Active discussions

Are your children’s vaccines up to date?

Set a reminder

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Parenting

For free parenting resources please check out the Early Years Alliance's Family Corner.

Original poster

Dare i raise the question....

271 replies

CharlotteACavatica · 11/10/2006 13:27

who has let their kids have the MMR? how do you feel about it? Ihave a 6yo a 3.5yo and a 1yo and my 1yo dd is due to have hers next week, i havent let the other two have theirs and neither shall i be letting dd, but as so many people know its 'supposed' problems im still interogated and asked why why why? i have heard that the more patients your gp gets to have the MMR the more he/she gets paid, if they get 100% they get a shed load of money but if the percentage drops below 90 they start getting charged!!!????

OP posts:
Are your children’s vaccines up to date?
Set a reminder
evilanniedividedin2byalargeaxe · 11/10/2006 13:29

My 2dds have had it, dd3 will also have it. That's my (informed) choice, I don't mind what anyone else's choice is!

waterfalls · 11/10/2006 13:31

All my children have had MMR, my gp was saddened by anyone that did'nt, he has spent many years working in africa and has seen so much suffering from childhood diseases because vaccines are readily available to them.

Original poster
CharlotteACavatica · 11/10/2006 13:31

I agree, i would never judge or try and impose my choices and views on other people about their choices, we all have the same desires at the end of the day, and that is to protect our children!

OP posts:

Interested in this thread?

Then you might like threads about this subject:

General parenting
waterfalls · 11/10/2006 13:31

are'nt............not are.

satine · 11/10/2006 13:33

Mine have had it. Believe strongly in vaccination.

BudaBeast · 11/10/2006 13:33

My DS (5) has had it and the booster.

My had a baby that died as she contracted rubella while PG - that is never far from my mind. However I was nervous.

Original poster
CharlotteACavatica · 11/10/2006 13:34

i have looked into having them all done seperately and there has to be a space of three months between each shot, if thats the case how come its ok to give all three at the same time?

OP posts:
busybusymum · 11/10/2006 13:35

my 4 have, I made an informed choice and am very happy with it

donnie · 11/10/2006 13:35

my dd1 had singles and dds is in the midst of her singles at the moment ( measles done, rubella and mumps left)

My personal choice - I'd rather leave them unvaccinated then have the MMR.

donnie · 11/10/2006 13:36

good question charlotteatavica.

Blu · 11/10/2006 13:36

The risks associated with MMR are very specific and apply only to children at risk - afaik. Those with ectopic hereditary, those who were on anti-biotics at birth, or those with pre-existing risk of neurological conditions in the family. i think.

However, the risk of measles etc is pretty much non-discriminatory.

I did have DS immunised - as I know people who are blind and deaf respectively, as a result of measles infection, and I feel we will be better of as a community if we eradicate these diseases as far as possible. But I may have thought twice had I known about the 'anti-biotics at birth' factor.

evilanniedividedin2byalargeaxe · 11/10/2006 13:36

Because it provides immediate protection instead of waiting the three months!!

Also, the triple jab from the GP is free, which would have been a consideration for us definitely with dd1.

Either way the child ends up immunised. Do what you are comfortable with.

lulumama · 11/10/2006 13:36

had both of mine vaccinated

mumps & measles are back and can be absolutely horrible diseases...

however , it is believed that there is a link to some terrible long term conditions from the MMR vaccine.

i did a lot of research and delayed DS.s by 6 months as i felt i couldn;t get a straight answer....but decided, for me, on balance, that it was the right thing to do...DD had hers couple of months ago, without hesitation.

i did see a programme a while ago about the initial outcry about MMR and apparently the research was done on a tiny number of children and the researcher had a financial interest in single jabs taking off.....

i think it is a decision only you can make and you have to know in your heart you have done what is right for your kids.

i let them have the MMR -not to say i am right!

cleaninglady · 11/10/2006 13:37

my dd had singles and my doctor friend said to me off the record to leave 6 months btwn each jab which we did!
ds is now 2 and not had anything yet - just can get my head round it and have also been advised that if mmr then leave it to around 2.5 yo when all brain connections have been made - same advice was also on a thread on here as well

its a minefield

TwigTwoolett · 11/10/2006 13:38

DS had singles then MMR booster at 4.5 (but he had DTwP primaries as a baby)

DD had DTaP primaries and had MMR but not till 18 months - 10 days later she was hospitalised with pneumonia .. they stressed there was no connection I don't believe them

there does not have to be 3 months between sepvax .. 6 weeks between each is adequate .. mumps is only dangerous to a very small proportion of boys if caught after puberty so no issue in delaying .. rubella dangerous to pregnant women but most are already vaccinated so no big issue in delaying and measles well we all know the measles story

Jimjams2 · 11/10/2006 13:38

ds2 and ds3 haven't had any vaccinations at all charlotte. There are quite a few people on mumsnet who have made the same decision. You won't get a sensible debate about it on here though.
If you have a spare day to fill you could search for MMR and read through it all.

Amaretto · 11/10/2006 13:38

Both mines have. I too am a strong beleiver in vaccination at least because any risk associated are much lower than the risk of the illness.

now re giving a bonus to surgeries that have a 100% immunisation.... don't really see the point because they don't have the facility/time to actually try to exlain to each of their patient the good sides of it. Also as you said, you should be free to make up your own mind.

TwigTwoolett · 11/10/2006 13:39

MMR does NOT give immediate protection.. why do you think there's a booster programme?

donnie · 11/10/2006 13:40

agree it is a veritable minefield.

lulumama · 11/10/2006 13:41

the only issue with this sort of question is that it is a topic where you can get very pro & very con arguments, which may not help youmake the right decision for your family......if you have a stronger feeling either way, go with that maybe?

evilanniedividedin2byalargeaxe · 11/10/2006 13:42

No I meant you only have to go once, then go back in 3 years or however long. The initial jab is done in one appointment not 3. Before any one starts shouting at me, I did say to do what charlotte feels comfortable with, I wouldn't impose that on anyone else, she was just asking what others had done!!

Phew!

Spidermama · 11/10/2006 13:43

My four haven't had it. That's my informed choice but it's a tough road to go down because of the ignorance and witch hunting attitude of other mums and the media.

Jimjams2 · 11/10/2006 13:44

"the researcher had a financial interest in single jabs taking off..... " this is bollards btw.

Andrew Wakefield's research described a new condition - (or at least new to be described)- autistic enterocolitits. The existence of this is not (afik) under dispute. It's very difficult to get treatment for it in the UK, but it is now accepted that it exists. The cause is under debate. Wakefield's theories have moved on a bit since he left the UK incidentally. If you type autism one into google you should be able to find a powperpoint presentation of his recent talk(s)

Original poster
CharlotteACavatica · 11/10/2006 13:46

evilanniedividedin2byalargeaxe - its not about immediate protection its about Dr's saying that the whole point of leaving 3/6months between each shot is because you are injecting a virus and chemicals into the body and your body needs time to process adjust and develop and immunity to these, for other Dr's to then say all 3 at once is fine is crazy!

OP posts:
hermykne · 11/10/2006 13:49

charlotte
my 2 had it, but last week ds got a mild form of measles, hes 28mths, so if he hadnt have had it what would have been the outcome? i havent worked out where he picked it up from, if thats possible.