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Message withdrawn

KerryMum,

Last night I was not trying to insinuate that you had not read the information leaflet accompanying the MMR vaccine.

I was stating that paediatricians with an interest in allergy do not believe that egg allergy is a contraindication to the MMR.

I realise that my brief post may have appeared terse in tone but this was not intentional, I was simply trying to respond quickly before logging off for the night. Sorry if I offended you.

haven't read the whole thread by Dr giving my DD2 the singles said that MMR defiantely caused regression in a tiny minority of cases - my DS1 was diagnosed with autism 9 months after the 1st set. Had lots of risk factors ie Glue Ear, Runny nose etc. Wish now i had looked into more throughly and not just believed DofH info.

Thanks KerryMum, that's something interesting to chew on. Particularly the way that they call it a booster. Maybe being open and honest about vaccinations would engender more trust?

I suppose it does act as a booster as well (much as being exposed to a child carrying a natural measles infection would act as a booser).Naturally aquired immunity waning is beginning to be a problem as well- as in the past naturally aquired cimmunity would have been boosted regularly from exposure.

If they're going to vaccinate babies they should provide a teen MMR booster- this is something that me and expatinscotland (very pro vaccination) agree on absolutely. I suspect its because we're all for sensible vaccintion policies with logic behind them, rather than random ones, with cost factors behind them.

I suppose there is a risk with any vaccine/medication, but both my children had all the vaccines. It isn't proven that there is any serious side effects from the MMR, however what is proven is that Measles is a very nasty illness that can leave lifelong effects or even kill. That fact alone made me feel that there was no choice but to go ahead and vaccinate but dont get me wrong I was still worried about the unproven risks associated with it! (I am the same with ANY medication!!) Since we do not see that much measles in this country anymore (because of vaccination) IMO we have become complacent to the seriousness of this illness. When the new pneumococcal vaccine came out the uptake has been really high, way above the current MMR uptake, the mention of meningitis has everybody queuing to get their kids protected against it without a thought of any potental risks, because everyone knows how serious meningitis can be. I really hate my kids having any vaccines/medications but felt the benefits outweighed the potential risks.
Mums will always worry/research/disagree on this one! as long as you are happy with the decision you make then thats the most important thing..

KerryMum- you could show your GP the insert- and ask them who is reposnsible if your child has an adverse reaction to a vaccination given when apparently contra-indicated by the manufacturers. Would be an interesting question (especially if, as suggested in the link below the vaccine compensation fund will not pay out for any deaths that occur if the child is under the age of 2).

My mum is deaf in one ear because of measles. She's still changed her mind about MMR and vaccinations in general following our ds1's experience, and is quite anti giving the other 2 anything, becauase I suppose she sees ds1's life as being very badly affected whilst hers had hardly been affected at all. You just need to add that particular risk into the equation iyswim. There certianly are recorded cases of regression/vaccine damage at later ages. I know of a case where a suffered severe damage at age 15 for example so there is no safe age as such anyway. Although obviously once language pathways etc are laid down they'll be more robust- it won't necessarily prevent the big devastating damage that can occur though iyswim.

Keeymum, I wouldn't take the BBC seriously on MMR. They are trying to distance themselves from the maliciously stupid way they covered the earlier "concerns" about MMR.

They used a study of quite criminal incompetence, and followed it up with "concerned mothers" who feared and/or blamed MMR for autism in their kids.
They never mentioned the risks of not being protected, because science is geeky, and emotive mothers make good TV.

They now want it both ways, "forgetting" that they helped cause blindness and probably death in many children, by covering horror stories of failure to protect.

Nothing you do to 1/2 million kids a year is risk free, but MMR has a good record.

Two facts you won't see on the BBC, partly because the BBC journos really hate numbers, and partly because it makes the USA look good.

1: Due to the media hysteria, MMR went down. Autism in the same period went up. Hands up those who think that MMR is a major cause of Autism ?

2: The USA requires MMR on kids. This is the most litigious society on earth, with literally thousands of smart people who make a living out of finding alleged harm. They give MMR to several million kids per year.
So where are the trials ?

DC 'They now want it both ways, "forgetting" that they helped cause blindness and probably death in many children, by covering horror stories of failure to protect.'

What utter, utter bollocks.

For the FIFTEENTH time DC- (I thought you understood figures you seem amazingly unable to understand this issue) no-one is suggesting that MMR is responsible for the rise in autism, only that it has triggered about 7% of cases of autism. Tiny number- so it doesn't matter one iota what the population figures are doing as they won't be affected by the MMR figures. The numbers of autism cases triggered by MMR are too small- which is not the same as saying they don't exist.

There are court cases going on in the states. Most of the publicity is centred around thimerosal rather than MMR.

Please don't be patronising about "concerned mothers". Some of those concerned mothers have watched thier normally developing child develop severe diarrhoea, regress losing previously aquired skills (including speech) all within a matter of weeks of the MMR. In some cases their children have seemed to have developed encephalitis within days of the MMR I think they have every right to be concerned. Sometimes these concerned mothers have paediatricians caring for their children who are also concerned that the MMR was a trigger in their child's case. Ds1 has such a boy in his class.

Well said gess. A little more considered than my reaction to DCs post I have to admit.

You didn't see me thumping my head on the table when YET AGAIN DC has failed to address the issue that only a small subset of children with autism have been adversely affected by the MMR. So he makes up his own little hypothesis which he then disproves, thus showing how safe MMR is. That's one way of doing it I guess.

As for "concerned mothers" good job I didn't type what I said.

Perhaps he works for the government in an advisory capacity in the ministry of dogged insistence of dodgy 'facts'.

Sorry DC but sometimes you beggar belief mate.

OK, and I'm going to type this very slowly, please explain to me how this "7%" trigger isn't an increase ?
7% should be a pathetically easy rate to detect given that the number of kids whose parents haven't been hoodwinked by the BBC.

7% of autistic children, not 7% of all children. You need huge population sizes to get statistical validity with that. If it was so easy to do, then it should have been done. One group said they were going to do it, then found they couldn't- don't have time to track down that study yet. Studies have repeatedly failed to address the issue that it is a subgroup that is affected.

Hi everyone, my son is 19 months and I've still not vaccinated him because I am nervous to. I have searched high and low for a doc who does individual jabs but found only one who can do measles and rubella but apparently the mumps vaccine from U.S. is no longer available. Therefore, if I go seperate vacc's, he won't be protected against mumps at all. I do have a faint family history of OCD related illness which has come out in 3 generations. This is autism-related. I am just so worried about giving my son something that could effect him. Advice please!