MMR - did you get your child vaccinated?

alwaysskint96

notanewuser wrote: »

Apart from the increased costs of the jabs, that means 6 seperate NHS appointments rather than 2. On top of that a large proportion if parents would rather not put their child through 6 needles rather than 2 - the odds of children actually having all 6 jabs is tiny.

6 jabs for MEASLES????? One and a booster as far s I remember. And is it more expensive than treating measles epidemics?

securityguy

notanewuser wrote: »

Apart from the increased costs of the jabs, that means 6 seperate NHS appointments rather than 2. On top of that a large proportion if parents would rather not put their child through 6 needles rather than 2 - the odds of children actually having all 6 jabs is tiny.

Especially as there's not the slightest evidence that separate jabs are "safer", nor any reason practically or theoretically for it to be the case. The "immune overload" argument is complete nonsense, put about by people who failed A Level biology but have a couple of TED videos on their iPhone. Wakefield didn't even present evidence by his own incompetent standards for separate jabs, it was just an off-the-cuff comment at a press conference. He did, however, and by a strange coincidence, hold the patent on a single measles jab.

alias*alibi

Yes my daughter did but after I nearly ran out of the clinic in a panic attack over it. Reasons for my OTT reaction was being married to a guy whose son had severe autism who had the 3 in 1 too. I had read the research but was still freaked out; but against my own fears I had it done as I knew it was the best for her.

TopQuark

Andrew Wakefield is nothing but a privileged toff who thinks himself vastly superior to the majority of the 'ignorant plebs' he attempted to deceive. That he still continues to plead innocence is testament to this.

Anyone who believes his nonsense science and is too lazy to spend 30 seconds informing themself of the actual situation, gets what they deserve....which could mean their kid dies of measles.

kingfisherblue

Lalaladybird wrote: »

My 1st was vaccinated and has autism...I don't think they're linked, my 2nd was vaccinated and does not have autism, my 3rd is due to be vaccinated and for some reason I am worrying about whether to get him done. Even though I don't think there is a link I'm still worried. Just wondering what other people on here did with their children re the MMR and did you worry or was it an easy decision?

OP, it is my understanding that autism can run in some families. I know of at least two fathers, both with autistic children, who have only been diagnosed as adults. I also know a few families who have more than one autistic child.

In addition, I agree with the poster who pointed out the fact that autism is more often diagnosed these days. I think that as science continues to develop, the amount of people to receive a diagnosis for many disorders and conditions will increase. Science has developed so much over the last few decades, and it seems to be speeding along more quickly than ever.

As autism and the MMR are not linked, and this has been scientifically proven, surely it is safer to have your baby immunised?

notanewuser

alwaysskint96 wrote: »

6 jabs for MEASLES????? One and a booster as far s I remember. And is it more expensive than treating measles epidemics?

If you don't want your child getting measles, you probably don't want then catching mumps (very dangerous, particularly for boys/men) or rubella either (very dangerous for pregnant women).

The MMR is a 3-in-1 jab, and 2 doses are given usually (one at 13 months, the other at 40 months). 3x2=6, so you need 6 single jabs to replace the 2 MMR jabs.

Aimless

notanewuser wrote: »

Apart from the increased costs of the jabs, that means 6 seperate NHS appointments rather than 2. On top of that a large proportion if parents would rather not put their child through 6 needles rather than 2 - the odds of children actually having all 6 jabs is tiny.

Firstly, isn't 6, it's 4, 2 for measles, one for rubella, and one for mumps if it is available.

Secondly, if you offered the MMR as standard, with singles on request, those who actually had to make an effort to opt in for them would surely be more likely to make the effort to attend for them all!

Lastly,anyone who makes a choice on medical treatment based on 'not wanting to go twice' or not wanting to watch them being injected has their priorities all wrong! I will have as many vaccinations done as possible, if I feel comfortable with them.

I read a lot of data, not from Wakefield, but from a variety of sources, and decided I was not comfortable with the MMR. So I paid for a single, and drove 110 miles or so to get it. Are you telling me I wouldn't get round to popping down the surgery if it was free?

By the way, the other doctor who was struck off with Wakefield was reinstated on appeal.

Aimless

The mumps portion of the MMR is actually not particularly effective. There was a recent outbreak in a boarding school, and over half the cases had actually had the MMR. Mumps isn't particularly dangerous until boys reach puberty, so they would, in my opinion, be better off catching it young and becoming properly immune before they reach puberty.

Aimless

As I said last time this was discussed, I wouldn't particularly try to persuade anyone which choice to make, everyone has to do their own research and come to their own decision. But I do object to parents who make a different decision to the 'norm' being categorised as lazy, ill informed, endangering their children, stupid etc.

securityguy

Aimless wrote: »

everyone has to do their own research

Unfortunately, they rarely do. They don't start with meta-analyses and the Cochrane Collaboration, and work slowly down through the hierarchy of evidence if necessary. They don't go and buy a copy of the bible of evidence-based research, Trisha Greenhalgh's "How to read a paper" and follow its precepts.

Instead, they just look s4it up on the Internet, and find endless cranks on whale.to and the like, which manages to exhibit truthiness to people who are unlikely to have strong research skills.

Research: it's hard.