# Parents...MMR what did you decide?



## Lisa. (May 7, 2002)

*Parents...MMR what did/will you choose?*​
MMR triple vaccine at 12-18m & booster at 4yrs4175.93%Single vaccines712.96%Opting out completely23.70%Still deciding47.41%


----------



## Lisa. (May 7, 2002)

I just wondered whether the MMR triple vaccine is still the popular choice or whether parents are opting for single vaccines more frequently these days.

The MMR triple vaccine is given between 12-18 months and again at 4.


----------



## BAMTT (Feb 22, 2004)

We went for the Triple for our girls, after some debate we came to the conclusion that it was a small percentage that had problems, and that it was better than the kids getting M/M or R, a few of our friends went to France etc for the separate jabs with no ill affects other than having jab their kids more than once,

Why the question now ? if i may be so bold


----------



## saint (Dec 6, 2002)

My sis and I had this very conversation last week - her wee one has just had her first jag. She decided to go for the MMR as once reading all the literature etc she came to the conclusion it's far safer to be innoculated than go without & that the MMR is just as safe as the other variants.

I too would go with the combined if I had a kid etc etc - unless of course there was conclusive evidence that it did directly cause problems.


----------



## mike_bailey (May 7, 2002)

We copied Tony Blair and had separate jabs.


----------



## Lisa. (May 7, 2002)

One of the children who attends my classes is in hospital with measles and I've had to advise all the parents of unvaccinated children or those who have had single vaccines and any pregnant women to immediately visit their GP's.

The child in question had single vaccines. He is 2yrs old.

I see the same question was asked 12 months ago.

http://www.********.co.uk/ttforumbbs/vi ... r&start=30


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

mike_bailey said:


> We copied Tony Blair and had separate jabs.


Did you also throw out the house cat?


----------



## Carlos (May 6, 2002)

Our daughter had separate vaccines 2-3 years ago when it was all up in the air.

With our son we were all set to go MMR until my Mrs had a last minute change of heart and so he too is having separate vaccines. He's had the measles and the second one is happening on saturday.


----------



## NickP (May 6, 2002)

After much thought we ended up going MMR for Imogen and I imagine we'll follow suit with Aaron


----------



## GW1970 (Jul 4, 2005)

Probably will go for separate jabs


----------



## Lisa. (May 7, 2002)

why?


----------



## GW1970 (Jul 4, 2005)

Lisa. said:


> why?


There has been concern in the media about the link with autism - esp in boys.


----------



## saint (Dec 6, 2002)

Exactly - media - there have been no links proved - and of course to keep this balanced disproved!

IMO alot more work has to go into the causes of autisim before any judgement can be made. It's too m uch of a buzz word these days - and seems to get blamed , in many of it's forms, for alot of problems.


----------



## scott28tt (Jul 30, 2002)

Our little boy (21 months) had his triple MMR a few months back. It had no effect on him at the time (other than the minute of screaming!) and none since.

We obviously talked about the various options and came to the conclusion that as there is no proven scientific link between the triple jab and autism we'd rather him have the jab than catch one of the 3 viruses if he had nothing. We also decided against having the 3 jabs separately for the same lack of evidence.

I tend to rebel against any kind of GMTV/Daily Mail scaremongering.


----------



## GW1970 (Jul 4, 2005)

Granted - nothing proved - but why take any risks at all with your child?


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

GW1970 said:


> Granted - nothing proved - but why take any risks at all with your child?


And risk what instead? Death from measles? First one today in 14 years...


----------



## saint (Dec 6, 2002)

Yup and because people are not taking up any of the jags the diseases are showing large % increases in outbreaks - making it more important to get them!!


----------



## Lisa. (May 7, 2002)

Click & read

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/4871728.stm

Click and watch the first video

http://newssearch.bbc.co.uk/cgi-bin/sea ... v&x=43&y=9

Then think again.


----------



## GW1970 (Jul 4, 2005)

I'm certainly not talking about the child not being vaccinated.

Surely the single jabs offer the same protection as the triple jab? Just not all at the same time!


