mmr yes or no? really confused

[ariane5]

I have 3 dcs-all up to date with immunisations except mmr.

DD1 (9) didn't have it as at the time i read so much negative press etc about it that i was too scared as it just didn't seem safe, i felt fine about all the others as never heard anything negative about them at all.

I know it has since been reported that the scare stories about mmr were just that and were not based on any credible investigations but i still cant get it out of my head, all those parents convinced their children were damaged by it.

Ds and DD2 (4 and 1) both have severe allergies (egg the worst ) and the hv had said no def dont get mmr done which i accepted and was ok with as saved me yet more agonising decisions. However my new gp 9 old one accepted my choice ) has been on at me CONSTANTLY will not take no for an answer and just says mine are the only children at the surgery who have not had mmr and they need it, i get a phone call every few weeks about it and feel really pressurised, gp has now made hosp appt for 2 younger dcs to have it at local hosp but iam not sure-something is just telling me not to do it.

but then of course i worry about measles, im just so confused and dont know what to do for the best

any advice would be greatly appreiciated, thanks

Ariane,

I am very much for the MMR, 2x actually (it is so funny, we have a car driving around in the neighbourhood with a licence plate that reads 5XMMR - that is a bit OTT).

However, your GP has no business scheduling appointments for you, before you found an agreement, grumble.

If you want to go ahead with the MMR (which, as I mentioned, I find a really good idea), could you go with your 9 year old first to see how she tolerates it (in all likelihood very well) and then when you feel more comfortable go ahead with the little ones'. Just an idea - I hope you'll find a real life doctor to discuss this with until you feel good about this.

don't fuck with the system? Damn straight don't fuck with things like patient protocols and the scientific method. Maybe if he wasn't a lying cheating quack people might have been more generous to him. Shame.

and theres a lot more to it than worrying about catching the disease, but yes I do think that once one is vaccinated one worries a lot less about catching a disease. Because of that being how vaccinations work and all. Unless you are deluded.

Kerry, it is not that mumps before the age of 20 is necessarily pleasant...

most of them are though. The majority. But that doesn't suit the conspiracy theories so you tend to fixate on the tiny minorities.

There has been a lot of additionsal research. Years and years of it, yet none of it has found what the scaremongerers want it to. So its denounced in favour of the ramblings of a lone nutjob.

nope they did not

Without being rude, is it really necessary to start CATHERINAJTV's thread all over again here?
I am pretty sure Ariane5 just was asking for advice, not to re-start the ideological battle of mnetters again......

the mumps component of mmr is particularly ineffective. why do you think the annual (now) outbreaks of mumps amongst university students pop up? erm, because a high percentage of them are no longer immune maybe?

the wakefield thing has been done to death on here. if anyone has actually read the links provided by posters sucha s beachcomber and jimjams (would have to search back a bit now), and think that the studies which claim to have exonerated mmr are valid, and also still think that the lies printed about wakefiled are actually true - well, tbh, you must be a few sandwiches short of a picnic.

OP: you need to read up on both sides of this. there are links galore, for both sides, on past threads. you are the only person (and your dh/dp) who can come to this decision. you need to find one that you are comfortable with, for yuor family. no one here shoudl tell you what to do either way. no one can guarantee that mmr will or will not be fine for yuor children. it is fine for the majority.

not rude at all - sorry for getting carried away, lodging hands under bum now

ADEM is certainly not a form of autism. What junk are you reading?

Why would you believe a judge and not a host of doctors when it comes to the facts?

Judges look at balance of probability in a totally different way and it's not scientific. That's why teams of scientists are in charge of licensing drugs, not lawyers.

People really do become conspiracy theorists when it comes to the MMR - I'm surprised how many otherwise rational MNers are desperate to find or make up evidence against a vaccine that is designed to be effective and beneficial, and far outweighs the risks of catching the diseases it protects against.

When it comes down to it Ariane5 only you can make that decision.
People on here will argue til they are blue in the face but it's your decision
(sorry that's not much help!)
My 5 children have all had the mmr because I believed it was the right thing to do just like those whose DC haven't had the mmr believe it was the right thing to do.

then why say one thing if you mean something entirely different?

And actually, thats not what it says or what the court found. They found causation on the ADEM. The PDD_NOS (the important bit you missed off, wonder why?) was specifically mentioned in the findings of fact as below:
"Despite his comments to that effect, the Court is inclined to view Bailey?s condition as accurately as the medical records will allow; that is, to find that Bailey more likely than not suffers from PDD, and not from autism." Direct Quote from YOUR link.

Why then would you choose this case as proof that mmr has been proven to cause autism?

That is why, ladies and gentleman, you can't trust the people making such claims. If you can't prove it, lie about it.

isn't ADEM a complication of measles though?

Here's my tuppence worth, lol

Mine had the MMR, on balance I believe that the risk from being unvaccinated is greater than from being vaccinated - however I say that because my two have no allergies or any other health conditions that would have caused me to worry about it.

DS has AS and I know, without a doubt that it was not brought on by the MMR, that's not to say that I disbelieve anyone that suspects or knows that it was a contributing factor for their DC - but because I know my DS had it pre-MMR it's not something that concerns me.

Allergies or or other health conditions that might affect what it does are I think a perfectly valid reason to refuse the MMR, even if it's something that probably will be ok and only a slight chance that it won't be.

Actually mumps and rubella carry very few risks if caught in childhood.

pdd-nos. Described by the court as categorically not a label of autism. You can either bang on about a brilliant example or not, you can't cherrypick the bits you like and make up the rest.
Find yourself some science, might cost you more than two cents though

. And mmr is safe for egg allergic children.
sayonara.

My nephew has an egg allergy and the doctor advised against the MMR until he was older. He seems to be outgrowing his allergy so he may have it but probably in hospital where he can be monitored just in case.

Ariane, if you're worried about measles have you considered having the single vaccine?