MMR single vaccines just a bit of info please.

[leander]

I feel a bit nervous posting this as i dont want to start anymore arguments,but we got our app through for ds's mmr.We would prefer to give him the single vaccines but people keep saying they are not licensed and some say they are.I will go and talk to my hv about it but I thought the combined wisdom of mumsnet may be able to tell me more.

Frieda- I think vaccine damage and autism tend to go together- autoimmune diseases and autism definitely do. I think you're very wise to be wary about MMR. I'm pretty sure my sil will be when she had kids.....

I certainly didn't mean to cause hurt and also didn't mean to "carry on" about social responsibility. It is because of the increased risk due to family histories such as yours, that I think that people like me (with no such history) should have their children vaccinated so your children can remain unvaccinated but not at risk from contracting a wide variety of communicable diseases. I'm afraid I don't accept the argument that vaccination doesn't generally work but I will bow out now because I have no interest in causing upset to those facing heartbreaking situations such as yours.

ok gracie- I see where you're coming from- but this is where the govt should provide single vaccines- so that people could vaccinate in confidence. I suspect that many would still opt for MMR anyway- I think it's their bloody mindedness that has got us into this mess in the first place. I think this arguement's now gone round in circles- so I'm back to the telephone to try and get some advice from IPSEA (help for parents for SEN kids). Funnily enough they seem to be permanently engaged!

Worrying single jab news

mackenzie, the link is below and unfortunately it looks as though you are right to be concerned.

thanks Enid.
Although i'm assuming that as we haven't been contacted by Hertsmere it means that DS's vaccine was okay I still feel sick to the pit of my stomach. How can we be sure that his was okay? We cant be can we? We just let some man that we've never met before inject something that we believe was measles vaccine but could actually have been anything at all into our precious DS.

I know i'm being dramatic and over reacting but......

mackenzie, if you haven't had a letter then hopefully your ds will be fine. x E

Mackenzie - there's no question whatsoever that your ds was given the measles vaccine. There's merely a small doubt that the vaccine may not be as effective as it should have been due to the delay between mixing the vaccine and administering it. I suspect it was actually fine. I also strongly suspect the risk of bacterial infection was miniscule to purely theoretical. Certainly nobody seems to have had such an infection, which you would have noticed at the time. Of course, you expect clinics to follow the correct protocol to the letter, but this really isn't as bad as it sounds IMO. Please don't panic. Also, as has been said, if you didn't get a letter then your ds got the vaccine made up in the proper way and all is fine and he is protected against the illnesses he was vaccinated against.

BTW there seems to be a hysterical anti-single vaccines backlash at the moment, with Vivienne Parry in the Mail referring to mumps as a 'killer disease', which it isn't.

Hi mckenzie, my son had the first of the singles at Elstree in November and I too am getting panicky. I have just had 3 emails from Dr Pugh's office with the letter from Hertsmere and 2 further emails. The recommendation from the local health trust is (of course!)to have the triple! Not very helpful at all! Dr Pugh is offering a free immunity test but I'm just not sure I'd want to go back there considering whats happened so far.

My son was very unwell almost immediately after he had the vaccine he had a fever and was very lethargic this lasted for 24 hours. I wonder if this is a usual side effect or not?

I feel really upset about it all and sick to the pit of my stomach.

aloha, this isn't a 'hysterical' backlash, its a genuine medical mistake.

Why are health risks associated with the single vaccines seen as hysterical and not worth getting upset about, but the MMR risks are seen as genuine and worrying??

Hi cocococo, you have my utmost sympathy.

I also feel that i dont want to go to Elstree again and although I know, being a mature level headed sort of person (sometimes!) that I am, that this is not all as bad as it might seem. Yes, there is no doubt that the clinic should not have done what they did but one would assume that now they have been found out, they will be doing everything strictly by the book and so future vaccines given there will be 110% I'm trying to find something positive to come out of this. Perhaps the waiting time will be shorter as a lot of people will go elsewhere!

I spoke to a friend today who is a practise nurse about DS having a blood test to see if he was now vaccinated against measles but she tells me that it is so very difficult to take blood from a small child and would have to be done by a specialist and could still well prove traumatic for DS.

Can you have your child re-vaccinated for whatever it was they messed up just in case or can you not vaccinate twice?

Hysterical mainly referred to an article calling mumps a 'deadly disease'. Of course this was a mistake, but it hasn't caused any illness, and children can be revaccinated. Luckily it was discovered and there was no harm done.

Also, look at the levels of fear here, even though there has been no harm done to the children at all. BTW, yes, a fever and lethargy are totally normal reactions to the measles virus - it is a live virus so some children react by getting a very, very mild, non-infectious version of the disease. It is not a result of a problem with the vaccine - in fact, it proves that they have been vaccinated.

cocococo- totally normal reaction to any vaccination!

