MMR - is there any well respected, well researched evidence against it?

[bohemianbint]

I'm due to get DS (16 months) jabbed around about now, and I'm just trying to get my head around the whole thing.

I'm erring on the side of just doing it - I'm aware that the fella who started the autism rumours was a bit of a religious nutter by all accounts and has been discredited.

There seems to be a lot of studies from reputable sources that it is a Good Thing. Are there any non-speculative, non-hysterical articles based in fact which support not giving it?

Even though the more I read, the more I think it's fine (and I don't let anyone jab me or mine un-necessarily, there was no syntocin or vit K jabs when I had DS!) I'm still a bit worried and want to be as informed as possible before making a decision.

Your help would be appreciated! (I can't make any decision without Mumsnet. )

This website is very informative:

www.jabs.org.uk/

By no stretch is the Jabs website objective - they have their agenda just the same as everyone else!

ok but their agenda is to find out the truth, isn't it?

i also read 'Vaccinations - yes or no?' by W and S Sussman

I believe that MMR is not or may not be safe for a small minority of children. Why ever not put research and systems in place for identifying those children, instead of this (IMO) exceptionally heavy-handed pro-MMR propagandising? Then susceptible children could avoid and the vast majority it is safe for could have it without fear.

Based on my assessment of risk factors, my dses could fall into either category. I MMRed ds1 and, despite no ill effects, regretted it. It's single boosters for him later on, and singles from the start for ds2.

well no actually from what I've read I would say their agenda is to demonstrate that their children have suffered vaccine damage and that the government is complicit in that damage. That may or may not be the 'truth' but either way I would hate to think someone decided whether or not to vaccinate their baby based on what'Jabs' have to say. You're perfectly right to put it forward as a source of information - I just think we should be clear about the background to it.

Just for everyone's information. The autism rates in the USA are now 1 in 150 and rising every year. People here are now seriously looking into whether or not the MMR vaccine plays a small part in that rise, and that's not scaremongering it is just plain fact from the CDC. I still feel that we should have the opportunity of single vaccines if we wish.

It's even worse here as in Colorado the child has MMR and Varicella at the same time. Over time we've been told a lot of things are safe for all and that has not been proven to be the case -HRT and the Contraceptive Pill being prime examples of how some people have reactions to medicines they receive.

More research needs to be carried out and choices given back to parents in my opinion.

Measles still doing the rounds in SW London I think it peaks around now (rather than summer).
I think mumps in adults more commonly leads to complications but I'm not aware that it is usually a nastier disease.
I thought one thing against single jabs was that it would leave more children unprotected for longer thereby potentially increasing the risk of outbreaks.

FWIW I've been told Wandsworth encourages vaccination at 12 months due to measles rates but I'm not sure so welcome input from those Wandsworth mumsnetters who know about such things!

Can I just ask, with no axe to grind, whether the fall in the use of MMR has lead to a fall in the rates in autism amongst those who have not had the jab. Surely if people are blaming the MMR for causing autism in some cases, if those children are no longer having the MMR then the autism rates should be dropping.

I know that some may say that it will take time for the results to work through the system but if the effect of the MMR is really as quick as anecdotal evidence suggests the results should be apparent now, surely.

Surely if there was a correlation between the two then the results would be there to see? Or is that not logically correct?

I guess the other interesting question is whether the rates of autism in siblings who havn't had the jab are less than those who have/less than expected.

Niecie that's a really good point. Here in the USA the uptake in MMR is high - in some states it's required by law . However they do recognize the single vaccines here, and you can get them easily enough.

It was your post that made me thing alipiggie. If rates of autism have gone up in the US since the MMR was widely used then surely the opposite should be true when the rates of MMR use have dropped off a little in the UK. It is all very difficult to quantify I suppose when there are several causes of autism. I just wondered if statisticians had done the calculations.

Are there any exceptions allowed to opt out of the MMR in the states where it is required by law? That would suggest that they (the powers that be) acknowledge it isn't 100% safe for some.

I've read all your posts - and now I'm wondering - do I really need to immunise my son against mumps and rubella?

