Sorry this old apple, mmr or no mmr - got to make a decision! DS booked in next Tuesday, what do you all think?

[mohawk]

DS is two, I've held off this long for the mmr, I want to do something, either singles or mmr. Doing singles is £80 each and a long drive after the mmr - anyone done singles in West Yorkshire, Manchester area?? Or should I just go for the mmr, all the present research does discount the Wakefield report but still what price will drug companies go to, to protect their products. Help!

I don't think there's a drug company conspiracy going on, mohawk - after all, why conspire to make people have the MMR rather than pay 80 quid a go?

I think there is a theoretical small risk to some children from MMR, but that no proper longitudinal study has been done yet to prove it one way or the other. More to the point, neither has there been a longitudinal study on the effects of giving babies of this age separate jabs.

ds is having MMR.

Mohawk, no-one can tell you what to do but FWIW I gave my dd the MMR when she was 11 months. Even though I was happy with my decision and had read all the research , all the furore still made me get the collywobbles when it actually came to going into the GP's surgery so I know how you feel.

My reasons for going ahead were that millions of children have had the MMR worldwide safely. There are possible ,rare but serious, neurological side effects from the vaccine but the risk was less than the risk of dd contracting measles if she wasn't immunised and then developing neurological side effects. From memory, when Japan withdrew MMR ( for problems with the supply rather than autism worries) there was no decrease in the incidence of autism. Also , there is no research to say that single vaccines are any safer - there might be risks that are as yet unknown.

I think part of the problem is that the press had to give equal weight to both sides of the MMR argument , even though the weight of medical evidence was vastly in favour of MMR. Also the government just stonewalled and didn't acknowledge the loss of confidence until it was too late.

FWIW I don't think even the most powerful drug company could have concealed any real link between the vaccine and autism as so many doses have been given and it's been so scrutinised. Not sure if it's generic ( ie produced by lots of companies) or still patented but think it's probably generic by now.

I would go with your gut instinct. Best of luck!

( Tin hat on)

Search MMR and Jimjams or my name. On several threads I have given a link to a conference presentation from wakefiled this year. He gives the risk factors for MMR in that. Presumably (given his age) your ds had thimerosal containting DTP's, which means that has t be takern on board. Basic risk factors are autioimmunity in the family and certain gut problems.

mohawk, chances are that your DS will be fine. Giving any immunisation or other medical treatment holds some risk, its just feeling that you've assessed the risk well enough for your child/family. I have given DD singles as she has a severely autistic brother (although I don't think immunisation etc affected him) so she may have a higher predisposition to autism but, as I don't think it was material in his autism, I didn't feel happy leaving her with NO immunisation iyswim. So half way house seems the best risk assessment for US. Think hard about your DS and your family, are there allgeries and/or immune system illneses? Reaction to other vaccines, tendency to have lots of ear infections and be "sickly". How did he react to the baby vaccines which used to be more risk than MMR imo?

are singles vaccines less risky than the mmr?

I don't know about "hard evidence" but I FEEL better about giving them to her when she's older and stronger (she had her first last year at 1.5yrs and second recently at 2.5yrs) and putting less foreign muck into her at once. I will also make sure she has all 3, even though the Govt doesn't trust parents to do this, their MMR uptake statistics don't account for those who ARE being immunised fully but separately.

We are doing singles for ds. There is a fairly recent Danish study which initially showed the MMR to be safe, then 3 independent researchers went over the data and research methods and found the opposite. I don't know the link but have it saved if you want to CAT me. It's just a press release but lists all the researchers. You can then look up their findings on the web, which is what I did in making my decision for singles.

If you're pro-vaccine and liable to be upset by those of us who are not ... best not read my post.

I don't believe in preventing my children from getting ill. I believe in helping them build up a mature and healthy immune system which deals with illnesses as and when they occur. Illness is part of life.

I think mass vaccination plays on peoples' fear of illness and makes grandiose claims it cannot substantiate. People who've been jabbed still catch the illnesses.

I hear about the small risk of awful, even deadly, side effects from measles, but I had it, all my family had it, all my friends had it, it went round the school when I was a kid, people didn't used to be scared of it. I'm still not scared of it. During my lifetime my belief in doctors has been gradually eroded for many very good reasons and these days I look further afield, as well as listening to my instinct, on such matters.

I'm not happy to expose my babies, with thier tiny emerging immune systems, to what I see as an inappropriate assault. It by-passes the body's natural design by putting the concoction straight into the bloodstream.

I have to go and eat my dinner now. I could go on, as you can probably tell.

i'm really confused over what to do. ds is only just coming up for 9 months so no need to worry just yet... but there is just SO much to read on it i don't really know where to start... read a couple of threads on here but am still just as undecided! lol

i think we will probably go for singles though... is it better to wait as long as poss though, so he is older?

well, my mum had to start wearing glasses after she caught measles aged 6, because the photosensitivity damaged her sight. That's not a very serious complication, but it's not one I'd like to expose my own child to.

OTOH dp has type 1 diabetes, which is an autoimmune disease, so would I be exposing ds to a bigger risk than he already has of getting diabetes if he has any more vaccinations (having already had the 2,3 and 4 month ones)?

It's a very hard decision, and not one I'm looking forward to at all.

i would be devastated if the mmr caused damage to ds.
but i would also be devastated if he was left blind by measles. this happened to a girl i was at school with... so it does happen... and i am only 25 so it is not that long ago either!

i don't think that years ago peiople weren't scared of it... i think it was just accepted as a risk... i don't know when mass vaccination was first introduced but i imagine that people were very glad to have it!

I don't think there is any hard evidence that single jabs are safer - it's just the compromise you come up with if you can't shake nagging doubts about MMR.

FWIW I am giving ds single jabs - took me ages to make up my mind. He's over 2 and only just had single measles jab. I'm a medical journalist, used to seeing medical research, have access to expert reviewers who I trust (and who have exposed problems with other drugs) and they all think MMR is perfectly safe. So I feel as if I am being crap worrying about it when all my experience and training are saying don't be so bloody daft woman. And that even if there is a tiny theoretical doubt over MMR, there is absolutely no evidence that single jabs are any safer. So the evidence that does exist is reassuring but there's not enough evidence to provide complete reassurance, because people haven't done the work, IMO.

But I can't shake the element of doubt - I'm sure it is safe for 99.5 per cent of children but what if my ds was in the 0.5 per cent? The safety studies aren't designed to answer the question Wakefield raised. They do show MMR is safe for almost all children. But they haven't directly investigated his findings. And expert reviewers who I trust say all the available evidence is that MMR is safe, but also that the safety studies are not particularly well-designed.

Think I'd be happier about MMR if ds was a. a girl and b. hadn't had crappy thimerosal-containing DTP jabs.

Oh, I also worried about the 'but what if I leave him unvaccinated and he gets serious complications from mumps or measles..'. That's why I'm doing single jabs even though I'm not convinced there is any evidence they are safer than MMR, IYSWIM.

Philosophically, I think it is easier to cope with the risk of harm that arises from you not doing something than from doing something. You weigh up two dangers; one where you would actually cause harm, one where you merely neglect to prevent something bad happening, and many of us would feel more comfortable about the risk of the second, I think. Although it isn't morally any different.

I have a DS1 on the autistic spectrum. He had the MMR at 15 months, as well as thimerosal-containing jabs at two, three and four months. I am not convinced that the MMR itself played any part in his autism - I was already worried about his development before that, but was "reassured" by a GP that he was "definitely not autistic". I have always, however, been a bit uneasy about the earlier jabs, as his behaviour did show a change at around four months.

With DS2, I sought out thimeroasl free jabs and waited to MMR him until I was absolutely sure he wasnt on the autistic specytrum - he had it at about 2.5 years. I was supported by our GP in this (a different GP to the one who "reassured" me about DS1). DS2 had no reaction at all to the MMR.

DS3 has had thimerosal-free jabs and I am also going to wait a good while before MMR-ing him.

And what the Govt doesn't seem to accept is that parents are not necessarily going to be rational when it comes to their babies/children. Its not like having the dog's knackers off, although that can be a hard decision too! My view is that we may have a higher risk but I don't want to leave DD unprotected, I also believe in letting children be ill, I'd never give her anything for a cold etc, but if there is a way to avoid serious illnesses then..... Also, if someone sat me down and said "OK, you've got a choice, DD can have autism or measles" I know which one I'd choose as you have a chance with measles but none with autism ime.