----------



## Lisa. (May 7, 2002)

Measles was wiped out in this country, now it's back. Why do you think that is? Measles is FAR more serious than the *unproved risk *of Autism. Kids can be brain damaged, lose their sight and hearing. Unborn babies risk brain damage and death.

That's a fact.

Have the numbers for new cases of Autism reduced?

I doubt it.


----------



## GW1970 (Jul 4, 2005)

Lisa. said:


> Measles was wiped out in this country, now it's back. Why do you think that is? Measles is FAR more serious than the *unproved risk *of Autism. Kids can be brain damaged, lose their sight and hearing. Unborn babies risk brain damage and death.
> 
> That's a fact.
> 
> ...


Please read my post :roll:


----------



## Lisa. (May 7, 2002)

GW1970 said:


> I'm certainly not talking about the child not being vaccinated.
> 
> Surely the single jabs offer the same protection as the triple jab? Just not all at the same time!


Single vaccines

1.Six separate injections would have to be given over a long period of time 
2.There would be a fall in vaccine coverage as children may not complete the course of injections 
3.Children who complete the course are left without protection in the gaps between injections 
4.Children who cannot have the MMR vaccine, such as those having treatment for cancer, may be more exposed to infection 
5.Pregnant women would be at greater risk of rubella from their own unprotected children and their friends' children

And with measles now becoming rife, as other parents make the same decision, YOUR child will be at risk.

It's even more important to have the MMR!

Forget the scaremongering, get the jab!


----------



## nutts (May 8, 2002)

The 2 people that voted "opted out completely"... why?  :?


----------



## GW1970 (Jul 4, 2005)

Lisa. said:


> GW1970 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm certainly not talking about the child not being vaccinated.
> ...


Well you've obviously made your mind up on the issue! 

Single vaccines are quite viable separately (as you say - as long as the course is completed and of course we would), just that it isn't cost-effective for the NHS. Hence the need to go private. You pays your money - you takes your choice.

From a 'common sense' point of view single vaccines would presumably place less of a burden on the immune system than multiple ones.

We will have to agree to differ


----------



## Lisa. (May 7, 2002)

GW1970 said:


> Lisa. said:
> 
> 
> > GW1970 said:
> ...


Yeah sorry, I do feel very strongly about it.

Your child, your decision.


----------



## Carlos (May 6, 2002)

Both of our children have had the measles single vaccine first, I believe they all do it that way. So as long as you make sure you have the 2nd set of vaccines you're at no more risk of catching Measles than if you had MMR.

We made our initial decision back in the time when there was real fear of autism. This has subsided now but my wife still wanted my son to have single vaccines, and I support this.

Surely the rise of measles is because some parents are just not having their children immunised at all - nothing to do with single vaccines?


----------



## Carlos (May 6, 2002)

Just re-read the whole thread, had missed the post about the boy you know.

Are you saying that single vaccines don't work? I guess not. Is there a stronger likelihood of catching measles if you've had the single vaccine rather than MMR?


----------



## Lisa. (May 7, 2002)

> There are no health benefits from using single vaccines in preference to MMR and a number of reasons why they are a bad idea:
> 
> Single vaccines are less safe than MMR because they leave children vulnerable to disease for longer; we would rightly be criticised if we offered a less safe option when we knew that a better one was available.
> 
> ...


Directly from the Health Protection Agency website. The Health Protection Agency (HPA) is an independent body that protects the health and well-being of the population. The Agency plays a critical role in protecting people from infectious diseases.

If you change your mind I think I read that a child who has received the single vaccines can still have the combined MMR at the pre-school vaccination and that it is never too late to be vaccinated.

But remember, I'm not a doctor , I'm just concerned why parents make the decision against MMR and what facts they base their decision making on.


----------



## saint (Dec 6, 2002)

> But remember, I'm not a doctor , I'm just concerned why parents make the decision against MMR and what facts they base their decision making on.


What facts?

I'd rather see my child safe. Of course that brings to the fore more debates! But if we were to consider all the effects modern medicines have on us etc etc etc blah blah.

Polio anyone?


