Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
General health

Mumsnet doesn't verify the qualifications of users. If you have medical concerns, please consult a healthcare professional.

Original poster

MMR - looking for links to authoritative arguments for and against

65 replies

Pennies · 09/09/2005 08:34

Hubby & I are in the process of deciding if DD will be given the jabs individually or going for the MMR triple jab.

Does anyone know of where we can find links to arguments for both options from proper, reputable medical sources so we can try and make some kind of informed decision.

Thanks.

OP posts:
PrettyCandles · 09/09/2005 08:45

When we were making this decision we could find no unbiased research, so we went to the Lancet and downloaded relevant abstracts. From them we chose which complete articles we wanted to study. It helped that both dh and I have science degrees, as they are very difficult to read!

FWIW, we chose to give our children the MMR.

PrettyCandles · 09/09/2005 08:46

Sorry, not 'unbiased research', meant 'unbiased summaries of research'.

Jimjams · 09/09/2005 08:56

If you search on the archives here you will find loads of links.

To summarise recent work.

A best "guesstimate" is that about 7% of children with autism are MMR damaged. They present differently from other autistic children (including those who have regressed). This number is too small to pick up via epidemiological studies.

Thimerosal may play a part. Vulnerable children may be damaged by thimerosal (and other sources of mercury), and then autism may be triggered by a live virus (MMR or natural viral infection). Thimerosal was removed from paediatric baby jabs (dtp) last year. And pregnant wqomen are now advised to avoid tuna etc so the risk from that has prob reduced.

If you scroll down this link there is quite a bit from a conference this year. Wakefield's latest can be downloaded as a powerpoint presentation. you can also buy audio/dvd's buty you can get the gist from powerpoint for free. link

Jimjams · 09/09/2005 08:58

If you want more on the thimerosal risk (never been in mmr- but links in because of the above) then track down Hornig's paper. Should find it on google. A good bit of research. Also worth checking out Visceral for some easy reading. Visceral + MMR tends to get you there.

Also look up IAG - as that's relevant.

anchovies · 09/09/2005 09:01

I found MMR: Science and Fiction by Richard Horton (the Lancets editor) an interesting read.

(We also gave ds the MMR in the end)

Jimjams · 09/09/2005 09:10

don't even bother with the epidemiological studies- they tell you nothing more than the MMR is safe for the majority of children. Andy Wakefield would tell you that. The numbers of affected children are too small for a link to be picked up that way.

Original poster
Pennies · 09/09/2005 09:19

Prettcandles - thanks for Lancet info. Will browse later.

Thanks Jimjams - some good starting points for us there too.

OP posts:
harpsichordcarrier · 09/09/2005 10:03

you could try this which is a comprehensive summary with good references

GhostofNatt · 09/09/2005 10:08

One thing that is perhaps useful to know is this:
we take our boys for single jabs with a consultant paediatrtician. When we first went 3years ago he was pretty lukewarm about single jabs and thought MMR was safe. Now he says that having been giving single jabs for a number of years to a large number fo children, he has not had the adverse reactions which occur in a small number of children given MMR although statistically he would have expected some. It's a small-ish point but one which I don't thinkhas been studied.

Jimjams · 09/09/2005 12:17

That research from hc is too out of date (2001) to take into account thimerosal/mercury exposure though. Which is important both alone (although not forr MMR) and if its involved as the first hit for some children (with MMR/live virus as the second). Worth looking up Walsh as well- sure he's due to publish soon.

Original poster
Pennies · 09/09/2005 12:26

GhostofNatt - when you say "adverse reactions" do you mean the onset of autism / aspergers or you mean less severe reactions (e.g. a few weeks of feeling poorly, temperatures etc)?

OP posts:
GhostofNatt · 09/09/2005 12:30

I think what he was saying that you get instances of more severe adverse reactions than temperatures etc (fitting?) with MMR which he was not seeing with single jabs. He didn't have any personal data on autism etc

Kidstrack2 · 09/09/2005 12:34

A friend of mine is a nurse and she got me some documents from studies round the world from different countries and there was more pro's on the MMR for having it than not having it, although both my kids were 2 when given the MMR only because a recent study showed that Autism is usually picked up between the age of 12-15m the same time that the MMR is given, therefore dp and I decided to wait until after that period of time had lapsed.

Jimjams · 09/09/2005 14:16

It's very hard to get data that would say that autism dated from the time of MMR as autism is usually dxed YEARS after parents first report concerns. I first raised concerns about my son at 17 months (with friends/family), I raised concerns with health professionals at 22 months. He wasn't dxed until he was 3 years and 2 months. To try and link that dx to a vaccine reaction 2 years earlier would be almost impossible (in fact we part- blame the DTP's so you would be looking at linking a dx at 3 with something that happened at 8 weeks- no chance).

Interesting about the seizures though GON. The people I know who do link the MMR with their child's condition usually talk of seizures within days of the jab. There is a boy who was in ds1's class (he's gone up now- he's severely autistic - non-verbal). He had a big seizure within days of the MMR- his paed has said privately that MMR probably was responsible in his case because of the timing of the jabs and seizure (his first- maybe his only? he doesn't have epilepsy) . But to make a link you then have link the seizure with the autism iyswim as well as the seizure with the MMR.

