Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

General health

Mumsnet doesn't verify the qualifications of users. If you have medical concerns, please consult a healthcare professional.

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:
CatherinaJTV · 29/08/2011 08:33

Thank you Blueberties,

(1) There are thousands of reports of post-MMR regression into autistic disorder.

And in the US Autism Omnibus proceedings, 5000 plaintiffs were not able to come up with one case amongst them that showed a hint of causality (50% and a feather). Bruffin was mentioning parental recall bias and that is a big factor here.

(2) There is an explosion of autistic disorder since the upgrade of the vaccine schedule including MMR.

Nope - there is an "explosion" of autistic disorder since the reclassification of the DSM. Watch what happens when DSM5 gets introduced - there will be no neurotypical kids left, they'll all have something of some sort. Recent studies amongst adults show a good number of autistics, they have always been there.

(3) Obviously these are worthy of consideration.

Yes, and this is being considered, for example by autism prevalence studies amongst adults.

(4) No connection is established by the studies.

That is correct, but you seem to disagree?

(5) The nature of the studies is challenged (in the case of Madsen, by pro-MMR researchers) and the value of this type of study in establishing disproof is challenged (see the exchange between DBennet and Tabitha).

Madsen is one of many (eg Honda). A follow up to Madsen's research should be possible about now (with all kids in the original study having reached 8 or older). I wonder whether that is happening.

(6) The value of (1) is challenged: my link demonstrates how senior mainstream researchers value (1).

Your link was about cancer research... and yes, as painful as it may be to accept. "Eye witness" accounts are not very reliable. I have found myself remembering things differently from the recorded evidence and I have seen others do the same (and this is documented in the literature for a small number of parents re: MMR and autism, too). The brain is hard wired to make up connections where there aren't any.

I don't think you want to engage in debate about the value of the evidence you consider sacrosanct.

Hu?

In any case, still waiting for a link that it is "generally known" that closely spaced exposure to viral diseases causes autism or similar. My searches only turn up Wakefield and Wakefieldettes, nothing mainstream.

Blueberties · 01/09/2011 02:33

"My correspondence with MNHQ?"
"put up or shut up?"

Bruffin, can you cease and desist in in your attempts to bully and intimidate me off this board? When you're ready. Step back, take a breath.

"Please actually provide actually evidence..I have yet to see anything of value."

I have provided evidence. I gave one example of a child's experience of MMR. You can have more. If you want I could fill up this board with at least two thousand such accounts. Do you want evidence and links regarding the increase in autism? You see such accounts as having "no value" - plainly you would like other people to as well. Obviously that's your heart's desire. With such a volume of reports of temporal correlation, including temporal correlation of a large increase in autistic disorder, it is up to you to provide evidence of value. It is up to you to provide proof, in fact, especially when you claim it.

You proved nothing in the discussion about the madsen paper other than you didn't understand it! There have been hundreds of studies in various shapes and forms and none have ever been able to confirm there is a link between mmr and autistic regression.

*I think it's you that didn't understand. These hundreds of studies - many of them were dismissed by Madsen. Every single one of them before 2002, and not just in Wthe introduction, in the body of the paper as well (as I assume you know, though you seem to be pretending not to). I'm not sure why this is difficult for you to understand. It's not a case of proof - it's written right there in front of your eyes. As a little extra, Madsen also says it hasn't examined evidence of autistic regression and can't make any conclusions about regression in a sub-group. So much for your proof/

"The studies have looked at comparing unvaccinated and vaccinated, looking to see if more children with autism have bowel problems, the time between mmr and the onset of symptons, to see if children who are diagnosed with autism consult their doctor more in the weeks after mmr than those who are not diagnosed with autism, omparing rates of regression in children prior to when the mmr was introduced, comparing rates of regression in children who have had mmr and those who haven't, trying to replicate wakefields findings,
bias recall (you should actually google that to see why you shouldn't take parents evidence as sacrosanct)."

*Why don't you link them all (none before 2002 please) and we can discuss their findings? Why don't you address the question of the actual value of epidemiological studies in establishing this type of link?

Parents' evidence isn't sacrosanct - who said it was? I am saying it's not meaningless and without value, which is your claim. Try not to twist things around. Be clearer in what you're trying to say.*

All these studies add up to a huge body of evidence

Well let's see. The findings of Cochrane's meta study were basically, so far as I can see from the list of references, based on two epidemiological pieces of research, Madsen and Smeeth. I've been working and still have not been able to see the IoM's list of references. If you want to post any since 2002 you are welcome.

