To vaccinate or not to vaccinate?

[hopey]

Is anyone out there as worried as me about the reports that fewer parents are having their children vaccinated against measles, mumps and rubella?
I can understand the feelings about the mmr triple jab, and single jabs are becoming harder to find, but it concerns me that more and more parents aren't having their kids vaccinated at all, taking the view that "they'll be surrounded by kids that are vaccinated, so they shouldn't catch anything anyway". If more and more people start to take that view, then we'll have an epidemic on our hands.
I'm not keen on the thought of my dd having the triple jab. I don't think I could forgive myself if anything did happen to her, even though they tell us its highly unlikely. It looks as though it will be single jabs for her (if I can get them). I couldn't not have her vaccinated at all especially after seeing a baby on t.v. with measles. She was really poorly in intensive care. It broke my heart to see.
Well, thats my little rant for the day.

Dh was at a virology conference the other day and came back with an interesting chart. It showed the rise of diagnosed autism over the last 20 years. The chart was flattish then rose steeply. Halfway up the slope was the point where MMR was introduced. The point is that autism was already on the increase long before MMR came on the scene.

Just a couple of thoughts - I have been given the call for MMR in 2 weeks, and I will definitely be taking ds along - firstly, the vaccines, even if given as the MMR, are released separately into the body over a period of time, so the three viruses aren't given together, it's just that it is injected at the same time. And what comforts me the most is that in the US they have had the MMR for 25 years, and if there were a problem, I can't imagine the Americans going along with it quietly. They are the probably the country most likely to kick up a fuss, and I believe they are wondering what the Brits are going on about!

Have to agree with bayleaf on this, and also echo www. There is no massive gap between single jabs - like you Bayleaf, my dd had her rubella jab at thirteen months, and had not even been called for the MMR. she has her measles jab next week (stil before the date given for MMR), then eight weeks later is having her mumps jab. I may be controversial, but do not think she is putting an undue risk upon society in this time.
I also take issue with the comment made that people will choose not to give boys the rubella jab as they don't need it. If you OPT for single jabs (rather than have them prescribed by GP as a recommendation for medical reasons), you HAVE to have rubella first - there is no way around it. As rubella is the only single jab liscenced for use in UK this can be given. Once given the child is deemed to have commenced on a course of single jabs, and thru this loophole, the measles and mumps jab can then be lawfully prescribed.

Enid - I agree I would rather not put anyone at risk but that said as it is only teenagers who are at real risk of danger from mumps surely it is up to them to make sure they are immunised? I feel this is a different thing from the 'giving measles to babies' issue as babies CAN'T be immunised againt measles so are at risk from people not being immunised - but teenagers CAN against mumps.
I have no problem with vaccinations per se - just the MMR at such a yong age, which is why dd will have the mumps jab next month. Given that any teenager who is put at risk by dd's non immunisation does have a chance of avoiding the risk - and dd is only at putting them at risk for 3 months, it doesn't seem to me to be an unfair thing for us to do.

Well done Leese, glad somebody pointed that out!

WWW I'm 33 and had a separate measles vaccine when I was a child, I think that is maybe what was referred to rather than the MMR?

I am about to have a baby and i will do anything I have to, to protect her from getting measles or mumps which can be very serious diseases. As an american (where all the jabs are more or less compulsary), I had no idea when i had my son how low the take-up rate was in london. This time around I will make a point of not letting my baby be around any child who hasn't been vaccinated until she is a year old and has been vaccinated herself. This includes making sure the child minder doesn't also look after unvaccinated children and no playdates with unvaccinated children. It's not up to me to tell someone else what to do with their children, but if they are endangering my child, then I will be sure to protect her.

SofiaAmes, you can't be from the San Francisco Bay Area - I know my friends there are very much of the 'vaccinations are bad' mindset.

I've rather kept off this one up until now - I know it's better for society if we do vaccinate but I just can't be that level headed when it comes to my own child (although dd has had her vaccinations up until now and will continue to do but probably private singles instead of MMR and private mercury-free versions of the others).

BUT regarding the gaps between single vaccines, the year-gap rumour came about because that was what Dr Wakefield recommended in his original report. As far as I know, no single vaccine clinic has actually implemented that gap (the important gap is between measles and mumps - the theory is that measles lowers the immunity to the live mumps virus which then causes the problems).

If anyone is interested in looking at more research on this, I really recommend the work from the Autism Research Unit at the University of Sunderland. It's much less OTT than Dr Wakefield's but very informative.