Original poster
Pennies · 09/09/2005 14:58

Jimjams - I'm very interested by what you're saying here. What exactly was it about the DTP that made you think it might have had an impact?

The reason I ask is that my DD (totally breastfed) had v. green poo non stop from the 1st of her first DTP's which went on until she was on solids - no further problems since then though. When I watched the Horizon show which discussed Wakefield's theories regarding the MMR and impact on the digestive tract it made a bell ring. Hence my OH and I looking into this.

OP posts:
PrettyCandles · 09/09/2005 15:15

Pennies, how long did you bf your dd, and have you had mumps, measles and rubella yourself (as opposed to having been vaccinated)? The reason I ask is that mothers who have natural immunity by having had the diseases pass on that immunity to the baby in the breastmilk, and that IIRC that imunity affects the way the MMR vaccine 'takes'. So, if a child is still being bf 4/day at, say, 18m, there's no point having the MMR until the bfing reduces significantly (or even stops completely) as, if you then stop bfing, you will think that she is protected but she may well not be. This is apparently one of the reasons that MMR isn't 100% effective.

But don't take my word on this, I might not be remembering all the details correctly. (It was only 2 years ago - OMG what has happened to my memory!?)

Jimjams · 09/09/2005 15:34

Pennies- if you're interested in the gut link then definitely download that Wakefiled powerpoint presentation in the link I gave earlier. It's up to date on all that.

The main reason we think the DTP (or at least the thimerosal in it) was at least partly to blame is because of the Hornig paper. (although i had suspicions before). It links a predisposition to autoimmunity (loads on the paternal side in this family) with thimerosal acting as a trigger for autistic like changes in mice. Siblings have not received thimerosal (not been jabbed at all!) and are (touch wood) fine. The autoimmunity is a big factor- there is no autism in either of our families, but lots of autoimmunity.

DS1 did regress further after a live virus (eczema herpeticum) at 11 months and showed gut changes in the months that followed. But we think the first hit was thimerosal. (there were some signs that things weren't normal before th bigger regression).

Yes you are remembering that correctly PC- maternal antibodies (especially to measles) interfere with the development of immunity from the jab.

Original poster
Pennies · 09/09/2005 15:53

I had both measles and mumps as a child and was vaccinated against rubella in my teens.

DD was b/f until 9.5 months.

Is it more likely then that she will have a natural immunity then?

I'm personally not comfy with the idea of her not being immunised at all - what I want to examine is the pros and cons of single jabs versus the multiple dose.

OP posts:
Original poster
Pennies · 09/09/2005 15:59

Added to say she's just turned 1 last week.

OP posts:
Original poster
Pennies · 09/09/2005 15:59

Added to say she's just turned 1 last week.

OP posts:
mommie · 09/09/2005 16:03

this is a v interesting thread; jimjams, given all you know now, would you go for single jabs then? didn't understand what you said about no jabs.

PeachyClair · 09/09/2005 17:02

Pennies, i wouldn't rely on BF immunity, DS3 was supposed to be immune from chickenpox as I had had it, he caught it though despite being BF and only three months.

My son has AS, though I don't think for a moment he was vaccine damaged as he was always different, plus I can quite clearly see Aspergers traits in my in-laws (and my DH). I know a few famillies who are sure that their child was vaccine damaged though, and although I am not convinced myself, I understand their reasoning.

Single jabs is an option which does place your child at a prolonged risk of catching the illnesses which they are vaccinated against last. But it may reassure some parents so I guess it's a viable alternative, as long as parents are aware of this.

I made the decision for MMR on the following basis. it's very reductionist I know but it helped me.

If my child is vaccine damaged and contracts Autism, I will have an Autistic child, which would be awful. If my child contracts measles they could die. It happens. I would have a dead child. Which would be worse to me than an autistic child.

Ulysees · 09/09/2005 17:43

I've just found this thread (search) as I'm debating whether to get DS2s booster MMR? He has delayed development though he is catching up fast. Maybe I'm worrying over nothing but just wondered if it could harm him? Any views?

Heathcliffscathy · 09/09/2005 18:06

does anyone have stats for how many fatalities have resulted from measles in this country in the last 10 years?

Jimjams · 09/09/2005 18:17

mommie ds1 is vaccine damaged. Ds2 and ds3 have had nothing- no vaccines, not singles nothing. (not suggesting that as a course for you Pennies btw) DS1 will never live independently and will probably never speak- we're not going there again. I would like to give tetanus if someone would provide me with a single jab but now the only choice is a 5 in 1 and no way are they getting that (another possibility for tetanus is the adult jab which I will look into)

PeachyClaire in my completely unscientific browse of the people I know and wider autism community it seems to be that AS/HFA often has a very strong heritability- lots of undxed AS and geeky uncles in the family- wheeras the severe end of the spectrum often has no autism but lots of autoimmunity in the family. Of course there are exceptions but as a general rule it seems to hold true- and is backed up by work such as Hornig et als.