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

Twiglett, I think on an epidemiological level, the disadvantages of separate jabs are:

a) If you space them out at 6 months intervals, the child is unvaccinated for at least some of the diseases for longer;

b) There is likely to be a higher rate of no-shows, ie. some people won't complete the course.

This isn't of course a sound reason for not doing separate jabs on an individual level if you're aware of the risks of (a) above, but on a government policy level it makes sense (albeit in a rather paternalistic way) to get it all over with in one go at the earliest possible date.

I'm not advocating this position btw, just explaining what I understand to be the reasons behind it.

Message withdrawn

From what I have heard giving single vaccines is more complicated in that you have to be given them all at different times with a gap in between. Dont quite understand when mmr is one jab.
I know someone whose son got measles. His mum made the decision not to vaccinate and he now has deafness in one ear as a result. She feels incredibly guilty, but then again if something had happened following vaccination then that would be another guilt trip.
I had my ds vaccinated but I agonised over it for weeks and read up on everything I could get my hands on. I would not criticise mothers either way - you just have to do what you think is right at the time.

What is the main prob with mmr - is it the fact that it's too much for the little bodies to take - or the mercury in the jabs (just reading about this bit on the other web site) - or a reaction between the 3 lots of stuff given at the same time??

There is no mercury in MMR. There was thimerosil (mercury) in dtp, which is given to babies at 3 months and twice more in the first year. This is now being phased out (it's not used anywhere else in the world) and replaced with a five in one jab (NOT MMR).

From what I understand, mumps in older boys/men can have detrimental effects on testicles causing infertility. I thought it could affect both but correct me if I am wrong.

I think the problem is they don't know, can any of you more informed ladies, remember why the JP gov decided to pay the compensation to all those affected and ban the jab?

Hi Twiglett, in response to your question about giving the jabs singly. I'm pro - MMR in so far as my son had the jab. Like most other parents though I was anxious about it beforehand and relieved when it was done and dusted.

I don't think there is nothing wrong about wanting to give the vaccines singly if the MMR makes you or anyone else anxious - you just need to make sure you get a reliable clinic. Most vaccines are stored and shipped as they should be - there have been instances though where this has not been the case.(Thankfully this appears to rare).
What's the problem with giving them singly? To be honest there shouldn't be any unless there is an outbreak of measles (or mumps etc)
On the immunisation front, the only problem with giving them singly is that the child has to have more than one jab and the space between them leaves the child exposed to the illnesses not yet vaccinated against. As far as I can see - that's it. (Apart from the cost of the jabs themselves - a pity we can't seem to get them on the NHS).

Going to leave this thread now - knew there'd be disagreements

Frogs has put it better than I did.

Message withdrawn

there's no mercury in MMR at all... that was in the DTP .. used to be DTwP at 2, 3 and 4 months is now the 5 in one with no mercury (also known as thimerosal)

For me personally the issue with MMR is there were 3 single vaccinations that had been tested, then thye put them together in one vaccine and said that'll be fine (no testing to see if there are any contra-indications).

I personally feel for children with a risk of auto-immune disorders it 'could' (not will) but could be too much for their systems to cope with and it just makes more sense to do it one at a time with time for the body to recuperate.

A vaccination introduces a disease into the body to promote development of antibodies, it is not usual for a person to have to deal with 3 illnesses like this at the same time

but then I'm pro-vaccination and do believe MMR is safe in the vast vast majority of cases, I just couldn't chose it for my children due to family history

but as someone else mentioned - we didn't (1966 babies) didn't get vax against measles - is it a sign of the times that our babies have less of an immune system then we did??

MMR and Japan - for info

In Japan, MMR was withdrawn in 1993 because the strain of mumps virus (Urabe) used in the vaccine caused cases of aseptic mumps viral meningitis.

Single measles and rubella vaccines have been given at the same time since 1993, but unfortunately cases of measles are common and there have been 79 measles related deaths between 1992 and 1997. In this country there were no acute measles deaths during this time.

