MMR DROP IN CLINICS ACROSS WALES TOMORROW - please get yours

[Mosschops30]

You can turn up to various venues
Ystrad Mynach Hospital
Belle Vue Surgery Newport
Children's Centre, CRI
Children's Centre, llandough

Don't worry if you're not sure If your dc has had booster, you can still attend.

Please protect all our children

Thanks Pigletjohn - I hadnt seen that page, I might have known I was looking in the wrong place

I think I will have a quick chat to the surgery to see what they would reccomend as well - thanks RandallPinkFloyd

Randall, I asked the same question about single vaccines on another thread, and the response I got was a vague notion of overloading the immune system by giving too many vaccines on the same day.

I couldn't find any scientific support for this.

But other vacs are given in combined doses too. If they opted to have those why not this one? That what I don't understand.

I know there are people who are completely anti-vac but this seems to be different. Certain people who have had all other vaccines still seem to have doubts about this one.

I'm genuinely interested as to why.

I did enquire, but Bumbley among others does not report a downside.

Surely the combined/single vax thing was all a part of the discredited Wakefield controversy - at it's height when DD was born.

Hugo, I have never suggested that most children aren't fine with MMR anywhere! Good grief! you're on a roll here. It would be really great if people would stop jumping to conclusions so we don't have to keep going back and correcting them.

The majority are fine with the MMR (obviously!), the majority of parents will chose the MMR (obviously) but for the others there should be a choice.

Randall, that suggests that children only get partial immunity from the first vaccine and need the second to get full immunity - is that what you're saying? It's different to what the NHS website is saying which is that after the first vaccine a certain percentage will be protected and the second is to catch the ones who did not develop immunity after the first.

Some people have concerns about it being 3 live viruses which is not like the 5-in1.

But why?

And what about my tetanus question?

The information is all there on the link PigletJohn provided earlier. I was just simplifying. Apologies if I didn't use the correct wording. Approx 90% will be protected by the first does, 99% by the second.

Ok, so people have concerns about it being 3 live vaccines. What is it about live vaccines that concerns them?

This is the view from the NHS as to why they don't offer single vaccines

Single vaccines are not routinely given in the UK. They're not available on the NHS as there is a risk that fewer children would receive all the necessary injections, increasing the levels of measles, mumps and rubella in the UK.

The delay in having six separate injections would also put more children at risk of developing the conditions, as well as increasing the amount of work and inconvenience for parents and those administering the vaccines.

I'd be just as interested in hearing the opposing argument. I don't think any parents concerns should be brushed aside. But equally I don't think unfounded fears should be fed for no good reason.

I think all facts should be available to everyone. How else can people make an informed choice?

I have seen plenty of evidence that shows MMR to be as safe as the single options. I'd like to see the counter argument so I can judge for myself.

For the record, I'm not trying to change anyone's mind. Everyone will have a reason for their views.

I'm also not particularly interested in hearing people's opinions.

I'm simply interested in why they hold these views. The facts, figures, data, analysis etc. on which they have formed these views.

Amandine, CatherinaJTV has posted about it before. She might be able to answer better than I would. Something to do with the titres being too high and an increased risk of reaction. As for why people have concerns about it, you would have to ask them. :)

Randall, the protection and spacing with the single measles as the sane as with the MMR so people would have protection against measles in the sane timeframe. There is a case to be made for delaying rubella and mumps anyway. The idea that they all need to be given in early childhood at the same time only came in with the MMR.

Thanks. I wasn't asking to challenge you by the way, I've just genuinely never heard that before

That's ok :) I think it's interesting too!

Hello everyone,
I am really interested in an answer to Randall's question here, too.
What is the evidence base for preferring single vaccines to the MMR?
Could we have some facts and figures?
Why be happier with the singles than with the MMR?
Cheers.

That was a direct quote from the NHS website btw, not my opinion, I thought I'd made that clear. As I said, I purposely haven't given my opinion because I don't think other people's opinions count for anything.

