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.

www.direct.gov.uk/en/DisabledPeople/FinancialSupport/OtherBenefitsAndSupport/DG_10026664

c laims for vaccine damage can be submitted following this information

Yes you can submit claims (the vast majority are unsuccessfuly- only a tiny % get anything), but if your child dies from a vaccination before the age of 2 you will be told your claim cannot be followed up because they died before they were 2.

I was so surprised when I read that that I looked it up- and found that it was indeed the case.

here's the letter I initially read and I did follow up and it is correct. Under 2 at time of death = no payment.

I haven't seen the 1979 statute on Vaccine Damage - but generally for legal purposes, death raises different issues from disability - in that a dead child will not require life long care. I know that sounds extremely harsh but compensation is intended to reflect loss of earnings/additional costs to care for a damaged child. To be even more harsh, the loss of any child is financially beneficial as even undamaged children require money to be spent on them. I sound a bit like Cruella de Vill (?) Was she a lawyer? I'm not trying to say the age limit is right or wrong but may reflect an assumption that care costs for all 'under 2' children are high.

I find the comments that vaccines are "perfectly safe" irresponsible. Just like any medical procedure, there is always a risk of adverse reactions. This is a fact. Whether the risk of adverse reactions is higher or lower than the risk of disease is the fundamental question that needs to be asked before ANY medical intervention.

I have a young family relative who has severe asthma, eczema, serious food allergies and autism. All jabs given on schedule. There is a strong family history of allergies and auto-immune disorders. Any link with vaccines is denied but then it would be, wouldn't it?

my friends dd is blind in one eye due to measles.

Beachcomber - sorry - haven't been on since last night - in answer to your question - basically there was no proven link in the Wakefield paper. There was no implied link between MMR and autism either. All Wakefield said was that further research was needed, which I agree with.

The study only focussed on a few individuals (14 ish?? it has been a while since I read it!!). The only suggested link between MMR and autism came from the parents of the individuals concerned. The time between the MMR being given and the first signs of autism varied greatly - from 24 hours to 2 years (again, this is from memory).

Therefore I felt that, for me and my children, the best decision was to let them have the MMR. I didn't feel that there was any scientific reason not too. Btw, I have a degree in biology - I only mention this to show that I have read a great many scientific papers.

I am happy with the decision I made. However, I understand that it isn't the right decision for everyone. For me though, a very very very minor risk associated with giving the vaccine was worth it when compared to the potential risks associated with M, M and R diseases.

It is a contentious issue, and I just wanted to give my side of the argument. HTH

Our only experience of damage was stepbrother, obv no genetic link. There is no history of serious autoimmune conditions in our family, so we went for the MMR, both initial and booster. There is a history of Rheumatoid Arthritis which both my Grandmothers had, my Mum denies it but seems to, and I have tested positive for it.

Dh (who is a GP) was happy with this but was not happy with mercury in earlier jabs, luckily almost all of Scotland now has the thiermosil-free DTaP, or we would have been ordering it in for our DC. Our kids have also had a lot of other jabs due to our travelling - Rabies, Hep B, Typhoid and Hep A, boosters of tetanus. No vaccine trouble here. But we didn't get the MenC follow up as DH said it wasn't worth it, and wouldn't have had CP vaccine either. If I was considering pregnancy and hadn't had CP I would have the jag - luckily I had it as a kid.

Hi Colander, thanks for your response. Sorry I haven't got back to you earlier.

I very much agree with you about how all this is about making the best choice for one's individual children and respecting other people's choices.

I asked my original question because I understood from your previous post that reading the Lancet paper helped you to come to a decision. I was kind of surprised by this because i see this paper as being concerned with a highly specialised field in a very specific subset of children. That doesn't go to say that the findings published don't have implications for a wider population but we need more research on MMR safety in general I think considering how limited the manufacturer's original safety trials were.

I agree with you that the Lancet paper was a small study (12 cases) and that no links were established. Seems to me that this was a piece of important preliminary research that asked more questions than it answered. I think this was the point of the paper, it was never made out to be conclusive (not possible in a small case study). Wakefield et al quite clearly stated that follow up research on a wider scale was imperative. Unfortunately that research was not done as Wakefield's funding was not continued.

It seems to me that often in this controversy Wakefield's Lancet paper comes up as the be all and end all of MMR/autism research. I find this bizarre as not only are there many other researchers working in the field but also the Lancet paper was only ever a small preliminary case study. I think to make decisions about MMR based on this one paper or to give it too much weight in the wider debate is misguided as it should have been one paper in a large series (I believe the second paper was published).

I do think the Lancet paper is incredibly important but it is highly regretable that the Royal Free team were not able to continue their investigation as had been their original intention.

Fortunately Dr Wakefield has been able to continue his work at Thoughtful House in the US despite being the victim of a shameful media smear campaign and political witchhunt in the UK.

Although the Lancet paper only examined 12 cases there are thousands of children whose parents have reported serious problems following MMR vaccination. There are nearly 5000 cases awaiting decisions at the Autism Omnibus in the US for example. There were over 1000 involved in the UK litigation until their legal aid was withdrawn (in highly dubious circumstances).

All of these parents have repeatedly asked for their children to be examined and studied in order to find out what has happened to them. I find the government's continued refusal to do so shameful and speaks volumes.