single vaccines are adequately covered. The letter urged parents of those children who have had single vaccines to now give them the MMR. I am not sure that seems right to me and don't understand how single vaccines can be less effective - perhaps someone on here knows about this correspondence / point of view.

"The second experience which persuaded me to have MMR was that one of the twelve children in the original Wakefield study had the same GP as my family. My GP explained that this child was autistic, but so were others in his family, there was also family history of Munchausens (probably spelt incorrectly!), and several mental health issues. He felt this particular child was going to be autistic if any child was, and felt the study which caused the media 'furore' (I think this is the expression we are using), was therefore not credible due to both the small number, and circumstances of children involved."

• this is dreadful breach of patient confidentiality and the GP is the GP was way out of line. I would have reported any GP who said that to me.

I also know a member of the original research paper who was struck of by the GP after the publication of the research because he 'didn't want to be involved'.

The comments of the GP's at the GMC trial has been that on the whole they felt unable to help the families are were pleased to be able to refer on.

" They don't believe children who have had single vaccines are adequately covered."

Why would the HA think this? Research has shown consistently that the protection offered by the single jabs is the same or better (especially in the case of mumps) than the MMR.

Measles jab also works slightly better if given at 15 rather than 13 months - so if the HA want to apply research to public health (rather than politics) they should be testing the immunity of children vaccinated at various ages.

Honestly if these missive made sense given the published evidence I would have some sort of trust in them.

I used to be an advocate of the singles (9/10 yrs ago, when dd was due for it), mainly because I worked with autistic kids, most of whose parents (including a highly intelligent research medic) felt that there could be a link and that the Gov were not being open about it but trying to bulldoze people into using it, rather than giving them the much-vaunted (at the time) choice.

My gut instinct was that it was probably actually OK in 99% of cases, but that, to me, it wasn't worth the risk (I knew our marriage would not survive if the worst happened). The only way in which singles are worse than the combined vacc is that total immunity takes longer as there will inevitably be a gap between each, so your child will not be immunised against two of them for longer than if she/he had the MMR.

Another problem which was bandied about a lot 9/10 years ago, is that when a child is very young, their immune systems are less developed and they are getting a huge invasion of diseases at the same time.

A speech therapist I knew only let her son have the MMR when he was 3, because at that point she was able to assess his speech development etc and was satisfied that he was completely on track. I waited likewise, but was pre-empted by my mother paying for the singles (very expensive at the time) when dd was 2y5m, as a result of seeing a programme about the serious affect measles can have, coupled with a measles outbreak not too far away from us.

I've had HP's yacking about me behind my back as well. A SALT who didn't know me, had never met me or my son, told the school my son was about to start that I was 'well known for being in denial' about my son. This was because I had suggested my son needed SALT for his verbal dyspraxia that he had in addition to his autism. I was apparently in denial that his speech problems had anything to do with verbal dyspraxia - it was all autism (2 years previously had had the MSBP accusation about the autism- but that had been diagnosed by this time and was beginning to look severe).

Anyway fast forward 3 years and my son was diagnosed with verbal dyspraxia.

So yep I can tick the MPSP box- accused when ds1 was 2 there was apparently 'nothing wrong with him' -by those well known autism experts- a dietician. Aged 9 he has a diagnosis of severe autism with severe learning disabilities and is non-verbal.

Aged 4 accused of being 'in denial' about autism and for thinking my son had verbal dyspraxia. When he did.

And people wonder why those of us with autistic kids of don't trust the medical profession. I can recount story after story like this regarding autistic kids and trying to get sense out of HCP's.

And we get called the crazy ones.

Jux- that's kind of the approach I'm taking with ds2 and ds3. They haven't had any jabs yet at all. DS2 (now aged 6 coming up for 7) is pretty robust so I plan an appointment with Dr Halvorsen soon to talk about which jabs to give him and when. I'm sure this will include measles.

DS3 is 3 and I will leave him as long as possible as he has the same gut problems as ds1 and came very close to heading along an autism pathway. I would imagine he'll want a measles jab before puberty. But I'll talk to Dr Halvorsen first as I trust him to look at each child's individual history and our family history is complicated (no autism except ds1 who is severe and who regressed following a viral infection but lots of autoimmune conditions in the family).

Jimjams - is it possible I could contact you regarding mmr side effects as ds 1 had it when he was 3.2 and has been very unwell since (dr thought glandular fever as his glands have been up since MAY of this year -6 weeks after the jab- and are still up now. He's had a rash, ear infections, skin conditions and is permenantly exahusted) I am convinced it is due to the MMR as he was previously a very healthy boy... We just keep getting told 'he has a virus and it amy take time to go' I am very worried about him...

By the way, dd had the MMR 'booster' at 4, just as she was starting school. I figured she would be OK by then.

sorry he was 4 . 2

You can, but tbh if at all possible I would take him to see Dr Halvorsen. He's a proper GP, he's balanced- recognises the risks from the diseases (and also the relative risks of the vaccinations- knows they're safe for most). And being a GP he'll be able to prescribe/run tests etc.

Poor little thing - do email me on

nezumi35 at googlemail dot com though. If I come across anyone whose experience the same (you could ask on JABS too) I could put you in contact.

Interesting thread - it had always been pretty black and white for me that you should give the vaccines - but I'd never thought what I would think if I had an at risk child.

My dd1 had MMR except that she was given it by a trainee and most of it dribbled down the edge of her thigh. I decided not to say anything because they wouldn't know whether or not to give her another one. There was then a measles scare at her nursery. Thankfully, she wasn't one of the babies or I would have been shit scared esp as stopped mixed feeding at 3 months. We were told to get the second MMR straight away and did.

Just for the record the risk of measles is of ending up with brain damage and corneal scarring as well as death.

Mumps shouldn't be completely dismissed either. I have a friend of a friend who is infertile from mumps and is very upset about it.

"Just for the record the risk of measles is of ending up with brain damage and corneal scarring as well as death."

And deafness. My mother is deaf in one ear from measles, although she is fully supportive of ds2 and ds3 not having been vaccinated and understands why.

My aunt cares for someone left brain damage from the measles vaccine (this was agreed she received the payout).

Infertility from mumps is incredibly incredibly rare (sub fertility slightly more common) and only happens if mumps is caught post puberty. Unfortunately the mumps vaccine does not work as well as originally though, and although you can't track the numbers very easily (as mumps was not a notifiable diseases until the MMR was introduced) the numbers of adults catching mumps appears to be going up. This is probably due in big part to loss of vaccine induced immunity. HA have responded by giving young adults MMR.

Meant to say unfortunately there are never any straight answers and there is no way of knowing whether you've made the correct choice until after the event (whether that's to vaccinate or not).

I don't know if this has been posted before, but there is a compensation payment available to people who have been damaged by vaccines see here.

Vaccine damage is a known phenomenon, and the HPV vaccine has just been added to the list (01/09/08). The original MMR vaccine actually had more problems from the mumps strain it was using - that caused some quite severe reactions and the mumps strain was changed.

There was a lot of what I believe to be misinformation put out about the efficacy of the single vaccines - there is no reason why they should be any less effective than the MMR.

Thanks Jimjams, I have emailed x

Something I was surprised to discover about the compensation scheme is that it will not pay out if a child dies under the age of 2 from a vaccination. Not that money ever makes up for a death.

Sorry if this is a really stupid question but can anyone tell me if a child has developed problems as a result of having mmr why would single vaccines have been any safer for them? And if they remain unvaccinated would they be at risk of developing autism if they actually caught measles? Or is it just a rare side effect of the vaccine and not the disease?

Message withdrawn