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.

I merely pointed to the fact that I clicked on the first link I saw and got, what I would describe, as a poor example to back your claim.

Your very simple link is nothing of the sort. A paragraph summarising reseach which contain phrases such as multivariate ANOVA and post hoc comparisons and BPASS is an instrument resistant to rater bias cannot be described as 'a very simple explanation'. Just to highlight the point, the final line says genetic transmission mechanisms may differ between families with more than one child with autism and families with only one child with autism. implying there IS in fact a genetic link behind both the simplex and multiplex. From the very little I've read, autism is polygenetic the inheritance and presentation of which is only partially understood (understatement). Do you not want some researchers to pursue that line of research too?

I'm not interested in reading blogs btw - please don't link to them.

PhD mention was in ref to a ridiculous link on another thread when one of you guys linked to a paper that was highly specialised, and frankly, I fail to believe the poster understood what the hell it was about. I definitely struggled and it was my subject area. This wasn't to glorify myself, it was to illustrate the psuedo-intellectual nature of anti-vaxers who, even whilst linking to the pages in question, misunderstand the text, quote out of context and twist the meaning.

There, that took me a whole 20mins to read and reply which is why I haven't got time to read spurious links that inevitably don't support the anti-vaxer's pov.

The 'blog' is by one of the largest funders of autism research at the moment. You might find it interesting.

The abstract is fairly simple to understand if you have some understanding of genetics and I linked to the other as it summarised other papers, and wasn't particularly technical.

I'm reasonably interested in pretty much all research into autism - although I think cognitive psychologists sometimes miss the point a bit.

You appear to be attacking me for being an 'anti vaxer' when I have made it clear my interest is in identifying children who might be susceptible to damage from vaccination. I do have issues with the way mass vaccination is delivered. Much as I have issues with the way antibiotics are (mis)used, although I would probably see them as the greatest medical discovery of all time. I'm slightly surprised that identifying susceptible children would be seen as a bad thing. I'm also interested in identifying children at risk of autism and preventing that -
one reasonwhy the immune system research is so interesting.

Of course, when you look at autism risk In a susceptible child you don't just consider vaccination.

So yes I'm pretty much interested in most research. My son has made it very clear he would like to be able to speak, so I feel no guilt in hoping that one day there's a better understanding of ways to avoid regression (or indeed non-regressive autism).

Oh and did you miss my post where I said there was a genetic basis to both multiplex and simplex autism? I'm not quite sure why you are correcting something I already said.

So this abstract is only fairly simple to understand if you have some understanding of genetics . Except, I find it hard to follow (and I do have some understanding of genetics) and in any case, it appears to be based on an analysis of phenotypic characteristics and not a genetic analysis...happy to be corrected.

No one argues then that there are both genetic and enviromental factors involved with autism. Glad we got there. I don't dismiss that vaccines should be considered in the analyses. In fact, they have. As I said before (always the same on these threads) the link would make for great science. There are teams busy trying to find links. It would make their careers. But as yet I've not seen anything that backs this up. Research should continue, of course, on all fronts. If you agree with this, I'm not actually sure what we're disagreeing over saintly

Oh very good, pedantic much? Google multiplex and simplex autism if you are actually interested, there's plenty out there on multiplex vs simplex autism. The take home message (again only if you are actually interested) is that genetic transmission mechanisms are likely to be different in simplex and multiplex families, which, you might recall was my original point.

I think I might have mentioned that the epidemiological research looking at vaccination has treated autism as one thing. I also mentioned that I have been to various conferences where researchers have been happy to show how vaccinations might fit into their models in some cases (usually as a rare alternative).

You presumably have children you don't think are at any
particular risk of autism. I have children who are considered to be at high risk of autism. Furthermore I have a child is very severely autistic following a regression believed to have been triggered by an abnormal response to a common viral infection (agreed by his doctors). I suspect the studies you believe show no link, don't provide quiterge same reassurance for me. FWIW, I have not suggested that vaccination is a particularly large trigger of autism, I suspect the subgroup is relatively small. Nevertheless I feel for those I know in that situation, although note than might be suspected have some support from their doctors and given that my son's neurologist felt some sort of underlying metabolic or immune disorder was possible in ds1's case I'd prefer to watch the research unfold.

