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

Message withdrawn

My son attends a school for children with severe learning difficulties and profound and multiple learning difficulites. A child who was in his class for a while was disabled following meningitis. I don't need to be reminded of the "severity" of the diseases - I see them, I see what happens, more so than many people on this board. How many people understand what severe autism is, what it means, how it affects families? It's doesn't mean you like computers, and you're a bit rigid, it means being unable to talk at all, often it means not being toilet trained as an adult, it means requiring constant care 24 hours a day, often it comes with a nice dose of epilepsy, added to which you have a child who is almost impossible to moniter/treat/get medications into.

If you have a real risk of severe autism (and if you already have one child with it you do), then it's not a simple as thinking oh the risk is very small, because actualy the risk is something like 1 in 34- how many people would be prepared to accept nuchal odds of that? I would have incidentally as my ds1 is far "worse" (terrible way of putting it- but I mean in terms of ability to learn, ability to access the world, and in terms of prognosis) than the majority of individuals with DS that I have come across.

My decision not to vaccinate was far from passive. I came up with a model for what I thought had happened to ds1, (which is now getting more mainstream- as evidenced by the article in Gut journal), and so avoided things like gluten, antibiotics & heavy metals as well as vaccinations. My decision is reviewed frequently, when things change (and as the children grow). I never say never, but as I believe my children are far more at risk than Joe Publics (and as the people who work in this field agree- even my last GP did) I'll keep actively deciding to delay. IN the meantime I read widely- not on vaccination- on the triggers for all the autoimmune conditions found in our family- boy are they similar papers to read despite diverse conditions- and try to understand more about my children's suscpetibilities so I can make the best decision for them. Who are all these "very vulnerable members of our society" if they don't include those at much higher risk of lifelong damage from a vaccination.

Socci knows the figures- what is the risk of having another autistic child once you have one child with autsim?

Anyway its high, - I've worked hard to reduce it for ds2 and ds3.

Message withdrawn

Thanks Socci- Pretty high then since most people class a nuchal result of something like 1 in 84 as being high.

I'll continue to do (and review) the things ds2 and ds3 come into contact with. I'm well aware that ds3 in particular is a ripe age for regression. DS2 does now have gluten, I recently had to decide whether or not to give or hold off on antibs for ds3- I held back- now that is a far easier discussion to have with Dr's these days as suddenly they're all wary of antib's. Something I'm very grateful for.

I have had no bad experiences in my family via the diseases prevented by vaccine or by vaccine damage.

I have worked with many children/adults who have been severely brain injured due to meningitis and with children who regressed after vaccinations.

Therefore I don't think you could say that I am bias.

I do think that many mums, like Kerrymum, are quite literally stuck between a rock and a hard place because of a lack of research/willingness to properly identify those who are at risk from the vaccine.

Yes, we are talking about a tiny minority but does that mean they should be written off? These children could be identified and possibly offered an alternative. Not only would this be safer for everyone but it would relieve parents of having to struggle with the weight of making this decision. It is not fair for any parent to have this burden on them- if they don't vaccinate and their child gets one of these viruses they will be wracked with guilt. If they do vaccinate and the child has a reaction they will wish they had never had it done.

Most parents will not have children who are at risk and they should all be vaccinated.

Message withdrawn

That's my point exactly, Socci.

That is the flaw in the entire system and by changing the system so that it does recognise and identify those at risk, the situation would be vastly improved.

I don't really understand why there is a reluctance within the system to do this.

Is it that their is an assumption that everyone will be too scared to vaccinate their child? That really dumbs down parents to assume that they won't understand that there is only a minority at risk.

Or is it that there are actually lots of risk factors and it would be more than just a minority at risk? Personally I don't think it's this.

I did hear a Dr say that the 3 (or was it 5) million spent advertising the MMR, would have been just about sufficient to set up a system that attempted to identify at risk children to offer them singles (I think it would have been a simple test- something like the list soph28 gave below- which would be my list as well- although I'd also add not to vaccinate with MMR following recent exposure to chickenpox).

soph28- I think it's just a lack of clear thinking, and a fear that if its admitted that some children are more susceptible to damage there'll be mass panic and no-one will vaccinate. IN fact the refusal to admit that the MMR is anything other that 100% safe (when everyone knows that's not true) has led to the widespread use of single vaccines, and almost certainly lots of children who would be fine with the triple are having singles.

Message withdrawn

Gess, I totally agree with you and like you say, people are probably more scared because their is so obviously a cover up!

My list was just to give some of the main examples.

Personally I wouldn't give my children any vaccinations if they were in any way unwell. I postponed ds's 2nd round of immunisations because he had had a bad cough/cold for about 3 weeks. I just felt his little body had enough to cope with. Surprisingly the doctor was absolutely fine with it and I re-scheduled it for a couple of weeks later.

Yes it is sad Socci. It would cost money but long term it would probably not be as expensive as providing the education/support/care for children that have been affected by vaccination.

Ah that's interesting, because I was talkig to a researcher in this field and he said he thought that one of the biggest problems was that the medical profession had become quite blase about vaccinations and will routinely give them when a child is unwell. He thought a lot of problems could be avoided simply by ensuring a child is well enough to receive them.

That's frustrating as well soph28- ds1 is going to cost a fortune in care - he's already costing the state enough. IN his case the link isn't clear, but I suspect (from the reading I've done, from the family history etc) thimerosal did him no good at all- it would have been a whole dollar more expensive to provide a thimerosal free jab.

Exactly Gess. Am sorry about your ds. Like you say, 1 dollar versus hundreds of dollars of care. Not that it should make any difference, even if it were the other way round, after all these are peoples' lives. However, that is niaive on my part cos it's always about the money.

haven't managed to read all the posts but would welcome your opinion

DD2 has an egg allergy (waiting for tests/diagnosis, but has had hives twice from scrambled egg so definite in my view)
She did get severe excema from dairy, though this seems to be improving.

She is now 18m. We are going for the MMR in hospital next month. I was going to do single jabs but GP advised me against, said they weren't effective and he had had a couple of cases of patients catching measles despite being vaccinated. We are in W.London where there have been a number of measle outbreaks due to the low % of MMR vaccination.

I feel it is important to have my children vaccinated, for their sake but also for the sake of children who cannot be vaccinated for whatever reason.
But now i am getting concerned i am doing the wrong thing... what would you do?

and what about this PCV one too? that is also due.

Message withdrawn

ask your GP to show you the published studies on that ami- as socci said the (limited) work on this has shown that singles are marginally more effective. The strains used are the same as are used in the MMR anyway. Of course if you opt for singles then you leave your child exposed for longer (which is maybe what is meant when they say they're less effective).

Can anyone tell me a bit more about the MMR booster? Have read that it is simply the same injection again in case the first one didn't work. Is this the case?

so if i was to do the singles, is there any real reason to get mumps & rubella done? Surely it is just measles which is the real deadly one? They can have mumps/rubella at puberty?

and yes, Lazyline, my understanding is that the booster isn't a booster - they just do the MMR twice to make sure it has taken.

So why don't they test for immunity then?

Message withdrawn