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'd like to change *ill-informed actually - it's clear many posters have been exposed to lots of information so 'ill-informed' is not quite appropriate. More like Elaine just said. I take it autism parents are seeking more information about autism, they don't have an agenda in particular. The posters here have an agenda - they don't want to vaccinate. They seek information to support their decision, thus take a line of "misinformation, pseudo science, hyper criticism of any study which doesn't agree with a predetermined decision, distortion and conspiracy theorizing"

I'll post how I like within the mumsnet rules thanks.

With respect, you do not share my concerns. You have not met people in my situation and have not spoken to them so are not really in a position to say which information they should receiveGeRunds paternalistic days have gone. I am more concerned with whether my links are of use to people in my situation as a starting point for further investigation than whether you think they need explaining or not. Anyway how can I disseminate information without knowing their specific circumstances.

Take Paul Patterson expert in his field (of infections and brain disorders) who appears to recognise the possibilities for grey areas in some vaccination policies. I'm not in the position to provide that sort of interpretation of the data or to 'disseminate' it publically and there would be an outcry on here if I came on and said 'hmm I really wouldn't get the flu jab while pregnant' although, having read the primary sources I came to that decision myself. That's what I can do - read the primary sources and come to my own conclusions for my family. I can share those primary sources to allow others to do the same. But provide a practical interpretation, a take home message? I'm sorry that would be highly inappropriate.

I use primary sources to come to decisions for my family. I make interpretations on the relevance of the findings for my family. And I'll continue to post links for other people to do the same. If they decide they need further clarification they can take it to their clinicians.

I posted the polio paper for interest (there are lots of interesting things about that paper). If I was posting to provoke a reaction I'm not sure why I would have posted to a very pro vaccination WHO site shortly afterwards? I know many on here struggle to understand that some of us find this area interesting.

Would you like to monitor the rest of my posts to see if they break any of your imaginary posting rules, or are you only interested in censoring my posts on vaccination?

Gerunds (WTF) = those. Obviously.

I think your getting a bit hot under the collar unnecessarily. I'm not talking about posting rules or even telling you how to post.

I'm giving you my opinion about what I feel is abuse of the scientific literature. You can post the links in whatever way you feel right - I simply tried to offer suggestions to help rather than just be critical.

I do think you underestimate to what degree the firing off of primary research papers one after the next is a deliberate debate 'tactic' on here. As Elaine or others goes off to digest some complicated paper, the rest will mock 'where has she gone? obviously she can't answer'. The tactic is used to swamp the debate and finally only anti-vaxers can be bothered to remain on the threads chit-chatting amongst themselves.

BFG you say The posters here have an agenda - they don't want to vaccinate. They seek information to support their decision, thus take a line of "misinformation, pseudo science, hyper criticism of any study which doesn't agree with a predetermined decision, distortion and conspiracy theorizing"

There are only one or two who could be considered in the 'anti-vax' camp though and I would suggest that even those have done their research into why they don't vaccinate.

Piglet, it was a comment I made two days ago in response to one you made on Saturday! It was a passing comment to highlight that in an endemic country you could also catch it from the vaccine, not just the wild. I already said in my last post that India wasn't a good example for that particular point. Consider them as two separate points if you like.

Then if I were a totally selfish person with no concern for anyone but myself, I would take the view that, living in an area of endemic polio, the chances are that sooner or later I would catch the wild infection, and it would be to my personal benefit to take the OPV because it has a vastly smaller probability of causing me to be damaged.

If I were a less selfish person, and concerned for the lives and health of my children, grandchildren, nephews and neices, including those not yet born, who also live in this area where polio is endemic so they, too, are at great risk of contracting the wild disease, I would take the view that the OPV would help eradicate the disease in the wild, so protecting my children, grandchildren and descendants into the distant future.

If I were a person who had any concern for the human race as a whole, I would take the view that the OPV could help eradicate this disease from the face of the earth.

If BFG is referring to my article on OPV, I posted to show that India is saying that there are drawbacks to the mass eradication campaigns, i.e. causing NPAFP which is twice as deadly as paralytic polio & that the campaign costs them huge amounts of money which they feel would be better spent on sanitation, healthcare and control of polio at a local level.

Personally I post links so people are aware that the info exists and they can take from it whatever they like.