I'm just wondering if I can just get him done for measles? If he gets mumps while he's a child, it's not supposed to be that serious is it, just unpleasant? So if I find someone who has mumps in a few years time and get them to hang out together that might be enough?

Although havign said that, I know that SIL went deaf in one ear after catching mumps from DP when they were kids.

It's all so confusing - any thoughts re just measles?

god what a depressing read.

Wakefield and others hypothesis is that about 8% of cases of autism have been MMR triggered. This has never been investigated. In fact papers like Taylor et al which supposedly disprove the MMRR- autism link actually say ' this does not discount the possibility that some children suffer a rare idiosyncratic response to the MMR' - er that IS Wakefield's hypothesis.

Japan- when replaced by single jabs following an MMR caused meningitis outbreak (only viral so not particularly dangerous) the jabs were given on the same day. This (in terms of the Wakefield hypothesis) is the equivalent of MMR. Anyway- actual rates of autism are irrelevent to the hypoethesis for reasons already mentioned.

Wakefield was not developing a rival vaccine. He was developing a treatment for autistic enterocolitis - ie for children who have autism and severe bowel disease- It states this quite clearly on the patent application. I emailed Brian Deer to ask why he portrayed it otherwise and didn't receive a reply.

The authors of the Lancet paper retracted an 'interpretation' (by the media) of the paper-NOT the paper itself. The bizarrest thing ever to have happened and politics not science.

The saddest thing about all this? In the UK we had a gastroenterologist (who at the time was a rising star) who was able to treat the most severely autistic with bowel disease - to put that into context when we've seen doctors in the last few years they have been totally unable to take ds1's blood pressure, to do an x ray, to even check his ear or throat. Wakefield had the skills and experience to treat children who had a very debilitating painful condition (never mind the autism or how it was caused). There is now only really Simon Murch left in the UK who has those skills (and he is under pressure all the time- I'm stunned he's still here tbh)(. It's not OK that just because a child has no speech, or is learning disabled that they suffer pain because their condition is embarrassing.

Personally I do know children who have had things like seizures within a day or the MMR, ended up in ITU and their parents have been told by their paeds that it was probably MMR triggered. Of course they're a small minority- they may be perfectly acceptable collateral damage to decrease the numbers of measles and rubella case (I don't believe mumps is serious enough to warrant any collateral damage). It's a shame though as there is enough info out there to have some idea of the sorts of children who are likely to be a greater risk from live vaccines- and/or other factors as well- it wouldn't take that much money to separate those kids out (and considering the cost of looking after a severely autistic adult in decent provision is 300 quid a day you would get potential savings at the other end)

Hiya
Its a difficult decision I know. I haven't read the whole thread but here was our thinking when we went through this with DS1.
Measles, mumps and rubella can cause permanent damage, disability and even death and are entirely preventable with the vaccination. Why expose DS to the risk of illness when there's an alternative? Also there's a social responsibility argument as a certain number of children need to be vaccinated to prevent the massive epidemics of these diseases that we used to see. Based on the reading I did we had our DS vaccinated and will be doing the same with DS2. Of course the possibility of triggering autism is a big worry but the risk appears to be so small compared to the risk of contracting M, M or R and the complications of these diseases.

Great post, Yurt.

Mumps vaccine does not confer life-long immunity - I think the effects wear off as children become teenagers. And catching mumps as an adult is far more dangerous. I know anecdote isn't evidence but FWIW dh had mumps five times and obviously isn't infertile.

I did get my son immunised against rubella (as well as measles and mumps) because I couldn't bear the thought that he might be responsible for a pregnant woman catching it.

My son is one of the 'regressive' children.
It is depressing to read some of the stuff on here because a great deal of it is inaccurate( see Yurts post). But as someone else said it very quickly becomes very emotional and that is understandable.
What I don't quite understand is why so many people seem to adopt the premise that the issue is whether the MMR causes autism - which is clearly not the case. The issue is whether the MMR can trigger bowel problems and autism in a subset of children ( probably those with autoimmunity problems).

It is very frustrating to read how safe this jab is safe full stop after watching my DS loose all speech and babbling and develop obbsessions and violent behaviours in just a few months after his jab at 18 months old. It implies that I am stupid.

