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.

the point about 30% of asd cases in the sixties being regressive is only relevant if you can point to accurate numbers to show what the current % is for regressive cases.

and you can't.

the whole dx fiasco, taking multiple years, means that the focus is moved away form whether the autism is regressive or not (in cases which are not so stark) or ignored (although often acknowledged on the quiet) in cases which are alarming.

my dd1 was dx'd at 2.6, as I said earlier. she had several regressions up until that point - not delays (although she had enough of those), not plateauing (although again, like any toddler, she did that too) but regrssions - losing skills she had previously mastered; not meeting milestones she had previously met.

but in their haste to "prove" that it was not the mmr (which is wasn't, entirely - dd1 was clearly asd before she had that jab), doctors often ovrlooked these points. in fact, it is only recently that this has been addressed, and it has been acknowledged that she did indeed regress - she is now 7. presumably it is ok now to mention the regression word...

i haven't read all the thread because tbh i can't be bothered, however, I did want to let the OP know that I had mumps really badly as a 4 year old and have to wear hearing aids as a result. To me that is the real risk, and therefore I would vaccinate asap.

In short, the dx is for life. The later they can dx, the higher the chances of the costs of treatment coming out of someone else's budget.

Once in education, parents are persuaded that support is based on need not diagnosis, that labels are stigmatising and any specialist placement or intervention will prevent their child from integrating socially, which incidentally if they coukd do that without specialist support they would't HAVE autism.

The goal of course is to try to push funding for the child out of the early years budget into the primary budget, and then the secondary budget, and hopefully they can get away with keeping the child babysat for long enough in mainstream, not learning but not disruptive, to push their problems into Social Care.

If a few thousand pounds was spent in those early years many of the children would not need £80k annual placements from the age of 16 but things are not done for the good of the child, nor the good of the public, nor the public purse.

It is in this background that parents are being told, by a PCT that failed them that the MMR is safe. A dangerous claim to make as it, like all other medicines is not safe for all.

Those are interesting but very depressing insights.

It is truly sickening when it all comes down to money.

I agree totally with Starlight's post. It is depressing, but it happens all the time. We have been pushed from pillar to post by cost cutting LAs, robbed off by SS, driven to move across the country and back again in pursuit of a suitable and stable education for dd1.

It took us 2 years to get a dx for dd1, and she was severely asd. And very clearly so. And had been for longer than those 2 years, but we were still told "wait and see". It wasn't until we came across a paed who was so thoroughly fed up with the system that he cut throught the bollocks and gave us direct phone numbers, ordered a whole host of tests for dd1 to speed up the process and basically speeded up her dx.

Once we had the dx (suitably vague, no actual definition of her issues, no assessment to place her on a scale wrt her delays, no data on her deficits or how to tackle them) we were told repeatedly that she would be fine in mainstream education - no need to apply for a statement, it would all be taken care of. No need to worry, all would work out once the assessments were done, and the services kicked in. Except they didnt. No assessment. No services. Nothing. But still an expectation and implication she would be fine.

Her fist statement (applied for by me. No help from anyone in the education dept) stated 7 hours per week. She is now, quite rightly, in a highly specialised SN school, with full time 1:1 support. But we were old no more than 7 hours was mecessary or possible.

The whole system stinks. And the pushing of all autism away from any hint of a trigger from vaccines is just the start of a very long, very bad dream for a lot of families.

Source? My GP, when he was trying to persuade me to give my children the MMR. It actually used to be a very popular argument among pro-vaccinists as a reason for having the jab, often cited as one of the adverse effects of wild infection. smile I often heard it in debate.

I have never heard this as a mainstream concern, nor come across it in the literature apart from Wakefield's papers. Citation badly needed.

Well maybeyou aren't as well read as you think you are or maybe all the pro-vaccinists were lying at the time after all.

That's your only comment. I really judge you Caterina. You are coming across as callous and irresponsible in the extreme. I'm really judging you here,

Experiences of MMR wanted....... both mine had MMR at correct age and are absolutely fine.

I forgot to go for one of the earlier vaccines (genuine mistake!) and that night she screamed solidly for three hours. If I hadn't forgotten I'd have blamed the vaccine, If she went on to develop/ showed signs of autism I'd have blamed the vaccine. But he didn't have it!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!

I know a few children who have had both MMR jabs and haven't suffered any short-term ill-effects. That just goes to show that the MMR was ok for them. It does not mean that the MMR is safe for all.

I posted my experience as blueberries asked for personal testemonies... or are only negative ones welcome?

Sorry for exclamation marks. Drunken posting.

Actually I didn't - it was just a comment after somebody said a "well my kid was fine!!!!!!!!" thing.

Positive accounts are lovely to hear but

a. they make no difference to the MMR-autism trigger concern
b. they sound "I'm alright Jack"

But yknow. You're welcome to post.

When I said short-term ill-effects, I didn't actually mean quite that. I really meant no immediate permanent ill-effects. They may well have suffered short-term ill-effects, such as nausea.

As Blueberties says, though, that does not prove that MMR or any other jab is safe for all children. And that is the problem, isn't it?

Blueberties - your claim, your responsibility to support it... I have read this claim from Wakefield (I have also read it once before for Mumps, Measles and Crohn's, probably the paper that Wakefield "got" his idea from), but it is definetely not a mainstream medical concern. You don't have a source, so pick the dummy up and stop complaining.

If it were a mainstream medical concern, would that not be a vote in favour of MMR?

Catherina - honestly, it's simple. just google it.

close temporal exposure to

But I am baffled. you say you have done a lot of reading on this - you really do not have to read very far to uncover the link.

Silverfrog - the only thing google throws up are dodgy websites such as Whale. If you search pubmed you get zero return.

My doctor's claim - I trusted him. Should I have asked him for peer review?

My lip is curling, I mean, beyond curling.

I can't actually express how curling it actually is.

Tabitha - yes, that was how it was painted. It's a risk of natural mumps and measles therefore your children should have MMR.

And by dodgy you mean : presenting evidence that doesn't agree with your view.

I judge you both, I really do.

here's a link to a programme that Caterina and Bruffin should listen to

There are a number of points of interest. One is that a potentially highly effective treatment for brain cancer was denied funding for over a decade, because a successful trial would not create profit and would possibly cost the pharmaceutical industry. The other is the importance attached by neurosurgeons to "personal testimony", evidence admitted to be anecdotal, in the absence of such large scale studies. Both undermine the idea that the mothership of "peer review" is the only evidence worth examination.

No they don't show any evidence that stands up to any scrutiny and whale's is known for fiddling data. ie missing out vital years in graphs etc to make them look like he wants them to, so nobody takes them seriously. As I said if you search pubmed nothing comes up at all.

Bluebertie have you actually managed to provide any evidence at all for anything on this website. You have posted under at least 4 names i know of and only once you managed to provide some links and that was cut and pasted from another website, so I suspect you never read them.

There has been another review on vaccine safety released released by the IOM. It has looked a 1000 studies and still can't find a link between MMR and autism.

Yes - I posted evidence earlier in the the thread.

Why don't you listen to my link - you might learn something.

And try not to make things up about me - it can never end well.

The IoM study doesn't surprise me at all. MMR-autism is rather like the possible treatment for brain cancer I mentioned - the studies aren't done. One could just as easily say there's "no evidence" for treatment X but oncologists are prescribing it anyway, with some apparent success.

The study is 667 pages: I'd like to know which epidemiological studies they use. As I quoted from the Madsen study 2002 any before then are considered worthless by the scientific community so it would be interesting to know if the IoM uses them in support of this claim.

Added to which: the general failures of epidemiology as discussed on this thread.