Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

General health

Mumsnet doesn't verify the qualifications of users. If you have medical concerns, please consult a healthcare professional.

single or combined mmr?

30 replies

mollysmum82 · 31/05/2010 13:31

I'm currently having this debate with my dh! Any views/experiences would be much appreciated.

We have decided that we will definitely get dd vaccinated as measles is so dangerous for little ones and we couldn't live with ourselves if she passed on rubella to a pregnant woman or mumps to an old person. But we're not sure whether to go with the single jabs or the combined mmr. Now I know the autism link was only based on 12 children but part of me thinks, what if? I know the research has mostly been discredited but the health service has made mistakes in the past (thalidomide sadly springs to mind). I know its completely anecdotal but someone I used to teach was convinced her sister developed autism as a result of the mmr vaccine. She said one day her sister was making eye contact and interacting like everyone else and the next day... it all changed.

So I think my gut instinct is to go with the single jabs. But I don't know where we'll get the money from and I do worry that they aren't licensed in this country. Has anyone heard any bad side effects related to the single jabs? Is it worth it?

Thanks in advance

OP posts:
mollysmum82 · 31/05/2010 13:45

PS does anyone know why the mmr vaccine is supposed to be related to autism? Is it that it contains mercury (I've heard mercury poisoning is similar to autism symptoms?) or is it just that three live viruses in one go is too much for a lo's immune system?

And I shouldn't really admit this but I've just been reading the new Jodie Picoult book which has made me worry more!

OP posts:
bamboobutton · 31/05/2010 13:52

we decided to give ds the single measles jab partly because of the autism scare but mainly because we didn't want to give him unnecessary jabs.

he will have the mumps jab when he is 9/10yo and he has already had rubella(the illness, not jab) but we wouldn't have given him this one anyway.

he had no side effects from it at all.

go with whichever way gives you piece of mind.

Musukebba · 01/06/2010 14:34

You need to talk it through with your DH, but there's no credible evidence that MMR causes autism. Both my DD had the full MMR vaccination and they were fine. Maybe reassuring, but not very news-worthy!

BTW, MMR is a live vaccine and therefore doesn't have mercury in it.

Theories that getting all three attenuated viruses in one vaccine are too much for an infant's immune system are baseless nonsense.

ShowOfHands · 01/06/2010 14:41

It's a decision only you can make. Read around, in reputable places. Be wary of anybody who tells you what to do either way. Talk to your dh and make a decision. Of course there are still risks with the single jabs, although this is nothing to do with why they aren't licensed here.

Beachcomber · 03/06/2010 09:19

I too think this is one that you need to look into and read about yourself - people have very fixed ideas about this subject.

I'm of the opinion that there is quite a lot of very solid evidence which shows that there is a subgroup of susceptible children who react badly to MMR. The problem is knowing if your child is in this group or not. For political reasons we currently have no screening process for this but the histories of children who regressed following MMR point to a history of autoimmune disease or mitochondrial disorder as being risk factors. A history of heavy antibiotic use, repeated ear infections and food allergies also appear indicative. Boys are more at risk than girls

As you say the original study which first raised the issue of MMR and autism was based on 12 children. This paper was published 12 years ago and since then a lot more research has been done and hundreds if not thousands of children have been examined now. For example there are currently 5000 cases waiting to be ruled in the Omnibus Proceedings in the US. The findings in the original paper have been replicated and built on.

Musukebba is correct that the MMR does not contain mercury as it is a live vaccine. The suspected problem with MMR is partly to do with the fact that it is given later on in a fairly heavy vaccine schedule following vaccines which do contain mercury and which may (in susceptible children) have synergistic and cumulative effect. Plus the fact that the MMR itself poses a different challenge to the immune system in terms of an atypical exposure compared to single vaccines (or natural exposure).

Musukebba also says this;
"Theories that getting all three attenuated viruses in one vaccine are too much for an infant's immune system are baseless nonsense."

This opinion could be contested based on the fact that the MMRV vaccine which contains MMR plus chicken pox has a much higher level of adverse reaction than the MMR alone. Indeed this vaccine had to be withdrawn in the US because it was unsafe. Additionally there is evidence that the amount of virus in the mumps part of the MMR had to be increased (in relation to the single vaccine) in order stimulate an adequate immune response due to the measles and mumps viruses interacting. This clearly shows that the number of viruses in a vaccine being of concern is not based on nonsense.

It has also been shown that when populations contract wild measles and another (wild) virus such as mumps in a close temporal association, the risk for adverse event and bowel disease (Chron's disease, IBS, ulcerative colitis) increases.

