We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
lets bring back single jabs for Measles etc...
Deals_2
Posts: 2,410 Forumite
i read about someone doing a petition for single jabs to be reintroduced in netmums.com. even though there has been a lot of confusion over whether the MMR is any good or not i think for benefit of the doubt we shoudl all be given the choice - actually i imagine the majority of people will opt for the single jabs instead. anyway i have booked in for the measles single jab locally - cost £85 plus £20 registration fee to start off and i am told by these people they are booked out. sounds like some people are making lots of money out of this. i think with all the taxes we pay the injection should at least be a little bit more subsidised if they dont want to offer on the NHS the jab free completely. any thoughts anyone...
0
Comments
-
The single jabs are not as effective at generating immunity, and have more risk associated with them, in that you breach the skin everytime you innoculate, and you triple the risk of 'expected' and 'proven to occur' side effects, than the single MMR jab. And of course, it's not a case of having all 3 jabs at once, and then the boosters in X years time. They all have different schedules, which can get confusing, and leads to a large proportion of the population that miss a dose and risk the actual disease.
THe number of jabs a child has correlates with the degree of needle phobia they can end up with too...
I appreciate that the MMR is associated with much anxiety for parents, but the singles were done away with for a reason, and despite what the Daily Mail seem to think, is not a magic bullet to bypass the pointless debate.April Grocery Challenge £81/£1200 -
interesting to read that Dr Fluffy, thanks
I have no problem with the combined jab and don't see why the nhs should increase the financial burden on the tax payer because of cod science... don't mean to be offensive to anyone but the link with autism has been roundly criticised, if there are any other problems with the combined jab that I'm not aware of then I'm happy to be educated but as far as I can tell the benefits of the combined jab far outweigh the risks. Having said that, I'd rather parents gave their children the individual jabs if they have concerns than gave no jabs but I do feel that's individual choice and the costs relatively small (when compared to costs of cancer drugs etc) that the nhs shouldn't have to pay them.0 -
Hi Fluffy,
Whilst you're about, can you answer something for me?
My kids both had MMR, as I didn't feel the theoretical risks outweighed the real problems that measles can cause.
What puzzles me though is why there is a mumps jab, and a rubella jab all wrapped up with it?
In my childhood, girls got a rubella jab at about 12, as the risk of rubella in later life is only dangerous to pregnant women. In childhood, german measles - although it can be quite spectacular with it's rash, has a very low morbidity and mortality - certainly a lot lower than flu.
Mumps too, has a very low incidence of problems in childhood, although it can again cause much bigger problems (literally
) if caught later in life.
So why do we now feel the need to vaccinate kids against these two illnesses rather than just let kids catch them and aquire natural immunity?
To my mind, kids should be vaccinated early against measles, girls should be vaccinated for rubella when the reach child bearing age to be sure they have immunity, and mumps should just be left to nature.
Now we vaccinate against mumps, those kids that aren't vaccinated I would suggest are more likely to catch it in later life, and so suffer side effects, than if we had an unvaccinated population who caught it in early childhood?How to find a dentist.
1. Get recommendations from friends/family/neighbours/etc.
2. Once you have a short-list, VISIT the practices - dont just phone. Go on the pretext of getting a Practice Leaflet.
3. Assess the helpfulness of the staff and the level of the facilities.
4. Only book initial appointment when you find a place you are happy with.0 -
As I understand it (given I'm a 4th year student!) it's because as you rightly say, the risk isn't to the individual, it's to pregnant women. You're not innoculated to save you from adult disease, which is usually much more horrific than getting the respective illnesses, but to protect the foetuses of non-immune ladies from congenetal rubella syndrome etc...
With rubella, immunising pre-pubertal girls isn't enough - boys can still spread it to pregnant ladies not immune.
I have to admit to not being 100% sure re: mumps. I know it can cross the placenta, but I'm not sure if it is associated with a congenetal syndrome...April Grocery Challenge £81/£1200 -
I know mumps was a common cause of viral meningitis and deafness in children in days before vaccine available. Also worth noting it can cause orchitis and sterility in adult males!:eek:Of all the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most.....
0 -
I know mumps was a common cause of viral meningitis and deafness in children in days before vaccine available. Also worth noting it can cause orchitis and sterility in adult males!:eek:
In adults it can also cause mumps encephalitis (a little like a meningitis, except it's the whole brain that is affected, not just the covering)April Grocery Challenge £81/£1200 -
exactly what i thought too!Toothsmith wrote: »Hi Fluffy,
Whilst you're about, can you answer something for me?
My kids both had MMR, as I didn't feel the theoretical risks outweighed the real problems that measles can cause.
What puzzles me though is why there is a mumps jab, and a rubella jab all wrapped up with it?
In my childhood, girls got a rubella jab at about 12, as the risk of rubella in later life is only dangerous to pregnant women. In childhood, german measles - although it can be quite spectacular with it's rash, has a very low morbidity and mortality - certainly a lot lower than flu.
Mumps too, has a very low incidence of problems in childhood, although it can again cause much bigger problems (literally) if caught later in life.
So why do we now feel the need to vaccinate kids against these two illnesses rather than just let kids catch them and aquire natural immunity?
To my mind, kids should be vaccinated early against measles, girls should be vaccinated for rubella when the reach child bearing age to be sure they have immunity, and mumps should just be left to nature.
Now we vaccinate against mumps, those kids that aren't vaccinated I would suggest are more likely to catch it in later life, and so suffer side effects, than if we had an unvaccinated population who caught it in early childhood?0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 354.8K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.6K Spending & Discounts
- 247.6K Work, Benefits & Business
- 604.5K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.6K Life & Family
- 262.2K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards