Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

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

arguing about mmr vs singles. wwyd?

21 replies

bamboobutton · 21/07/2011 11:34

dh and i have quite different opinions on this.

ds is due his booster before nursery in sept(had single at 13mo) and dd is due her first mmr jab.

i'm not really that fussed which they have but dh is adament they have singles.
this wasn't a big deal when ds was a baby as we lived really close to a private clinic but since moving the nearest clinic is a 2 hour drive away and i don't fancy doing a 4 hour minimum round-trip drive with a 3yo and a 13mo when i can just walk 2 mins down the road to the GP and get the mmr.

plus there is the cost, £230 for 2 jabs + consultation fee, the mmr is free.

wwyd? dh is very stubborn and believes that they will turn austistic as soon as the mmr needle penetrates their skinHmm so reasoning with him is a rage inducing experience.

OP posts:
bumbleymummy · 21/07/2011 13:26

I would go for singles. I wouldn't put convenience or saving money above what I thought was best for my children. Sorry! :) I agree with your DH.

TeriHatchetJob · 21/07/2011 13:30

mmr for me. You really are going to have to go with what you want as everyone on here will tell you what they think is best, but ultimately it's your child, your choice.

bumbleymummy · 21/07/2011 14:51

Well Teri she did ask wwyd... :)

TeriHatchetJob · 21/07/2011 14:57

yes of course she did bumbleymummy (love the name!), you're quite right, but I suppose I just wanted to sort of warn her that this is just one of those subjects that some people really rise to and can cause quite a heated debate and if it does, then whatever bbb decides to do is right for her.

Original poster
bamboobutton · 21/07/2011 14:57

yes, it is my convenience i'm thinking of i suppose, it's just such a faffing faff.
i would like to give singles as i can then give dd her rubella as a teenager so she is covered in her child bearing years but mmr is so much easier, i am just at the thought of slogging it down to colchester.

thanks for mildly kicking my arse into gearGrin

OP posts:
Icoulddoitbetter · 21/07/2011 15:09

IIRC research has shown that that the MMR is more effective than the single vacs. IIRC too [am preparing to run away....] the research showing the MMR was unsafe was deemed to be twaddle........... [I've gone!]

Tabitha8 · 21/07/2011 15:48

Out of interest, where in Colchester? Are you talking just a single measles jab for now?
Can you have the immunity of DS tested to see if he needs a booster?

balia · 21/07/2011 21:21

You can't get singles for all of them, though, so what is the point of all the expense and faff? Are there any contraindications or has DH just absorbed a lot of weird science type hysteria?

bigfatcath · 22/07/2011 14:38

Go for MMR, it's safe!

SabrinaMulhollandJones · 03/08/2011 12:00

I would (and have!) go for the MMR. Every time.

worldgonecrazy · 03/08/2011 12:04

Have you looked for a closer clinic? I would respect DH's wishes and go for singles.

DilysPrice · 03/08/2011 12:13

Make DH take the day off work and take them - if he's the one who cares then he can do it.

I never understood the point of single vaccines anyway. If you believe that the measles component of the MMR causes autism, (which I don't), then giving mumps and rubella on their own makes sense, bur Wakefield's leap to "but it would be completely safe to give measles jabs on their own" always baffled me.

nocake · 03/08/2011 12:29

MMR has been proved to be as safe as the single vaccines. I think your DH needs to get some accurate information about vaccines before he makes judgements about your child's health.

feckwit · 03/08/2011 12:31

MMR for me every time.

My personal reasoning was such:

  • The time that autism becomes mostly apparant with children is around the age that MMR is administered as that is the age that communication is emerging. So I think it is just coincidence rather than a link between the vaccine.

  • The cost is a huge factor, I truly believe that if there were evidence that the MMR was dangerous, the NHS would shoulder the costs of pricier vaccines rather than risk a flurry of compensation claims in the future.

  • I could never find any plausible studies that found links between the jab and autism.

I also believe right now that there is a shortage of one of the single vaccinations so you would only be able to obtain 2 and would probably need to go back for the third some other time?

But if he wants singles, I suggest he takes them!

Cleverything · 03/08/2011 12:33

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

bumbleymummy · 03/08/2011 16:08

She may only want the measles vaccine which is available.

griphook · 15/09/2011 22:33

if you want all three you won't be able to as there is no mumps vaccine availible in the county.

DartsRus · 16/09/2011 09:32

You also have the option that we took, that of taking singles for rubella and measles, and arranging for MMR just before puberty to get the mumps protection. We did this because an under reported part of the Wakefield issue was a link with bowel disorders. And by puberty the immune system has had more time to develop.

In both my mum's and dad's families there is a significant number of people with various bowel disorders, and DP's sister has also suffered in her life. This suggests a predisposition and at the time we did not want to do anything that could trigger this predisposition in either of our children.

As it is, my youngest dc has bowel issues that are at present being medicated using movicol, he's otherwise disgustingly healthy, as is his older sibling. He may grow out of it, but I'm glad I opted for singles, it was appropriate for our dc.

The reason for delaying MMR until puberty is that I was told that the mumps vaccine does not confer lifetime immunity, that it wears off after about 15 years, and I have alwasy wondered if the reason we get so many reports of university students coming down with mumps is precisely because that immunity has worn off and the students are obviously in an environment where the disease will spread quickly.

Original poster
bamboobutton · 16/09/2011 16:20

just thought i would update.

we, well, i as dh said he would leave it up to meHmm, went with the mmr in the end.

both had their jabs today and are fine.

and to balia- yes, dh had only read the news stories, whereas i have done tons and tons of research and decided that as neither have any allergies, bowel problems or any autism symptoms they would be fine having the mmr.

all that needs doing now is working out what happens with the mumps and rubella booster since he didn't have the first set until todayConfused

OP posts:
sashh · 18/11/2011 08:45

DilysPrice
bur Wakefield's leap to "but it would be completely safe to give measles jabs on their own" always baffled me.

He owned a company making single vaccines - are you less baffled now?

silverfrog · 20/11/2011 10:54

no he didn't sashh.

if you are going to drag up old threads, please do try to give accurate info.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page