Reactions to MMR - how long do they last?

[MrsMoppetMama]

My DD (13 months) had her MMR 11 days ago, she had a bad reaction after about 3 days (high temp and trouble breathing) and we took her to urgent care center. Although this has now passed, she seems to be really out of sorts and has stopped sleeping through. Her normal routine was brilliant as she went down from about 7 - 7. Now she is waking every two hours and is very unhappy. Is this normal? is this because of her MMR or is it just a phase? She has also stopped taking her bottle before bed, is it likely that she has weaned herself? Help! It's been pretty easy going with her up to now so a bit stressed by all this.

So you're saying you believe pagwatch is mistaken. And although you admit to knowing nothing about severe autism you have clearly bought into the 'signs of autism begin to show at 18 months' line. Although, actually, the actual picture is far more complex - and more variable - than that oft spouted line. Again we come back to autism is not one thing.

Do you think my friend who's child had a very long seizure and ended up in HDU imagined it as well? Or the one whose child ended up in ICU? How about my friend who held off giving MMR until later, whose child then lost all speech - (not regained by age 17) was that coincidental as well? Did she imagine her child speaking beforehand? You clearly believed the 'loss of speech' after a virus anecdote earlier. So why is regression after a vaccination not believable?

I have noticed doctors to be the same. None have ever questioned my recount of loss of skills following a viral infection. Whereas friends who witnessed regression following vaccination have been told they are mistaken - despite in many cases their cases being clearer because their children were older (and sicker) prior to regression. In the interests of balance I should point out that sone doctors have agreed that vaccination was the most likely trigger, especially if they were involved in the clinical care of the aftermath - they haven't all dismissed reported regression without investigation.

You believe flawed epidemiological studies that are relying on data from an imperfect system (do you have any idea of the delay between 'age of parental concern' and 'age of diagnosis'), studies that erroneously treat autism as one thing, over parental reports (unless the parental report includes a wild type virus in which case you might believe them, providing they continue to vaccinate).

Is it scientific to cling onto studies which have been repeatedly pointed out to you are flawed - because you don't like the alternative possibilities? The most scientific thing to do would be to examine clinically the potentially affected children, or if you insist on working with epidemiological studies to start to identify subgroups of autism and then carry out some sensible stats that aren't confounded by increases in dx at the high functioning end of the spectrum. That would be scientific.

And if the urabe strain fiasco is a sign of the system working then I weep, truly I weep. What does 'informed consent' mean to you?

What evidence have you that Pagwatch and thousands of others are mistaken or lying? You have no such evidence - it's just a faith thing, you don't want to believe it, so you don't. It's exactly like any other sort of belief system. Life isn't like Disney you know - where if you wish hard enough things become true. You just live in a dreamy make-believe world where you just believe what you want, never mind what's real and right there in front on you.

^ This

Ha ha at suggesting epidemiology 101 from someone who is unable to understand that the epidemiological studies that she's so fond of are flawed. At least Autism Speaks are taking a more intelligent approach

And Elaine if along with 'autism shows at 18 months', you are also buying into the 'autism is genetic' stuff that is rolled out by the dept of health, then you can correct your misunderstanding. As you can observe from the tone of this description the role of environmental factors is not controversial. The difficulty, it is agreed, is identifying them - especially as there are almost certainly many.

I think it's called clinging to a belief system [[http://www.foiacentre.com/news-MMR-070305_2.html despite all evidence to the contrary.

darn it

Can I call it "desperately" clinging to a belief system?

also v quickly - nonsense surrounding "parents want to find something to blame"

my one child vaccinated according to schedule plus mmr, can't focus, can't stand change, highly sensitive to noise, has obsessive knowledge of his "thing" (never diagnosed despite suggestions he should be checked out)

my other two children - no mmr - none of that

do I blame mmr? I do my damndest never ever to think it may be to blame, I can't stand the idea it might be to blame, I choose to think it's just him being him

my lip curls when I see "parents just need to blame something"

Oh yes 'parents need some to blame' is so lazy and offensive.

