MMR - did you get your child vaccinated?

SingleSue

I have no idea why you are putting that link up for me, especially when quoting my post saying our view was NOT formed by the Wakefield furore but by personal experience.

We know what we experienced, this isn't some half baked response to media activity...and that experience says we need to treat giving youngest the booster (he has had the original MMR, the other two have had both the MMR and later booster), with the upmost caution, regardless of further research.

marisco_2

Both of my children have had the MMR vaccine. My eldest had this done at the time when all the questions and debate over whether it was safe or not was going on. I didn't buy into all the media scaremongering and went ahead totally convinced that there was no link whatsoever to autism. I was just pleased that my son was protected against such awful, potentially life threatening diseases.

LannieDuck

There's been a huge amount of research done into MMR since Wakefield published his (tiny, flawed study). No correlation found between MMR and autism whatsoever.

On the other hand, measles is a really, really nasty disease, and there's a lot of it around atm, esp if you happen to live in Wales.

As an epidemiologist, my advice is to get your children vaccinated one way or another. If you're scared of the triple jab, get the single jabs - they leave your child un-protected for longer, and are actually less safe (they haven't been subject to the amount of testing that MMR now has), but if that's the only way you're going to be happy giving your child a measles jab, it's much better than nothing.

Edit: Slightly amended to omit wording that may have been inaccurate.

poet123

LannieDuck wrote: »

There's been a huge amount of research done into MMR since Wakefield published his (tiny, flawed study). No correlation found between MMR and autism whatsoever.

On the other hand, measles is a really, really nasty disease, and there's a lot of it around atm, esp if you happen to live in Wales.

As an epidemiologist, my advice is to get your children vaccinated one way or another. If you're scared of the triple jab, get the single jabs - they leave your child un-protected for longer, and are actually less safe (they haven't been through such rigorous licensing, and they certainly haven't been subject to the amount of testing that MMR now has), but if that's the only way you're going to be happy giving your child a measles jab, it's much better than nothing.

As I understand it the single jab is the same monovalent vaccine the World Health organisation have been using since the inception of the Measles vaccine almost 50 years ago. So, how can your statement be correct?

LannieDuck

It was from here: http://www.hpa.org.uk/Topics/InfectiousDiseases/InfectionsAZ/MMR/GeneralInformation/

• Single vaccines imported into this country have not been independently tested for potency and toxicity - we have evidence that some of the single vaccines are less effective or less safe than MMR.

Unlike MMR, where the evidence shows no link, no study has been conducted to look at single vaccines and either autism or bowel disease. In fact, there is no reason to think that single vaccines would be any less likely to cause autism or bowel disease than MMR.
Parents are asking for these vaccines because they are scared by all the unfounded stories they have heard and read about MMR, not because there is any evidence that single vaccines are any safer.
If children do not have protection against all three of these diseases, we run the risk of the resurgence of the infections. This means not just measles outbreaks, but, for example, the return of babies born with terrible defects as a result of congenital rubella syndrome, or of children becoming deaf following mumps.
No country in the world recommends vaccination with the three separate vaccines - the UK is unique in this scare story. Some single vaccines are available in other European countries, where they may be used rarely in special circumstances (for example in France measles vaccine is used for children aged 9 to 12 months attending nursery schools. These children usually go on to have MMR six months later).


(I wrote my post from memory, and now that I've gone back to find the text from source, I acknowledge it didn't mention licensing - I'll amend my prior post to take that bit out.)

elisebutt65

My eldest had the MMR. He went into fits several hours later,was hospitalised, and has never been the same since. He's now 18.

Due to this I paid for ds2 to have his jabs separately after the GP dismissed and poo poo-ed my fears. Cost me a fortune in money, but saved me my peace of mind. The surgery are still sending me reminders to get his MMR, despite the fact that they were all recorded & written in his red book. He's 13 now.

poet123

LannieDuck wrote: »

It was from here: http://www.hpa.org.uk/Topics/InfectiousDiseases/InfectionsAZ/MMR/GeneralInformation/

• Single vaccines imported into this country have not been independently tested for potency and toxicity - we have evidence that some of the single vaccines are less effective or less safe than MMR.

Unlike MMR, where the evidence shows no link, no study has been conducted to look at single vaccines and either autism or bowel disease. In fact, there is no reason to think that single vaccines would be any less likely to cause autism or bowel disease than MMR.
Parents are asking for these vaccines because they are scared by all the unfounded stories they have heard and read about MMR, not because there is any evidence that single vaccines are any safer.
If children do not have protection against all three of these diseases, we run the risk of the resurgence of the infections. This means not just measles outbreaks, but, for example, the return of babies born with terrible defects as a result of congenital rubella syndrome, or of children becoming deaf following mumps.
No country in the world recommends vaccination with the three separate vaccines - the UK is unique in this scare story. Some single vaccines are available in other European countries, where they may be used rarely in special circumstances (for example in France measles vaccine is used for children aged 9 to 12 months attending nursery schools. These children usually go on to have MMR six months later).


(I wrote my post from memory, and now that I've gone back to find the text from source, I acknowledge it didn't mention licensing - I'll amend my prior post to take that bit out.)

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs286/en/

Prevention

Routine measles vaccination for children, combined with mass immunization campaigns in countries with high case and death rates, are key public health strategies to reduce global measles deaths. The measles vaccine has been in use for over 40 years. It is safe, effective and inexpensive. It costs less than one US dollar to immunize a child against measles.
The measles vaccine is often incorporated with rubella and/or mumps vaccines in countries where these illnesses are problems. It is equally effective in the single or combined form.

LannieDuck

poet123 wrote: »

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs286/en/

Prevention

Routine measles vaccination for children, combined with mass immunization campaigns in countries with high case and death rates, are key public health strategies to reduce global measles deaths. The measles vaccine has been in use for over 40 years. It is safe, effective and inexpensive. It costs less than one US dollar to immunize a child against measles.
The measles vaccine is often incorporated with rubella and/or mumps vaccines in countries where these illnesses are problems. It is equally effective in the single or combined form.

In all of this discussion, the risks will be relative. Both MMR and single jabs are very safe relative to the risks of catching measles.

The MMR data in England has had a huge amount of attention and a very large number of studies conducted on it. The single vaccine data hasn't had the same in depth attention in the UK.

Incidentally, vaccines do act differently in different countries - you just have to look at the protection rates of BCG to see that. So the WHO statement will be looking at safety and effectiveness across many countries, whereas the HPA statement will be looking specifically at Eng&Wales.

poet123

LannieDuck wrote: »

In all of this discussion, the risks will be relative. Both MMR and single jabs are very safe relative to the risks of catching measles.

The MMR data in England has had a huge amount of attention and a very large number of studies conducted on it. The single vaccine data hasn't had the same in depth attention in the UK.

Incidentally, vaccines do act differently in different countries - you just have to look at the protection rates of BCG to see that. So the WHO statement will be looking at safety and effectiveness across many countries, whereas the HPA statement will be looking specifically at Eng&Wales.

The point was though that the single jab is known to be as safe and effective as the MMR, and having been used for all those years has been just as tried and tested.

If one looks at the adverse reaction stats more reports come from the MMR than do from the monvalent vaccine.

LannieDuck

poet123 wrote: »

The point was though that the single jab is known to be as safe and effective as the MMR, and having been used for all those years has been just as tried and tested.

If one looks at the adverse reaction stats more reports come from the MMR than do from the monvalent vaccine.

Where are you getting the adverse reaction stats from?