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'm not anti-vax or pro-vax (nor do I have children yet), although I would probably place myself closer to pro than anti. However, I have a question which is not aimed at any poster in particular. I am aware that vaccines can cause damage and actually work with several children who are considered vaccine damaged. My query is how can we be sure that the issues would not have happened anyway? The MMR may very well have triggered of autism but how do we know the common cold would not have triggered it off 2 months later? Or even the actual disease?

Pressed send too soon.

Basically, I feel it would be beneficial to understand all the triggers and risks not just vaccines. We don't really know if the vaccine damaged children would have unfortunately suffered damage from something relatively minor.

Yes Volcan, but I'm not saying we need discuss the ins-and-outs of anomalies. This is risk cost/benefit analysis. I've thought of driving a car, but there is no risk inherant in NOT driving cars. Same with food (having seen the other thread running on vaccinations) - we are all obliged to eat despite the risks of food poisoning etc.

Good point crashdoll

BFG You were the one who introduced the comparison with the risks of amniocentesis.

There are always two reasons given as to why you should vaccinate - one, to prevent you getting the disease yourself and two, to promote herd immunity i.e. for the greater good. The second of these arguments cannot apply to driving/ amniocentesis. No one says that by driving you make the roads safer for others. No one says that you should have an amniocentesis to promote the general welfare of other pregnant women. They do say this about vaccination and it's what a lot of the discussion about vaccination has turned upon. Some people do appear to be damaged by vaccines - is it an acceptable risk if the greater good of the general population is served? It is a valid question to ask, but there do appear to be posters on vaccination threads who are reluctant to accept the validity of this question.

Crashdoll - we don't. Although in more than one model the timing of the insult (whether natural virus or vaccine or some other environmental factor) is key. It may be that susceptible children could reduce their risk by being given the vaccination later. Although that's all very theoretical at the moment. in many of the models there's a bit of sequence of events and the timing at each stage may be key. (or I guess you could remove one bit of the sequence and all would be well). Hopefully yours is a question that will be answered in the future.

Saying 'downs' children' is considered very old fashion, and as the parent of a child with severe learning disabilities does rather grate (in fact we rejected one SLD school because the -now retired thank god- head teacher kept referring to 'a downs child'. I didn't bother to say anything earlier but as it's been brought up I will make a polite request to try to say 'children with DS' etc etc. Please, it is appreciated by those of us who care about and for people with learning disabilities.

Back to my earlier question- does anyone remember why the DTP vaccination program was postponed in areas with polio outbreaks? Was it because of provocation polio, and was the 1950's outbreak one of provocation polio? These are genuine questions btw - I can't remember, and it's respite Saturday so I'd rather sleep than google tbh- I have a lot to catch up on. If anyone knows please share :)

I didn't say the models were perfect - just gives posters a fresh way of looking at how people make decisions based on relative risks.

I thought the amnio example was quite good because there is the link to govt policy i.e. it's in the interests of society (financially) to not have Down's syndrome babies. There is a clear case for the gvt to muddle the figures....but they don't. Or do they?

We haven't really discussed herd immunity on this thread. We've been discussing individual cost/benefits to vaccinations. Most vaccines are for the individual's good. As we are just humans, we do act in selfish ways so this reason to vaccinate, though oft quoted, is always a weak one. Most people wouldn't choose to vaccinate for the sole purpose of protecting unrelated people.

*babies with DS

No I made that point on the flu thread (about the difference between vaccinating to protect yourself or a family member versus vaccinating to protect unrelated people). I do think if it is going to be policy to vaccinate to protect another group then they need to sort out the vaccine injury compensation payment scheme first before asking people to take that risk - however small.

Re m/c following amnio - the most often quoted figure is 1 in 100, but that is usually said to be an over estimate these days. Can you link to your figure please - am interested in how they haven calculated that. It is known to very much depend on the skill of the person carrying out the procedure though. There was a paper fairly recently (a report anyway) giving the number of healthy babies lost (well chromosomally normal) per case of DS picked up. It was a surprisingly high number iirc. I've always felt the pressure to invasively test & terminate (if there is one - and I think there might be) is less to do with the cost to the state of a child with DS and more to do with applying the medical model to LD's. Dunno, interesting thought.

Thank you

Ha - have googled - found the 1 in 1,600 figure - AND the 1 in 100! Bit of a difference.

saintly Thanks for the answer. I was curious. I do think things need to change. I hate scaremongering but I have to say, with the exception of a post or two, this has been an educational read. :) I think it is vital to do your own research in all areas of medical care/treatment, as long as you read reputable sites and studies alongside discussion with your drs.

I don't know loads about autism as I work on the practical, caring side with older children and adults but what is the average age of onset of symptoms? Would it be more beneficial to delay the MMR and/or other vax?