My son is severely autistic, non-verbal, has severe learning disabilities. Therefore I must be a tragic figure? Desperately seeking something to blame? Er no, he has a severely autistic life ahead of him so we do our damnedest to fill it. He's going on a (challenging) moor walk today, he's surfing tomorrow and so on and so forth.

Do I want to know what happened? Yes. Why? Well durr - because I have younger children and a) would like to make the best decision for them and b) would like them to have more information to make decisions for their children. How terribly fragile and blame seeking of me :rolls eyes:

Elaine - Good to see that you are back

Now, would you answer my previous post:

CoteDAzur Wed 25-Jul-12 13:21:03
Your worldview is conflicting with the reality of a real live person, Pagwatch's DS, whose autism has been triggered by MMR. You are desperately trying to hold onto your belief "There is no evidence that MMR triggers autism", so you must have concluded either that Pagwatch is an idiot or a liar.

Come on, share with us. Which is it?

If you have found some other way to discredit her in your mind, please do share that, too.

Elaine Why are you not interested in furthering science by finding out how vaccines damage children? How the MMR has caused some children to regress into autism? Which children are at risk? Surely science is all about pushing boundaries and not staying within a cosy, comfy world?

Tabitha - some excellent research to be done there but it won't happen - no money in it (and too dangerous). Now some research to prove that vaccines are completely harmless and, in fact, good for you would have Pharma queuing up to hand out the dosh.

Hello,

I should concede at the outset that I am quite possibly an idiot.

But DS 2s regression did flummox quite a few people who are much smarter than I.

I think the thing that gets forgotten is that ds2 was vaccinated because I was absoloutely fully behind the vaccination programme. He was being vaccinated as his elder brother had. I signed up, took him along. It was straightforward to me - like brushing his teeth.

I don't want something to blame - why would I? I hear that all the time, almost inevitably from those who don't have children with disabilities. It would make no difference to me if it was genetic, from a jab or from the position of the moon on the night he was born. I don't give a toss. What possible difference woukd it make?
I have no 100% certainty about what happened. I know what was witnessed and recorded (passed 18 month check with flying colours - diagnosed as severely autistic at 2) but I can only try and piece together the jigsaw. If one day I find something else caused him to regress that would be fine. I am just interested as what we watched was so extraordinary and tragic. It would be a con fort if maybe other children could avoid that regression.

The only way in which it helps us at all is figuring out how best to care for his now 9 year old baby sister. Interestingly her GP and the consultant I have had to see about her asthma and allergies have both suggested that avoiding vaccination is a bloody good idea. So I may be an idiot but her medical advisors think that the series of events, inexplicable and challenging, are sufficiently serious so as to make the vaccine potentially more of a risk to her than the illness.

I suspect I am lucky that those charged with her medical care have the intelligence, the common sense and the humility to say 'if she were my daughter, no way would I vaccinate'

To be hobest I have a great deal of respect for their opinion because it's basis is not shaped by a need to condemn me as a fool or a liar simply because my difficult family history sits outside their routine experience.

Those who say 'this does not fit within my understanding of the science so I will ignore you and dismiss you' are pretty thick in my opinion.

But then I am an idiot so what do I know.

Pagwatch
For the record, the cries of 'idiot', 'liar', 'has to blame something' did not come from me, others have been whipping themselves into a frenzy assuming things which were never said or implied. As I have said, there are other explanations why an individual experience may be different to that in the scientific evidence. It doesnt mean the evidence is wrong nor does it necessarily discredit the personal experience.

It still does not detract from the fact that there is no scientific evidence of causality between the mmr and autism. Even the theory of how it might work is only speculative. Originally all the focus was on thimerosal, that didn't work out as thimerosal was taken out of vaccines (another example of a bad public health decision) so now it's the mmr combo.

