MMR yesterday (12 month old DS)... screaming agony - won't walk or crawl today??

[newmomma]

Well,
The title kind of sums it up.
My DS had his MMR jab yesterday and was fine for a couple of hours.

But within 2 hours he was crying inconsollably. I had no idea what was wrong - managed to get some dinner into him and then put him in the bath.

It became obvious in the bath (he's been walking for about a month now and LOVES to stand up and play with toys in the bath) that he wouldn't stand and was in quite a lot of pain.

He slept badly last night. This morning he's beside himself. He won't crawl or walk and if you try and move him he screams. It is his right leg - the leg that only had one injection, rather than 2. We've tried calpol and nurofen but it doesn't work. He keeps trying to stand and crawl but then stops and cried. Its so upsetting - he looks like a lame dog. I wish I could explain to him that he'll have to spend some time not moving about until it gets better but he's too young to understand.

I have spoken to NHS Direct last night - they said it definately wasn't a side effect of the MMR and to take him to the doctor.

We have an appt at 11.30 today - but I was wondering whether anyone else had experienced something like this with the MMR jab?

Thanks

(Sorry for the long post)

[displayuntilbestbefore]

"Anyway I object to the rubella part of the MMR as it is made from human diploid cells, and these are taken from aborted babies"
Nonsense.
How would you manufacture a mass produced vaccine that way?
That doesn't make sense in a commercial sense and no company would ever get ethical approval for using material from an aborted foetuses. How can you guarantee when you get the aborted foetuses in the first place?

There might have been a cell line used when they first started manufacturing the vaccine which was from tissue form an aborted foetus but to say that this is now how it is manufactured is nonsense.

[Threebellies]

Yes they use fetal cell lins and are still in developmentof them, so they need other sources.

Even if only one baby was used to produce a vaccine its too much.

read for yourself on this PDF all the vaccines that are based on aborted fetal cell line.

here

so no its not nonsense.

[lowrib]

newmomma, sorry to hear you and your DS had such an awful time. I'm a little concerned that you say you're thinking twice about your DD having it however.

My DS is due for his MMR in a couple of weeks. I really hope we don't experience anything like this - but it doesn't put me off at all - I'd rather he had pain for a few days than ran the risk of getting some of the more serious (and even fatal) effects of mumps / measles / rubella.

[seeker]

"Anyway I object to the rubella part of the MMR as it is made from human diploid cells, and these are taken from aborted babies"

This is just arrant scare mongering nonsense. I have reported it.

[msmiggins]

I have to speak in defence of threebellies.
My son was damaged by his whooping cough vaccine. In the area I live in we are very lucky to have a homeopathic service attatched to our medical centre. It is funded by the NHS, and the homeopath is also a trained GP.
Gps and Health visitors from the whole area use the service by referral. Tce service is very much in demand and 57 GPs from the area are very much in support of the service. It was started 8 years ago as a trial, but the GPs themselves have fought to keep the service as it has been so effective.
My son has been treated very successfully by the homeopath to rectify the vaccine damage, but we were advised not to have any further vaccines. Neither him nor my daughter have had the MMR.

[turtle23]

Sorry to hijack, but can I just ask here...
DS2 had his first round of jabs a few weeks back and within hours he had v high temp that took calpol then nurofen EVERY two hours for 48 to keep down. (8weeks old!) We spent 36 hours in hospital while he screamed non-stop and wouldn't let go of me. I was told at first that he must have been ill to begin with and it was my fault.
When the symptoms disappeared 48 hours after jab they then told me it was a normal reaction. (so normal they made me go to hospital?)
He has been snuffly since birth...I think he just IS rather than ill. Would you go back for round 2? It's in the diary for next week...am v torn

[msmiggins]

Turtle 23, it would be unfair of anyone to advise you what to do. Whether or not to immunise is a huge debate, and there are many strong feelings about the subject.

