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 at three? Or should I wait until booster age?

249 replies

SoBroken · 10/08/2011 14:03

To cut a long story short, DS has had all his vaccinations except the MMR. After seeing mothers talk very passionately about the effects it had on their children, DH and I decided we didn't want to do it, and would get single jabs instead.

However, he lost his job and things have been very tight financially. We have never had a spare £300 to actually get it done.

Looking at DS starting nursery after xmas and I'm a bit worried about him catching measles or something while there.

The private clinic where they do the separate jabs told us there is no need to get separate boosters at five, as by then, the danger of autism has passed.

I just want to know at what age this passes? Should i go and get the MMR done now, or should I wait until he's five? Our financial situation is still too tight to get the separate jabs at the moment, at least while DH builds his business up a bit.

OP posts:
Blueberties · 04/09/2011 11:55

By "abused" I guess you mean quoted appropriately and accurately in a way which is embarrassing to the highly pro-vaccinist cause.

Yes, we're talking about Japan's infant death rate. A comparision with the US and Japan infant death rates accompanied by information about their vaccine schedules is also interesting though.

De Suissa was not published because the NEJM refused to publish his immediate and timely response. But he is an is an eminent and well-published epidemiologist and I linked to his assessment. You could have looked at it. Are you going back to the peer review mothership after your exciting trip into the world of "unstrange minds", epiwonk and the pro-pharma joker at the expense of vaccine damaged children? Who is epiwonk by the way?

"Bait and switch"? huh? What does that mean? This is really a professional thing for you is it?

bruffin · 04/09/2011 12:58

I quoted sids and suids
It's not me who is confused
i

Blueberties · 04/09/2011 13:55

No, I didn't blame you for the confusion at all Smile

I have never linked to VS Bruffin: however I've been asked to look at links for "unstrange minds", epiwonk and a pro-pharmaceutical blogger who makes fun of vaccine adverse events.

Re: honesty: did you ever respond re: the honesty of Richard Horton? Would you care to?

CatherinaJTV · 04/09/2011 14:18

Yes, we're talking about Japan's infant death rate.

Thank you for clarifying. I wonder why you quote MacFarlane, 1982 then? Well, I think I know why you do, because you took that from an anti-vaccine web site, which sort of relies on poor general access to biomedical literature and inadequate citations, to make sure no one really reads the full text of what they claim supports their view. If I have to assume that you are all genuine and really well informed, then you should know that the correct citation for the "MacFarlane, 1982 study" is

McFarlane, A (1982) Infant deaths after 4 weeks, The Lancet Volume 320, Issue 8304, Pages 929 - 930

Not a study, but a half page letter to the editor, which looks at early neonatal, late neonatal and post-neonatal mortality in England and Wales, not Japan at all. Not sure what you wanted this article to prove here, but read it's full text again and spell it out.

CatherinaJTV · 04/09/2011 14:24

Noble Study

Blueberties: And what specifically is this study to tell us? Just so I know what to look for in the full text?

CatherinaJTV · 04/09/2011 14:32

De Suissa was not published because the NEJM refused to publish his immediate and timely response. But he is an is an eminent and well-published epidemiologist and I linked to his assessment.

and the dog ate his homework - I did read his assessment, and several other analyses. Really, I want to see a follow up from Denmark on the same kids who are now older.

CatherinaJTV · 04/09/2011 14:35

"Bait and switch"? huh? What does that mean?

That means you said "cot death" first, and that specifically is the British term for sudden infant death syndrome, and then you changed to "infant deaths"

This is really a professional thing for you is it?

If you mean "professional" in the sense of "taking the debate serious enough to take care my sources say what I claim" then, yes, totally. I rarely do handwaving and when I do, I pair it with a respective advisory...

CatherinaJTV · 04/09/2011 14:36

Eh? why isn't Leonie allowed to post on this thread?

I was wondering that too...

Blueberties · 04/09/2011 14:37

I think your link is to something rather different Smile never mind I'll find it tonight.

Why are you saying "the dog ate his homework"? What kind of smear is that supposed to be? Are you suggesting this is a lie? Are you suggesting that the NEJM did publish his response? What are you suggesting there? If you read his analysis where is your response?

