Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

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.

Anyone have advice on MMR issue???

118 replies

opinionsrus · 23/11/2006 19:51

I know that this is an "old" topic, but I am a first time mum and TBH do not know a great deal on the topic.

Please can anyone tell me? Which is the greater "risk"? The MMR jab given at 15 mths, or the booster at age 4?

Don't really know if it works like that at all so apologies in advance if that sounds a bit dumb. If your child was going to have a reaction,would it be after the inital jab, if at all?

Any comments are greatly appreciated so many thanks in advance to those of you who answer....

OP posts:
Drusilla · 23/11/2006 22:15

Jimjams - is the "booster" at 3 really not a booster? I didn't know that. I was told it was a booster and if not given then immunity can decrease by the end of the teens. So does that mean if a test showed a child was immune after the first lot then there really would be no need for the second lot? (We did singles at about 16 mon and I'm unsure what to do about booster)

kittywits · 23/11/2006 22:17

jimjams I totally support what you are saying. it is easy to be dismissive if you've never had a child affected by the jab. My ds1 was and i was/ am not prepared to take the risk with my other childre. i think we got away relatively lightly.
He doesn't have autism but he has other problems and it has taken years of hard work to bring him near to 'normality'. I think for some children the mmr is dangerous.

Flumpytina · 23/11/2006 22:20

I'm sorry but please don't swear at me. I am entitled to my opinion and as far as I am aware I am allow to passionately disagree with people on this site.

I am also a scientist and I come from a family of scientists. We have discussed this subject at length and the medical research and subsequent media frenzy that followed it. My opinions (and I have gone at length to recommend that people who are concerned speak to their local health professionals about it), are based on the large number of studies regarding the safety of this immunisation. They indicate that it is not linked to autism...this is different to saying it is 100% risk free, all medical treatments carry a risk this is true, and your HV or GP will be able to discuss these with you.

Research will probably continue to be generated by this subject, but I'm afaid that some research is better than others...it is extremely difficult for anyone who is not routinely scrutinising the results from these studies to tell if it is 'good' or not...that is why the Department of Health analyses it for us....and their policy is that MMR is still safe. If reliable trustworthy research was published indicated that a significant percentage of children recieving the MMR were developing autism as a result then that immunisation would be withdrawn...there is no doubt of that....do we really believe that our Government wants our children to be exposed to such a risk??

I am sorry jimjams that you have a child with autism, this subject is obviously close to your heart. I am still however allowed to disagree wholeheartedly with your argument.

Heathcliffscathy · 23/11/2006 22:26

local health professionals.

i'm assuming you mean Health Visitors and GPs

do correct me if i'm wrong.

MAKE ME LAUGH why don't you?

these are not informed people in my experience and those of many many others on MN.

Heathcliffscathy · 23/11/2006 22:29

And this is the same department of health that so massively fudged the removal of thimerosal claiming that it had nothing to do with safety (when it's removal in every western country to that point had been exactly to do with safety fears).

not only did they not do the right thing until way after everyone else, they lied about why.

trustworthy my arse.

flack · 23/11/2006 22:30

I think, Flumpty, you should take a few hours to look at the archives on MN to see how much Jimjams has discussed this topic in the past. Before you decide she can't know what she's talking about.

I don't agree with her conclusions or arguments, either. But at least I know she's really thought it out.

kittywits · 23/11/2006 22:31

I second that Sophable. I have found many so called medical experts to be lazy, narrow minded and dismissive. You get the odd ones who care and are interested in learning and broadening their knowledge and understanding. Most of them though think they know it all and I find I end up suggesting things to them because I have bothered to do the rersearch.
Most 'healthcare' people just want the easiest ride possible. not impressed me

Drusilla · 23/11/2006 22:31

Yes, the average GP would be fairly low on my list of reliable, trustworthy people

Flumpytina · 23/11/2006 22:32

well...if the opinions and advice of the 'many many others on MN' is to be taken above that of people who have committed themselves to careers in caring for others i.e GP's, HV's nurses, midwives etc then so be it. These people have studied hard, learnt how to interpret research, and are on the whole kind, generous intelligent people...oh yes as a fair number of us are devoted parents as well.

kittywits · 23/11/2006 22:33

Flumpty, I have sadly only come across a handful of the people you are describing, most are lazy.