The evidence is not as clear cut as the government would like us to believe.
Immunisation has saved many lives, prevented illness in millions and helped eradicate many once fatal diseases. There is a strong argument that not immunising children is a selfish act.
But immunisations can damage children- the government itself have a special immunisation compensation scheme to allow us to claim money for health problems that have been caused by immunisation.
Health professionals are often dismissive about bad reactions to jabs in my experience, brushing off symptoms as coincidence.
Although it's hard I would try to do as much research as possible on the subject, ultimately you have to make up your own mind I'm afraid.
I respect any parent's decision on this one, it's very difficult.
For me, I think that immunisations are too risky, and although I have had both my children through the forst set of jabs I wish that I hadn't, particulary as my son had gut damage which took years of treatment to rectify. I haven't taken up any further offers of jabs, including MMR.
You know your child.
One thig I would say is that the second jab your son will have is likely also to produce a reaction, perhaps even worse than the first.

[seeker]

Turtle - remember that you will find extreme views on both sides here. It's an awful decision to have to make - but remember that it is completely normal to react in some way to any vaccination - ask any grown up who's had inoculations before going to India, for example. Your baby obviously had a horrible time, but it was a short term reaction. I think that's what the HCPs meant - once he was better they could say it was a normal reaction because it was short term, but they had to take it seriously while it was happening. IYSWIM.

[displayuntilbestbefore]

At some stage or another cell lines have to be used for a wide variety of things and to think that it's totally unnecessary to ever have them used is naive at best and scaremongering at worst.

I also agree with seeker about the reactions to immunisations as people often have reactions to all sorts of vaccines but it doesn't mean they are evil.
Also, how does anyone know that their child wasn't sickening with something before the jab anyway? Just as a child might have a mild reaction to a vaccine,any illness might also be down to something unrelated but happen to coincide with having had the vaccine.

It's fair enough to have one's own views but I think some of the views expressed here show a distinct lack of understanding of how science and medicine works and as a parenting site this misinformation is dangerous, not to say frightening, for those new mothers who are trying to separate fact from fiction.

[JollyPirate]

Definitely a temperature is a common side effect but it does sound like your DS had a particularly bad reaction turtle.

As for round 2 - the only thing I can say is that it sounds like your DS produced a mssive immune response to his first set which could well mean he will pass the next set with hardly a murmur. Tes he could have had an underlying illness brewing when he had his first set of imms but you are not to know that - if he appearec well on the day you vaccinated in good faith.

[newmomma]

lowrib i just have to say that your comment 'I'd rather he had pain for a few days than ran the risk of getting some of the more serious (and even fatal) effects of mumps / measles / rubella' seems a little unfair.

i didn't question giving DS1 the MMR jab beforehand, but the side effects he experienced were not 'pain for a few days' - it was the worst experience of my life witnessing someone so small in such pain that they don't know what the hell is going on.

i truly thought he had somehow broken a leg without my knowledge.

he had temperatures and grizzly days after the early imms they give babies, but this was in no way comparable. the doctor we saw was even visibly upset by his level of distress and she must see pain very regularly.

i'm not a neurotic mother, and i did not overreact to his symptoms. it was afterall a doctor who sent us within 2 hours to paediatrics.

turtle23 the side effects your son experienced would not put me off having the injections 2nd time round. it is a normal reaction for the babies to be quite poorly for a few days and to need regular calpol etc. my son was quite poorly after the first lot (screamed for most of the evening and needed quite a lot more calpol than i thought he would) but he had NO reaction to the 2nd round.

anyway DS1 is still getting better. it has knocked his confidence when walking and he's much more wobbly than he used to be, and he doesn't bounce on that leg or shake it when he's excited like he used to, but he's deffo getting better. slowly.

my concerns with giving it to DD (as yet unborn!) is that i KNOW the benefits of the immunisations, which is why i gave it to DS1, but am just not sure i could witness another child of mine to be in such pain. it felt as hurtful to me as grieving for a lost loved one - i haven't cried that hard in my life - if i could have taken it away from him i would.

[saintlydamemrsturnip]

lowrib - if you had seen your child go through what newmomma's child went through of course you would think twice about giving it to another child. It ludicrous to suggest you wouldn't. I marched ds1 to every vaccination going until I had reason to stop and think.

newmomma - have a good read around- you have plenty of time to decide - the current MMR/Wakefield thread has ended up being a good one if you want somewhere to start. It's remained polite. And remember you don't have to decide yes or no at 13 months, you can always delay until later if you're not sure.