BTW I have to say this smacks of D of H scaremongering- reading the artcile it looked to me as if the vaccines were made up within the manufacturers recommendations- which maybe differ a bit from the d of h recommendations. If manufacturer's guidelines were followed then the vaccines should work (as well as they ever do) surely?

Mumps a killer diease? Nah that's chickenpox (next on the immunisation agenda)

Really don't want to add to the argument about MMR ? the jury's still out as far as I'm concerned ? but would like to add that my brother nearly died of mumps meningitis (which, granted, isn't normally nearly as serious as bacterial meningitis, but it can happen.) On the other hand, he made a rapid and complete recovery (as did I) from a (mild) attack of measles, which my mum didn't even realise was measles until after the event. Having said that, I understand the serious risks from mumps are about as rare as those from chickenpox ? ie very rare.
(Pass me that tin-opener... pass me that can of worms...)

On the other hand, I really do have an issue with Rubella, which is purely vaccinated against for public health reasons. Why shouldn't women take responsibility for their own rubella-immune status, rather than rely on millions of babies being given this vaccine at a tender age when their immune systems are so immature? I understand it's to try and eradicate the disease totally, but it seems to me that rubella is only a danger to pregnant women, and not to every man, woman and child on the planet.

frieda, rubella is not a risk to the pregnant woman, but to her unborn child, who risks profound disabilities. If vaccination was left up to women to ask for it the end result would be more children born blind and deaf. I'm a pragmatist and I'd rather have a well run rubella vaccination programme to protect those children than leave it up to individual responsibility.

Actually, I agree with national rubella vaccination programme. It may not be a risk to every man, woman and child but it is a risk to every potential man woman and child. I very much wanted my child to be vaccinated against rubella because I could not live with myself if a baby was born catastrophically damaged (can you imagine a worse hell than being deaf and blind?) because of me & my child passing on an illness. Yes, a woman might not be vaccinated, but the catastrophe wouldn't happen to her but to her innocent child who could not protect him/herself. Also, the rubella vaccine isn't 100% (no vaccine is), so even a vaccinated woman could catch rubella if it was epidemic in the community (ie if men and children weren't vaccinated) and so cause more deaf/blindness. I feel this is a more important vaccine than the mumps one. Mumps doesn't kill, though it very rarely can cause complications, and that is almost invariably in older children. So I'm glad my clinic offers Measles, Rubella and Mumps, in that order.

Vaccinated women have given birth to deaf/blind children after catching the disease, according to Sense, the deaf/blind charity. That's what really convinced me. And even if women are careless about their own status, I don't think we should make their babies suffer the consequences. Herd immunity really makes sense to me on this issue.

Yes, elliott, I did know that it was unborn child that was at risk, rather than the mother. But I thought that the pre-MMR rubella campaign (where girls only were vaccinated at about 13) was pretty successful in preventing the infection (and subsequent very high risk of fetal damage) of unborn babies. I've now checked my facts and find that there were 164 recorded infections of pregnant women in 1987 (the year before MMR), and the number fell to 8 in 1995. And, yes, Aloha, that's a very good point about no vaccination being 100% effective. So I'm prepared to revise my view on this one

Frieda, just like you I used to be dubious about Rubella vaccine for babies, so I rang Sense to ask why there had been a change in policy. They convinced me that vaccination was right.

Mumps may not be a 'killer', but it can make males sterile. When we all had mumps as children my sis and I got over it quickly but my brother got ?Orchitis I think. It is an inflammation of the testicles which comes from mumps. He had to wait until he was a teenager and could give a 'sample' ti find out if his fertility had been affected. His sperm count was within normal parameters so he is ok, but he could easily have been rendered sterile by this complication. So it wouldn't have killed him but could have killed all hopes of him ever being a father. I wouldn't was my ds to suffer that, or for me to have to worry for 10 years.

Yes, I think people forget, or dismiss, the fact that infertility can be a consequence of mumps. No, it doesn't kill you, but I wouldn't wish it on anybody.

Well, as I understand it, drs now say that this link isn't proved. Mumps can cause testicular nflammation in older children but whether this causes sterility is not proven. If it does, then it is extremely rare. I am saying this largely because there is a huge amount of publicity about the non-availability of mumps single vaccine in the country at the moment (caused entirely by DoH BTW). But I'm not concerned. Ds is only a baby and will be vaccinated in the next year sometime. I'm not in any hurry. However, there have been stories - promoted by the DoH that seems to imply that any delay will be fatal, which is nonsense.

Well, as I understand it, drs now say that this link isn't proved. Mumps can cause testicular nflammation in older children but whether this causes sterility is not proven. If it does, then it is extremely rare. I am saying this largely because there is a huge amount of publicity about the non-availability of mumps single vaccine in the country at the moment (caused entirely by DoH BTW). But I'm not concerned. Ds is only a baby and will be vaccinated in the next year sometime. I'm not in any hurry. However, there have been stories - promoted by the DoH that seems to imply that any delay will be fatal, which is nonsense.