Its been done before but I'm in a panic...to MMR or not to MMR?

[CrookshanksinJimmyChoos]

?

Can I join the BGAS too? I heard him speak live and he was brilliant. Have also exchanged emails with him concerning homeopathy and Yeo Valley yoghurt [proud emoticon]

OK, harrisey, you're in. But this means I'm going to have to get a bigger minibus for our outings.

kathy, I'm guessing you can go in the glove box.

You've heard him speak . And emailed him and everything! Apparently NQC actually knows him.

Read Richard Halvorsen's book 'The truth about vaccinations'. He's an NHS GP, so not a crystal healer or anything and he spends quite a few chapters setting out the MMR story. It's bang up to date, published a month or so ago. He doesn't particulalrly recommend the MMR btw (he offers his NHS patients a choice- the only NHS GP tpo offer the single jabs!), although he does recommend single measles, single rubellla for teenage girls

BTW_ and I have said this repeatedly. The MMR is believed to trigger autism is less than 10% of cases (of autism). Even the Dept of Health robot Elizabeth Miller has agreed that there isn't a single publication out there that could pick up a reaction occuring at this rate. Which is the whole point. Unless you're only interested in populations rather than what happens to individual children (it's sdafe for the majority so we won't bother to look at the minority). 10% of autistic children isn't very many children a year so in the vast majority of cases it isn't going to make the blindest bit of difference to your child whether you go for single or MMR (although single mumps is quite a bit more effective than MMR mumps for some reason, and single measles slightly more effective than MMR measles).

Well whatever you do DON'T just stick your head in the sand and not get anything - there is a lot of measles about at the moment due to people not vaccinating - two cases at DS's nursery alone, which is obviously very worrying all round and and particularly dangerous for the tiny babies 7 and 8 monthers there. Measles is still a killer.

Low rates of vaccination are also dangerous for anyone who is immune-compromised - those having chemotherapy, or those with HIV/AIDS, for instance.

OO loving the BGAS. Can i have a badge please?

[bares left nork]

gess I've just finished the Richard Halvorsen book. It makes scary reading. I've got a DS with ADHD and dyspraxia and another with dyspraxia and ?, and DD1 wasn't allowed the measles jab or MMR because of an egg allergy (GP wouldn't allow, not me, because she had eczema even though the allergy wasn't anaphylactic).

After reading the book I've decided to get the single measles jab for DD2 when she's 14 months, and the single rubella when she's 12.

it is NOT THAT KIND OF SOCIETY

sorry, I think I was overcome with a hot flush at the thought of lovely Mr Ben.

Think DP also fancies him slightly - should I be worried?

I thought it made fascinating reading I loved it tbh because he'd come to the same conclusions as I had independently (although he had more authority, and also had seen all the dept of health stuff in order- I've kind of gleaned bits of it from here and there, so that was fascinating). Filled a few gaps in the order things happened as well.

My next task is to find out whether he'll see people privately to talk about all vaccinations. I'd trust his opinion.

I've just been reading Ben Goldacre's blog. Thank you for introducing me - this is brillant.

And can I join the BGAS as well? I will provide second car if necessary - we are about to upgrade to a people mover...

BTW sorry to break up the party but the papers mentioned by Ben Goldacre all test the wrong hypothesis - they test whether MMR is reponsible for the rise in autism- no-one is suggesting it is. They are suggesting it has triggered autism in a subgroup of the autistic population. No-one has ever tested this (because they can't separate out the subgroups at population level).

One of the papers Goldacre mentions (the North London one- Taylor et al) even says in its conclusions that 'this does not rule out the possibility that some children may suffer a rare idiosyncratic response to the MMR'. And that's the whole point- that is the 'MMR can trigger autism hypothesis'- that it does it in a small group of suscpetible children. No paper has ever adressed that.

Wakefield's hypothesis isn't even solely about the MMR- it concerns abnormal exposure to the mealses virus and developed from work he did on the early 90's where he found that if you had an unusual exposure to a measles virus (eg during an epidemic) you were significantly more likely to develop Crohns disease. The gut conditon that he described as being associated with some cases of autism (now known as autistic enterolcolitis) has never come under dispute, only its cause. There may be another theory out there as to why this subset of children have this gut disease but I haven't come across it.