FWIW BFG, I find you both patronising and dictatorial. Maybe other posters understand more than you think and if I want to post I will regardless of whether it meets with your approval. Cheers

Volcan, as I said upthread, these people DO do the research. The problem is if you set out with a bias in head you selectively read the research. Add into this the difficult nature of many epidemiology and immunolgy papers and subsequent misunderstandings and you can quickly end up believing the science supports your view, when it in fact doesn't.

Why do this bother me? These people then come onto the vaccine threads and try and convince OTHERS of their flawed reasonings. This spreads to the general population through chit chat and the like...agumenting perceived risks and fueling vaccine scares which leads to very many uninformed people to also choose not to vaccinate. Speed of recovery after vaccine scares is a lot slower than the rate of abstention was during the scare - putting more children and adults at risk.

The problem is if you set out with a bias in head you selectively read the research.

Do you mean me personally or 'one'? You haven't yet said who 'these people' are. LeonieDelt is one, and more than capable of speaking up for herself when she logs on. I don't offhand know of any others. CoteDAzur has been accused on threads of being both pro and anti vaccine. Again I am sure that she can speak for herself, but I don't see how she can be both. Others like Saintly have told us her personal reasons for why vaccination is wrong for her family, and given us some very interesting links.

I am a bit tired of the assumption that those who dare to question are anti-vaccine.

Excellent sossiges, just emphasises my point.

I posted to show that India is saying that there are drawbacks to the mass eradication campaigns

The article is entitled Polio programme: let us declare victory and move on and actually says in the first line January 12, 2012, marked a significant milestone for India. It was the first anniversary of the last reported wild polio case from India.. This isn't about drawbacks of mass eradication campaigns, it's about drawing attention to the difficult final elimination step in India where IPV is probably a better choice of vaccine than OPV. Do you think the mass vaccination campaigns should never have taken place? Do you think what's happening in India could happen in the UK? Please put this article into the context of this thread. As I said, labelling it 'interesting' is not helpful.

The 'you' was aimed generally as I don't like to start animosity wars with other posters (and to date, never have any PAs). There are posters who on the one hand say they are not anti-vaccine but at the same time post continually their scepticism on so many aspects of vaccination that I can only conclude they are anti-vaxers. You can, of course, be anti one vaccine and pro another. Very few people take the hard line of 'all vaccines are bad' (though there are some on here and I know some in RL). I personally use 'anti-vax' for ease. What term would you prefer?

Cautious vaccinators, questioning vaccinators, thoughtful vaccinators?

I'll label it what I like whether you think it's helpful or not. Thanks.

"This isn't about drawbacks of mass eradication campaigns..."
To quote from the article, which you obviously haven't read, "The polio eradication campaign epitomises nearly everything that is wrong with donor funded 'disease specific' vertical projects, at the cost of investments in community-orientated primary health care (horizontal programmes)".

"In the final analysis, if the right lessons have been learned and the world does not repeat these mistakes, the cost may finally be justified".
The title of the article is ironic. Until India can afford IPV (when?) to put an end to vaccine induced paralytic polio, the "victory" is hollow. Even then there will have to be continued vaccination with IPV (forever?), as in the UK, USA etc., in case of further outbreaks. It's not as clear cut as 'vaccination saves the day - OPV completely eradicates polio from the face of the Earth' as some people apparently think.

What's the opposite of 'sheeple'?

Animosity? Moi? Certainly not, my dear.

Some people take the "hardline" that all vaccines are good.

If you don't have every single shot of every single vaccine on offer, then somehow you're a fool, and are letting down yourself, the class and the whole world.
How do you feel about them?

Tactics? What 'agenda' do you think I have? As you have already pointed out it would be in my favour for everyone around me to vaccinate. Why would i employ tactics to ensure they didn't. What possible agenda could I have that requires tactics? I've followed the autism literature to some degree for over a decade - that's not tactical - that's because it's highly relevant to my son. Did you know he's amongst the first few people in the UK to use LAMP? It has been life changing for him and within 6 months has given him a voice I thought he'd never had. so I shout about that as well. I knew about LAMP because I followed autism literature - not through some sort of magic.

As for not knowing how mumsnet works. I've been posting on here under various names for over ten years. I was one of the people who requested a vaccination topic. You bet I'll get hot under the collar if sharing information is construed as tactics.