And, as I have said before, Im not questioning any individual choices. You made your decision about vaccinating on the basis of medical advice, your doctors agree with you. How fortunate your daughter is that other people DO vaccinate so that she is less likely to get the diseases others vaccinate against. I don't mean that sarcastically, this how it is meant to work.

Saintly
Its quite ironic just how similar your actions are to the tobacco companies and the evidence on smoking. Sure, your motives are different, I accept that but, wow, you're doing exactly what they did. Every epidemiological study which showed smoking was associated with an increased risk of cancer was picked at and declared worthless, it's just statistics after all - what was important was that they had inconclusive lab tests and speculative theories about how smoking was fine. The similarity would be laughable if it wasn't for the fact that the end results are the same.

All your links show speculation about the role of environmental factors, the role of the immune system etc. To be honest, this is not my area so I cannot comment on the science but I understand enough to know a) there's been nothing conclusive, just possible areas to continue research and b) vaccines have not been shown to cause autism. Could that change in the future? Possibly but highly unlikely that vaccines are a significant driver, even for a small number of children. I'm sorry but the evidence is just not there beyond anecdotal and speculative.

And, saintly, for the record, I haven't questioned your account neither have I questioned anyone else's. It's not my place to do so and it would be highly inappropriate.

Sossgies

Too dangerous? Are you completely paranoid?

And tabitha, given the amount of money which has already gone in to studying vaccines, given that when side effects, even rare ones such as bowel IntussUspection with the rotavirus, are detected and the products withdrawn, I think that it would be very hard to make the case for this research you call for, at least in the scientific world. Personally,I would like to see research money (which is not unlimited) go to areas where more research is actually needed and may even deliver something useful.

Disingenuous. That's all I'm going to say. Yes of course me pointing out that the epidemiological studies to date have failed to address the correct hypothesis (they have tested whether the rise in cases of 'autism' - all of it - are due to the MMR, something no-one has ever suggested, I'm not sure why this is so difficult to understand), are flawed is JUST like a tobacco company. Do you actually believe that?

As for this mysterious there are reasons why people think something when the 'scientific evidence' (flawed epidemiological studies) shows otherwise - pray do tell. Either the individual is mistaken or the 'scientific evidence' (flawed epidemiological studies) are wrong. So why not just say it.

You have said three or four times now you know nothing about autism. I'm impressed that you are so certain that you know so much about how it isn't triggered.

And please don't tell me you think thimerosal was an example of the system working? How many years did we lag behind the states, oz, Canada etc there. IIRC (and I would have to check) the UK took it out after the WHO said it should be removed from routine childhood immunisations where possible. Anyhow, years after concerns had been acted on by other countries.

Actually elaine - you could do me a favour. I have always wondered how someone could defend the epidemiological studies done to date given the problems in terms of defining age of symptom onset/age of diagnosis/undiagnosed children in the cohort and numbers of shots of MMR given. Not to mention the big one of not recognising that autism isn't one thing.

Maybe you could explain why you are so confident that they are correct?

Elaine - why don't you read that "anecdote" again and imagine it mirrored several thousand times.

It seems to me in the face of all of this that all you have is blind faith that they must all be lying. Or wrong. You might want to diseemble at length but really that's your choice.

Unless of course you're saying - I don't know, it's too hard to tell and I simply don't know that much aout it?

In which case, why have you expressed such certainty and been so dismissive and rude about this?

No thimerosoal is an example of the system not working and misguided parent pressure leading to the wrong decisin. Removing thimerosal was unnecessary. There was no evidence that it caused any damage yet parents were insisting that thimerosal in vaccinations caused their child's autism (can you see a similarity?).

Nonetheless thimerosal was removed. Did autism rates continue to rise? Yes.

Elaine - do you have a response please. You either
don't know (in which case why so certain and rude?)
or you think she's right (along with thousands of others)
or you think she's wrong (with thousands of others)

and if you think she's wrong (with thousands of others) you must think she's
a liar
or
stupid