MMR

[luckyjames]

I'm trying to decide whether to give my son the singles or triple vaccine. Some people choose not to vaccinate at all while others choose the triple vaccine and some choose the singles. I'd like to hear from everyone whatever your choices were and the outcome. I would like to hear from parents who believe the triple vaccine has damaged their child. Any parents believe single vaccines have damaged their child? I hear all the time that single vaccines are not safe but has never heard from anyone who has had a problem with them! Many thanks for those who reply.

You don't know whether I'm open minded or not.

The fact that you have decided that the only person on this thread who appears to know anything much about vaccination is closed minded (hint: not me, or you) says a great deal about the open mindedness you claim for yourself (PS everyone thinks they are open minded. It's like claiming you have a good sense of humour.)

Nobody said scientists were omniscient. I'm not going to be your straw man, thanks all the same.

Your implication was that scientists found it as easy to assess a possible adverse event in a baby as in an adult. You don't maintain that still, I hope.

I guessed you were closed minded from your PMSL. Maybe you are open-minded -- are you? Could you be convinced that vaccines are more dangerous than we are told? Would you do the reading?

I did, and I changed my mind. I could still be convinced the other way, by the right studies. But they seem unlikely to be carried out.

I am very grateful for Musukebba's posts on vaccinations. He/she obviously knows an awful lot about it and I find it very informative to get his/her perspective.

I do know though that there are posters on MN whose children have had a very bad reaction to a vaccine [seizures leading to regression for example] and the doctors have refused to note it as a vaccine reaction. Obviously most children have vaccines with no problems, and vaccines are crucial for public health, but there does seem to be a tradition of viewing severe reactions as 'coincidence'. If you are a child, at least.

That's the problem with anecdotal evidence, though, as genuine as those posters are, you can't get an accurate scale of the problem so the risks seem magnified. However, serious adverse events with possible or indeterminate causal relation with MMR (ie happen at around the same time but a medical link can't be found)happen at a rate of 3.2 per hundred doses.

Also, in terms of the MMR/Autism link, the incidence of Autism rose sharply among boys of 2 to 5 years every year from 1988 to 1993. But MMR uptake was the same each year.

Sorry - 3.2 per hundred thousand doses. Oops.

mmred the reason you can't get an accurate sense of the scale of the problem is that many adverse reactions just aren't being reported.

What is your evidence for that?

I have spoken to several people of my immediate acquaintance whose children have had reactions such as severe D & V with both shots and been told categorically that it was entirely unrelated, heard of many more through other (real life) people, and read of lots on here. Reactions to vaccines are not being recorded. While most of these reactions will not be serious or cause permanent damage, they should surely still be recorded under the yellow card scheme as with any other drug reaction, but this is not happening. Monitoring all reactions to vaccines seems like such an obvious first step to finding out what has happened to the small number of children who appear to have had extremely serious reactions. Why is it not being done?

If there are posters here whose children have suffered severe reactions [again, for example, seizures followed by regression] and they have asked to have these reported as official adverse effects and have been refused, then do you think they are the only ones? It is easy to dismiss anecdotal evidence unless it happens to someone close to you or even yourself [God forbid] There are also problems with large scale epidemiological studies when you take into account that Wakefield was suggesting only about 7% of all autism may have been triggered by the MMR.

Regression is an acknowledeged condition - some children develop normally until a certain point, and infections are flagged as one possible environmental trigger for regression. So it is not possible to say 'ah well, you parents didn't realise your child was autistic and we dismiss your anecdotal evidence and you are just looking for someone to blame' Which happens, rather too often.

I agree it's very important that all potential side effects of vaccinations should be reported, and if healthcare professionals are dismissing things like D&V then it's not right. Even if the suspected effects are co-incidental, then it'll all even out over time and the significant ones tend to become more obvious.

I'm not sure whether people are aware that members of the public can report new symptoms or signs via the Yellow Card Scheme. The MHRA encourage this for medicines and vaccines and their site gives you a download form (here). I think you can also get them from a pharmacy.

I don't think that many people are particularly aware of the yellow card scheme, Musukebba. In any case, if their GP's are telling them in no uncertain terms "it's not related" this is likely to put people off reporting it themselves don't you think?

I don't know, I think people are pretty well aware of the yellow card scheme but (as zeph said) if they are told at the first stop GP that it's coincidental then they have to be quite determined to report it, especially when there is little to be gained.

I think you are much too optimistic and naive, glib even, to say "it'll all even out over time". Two decades of MMR and reports of adverse reactions are still not taken seriously. Even though Cochrane said the inital testing was largely inadequate. Perhaps it won't ever be.