"How much more money do you want to see thrown at mmr which can be spent on research to find out the true causes of autism, or preventing other diseases."

*This is rather unpleasant and hypocritical. There are children, the cause of whose regression is unknown, who have basically been abandoned and dismissed and their parents smeared as paranoid, hysterical liars in this very nasty campaign. The money that has been spent has basically been thrown at the cause of maintaining the reputation of MMR. Thankfully there are people who are truly interested in discovering the causes of autistic disorder and autistic regression, and are funding such research in the United States. Doctors here are too afraid.

Maybe you should actually show a bit of compassion for the 10s of thousands that are still dying every year from preventable disease. 18 children an hour from measles. Nobody is saying vaccination is perfect but it is far more better than doing nothing

Bruffin: after your extremely callous and unpleasant comments about vaccine damaged children being "meaningless" I think you ought to read your own notes on compassion. The number of children who die in developing countries of childhool illness is a tragedy. Single vaccines are available of course. It is only ideology which prevents their use in some countries. And it's obvious to everyone that the fact or otherwise of a link between MMR and autistic disorder is entirely separate and must be proved or disproved separately.*.

Blueberties · 01/09/2011 02:53

"In the US Autism Omnibus proceedings, 5000 plaintiffs were not able to come up with one case amongst them that showed a hint of causality"

Link please. Obviously the story is different in the UK, where the families of two thousand people had good evidence of causality accepted: obviously I will question your use of "were not able to come up with" as I imagine it probably means "had their evidence of causality rejected" which is an entirely different thing. So link please.

"Nope - there is an "explosion" of autistic disorder since the reclassification of the DSM."

Nope - DSM-IV was introduced in 1994. Why then the study which the UK government claims "found" that the increase in autism began before the MMR was introduced? (note - another deeply flawed study, I'll discuss it if you like)

*Recent studies amongst adults show a good number of autistics, they have always been there."

"Autistics"? "They have always been there"? What is this, eugenics central?
The studies are almost undoubtedly intended to rewrite the history of autistic disorder. Are you suggesting that this many children were autistic thirty years ago, and that one in a hundred children was locked away from sight in institutions so that it was hidden from the general population?

"Yes, and this is being considered, for example by autism prevalence studies amongst adults."

This is an extraordinarily odd way to investigate vaccine adverse events reports. To go to an entirely separate population and conduct epidemiology and retrospective diagnosis. If these studies are anything but PR stunts writ large I will eat my hat.

"That is correct, but you seem to disagree?"

You see to have a problem understanding. Of course the studies find no connection - that's what they were designed to do. It's the value of the studies I challenge.

"Madsen is one of many (eg Honda)."

You must know that Honda is based on the single vaccines/MMR comparison? So you must know that in Japan, single vaccines were administered within weeks or days, sometimes the same day? In what way does this challenge AW's recommendation that they be spaced 6 months apart?

"A follow up to Madsen's research should be possible about now (with all kids in the original study having reached 8 or older). I wonder whether that is happening."

Actually there has been one, but you wouldn't accept it, and it finds a link. But you wouldn't accept it.

Your link was about cancer research

Well - yes Hmm that's what I said when I linked to it. But it demonstrates the importance with which anecdotal evidence, which you so despise, is considered by people rather better educated and reputed in the scientific community than you or I.

I'm still waiting for a disproof, which it's up to you to provide.

CatherinaJTV · 01/09/2011 14:40

US Autism Omnibus proceedings...Link please.

www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/omnibus-autism-proceeding

Why then the study which the UK government claims "found" that the increase in autism began before the MMR was introduced?

which study?

DSM-3-R was introduced in 1987 - this is a good link to see the effect of autism-ASDs... www.unstrange.com/dsm1.html

What is this, eugenics central?

What is that? Inflammatory interjection central? I was referring to things like this: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21536975

"The weighted prevalence of ASD in adults was estimated to be 9.8 per 1000"

You must know that Honda is based on the single vaccines/MMR comparison? So you must know that in Japan, single vaccines were administered within weeks or days, sometimes the same day? In what way does this challenge AW's recommendation that they be spaced 6 months apart?

Actually, I know that in Japan, children do NOT get single vaccines within weeks or days or on the same day as AW alleges in his response to the Honda et al paper. In Japan, boys are not vaccinated against rubella and the overall vaccination rate against mumps is around 30%. Therefore, very very few children got M, M and R. (my source is Dr. Honda, I emailed him directly and am also following the literature on mumps and rubella vaccination in Japan).

