MMR at three? Or should I wait until booster age?

[SoBroken]

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.

Sorry I have to go back to this, DBennet, how can you even imagine there were nine years of follow up? The cut off date was 99 and it was published in 2002. Only the children in the first year of the study had nine years of medical records, and not even some of them, as it started in 91. So those vaccinated in about 96, 97, 98, 99 won't have had time to be diagnosed as autistic. That's three years of children, maybe four. All counted as vaccinated but not autistic. How can that not skew the figures?

The madsen study is comparing a group of vacinated/unvacinated children born between jan 91 to dec 88, it is not is not comparing this cohort to cohorts in the past.

It does not matter that some vaccinated children will not be diagnosed because they are only 2 or 3 because there will be unvaccinated children who are not diagnosed at that age either, although if you look at the tables the percentages of children diagnosed with autism at 1-2 in vaccinated and unvaccinated are identical, as were those diagnosed later ie at 3-5 and 6+.

You criticizm of the study doesn't make any sense at all.

*That's three years of children, maybe four. All counted as vaccinated but not autistic. How can that not skew the figures?
*
Firstly the study is also including unvaccinated children of the same age who obviously have the potential to be diagnosed with autism at a later age as well.

Secondly read the table because there are vaccinated and unvaccinated children who have been diagnosed at 1-2 and those figures are identical.

Of course it matters.

You're saying look, all these children were vaccinated and they didn't get autism, and that's the same incidence rate as the children who didn't get vaccinated.

But "all these children" includes a bunch of children who got vaccinated and might have autism but no one knows about it yet. So - yes, it counts.

How can you say it doesn't matter?

Just because non vaccinated children had the potential to get austism - you're just assuming that vaccinated and unvaccinated children get austim at the same rate.

But that's what you're trying to find out. You can't assume it without looking at the numbers. Without actually counting them. You can't predicate a study on what you're trying to find out, without actually counting the cases, because you haven't found it out yet.

The whole point is - you are actually supposed to be counting the children and not guessing or making assumptions.

What you're saying is: "the authors of the study have assumed that vaccinated and unvaccinated children have autism in the same rates and they've found therefore that vaccinated and unvaccinated children have autism in the same rates".

My criticism makes perfect sense - it's your criticism of my criticism that doesn't make sense. There's a difference between assuming the naswer to your question because you've even done the science - and actually finding out what you want to know.

"There's a difference between assuming the naswer to your question before you've even done the science - and actually finding out what you want to know.*

typing without specs

I use "get" autism as a shorthand, I'm aware it's not a bag of potatoes, sorry if it offends

Hopefully DBennett will come along and explain it properly, but you don't seem to understand the point of the study at all.

The whole point is they are not making assumptions, it is you that are making assumptions. You are making the assumption that the vaccinated will go onto have more incidents of autism, but that is not what is happening in the older children, so why assume that the same will not happen in the younger children.
They are saying this is what happened to children born in this period of time.

If you are saying that the younger children may have different rates of autism than the older then it would be obvious autism would not caused by mmr!

The point of the study is not to make assumptions - but it has made the assumption, if your explanation is anything to go by.

The point of the study is to count the number of children who were vaccinated and then count the cases of autism amongst that number. Also to count the number of unvaccinated children and count the cases of autism amongst that number.

I don't assume there'll be more. I think they should be counted.

You don't think they need to be counted because (I think?) both groups could go on to have the same amount of autism? But then, they might not, or the vaccinated might have more, or the unvaccinated might have more. Who knows? Let's count them. Let's include them in the study.

Let's not pretend that we have counted them and assume that they wouldn't have developed autism.

"all personal testimony welcome"

OK. DD had her first MMR at 15 months and her second one at four and a half. She is 11 now and absolutely fine.

I'm not prepared to get into this argument, suffice to say I did look at all the options when DD was due to have her MMR - I spoke to several medical professionals as well, and feel that I made an informed choice when I took her for her jab.

I had measles as a child and have crap eyesight as a result, so for me not vaccinating against measles was not an option. I also know someone who lost her baby due to contracting german measles while she was pregnant.

"Let's not pretend that we have counted them and assume that they wouldn't have developed autism."
Nobody has assumed they wouldn't have developed autism, just as nobody assumed that they would develope autism.

They are comparing vaccinated with unvaccinated at a point in time. They compared 8 years old with 8 years old and 1 year old with 1 year olds as part of the study. If you were saying that no child was diagnosed ever under the age of 5 then you may have a point, but that is not the case here.There were children diagnosed under the age of 2.