I think this is a very complicated issue that unfortunately it is difficult to get clear information on and to discuss in a non polarised way.

You ask why MMR is supposed to be related by autism - I have watched a very interesting video of Dr Wakefield presenting the theory and the science upon which it is based at a conference. I can post a link to it if you want. Don't want to force it on you as this is an emotive subject (and the video is an hour long!).

Leaving the actual vaccine itself to one side for a moment, there are plenty of people who prefer to give singles because they want to select the vaccines their children are given. Personally as mother to two girls I much prefer to give my children the opportunity to contract rubella naturally so that they will be more likely to be protected into adulthood. The MMR is having the unfortunate side effect of pushing these diseases into older age groups - this is a concern with both mumps and rubella. (The same problem is being seen in the US with chicken pox.)

maxybrown · 05/06/2010 08:59

Beachcomber could I have the link to the video please? I have already made my informed choice but would be interested to see it, thank you

mollysmum82 · 05/06/2010 15:40

Thank you all so much for your heartfelt and informative posts.

Its so hard to know what to do. I'd pretty much decided on going for the single jabs when I found out mumps is no longer available. I know mumps isn't all that serious in babies but it can lead to meningitis which terrifies me. So it really comes down to the tiny risk of meningitis versus the tiny risk of autism and bowel problems. What a dilema.

OP posts:
Tabitha8 · 05/06/2010 19:32

Am I right in thinking that the meningitis caused by mumps isn't a serious type? I read something like that somewhere.
I had mumps when I was seven. I wasn't ill with it, but was kept off school just to stop others catching it.

Beachcomber · 06/06/2010 08:43

Here you go maxybrown for the link to the video.

www.autismone.org/content/resolving-chaotic-paradox-autism-disease-developing-immune-system

Tanga · 08/06/2010 18:15

"suspected problem with MMR is partly to do with the fact that it is given later on in a fairly heavy vaccine schedule following vaccines which do contain mercury"

I didn't think there was mercury (or thiomersal) in any of the UK childhood immunisations?

Beachcomber · 08/06/2010 19:22

Sorry that possibly wasn't very clear the way I put it. I was referring to the heavy vaccine schedule in the US which up until about 7 years ago exceeded the EPA exposure to mercury by quite some margin. There was a peak in the incidence of ASD which coincided with the peak in mercury exposure (although MMR, which has never contained mercury, was the vaccine that most often had a temporal association with the development of symptoms)- that was why this theory was developed.

Flu jabs and jabs RH- mothers receive still contain mercury. Many other vaccines still contain trace amounts.

Tanga · 08/06/2010 20:30

But not the UK childhood immunisation ones.

backtotalkaboutthis · 08/06/2010 20:34

"You need to talk it through with your DH, but there's no credible evidence that MMR causes autism. Both my DD had the full MMR vaccination and they were fine. Maybe reassuring, but not very news-worthy!"

There is lots of evidence of the type Musukebba gives relating to her own experience ie parental reports but not of reassurance, instead of regression and adverse events.

So if you discount it, please do also discount Musukebba's "evidence" about her own children.

winnybella · 08/06/2010 20:45

Hmm...my dd's paedatrician said that single jabs can cause complications as well.

I wavered for a while and then decided to give dd an mmr. No side effects.

It is a choice between a tiny risk of complications from these diseases and tiny risk of complications from the vaccine.

IwishIwasmoreorganised · 08/06/2010 21:00

I looked into the single vaccines for our ds's.

I knew that I wanted them to be protected against all 3 illnesses.

I found out that in our area (South Wales) when we would have wanted to have them vaccinated, it was very difficult to get hold of the mumps vaccine.

This ultimately made us decide that they would have the mmr.

eatyourveg · 08/06/2010 21:24

you can't get the single mumps vaccine anywhere now.

its a very personal choice that only you can make with your DH one you have read all the evidence and reports from both sides

Beachcomber · 08/06/2010 23:13

Childhood vaccines in the UK contained mercury as late as 2007.

www.ei-resource.org/news/autism-news/thimerosal-removed-from-vaccine-amid-autism-fears/

Tanga · 09/06/2010 21:05

Although that site looks quite medical, it has no afiliation to any health service and the 'board of directors' are a homeopath and a psychologist. The article is written by someone with no medical qualifications and there are no links to the source for the original story.

That aside, it states in the fifth paragraph that Thiomersal was removed from all UK vaccines in 2004.

So a bit misleading, I feel.