Actually there has been one, but you wouldn't accept it, and it finds a link. But you wouldn't accept it.

If you provided a link, I could at least look at it to see whether your prediction is correct. The latest paper on which Madsen is an author validates their earlier collection/assessment methods www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19728067 (but then that has Poul Thorsen as a senior author and that probably upsets you). What paper were you thinking about?

disproof

? of what? Your cancer link? I did not look at that.

banana87 · 01/09/2011 14:43

We did the MMR at 2. If he's going to nursery I would just do it. You can't get seperate jabs for all 3 anymore anyway, so no question of cost.

Blueberties · 01/09/2011 14:58

increase in autism here

This is an extract.

"The study by Kaye et al provides evidence that the autism trends in the United Kingdom are not related to MMR vaccination. The study was a time trend analysis of a large database of general medical practices in the United Kingdom and compared diagnoses of autism with coverage of MMR vaccine. There was a striking 7-fold increase in the incidence of newly diagnosed cases of autism from 1988 to 1999. Among boys, the incidence of autism increased 4-fold for those born in the years from 1988 to 1993. For the same birth cohorts, the coverage of MMR vaccine was stable at more than 95%. Thus, there was no correlation between the large increase in autism diagnoses and MMR coverage."

I haven't time to check the details now: but I believe this was a study which calculated by age whether someone with autism was of an age to have had the vaccination. It ignored the 3.2 million children aged between five and sixteen who were vaccinated in a "catch-up" campaign in 1994. I'll have to check this.

Blueberties · 01/09/2011 15:00

Of course Hideo Honda would say that. It's his own study, he's, what, Professor of Pharmacueticals or Pharmacy at Tokyo uni? It's the equivalent of me quoting an assurance from Andrew Wakefield Hmm I'll take him seriously if you'll take my quotes seriously. But obviously I won't be holding my breath.

Blueberties · 01/09/2011 15:05

No. Disproof of the MMR autism theory - I've yet to see one. It's up to you to produce one.

I know you didn't listen to the link. I can tell. Be brave. It will show you how I have something in common with senior neuroscientists and oncologist in taking seriously personal and individual clinical experience.

It's very salient because you say that type of evidence is meaningless. Until you suddenly introduced "unstrange minds" you wouldn't accept anything except peer review.

In fact, as I predicted many pages ago - "you'll just say it's wrong or they remember it wrong" - and you're doing just that.

I'll find another link on the follow up to the Danish study. Right now I have to be away from my desk.

Blueberties · 01/09/2011 15:08

abstract and editorial critique

Still haven't had time to check the methodology. But I think this is the one that basically says "if you're 25 (for example) and autistic you're too old to have had MMR so the increase began before MMR was introduced". The flaw is that there was a catch up campaign of older children and teenagers in 1994.

Blueberties · 01/09/2011 19:15

Prof Samy Suisa, behind the Madsen reassessment

Professor of Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Medicine, McGill University, member of Canadian Institutes Health Research's review committee for Training Programs Grants, awarded CIHR's Senior Scientist award, published over 40 refereed papers in the New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet and the Journal of the American Medical Association, member of the editorial board of Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety, and the American Journal of Respiratory Medicine - and still, apparently, the NEJM refused to publish his response to Madsen.

Blueberties · 01/09/2011 19:17

I can't find a Honda biography - Yokohama School of Rehabilitiation? PhD Pharmacology? I looked for about ten minutes.

Blueberties · 01/09/2011 19:22

By the way, my eugenics central referred to the way you talk about people with autistic disorders. I don't like it. I don't have a child with autism but I think it sounds wrong to call them "autistics" (even if there IS a group reclaiming the name) and I think it's very dismissive to say "they've always been with us" in a sort of holding at arm's length way. Maybe you didn't mean it like that, and it would be great if you could say so, but your other comments on this thread, a couple of quite sneery ones, lead me to think that you really are rather dismissive and uncaring on this.

Blueberties · 01/09/2011 19:23

Gosh - eight posts in a row - now nine. I am SO interested in this.

CatherinaJTV · 01/09/2011 20:30

Blueberties - Honda was just one of my sources of information. Pubmed and national (i.e. Japanese) web sites are full of vaccination information, including vaccination coverage. I would usually not go by one source only.