----------



## Lisa. (May 7, 2002)

Hmmm I guess for some it's just a gamble either way. You just have to decide which "risk" you prefer.

I'll leave it there


----------



## shelley (Nov 22, 2004)

Our oldest had MMR as will our youngest. Just like Tony chose for Leo.


----------



## mike_bailey (May 7, 2002)

There's still a fair amount of debate (just like here!) about the merits of single jabs vs MMR. If it's a choice between the two which I believe are equally effective then it's probably best to go with your heart as we did. Not having it at all is a different matter and is a neglect of duty.


----------



## jdn (Aug 26, 2002)

Triple jab for my two.

The whole MMR debate was driven by a flawed piece of research that should never have been published, and has since been withdrawn. Wakefield - the author - was a close friend of the then editor of the Lancet which must have been a factor. Then the Daily Mail got hold of it and the rest is a badly informed 'debate' for want of a better term.

Problem is, herd immunity is falling and children are getting measles again. This is further enhanced by the fact only senior GPs close to retirement know what it is like to see a child die or be profoundly disabled by measles.

I said some time ago the only 'solution' will be when a famous child gets measles badly and this generates enough publicity to send people running for the MMR again.


----------



## scoTTy (May 6, 2002)

Lisa - thanks for raising this.

We're approching the time for jabs for Ben. I originally was insistent we would get separates and then was convinced that we should just do MMR. The apparent lack of availability of the separates also influenced this.

The risks of not completing the course of separates etc we've discounted as it would be priority 1 for us to ensure it does.

I am 95% sure we will go MMR (no jabs is not an option) but there's always that slight parental worry of what if. :?


----------



## Multiprocess (Aug 9, 2004)

We went for MMR triple without any question whatsoever.


----------



## DXN (May 18, 2002)

I didn't hesitate to give both my children the triple MMR

There is no evidence to suggest any problems

Measles is chuffing horrible, mumps isn't so good either. :evil:

Do it, and feel reassured that it may save your child from several ghastly illness which may kill them :?

http://www.dh.gov.uk/AdvancedSearch/Sea ... h_site&Z=1

The DoH site gives good sound info


----------



## Kell (May 28, 2002)

We're pretty much at the stage of the first one.

I have to confess, I'd not really read anything at all about it myself and went along with the 'herd' mentallity. My wife, however, has read all she can and tells me that the MMR one is just as safe as the separates.

The other factor, is the cost. :?

I know where your children's helath is concerned then there should be no compromises, but Â£1,000 would be very hard to find right now.


----------



## ObiWan (Sep 25, 2005)

We did all three of ours with no issues


----------



## Steve_Mc (May 6, 2002)

MMR every time.

It's been used in Finland for over 30 years without any side effects, especially imaginary ones made up by a brown-envelope-accepting-subsequently-discredited-self-interested-so-called doctor. It's hard to know which is more dispicable though - the bent doctor, or the Daily Mail fanning the flames of hysteria. All it's done is play havoc with the health of the nation's children


----------



## mike_bailey (May 7, 2002)

Kell said:


> We're pretty much at the stage of the first one.
> 
> I have to confess, I'd not really read anything at all about it myself and went along with the 'herd' mentallity. My wife, however, has read all she can and tells me that the MMR one is just as safe as the separates.
> 
> ...


Kell, it cost us only(!) Â£450 over the 6 months and the were very good. If you did decide to do the 3 they're called Choice Healthcare Services and their number is 0870 770 8545 if you want more info. It was so painless that I'm not sure our little girl even knew she'd had the jabs as she'd definitely let us know if she did! It also made a good day out, we parked up outside the clinic in Harley Street on a Sunday, got the jabs then spent the rest of the day in London (particularly Hamleys!).


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

What would we have all had as kids?

I caught german measles (is that different?) but never had mumps as a kid, and I am not austistic - OK I may be slightly aspergic about my Hi Fi and keeping the inside of the car tidy and organised, but that's about all.
:wink:

Forget internet and media hyperbole, what do most docs recommend ?(and give their kids) - that's got to be the route to follow.