I was actually clear about my take home message from the papers earlier. I made no great claims - only that in at least some cases of autism there appears to be a poorly understood immune dysfunction. Several groups are working on this. One group believes that maternal infection in early pregnancy is enough to trigger autism. Another group has a similar model - maternal infection, but this is followed by a later environmental trigger. There are other models with similarities and differences. Not all that many people are aware of the potential role of the immune system in autism. Ten years ago it was seen as a pretty crank idea, one it's becoming mainstream. Ditto gut abnormalities in autism btw. I think it's very helpful for those in my situation to be aware of the research and to follow it if they wish.

I' m not telling anyone what they should or shouldn't do. Just providing information that might be of use to those in the sort of situation I find myself in.

I posted to show that India is saying that there are drawbacks

Or to be more accurate, it shows that some people in India are saying there are drawbacks and some people in India are saying that the money could be spent in better ways and some people in India express their opinion on what those ways should be.

Certainly there is always room to evaluate where money should be spent to best effect.

But that is not such as eye-catching statement, is it?

Yes, some people in India. I was in a hurry to post (nearly lunch-time!).
I'm glad you thought it was eye-catching [preen]

Have not read the whole thread as I suspect it is very similar to other threads on vaccs. on here.

Some children have no reaction to MMR. Those are probably the children who, if you were to take blood from them at the booster MMR stage (3 and a half years approx) you would find have insufficient antibodies to MMR and who are not protected. You would very likely see a correlation between no reaction and insufficient antibodies.

Then there is the 'typical' reaction, 7-10 days post immunisation. This might be 3-4 days in duration, grumpy, maybe vomity, off food, maybe a rash and temperature, very similar to a typical virus.

Then you have the very 'robust' reactions which last 7 days + maybe 'mini-mumps' ie, nodes up in the neck, really miserable, high temp, quite poorly for a while.

It is a good idea to ask about possible reactions at the time of immunisation, not a good idea to get it done a week before Xmas for instance, be armed with Calpol or similar and expect some kind of reaction, forwarned is fore-armed.

It should be remembered it is not a bad thing if they react, their bodies are doing the right thing and building up antibodies/defences to the diseases.

In response to the poster who recommended the reaction should be reported to the doctor, I'm afraid the doctor would simply say, 'fine, that's exactly what the vaccine and the body should be doing...'

It is normal and even desirable to see some kind of reaction, though it is never nice to see your child unwell. Children will react in different ways and it is impossible to predict how they will behave.

Hope this helps.

Eye-catching and untrue.

I don't agree with your interpretation of the paper sossiges but at least you have done more than say it was 'interesting' (although still not aswered my questions).

The victory was not hollow. The problem lay with the donor-led nature of the vaccination programmes - India would only licence the OPV in the days when the IPV was still affordable. Nevertheless, OPV has saved many more lives than it has damaged and has eradicated the wild polio virus.

It's not as clear cut as 'vaccination saves the day - OPV completely eradicates polio from the face of the Earth' as some people apparently think. no, but this is closer to the truth than the implication that "vaccines are less than perfect and have no role to play in disease control."

Apart from being very long to type (main issue) "Cautious vaccinators, questioning vaccinators, thoughtful vaccinators" all imply that the person would basically vaccinate with all the common vaccines highly recommended and selectively choose not to if there was good scientific evidence that the vaccine(s) risk was higher than disease risk. Therein lies the nub of the whole debate. I contend that the evidence is not there for the moment (obviously excluding where a problem has been discerned in a particular family, or other reasons precluding vaccination).

Saintly did I state or imply that you don't know how mn works? You have had no choice but to not vaccinate and thus your children benefit from the high levels of vaccinations in the UK. So I wouldn't assume you had an agenda. You have spoken before about 10% of the autism community you know think the autism was triggered by the MMR. Perhaps this is the basis to your skeptcism wrt vaccination? If so, it's a skeptcism not based in the scientific evidence.

Just realised the second to last paragraph is incomplete (i hate writing long posts, dammit). The suggested terms are not good as I don't think the posters we are refering to would vaccinate if the science showed them to be safer.

You are reading implications into my posts where none are made. However, now you mention it - vaccines are less than perfect, very true.

Oh, I am sorry, can I only point out links with words approved by yourself? I hadn't realised. How about 'fascinating', is that ok? 'Mind-boggling', how about that? Please post a list of words/phrases that you would find acceptable, since you object so strongly to "interesting".

I wish I had a lovely high horse like yours.

By the way, I don't give a monkey's whether you agree with my "interpretation of the paper" or not

"Cautious vaccinators, questioning vaccinators, thoughtful vaccinators" are all too long to type. This from BFG who thinks nothing of banging out a 100-word post.