Heathcliffscathy · 23/11/2006 22:40

'kind generous intelligent people'

no more so than in any other profession or sector of society.

but the difference is that there is a massive dose of authority that accompanies the role of GP or even HV (please do take a straw poll of MN opinions on their HV's, there are some excellent ones but they are absolutely the exceptions) that elicits a level of complacency or worse arrogance that does not make for a growing learning open professional at all.

i'd say that a mother of any child suffering a condition was usually better read about that condition than her GP. understandably so.

Heathcliffscathy · 23/11/2006 22:43

as a psychotherapist in training i have a lot of experience of people in the caring professions. there are many many good people but at least as many if not more very dysfunctional people attracted to those professions in an attempt to compensate for their own impoverished emotional backgrounds. there are many papers written about this. the same applies to psychotherapists btw.

pedestalling those in the caring professions as good, intelligent, caring people BY VIRTUE OF THEIR CAREER CHOICE is not very useful.

Flumpytina · 23/11/2006 22:52

Well sophable you obviously have some significant grievances with medical professionals and I am not going to get involved in a bitchscrap about it.

Jimjams2 · 23/11/2006 22:53

Drusilla -no it's not. Thee USA introduced a booster in the teens because of this problem of waning immunity.

Flumpytina- if you are a scientist then you'll understand how weak epidemiological studies are if you looking at very small numbers.

You could wade through the mass of papers. Or you could save yourself the time and read Richard Lathe's book- Autism the brain and the environment. He has his own theories (which I don;t necessarily buy into 100%), but he also summarises very well the research to date. He doesn't talk much about MMR, but what he says backs up what peope working directly with the children are saying.
An extract:
....." It is also important to recognise that measures of ASD rates in immunized versus un-immunized populations fall short of testing the contention that that a sub-proportion (my emphasis) of recent ASD cases might be causally associated with vaccine administation".

Sub-proportion. The papers you are talking about examine when all the increase in autism is triggered by MMR. No-one has ever suggested such a thing.

He continues:

"specifially only 4-20% of families have countenanced apossible link between MMR vaccination and develpment of ASD..."

" A reasonbale hypothesis is that around 5% of cases might be die to MMR vaccination, with impaired immunity a contributing factor."

Elsewhere in the book he recomends vaccination to protect against encephalitis- this man is not anti-vaccine. He himself developed the most widely used rabies vaccine.

He continues:

"The statistical challenge is then to detect an increase in ASD at this level. Population sizes in the order of one million in both the vaccinated and unvaccintated groups are needed, because below this the small increment could never achieve statistical validity. Smaller study groups, but at least 6000, are needed if analsysi is restricted to the ASD population, and if for example ASD rates arfe compared prior or post vaccination. Even so, recent studies on 473 or 5800 subjects fail to address the hypothsis that 5% of cases might be caused by the MMR. One must remember however, that massive loss of previously aquired skills, as in childhood disintegrative disorder, is rather rare- though the data do not exclude that a mild impairment in a child already at risk, for instance because of a weak immune system is subsequently amplified on vaccination."

I've quoted from him because what he says is reasonable, referenced and he could in no way be described as anti-vaccine.

Show me the studies that examine the hypothesis that a sub-group has been affected. Until those studies are done then Wakefield's hypothesis has not been examined. Anyway Wakefield's original hypothesis has changed- as he now works closely with the people working on thimerosal, and thinks that it is the action of a virus (not necessarily vaccine- could be wild- as happened in ds1's case) acting on - for want of a better word a thimerosal sensitive immune system.

If you type autism one into google and follow conference presentations you can get Wakefiled's pp presentation given earlier this year- it brings everything up to date from his point of view.

I'm not scaremongering about my friend's son. Before his MMR he was pointing and talking. 24 hours afterwards he had seizures, he was in ICU, he survived and his paed has said to her that he thinks that MMR triggered his problems. There are no opinions of mine in there- just facts.

CountTo10LordsaLeaping · 23/11/2006 22:53

OK I don't want to get into the ins and outs of this as its one of those subjects that is emotive, inflammotary and is never going to be resolved. All imms are a risk and its horrible as we are the ones making the decision and we could get it wrong either way so your in a now in 50/50 situation which is totally shite!!!

