Anyone see GMTV feature on measles, telling everyone to get the MMR? It's put me in a dither again....

[bohemianbint]

We decided a while back that we are only going to give DS the single measles jab, as I'm not so concerned about mumps and rubella for him and I still have reservations re the MMR.

We haven't yet got round to sorting it out though and getting the money together. And apparently now there's cases of measles confirmed in Manchester where we live and there are rumblings about an "epidemic". Having not got around to immunising DS yet I'm getting the fear, and wondering again whether we wouldn't be better just doing the MMR.

Don't want it it be a financial decision, don't want him to get measles, don't want to make the wrong decision and damage him.

Not even sure what my reasons are for being wary of the MMR (apart from not being convinced he needs immunising about mumps and rubella.) Have no idea what to do.

Just thinking aloud really, I've found it virtually impossible to make a decision about this and I'm not comfortable with not being able to define my reasons for not wanting the MMR.

Thanks for all the feedback, and the link to the Telegraph!

I just want to make it clear, I am in no way intending to leave my child un-vaccinated(against measles). But I'm trying to decide between single and MMR. And I don't see the point of the M and the R bit.

Bluedragonfly - I might try to get hold of a HV. I've tried talking it through with GPs but they all follow the same party line and get almost exasperated with me for questioning it, which I don't appreciate and it doesn't help!

I think it's quite naive to say, "well, the government say the MMR is 100% safe, and they never lie, or make mistakes, do they?" In fact, I think, Shannara that any parent who blindly does as they are told with regard to their child's health and welfare without adequate consideration are also damned irresponsible. Remember Thalidomide?

I think this is strengthening my resolve to stick with my guns and just get the single measles jab.

Bohemian, this struck a chord with me as i was like you, didn't really want my dd to have mmr but couldn't quite give my reasons why. eventually, i made the decision that she would have it; dh was keen that she should and i was starting to worry about her catching one of the illnesses. no one here does the singles so it was mmr or not at all for us. she had it yesterday, i just hope i made the right decision. good luck with whatever you decide.

Sally, if that's all you think the anti-MMR arguments are you haven't read widely enough. Also Wakefield's paper hasn't been discredited.

Also -- "most are highly educated mothers who just have that niggling doubt"??

You don't really know that, you just think it.

Our child had measles in his first year and it wasn't something I had ever predicted. It actually made me quite angry that the rates of take up had fallen so low because of all the confusion (can't blame parents here but the conflicting messages given out by HCPs etc) that vulnerable people were now at risk.

It's highly contagious and he prob caught it from a Drs surgery, maybe 3 hours after the patient had left the room - that infectious.

It was hideous and I thank God he is alright - well as far as we know he is.

Please just get it done - I was so thankful my eldest child at the time had had his, so he didn't catch it

Its such a personal choice, everyone is entitled to do what they feel is best for their child, but I'm not sure generalised statements of 'it definitely isn't harmful' or 'it definitely is harmful' are very helpful.

I know that this thread isn't helping me make an informed decision, its merely serving to make me doubt myself whatever decision I make for dd.

OK, rant over.

Thanks MJ -

Bohemianbint, I'll keep my feelings about the MMR to myself as they aren't really relevant here (although I am pro).

but please reconsider about the mumps - or at least do a bit more research. It is NOT always a minor disease. Depending at what point in your child's life they contract it, it can be very serious and has side effects including fertility problems in males, meningitis, deafness and pancreatic.

If a child catches it at the perfect time then it can be mild - but increasingly you don't come into contact with mumps until later in life when it can be much more serious.

You say the reason you are worrying about the MMR is because "probable safety" is not enough for you - you want definites. Not immunising them against mumps is definitely not a 100% safe decision.

oh - and I don't agree with the people who have said the talk of epidemics is all scaremongering.

There IS a lot of measles around out way at the moment (north London). There has been three bouts in 9 months at DS's nursery alone, which makes me incredibly worried for the poor babies under 13 months who have been unwittingly exposed.

The last bout the PCT offered early MMR to the exposed babies because they were so worried.

Just because you don't know of any cases in your immediate area, it doesn't mean it's scaremongering.

there may be cases of measles about but talking up how dangerous it is, that's scaremongering

Theyoungvisiter - I absoultley agree with you.

These are deadly diseases they will almost certainly make a come back without immunisation. Unfrotuately those at risk will be those that obviously have not been immunised but also those under immunisation age.

Dr Wakefield et al's paper HAS NOT been scientifically discredited. This is a media myth that is perpetuated on the internet by people who do not know what they are talking about.

The government has been forced to change its 'MMR is 100% safe' stance since Hannah Poling's case in the US Omnibus Autism Proceedings.

The offical line, as presented in the government comissioned Cochrane Review, even before recent events at the hearing in the US, is that the jury is still out on the safety of MMR.

Bohemianbint you might want to get hold of Halvorson's book 'The Truth About Vaccines' it is very good and could help you with your decision. It is written by a mainstream doctor and can be bought on Amazon. Sorry I tried to link but didn't work for some reason.

Measles isn't as bad as you've all been led to believe. Vit A is known to ameliorate morbidity and mortality. Most people get it without any long lasting problems. Just like most children can have mmr without any long lasting problems.