As for "autistics" - I am sorry you feel offended - what I meant is that when I was in high school (school population about 600), we had one DSM3 diagnosed boy with "autism" (stimming and all) and I had two classmated (out of 25) on the spectrum, one with selective mutism (obviously crudly and retrospectively "diagnosed" by me). That would be 3/600 and I am certainly missing some who were in other years. We are talking birth years in the mid 60ies in quite a posh school with a mostly female population (although 2/3 were male).

My friend's sons on the spectrum (properly diagnosed as AS and HFA) are just like their dads and granddads who had no "label" what so ever. I wasn't talking eugenics at all and would not be.

off to look at your Prof Suisa

CatherinaJTV · 01/09/2011 20:32

I should add that one of my mum's friends was headmisstress of a school for children with intellectual disabilities and had quite a few who were highly intelligent, but not functioning in the classroom and I was "there" when the diagnosis autism as something that could possibly be wrong with a child entered teachers' minds...

CatherinaJTV · 01/09/2011 20:39

ok, looked at your link -

are you trying to take the mickey? Some greenhealthconspiracyandyisourheroandcarolestottascientist web site referring to a Carole Stott and Wakefield write up in an ultra-reactionary joke of a journal? See, I really, really want to look at "the other side's" arguments, but your threshold for acceptable information is just so very very low.

For anyone who wants to read up - this is a good summary:

www.blacktriangle.org/blog/?p=1798

Blueberties · 01/09/2011 22:14

I don't like a "sorry you feel offended" - I prefer "sorry I offended".

Otherwise you aren't sorry at all. Never mind how many - "some of my best friends are autistics" references you want me to note.

No I'm not taking the mickey - it's at least comparable to "unstrangetimes" or whatever whatnot you're linking to. Note that I have the grace to ask you for a different link and really don't feel the need to be childish about it.

And I notice you neatly avoid the fact that its source is the highly respected epidemiologist linked to above.

So don't try that bullying tactic of denigration with me. You are perfectly well aware that the Prof Suisa is a highly respectable source. You are perfectly well aware that the NEJM refused to publish his immediate response to Madsen, and you are perfectly well aware that his comments deserve attention. Of course it wouldn't do for you to address this - in a way that I am very happy to address your links, your statistics.

You obviously I see now prefer to be insulting, not just to the argument but to the people affected by it.

When you have something more engaging, more mature and less offensiveto say - I will pay attention again.

Blueberties · 01/09/2011 22:25

After all, how would you like it if I asked what is this blacktrianglepharmaceuticalloving crank site you expect me to take seriously? You must be kidding. And the anonymous "Epiwonk" who analyses de Suissa? Unless you can tell me who he is, with his two golden retrievers? And what about Anthony Cox? The man who makes fun of the yellow card reporting system with a fake link on his webpage?

Do you like that? Think about how you're conducting yourself please.

bruffin · 01/09/2011 22:55

I typed 3 long replies this morning but managed but managed to time out on them each time!

I was going to make the same points at Catherine

A. I know of at least two parents of asperger type autistic children who are undiagnosed autistic themselves. This is probably why the rate of regression has fallen from in the 30+% to in the 25% because one of the diagnosis for aspergers is no regression.

B. Honda - you claim that singles and measles are within days, the recommendation in japan is minimum wait of 4 weeks. Also the rate of measles vaccination for the years covered was very low ie 60-70% and there are no figures for mumps so you would expect to see a drop in the number of cases not growth even if everyone was vaccinated with both mumps and measles.

Catherinas link is spot on. I have been reading the Horton evidence in the transcript of the gmc wakefields trials and it bears no relation to what martin j walker on the whale website reports. But the whale/martin j walker version gets reported over and over again.

It is not callous to be able to see the bigger picture and want the best for the majority, nor is it bullying to expect a bit of honesty from posters.

Blueberties · 02/09/2011 05:26

"the recommendation in japan is minimum wait of 4 weeks."

I think you need to check your facts. I don't know why you think four weeks is any kind of challenge to the MMR-autism theory anyway.

AW recommended six months. To prevent the effects of repeated assult to the immune system without recovery time.

Two otherr things about Japan when I was mooching around - first this transcript of a Channel 4 news broadcast from ten years ago:

31/1/01, presented by Ian Williams in Osaka, Japan.

Scene opens with a film of parents and their child looking at a photograph album.

Ian W: "The reality of their terrible loss emerges. They had a son and when he was 21 months old they took him for an MMR vaccination. (Close up of photo of unconscious infant with naso-gastric tube in situ). Two days later he was in a coma from which he never recovered. That was eight years ago and still the family is fighting for proper compensation from the Japanese government."