We also had thiomersal-free baby jabs and spaced them out. BTW, sorry if the last part of my last post was a bit inflammatory! Had to rush off to see to DD and her plate of pasta!

Some links on the anti-jab side of the debate.

The Informed Parent

JABS

Trevor Gunn gives a brilliant lecture on the subject and I would urge any mum to go and listen to him before they make their choice. Note he's talking in Brighton on 9th Nov.

Also, don't let them rush you. If you're going to jab, do it when you're ready. Make sure you've reseached it fully and are happy with your decision.

davros i do think some parents are being completely rational in their decision not to vaccinate or to delay vaccination. it may be based on very intimate knowledge of their own child's health and vulnerability [something which doctors don't have ] and hours and hours of reading medical research. Some other parents may freak out at news stories but i think these parents are usually won over by the pro vaccine press in the end, if they are that susceptible to the press. I think it is scandalous a] the way Wakefield, who was naive but well meaning, has been rubbished and demonized, and b] that teh govt try to stop parents having choice - if they allowed singles on the NHS they couldn't be crowing about the dangers of an epidemic.

As edam says, MMR is probably safe for most children. But there is creeping evidence that it may not be safe for a minority. It is disgusting that no one is going to try to identify that small group of children to protect them from possible life long damage. Yes, yes, measles can be dangerous. That doesn't mean you can ride rough shod over other possibilities of harm.

it is really rather dismissive of potential harm to your child (and, of course, to other people, and other people's children) to say "yes, yes measles can be dangerous..."

I had a close relative whose child died from measles complications.
My cousin is also very severely disabled after her mother caught rubella in the early stages of pregnancy.

These risks were real, and could be again. IMO it is responsible to put them into the balance when making any decision.

agree bthc
if more and more people don't vaccinate i think there is a risk of a measles/mumps outbreak, although this may not be apparent for some years.

having said that, i don't think that anyone who is unsure of the mmr would give it just because of that scenario... after all we all value our children's health over anything else.

Am i right in thinking that autism usually shows itself at around 18 months?

stbhw - regressive autism has a very different look to it than autism that is there from birth. The people I know who attribute the mrr to triggering their child's autism all describe very bad (not febrile) seizures after receiving the MMR, and regression dating from them (including loss of important skills such as pointing). Research published a few months ago showed that parents were reliable witnesses when it came to reporting the age of onset ie they knew whether it had been there since birth.

That "you don't notice autism pre 18 months" is a pile of twaddle when talking about parents. Professionals may not be able to (most can't recognise it much later), and there are currently no screening tools that can be used pre-18 months, but if a mother says their child regressed within days of MMR then they did (the argument as to whether the MMR caused the seizures/regression is a different one).

re measles damage. my mum was left deaf in one ear following measles as a child. And she used to be pro measles vax. Following ds1 (who isn't MMR damaged, but may well have had a thimerosal run in) she's gone with the Davros reasoning and would rather her other grandchildren take the risk with measles than autism.

I know, I just think it needs to be in the balance. The effect on other people's children did feature in my decision, though.

The other thing I wanted to say, in response to spidermama's point, is that for some people illness is not, and cannot, just be part of life. Your points are valid wrt otherwise healthy people, but there are people for whom catching this kind of illness would be very far from trivial. Older people, or those with weakened systems following surgery, or with long term illnesses, or auto immune disorders. Again, this did feature in my decision making because there are two people in my close acquaintance in this vulnerable position.

yes but then the fact that my children are statistically over 100 times more likely to be autistic than yours featured in my decision to leave any potential trigger alone especially whilst the brain is developing. If I thought that giving a jab wouldn't alter the likelihood af them becoming autistic then I'd merrily jab them up the eyeballs. I've never receieved much thanks from society at large for having a vaccine damaged son though (even though he's done his bit in protecting others from pertussis, hib, men C, diptheria, polio and measles). Most people just moan because he'll never pay taxes and so they're working to support him.

so technically there is no "safer" age to have the injection(s) because a child with a pre-disposition/auto-immune condition would still be at risk of regressing afterwards regardless of age..

am i on the right track?