I actually didn't know that gap between the single injections, and actually meant the comment rather as a question, not a statement.
With my dd being vaccinated I don't worry about her being around children who have not been vaccinated if this occurs, however I would not allow any of my future children, before they had been vaccinated to be around older children who have not been vaccinated.
I think as a parent you should want whats'e best for you child, and some may feel that it is best for their children not to have the vaccination. But what about the parents who are unable to give their children the vaccination due to medical reasons, surely we should be helping to create an envioronment where these children run as less risk as possible of catching an infection? The only way I can see of doing this is if everyone who is able to have the vaccination, actually has it.

one of my work collegues has a neice who is autistic and became so after having the mmr jab.the said child is now nine years old and has recently had varies tests done,these showed up the presence of the mmr vaccination in her gut,after eight years the actaul vaccine is still in her system, something rings very strange with this don't you think?

loobie, not an expert...but how do you think we stay immunised against disease? The MMR is a vaccine for life, I would imagine it stays in your system working away for a good few years.

Does anyone know any stats for children developing sudden-onset autism after their pre-school booster?

I arranged for ds to have his MMR before he'd even been called. We were off to South Africa when he was 13 months old and I wanted hime to be covered agaisnt potential exposure, as we wouldn't know the "status" of any kids we met. I also wanted to be sure that any reaction was over by the time we started travelling.

I don't really want to get involved in this discussion, as we all have our own views and what we each choose to do is right for our child.

One wee point though. I'm not an expert on statistics and research but did a wee bit of methodology as part of my degree (a long time ago now!). I seem to remember that it is impossible to PROVE a negative, ie it is impossible to PROVE that there is NOT a link. You can only prove a positive. Therefore, the government and those in the medical profession who are trying to reassure us about the safety of the vaccine can only point to the research that has shown that there is no evidence of a link (eg the graph that Slug's dh was shown) - ie that they have not been able to prove the positive link. However, they are on to a hiding to nothing with the media taking its current attitude.

I believe that the professor that validated (?) Wakefield's initial research has now distanced himself from it and states that he does not believe that there is a link. However, the media has not given that much publicity.

Wasn't Andrew Wakefield's research into the presence of the measles virus (and antibodies to it) in the gut of children with Crohn's and/or autistic spectrum disorders? Most of the cases he investigated were those of children who were immunised because that was back in the days when the uptake of the MMR was much higher. "Wild" measles in the UK is, I believe, a different strain to that found in the MMR vaccine but I guess it must be close enough to provide immunity for most children.
As Enid says, whether you caught a viral illness naturally or are immunised against it, the virus and its antibodies stay with you, usually for life. That is how you get your immunity. So our immune systems must be buzzing with the relics of viral illnesses we've all come through safely, or been immunised against.

Actually Phillipat I am from the San Francisco Bay Area and I'm sure you're right in that your friends from there don't approve of vaccinations. However, chances are that their kids are vaccinated anyway, since in the usa you can't send your kids to school/nursery/camp/playgroups/clubs etc. without their being vaccinated.

Personally I think there may be some cases of autism caused by MMR... it's just that that there would probably be a lot more cases of brain damage (or death) caused by wild measles & mumps if we didn't vaccinate. From what I read in Wakefield's research, there is nothing to suggest that single Measles jab is potentially any less likely to cause autism.... maybe that's a case for safer vaccines, but it's not a case for no vaccinations at all.

enid, evidence of your immunity should show up in your system i.e that you have antibodies against the varies diseases you have been immunised against but there should not be any traces of the actual vaccine.

Loobie, what does it mean to have traces of the actual vaccine showing up in the gut? And is there a study to show that this doesn't occur in non-autistic children? And has there been a biochemical link shown between these traces and the reason autism occurs. Just because they are there doesn't mean they cause autism. There is a direct correlation between the stork population in sweden and the amount of babies born...doesn't mean storks bring babies.

