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

Sophable: I couldn't agree more. And I'm not saying it's right because it's scientific and therefore unquestionably right.
IMO, the problem lies here: the studies that have been done do not prove MMR is safe. They say there is no proof it is not safe, a very different matter. And who knows, maybe there is a link with autism. The point I'm making is that the risk of my child suffering serious disability through not being vaccinated is infinitely higher than the risk of autism. And that is what science has shown us.

And I'm also a concerned parent but I still feel that the majority of those who don't vaccinate their children have been misguided by inaccurate media coverage masquerading as fact.

i had measles and mumps. so did my sister. i have a copy of an old family medical encyclopaedia that states that all three diseases are best caught young and that the risk of complication is tiny. the risk of complication is increased by malnutrition or poor hygeine, lack of health education (on how to keep a fever down for eg). i'm not downplaying how devastating it is when these complications occur. but i happen to believe that all vaccinations have detrimental (subtly so) effects on our immune systems. however i would never condemn someone who chose to vaccinate...and i envy them to a large extent: having followed the advice of the govt, the media (far and away more pro than against vaccination) and done what most (at least 80%) of parents do, they probably feel much less tortured in their decision than i do having gone against the flow.

Message withdrawn

I'm not against the idea of vax - I'm sure it all makes sense and we've all had them during our lives - but I'm presuming the prob with MMR is that it's 3 at once??
If it's best to get the disease early in childhood - then surely by single vax early on is best. So they 'sort of' get the disease??

NYM equally I could say that I feel the majority of those who vaccinate their children have been misguided by inaccurate media coverage masquerading as fact. But I wouldn't.

ps - what is the problem with single jabs? is it because they have a greater risk of catching one of the 3 diseases not done yet?

Tracyk, there isn't any problem afaik with single jabs. The govt banned them for who knows what reasons.

so would it have been the single jabs we would have had as children?

No idea tracyk. I was born in the same year as you though, I don't think we were vaccinated against measles were we?

TracyK, 'catching' a disease thro a vaccine isn't really the same imo. however, i do believe that vaccines have very very small effects on most children and therefore feel v uncomfortable with anyone not vaccinating based on, for eg, a thread on mn. it's a horrible decision (if you start looking into it) and one best made by individual parents for individual children imho.

Socci. Why is my opinion more 'arrogant' than yours? Unlike me, you seem totally closed to informative debate about this and disinterested in any information which might contradict your argument.

This is an interesting article. The Public Health Laboratory Service is not funded by pharmaceutical companies, Socci.

society.guardian.co.uk/publichealth/story/0,,899446,00.html

incidentally, does anyone find it disheartening (to say the least) that the vaccination programme is becoming somewhat all encompassing: chicken pox next...more cases of mumps in student aged population (due to vaccination of babies?) hence need for boosters then. if it is true (and i think it is) that our immune systems grow and strengthen based on the infections that they successfully fight off, then what are the implications of a culture of vaccinations for everything. i know that childhood illnesses are no fun (they are frightening and horrible esp for parents) but wouldn't even the most 'scientifically' minded among you concur that there is come benefit to them???

Before MMR measles was given via a single jab - I'm sure I had this when I was little. Then I had rubella when I was about 13.

I'm not sure what I had - my mum swears it was MMR - but I don't think it was around then - I read it's been around for 30 years and I'm 38 (boo hoo!)
any comments on bf to give immunity anyone??

All I remember is rubella, bcg (ouch) and polio on a sugar lump - nothing else really.

errr, quoting from the same article:

"Jackie Fletcher, national coordinator of JABS, a support group for children damaged by vaccines, said the study had only looked at a three-month period, which she said was not long enough for some immunity problems to emerge.

She added that she was concerned whether it was truly independent as it was funded by drug companies. "The study fails to look the right group of children within the right period of time and we also have concerns about a potential conflict of interest," she said. "

if that is the best you can do NYM, it's not great is it???

Message withdrawn

I know lockets, family friends had a daughter with autism who is now 25 years old and they didn't vaccinate their next child. And I can understand why.
The reason I'm 'harping on' about Wakefield is because his kangaroo research played on the understandable concerns of parents and threw a totally unacademic, unscientific and unhelpful spanner in the works.

lockets - did she have it as a mild case? presumably then she won't need to have vax??

btw jimjams, i know you're watching

Socci - I refer you to my apology about the word 'failed'.
To be honest I don't feel we're having a productive debate any more. I am quite happy to share my opinions and listen to those of others, but your postings don't contain any valuable information.