I did not imagine what happened to my son and everything in our experience backs up what Wakefield suggested. My daughter will not have the MMR .

Someone else asked what the incidence of ASD is in siblings who weren't vaccinated. Well my fullsome study of one shows that this unvaccinated sibling is ASD free.

Can someone please supply a good reference which says that the mumps vaccine always wears off in teenage years? Because this link (like some others I found) says that 95% of people who get a single dose of MMR will get life-long immunity to all three diseases. Which I suppose implies at least 99% immunity to all 3 diseases after the MMR booster is usually given.

Unfortunately that was massive over-estimate (and was presumably why the mumps vaccine was included).

A couple of oldish papers eg Hersh et al Mumps outbreak in a highly vaccinated population Journal of Pediatric 1991 and Briss et al Sustained transmission of mumps in a highly vaccinated population. Assessment of primary vaccine failure and waning vaccine induced immunity. Journal of infectious diseases 1994.

Richard Halvorsen in his book said that if you average across the studies (which might differ considerably in their figures from stuff I've seen elsewhere) then the figures are something like the SINGLE mumps vaccine is 83% effective in preventing mumps, whilst the MMR is 62% effective in preventing mumps. Apparently some 2005 research (although I haven't seen the reference) from London showed one dose of MMR was 65% effective for mumps, rising to 88% after 2 doses. In the States the waning vaccine immunity was the reason they decided to introduce a booster in the teen years as standard. Natural immunity to things like measles etc will wane without re-exposure as well- but it does appear in general that natural immunity is 'better' than vaccine induced. (I;m not using that an argument for not vaccinating btw- just as a comparison).

The problem is that these figures aren't known until general release. Hib for example was meant to be effective for life. It now appears that the baby dose lasts less than 2 years. With a booster providing protection until about 5. It used to be that most children had developed immunity by 5- perhaps that will still happen, or perhaps it will become a disease of older children (where it is apparently more commonly serious). The vaccine trials would need to be carried on for far longer to get this sort of information. It may not matter for some diseases (men C springs to mind as it tends to attack specific age groups) but it might matter for something like measles if you just end up pushing the average age infection up. It matters particularly for mumps which is nearly always a mild childhood disease but can be a serious adult one.

here are some recent figures Reading that vs the UK stuff it seems the big difference is that the Americans treat the second dose (given during school) as a booster, whereas the UK treats the 2nd dose given during pre-school as a way of catching people missed the first time round. As the MMR vaccinated generation grows up well find out how well it lasts into adulthood I guess.

It doesn't last into adulthood... I caught measles from DS this year and I had MMR and booster as a child. It's much nastier for adults, more likely to become encephalitis (it did with me, thankfully not too much damage). I've been thinking about this since the other thread I posted on the other day... I'm actually upset that I swallowed all the 'lifelong immunity' stuff that is said about the MMR, and also the 'dangerous childhood diseases' phrase they use. That meant that I had no idea how much danger I was in when DS had measles. I might have taken my symptoms more seriously earlier, the GP might have diagnosed me with measles earlier... But the GP just said 'you've had MMR, it can't be measles'. If I'd have died (which was a real possibility when the encephalitis spread to my meninges) my DS was only 11 months old and wouldn't have had any memories of me at all. Of course that didn't happen and I have a lot to be grateful for. But I still get a bit cross when I hear 'lifelong immunity' and when people talk about MMR protecting from 'childhood diseases' as if you can't get them as an adult. Isn't it just turning a usually recoverable childhood disease into a more serious adult disease? An adult who gets measles is far more likely to die of it than a child who gets it, after all?

god becster how awful. Your story is something I've always worried about but I hadn't come accross anyone it had happened to.

And its in that sort of situation that you NEED to know how well your vaccine is working. I think the idea was to erradicate measles. With the guessed figures for efficiancy that were bandied about when MMR was introduced that would have been possible- with its actual efficiency it isn't.

But how does anyone know what sort of immunity is provided if the immunity itself isn't tested? We are all busy jabbing our children like pincushions, but we have no idea whether or not they develop the promised immunity or indeed hold onto it..... have there been immunity studies done?