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.

LeBFG "in the eventuality that autism is NOT triggered by the jab, the incidence of vaccine damage would be zero"

That was what I was referring to. Even if autism was never triggered by vaccines, there would still be vaccine damage.

Piglet, the OPV is a live vaccine and can cause paralytic polio. It is still in use in areas where polio is endemic.

Vaccine damage of all kinds is the subject of this thread (see OP)

Cote was originally contending the statement that I made about Pagwatch "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". She finally said "however small the probability of triggering autism in their babies might be, it is not a risk worth taking,".

Hence the lengthly debate about probabilities ending with backpeddling by cote when she started talking about "vaccine damaged children" and "reactions to the vaccine" - quite rightly pointed out by piglet.

Of course there are many vaccine reactions, no one has ever disputed that. Almost all reactions are very mild. Many of the worse reactions are to gluten and egg that the vaccines are often grown in.

bumbleymummy this is quite interesting

"the OPV is a live vaccine and can cause paralytic polio. It is still in use in areas where polio is endemic."

yes, I know that, and what is the point you wish to convey? Is it, for example

"OPV has played the greatest part in ridding almost the entire world of this hideous disease. However when it is used in places where Polio is endemic, and the population is likely, sooner or later, to be invested by the wild disease, a tiny proportion may sadly be infected by the vaccine instead of, or prior to, catching the wild infection"

or is it

"OPV has played the greatest part in ridding almost the entire world of this hideous disease. However when it is used in places where Polio is endemic, and the population is likely, sooner or later, to be invested by the wild disease, a tiny proportion may sadly be infected by the vaccine instead of, or prior to, catching the wild infection; therefore, instead of using this cheap and easily administered vaccine to help wipe out the disease in the few remote areas where it continues, it would be better to let the disease continue to run wild indefinitely"

Since the OPV is a live vaccine and can cause polio, polio will never be eradicated. While some countries can afford IPV, none of the countries that have been targeted for 'polio eradication campaigns' can.

My link didn't work very well but if you click the "cached copy" link it comes up ok

Sossiges - your link and argument typify anti-vaxers on here. Pointing to one paper as though this proves your point. This article is it's critique. As you will see, there are problems with the original paper and the information is old news. It's interesting that Indian govt itself refused to licence the IPV vaccine (for what they thought were good reasons I should add). The IPV vaccine has only since then become very expensive. Authors conclude the IPV will need to manufactured to see off the last of the polio disease.

She didn't say that it proved a point - she said it was interesting. Which it was, although, as you say, others can offer a critique, (for which your link doesn't work either BTW).

(The first link did work for me the first time but hasn't done now. Maybe they have both gone off-line since it's now nighttime in India.)

I wonder what bumbleymummy will say she meant.

My link works perfectly now but LeBFG's doesn't - whoever's mucking around with the t'interweb stop it now please (angry)

Bugger

Ah yes, quite right, no point has (yet) been made. My gripe rests though.

Which of your gripes is that?

There are a few .

One is the abuse of the primary literature. Throwing out one paper after the next, half read and half understood, quoting sentances out of context (not you this time sossiges). The paper linked to was clearly one of a pair - the topic is controversial, so by posting one link the other side was not heard.

To be helpful, rather than just critical, it's much better to post analyses of several papers or some well established news pages like Nature news. The latter has the added advantage of not requiring specialist understanding to penetrate.

Piglet, my comment was written in response to this post of yours:

"If I am living in an area where Polio remains endemic, and I have no pre-existing immunity for some reason, I accept that I am likely to pick up the disease from the wild sooner or later."

I was pointing out that in those endemic countries you could pick up the disease from the vaccine itself because it is the OPV being used. In fact, if you were in India then you would be more likely to contract the disease from the vaccine. No 'wild' cases have been reported this year but there are plenty associated with the vaccine.

sorry, I still don't understand your point.

If you are replying to
"If I am living in an area where Polio remains endemic, and I have no pre-existing immunity for some reason, I accept that I am likely to pick up the disease from the wild sooner or later."

then India appears to be irrelevant.

Were you trying to make a point about the use of OPV in an area where Polio is not endemic?

I linked to the papers earlier to show Elaine that for parents out there with children who have regressed after immune insults there are more papers of interest than the epidemiological studies done to date. Those have all sorts of problems anyway - as already explained.

I don't believe I have made massive claims for any paper I have linkef to - quite a few of the ones I have linked to argue in favour of vaccination (not sure any have been 'anti', can't remember - would be surprised if they were tbh). My point, has been to show that for those of us lucky enough to have severely autistic kids the world isn't quite as black and white as some seem to think.

As the parent of a child with severe regressive autism I am interested in reading everything. I share papers I find interesting in case other people find them useful. I have become very interested in the ongoing research into infection and disorders such as schizophrenia as well as conditions such as PANDAS. I'm planning to read up on it in the next few months - and in advance, make no apologies for linking to work I find interesting.

I'm a bit about the reaction to sharing information on here tbh. The other week I posted to a current news story about chicken vaccines assuming it would be of interest to some on here and was immediately told off. I has made no claims other than to say it might be of some interest to regulars of this forum. On this thread I asked whether anyone could remember what the DTP had to do with polio outbreaks, no-one replied so I posted when I found the original paper (which was not anti-vaccination and I made no claims it was). I found the paper interesting for all sorts of reasons and thought others might. Around the same time I posted a link to a very pro polio vaccination site (published by WHO I think / if not relied heavily on their information) because it provided a very clear and helpful summary of the issues regarding IPV and OPV. Do I think we used OPV for too long in the UK? Yes - probably. Do I think OPV has some advantages over IPV? Yes. Do I think polio vaccination programs should be halted? No. Yet when I posted saying 'oh yes here's the issue with DTP and polio I remember now', it seemed to be assumed that I was saying 'ban all polio vaccines'. Er no. I didn't remotely say that.

