what are your feelings on the MMR jab??

[doodypud]

My DD has an appt for her jab on the 3rd of April, i am still really concerned about the possible links with Autism, has anyone else had concerns or any bad experiences?

My feelings on the MMR are exactly the same as harpsichordcarrier. And IMO we all have a responsibility towards Johnnie down the road too!

Really, and what parental decision would you like to relenquish to me. Can I choose your childcare, tell you what church you should attend (for the good of the community of course), or perhaps I might selec which school your kids attend?

Besides, this thread was actually about MMR vs singles. So, not having them at all as a mater of course isn't what the original poster was seeking information about.

I have yet to hear a resonable argument against single jabs. And, assume that I mean all three of them.

Oh, I take that back. She doesn't say mmr vs singles. She is just questioning the MMR.

Sorry...

I get really angry about the MMR debate as it's wholly created by the media who misread correlation for causation. When children begin dying of diseases mostly eradicated by MMR there will be hell to pay. I really think the media should be held criminally responsible for every death, and there will be deaths, tragically because of the misuse and abuse of sound scientific data which points to no link other than timing - ie autism symptoms begin at around the same time as they get the jab.

There is a solution you know: offer single jabs.

Uwila, this thread is about your feelings about the MMR. Singles are fine by me, but I can't see a good reason to offer them on the NHS frankly as there are no evidence to suggest MMR is not safe. Your childcare or weather you go to church doesn't affect other people in the slightest, but if not enough people vaccinate their children is does affect other people. So yes, I do feel I have a social responsibility to vaccinate my children. I certainly don't see vaccination as a personal issue.

Ah yes monkeytrousers....the media...sigh......

Istrongly disagree with the idea that signs of autism suddenly start to appear at around 18 months. 18 months may be the time when parents start to suspect there may be a problem but the signs are generally there long before. It's more a case of realising "So that's why ds always hated doing X/Y/Z when he was a baby!"

A huge difference from children who were developing normally until the MMR.

I didn't say suddenly and yes you're right, it is when parents begin to notice things.

I am not at all researched in this subject atm, but I'm sure I heard that it wasn't good for children to have the single jabs, this won't sound logical at all because I can't remember exactly, but something to do with it being better for the body to have 1 jab rather than to have to recover from 3 iykwim? Anyone else heard something like this? Who could perhaps explain better?!

They just mean that having a jab isn't pleaseant, so have three is worse. Duh! Not a compelling argument for me.

And the reason they should offer single jabs is because more people would get them (i.e. those who are not comfortable with the combined jab but can't/won't fork out for the singles)

i think what may have affected my daughter was the thimersol in the old DTP jabs. That I did not know was in there, or that there was a mercury-free one available upon request.

oh so asd a parents of autistic children not only are we selfish but we;re too stupid to notice when signs started.

Yes the media produced a pile of crap about causation but no-one has ever produced any evidence to contradict Andrew Wakefield's research that a small number of autistic children appear to have a novel form of bowel disease. If you want to be brought up to date follow the link in yesterday's SN section.

expat- you should read the link in SN- I thought of you- it's about thimerosal.

I really disagree, to offer single jabs at the cost of millions with no evidence to back it up is just indulging peoples stupidity to the point of madness. people aren't interested in the science, if they were they'd stop this nonsense. It's all to do with some sense of power and the inflated primacy of the individual over the community. Ultimately, we're all going to pay a heavy price for such vanity.

I just don't see it as vanity when I watch my daughter walk. She was nigh on 2-years-old and she doesn't walk or run normally. She's nearly 3 and still can't jump w/both feet off the ground. She won't be taking up a place at state nursery in Autumn. She won't be potty-trained.

She's delayed.

What's vain about trying to protect my other daughter from potentially the same fate?

When I say 'people' I mean the parents of non impaired children. If you have an impaired child then you are obviously going to look at the evidence closely, and as you say Jimjams there is only and absence of evidence and that means no evidence, but a lot of man power and resources are dedicated to getting results so that would denote a bit of good faith on the part of demonised authorities.

last year the Cochrane library (pro jab on the whole) produced a repost recommending that the use of MMR be continued. It was hailed in the media as proving the safety of the MMR. This is the first line from the authors conclusions " The design and reporting of safety outcomes in MMR vaccine studies, both pre- and post-marketing, are largely inadequate." It's hardly a ringing endorsement is it.

What stuns me is that no-one seems to understand the Scince, or even what Wakefiled etc have said. No-one, no-one no-one has said that the MMR is behind the big rise in autism cases. Wakefield has said "oh lordy me here are some severely autistic children who appear to have a new gut disease, their symptoms (inclusing of the gut disease) date from post MMR and oh well fancy that most of them have some vaccine strain measles virus hanging around in their guts and CSF, and oh isn;t that interesting controls don't. Now however many children in Denmark received the MMR safely (and records can't be accurate in this country as our local council doesn't even know how many autistic children there are in its area) that doesn't actually get rid of the fact that some real children showed some real changes which have yet to be explained. It may not be due to the MMR- the latest model is more complicated - I keep posting the link for anyone who wants to argue against this hypothesis (in SN follow the bit to Wakefield's talk). ON the other hand - what the heck if it;s only affecting 1 in 15000 children then what the hell, it's unlikely to be my kid, I'm alright Jack so I'll just portray those of you it has happened to as being too stupid to notice that their child changed overnight- you must have been imagining that he was talking before and the seizure and the constant diarrhoea that started within days of the MMR.

"but a lot of man power and resources are dedicated to getting results so that would denote a bit of good faith on the part of demonised authorities."

and if the man power produced results we don't like we just hound them out of the country rather than counter any claims. I have yet to see a paper published that gives an alternative explanation for the children that Wakefield examined although out lovely caring govt went out of their way to prevent their CSF being looked at (but of course they had the child's best interests at heart). INstead resources have been concentrated on proving that the MMR is safe at a population level. Well boogaloo, doesn't get any closer to identifying those who may be at risk.

Uwila, I think what I heard went a bit further than just implying that the single jabs weren't as 'pleasant' for the child, more to do with how the body recovered from the three seperate jabs in a short space of time. As I say, not sure though. May be wrong.

Lockets, I'm in no way against you here, I'm simply trying to say that the NHS stretched as it is cannot take the further strain of this doctrine of choice that the government and media are cooking up - appealing to our individual primacy over the good of the community and the NHS as a whole. The pressures on the welfare state are innumerably greater today then when it was set up and it is an economic fact that it cannot continue if we are forever demanding more than it gives at baseline - free medical treatment to all at the point of ..whatever it is..sorry I've forgotten the tenet.

I see that there are huge ethical and moral issues here. Utilitarian ethics debate the pros and cons constantly trying to find a middle ground that will help the majority while hopefully not neglecting the few. It's a dilemma but it's a fact. Many things in western society are on the point of collapse because supply cannot keep up with demand - the NHS is one of them and we all have a responsibility there somewhere, don't we?

A study in 1999 has shown that children that experienced concurrent natural measles (or single measles vaccine) and natural mumps infections within the same year are at a significantly greater risk of later inflammatory bowel disease. No idea whether that was followd up or what the current opinion is on that.

Any idea how much my son is going to cost the state???? 24 hour care until the day he dies. He;s going to be pricey. And do you know how much they saved by giving him a jab containing thimerosal rather than one without- $1 - one effing measly dollar. I have zero interest in cost arguments.