However, out of curiosity, why are we inclined to trust health authorities on some things and not others. I got invovled in a rather hot debate last night on weaning (bear with me) and was told that becasue the WHO had issued the guidelines on it that they should just be trusted as they've carried out lots of studies blah blah blah. Is this not the same situation here? Should we now not trust our ww health authorities on this?
Now please don't get me wrong, I have a lot of issues with the way our govt and worldwide medical institutes handle imm programmes, I hate herd imm as I just think its mass testing and I dread all imms as I just feel I have my childs life in my hands but I have also seen reams and reams of studies, research etc indpeendendant from my hv/gp that also disprove the orig research and make the MMR very safe so what as parents are we supposed to do - who are we supposed to trust??? For evey argument against the mmr re autism links there are also the arguments for by the parents of children who are permanantly disabled or died from these childhood diseases. I myself have had both mumps and measles (b4 the age of 5) and I luckily came out of it unscathed. Others are not so lukcy and I know in my area there has been recent spates of mumps etc that has hit the 25+ age group and having known one of these individuals I saw what he went through and I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy.
So would someone please tell me what the answer is?

Jimjams2 · 23/11/2006 22:55

I have come across many doctors and HV's who believe that MMR can be a trigger in susceptible children.

CountTo10LordsaLeaping · 23/11/2006 22:56

Whats a susceptible child?

Heathcliffscathy · 23/11/2006 22:57

not at all.

i have huge admiration for some of the health professionals in my life. and no respect at all for others.

you seemed to be saying that it was ridiculous to take the opinion of mothers over those of 'kind generous intelligent' healthcare professionals as they have 'studied hard'.

i was merely pointing out the flaws in that argument.

not 'bitchscrapping'.

is that the best you can do?

i'm asking you to debate this in a way that acknowledges and respects the experience, views and feelings of mothers that have extremely high levels of knowlege on this subject: both experience and erudition.

there are mners that are vociferously pro vaccination but can debate this respectfully (martianbishop is the one that most obviously springs to mind).

i'm asking you to do the same.

Jimjams2 · 23/11/2006 22:58

They do not disprove the original research. They don't even address the original hypothesis- that MMR may trigger autism in a sub-group of susceptible children. They don't even ask the question. It may not, but those reams of research haven't even "addressed" it. So if that's the "proof" it's not good.

It is widely accepted that the MMR is safe for the majority of children.

Heathcliffscathy · 23/11/2006 22:59

oh god jimjams.

you just rise above. and i didn't.

Jimjams2 · 23/11/2006 23:00

What's a susceptible child? Well that's the question they should be asking isn't it.

Crohn's disease in the family appears to be a risk factor.

Add in the thimerosal involvement and metallothionein function appears to be important.

Poor sulphation - appears to also be involved.

Vitamin A metabolism may play a role.

Can't be bothered to list all the studies. Look up Walsh, Waring, Megson (combine each term with autism) on google and you'll start to get studies on the biomedical factors.

PeachesMcLean · 23/11/2006 23:01

Whoa there... Flumpy's got as much right to express her opinion as jimjam and I don't think we should be doing one down in favour of another. I don't know jimjam, and haven't read her posts on the subject, my only comments about what seems otherwise sensible arguments is the "I know somebody who..." sentence discredited her somewhat and flumpy was right to comment on that. It also strikes me as sensible advice, for someone who is a first time mum and has concerns on the subject, to start with her GP / HV - and the Department of Health - we don't all have the time (and scientific expertise) to wade through the research ourselves.

nearlythree · 23/11/2006 23:01

Let's hope that one day those children who are suceptible can be recognised.

Jimjams2 · 23/11/2006 23:04

Well I do know someone who. I see her 8 year old non verbal son in nappies quite regularly. He had seizures 24 hours after MMR. He was in ICU. Perhaps she imagined it.

Exactly nearlythree. I did my own risk analysis with ds2 and ds3.

PeachesMcLean · 23/11/2006 23:07

I'm not denying the problem, jimjam. I'm only suggesting that it's not scientific proof. I preferred some of your other comments.