Anyway no more, I'm repeating myself so much I'm even boring myself now.

Apologies on iPod, cba to correct

BFG Do you think that all parents who don't vaccinate their children are "anti-vaccination"? How do you define anti-vaccination, by the way?

Of course you prefer a wait and see approach saintly - this is reasonable given the description of your DS.

children I know who have suffered devastating reactions to vaccinations that have left them in the same sort of state as my son. - I understand your reaction, but how come you are so convinced all these children are vaccine damaged? Perhaps many also had an abnormal response to a common viral infection? Just a question: knowing what you know now, and if a vaccine was available, would you have vaccinated your DS?

Tabitha - clearly anti-vaxers can be compared with anti-hunters. Someone who doesn't hunt is not neccessarily anti-hunt. On this thread and many others, it has been pointed out that doctors will advise against vaccinating children/adults given certain suseptibilities/conditions etc. Anti-vaxers dismiss all vaccines out of hand. They sometimes say "in x, y and z conditions, I agree with vaccinations", but as these conditions realistically can never be met, they are, effectively, anti-vax.

Gosh, that makes me an anti-vaccine person, then, in your eyes. Hey ho.

You may have misunderstood - if you have been advised not to vaccinate, then you are a non-vaccinator, not necessarily an anti-vaxer. Is this you Tabitha?

Nope, by your definition I am most definitely anti.

Congratulations!

Or perhaps you didn't want to be labelled as such? I'm thinking very hard of another situation where one wouldn't vaccinate one's DCs at all and NOT be anti-vax actually...

Thanks. It's nice to be anti something in this world where anything goes.

My definition of anti is usually a person who would ban something. I wouldn't ban vaccines. I just want them PROVED to be safe rather than waiting for someone to prove that they are not safe.
Too many problems over the years with vaccines for me to trust them anymore, I think.

OK last post.

In some cases I don't know for sure, but ime most people with autistic kids do not link their child's regression with MMR, it's fairly unusual, and they're otherwise sane people, so I see no reason to not believe them. In other cases the reactions have been very extreme. For example, I know a child who ended up in HDU, and another who ended up in ICU, another had a very long seizure (never before and never again). Of course this could be coincidence but it would seem sensible to at least consider MMR was a factor. In some cases doctors have agreed that MMR was quite possibly involved. I feel sorry for these people that they have suffered that loss (and it is a loss) and then get openly ridiculed. They did what they were told, and vaccinated and quite possibly lost a lot in doing that. They don't deserve ridicule. In other cases the children have been older so have lost very clear speech, which again is, imo, noteworthy.

Would I have vaccinated my son against the virus? Probably not. Or at least not at that age. Many of the different models make the point that age of exposure to the environmental insult (whatever that is) may be critical. In my son's case there was a whole series of unfortunate events just prior to his virus that may have contributed to his abnormal response. In addition it was aggressively treated (it had to be), and the treatment itself may have been damaging. We explored that with the neurologist, he felt an underlying metabolic disorder may have contributed and was happy to test for it, but it would have been an invasive test with no treatment outcome so we refused. We're interested in what happened but not enough to put our son through invasive testing when there would be no potential for benefit to him. I suspect that the timing was very unfortunate and at a later age he may have been more robust.

There's also the issue of deliberately exposing to a virus that my children may otherwise never encounter (and yes I know in cases such as measles their risk of encountering it is because of mass vaccination although I still assume they may catch measles tbh).

I do have some issues with mass vaccination (such as possible selection pressures - an area which really isn't that well understood yet and has the potential - albeit small - to go horribly wrong - I would like to think that these were considered before rolling out a new vaccination, I'm not particularly convinced they are). I also believe the system for reporting side effects is inadequate. I would rather there was a move towards an individualised approach to vaccination - where benefits are considered on an individual basis. If we're going to stick with mass immunisation then there I would like to see more consideration given to identifying those more likely to suffer an adverse reaction, more attention given to identifying adverse reactions, and much more support given to those who suffer from adverse reactions. Of course in other areas of medicine there is a move towards individualised drugs so maybe that will happen eventually.

That's a long answer, but still a simplification. In a nutshell I don't believe that vaccination is an evil. I think it has the potential to do good. I think it could be used more intelligently and I think the damage it can do is underestimated. I could say the same about antibiotics, and I love antibiotics, I think they're marvellous things - even though ds2 and ds3 have never had them.

