Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
General health

Mumsnet doesn't verify the qualifications of users. If you have medical concerns, please consult a healthcare professional.

Original poster

MMR DROP IN CLINICS ACROSS WALES TOMORROW - please get yours

394 replies

Mosschops30 · 12/04/2013 21:33

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

OP posts:
bumbleymummy · 24/04/2013 10:19

Hugo, have you missed all the people saying that's why it should be available on the NHS? Why would you trust a vaccine less because it is old? Its bot like it was manufacturered 30 years aho and left at the bsck of the fridge all this time! Do you know how long the BCG vaccine has been around for? People still get given that. It's not up to me what they should do if their choice is MMR or nothing - the point is that some people will choose and are choosing nothing. It's been happening for years and that's why there are now so many unvaccibated children around.

bumbleymummy · 24/04/2013 10:21

Coorong - are you solely commenting on people on that specific website then? Or are you generalising and saying that all people fall into one of those two categories?

HugoBear · 24/04/2013 10:24

maybe some people are choosing not to have any vaccine because of other people going nudge nudge wink wink, bumblymummy?

bumbleymummy · 24/04/2013 10:26

Noble, how do you decide what reasons are unscientific?

If an older sibling is damaged by the MMR and the parents are concerned about subsequent children having it - is that unscientific? There are no tests to determine how likely they'll be to react as well - no way of knowing until you've given it. The alternative (on the NHS) is for them to have no protection. Rock and a hard place.

bumbleymummy · 24/04/2013 10:27

Seriously Hugo? Hmm what is with all the conspiracy theorists on this thread?

RandallPinkFloyd · 24/04/2013 10:31

Ok, I've been lurking on a lot of these threads and have read all sides of the arguments.

What I would like to ask for is some form of evidence based research that shows single vacs are safer than the combined vac.

I'm not talking about cases where the combined vac is contra-indicated for valid medical reasons, I mean in general. What evidence is there to support parents having the choice to chose between the two options if there is no medically diagnosed reason?

I'm not interested in people's views either for or against, I don't think they helps anyone, just actual scientific fact so I can see for myself.

PigletJohn · 24/04/2013 10:33

Hugo, Bumbley writes a vast number of posts about MMR.

None of them are in favour.

Conclude from that what you will.

noblegiraffe · 24/04/2013 10:35

Ones that are backed up by scientific evidence are acceptable. So the NHS booklet recommends caution for immunosuppressed children, but says that it's safe for children with asthma.

I'm not sure what the evidence is for children where siblings have reacted badly, but if the evidence shows that caution is warranted, then that would be fine too.

What would be unacceptable would be, e.g. "It causes autism".

bumbleymummy · 24/04/2013 10:53

Why does everyone think that the only reason people choose not to have the MMR is because they think it causes autism? Hugo just linked to a mother whose child now has epilepsy and can't talk,stand or feed himself. Is there any way she could have known that would happen? No. Is there some test that could have been done to check? No. Is there anyway for her to know whether her other children would have the same reaction? No. So how exactly would she go about proving that she should be allowed to give her other children the single measles vaccine instead? If you were in her position how happy/confident/assured would you be about giving your other children the MMR having seen what happened to your previously healthy son? It's not always black and white. People should not have to jump through hoops to get choices.

HugoBear · 24/04/2013 11:02

But if that boy got vaccine damage from one vaccine how do you know he wouldnt have got it from another vaccine, bumblymummy?

you seem to be saying 'don't take vaccine A, take vaccine B' but you haven't said why vaccine b is safer than vaccine a

RandallPinkFloyd · 24/04/2013 11:06

That's completely avoiding the question Bumbley, that situation is not "in general" that's a specific set of circumstance.

I was asking in general what is the evidence, barring any medical issues, that the single vacs are safer?

We all know there are children who have been damaged by vaccines. It's tragic. There are also people who have been damaged 'safe' medical procedures and medications, equally tragic. Nothing is 100% safe for 100% of the people.