I mean, before jabs were introduced in the late sixties there were about 100 deaths a year. But almost everybody had it. Compare that to asthma, which has exploded in incidence. There are about 1300 asthma deaths every year. It's known that if you've had measles you're less likely to have asthma, maybe about a third less likely. So have we swapped measles mortality for asthma mortality?

People need to be aware of worse case scenario to be able to make the proper decision for them, I think. Theres still this idea that measles mumps rubella are all mild childrens diseases. Yet all can link to death- Mum lost a baby to rubella (especially hard as after a run of stillbirths), and immunocompromised children can die easily from such diseases.

The vast majority of non- mmr people I know are happy to have single jabs, the problem with epidemics etc could be vastly improved with making these more widely available.

Anyone who says MMR definitely isn't related to autistic spectrum disorders has no idea of either science (because it deals in probabilities not definites) or ASD itself, which seems to be a wide spectrum with a wide range of causes / unknown triggers. It could be that ASD can relate to genes plus mmr plus a trigger such as a virus witihn a timeframe, until you id that trigger you cant reliably ascertain anything.

Equally there could be no link at all, but its perfect sense for those who know they have the gene to want to eradicate all possible triggers as best they can- here we're doing breastfeeding, gluten free, casein free, minimal tv the lot- i'm not going to willingly then say 'Oh but the politicians say MMR is fine so thats ok', am I?

My mother permanently lost 50% of the hearing in one of her ears due to measles when she was about 7 years old.

Now that she is in her 60s, that ear has caused no end of trouble.

She has a grommet in it.

DD1 is having her boosters next week.

She is entering primary school in August and already has SN. We will also have a newborn baby in October, and the school had a measles outbreak last year.

I can't take the risk of a newborn and a child with SN getting this disease.

MOST people have no problems from it.

But it can be extremely dangerous to some groups of people, including young infants.

I had singles for ds - I do think it is important to vaccinate against mumps and particularly rubella. I really wouldn't want it on my conscience if some poor p/g woman caught rubella from my child.

However, with mumps it's possible there's a problem because vaccine immunity wears off later on so people might catch mumps later on, when it can be more serious.

I then gave ds the MMR pre-school booster as I was happy by that stage that he didn't have any risk factors for vaccine damage as far as I could tell.

Chose singles after looking at the evidence and lack of evidence very carefully. I used to work with expert reviewers of medical evidence so I have a bit of background knowledge about methodology and I am far from convinced by the so-called safety studies. They have not been designed to answer the question Wakefield raised. His hypothesis could well be wrong - who knows? No-one, because all the Dept of Health does is deny, deny, deny.

Independent medical research reviewers at Drug and Therapeutics Bulletin and at the Cochrane Collaboration reviewed all the published evidence on MMR. Both concluded it was safe as far as one can tell BUT that there weren't enough sufficiently well-designed safety studies.

That's why I went for singles. And that's why I disagree with people who blithely say 'anyone who doesn't vaccinate their child is stupid or irresponsible'.

My mother had a rather stark take on this. When I was mulling the decision over re. the risks of complications from measles, she said "Well, I'd rather have a child who was blind than one with autism."

I'm just about to call and make the appointment for the MMR for Dd - 17 months. I too was looking at the singles, until that is, I was told that they are not licenced in this country, but in Croatia. I'm sorry, but I trust the EU countries quality control far less than I trust the MMR. My friends teenage son is just getting over mumps and in my 44 years, he's the first person I've known to get mumps! I do know of adults whose mother had rubella when she was pg and they have sight problems.

I had the same concerns for my son and also left the jab until he was 18 months. He seems fine. My nephew on the other hand and one of my rl friends daughters(ame age)has autism after having the jab...Their younger siblings have not been immunised because of it.
It is a tough decision, but with the vast numbers of immigrants coming into the country that don't have immunisation cover and are bringing in these previously almost eradicated diseases back to us, we have a duty of care to our children to do all we can to protect them. Don't we?

May have been measles, not rubella.

I dont know, my ds had mmr, 11 yrs ago, I was younger and I dont think there was as much info around then, or I wasnt as aware, but now, I just dont think it is worth the risk, I have read up only as much as pops up, not researched enough and I have to say that I really dont think that for the sake of £300 I can risk dd's health, I'll get the singles, I would rather nothing ever happened and a few waste of money comments, than a child damaged by vaccination.

By stuffitllama on Thu 29-May-08 14:38:47
'Measles isn't as bad as you've all been led to believe.'

Be careful, Stuffitlama, that's not very clear - some people might have a very serious idea of it and some might consider it mildly dangerous - others may take it in their stride as just not a risk.

However some of us have experienced it first hand and it is truly not very nice at all. My child had complications, was really ill for days, and I would not want to put any child through his pain

I had it as an older child and was not terribly ill, but a baby is below immunisation age and may well suffer a great deal or even die.

hi wondering

I'm sorry about your child's illness.

Yes that did contain an assumption that most people believe the official line about it always being profoundly dangerous.

Unfortunately vaccination which has pushed the diseases into age groups that previously would have been little affected, such as babies and for example teenagers where mumps is concerned -- age groups where they certainly can be more damaging and life-threatening.

or sustain permanent brain damage far more serious than blindness or deafness.

or sustain permanent brain damage far more serious than blindness or deafness.