Oh but underlying the unfortunate events, and the abnormal response is presumably some sort of predisposition.

"even if it were proven that the MMR jab DIRECTLY precipiated Pagwatch's DS's autism, this would still be no reason to not vaccinate IN GENERAL."

Actually it does, given that NOBODY knows if THEIR child is in the "at risk" group, because this group is not identified. It is a terrible and irreversible outcome, and therefore, the risk is significant even if the probability is very small small. (Think before you argue with me on this - I've studied this stuff)

If you search my posts and the words game theory, you should find some papers I previously posted on MN that explain how and why people will not vaccinate their children in such a scenario.

"Rubella contracted in pregnancy is linked to autism too. How do you know the rates of autism triggered by MMR (lets assume a link) would be greater than that caused by the rubella infection itself? It's this sort of reasoning and level of analysis that is sadly lacking in anti-vax world."

LOL @ "this sort of reasoning and level of analysis"

You comparison is wrong on so many levels that it would just take too long to go into now. But anyway, I don't need to know about autism triggered by rubella contracted in pregnancy because I will have DD's immunity tested in her teens and if she isn't immune, vaccinate her at that point. There is absolutely no benefit whatsoever to be vaccinated against rubella as a baby.

This doesn't even require any reasoning or analysis. It is just obvious.

"It is a terrible and irreversible outcome, and therefore, the risk is significant even if the probability is very small small."

Just to check, are you calculating this based on the belief that MMR is known to cause autism? Which country published the medical test results showing this?

Very good posts LeBFG. And I, for one, am impressed by your PhD in population genetics (although I appreciate it wasn't with that intention that you mentioned it). But of course people who don't have much regard for science wouldn't have much regard for a scientific qualification. I did indeed get bored of the raving LeBGF but I just ignore the posters who are abusive and clearly quite bonkers, otherwise it's just a waste of time and energy.

Regarding the 'flawed' epidemiological studies. Any epidemiological study looking at vaccinations will be flawed. This does not mean that they are bad. It simply means that given that a randomized controlled trial cannot be conducted (for ethical reasons - since it is unethical to deprive a child of an effective vaccine), one has to use other techniques. Inevitably choices need to be made and not all the criteria for causality will be met in each study. What is crucial though is that all the studies have different designs and therefore different flaws. And they ALL come out with the same thing. Even where the studies are very highly powered (ie the chance that they will miss an effect which is there is tiny), nothing is found to associate vaccines with autism. Even if this sub-group arguement is true, the numbers would have to be tiny for the effect not to be detected.

It is also important to note that there is only speculative theory. Saintly, you have provided links showing the possibility of environmental triggers. I understood most research is focusing on prenatal environmental triggers - this cna include prenatal infection which is why the MMR is GOOD for reducing autism rates. However, nowhere have I seen in any of the links you've provided to scientific papers any of the authors jumping to the conclusions you have - that vaccines are responsible.

So you have zero epidemiological evidence (which you MUST have to prove causality) and a speculative theory which certainly isn't mainstream. Does it mean you're definitely wrong? No, but I think it's highly unlikely and even if it is proved right, then the numbers involved will be extremely small (I have crunched the numbers but given how highly powered the studies are, I'd guesstimate at least less than one in 100,000).

I do agree with you that I'd like to see better reporting of side effects - but for ALL medications. I'd also like to see better and more rigorous regulation of pharmaceutical companies - for ALL medications.

Regarding thimerosol, you may not have said it caused autism. Others have though. That is one of the reasons it was removed. Do I prefer single vial vaccines without preservatives? Yes, I do. Doesn't mean it was the right decision to remove thimerosol without ANY evidence it does any harm at all and plenty of evidence it's perfectly safe. And I will quite happily take my children for a flu vaccine this winter even though the vaccine contains thimerosol.

tabitha
i'm very glad you wouldn't ban vaccines. Did you see what happened in the former soviet union when diptheria vaccination rates fell? Yes, an epidemic of diptheria. Good thing most people DO immunize their children against diptheria and your children can free-ride on that.