There were not looking a trend in autism or any other cause just the comparrison of vaccinated to unvaccinated iro mmr.

DBennett Thanks for all the info on epidemiology. Just to recap, am I right in thinking that epidemiological studies involve analysis of data (from various sources) rather than sitting in a lab with an electron microscope and test tubes or whatever?
Looking at Bradford-Hill's criteria, I can see why we can believe that smoking cigarettes can cause lung cancer. I also note that there are arguments against using Bradford-Hill. I can hardly bare to think about that.

So, going back to MMR. To prove, using Bradford-Hill, that MMR can cause autism in some children, would we need a large subject base with a large degree of autism following MMR? So, if we were to look at 100,000 children but only 5% became autistic following MMR, we could infer that MMR was not responsible? Though I appreciate that this wouldn't mean that MMR really wasn't responsible. We just won't have proved a causal link using Bradford-Hill.

The study does not count them because they were not of an age to be diagnosed at the end of the study. I'm so tired. You assume unvaccinated would have been diagnosed at the same rate as vaccinated.

The study doesn't do what you say it does. The study says the average age of diagnosis is around 4.5 (I think - too tired to look tonight) and the average age of vaccination is 17 months (same). Therefore there will have been children - quite a large number - vaccinated and undiagnosed at the end of the study. It is straightforward. I believe in Denmark diagnosis is often later because of later school start but that's something I vaguely read so you can discount it. It would count as an assumption. Except it doesn't actually if 4.5 is an average. Gosh am tired.

Let's bear in mind that I'm not trying to prove anything, you are trying to "prove" something, beyond reasonable doubt anyway.

This study firstly dismisses all the other studies as worthless, and let's not forget it was not the authors massaging their own egos as Dbennet suggests, it was commissioned by WHO for that reason.

Second it's got significant flaws and so it doesn't show what it says it shows.

It really is up to pro-vaccinists to "prove" the case as far as possible with MMR and this study is yet another which doesn't do so.

Tabitha, no link, am tired, but the US courts have accepted or ruled that epidemiology is NOT acceptable as proving causality or lack of it.

"It does not matter that some vaccinated children will not be diagnosed because they are only 2 or 3 because there will be unvaccinated children who are not diagnosed at that age either"

here you go, this is your assumption

you actually need to read the study rather than relying on other peoples analysis of it!

Are we still talking about Madsen, from the link provided earlier?
If so, having read it, then what?

Er - I have read the study - just not this time - and I don't.

Is that your only response? I take it you have no other.

Epidemiology up to 2002 is flawed, this "study to end all studies" is flawed.

Where is your proof? Where is your weight of probability, even?

Assuming that I'm now understanding epidemiology correctly, I fail to see how MMR could ever be held responsible for cases of regressive autism. However, neither does that prove that MMR isn't responsible, does it?

My DS caught measles between his first MMR jab and the booster as it was at the height of the autism scare. He is OK thankfully, but when I asked how that could happen they told me 10% of kids don't get full immunity from the first jab, hence the booster. It's not such a problem if the general population is immunised as the bugs can't spread easily, but it is frankly irresponsible to fail to protect your child if you are able. These are serious diseases, and I for one have not seen any evidence that compels me to risk my children's health over.
Even if it turns out to have some basis in truth, who would really say that a miniscule risk of autism is worse than a far more likely risk of deafness, blindness, amputation or even death from Measles or rubella. Get a grip folks!

You failed to mention mumps.
I did get a grip. I did a lot of reading into this subject two years ago and I've yet to see anything to change my mind.

I omitted mumps as it's major side effect is male infertility although it can cause deafness in rare cases.

The HPA website actually says that there's no firm evidence that orchitis, a possible (rare) side effect from mumps, causes sterility.

Just to keep things in perspective.

That's why I left it off my first post. I still fail to see why either non immunisation or separate jabs are actually safer for a child.

Just read through all the posts-wow, a lot of very strong opinions here.
At the risk of kicking it all off again, did autism diagnoses reduce following the wakefield study and corresponding drop in immunisation rates? That is surely a study worth doing

Perhaps you should read the experiences of some people who saw their child regress. Your appalling post earlier comparing disabilities is really unconscionable, as is your advice to people to "get a grip".

Appalling? Really? Other posters were reducing these families to mere statistics which I doubt is any better or even any more helpful, whether they chose to immunise or not. I wish I'd not tried to put my point to this thread, the OP seems to be long gone and now it's just a bitching ground!