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 worries

170 replies

archiesmummy · 27/03/2007 21:37

DS is 15 months old now and we are thinking of doing the single jabs rather than the MMR vaccine.

I've tried to gather as much information as possible, but I'm not a medical person so be patient with me please.

I'm wondering about "traces of measles founds in the guts of children with autisme" at a higher percentage than in "normal" children.
Would this mean that the measles jab is also an increased risk to (yes I know a very small percentage of) children?

Also, I read a thread on here a while back where someone said they were gonna leave the vaccines for a few years anyway. When I was young (in Sweden) we got the MMR jab at 8-9 years old. Was there more cases of Mumps, Measles & Rubella back then?

Hope someone can help me.

Thanx

OP posts:
DettaJnr · 27/03/2007 21:59

The original findings that caused that massive scare about the MMR jab were based on tests done on only 12 children by a doctor who wanted to get that result.They have never been able to replicate the findings again in worldwide studies.

After long deliberation with our first child we decided to give him the 3-in-1 jab and also gave it to our subsequent two children. None of them had any reaction.

I would advise you to get your child vaccinated.

Berries · 27/03/2007 22:02

Suggest you do a search on MMR here, you will find plenty of arguments for and against.
Personally I think there is a risk, but only to a small percentage of children. Risk factors within our family led me to decide NOT to vaccinate. I would not, however, presume to tell you to vaccinate or not, just to find out as much info. as possible before you make your decision, so that it is an informed choice.

hairymclary · 27/03/2007 22:04

good answer berries.
I have done a lot of research on this and we've decided not to vaccinate ds.
if he hasn't had measles or mumps by the time he reaches puberty he will have single jabs then

Original poster
archiesmummy · 27/03/2007 22:06

I agree berries, about the risk. Will have a look through the archives. Thanx

OP posts:
berolina · 27/03/2007 22:09

Theoretically single measles (as is the wild virus) is also a risk, but still less of a risk than MMR, which itself is only a risk to a very small number of children. If you have a lot of auto-immune conditions in the family I would be careful about giving the MMR. We have a (very) little auto-immunity and originally wanted the singles for ds. On reflection we did give him the MMR in the end and he has been fine, but he won't be having the 'booster' (which is actually no such thing). We don't want to push our luck iyswim.

KerryMum · 27/03/2007 22:15

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Hillary · 27/03/2007 22:18

I have 2 dd's ages 3 & 1, dd1 is anaphylactic, allergic to egg & nut (among other things) 4 generations of us have never had a vaccination of any sort.

We are all totally fine. I wouldn't give my dd's their immunisations as I dont agree with them.

soph28 · 27/03/2007 22:19

I have done loads of reading up/research on this as I used to work in a related area. I do believe their is a small risk but, as already mentioned, only if the child has certain risk factors.

I would not have had 3 in 1 IF my dc presented with a combination of the following:

milk/lactose intolerance
wheat/gluten intolerance
persistant ear infection in first year
glue ear
prescribed antibotics on several occasion in first year
unusual stools (indication of gut problems)

DS had the MMR , I was worried but I knew he wasn't any more at risk than anyone else.
DD is only 8mo and has had 2 ear infection but she will still have MMR as she doesn't have any of the other things and has not had antibiotics.

Sorry to rant on but I quite like this topic- one of my pet research projects.

Original poster
archiesmummy · 27/03/2007 22:22

Thank you all for the brilliant answers. Thank you soph for the details, will look through the old threads now.

OP posts:
soph28 · 27/03/2007 22:26

just wanted to add that although I believe their is a very real risk to some children, there is a much larger risk if lots of children aren't vaccinated as these viruses are major killers.

JodieG1 · 27/03/2007 22:28

We went for single vaccines and our oldest is 5 years old. I don't think the risk from the diseases is worse than from the vaccines. I also have issues with the baby vaccines but that's another thread. I did my research and decided not to go with it.

JodieG1 · 27/03/2007 22:30

And also they can still get the diseases after being vaccinated against them.

KathyMCMLXXII · 27/03/2007 22:31

I do think the risk from diseases is worse than the risk from the vaccines so as we had no reason to believe we were in a high-risk group, we went for the MMR without hesitation and will do so with our second child.

Soph28's post is very helpful.

McCadburysDreamyegg · 27/03/2007 22:32

and just to bear in mind that the single vaccines are NOT licensed!!!

soph28 · 27/03/2007 22:37

The risk of getting the diseases for one child who has not been vaccinated is not very high.

The risk of an epidemic if lots of people are too scared to give their child a vaccine is high.

The risk of the disease killing or severely damaging the child is very high.

hairymclary · 27/03/2007 22:39

just because the singles aren't licensed does not mean they are bad or dangerous though,.

fluconazole is not licensed for use with breastfeeding mothers, but can be prescribed for nipple thrush.

there are other examples too, but am too tired to think of them

essbeebarmy · 27/03/2007 22:43

Message withdrawn

McCadburysDreamyegg · 27/03/2007 22:44

absolutley maclary but it also doesn't mean that they're not and personally with my children I chose not ot take the risk and go for the MMR without hesitation.

Heathcliffscathy · 27/03/2007 22:48

soph28 fab first post, but what on earth do you base this on:

"The risk of the disease killing or severely damaging the child is very high."

????

Chattea · 27/03/2007 22:49

Look on the 'Informed Parent' website for the anti-vaccination view.

soph28 · 27/03/2007 22:52

ok point taken sophable- was maybe a bit over dramatic

I just meant that they CAN be very dangerous diseases, particularly Measles, especially if there was an epidemic.

JodieG1 · 27/03/2007 23:01

I have lots of links for sites against MMR and also have read scientific studies too. The disease risks are sweked as they include 3rd world countries where sanitation is awful never mind anything else. In America they have funds for vaccine damaged children and recognise that vaccines do damage. The singles my children have had so far have been licensed. When I read information on the MMR and other vaccines I firstly look at who funded it and then who it's by, some are funded by the companies that produce the vaccines. Have to look at it all in perspective.

Hillary · 27/03/2007 23:05

They also fund for vaccine damages in this country too, so I was told when I applied for my dd's disability allowance they also fund for CJD.

hairymclary · 27/03/2007 23:09

yeah and yet they deny that they can cause damage.
pfft. actions speak louder than words.

essbeebarmy · 27/03/2007 23:16

Message withdrawn

Swipe left for the next trending thread