What I would like is some facts/figures/data. The actual basis for these fears that the MMR isn't as safe as the singles.

What is the evidenced based research on which to form an opinion that single vacs should be made available on the NHS to everyone.

The quote I posted is the reasons the NHS give for not offering them, the studies that have formed the basis for this decision are readily available and have been linked to countless times. I really am genuinely interested in hearing the counter argument and the facts and figures it is based on.

I not asking purely to be argumentative, I do actually want to read it.

Sorry noble, I missed your post:

"noblegiraffe Wed 24-Apr-13 12:38:33
Bumbley, I've already said that the NHS recommends caution where a child has had a previous reaction to the vaccine. So no, the doctor doesn't simply continue recommending Lemsip to that child."

I'm glad you agree that should be the course of action. So what do you make of the doctors who tell parents who are concerned about a vaccine reaction that it was a coincidence, nothing to do with the vaccine and that they should carry on regardless?

Radnall, I know it's a quote from the NHS website. My reply still stands :)

What facts/figures/data are you looking for? Do you have facts/figures/data for the opposing argument ie. That the MMR is safer than singles?

The idea of making them available to everyone does not mean that everyone will have it - most people will probably still choose the MMR - for convenience or whatever. It would just mean that those who wanted to have the singles vaccine, for whatever reason, would not have to jump through hoops to get it.

Bumble has no facts/figures/data. If she did, so too would Cochrane and policy would be different.

She just wants to state ad nauseam her view that, after as much as 12 seconds of reflection, she thinks singles should be offered. That's it.

She doesn't want to engage further because this might show her opinion to be ill-considered, and then she'd have to change it.

I haven't presented an argument, purposely so.

I also haven't stated my own opinion.

Your stand point, as I understand it, is that the NHS should offer singles to everyone. I am interest in what that opinion is based on.

Seeing as we've gone down the whole Lemsip path - let's look at another analogy.
Consider paracetemol and ibuprofen - both used for pain relief. Some parents prefer one over the other - they think it works better for their child/maybe doesn't upset their stomach as much//whatever. They have an opinion on it and they have a choice about what they want to give when their child is sick. Now imagine the only way to get them was through your doctor and they decided that only ibuprofen was giung to be offered on the NHS - it works, it's safe, it would do the job but what about all the parents who would prefer paracetemol? Their only choice now is to either sick it up and give ibuprofen or leave their child without pain relief. Would offering paracetemol as well make everyone switch from ibuprofen? No. Would it mean that everyone got the pain relief they wanted/preferred? Yes. Would everyone be happy? Yes :)

Vaccination coverage would be higher if single vax were offered, quite simply. Many parents insist that they will not trust the MMR, regardless of state bullying, 'education', being talked down to by their superiors or any other manner of intimidation. If the aim is to immunise as many people as possible then single vax offer a potential solution. It won't persuade those who won't vax full stop, but it may persuade a large proportion who won't touch MMR with a hundred foot barge pole.

This is not my opinion. It is a fact that coverage would be higher.

wrong analogy, paracetemol and ibuprofen are entirely different drugs - but you can safely take them together (much like a combined vaccine really)
from what I understand your single measle vaccines are the same component as in the combined vaccine - so really MMR is just doing what we do sometimes do with paracetemol and ibuprofen - taken together

What facts/figures/data do you want? Safety studies on singles measles vaccine have been done - it is considered 'safe and effective'. It offers the same protection as the MMR and can be given within the same timeframe. So if you want to protect against measles and don't want/need/have some concern about the MMR (whatever it might be) - then it's a suitable alternative. What is your problem with someone having that opinion? It's a shame you have to be rude and patronising to express yours. :)

I didn't say they were the same drug - they are different drugs that can both be given for pain relief. Same as the MMR and the singles measles vaccine are different vaccines but both protect against measles. Hth.