Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

General health

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

MMR Jabs

222 replies

Qd · 13/03/2001 17:53

An osteopath told me last week she had heard there was a homeopathic alternative to the MMR, but didn't have any info. Does anyone know anything about it?

OP posts:
Lill · 05/02/2002 16:17

Antibiotics create superbugs
Will vaccinating against all diseases produce super ones too?

Tigger2 · 05/02/2002 16:29

Lill, I will now put both my feet in here and wait for the after effects!. Vaccinations of any kind are put in place for a reason, and before I go any further I do not agree with the vaccination of animals for F & M, it is a horrific disease with SO many strains that to use the correct vaccine would be a complete shot in the dark.

Anyway, back to the issue in hand, the age that MMR is gven is around the age that Autism is first detected. Both my children have been vaccinated and have suffered no side effects at all, any of the diseases in the MMR are really horrible and Measles especially. I do not think that there is enough evidence of any kind to say that the triple vaccine is not safe, and being perfectly honest here I'd rather that my children had one jag than going through the upset for the child of having 3 separate ones.

Lil · 05/02/2002 16:29

Yes, Lill, Pupuce et al you seem to have forgotten that your unvaccinated child will have far less of a chance of catching Measles/rubella etc because the rest of us have built up a herd immunity. A thank-you would be appreciated!!

With luck you will not rue missing the jabs - but as others have said there's the weaker elements of the herd that do need protecting (e.g.babes under 12 months and sick children). If you don't believe in the importance of vaccines, I dare you to take your unvaccinated child to one of the third world countries where mothers are losing their children everyday.

Tigger2 · 05/02/2002 16:31

Lill, do you oppose the use of antibiotics as well?

Lill · 05/02/2002 16:37

Okay Lil - thankyou.
If the herd immunity theory works then great you are obsolutely correct, my family is benefiting from it. If you look at my original post on this thread I acknowledged that vaccinations are for the good of the community. However I do not feel that I have the right to make those decisions for my children.
Also children living in third world countries are not comparable with our healthy lot. We have access to good medical care, clean water and an ample supply of food!

Lill · 05/02/2002 16:41

I dont think oppose is the word I would use. I do think antibiotics are over used and I try to avoid them as much as possible. They are the last resort for this family we prefer to try other methods first.

callie · 05/02/2002 16:55

Thanks Pamina. Iam afraid after all my worry dd has not had the jab today.
She has a slight temp and has been quite listless this afternoon. So Iam leaving it to next week.
Can't beleive I've got to go through this worry again.
Got to admit at the back of my mind i was worried this could be measles.

Pupuce · 05/02/2002 17:01

Lil - this is if you believe in herd immunity (see my post below with CDC data) - fully vaccinated populations do contract diseases, with measles, this actually seems to be the direct result of high vaccinations rates - Conclusions from Mayo Vaccine Research Group, USA.

If 100 people have been vaccinated and 5 contract the disease, the vaccine is declared to be 95% effective. But if only 10 of the 100 were actually exposed to the disease, then the vaccine was really only 50% effective.

And as stated below, I'd rather my child have measles.

It seems as we have different conceptions of health - I don't have to agree with you and you don't have to agree with me!

peanut · 05/02/2002 18:12

I have got to say i agree with pupuce on this one, there is so much hysteria that it is hard to make an informed choice. But all we can do is the best that we can for our children, and try to respect other peoples beliefs and choices. It is also worth noting that babies under 12 months old carry a natural immunisation against these diseases (something that is passed on through the mother) so try not to worry your babies are not vunerable if you live near an outbreak. which I do by the way.

Selja · 05/02/2002 20:57

I worried for months about giving ds the mmr. I trawled the net, asked advice from health professionals (no help whatsoever) and everytime we felt we had made a decision another scare reached the papers. Then we had the notification from the doctors saying ds was due for it and still we hadn't made a decision. That night for some reason I switched on ER (why I don't know as I hadn't watched it for years) and there was a case of a well to do couple whose son had measles and hadn't had the mmr. It was well written, pointing out the risks of not having the mmr and the risks of measles. I think the child died but I came to the conclusion that due to litigation in America ER would have made sure the arguments for and against were true so I booked ds in the next day. I came to the conclusion that the risks of him being autistic or having (is it?) Crohns disease were relatively miniscule and he would probably have more chance of getting measles especially if numbers being vaccinated were down. The doctors' receptionist said she had more parents booking for the mmr after watching ER than at any other time. Ds was fine it didn't bother him in the least although I do confess I worried for weeks after whether I had done the right thing. At the end of the day only the parents can make the decision but I do object to not being given the option because had that option for single vaccinations been there I would have chosen to go that route.

bossykate · 05/02/2002 21:38

a couple of people have mentioned that babies under 12m have a "natural immunity" to measles etc. since i am no longer bf, i am just wondering

  • how this immunity could arise in the first place
  • if it is maintained even though i am not bf
  • how it "wears off" by 12m

would be so grateful if someone who knows more about this could comment. it would set my mind at rest. i have to say - how to put this diplomatically? - counter intuitive to me!

especially as he has got every other bug going since he has been at nursery!

thank you in advance.

bossykate · 05/02/2002 21:39

should read - it seems "counter intuitive" etc to me. sorry!