Why do you keep going on about my sources? You are the one posting dodgy sources. You keep having to make up my sources. I haven't linked to a single anti-vaccine website - it's you with the dodgy links, which you've been completely unable to justify.

CatherinaJTV · 04/09/2011 14:45

Blueberties,

you have not linked to McFarlane at all, but you copied and pasted something I then googled and then went and found the original contribution and that was the one I wrote about. You disagree? Then go ahead and post your MacFarlane 1982 "study", maybe there are two, one refering to the UK and one refering to Japan?

CatherinaJTV · 04/09/2011 14:48

As for Suissa, he could have published his re-analysis anywhere, but we only find it in a write up by Stott and Wakefield (or can you point to an original source apart from their JPANDS opinion piece?!).

CatherinaJTV · 04/09/2011 15:21

and just to make this absolutely unambiguous:

Why do you keep going on about my sources?

because you do not post them

You are the one posting dodgy sources. You keep having to make up my sources.

Well, you posted yourself (at 11:10 today):

1982 MacFarlane study finding:
"The postneonatal mortality fell markedly in 1976, the year in which a sharp decline in perinatal mortality rate began. Between 1976 and 1979, however, neither the late nor the postneonatal mortality rates fell any further."

and you said this was about the Japanese SIDS rate - I specifically asked..

I am looking at Alison McFarlane's 1982 letter to the editor in Lancet which comments on infant mortality in England and Wales and it contains the following sentence:

"The postneonatal mortality fell markedly in 1976, the year in which a sharp decline in perinatal mortality rate began. Between 1976 and 1979, however, neither the late neonatal nor the postneonatal mortality rates fell any further.

My italics denote the only word that is different to your quote. I really don't think that I am the one who is making up sources. I am the one who actually reads her original sources before she posts them.

We have hereby established that your "MacFarlane" "study" does not support any link between vaccines and SIDS in Japan. I think we have also firmly established that you just copied and pasted (including typo in author name and omission of one word from the c&p) and you did not actually read McFarlane's letter yourself.

CatherinaJTV · 04/09/2011 15:23

oh, and I am still waiting for what specifically I am to look at in that Noble link. I know it is not supporting a relationship between later vaccination and lower SIDS rates in Japan, but you might be out for something else?

Flowerista · 04/09/2011 15:27

I went the routevof seperate jabs, or tried to. The issue, apart from cost is that it is now impossible to get the single mumps jab as the company which made it no longer does so. My DS had his single measles jabs (by far the riskiest not to have at a young age) but now, just about to begin school at 4.3 has hadvto have the MMR.

ArthurPewty · 04/09/2011 16:48

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

CatherinaJTV · 04/09/2011 17:02

Leonie - that seems rather close minded of them - I am sorry, can imagine how you must be sitting on your hands and that is just not fair...

ArthurPewty · 04/09/2011 18:06

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

bigfatcath · 04/09/2011 18:08

I'm following it avidly btr am not as eloquent or well read as Catherina and Bruffin.

Enjoying it though!

bigfatcath · 04/09/2011 18:09

ha ha and am not as good at typing... but not btr!!

CatherinaJTV · 04/09/2011 18:10

oh blush Blush thank you!

bigfatcath · 04/09/2011 18:22

'tis true! There will be no conversion of the more ardent anti vaccination posters but you are doing a good job in answering the untruths and bad science that may influence other mumsneters, well done!

MyGoldfishIsEvil · 04/09/2011 19:10

Leonie, if that is just because of a strong opinion, then I thought MN was a bit more open minded than that too. Or did you break the MN rules?

I've had all mine vaccinated, so I would fall on the pro-vax side; I do think it's up individual parents to make the decision though.

sashh · 20/11/2011 10:52

Bloody hell - here's an argument for you blueberries

Not all children with autism had MMR. But ALL children with Autism were fed milk in their first three months of life. Allthe mothers of Autistic children noticed that their children drank milk, it is their personal testemonty.

But the big nasty scientists don't believe that milk causes autism.

SoBroken

There is no actual age at which danger passes, it's just that if you vaccinate at age 5 or 6 you already know if your child is autistic or not.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page