Tanga · 09/06/2010 21:08

Perhaps this would be more useful?

from actual medical people

Beachcomber · 09/06/2010 22:11

Possibly Tanga - although I read on the FDA website that approval of the mercury free version of GSK's Pediarix was in 2007. They do say it only contained trace amounts before though. perhaps it was mercury free earlier in the UK?

www.fda.gov/biologicsbloodvaccines/safetyavailability/vaccinesafety/ucm096228.htm

Tanga · 09/06/2010 23:30

Pediarix is not used in the UK (AFAIK) the two vaccines that are used (for Diptheria, tetanus, whooping cough etc) are Infanrix from GSK and Pediacel from Sanofi Pasteur. Neither contain even trace amounts of thiomersal.

In any case, the OP is talking about immunisation of her child in the present, so I think it very important to be clear about the actual situation in terms of mercury ie that there isn't any. At all. In any of the UK childhood immunisations. So no mercury in MMR, or any of the other vaccines.

Also in terms of clarity, could I refer back to this

"This paper was published 12 years ago and since then a lot more research has been done and hundreds if not thousands of children have been examined now" as it would be very helpful to know what research replicates and builds on the original (and widely discredited) original.

If it helps, OP, check DeStefano, in Vaccine and Autism (2001) which concludes that there is a strong genetic component assiciated with autism and builds on the work of Taylor et al - the number of autistic spectrum disorders have been increasing since 1979 and there were no sharp increases after the introduction of the MMR in 1988.

backtotalkaboutthis · 10/06/2010 04:52

Can you link to your studies please Tanga. They are all epidemiological, are they not?

"the number of autistic spectrum disorders have been increasing since 1979 and there were no sharp increases after the introduction of the MMR in 1988."

This seems to be a direct quote from NICHD publicity. Usually this claim is based on a study of age and diagnosis: the conclusion being, very roughly, that an increase after 1988 would show up in children who would have been vaccinated at around 2 in 1988 (so now, 22). But because the increase in diagnosis actually occurs in older people, up to around late twenties, it must be unrelated to MMR.

This study ignores the immunisation campaign of 1994. There was a measles "scare" (little bit like the swine flu scaremongering possibly) and around three million children between the ages of 5 and 16 were vaccinated in a catch-up/booster campaign.

Thus you raise the age range immediately to 32 a full ten years extra of diagnoses which sits quite steadily with your mark for an increase around 1979.

Your figures certainly do not indicate that the rise is not due to MMR.

backtotalkaboutthis · 10/06/2010 04:57

Tanga, if you can explain the mathematics for a genetic epidemic I would be most interested.

Wouldn't that require autistic spectrum sufferers to reproduce at a far greater rate than NT adults? Is there any evidence that this happens?

Would you deny that a condition which moves from roughly one in five thousand (or ten thousand, it was no rare it was hard to check) to one in two hundred is indeed an epidemic?

Or can you explain why doctors and health professionals suddenly decided to diagnose a lot more autism? Many, many times more autism than had ever been diagnosed before? What can have been the trigger for this unusual, presumably uncoordinated and yet global change?

backtotalkaboutthis · 10/06/2010 05:46

Beach, or anyone on either side of the argument really..

Just googling the genotoxicity of mercury compounds given the possible miracle test we are looking at now.

so I found this

which I don't understand at all

if anyone can give an honest assessment that would be very nice but I guess it would take some time unless you are au fait with the field

so if no one can I will try to work it out for myself when less busy!

Ben281 · 14/06/2010 00:30

I am going through the same process in trying to decide what vaccinations to give and where, etc. I would go with the single vaccine of measles from babyjabs.co.uk. Dr. Richard Halvorsen's book The Truth about Vaccines is very very good, because it is fully referenced and he comes from a pretty neutral perspective - he does offer the vaccines as well. The so called studies that 'discredit' a link between vaccines and autism are total nonsense, because the link is only meaningful in kids with a pre-existing condition. Until they can find out which kids in the study have the pre-disposed condition (like the mitochondrial disorder) then they cannot rule out a link for those kids.

I've been researching this issue extensively and for me it comes down to this. The diseases are thankfully very very rare these days, but the vaccines definitely contain lots of harmful substances (formaldehyde, aluminium and until recently mercury, not to mention the toxins themselves). They cannot rule out long term effects of these toxic substances, so I would definitely go for a single tetanus vaccine (because catching it is so unpredictable) and any other that worries you, but find out exactly how many people catch these diseases these days before you weigh up the risks.