MMR - looking for links to authoritative arguments for and against

[Pennies]

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.

sorry yeah, i meant that autism believed to be caused by jabs would be down to an auto-immune condition

or, is there a risk even if the child didn't have an a-i condition?

i didn't realise that the dtp jabs were risky too or i would have thought twice about letting ds have them!!!! feel bad now.

say your child has an auto-immune condition, would they only be affected by thimerosal? ie, if the jab had no thimerosal in it would it be ok?

sorry to bombard you with questions, you probably get sick of it!

It's not having an autoimmune condition that's risky as such- it just seems that the children who can't process heavy metals properly often have family histories of autoiimunity (but those conditions themselves may have been heavy metal triggered). The ideal of course would be a blood test to see who was at risk. Thimersal had been removed from the baby jabs now (it was getting ludicrous- you were being told on one hand to limit tuna consumption during pregnancy because of mercury contamination, but on the other hand it was perfectly safe to inject an 8 week old with mercury).

I'm sure the new DTP's (thimerosal free- new in the uk that is they've been used elsewhere for years)are safer in that sense. I'm not happy giving a 5 in 1 though as there would be no chance of working out what was causing a reaction.

I agree that the dtps have probably caused more damage (autism wise) than the mmr. When the mmr was introduced the dtps stopped being given over the course of a year and were moved to the current schedule. Result being a bunch of kids who may have been able to cope with thimerosal over a year had to cope with the same amounts in 3 months.

there;s so much information to process isn't there.
are single jabs any safer than the MMR all in one?

ds had his first jabs spread over 6 months luckily, because of crap gp's surgery... so maybe i should be thankful for that.

it's just all so complicated!

Neals Yard Remedies produce a booklet on MMR which I found very balanced - it only costs £2.50.

My son (now almost 3) had the primary vaccs at 2, 3 and 4 months but did not have the MMR or the single vaccines. He has caught mumps (just after he was 2) and was fine (he's also had chicken pox). If he has not had rubella or measles by the time he's about 10 I'll let him have the MMR then.

I really like the fact that this is an intelligent discussion without vitriolic comments about social responsibility etc - what a nice bunch of people you all are!

I wouldn't rely on 'natural' immunity, I was just making the point that it might be relevant to the timing of Pennies' dd's jabs. I would imagine that if she has not had breastmilk for three months then by the time she has the jab or jabs any natrual immunity would be lost.

I think it is amazing that we can immunise our children against killer diseases like polio and measles.

I visited the Thackeray medical museum in Leeds on Saturday and saw an exhibit showing a vast room full of patients (mainly children) in iron lungs being treated for polio in the 1950s. It made me think of my friend from university who had to walk with a stick due to nerve damage from polio she caught when she was a child in bangladesh.

Although I understand that vaccines can cause as well as prevent illness the statistics show that they prevent much more illness than they cause. I do support the informed choice of parents to immunise their child or not. I just believe that unless you have a reason not to (eg genetic based sensitivity) empirical evidence has proven that it is better for your child to be immunised.

Problem is that the medical profession don't seem to accept genetic based sensitivity as a reality. I had a meeting with the consultant in St Georges and I presented him with a written note detailing all the risk factors as I understood them to my DD having the jab. They were:

1. family history of autoimune diseases (several examples in family)
2. DS had BAD reaction (reluctantly accepted by consultant) 3.Family history of Seizures
3. 2 nephews had BAD reactions (both accepted as such)

Anyway he was adamant that none of it made any difference and my dd was no more at risk than any child. He was even prepared to commit himself in writing.

We went ahead with the jab not because of what he had said but because they have removed mercury from it. We are taking it slow though.

My DS didn't have MMR for 2 reasons;

1. he is severly allergic to egg 2 he had had such a bad reaction to DPT I was scared.

In case anyone is interested my DS caught measles when he was 2.5 and I was really frightened but he got over it. It was nasty though and I can understand why there is a desire to vaccinate against it.

I really wish that the single jabs were available (although I wouldn't have given this to my son due to allergy) as the child's Mum he caught it off would have been happy to have the single jab.

My 10 month ds2 may have been exposed to measles at ds1's preschool last week. Ds1 has been vaccininated but ds2 is too young. Frankly, I'm terrified. If ds2 could have the triple jab this afternoon he would.

It's all very well debating what might happen if we do or don't vaccinate, but when you have no choice because of your child's age, and then you find out he's been exposed to a potentially fatal infection it feels very very scary.

the reason they don't vaccinate earlier is because most children have immunity to about a year (especially if their mother had measles) so there's no point as the jab wouldn't work.

And agree with Eany. My son is not "officially" vaccine damaged, nor is my friend's child who was told "off the record" by her paediatrician that she was probably MMR damaged.

ds has had no jabs due to gut problems and my auto-immune condition [related to lupus]. Now he is approaching a year i am worried about measles - because of his leaky gut [diagnosed] i am not even happy to give single measles. Jimjams do you know anything about single measles jab with a child already with gut susceptibility?

oh god no ruty (never had to make the decision as ds1 had had his jab by the time the gut problems became apparent.) And with ds2 and 3 had already decided not to give it.

Mydd2 had MMR and around 6 months later had measles.She was very ill and was left with severe hearing loss which returned over the next 2 years although this has left her with significant speech problems.The Dr said if she hadn't had the MMR she would have been very seriously ill.
I would go for MMR again although with a boy I would possibly go for single vaccines as AFAIK boys are more likely to be affected.

so do the single jabs still carry a risk?

i think single jabs only carry a risk if your child already has gut problems. Nikkie, was your doctor just covering himself i wonder when he said your dd would have got it worse if she hadn't had the MMR? hard to prove that claim i think.

They always say that Ruty- but usually it is because it hasn't worked at all- no antibodies so you get the disease (sometimes you can get a mild dose, but i think full blown just means it didn't work). Measles is particularly susceptible to not working (having sais that rubella isn't that great either).