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.

There is a MNer you would be interested to talk to. She does meta-analyses and has done a few on homeopathy. Maybe searching homeopathy & meta-analysis on MN would lead you to her. She explains the nature of statistics and the conclusions of these meta-analyses better than I ever could.

"prob of a god: very low x negative outcome for not believing: eternity in hell"

You can't know "probability of God". You can know probability of rolling a 3, because there are six sides to the die and only one 3 = 1/6. You can know probability of drawing an Ace because there are 4 in a deck of 52 = 4/52.

You could only know the probability that our universe was created by a God if you knew many universes and the number of them that were created vs others that spontaneously came into being.

Also, I'm also totally ok with the possibility that there may be a God, but all evidence I see and my rational mind says that he must be a watchmaker God rather than one who interferes and judges. Therefore, I don't see the outcome as "eternity in hell" at all.

"what I see as a single obsession with one potential trigger of autism"

We would be "obsessed" with other triggers as well, if those had large numbers of parents very convincingly saying that they triggered DCs' regression.

"incidence of this mutation was 1 in a billion i.e. there are 7 people in the world at risk, by your reckoning, you STILL wouldn't vaccinate as the outcome would be too bad"

It would depend on the benefit. If the vaccine in question is to protect against rubella, I wouldn't do it, because it's silly to vaccinate a baby for what is an adult problem (in pregnancy). If we are talking about HPV vaccine, I would do it.

BFG I didn't say that one person being paralysed versus even as many as 20 million being fine was a reason not to vaccinate. I said that I wouldn't take the OPV if I knew I'd be the one to be paralysed. Not quite the same thing is it?

The human mind (and also the pigeon mind) loves to find patterns and causes, even if none exist.

My crops failed? Must be because a witch cursed them, best to burn old Mrs Miggins. Your baby died? Must be because you didn't go to church on St Agnes day. You won that football match? Must be because you had your left sock on inside out.

Each year, a tiny number of people are struck by lightening, often with catastrophic results. Let's suppose the widow of one of these people noticed he was wearing a new pair of red shoes when he was struck. She finds out from the support group that another victim was also wearing red shoes. The Daily Wail prints a story saying that red shoes cause you to be struck by lightening. A person writes in from Kansas saying the same thing happened to their neighbour. The Daily Wail scours the earth trying to find people who were almost struck by lightening, and know someone who used to have a pair of red shoes. For ten years the scummy press prints stories about red shoes and lightening. Honest reseatchers valiantly carry out studies showing at 4% of the population is weaering red shoes at any tiome, and that 4% of people struck by lightening are wearing red shoes.

The Red Shoe-ers say "the risk of being struck by lightening due to red shoes may be very small, but the consequences are so severe that the risk is great so I will never allow my children to wear red shoes." They keep repeating and spreading the fable that red shoes cause you to be struck by lightening.

Will the Red Shoe-ers ever be convinced that lightening strikes are at random, and red shoes make no difference whatsoever? No, they'll say "But my neighbour was struck by lightening, how can you insult his family by trying to make them wear red shoes when they know that was the cause of his death?"

They will refuse to accept studies on lightening strike and shoe colour, saying that the studies are flawed, and maybe the number is great enough to be a significant risk, yet simultaneously too small to be detectable.

I don't need someone to explain statistics ot me - I'm presenting you with the possibility that homeopathy works.

There is still a possibility, whatever you believe or not, that there is a fire and brimstone god. The worse outcome I could imagine is spending an eternity in hell. If I applied the calculation you are so fond of presenting to this, the "rational" conclusion would be to start worshiping god. I'm doing this to show you the equation used in this context is absurd. You can choose any multiplier you like to get the equation to balance in your favour i.e. to not vaccinate. I feel you like to use the equation to reassure yourself that your decision to not vaccinate is rational.

Finally we've got some numbers you will agree to. A risk of 1:billion is small enough to discount. So some risk IS acceptable (reminder: however small the probability of triggering autism in their babies might be, it is not a risk worth taking - I finally feel like progress is being made).

Tabitha. I was actually trying to minimise what was a rather vacuous senario. If vaccinating 999 people would save their lives and vaccinating me would kill me - I wouldn't vaccinate. I would still vaccinate the 999 others though . If 1000 people (including me) who would otherwise die are given the choice to vaccinate with the risk that one unidentified person would die, I would be breaking your door down to get that vaccine. Is that clearer?

Piglet - Your "red shoe" fable has little to do with babies who are taken into ICU after a vaccine for what doctors there call a vaccine reaction.

Attempt at ridicule isn't a great debate strategy, fwiw.

Analogising is perfectly respectable.

I wasn't being condescending, just pointing you in the direction of a MNer who is a specialist in this field.

"The worse outcome I could imagine is spending an eternity in hell. If I applied the calculation you are so fond of presenting to this, the "rational" conclusion would be to start worshiping god."

As I said before, you can't because you can't come up with a probability figure for God's existence. It Is Not Possible.

"Finally we've got some numbers you will agree to. A risk of 1:billion is small enough to discount. So some risk IS acceptable "

Er.. I don't remember agreeing on any number. I do remember it would depend on which disease the vaccine is against.

Of course some risk is acceptable, as long as benefits justify it.

