uhoh...vaccinations

[bluetop]

Help! I am going mad trying to decide - reading scare stories on both sides...I suppose its up to me though isn't it? I have to make a decision and take a risk for my baby - its horrible. He is 15 months now though - I have waited this long. Perhaps I will never decide, which is of course a decision. I just can't bear the thought of deciding to allow a needle to be put into him, and then he changes forever...when right now he is so healthy. But I heard that measles is coming back in the UK in areas where people have stopped immunising?
Oh God....help! Will I ever find an answer?

I wasn't prepared to take any chances so mine had single jabs done privately.

I am in the same boat bluetop.
no advice, but just to let you know you arent alone!

Mine are all non-vaccinated. 3 of them are healthy teenagers now.

The man who suggested there was any connection between the MMR and autism is being prosecuted for malpractice or bad research or something. The lack of connection has been more researchd and it has been more disproved that it was ever proved. The problem is that that story is far less press worthy than the original one which was scare mongering. They have actually proved there is no connection so you don't need to worry about that. If you're worried for other reasons do proper research first. I'm glad to hear those who haven't immunised are quite alright but there's no guarantee of safety from something if you're not inmmunised. Also mass immunisation programmes have successfully wiped out diseases paople used to die of so the odd one or two who don't will be fine so long as they don't come into contact with people from contries who don't immunise and have contracted the diseases.
As for risks, its a percentage thing you shouldn't cross the road, leave your house or for that matter go into your kitchen becasue statistically that's far more dangerous than immunising.
However in spite of all that I know where you're coming from. I have held my breath and crossed my fingers each time my DC have had the MMR and DD2 is having hers soon - so I know how you feel but also I do think it is the right thing to do. DD2 has chicken pox at the moment and it's horrible I heard they are going to immunise against that too but althoguh it's awful watching her go through it , it's not life threatening so i wouldn't want her vaccinated against that.

my ds has just had the measles single. he didn't even notice the needle. i would vaccinate against measles it can be pretty grim, kids go blind from it.

If you are interested in the GMC hearing then I suggest you read the GMC hearing diaries which you can find on CryShame. The transcripts will not be published until it's finished (in about October).

As for the validity of the research. Richard Horton - the editor of the Lancet - was called to give evidence. He stated that the research was of a very high standard, is the 'correct' way to identify a new syndrome and still stands todayt.

They have not provved there is no connection between MMR and some cases of autism. There hasn't been a single paper that has addressed Wakefield's hypothesis. They have proved that MMR is safe for the majority of children - which no-one disputes.

Checkenpox is nasty but rarely fatal, mumps is milder. Not sure why they vaccinate against mumps.

bluetop - if you're undecided then I can I suggest Richard Horton- the truth about vaccinating. Cheap, easy to read, referenced and written by an NHS GP.

I got put off as there are several children in dd's SN group that were brain injured by vaccines. I know its rare but the risk is there.

Richard Halvorsen yurt1 Very good book, look it up on Amazon. If there are no auto immune illnesses in family and your ds has no gut problems i would think a single measles vaccine would be fine. As for the other vaccines, you can break them down a bit too, there are private practices which can offer different options. HTH.

mumps can cause infertility in boys if they catch it after puberty, hence we will get ds the single mumps vaccine before he is about 8ish to be on the safe side.

i think the jury is out on the mumps issue - it rarely effects both testicles, apparently. but we will do the same thing and get a single mumps vaccine before puberty.

affects!

Contrary to what HelloStranger said, there is no risk-free option.

You get MMR, that has its own risks. You get singles, they have risks (and costs). You get no jabs at all, that option has risks. Get away from the idea that there is an obvious safe option better than all the others.

Does anyone offer a vaccine against grumpy 8yo DSs? I could really use a jab like that...

Very, very true alardi. In the end you choose the risk that you feel most comfortable with. For ds1 that was to give vaccinations, for ds2 and ds3 it has so far been to give none (although they may have some as they get older and the risks from things like measles increase).

i agree alardi. No option is without risks.

