MMR - Did/Didn't you give it to your baby?

[cheeseypeas]

My DS is about due for his MMR and I'm still really concerned about it and at the moment don't want him to have it (until he's older at least). Things like the autism rates going up so much since it was introduced, allot of regressive autism cases happening about the time of the jab, Tony Blair not giving it to his kid etc that are the causing for concern for me. Also, have read things written by people who believe their babies have been damaged by it and that sticks in my head. I know that the people that started the scare had ulterior motives etc.

Would be really interested to know of other mums reasoning for having it/not having it and any advice if possible. Thanks.

I'm not dismissing the possibility of anything.

I don't know what you mean by "as risky as I suggest". I haven't suggested it is risky, just said that having seen the state of dd with encephalitis I would have gladly had a vaccine. I just said it because it's always laughed at on here, as if it's a ludicrous suggestion to vaccinate against chickenpox. I don't think there's any real need to introduce a vaccine against it as it happens. I wasn't aware I was being aggressive either, it's just that you followed my post about my daughter's encephalitis with a completely dismissive one saying that you don't know anyone who was affected.

"is it ok for someone to suffer serious consequences as a result of catching something if they aren't healthy or suffer disabilities?
(genuine question btw)"

Of course not - I can't believe you think I mean that! My point was that serious consequences are more likely when there are other complications. I didn't say I don't care about those people.

Tamum - I have not intended to laugh at your situation at all. I interpreted your post as suggesting encephalitis is a usual risk of chicken pox. I can of course see why you would have wished you could have prevented something so awful happening to your dd.

Thanks Socci, I appreciate it. And you're right, she has no lasting consequences. It was just so utterly terrifying that I can't help but over-react. Sorry :(

sugermag by your standards of analysis i could just as well list the catalogue of errors [extremely serios ones quite often] that I have experienced at the hands of doctors, and conclude one should never listen to doctors. That would be absurd of course, as is your conclusion that mothers do not know what is happening to their children.
The research against MMR has stated that only a very small minority of children are susceptible to MMR damage - that is why they slip through the staristical net. Having a family auto immune history or bowel/gut problems means a higher susceptibility. As it is only a small amount of children that may be damaged, it seems as if that is an acceptable price to pay for cost effective vaccine coverage of the nation's children. I don't think that is acceptable. I think these children should be identified and protected. However, if the witch hunt against those doing research continues, these children will remain vulnerable for years to come.

very sorry aloha is not coming back.

Socci come away it's pointless.

People's opinions are coloured by their experiences. The general paeds in hospitals are pro jabs because they see children die from hib etc. Wakefield is cautious about MMR (although I think he is pro-vax) because he treats severely autistic children and understands what that means (which many here don't).

My Mum was very pro jabs- she's deaf in one ear from measles- and I remember her being keen for ds1 to get a measles jab (which he did- and the rest- which he also had). A couple of weeks ago I said to her "I really don't know what to do about tetanus, I want ds2 and ds3 to have a tetanus jab, but I'm really don't want to give them the 5 in 1" and she rounded on me and said "you can't give those children a 5 in 1". Now she was giving an emotional response to the decision- which is what people here are doing.

The facts about MMR are I believe (and feel free to argue).

1. MMR is safe for the majority of children.

2)There are no studies showing MMR is safe for all children.

3)MMR may be more dangerous in susceptible children previously exposed to thimerosal.

4)MMR safety tests were not adequate (that's from Cochrane btw)

5)The singles are unlicenced for political rather than health reasons.

6. The efficacy of singles is slightly higher than MMR (but not much in it)

7. All the epidemiological studies are uselss as they all test the hypothesis that MMR has cauysed the increase in autism, which no-one anywher thinks that it has.

8. Measles is usually acute and self limiting. But can be serious. Most serious cases are in those with compromised immune systems. Intravenous vitamin A is the best treatment. Measles is more serious in adults/teens and newborns. Vaccine induced immunity is not as good as natural immunity so you really want to know that you are immune to measles in some form or another before having a babe. Mumps is practically always mild. Rubella can have devastating consequences for a non-immune pregnant first trimester mother.

9. There is an as yet unidentified group that may be more at risk from MMR than Joe public. This group is small- 7% oif autistic cases perhaps. There is a larger group that may(in this case I would say is probably) at risk from thimerosal if they happen to get any (its not quite all gone).

10. MMR is cheaper to adminsiter than singles.

11. Risk factors for an adverse reaction include things like gut disease, family history of autoimmunity, and having a child who previously regressed following MMR.

Have I missed anything? So the basic conclusions are there are no certainties (like life I guess), Personally I wouldn't worry much about the live attenuated virus bit (given one virus at a time), I'm not keen on the additives. Never quite understod why the dept of health (actually it wasn't it was John Krebs wasn't it) was on the one hand saying pregnant women shouldn't eat more than one can of tuna a week because of mercury levels, but that it was perfectly OK to inject it into an 8 week old baby. Yes yes I know it was in a different form, but a different pretty much untested form.

Anyway Socci come away with me. It's not worth it.

Tamum- if you trawl through my posts on this site you'll see that I have mentioned before that the arguments for vacinating against chickenpox are greater than the arguments for vaccinating against mumps (at ds1's school chickenpox causes lots of problems for the kids there tbh- its encephalitis all round).