I'm repeating poface in saying too much evidence is dismissed as anecdotal. I don't say proof, it's not proof, but it is evidence.

Instead of further research someone saying hmm this really should be looked at millions of pounds have been spent on promotion campaigns and worthless retrospective epidemiological studies to cloud the issue.

If only there could be a true study comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated populations. In the study I mentioned earlier, but didn't link, it said the highest rate of CRS is found in the Amish population. The answer seems/is obvious -- it's a self-selecting, non-vaccinating population.

However I can't imagine that those who are very keen on the idea of vaccinating would be awfully keen to make or draw attention to large scale comparisons with Amish communities.

and goodnight for now

@mmrsceptic: I'm sure there's something worth discussing in your posts but for the life of me I cannot work out what it is. So until you can articulate a coherent point about the Amish and CRS, and how it relates to the previous discussions, there's not much incentive to carry on with this.

Sorry if I confused you. We were talking about CRS earlier, remember.

Then I mentioned about a comparison being helpful between a vaccinating and a non vaccinating population.

As the Amish are a non-vaccinating population I gave an example of a significant different between them and a vaccinating population. As we were talking about CRS earlier I used this example.

Not sure what is difficult to understand about this, I just wanted to show that you get quite a clear picture of what happens with neither infant nor adolescent immunisation. Do you see?

It has been observed that rates of autism are very low among the Amish.

I'd like to see a study though without any of the confounding factors associated with the Amish, of diet, closeness of community, non use of pharmaceutical drugs and chemical products and so on and so forth.

Do you see how that would be helpful?

Hmmm... so a population which is against rubella vaccination gets a higher incidence of congenital rubella syndrome when there's an outbreak, compared to a population that is vaccinated? This seems very obvious and suggests rubella vaccination just might be beneficial in preventing a high rate of CRS.

Is this possible conclusion something you would disagree with?

No of course not Musukebba -- that's why I posted it as an example. My view is that adolescents and adults should be screened/vaccinated, not infants.

I see now why you were confused -- you couldn't imagine that I could face a fact like that when I saw one!

If you think that's a helpful comparison, don't you think it would be helpful to have further and more rounded comparisons between vaccinated and unvaccinated populations?

Like comparisons between, say, the incidence of measles in the USA in the decade before vaccination (3-4 million cases)compared with the incidence of measles in the decade after (educed by 99%).

the problem with comparing a community like the Amish who are totally unvaccinated with a vaccinated population is it is not a realistic study in terms of real population. There may be benefits to not having any vaccinations but there would be huge negatives as well, if a large proportion of the general public were not vaccinated. Eventually diseases that used to be fatal and still are in developing countries [polio, diptheria, whooping cough] would rise and cause deaths amongst children. The Amish are a pretty closed community and may be able to reap the benefits of non vaccination whilst on the whole be able to avoid getting the illnesses because of herd immunity outside the community.

Well this is it Pofaced. This is what I anticipated and this is why a real study should be carried out.

3 of my eldest children had the MMR. 2 of them have ASD conditions and gut problems. 1 doesn't, and neither does DD1 who did not have the MMR until she was about 10 IIRC.

Now I don't know whether the MMR caused those problems or not. I suspect actually that DS1's problems were caused by the 3rd DPT jab but I can't prove it.

With that element of doubt out there I decided not to have the MMR for DD2. She has had the single measles, and I plan to have the single rubella when she is 12.

I've just found this article about the Amish. Turns out they do vaccinate after all.

Yeah, it's a complete myth to say the Amish don't vaccinate; nearly all Amish communities vaccinate partially. They also have a completely cultural view on mental disability (such as autism), which means that mild-moderate autism is quite unlikely to be recorded or even viewed as a problem.

And of course, the Amish are so inbred that they may have less autism likely to occur from genetic factors (whilst being more prone to other genetically-based illnesses and disabilities).

OP, there are long previous threads on this topic; very worth searching for if you sincerely want to have a good think about your own choices.

...completely different cultural view...

I do preview and proofread, honest, sigh, maybe I need to switch to using smaller words .

I pointed up one interesting comparison which in fact supports a pro-vaccination standpoint. My main point is that it would be helpful to have a viable study comparing a vaccinated and non vaccinated population.

I didn't suggest that population be the Amish population specifically because of confounding factors. Anyway the study has already been done between Amish and non Amish.

Would like to see something new, something that isn't retrospective. I doubt I ever will.