I don't particularly post papers for people who have typically developing children and no questions about whether or not to vaccinate. I have no interest at all in changing anyone's mind. I post papers for people like me - who have children with issues - whether that's severe regressive autism or who have suffered adverse reactions. I post them for information. They can read them, speak to the researchers if they wish, consider their own family history and set of risks and make their own mind up. I like to make decisions with up to date information and an awareness of the current issues. As I have said many times, if the information, risks-benefits changes then we may well change our minds to reflect that. How are we ever going to find out if information isn't shared.

No Piglet I was not.

"I accept that I am likely to pick up the disease from the wild sooner or later"

I was pointing out that you could pick it up from the OPV. It's not really that complex a point. I'm not sure why you are struggling. I realise that polio is no longer endemic in India so it isn't a good example wrt this particular idea of you contracting it in the wild. The point I was making is that the OPV is causing more cases than the virus itself in India. Not A Good Thing.

I take the point you are trying to be helpful and I understand your motivation. My comment was in part reference to sossiges's link and part reference to previous threads I have been on (not many) where certain posters have exchanged endless primary research papers, frequently misrepresenting the article by selective quoting and many of which don't even have free access to the main article. I'm not sure if you were one of them saintly, I have other names in my head.

Alerting people to developments in a field of interest - yes, ok, I'll buy that, but I really think this is only helpful in the context of a review/news piece. Why do I say that? Saintly, you have scientific training and sound like you have read an awful lot of the primary research. You may have a broad understanding of the field and may be able to put a new article into the context of the current research and relevant historical background. Most people on here won't be able to - I certainly can't.

I take you point, but I'm not going to withhold information from people who are in my situation because they might not understand it - that seems patronising to me. A paper can be a start - something to take to the consultants to discuss. I did this when something came up in a conference talk that seemed relevant to ds1. I'd seen the conference online so the researcher was in the States. I contacted him, he sent a very detailed reply and put me in contact with a neurologist working in Cambridge who had worked with him. The Cambridge neurologist agreed it was worth investigating and suggested we contact a neurologist local to us (gave us a name). I took the emails from the American researcher and the neurologist to ds1's paediatrician who referred us to the paediatric neurologist. He was happy to see ds1, agreed that there might be an issue. At which stage we talked about the tests available. One was invasive, one wasn't but would require a GA for ds1. The tests would tell us whether there was a problem, but currently there is no agreed treatment. The neurologist said he was happy to do them but he didn't think they could be done at once so would require 2 GA's. He also said he thinks in 5-10 years one of the tests in particular will be able to tell us a lot more as technology in the area is moving so rapidly. I said I'd rather wait until there's an agreed treatment plan if something is shown up. He thought that was sensible and said in his letter he was happy to see us at any stage in the future. Whilst there we talked about all sorts of other issues and arranged further tests (that we could do with a GA and did do). All from one conference paper. We had a 90 minute consultation with the neurologist and his accompanying paediatrician (on the NHS) - it was incredibly worthwhile.

There is a large group of autism parents who do a very good job of keeping up with the latest research. Autism as a condition might be quite unusual in that, I don't know, but if you go to a meeting such as IMFAR you will find groups of parents attending. It's not unusual at the end of the talk for parents to ask very practical questions amongst the very academic ones. The researchers don't object - they answer as honestly as they can. It's actually not that unusual for parents to be invited to present either. At a Royal Society conference I attended there were a couple of parent presenters. At every academic conference I have been to I have met parents and siblings of people with autism. (And actually plenty of people on the spectrum themselves).

This conference is parent organised (and he's not a scientist) - he also has a magazine where he interviews researchers, or at least he used to. Many (most even?) of the people who attend are parents. Autism Speaks - one of the largest autism research funders was started by parents. this research institute is parent funded. Most of the pressure for research into severely autistic non-verbal individuals is coming from parents (Portia Iversen for example). I'm afraid I just can't withhold information from parents in case they don't understand it. That's really not how the autism community works.

Bumbleymummy

If as you say you were responding to my post about the high probability of me catching polio from the wild because I was living in an area of endemic polio, what is the relevance of your reply based on my living in an area where polio is NOT endemic?

Especially when you did not mention that you had decided to reply to something I hadn't said?

Saintly
I don't have a problem with information sharing. It's the misinformation, pseudo science, hyper criticism of any study which doesn't agree with a predetermined decision, distortion and conspiracy theorizing that I have a problem with.

Bumbley
Of course it's a good thing that there have been no wild polio virus infections since 2011 in India. Do you know why? Why on earth do you think it is a bad thing?? Thanks to vaccination, India is polio free. This makes me happy.
Next step will be for India to move to ipv when it is richer and sanitation is better etc - then we can get rid of the tiny number of vaccine induced polio cases (estimated at one in two million - these are the kinds of levels of vaccine damage we can detect!)

The way you describe parents with autistic kids saintly does not faintly ressemble the debates on this board - very opposite is true. Posters tend to be very ill-informed.

The article on the OPV vaccination program in India was clearly linked to provoke an 'oh, I'm so glad I don't vaccinate' response among the converted. Why else post it?

Your paper on about vaccine selection pressures was very interesting. Two ways of reading it: imperfect vaccines have terrible consquences OR imperfect vaccines have a range of side effects and from these models we propose x-vaccine types to avoid future problems. The latter was in keeping with the authors conclusions, whereas I think a certain type of poster on here would have taken home the oversimplified message.

Please continue posting relevant papers, but with complicated papers I think the poster should read the thing and disseminate the information appropriately: for example, a brief description of study and results. Just saying 'interesting' is probably not enough.