Having the MMR as single vaccinations?

[CherryNorth]

Just looking for some advice on this. My dd is coming up to 12 months old and is due to have the MMR jab at some point soon. My DP wants her to have the MMR as seperate vaccinations due to some issues which occurred with a family member after they had the combined MMR as a child (hearing and sight deterioration). I don't believe this has been proven as the cause, and it could just be a coincidence that it all happened at the same time, but he said he would rather not take the risk.

I am not very clued up on these things and I'd like to know all the facts before making a decision. Has anyone else made the choice to have your DC vaccinated seperately? If so, what were your reasons for doing so? If anyone could point me in the direction of any helpful info, I'd be very pleased

Also just read that the mumps single vaccination is no longer manufactured. Is this correct? In this case, am I better off just having the combined MMR vaccination as then she will be vaccinated against mumps?

Yes, that is true about the mumps. I would get the MMR (well, I did for my two)

I'm thinking about getting separate jabs for my little ones instead of the MMR, not because of autism/Wakefield/tabloids etc (just to preempt that one), but because the MMR has slightly worse side effects than separate jabs. You can see this for yourself by looking at the vaccine data sheets. (JCVI minutes also have some descriptions of the early trials of MMR, if you fancy wading through!) My gut feeling is also that at 12 months their immune systems are still very immature, and I think that a triple-live-attenuated vaccine puts an unnecessary strain on the system.

It's true that mumps vaccine is no longer available separately but that doesn't worry me as mumps in childhood is a trivial disease, and it's not like we can't give them MMR later on if needs be.

At the very least I'm going to spread out the jabs a bit. MMR plus two others in one go is just too much I feel, and I think that's got more to do with clinical convenience than giving the best protection. My HV was totally behind this.

I think that a triple-live-attenuated vaccine puts an unnecessary strain on the system.

More than general life? This in anti vax rhetoric that shows no scientific understanding.

Agreed, we are bombarded with viruses every day, it's a silly thing to say

"More than general life?"

Yes, actually, a lot more than general life. I assume that you're referring to the argument that 'we're exposed to thousands of bugs every day so can handle it' - as if route of exposure doesn't matter. We're not infected with loads of viruses simultaneously, as the body is actually pretty good at preventing infections from taking hold. The skin and mucosal membranes (like the respiratory tract) have in built defences that are very effective at destroying pathogens long before the adaptive immune response kicks in (for instance RNase in the skin destroys a lot of viruses that we're exposed to before they get anywhere near anything important). With vaccination however you are injecting the virus and bypassing most of the body's natural defences. This makes sense intuitively - in every day life, when we're exposed to thousands of bugs, we don't generally get ill from it, whereas the MMR causes fever in more than 1 in 10 children who receive it because of the much more powerful immune response that is generated.

This in anti vax rhetoric that shows no scientific understanding.

This is the kind of cartoonish all or nothing logic that really annoys me about the whole vaccine debate. I'm not 'anti-vax' btw, I think vaccines in general are an important and powerful part of our toolbox against infectious disease. But I also recognise that there is a down side to their use (which btw is usually worth it imo). I consider each vaccine individually (in term of whether to have it AND when) for it's risks, benefits and necessity, as I would for any other medical intervention, and I think that's a perfectly reasonable stance to take.

I wonder how many people who talk about 'lack of scientific understanding' actually have a background in science themselves, and have read all the relevant literature, and how many are simply relaying what they've been told by their doctor/HV or 'what everyone knows'. It is considered scientific fact that an infant's immune system is immature, there is absolutely nothing controversial about that point, and indeed this is why several doses of vaccine are needed to get an adequate response (as well as why were told to be careful about sterilising bottles etc).

I actually didn't dispute the immature immune system, but with 'vaccines putting an unnecessary strain' on the immune system and your highly scientific use of 'gut feeling'.

And yes, I'm a scientist (microbiologist to be exact, particular interest in viruses).

I am a scientist too, PhD and all