My MIL recently became a Reader at her local church, which basically enables her to preach the odd sermon and decide who gets to make the tea at the weekly parent-and-toddler group. It has driven her quite INSANE with self-importance, and I'm beginning to know how she feels.

pw - just wait till we get you the BGAS special hat to wear. You will be the envy of the whole club!

I would do the MMR.

I read an awful lot about this prior to both my kids being MMRd.

I think that the evidence is that for the vast majority of kids, the MMR works and does not cause any long lasting ill effects.

There is a tiny risk to the MMR, I don't think anyone denies that. There is, IMO, a much bigger risk associated with not being protected against these diseases. At least one unprotected kid has now died from measles in the UK, and I think it is not uncommon in US communities who won't vaccinate (eg the Amish).

I was unvaccinated against anything as a child, caught measles, developed pneumonia and i assume meningitis, and have vastly reduced sight in one eye. If I were to lose sight in my right eye, I would be registered blind. Incidentally, for those who believe it can be prevented by good diet etc, my parents ran a health food shop.

I also agree that the MMR is far more regulated and tested than any of the singles. Since some of the concern has been over the additives, esp the preservatives, in the vaccine, and these will, I assume, differ depending on what the vaccine is, I think best to go with the highly tested MMR.

There is a very small risk associated with any vaccination, no one denies that, that is why there is a vaccine damages scheme. But to NOT vaccinate is, IMO, far more risky. You can't avoid risk here, you can only minimise it.

MMR is not more tested and regulated than the singles. That's just not true- the singles had far more safety tests (and have been used for longer). The safety tests on MMR are practically non-existent. Even the cochrane report says that. I can dig out the figures later (although gave them on a thread recently) but MMR was only actively followed up for about 6 weeks. This is generally true these days btw- things like poilo vaccine, although introduced at a time of far greater need went through far more testing than vaccintions introduced these days (which are not tested as thorougly as new drugs for some reason).

It's partly the lack of follow up of MMR that has led to such a mess with mumps now. If it had been followed up properly they would have known that the mumps vaccine does not work anywhere near as well as they thought it did, and would have realised that introducing mumps vaccine was going to just push up the age that people caught it and turn it into an adult disease (which is exactly what happened).

I'd really really recommend Halvorsen's book for anyone with concerns, he goes through it all in detail, without downplaying the risk of the diseases (it's after reading his book that I've decided I would like ds2 and ds3 to get diptheria vaccination for example if possible).

Yes the statistical risk per child is small from MMR, but its not equal from child to child. It doesn't just strike randomly. The risk to the majority of children might be close to zero, but for others it will be much higher. The safest vaccination policy should involve identifying children who are at greater risk. Currently no-one is going to do that for you. As a parent you have to work out yourself whether your child is at higher risk or not.

Going back to MMR if you do go for it, I think (although would be worth checking) that there are 2 brands in use in the UK at the moment. One has been used for many years, and the other is very new. Various brands of MMR have been withdrawn over the years, one of those appears to be particularly associated with MMR/autism (although it was withdrawn as it was cauaing aspetic meningitis, not because of autism). For that reason if I was vaccinating with the MMR, I'd be asking for the older brand. It's been around longer so effectively has had a longer safety trial. No hidden surprises.

ok need to do saturday morning things here, but, quickly-

Agree 100% if there are kids who will be at greater risk from the vaccine than the dieseases, they should be identified. I doubt anyone would disagree with this really. Is there a way to do this?

and re the testing, my understanding is that, following the controversy, the MMR has been subjected to a number of longitudinal studies. It has been in use for something like 30 years, 15 in the UK, against Wakefield's hypothesis.

Do bear in mind that Wakefield had a financial interest in this. here is the scope of the patent application he filed in 1997, claim 2 - the MMR story broke in February 1998 IIRC.

Following this through, Wakefield did withdraw his application later, (incidentally this is normally done because applicants are advised that cases won't succeed). From the dates on these and the linked docs (look in the INPADOC LEGAL status then at the two GB docs) he or the Royal Free must have done this this around 2000. In early 1998, the patent would have been in the early stages of processing by the Patent Office, so at this stage he would have believed that he had a shot at a patent on a single vaccine.

This he didn't declare. I am afraid that, to me, the non-declaration of this conflict of interest has great impact on how seriously I am prepared to take him.

Gess - do you know the names of those brands and which is the older one? Thanks.

Ah, I've found the leaflet I've been given from the vaccine they propose to use. Priorix? The leaflet was revised in 2004, vaccine first authorised 1997. I guess that's the older one then?