MMR-pros and cons?

[hazlinh]

Many many apologies if this has been discussed in great detail in the past...but dd is just going to turn one next week and am wondering what pros and cons there are to having her MMR jab.is it really necessary?or is she better off not having it done

Is it poss to get the single injections still? I'd heard they were in short supply.
If I was born in 1966 - would it have been the single ones my brother and I had?

My dd had had single jabs and ds is due his first soon. They are usually only available privately at a cost of approx £70 per jab. I go to a clinic in Herts.

How long in between do you leave? and in what order do you do them?

Measles then Rubella then Mumps. Usually at least 6 months between jabs

Message withdrawn

Can I try and kill the thread now, before it turns into another major bicker?
Single jabs are available, its only the mumps that's in short supply, but its all still available, you just have to pay....
jabslink

Hang on a minute Grommit, I have apologised for hurling a comment which others found offensive, and I object to being called naive. And I'm not. I would call you deeply misguided, so you can call me that too if you want.

Here's naive: using stories on a website to decide whether or not a vaccine is safe.

Personally I'll stick to science.

Yes, newyearmum, but that's my point - your vaccinated child could catch measles (or whatever) from another vaccinated child - having mmr doesn't mean you 100% WON'T get measles. I'd be interested to hear how much you reasearched the view of those who haven't vaccinated or did you just ask for the official line? Because we all know what that is.

argh, well I tried to stop the bicker, worse than children....

NYM - our post must have crossed. Sorry but I do get a bit angry about this issue

does anyone know if baby is bf - will they pick up mums immunity? I heard that re chickenpox - but not sure of other things. I think I'm immune as I've had jabs (as a baby) and my brothre had measles and I didn't catch it off him ( as a baby)

I think you'll find that plenty of people who have chosen not to vaccinate have also 'stuck to science.' It's pretty offensive to assume they haven't.

Message withdrawn

I thought the whole worry was that there was no satisfactory science to definitively say either way.........

Socci: you said " If you believe in vaccination then why do you think that my unvaccinated child could infect your vaccinated child?" - vaccines aren't 100% effective. It's the same with DTP. But if you have been vaccinated you have an overwhelmingly reduced chance of catching it. And if everyone was vaccinated then the disease would disappear (as measles almost had, 5 years ago).

"If that is the case then WHY should I subject my child to a risky invasive proceedure that is not 100% effective?" because a) it's not risky - MMR has been used across the world for decades and is known to be one of the safest vaccines available, and b) because the effects of these diseases are HORRIFIC. But I think that's part of the problem. You hardly ever come across anyone who's been blinded by measles any more, or deafened or made infertile by mumps. Perhaps if these diseases hadn't been almost eradicated people would remember how awful they were. But sadly, they'll soon be reminded as the vaccination rate in London (for example) has dropped to around 60%. Terrifying.

"You think vaccines "contain" antibodies. Er, no they don't - but they do contain toxins and animal tissue (which carries more than a theoretical risk of contamination)" - ok I didn't make it clear - I meant to say they encourage your body to produce antibodies. They contain tiny amounts of the disease. Not enough to catch the disease, but enough to defend against it.
"Why should I trust the official line? Since when has the government made the health of the individual paramount?" I agree with this - you shouldn't automatically trust the governement. But the research was carried out independently of the government. And our government had absolutely nothing to do with all the research across the world which deems MMR safe.

NYM. look, we're not deeply misguided. we're concerned parents. i feel v strongly that government funded research and drugs company funded research can be flawed for the very reason that lots and lots and lots of money hangs in the balance...however i'm willing to accept that you would call me a conspiracy theorist for that.

science is not a holy cow. science moves and changes and is best viewed with a questioning and probing outlook. most scientists would concur with that opinion. to say that something is scientific and therefore unquestionably right goes against the very ethos that created what we call science in the first place.

Message withdrawn

I refuse to take the govt line when the leader of that govt refuses to publicise whether his cherubs have had the jab or not.
My GP also took his children to France and Switzerland for single jabs and this was 9 yrs ago, due to misgivings about the jabs - his wife being a biologist of some repute was firmly convinced that the MMR was not safe for all children, therefore she preferred to deal with it another way
My dd's consultant also supported me in my decision to not vaccinate my daughter, after telling me that some children with certain unknown risk factors are susceptible to damage from vaccines and that if I was not fully confident of my daughter managing it, then he would fully support my view not to vaccinate with MMR
And for the record his children have had NO vaccinations single or otherwise and he is an autism specialist- coincidence or what?
I have never read a media report or public service broadcast about MMR without researching both sides
However my prime calculation when deciding was my motherly instinct placed alongisde information garnered from a number of sources.

I do not for one minute believe that anybody would ever choose to vaccinate or not vaccinate without doing their own research and making up their own minds.

... and presumably it is anecodatal evidence that should trigger further scientific research in the areas of concern. As previously said, science is an ever-changing beast - it will always be possible for the government to maintain that there is no proof that MMR is not safe by not asking the right questions.

can I ask again - what do other countries do??

I think they all have MMR apart from Japan