Oh hard to say. Usually it is said that symptoms begin at 18 months. But I think that is a little late. I found a paper the other day that said 14 months was the average parental reported age of symptom onset which sounds more likely to me. But I also recently read something saying differences were apparent in videos from six months (which would be interesting as it would maybe allow regressive/non regressive cases to be better identified). I do know people whose children regressed later - around age 2- and I know people who say their children showed differences from birth. This is probably a reflection of autism not being one thing iyswim.

Personally I think there are arguments for delaying measles vaccination anyway - it works slightly better if given later (once maternal antibodies have gone) but there is a fear of leaving children unprotected from measles so it was moved to 13 months. I have to admit I struggle to understand the logic of vaccinating against mumps at all. I think there's a stronger argument for vaccinating against chickenpox (not that I'd give that either - but I can understand the argument for it).

Oh and I also know people (and there's literature in this) who describe two regressions. So a mild one initially, followed by a more severe one.

We've been discussing individual cost/benefits to vaccinations. Most vaccines are for the individual's good.

When it comes to the Rubella component of MMR the claim that it's for the individual's good is highly dubious because the disease itself is not regarded as serious. It might be beneficial to half the population sometime during a 40 year span 15 or more years hence, if they get pregnant.The logic of vaccinating babies against it escapes me, particularly if the immunity is likely to wear off before the woman needs the immunity.

Out of interest, would you (or anyone else here who fancies answering) consider vaccinating against MMR if they were a.) later and b.) single vaccines? Just curious really, so feel free not to answer.

I would consider vaccinating against measles - particularly for ds2 who is approaching puberty. In fact if available locally I might do it - I did contact a local private GP about it fairly recently. I would be far more wary about vaccinating ds3. (And ds1 has had a measles vaccination).

I wouldn't vaccinate against rubella or mumps though. Although if I ever have a DIL I will advise her to get her rubella status checked - preferably six months or so before she wants to get pregnant. (I did get my rubella status checked before ttc).

Going slightly off topic here, I find your comments about autism being identified at six months interesting saintly. A cousin's son has been diagnosed with autism. I have no idea whether it was to do with vaccination or not. He was diagnosed sometime in his third year, but it was apparent from about six months that he was a bit slow in hitting milestones. No-one seemed unduly concerned until about 18 months when it was obvious that the delay was outside the range of normal.

I think it was a really recent paper. And I think it also said that in the first 6 months autistic babies hit social milestones early. I have photos of ds1 playing peekaboo behind a curtain at 8 months and he raised his arms to be lifted etc as well. His crawling was odd though, but that was after he was ill.

Tabitha8 "The OPV is a live vaccine and caused polio in some children."

It also prevented polio in some children.

Do you believe that the number of cases it caused were greater, or less, than the nuber of cases it prevented? By a factor of what? A hundred? A thousand? A million?

Oooh piglet - do you know the answer to my previous question about not giving DTP during a polio epidemic? Was the concern provoked polio?

LaVolcan - think it might have been this that I read (sorry can't remember )

AHA found it - I was sure I could remember reading something about an association between paralytic polio and the DTP.

As an aside I love the writing style in that paper. Love the phrase 'no evil effects'

Will read it properly tomorrow after I have slept.

Thanks saintly - I have had a quick look at the link. Certainly my cousin's son seemed fine at his christening at 4 months. It was slowness in movement which was first noted as a problem.

Just putting this here so I can read it properly tomorrow post inoculation poliomyelitis. Again, on a first browse I really love the language style - and I love the way the author sort of ums and ahs - and says it might be this or this, before coming to his conclusions, it reads as very balanced. Very conversational maybe.

There's been some research into movement and autism. I think this is probably the best known paper on that sort of thing

Catatonia can be a problem for some with very severe autism (not ds1 ). Lorna Wing published an interesting paper on that. And difficulties with movement can be seen - particularly in a lot of severely affected individuals.

Well, saintly, I predicted it would happen, I just didn't think it would happen as fast as it did.

As soon as you found an epidemioogical study which demonstrated vaccine damage (albeit from over 60 years ago on a vaccine no longer used) out it comes with nary a mention of the fact that this is a flawed epidemioogical study, you know, the ones that can't prove anything and are flawed.

Where is your hyper criticism now? Or is that reserved only for studies which don't agree with what you've already decided? Is epidemiology only flawed when it shows vaccines are safe?

I find this study reassuring. It shows that even 60 years ago with less sophisticated reporting and statistical techniques, side effects were detected and quantified. Probably then there was no decent alternative to the risk of the polio vaccine and it was one of the reasons the vaccine injury compensation program was set up in the us.

Quite ironically, Bradford Hill was the first to demonstrate the association between smoking and lung cancer. He also set out the necessary criteria to demonstrate causality. He's a hero in the world of epidemiology!