All I'm asking for is some sort of evidence based research that shows that the risk of vaccine damage from the single vacs is less than the risk of damage from the combined vac for the population as an average.

bumbleymummy · 24/04/2013 11:11

We don't know - but how confident would you be, as a parent, about giving the same vaccine that damaged your son to your other children? Should you still have to either just give it or leave them unvaccinated? You can't produce scientific evidence that your other children may react badly to it (noble has suggested this would be acceptable to allow singles) - but then you wouldn't have been able to produce scientific evidence that your son was going to end up with epilepsy either. As I said before, teh reasons for wanting singles are not always straightforward.

bumbleymummy · 24/04/2013 11:19

I was replying to hugo, randall, not avoiding your question. Hmm

I'm not arguing that the singles measles is safer ( maybe your question would be better directed at someone else?) I've said that the single measles vaccine is a 'safe and effective' alternative to the MMR if you are concerned about the MMR and still want to protect against measles. It was used in the UK for many years before the MMR was introduced, ran alongside it and is still in use in some countries. Do you have any evidence to show that it isn't safe?

JoTheHot · 24/04/2013 11:21

Bumble you are being vague. This is either lazy or deliberate.

What do we disagree about?
Why do you bring up people who can't have the MMR? Aside of some rare exceptions, these people couldn't have the singles either.

I live in France, and the singles are NOT offered as a routine alternative. They are available in a few restricted circumstances. This information has already been posted, so you either haven't read the thread or you are being disingenuous? Offering singles in restricted circumstances is hardly likely to create the same suspicion as offering singles freely and widely, in specific response to critics of MMR.

bumbleymummy · 24/04/2013 11:24

So you'd be happy for them to be offered in restricted circumstances in the UK then? So what hoops would people have to jump through to be alllowed it restricted circumstances would you consider acceptable?

RandallPinkFloyd · 24/04/2013 11:26

With all due respect Bumbley, you've just repeated the same situation you talked about in your previous post.

I will ask again as I am genuinely interested in hearing all sides.

What evidence based research is there that single vacs are less likely to cause damage than the combined vac for the population in general and where there are no other medical contra-indications.

RandallPinkFloyd · 24/04/2013 11:27

X-post there.

I do still think you are avoiding the question though.

bumbleymummy · 24/04/2013 11:31

You probably just didn't get the answer that you wanted from me. Maybe someone else will come along and give you an another one.

HugoBear · 24/04/2013 11:36

Randall - I think bumblymummy is confused as well. How can she say that one vaccine is safer than another and not have proof?

The only doctors who are saying to get single vaccines are private doctors who you have to pay. Which makes me very suspicious.

HugoBear · 24/04/2013 11:37

Im not saying that you are a private doctor, bumblymummy! Smile

bumbleymummy · 24/04/2013 11:40

I've already said that I know two people in real life who were told to get singles and they weren't 'private doctors who you have to pay'. The only reason there are private doctors offering them is because there is a demand for them. Why are you suspicious of that? Easy solution to get away from it if it concerns you - offer them on the NHS!

noblegiraffe · 24/04/2013 11:46

Bumbley, if your child had a reaction to Lemsip, which contains aspirin, paracetamol and caffeine (ignoring that you wouldn't give aspirin and caffeine to a child), why would you decide that giving aspirin, paracetamol and caffeine separately would be a good solution? Or even just aspirin?

RandallPinkFloyd · 24/04/2013 11:48

I haven't asked for a specific answer at all, maybe I worded my question badly.

I was just asking for some basic facts. As a parent I feel it is my duty to reasearch things as thoroughly as I possibly can before forming an opinion.

You seem to be a strong advocate for the single vacs to be available to all so I presumed you have, or know where I could get, evidence based research for that side of the argument.

I apologise if I got that wrong.

PigletJohn · 24/04/2013 11:50

You won't get an answer that is clear enough to examine and critique.

Vague suggestions and smears do the job and are harder to pin down.

bumbleymummy · 24/04/2013 11:54

Well I wouldn't give my child aspirin at all noble - I don't think it's advised for under 16s. :) If they had an allergic reaction to something that contained all 3 I would want to know which 1 (or more) ingredients they reacted to. Do you think any doctor would encourage you to just keep pressing on with the Lemsip because the reaction was probably just a coincidence or would they suggest an alternative treatment?

If there was a risk associated with them not having one of the three ingredients and that risk was perceived to be greater than the risk associated with them having one of the ingredients in isolation then you would probably proceed cautiously with the one ingredient.