MMR worries

[archiesmummy]

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

I just came back from the Drs having given my DD her 3 month jab. I wish i hadnt clicked on this thread

I cant advise the OP about whether or not to give the MMR but I would say be as informed as you can. Soph28 looks like she has some good info.

Gess, some of it is real and some of it is possible. I don't see what's wrong with admitting that.

But us silly little mums can't decide which is real or not I guess.

KerryMum I think the Autism File is no more, however this article Arrieta MC, Bistritz L, Meddings, JB. Recent advances in clinical practice. Alterations in intestinal permeability. Gut 2006;55:1512-1520. might be a good one to show your GP. It does not go into vaccination, or autism but gives a model for the link between autoimmunity and leaky gut. Gut is the "number two" (excuse the pun) journal in the UK for gatroeneterology issues according to a gastroenterologist I asked.

My GP was very supportive of my decision not to vaccinate ds2 and ds3- he did ask for a letter from me to cover himself iyswim.

I think a lot of people aren't sure 100% one way or the other, but are taking the prudent decision to avoid vaccinating subsequent children just in case.

I think it's fair enough to choose not to vaccinate if you have a family history or another affected child. I just don't understand why people persist with single jabs, if the jabs are to blame.

I think there is very much a group 4.

My children are vaccinated. My family has had a bad experience with one of the conditions for which a vaccination is available. But it is wrong to suggest that I am blase about vaccinations. There are certainly those who weigh things up pretty carefully before making the decision. Calling them "all for vaccination" seems a bit pat.

Wakefield says they should be given a year apart if you want to remove their interactions. There are experimental reasons for that, but it makes sense anyway- catching wild type measles and mumps in the same year I think increases your risk of autism (although seem to remember not significantly- only a small increase in risk). Mind you even the MOD recommended single vaccinations where possible for GW2.

I think the "prudent" decision will vary for every child. We worked on the assumption that siblings were likely to be suscpetible to the same triggers as ds1, so avoided them (not just vaccinations). DS3's biomedical test results come back as an autistic type, but he's not autistic. I suspect very much that avoiding potential triggers was quite important for him.

KerryMum- I think you're right to be cautious. You might find Natasha Campbell McBrides book on Gut and Psychology syndrome to be useful, as well as the more usual ones like Children with Starving Brains etc.

but why would that matter for children from non-high-risk families?

No idea whether it does! But is any attempt made to identify high risk families? And I'm not sure that the high risk families have even been identified iyswim. I was pretty sure we were high risk given the family history and observations of ds1's development (and regression). DS3's test results and development have confirmed to me that we are high risk (as have other things that have happened to other close family members since ds1's dx- not autism- autoimmune conditions), would ds1 have been identified as high risk? Following natash Campbell McBride's suggestions I suspect he would have been medium risk and a modified vaccination program would have been suggested.

Isn't it like folic acid? Not everyone needs folic acid when pregnant, but hard to identify those that do in all cases. Quite see that there is a different trade off though (ie folic acid isn't believed to be harmful, whereas leaving a year between jabs would leave a child at risk for longer).

Strongly believe we should be doing more to identify those at risk. Articles like the one in Gut give me hope we'll get there eventually.

The one in Gut does not mention vaccination btw- but was really pleased to see their model (which is basically the same model as I had come up with for what had happened to ds1, and was the basis for the decisions we made about ds2 and ds3) in such a respected journal.

Message withdrawn

Because the vast majority of people won't be?

I should say - I don't mean that snidely, Socci, just that in most cases it will be the case that they're not high risk so isn't this the most natural conclusion to come to?

But any info about what might make a family high risk seems extremely helpful & important.

so never mind those that are? collateral damage is ok because it's not in my family? Why is it not worth identifying those at risk? Using that argument the men C vaccine would never have been introduced to babies.

ok cross posted.

Amyjade - i'm so sorry to hear what happenedto your little girl

that no-one else has noticed what you said? The stakes can be so high if you don't vaccinate, i think people forgethow many children used to die of these childhood diseases and also that sadly some still do.

and i didn't mean that as a cheap point-scoring btw, just truly surprisedthat no-one else had commented on yr post. Maybe not noticed in it the flood of responses?

Message withdrawn

I did comment on Amyjade's post- and that the introduction of the vaccination that have prevented her death was delayed on the grounds of cost. The removal of thimerosal was also delayed on the grounds of cost. I don't think cost should come into these decisions.

Of course I'm not saying anyone's expendable, Socci - no idea where you got this from.
As for my post being unscientific, I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

I'm leaving this thread now because I'm fed up with people attributing things to me that simply aren't in my posts. It's impossible to have a conversation with some of you.

i agree the tone of some posts has been rather off, tbh! But then these threads always get heated, I should steer clear myself, some people will not be disagreed with about this.

I would suggest a group 5 (which I am in) - for it in principle, no bad experiences with vax but stll cautious, especially about particular ones. I was straight down to the doctor's for the Prevenar for ds when it came out, but was still very concerned about the MMR and, as said below, will not be giving him the 'booster'.

Absolutely agree with Gess - much more should be done to identify those at risk, rather than issuing blanket reassurances.

Ah that's interesting berolina because I was concerned about ds3 not having prevenar as well. It indicates it'\s possible to be in different groups, yet have the same concerns!

When ds3 was in hospital (weird 'atypical' febrile convulsion) I said to the paediatrician that I was concerned about pneumonoccocal disease (especially as ds3 had an ear infection), and he was really blase about it (not sure whether that's because he thought it was a possibility) and just said "well it doesn;t matter, if he has it we just treat it, not a problem" and I was thinking- er it's not quite that simple though is it. It was then that he said to his students because ds3 wasn't vaccinted they needed to ensure they thought about things they might otherwise discount, but that in any case they must always remember that the main advantage of vaccination was always to the herd rather than the individual (which I took to mean they should never assume someone couldn't have something just because of being vaccinated).