Correct me if I'm wrong but wasnt the MMR developed because with the way the single vacinations are spaced out, isnt there quite a period of time where the child still wont be protected and so therefore the triple gives better/quicker immunity? I believe that in one country they used the single vaccination during a shortage of the MMR and there were deaths from the diseases it aims to protect. Personally I would not relish being given the choice on the NHS I wouldnt know what to do for the best. IMO Andrew Wakefield's report jumps to a lot of conclusions without nearly enough research into the various factors which quite affect the outcome. My dd (6mths) is just recovering from a very nasty case of chicken pox. I will have her vaccinated with the MMR when the time comes (if that is still what is recommended) and although I would be devastated if I thought she was then affected with autism, this is a public health issue and we have to look at the bigger picture. It was terrible watching my daughter with chicken pox I definatley dont want to see the return of far more serious diseases such as measles, mumps and rubella. IMO we have to immunise our children to help protect the babies and sick children etc that cant be vaccinated. I definately think we need far clearer information to be able to make an informed choice (facts, not just wether Tony Blair has had his child done!)

ames - believe the MMR was primarily developed as a quicker/easier administration of three vaccines - no more concern that parents will not take little ones for follow up jabs - less time/admin spent chasing up non attenders etc. It also works out cheaper to give the combined jab for obvious reasons.
As previously discussed - it was not so much the issue re: timings of jabs and likely exposure within this time. As has been mentioned, the timescale thing has been blown out of all proportion - usually the rubella is given at thirteen months (often before the child has even been called for MMR), the measles follows six weeks later (often aroound the time the MMR would have been given), and Mumps approx 8 wks after that.
I think the majority of people would share your concerns about vaccination, but I still feel we should not be denied the choice. If you find it difficult to make a decision, then a health professional should be able to offer you information to help you decide. It's a toughie, but a decision I would want to make independently of outside pressures to conform.

I agree that single vaccines should be made available, and though I realise that there may well not be a causal link between MMR and certain types of severe autism I do think that the government should commission new research looking into possible links between the two - which hasn't happened. The theory is that there is some damage done to the gut and bowel by the multiple vaccine and this leads to biochemical changes to the blood and brain - this isn't completely unlikely, as far as I can see. Nick Hornby (whose son is severely autistic) was furious that the government has closed down research into/specialist treatment for the crippling and agonising bowel disorders that some autistic children suffer and does seem to be linked with their autism. He suggested a deliberate policy by the government that if they didn't diagnose and treat the illness they could pretend it didn't exist. I think anyone who believes a government is incapable of this kind of thinking is terribly naive. They've done worse in the past (BSE, anyone? HIV contaminated blood given to haemophiliacs?) and will do worse in the future. Of course vaccines can damage children. They still do -billions is paid in compensation worldwide. It is considered a risk worth taking by most but not by all and not for all. I'm not sure about MMR, and neither I nor my husband could face giving it to our son while we don't fully trust it. No child has died of measles in recent times (including during epidemics) who was healthy, so I am sure he won't die of it (a friend's son just had it and it was like a cold). He will wait and have single vaccines - well after he is 18months old. Then I will be sure that there is no correlation between autism and the vaccine. This may be horribly selfish, but that's what we intend to do. I think this kind of decision has to be taken by individual parents. I am horrified by the idea of compulsory MMR. There would be a revolution! You just can't force half the population to do something to their child they suspect might be harmful. I think single vaccines and new - not recycled - research should be a government priority now.

maryz- my son also has aspergers syndrome and i am also frequently asked about it in relation to the mmr. In his case i dont think he developed it because of the jab, as i look back there were signs of his autistic behaviour when he was young, i think that had your child changed overnight you would be able to pinpoint when this happened but in our case there was never a clear time when he was any different,plus i have 4 nephews on my partners side who also have asd's so i'd say its deffinately genetic in our case.

What about those 3 children in Ireland Aloha and the ones in Japan? Were they not healthy? In any case even if a child wasn't "healthy" the chances are they wouldn't be dead if they hadn't caught measles which in turn wouldn't have happened if vaccination levels had been maintained

Well, I never said my choice was for the benefit of others - it's purely for the benefit of my ds. But as I said, I don't trust the government. I think the way this thing has been handled truly stinks and I do suspect another BSE, HIV-style cover-up. Until someone convinces me otherwise my ds won't be having the MMR. In fact he won't be having it full stop. I think the other posts here make quite clear that single vaccines don't pose a threat to anyone. In fact, children are usually vaccinated before other kids get called for the MMR anyway. So you could say they are 'protecting' the rest! No, the children in Ireland who died were already seriously if not terminally ill. That's no consolation for the parents, I know. But if the government would license single vaccines then there would be no risk of any outbreak anyway IMO. I bet you anything Leo Blair hasn't had it, and I do wonder why.

I have an inkling that the Blair child has had it.