Anyway I don't see how what you are saying is any different than me. Your dd was one of the few to be affected very badly by chickenpox, ds1 is one of the few to have been badly affected by baby jabs (and will never be right). And so what we do with other children relates back to that.

apart from no.6, I'd say you were spot on. The problem with the singles is that people pick and choose which jabs they have and don't follow through with the boosters (cost factor). And as we all know, a vac programme is only successful if a certain number take up the vaccinations (whether single or combined).

But I'm pro choice anyway so would defend your right to go whichever way you choose.

The department where I work is having a HUGE outbreak of mumps at the 'mo. All of those who fell ill were vaccinated as children against the disease, but were NOT offered a booster at puberty/teen age.

So some people got caught out and it is nasty, people. One of the girls got tonsilitis as a secondary infection to mumps and then had an allergic reaction to the drugs given her for that.

She asked her GP if she could have MMR, singles or a titre for measles and rubella, as she is spending the summer in Asia. They told her no ! So here is a person who probably doesn't have immunity to these diseases and they just fobbed her off!

FFS. I had MMR as an adult - age 18 - so I know there's a triple jab for adults out there.

Another will be unable to graduate until summer as he cannot sit his exams.

getting mumps as an adult is much more dangerous than getting it as a child, [especially fertility wise] so one could argue the DOH's present vaccine schedule is hugely irresponsible, seeing as vaccine immunity wears off.

Foxinsocks- no 6 was from a reference- pro jab one iirc. I haven't got time to find it tonight as I have work to do, but it hasn't been plucked out of thin air. I may have linked to it in the last MMR thread a few weeks ago.

I find the DOH's vaccine schedule VERY irresponsible w/regard to that, ruty. Men C as an infant/child and no booster when they're teens, the biggest risk group for Men C.

No Prevenar for infants. Yep, it's STILL not offered yet.

Hib. The old one is shown to lose efficacy after one year. Are they offering children vaccinated it a booster? Nope.

No MMR booster for teens/young adults.

Short sighted and stupid.

Of course adults can have it expat- that's what they give women not immune to rubella.

This student's GP told her it wasn't for adults (she's 22). I told her to go make waves b/c he's full of it. I had MMR back in 1989 at 18.

jimjams, remember your name change!! away with you and have a wee glass of wine.

jimjams, i wanted to ask you about mmr, but noticed you were keeping off vax threads (hmmm!) so didn't... not sure this is the place for it really though but shall I go ahead anyway?

please tell me to bugger off if you're tired of people keep asking you stuff though!!!

I don't see the point of being stingy w/a vaccine when it's obviously cost the economy a whole hella lot more when adults fall ill w/these diseases. These students have lost time at work, had to use healthcare services that probably cost much more than a dose of MMR, and the potential for long term damage is there.

But they refused her an MMR.

My husband asked if he could have one. He was vaccinated w/single jabs - all that was available then - as a child.

They told him no.

They refused to give my child Prevenar even though it's not officially on the schedule.

And they wonder why I don't trust them for FA.

thing is jimjams, i know you're doing it to preserve your sanity [keeping off vax threads i mean ] but what would we do without you? A vax thread just wouldn't be the same....

You're right Jimjams I should really leave these threads alone - have expressed my opinions enough in the past

However I wish to clarify that I never meant to make light of situations where people are damaged by illnesses in any way. I just dislike the misrepresentation/propaganda that goes on all the time.

how ridiculous expat. When my sis was pregnant, they found she wasn't rubella immune and the only vax they offered her was the MMR as they don't do singles. This was only a few years ago and she was 27!

i think your contributions are also vital socci.

socci, I apologise unreservedly if I came across as aggressive. as jimjams says, I am of course speaking emotionally and from personal experience.
people are very influenced by anecdotal evidence and so I feel it can be helpful for me to say - actually these diseases can be serious, ime.
I abslolutely accept that some people can be more susceptible to vaccine damage than others. that is unarguable. in that situation, the person can choose to vaccinate or not.
measles and chickenpox can be more serious if a person is already ill, but I am sure you can understand that it is hard to read your post stating this without feeling that the risks are somehow dismissed. People who catch the illness do not have the choice unlike those who choose to vaccinate or not.
sorry I am rambling. TO answer your question - they have DS. One has a number of serious physical problems - one doesn't. my sister was told that if the one with physical problems was to catch measles, then the chances of it being fatal were high. we all live in fear of it. she has been through so much already. this perhaps explains why it is hard for me to read comments that sound dismissive about the consequences of measles.
again, sorry if I sound defensive. I just had a few sleepless nights because I was worried that dd1 might have infected her again with chickenpox. After last time, I couldn't bear the thought of it again, so it's a bit raw.

jimjams, I take it the "it isn't worth it" comment was directed at me.
I am sorry that you feel like that, because tbh I always thought we had sensible and useful interchanges on these threads, nws the emotional content. I have learned many things from reading your posts. Just because we sometimes disagree, doesn't mean that it isn't worth it for me.
perhaps I should stay off these threads too. they just get too emotional for me every time. but I do feel I have something to contribute in the way of personal experience.