Lottiemumof3 · 05/02/2002 21:49

I'm very stuck, firstly I BF my DD & DS until they were 18 months old and both caught chickenpox at around 6 months. Does the immunity thing under 12 months include chickenpox? Secondly my 1st two kids have had the MMR vacine but I would prefer my no 3 to have the single doses - does anyone know anywhere in south england where I can get them?

dm2 · 05/02/2002 22:28

My ds caught a viral infection at 6 months (still being breastfed) and my GP commented that babies have a natural immunity (from their mums) which wears off at about 6 months (rather than 1 year), then they catch lots more colds etc.

I can't wait until ds is old enough for his MMR, measles kills, autism doesn't - the risk of having a problem with either is pretty small.

As for chicken pox, I agree it's not a danger to the majority of children that catch it, but they may be exposing pregnant women to it (perhaps their own mothers) and that is a problem so if it were available I'd let him have the jab.

robinw · 05/02/2002 22:41

message withdrawn

MalmoMum · 05/02/2002 23:11

Robinw, can we inculde TB then?

SueW · 05/02/2002 23:31

This reply has been withdrawn

This has been withdrawn by MNHQ at OP's request.

Ailsa · 06/02/2002 00:01

Wasn't there talk of adding the chicken pox vaccine to the triple jab?

As for MMR, both of mine have had it. I did think about it long and hard when ds was due to have it, but since dd was fine and there are no associated problems in the family (that I know of) I decided that I would go ahead with it for ds.

You're damned if you do and damned if you don't!

Sid · 06/02/2002 09:09

My dd, who was exclusively breastfed for 5 months, got chickenpox at 3 months, so I'm not so sure about 'natural' immunity.
My ds has had his first MMR, but not the pre-school booster (even though he is at school now), as I am dithering. I resent having to make him go through it again just to make sure he is immunised, when he might be already. But then I guess if he was fine after the first MMR, the booster won't be a problem (?). Isn't the link with autism supposed to be just for the first jab and not the booster?

Marina · 06/02/2002 09:36

Lottiemumof3, you can get the single immunisations at Direct Health 2000 in Eltham, SE London.
Direct Health 2000

We had our son done there over a year ago and are very glad we did so. The staff were excellent, and Sarah Dean, the Director, is an experienced and eminently sensible former Practice Nurse.
It's not the health professionals I don't trust so much as the vaccine manufacturers. At the time he was having his rubella, the last of the three, there was a scare about an illegally distributed bovine culture polio vaccine, that the industry had "forgotten" to withdraw (potential risk of BSE contamination); and the problems with the Urabe strain mumps vaccine was actually what clinched our decision to opt for the single jabs.
Personally, as our son is in daycare with other children and babies, I felt it was our responsibility to have him immunised, but I certainly don't assume he is now completely safe from any of these illnesses. The Dublin outbreak of measles a few years ago, which has been waved over the heads of parents like a great sword by the DoH many times, included several fully immunised children in its case list. And one little guy at our son's nursery got a nasty dose of rubella only nine months after his MMR. So we will be off to the doctor's pronto if he develops any feverish rash symptoms.

SBLB · 06/02/2002 11:23

What I don't understand about the rubella part of the MMR is why so many women that want to get pregnant do not know if they are immune or not and GP's are often a bit slack. The first think my GP did when I registered was a rubella immunity check and at the time I did not even want to get pregnant (it was fine, I had rubella twice as a child), which was excellent. I cannot see why I should expose my child to the risk of a combined vaccine to safeguard for mothers and doctors that do not take responsibility for their own health (and I am not talking about the small minority of women who might not, for health reasons, be vaccinated).

My daughter had the single Measles jab in Germany where it is freely available. She was ill with high temperature for a week. I do not want to think how ill she would have been after the MMR.

SueW · 06/02/2002 12:14

This reply has been withdrawn

This has been withdrawn by MNHQ at OP's request.

ks · 06/02/2002 12:42

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

Joe1 · 06/02/2002 12:50

Pupuce, I dont think my son should be put at risk of an epidemic because people havnt had their children immunised. I dont think my unborn child should be put at risk of rubella either (although I believe my immunity is ok). I hope you have thick skin, because if anything did happen to your children, God forbid, people are bound to blame you.
Lill, yes arent we lucky to have fresh water, plenty of food and good medical care including vaccines.

jsmummy · 06/02/2002 13:39

Joe1 the other side of your argument - to quote you: 'I hope you have thick skin, because if anything did happen to your children, God forbid, people are bound to blame you' - is would people also blame 'you' if you went ahead and had your child immunised with disastrous effect? Just a thought... didn't think it was a terribly helpful comment - we are all entitled to our (sometimes wildly differing) points of view

Swipe left for the next trending thread