I must admit that I find it ironic that LeBGF's PhD is derided but Cote threatens 'Think before you argue with me on this - I've studied this stuff'

Anyway, Cote, I think it's less game theory but more a tragedy of the commons. However, it's lucky (in a way) that the primary benificiary from vaccination is the child him or herself with the social benefit a nice plus. This is why we continue to vaccinate.

There is no zero risk option. It's either a tiny risk or a much bigger risk. damage or death from disease is just as irreversible than damage from a vaccine - it's just far far far more common. I don't vaccinate my children for the fun of it.

And the sad thing is that the more successful you are in spreading your misinformation, the more you put your own children at risk.

Are you impressed by my PhD in population genetics Elaine? See how pointless throwing around PhD medals is?

Thimerosal was not removed because others said it caused autism. Or at least that was never given as an official reason - that suggested link was rejected. Repeatedly. According to the MHRA it was removed to limit exposure to mercury containing compounds. Particularly for low birth weight babies. I'm surprised you see that as a bad thing tbh. You can still find some thimerosal vaccinations if you wish your children to be exposed.

The rest of it has been done to death. I've mentioned at least three times the sorts of thing researchers have said about vaccinations in their models at conferences such as IMFAR, read back if you can't remember. You confuse population versus individual benefit in the way cote has described, and you assume risk is uniformly tiny for every child. You seem completely unable to understand that whilst the risk to most children from vaccinations is small, and they are therefore able to enjoy the benefits, the risk to other children is very much larger and therefore it's entirely reasonable to limit that risk in any way you see fit as there are currently no attempts made to identify these children. Having observed one child regress to severe autism I choose to avoid potential triggers wherever possible. When there's a better understanding of the different pathways to autism I may feel more comfortable exposing my children to various potential triggers.

I don't choose to be cautious about vaccination for the fun of it.

"even if it were proven that the MMR jab DIRECTLY precipiated Pagwatch's DS's autism, this would still be no reason to not vaccinate IN GENERAL."

Actually it does, given that NOBODY knows if THEIR child is in the "at risk" group, because this group is not identified.

• if nobody knows who's at risk before vaccination then no one person can say they are more at risk than average. If the overall probability of vaccine damage is low relative to damage caused by the disease then vaccination is still justified.

If you search my posts and the words game theory, you should find some papers I previously posted on MN that explain how and why people will not vaccinate their children in such a scenario.

Have searched specially for you cote . You link to one paper on game theory. It explains quite clearly that in the senario where PERCEIVED risk is high vaccination rates drop off. As you are quite aware, perceived risk is not the same as ACTUAL risk. The sad thing is when perceived risk is high enough, even when vaccination rates drop right down to nearly zero, the hightened risk of disease and disease-related damage is not enough to change the status quo i.e. to not vaccinate.

If you don't like the arguments to vaccinate against rubella cote, what about the mumps and measles?

On a side note, I wonder how much of this is about fear of autism? Once-upon-a-time people lived in fear of the C-word - anything and everything was linked to cancer rates. Now I see, in the UK, there is an hysteria around autism (just check out some of the behviour/development threads). If it were the case that to vaccinate would give 0.001% chance of autism and to not vaccinate would give 0.01% chance of brain damage from the disease, I think many parents still would NOT vaccinate....because of the A-word. My French pediatrician says the French are quite happy about MMR but hate the hep B. Each culture appears to have it's little pet hate it would seem.

I'm quite happy to admit I fear autism for ds2 and ds3.

I would like them to grow up and be able to walk to the corner shop alone, without needing to have someone holding onto them. Something ds1 will never do.

Quite a lot of threads I see in behaviour the child is showing warning signs for autism. They may not get diagnosed for many years. There's nothing wrong with intervening early if there is a problem. Ds1 was missed by several professionals (including one who told me I was over anxious). I'd love to take my non-verbal teenager back to her to show her what happened to her 'over anxious mother' diagnosis. But I don't suppose she gave us a moments thought once she'd stopped rolling her eyes.

Incidentally we started with intervention before ds1 was 2. If we'd waited for the professionals to get their act together we'd have been waiting for another 18 months before starting. In that time amongst other things we taught ds1 receptive noun vocabulary, started work on imitation (finally achieved age 8), taught some attention skills, taught him to drink from a cup, did some sensory work, and started on PECS. I don't therefore much care that I was lumped in the 'hysterical about autism' category by some.