That -recognising the risk approach- can mean looking at each disease/available jab individually btw- and weighing up relative risks. I wish this is what the standard vaccination programme did incidentally as then family risks could be taken into account as well. Each child will have his or her own risk obviously.

bluetop - I had private single jabs for my DS. It was about a year ago at:

www.breakspearmedical.co.uk/

I worried about it for ages, but decided it would be best for him to be protected against measles firstly so had that done. My DS had a typical reaction to this - little measles spots 7 (ish) days later that clear up in under 4 days (ish). I would do it again without hesitation.

thank you everyone for your comments - I agree there is no comfortable right answer and I have to choose which risk I can cope with best. After reading a lot - and I will look for the Halvorsen book thanks - I think in the end I will consult my intuition and see if that gives me the final answer! (oh god I hope so)

Richard Horton wrote a book on why he regreted ever publishing the Wakefield papers, and certainly didn't say in that it was a good piece of research.

Richard Horton is indeed no fan of Andrew Wakefield, but this relates to Wakefield's recommendation for single vaccines - not the Lancet paper. But nevertheless at the GMC hearings he said this :

"When Horton moved to talking about the paper published in the Lancet, it became clear that he had the highest regard for the method which the ?case series? used and the way in which it was presented. If the prosecution was expecting him to say that the paper was full of poor science, they must have been surprised when he said the absolute opposite.

Horton said that the Lancet paper was an excellent example of a ?case series?. That this was a standard and entirely reputable way of reporting on a possible new syndrome. He likened it to how the first cases of HIV/AIDS were reported in the early 80s and how the new variant CJD issue broke more recently. He said unequivocally that the science reported in the 1998 Lancet paper ?still stands? and that he 'wished, wished, wished' that the clock could be turned back and the paper be considered in the light it was first presented, without everything that followed.

Defence council spent a considerable time cross examining Horton about the declaration of ?conflict of interest? issue. Over the years this has become one of the most important issues associated with the Lancet paper. At the end of a long session, the worst that Horton could adduce was that Dr Wakefield was genuinely surprised that there was the need for him to reveal funding from the Legal Aid Board, which anyway hadn?t been used in this case-series, or at all at that point.

Horton was happy to say that Dr Wakefield had been honest throughout his dealings with the Lancet and that he had not declared any conflict of interest because he genuinely believed (and believes still) that there was no conflict to be declared. While Horton personally disagreed with Dr Wakefield?s interpretation of this, as did Professor Simon Murch and Professor Walker-Smith, he acknowledged clearly that it could be seen as a matter of opinion and not a reflection on Dr Wakefield?s honesty."

oh gawd sorry Yurt, should have known you wouldn't make a mistake with a name on this issue. I was thinking of Richard Halvorsen's book, now realise you were talking about someone completely different.

We had singles for our first 2 children as the oldest had reacted to his baby jabs and we had to treat all the kids the same.

DS1 had his preschool booster but not the MMR bit and ended up in hospital with cellulitis.

The yongest hasn't had anything yet (other than baby jabs) and I am dreading in tbh. I was putting it off as I felt he was more vunerable but I know he should have them. I just don't like it.

"Chickenpox is nasty but rarely fatal, mumps is milder. Not sure why they vaccinate against mumps."

Chicken pox can be fatal in adults and mumps can cause infertility. Maybe that is why they vaccinate, Yurt1

Mumps very very rarely causes infertility and the protection from the vaccination is not lifelong. Infertility is more likely after puberty.

Previously most people caught mumps (one third without any symptoms at all) in childhood so had lifelong protection. Now people are given a vaccination in childhood that does not necessarily last until adulthood. The single mumps vaccine is about 83% effective in preventing mumps, the MMR about 62%. This may have the effect of increasing the number of teens and adults contracting mumps therefore turning a mild childhood illness into a more serious adult one. It will be difficult to assess as no data was kept on mumps until the introduction of the MMR.

How did we get to this stage? Well for starters the effectiveness of the mumps vaccine was over-estimated (this happens a lot- the Hib vaccine introduced as one lifelong lasting jab was found to not last to the end of the second year- hence the introduction of the Hib booster - Hib disease can obviously be nastier than mumps though).

Chickenpox is not standardly vaccinated against in the UK because (and this is from the NHS website) it is usually mild and 89% of adults develop immunity. Similar to mumps then. It remains a controversial vaccination in the States (where part of the decision to introduce vaccination was based on economics- ie the number of hours parents had to take off work to care for children with chickenpox).

oh I did make a typo on the book ruty- Too many Richard's in one paragraph Thanks for correcting- was definitely recommending Richard Halvorsen (although it was Horton giving evidence at the GMC- I don't think they'll be calling Halvorsen unfortunately

That is interesting about Horton at the GMC hearing Yurt. Funny how it doesn't get reported isn't it?