This led to widespread loss of faith in vaccines hence the measles epidemics experienced there.

Doesn't really give you faith does it?

I was born in 1964 and definitely had a measles jab at school when I was about 5. Had already had measles though. Had all the childhood diseases and think my immune system is sh*t - catch everything.

TracyK - these illnesses, although usually mild, have always been killers. I was born in 1963 before vaccinations really became the norm, and 35 years ago my friend died of encephalitis caused by measles. I spent three months in hospital a couple of years later with thrombocytopaenia brought on by Rubella. A very dear friend of mine is partially sighted and has physical handicaps because his mother caught Rubella when pregnant. My mother had diphtheria as a child, and is lucky to have survived it.

I can see why people have concerns about vaccinations, and I respect and understand their decisions not to vaccinate. Vaccinations can cause problems - nothing is 100% safe - but so can the wild viruses.

In the end, it's about what we, as parents, feel is best for our children, and shouting the odds at people isn't helpful to anyone. None of us make the decisions we make about vaccinations lightly, and it's unfair to attack anyone for a decision which they have made believing it to be the best for their child.

I'm v late getting back to this thread. NYM, here is a link regarding new analysis re: a Danish study on MMR here . From this article you should go to the independent analyses of the three researchers who have published on this. DH and I have moved heaven and earth here in the states to get ds singles and it looks like he will get his first next month. Still, I am not totally relaxed about it and won't be until I know he has not had a reaction. There is new information coming out all the time on this subject. Andrew Wakefield is not the only person who has studied the issue.

twiglett, although I'm pro-vacc, I think another reason against single vacc (in addition to the others put on this thread) is that very many people choose to have their kids vaccinated against measles and miss the other two out.

Of all the people I know who have had single vacs, none of them have bothered with more than the measles vacc (which makes me sad given that my sister, a teacher, discovered she was not rubella immune when she was pregnant).

The single vax is offered at www.e-med.co.uk. They are based in St Johns Wood at a hospital called St John and Elizabeth. The charge for all three jabs if you pay together is £260 and they recommend 6weeks between jabs. I booked the measles jab for 21 March but told them that if they had a cancellation I would like to take that. They called me the next day and DS had the jab the next day. I was pleased with the service and also pleased that it is not a six month wait in between jabs. The World Health Organisation recommends 3 weeks!

My son had single rubella and 6 weeks later single measles at a clinic in louth, Lincs, we were advised not to give him the mumps jab until he is 8, because it only last for 10 years, so it would have worn off when most needed in his teens. The reason we did'nt give him the mmr is because our doctor advised us that single were better because 3 live vaccines fight against each other. I was born in 1966 and i had the measles jab and rubella jab at school.

In very general terms, non-vaccinated children rely on vaccinated ones for the disease not to be passed on. I think this is a contributory factor to why such discussions can get so heated, individual decisions affect others too, we're all in this together, want it or not. Which isn't to say you shouldn't put your own child first and do what you genuinely believe to be best for him.

I had my ds immunised with MMR. I spent a long long time as did xp deliberating and researching. At the end of the day and imo i felt the risks associated with the diseases were far worse than the risks alleged with mmr vaccine. I would never tell anyone what was right for their children but imho if i am offered a chance to protect ds from serious illness (children in 3rd world countries continue to die from these diseases) and i have access to research from reputable sites and sources then i will protect him.

I do stress though it took me a while to evaluate all the evidence regarding mmr jabs but i felt even if the worst worst would have happened, how would i have felt the other way if i had not protected him and the worse happened cos of that?

We make the best decision we can with the best available evidence at the time.

Am i right in thinking that i heard there is a mumps outbreak in uk at present in young adults?

yes you are awen and imo it is becuase of the prevalence of mumps vacs that this is the case...and it is far far more serious in young adults then in children

xd posts lockets