Piglet - Not when what you are trying to compare is not comparable.

What you are doing is ridicule. That is not acceptable.

Cotte, if you insist on having figures, there is equally no probability in existance for your DC developing autism after a vaccine. Why not?

some risk is acceptable, as long as benefits justify it. - does this also apply to vaccines that MAY trigger autism?

"You can choose any multiplier you like to get the equation to balance in your favour i.e. to not vaccinate."

This is not an arbitrary number like your God "prob". Take the no of people whose DC have had documented problems after vaccines in a given year. Divide that with the no of DC who have been vaccinated that year. Voila a small probability that is still higher than zero. Do this for many years and look at the numbers.

We don't have this exact probability because these numbers aren't published. What we do have are people we know in RL and online like Pagwatch, jimjam and others who tell us about others, too. So we know it exists and we know it is not so very rare as "one in a billion".

" I finally feel like progress is being made"

Really? I've spent hours of my life writing these posts, and still Piglet here calls us idiots who just go find patterns where they don't exist and you don't seem to get what probability means (re your God thing).

Read my last post.

What do you allege I am comparing with?

You don't see a similarity to the Wakefield scandal?

What I "allege"?

You are saying MNers like Pagwatch are dimwits who idiotically mistake the vaccine as the cause of their DC's regression. Who could just have easily had blamed their DC's permanent damage on the red shoes they were wearing that day. Seriously, wtf is wrong with you?

Maybe read what Pagwatch said:
taking my son home after his MMR and watching as a huge red hot lump appeared on the injection site, how he wailed for hours and finally slumped on the sofa mewing like a hurt animal, how this lasted several days after which he stayed quiet and disinterested, white faced and disengaged. How he never spoke again. How he stopped looking at me. How he regressed from that day onward.

Oh yes. Definitely a case of an ignorant village idiot blaming the red shoes for having been struck by lightning

Nonsense.

I am describing human behaviour.

The words "idiot" comes from you, not me.

Both the probability that YOUR DC will develop autism and the assessment of outcome are unknown numbers Cote but you still insist on doing the calculation. IF Pagwatch's DS's autism was in fact triggered by the jab, then it makes sense her other children, who are genetically similar, face a much greater risk of developing autism after the jab than say my DS who's been fine. You are talking about population level probabilities, which is why I restricted my example to your DC.

In any case, the assertion that you could calculate it in the way you describe is laughable and I'm pleased you aren't publishing the science. What happened to the mantra causation =/= correlation?

Cote
Take the no of people whose DC have had documented problems after vaccines in a given year. Divide that with the no of DC who have been vaccinated that year. Voila a small probability that is still higher than zero. Do this for many years and look at the numbers.

You missed a bit out.
Take the no of people whose DC have had documented problems that occurred after NOT taking vaccines
You will again get a number that is still higher than zero

Your calculation is defective because it includes a faulty assumption that problems are due to vaccines, and is guaranteed to produce a number that supports that assumption, even if the assumption is incorrect.

The second calculation could be used to support an allegation tht the documented problems were due to NOT taking the vaccine. It would be equally erroneous because the basis of the calculation is equally defective.

"Both the probability that YOUR DC will develop autism and the assessment of outcome are unknown numbers Cote but you still insist on doing the calculation"

As I said before, I'm not doing the calculation because the numbers aren't available. All I see is that these vaccine damaged children do exist. Their doctors say so and their parents say so. So, a small number, a small percentage is all I can say.

We would be able to calculate probabilities to your satisfaction if these numbers were available. Why aren't they? Why are you not asking that question?

Re numbers - I was talking about babies/children taken to ICU after problems clearly related to the vaccine, whose parents are told that these are reactions to the vaccine. Not unrelated "correlation not causation" type events There are quite a few of these stories on MN, some on this very thread iirc. As jimjam previously said, there are a significant number of such children whose reactions are documented by their treating physicians.

The above should clarify what I mean to you, too, Piglet.

But in the eventuality that autism is NOT triggered by the jab, the incidence of vaccine damage would be zero, or as that isn't possible to know for sure, near zero, like the probability of the existance of god.

You are sure there is a link based on anecdotal evidence. Perhaps this will be proved with time, I'm not sure. I trust only the scientific evidence. The Cochrane review had what 50-odd good studies that found no link.

I'm also not sure that homeopathy works. There is plenty of anecdotal evidence for this too. Again, I prefer to read the science as it's only this that can inform rational decision making.

From "vaccine damaged children" and "reactions to the vaccine" it is not clear that we all talking about Autism any more; or if we are, some of us are mixing it up with something else.

Tabitha and cotes requirement of 100% proof that the mmr doesn't cause autism is demonstration of a complete lack of understanding of the scientific method

LeBFG, when people talk about vaccine damage they aren't just talking about autism.

Elaine I'm sorry? I have a complete lack of understanding of your post.
Actually, I have other reasons why I'm not completely happy about the whole vaccination process. Additives. Aluminium and its long term effects, for example.

bumbleymummy
Piglet, if you are living in an area where polio is endemic then you are at risk of contracting polio from the OPV.

I don't understand what you mean. Can you try to express it in different words please.

But we were talking about autism bumbley, keep up.