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

Message withdrawn

I was wondering if anyone knew how many actual injections baby has to have to receive MMR - is it a course of three injections again? My dd is one this week and I have to face the minefield of whether to have MMR or not - likewise if anyone out there has used the single vaccination route how long did the process take? i.e. administering each vaccine seperately with two / three injections per vaccine? with what gap in between injections and vaccines? I'm just wondering because I'm erring on the side of maybe vaccinating even though immunised children can still contract the diseases they are supposed to have be immunised against. My concern is mild recurrence of measles etc. Also my dd was fine with her first vaccinations which toward the end of the course contained five vaccines within one injection? Please - don't shout at me if I have not got things exactly right - I am no expert. Also anyone out there given MMR and had no reactions or follow on concerns with their children please say I - it would be nice to hear success stories, I'm sure there are lots out there?

Heymissytoe, the MMR is one jab containing the 3 vaccines. they receive one at 12-15 mths then another at preschool age along with a booster of the vaccinations they received as a baby. My dd has had they MMR i've had no problems at all i don't know anyone whos had problems either but there are some who have.Try to be careful what you read especially on the internet as it can sometimes be difficult to get a balanced view. My personal opnion was to take the risk of the vaccine rather than the risk of the diseases!! HTH

Of course there are loads of stories out there where the child has shown no extraordinary reaction to the MMR. If you need to hear it then I am one of those people. My dd got it at 13 months.

The whole Tony Blair - Leo thing blew up about 2 years before that, I think. My FIL was concerned enough that he said he'd pay for us to have the single vaccinations. If my dd had needed the MMR around the time of the Leo fiasco I probably would have gone with the single vaccinations.

By the time I had dd and she needed the MMR, there was a lot of negative press about the single vaccinations and so I decided to go with the triple MMR. It's a horrible feeling when you get your reminder letter and you do feel like you are playing Russian Roulette. Thankfully we're one of the (probably thousands) os lucky ones where we didn't get so much as a fever or restless night following the vaccination.

I'm not sure what I will do with baby #2. I find it abhorrent that parents have to become scientists and wade their way through the minefield of information out there. It's a shame we cannot trust the Department of health to present us with unbiased information.

I may be in the minority but I think Tony Blair was unwise to take two weeks to admit to Leo having being given the MMR. The logical (for me)conclusion to drawn from his silence was that Leo hadn't had the triple vaccination. How could you advocate something for the whole population and not back it up by saying you advocate it for your own child?

BTW - the triple MMR vaccination is just one jab for your child. And I think the simgle vaccinations are just 3 jabs for the child on 3 separate, spaced-out occasions.

HMT, re the singles - the advice we have received is to start with measles at 15 months and leave 12 months between each. I believe mumps is the second but I know there are others (Twiglett?)who have already done the series so maybe someone else can say for sure.

My dd1 had the MMR at 14 months or so, and had a feverish illness about two weeks afterwards. Not nice, but nothing that plenty of Calpol and cuddles couldn't sort out.

Ds had MMR at 16 months (postponed cos he needed a routine operation) and had no reaction at all, as far as I can remember.

I've just postponed dd2's jab as I didn't want to risk her being ill when we were away for half term (yes, I am that shallow), but she'll have it when we get back and I get organised. But she'll be closer to 15 months then.

I thought that the MMR jab scare was actually based on more on myth than on reality.

(runs for shelter)

I mean, more on myth than on reality.

and that is based more on propaganda than reality....

the truth is that a) MMR isn't responsible for the big rise in autism (at least not alone) b)it may be responsible for triggering autism in a small number of cases and c) the research needed to answer b) is not complete.

I guess the propaganda extends all the way to Switzerland in that case...

our dd had single jabs with around 3 - 4 weeks in between each one. She was quite sick after the mumps jab. She won't need any more though, unlike the MMR which requires a pre-school booster at around 4 yrs old unless I'm mistaken.

Recent headline in local Swiss paper: Return of Rubella: 12 new cases in Geneva.

There seems to be a large discrepancy between the length of time left between giving the single vaccinations. Is it just a matter of preference or is there a more correct gap of time?

Message withdrawn

Reluctant to join in, but...the way I have come to look at it (largely through this site) is that for the majority of children MMR is safe. And it is the right thing to do. For a small group of children it is catastrophic. And perhaps, rather than endless epidemiological studies that use statistics to prove that for the majority it is safe, perhaps money should be used to try and identify those for whom it isn't.

I think a helpful analogy is that of aeroplanes. If you knew that out of 1000 aeroplanes, 999 were safe, but that 1 had a bomb on board, and would crash, you wouldn't spend time pointing out that aeroplanes are safe, because look at all the ones that have landed safely, you would try and find the one with a bomb on it.

Message withdrawn

Okay, okay. TBH, I admit that I too was terrified by the MMR jab & even now worry about autism. But only because of what I had read/heard in the British media. I'm not a scientist but I have been told by 2 pediatricians that the danger of the diseases far outweighs the supposed danger of the jab. and that having the 3 jabs separately makes no difference except for the extra expense.

Now I've done it! I'm cowering & feeling badly for children & parents who have to live with autism and wonder if it isn't because of the MMR jab.

The government are trying to fund work in this area, although I know this is not the general perception. Here for example. It is just very, very hard to design non-epidemiological studies that are also non-invasive, unfortunately.

Message withdrawn

Oh boy! Are we still discussing this?

Yup. Anything to add to the guilt.

Donnie, in what way was she sick following mumps. My dd has had measels and rubella. But, I'm postponing the mumps until June so that I can take her when I'm on mat leave instead of having to take a day of parental leave (without pay now). Just wondering what kind of reaction to expect?

We're going to discuss this until the cows come home.

if that was the headline sansouci- the n yes the proaganda does extend to switzerland. Ds1 caught rubella from a vaccinated child (as did my friend's kids) - the rubella vaccine has never been 100%.

Tamum is right- it is very difficult to design a suitable study- in fact I suspect a non-invasive one would be pretty much impossible. Epidemiological studies are not suitable for answering the questions that now need to be answered though (we all know that MMR is safe for the majority of children).

Good enough, Jimjams. The only thing we all want is for our little ones to be safe! It would be a pity for a child to die or be seriously ill from measles, mumps or rubella because parents decided not to vaccinate their children through fear of what may be a myth.