Kayoka Kinoshita (mother): "We are the victims, not only of that vaccine, but of a failure to make proper information about possible side-effects available to us. It fills me with resentment and anger." Shot of nursery school. Children being served with food and eating lunch.

Ian W: "Nursery schools used to help organise mass vaccinations and for 4 years, from 1989, MMR was recommended by the authorities until, that is, the evidence of side-effects could no longer be ignored. More than anybody else it was Shunsuke Fuji who battled to extract and then publish information from Japan's secretive and high-handed bureaucrats".

Shot of book-lined, untidy office in the Osaka Inoculation Information Centre where a telephone is ringing. Shunsuke Fuji walks in and picks up the telephone, listens, then says:

"If your child's already two, even catching measles wouldn't be so serious, so why bother with an inoculation?"

Ian W: "The authorities eventually admitted that more than 1000 people suffered side-effects from MMR, mostly meningitis. Three died before the drug was withdrawn in 1993". Shunsuke Fuji: "They began using MMR in April 1989 and by July doctors were already warning of side-effects, but the government didn't take any notice because it was not convenient for them. They kept using it for another 3 years, securing the profits for the manufacturers".

Shot of childrens' playground and children playing.

Ian W: "The problem was pinned on the mumps component of the inoculation which was changed and which is not used in Britain. But the damage had been done by the vaccine and by the government's sloppy response. Parents no longer trust any MMR so doctors in Japan now give a separate measles inoculation to children between the ages of one and six years old. It is given as a single shot: no boosters are necessary. They do accept that Japan's rate of measles is high - 4,500 cases and 69 deaths between 1994 and 1998, but doctors here claim it was high even when MMR was used and they strongly reject British criticism of the single vaccine". Shot of clinic at Osaka Red Cross Hospital with Dr Hidebeko Yamomoto drawing up a syringe of dear liquid.

Dr Yamamoto: "The reason there are more measles cases here compared with other countries is not that we use the single measles inoculation but because we only give it after the child is one year old. That is the problem. The measles cases usually originate in children in under one year and spreads from them, so we should really think about giving the jabs earlier".

Change of scene to childrens' playground. Little girl on swing being pushed by father.

Ian W: "Not only has Japan abandoned MMR in favour of the single measles shot, but this has had a wider impact. Such is public disillusion with what's seen as dishonest, bungling bureaucrats that it has undermined public confidence in vaccination.

When Mayu (close up of little girl on swing) was born six years ago, her parents were wary of all vaccines. They insisted on an allergy test before a measles jab. This proved positive. A full inoculation might of killed their daughter. Last year, though, Mayu contracted a serious dose of measles. Thankfully, she fully recovered. Her parents' opinions have hardened: like a growing number of Japanese they would rather risk illness than vaccines".

Tomoko Kitakata (Mayu's mother): "I have a distrust and fear about putting dangerous things into the body. I also doubt whether the answers from the government are true - or even from doctors - because they all say something different. We have to make our own choice".

Ian W: "Like everywhere, the overwhelming concern of parents here is the health of their children. But Japan's experience with vaccines and the response of the authorities has hardly inspired confidence".

Blueberties · 02/09/2011 05:39

Second, the drop in cot death rates there after the minimum vaccination age was raised. I used to know about this years ago - I can't believe I didn't keep it in mind.

Horton's reliability is deeply underminded by his false recollections regarding the whole affair. Talk about "bias recall".

You are NOT trying to see the bigger picture Bruffin - you've been trying to hide it. "Shut up"? You don't want the questions even asked. Your use of the phrase "bigger picture" is a sister to the phrase "collateral damage". Where damaged children and their famlies - who took their "social resopnsibility" seriously - are abandoned, ignored, smeared, mocked, threatened and dismissed.

Caterina's link is "spot on?" Now it's you that must be kidding. To a pro-pharmaceutical blog with a !!!!fake yellow card reporting link!!! - great joke there - and top links to the Pharmaceutical Journal, where the blogger admits he knows nothing about epidemiology so he passes it to another anonymous blogger for analysis. "Spot on"? I thought you guys were in love with peer review?

Blueberties · 02/09/2011 05:44

"To expect a bit of honesty?"

Seriously - you are at it again???? You can't just address the argument can you?

Which bit of my argument is a lie, Bruffin?

Blueberties · 02/09/2011 06:16

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by Mumsnet.

Blueberties · 02/09/2011 07:18

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by Mumsnet.