[displayuntilbestbefore]

But delaying the MMR until later runs the risk of your child catching measles,mumps or rubella from some other child who has also not had the vaccine.......I would have been cross if my child caught any of the diseases from a child who had measles,mumps or rubells because their parent didn't want them to have the vaccine. There was a big outbreak of measles in the area we lived in when ds2 was small because of a low uptake of the MMR immunisation and it put all the babies who weren't old enough to have the MMR yet at risk, so as soon as ds2 was old enough to have the MMR I took him to have it and was very relieved to have done so.

[saintlydamemrsturnip]

Well yes. My point was that you do not have to decide by a certain day to vaccinate or not. If you want you can take longer. This is useful to remember if your child has had a vaccine reaction and you feel pressurized to decide by some externally imposed date. You can postpone.

There's also the option of requesting to talk to someone - your health authority will have someone designated for this role (usually a paediatrician). They may not be that much use - my local one doesn't even seem to know what Wakefield's theory is for example. Or there's the possibility of seeing someone like Richard Halvorsen to talk through the issues. He usually recommends vaccinating ime of talking to people who have seen him but sometimes on an altered schedule.

Ds1 and ds2 caught rubella from a vaccinated child btw. We knew it was likely to be coming given the exposure so stayed in during the infectious period.

[FabIsGoingToBeFabIn2010]

Your child is at risk from day one of mmr. Waiting a few weeks might be worth it.

[mii]

"She antidoted the MMR and he spiked a temp all night and we did not use anything to bring it down, the fever burned the diesease out of his body, and the next morning he was nearly fully well"

She antidoted the MMR with what?

You don't think letting a child spike a temp all night without treatment is dangerous at all?

The next morning he was fully well? which he probably would have been anyway

[ShowOfHands]

Completely eschewing all talk of homeopaths, mii I don't medicate a temperature. It's the body's natural reaction to illness and a method of fighting infection.

I medicate if dd is in pain and visible discomfort but I certainly don't dole out medicine for a temp. DD has had a temp all night before and I don't think it's dangerous in the slightest.

turtle, just a small thing in your post, but if you do give nurofen, make sure it's every 6hrs, not every 4. When you alternate with calpol, don't do every 2hrs as you're giving slightly too much nurofen in that instance.

[turtle23]

SOH- wasn't me...was hospital that did that. I do think that a temp of over 40 is dangerous, personally.
The nurofem was too big a dose technically as well...should be 5 mg per kg...which means that even 2.5ml should be too much as he was 6 not 10 kg.

[Missus84]

I don't understand how water is an antidote to MMR either...

[ShowOfHands]

Oh it's okay if the hospital does it (ime the hospital give meds very differently to the guidelines on the bottle. DD was in hospital once when ill and they weighed her and medicated according to their own schedule). Was pointing it out in case anybody else read this, or you perhaps didn't know. It's always worth pointing it out just in case.

Why do you think a temp of 40 is dangerous, out of interest?

[turtle23]

I didn't say 40 was dangerous, I said over. When a temp gets to 41+ it is apparently dangerous. Also in a child of 8 weeks you cannot KNOW that it isn't infection and by the time a child that age shows a very high temp they go downhill v quickly.

I do know fever has a purpose...just when you have a very little one it is very scary.

[mii]

I also wouldn't medicate JUST a temp, but certainly would sponge down/strip off/cool bath a child who had a high temp, not purposely let it 'burn off' the illness. Isn't that just myth?

[CirrhosisByTheSea]

newmomma, so glad your DS is getting better. What an awful thing for you to go through. Very scary.

Why not consider the single injections for your DD when the time comes. We did this with DS and have not regretted it, though we did have to pay privately as not available on NHS.

[ShowOfHands]

Oh gosh, I don't mean a littlie, I mean a toddler. I should have been more clear. I was responding to threebellies who had a child with an MMR reaction, so toddler not a baby.

You MUST always respond to a baby with a temp. Gosh of course.

And I wouldn't leave dd to 'burn off' an illness. When she has a temp I strip her off, put on a fan, keep her cool, offer lots of drinks and would sponge if necessary, though I never have. So I do treat her I suppose but don't artificially lower the temp as I see it as counterproductive.

I was merely saying that I would let dd have a temperature without giving medicine if it was just a temperature. I try to respond to her, not to the number iyswim.

[TotalChaos]

newmomma - it's possible (though of course may be an issue getting it through NHS) to check immunity to the MMR components by blood test to see if 2nd MMR is actually necessary. around 90% of children will be immune after 1 MMR anyway.