Going outside the NHS seems inappropriate.


----------



## Lisa. (May 7, 2002)

garyc said:


> What would we have all had as kids?
> 
> I caught german measles (is that different?) but never had mumps as a kid, and I am not austistic - OK I may be slightly aspergic about my Hi Fi and keeping the inside of the car tidy and organised, but that's about all.
> :wink:
> ...


MMR is Measles, Mumps and Rubella

Rubella is another name for German Measles.

Doctors recommend and have always recommended MMR .

Nice to see you taking an interest in kids all of a sudden :wink:

Btw it's AUTISTIC :wink:


----------



## jonhaff (May 20, 2002)

look at the real stats.

It all started when a 'report' which tested no more than 10 or so said it look like a correlation.
The sample size is WAY to low to have any conclusion whats so ever.

MMR is being used in many countries and they have reported nothing.

If you look at autism in general it affects predominaelty males more than females and as such if you have a girl the risk is even lower.

Taking the single doesnt mean you have covered as per the news reports of that hosptal/doctor who gave sinles shots which were incorrect.

Dont put yr kids at risk do the MMR.


----------



## paulatt (Oct 28, 2002)

My son had his first MMR jab at the same time as a friend who had twin boys. These twin boys were developing prefectly normally until they had their MMR. Since the injections, neither twin have spoken a word and have been diagnosed as autistic.

As a result, my son did not have the MMR booster at 4yrs.

My advice would be to go for the separate injections and I still question the need for a booster a couple of years later as I understand that this booster is given just in case the first one didnt 'take'.


----------



## scoTTy (May 6, 2002)

So if I'm happy to pay Â£450 I see that

I'm saving the HNS a bit of cash
I'm removing the autism risk (even if it's incredibly small)
My childs still covered

Isn't this ok then?

What's the down side? :?


----------



## Lisa. (May 7, 2002)

scoTTy said:


> So if I'm happy to pay Â£450 I see that
> 
> I'm saving the HNS a bit of cash
> I'm removing the autism risk (even if it's incredibly small)
> ...


He won't be fully protected until he's had his second course of jabs, therefore can catch measles, suffer the (serious) consquences and pass it on to others.

Are you sure you've read the thread? :wink:


----------



## scoTTy (May 6, 2002)

I thought I read that but thought I'd misunderstood. Why does getting three in one go mean your protect up until the 2nd course but getting them one by one doesn't.

I don't get it? :?


----------



## Lisa. (May 7, 2002)

Nor me, but that's what's happening.


----------



## shelley (Nov 22, 2004)

scoTTy said:


> So if I'm happy to pay Â£450 I see that
> 
> I'm saving the HNS a bit of cash
> I'm removing the autism risk (even if it's incredibly small)
> ...


The fact that people still opt to have single jabs rather than MMR could help propogate the myth that MMR is not safe so that people avoid any form of immunisation.


----------



## scoTTy (May 6, 2002)

True but do you think I'd risk the future of my child* because of that reason?

*I'm still not 100% convinced there's no autism risk. :?


----------



## mike_bailey (May 7, 2002)

shelley said:


> scoTTy said:
> 
> 
> > So if I'm happy to pay Â£450 I see that
> ...


Medicine isn't an exact science so there'll always continue to be debate about it and parents have to take a view. We spent a long time researching and MMR rang enough alarm bells to force us to choose the single jab.

I must confess though that Tony Blair's decision to send his children for single jabs in France was one of the factors when we made our decision - it was a bit like a jockey of a favourite backing another horse in a race he's riding in.


----------



## Jae (May 6, 2002)

I dont think we have the MMR here, but we do have combo jabs (at 6 & 12 mths) including Menigitis (because I travel to the UK regularly!!).


----------



## shelley (Nov 22, 2004)

scoTTy said:


> True but do you think I'd risk the future of my child* because of that reason?
> 
> *I'm still not 100% convinced there's no autism risk. :?


No - if I did think there was a risk I wouldn't use MMR either, but there is a wider downside to that thinking as evidenced from the decline in immunisation levels which presents a seperate risk.


----------



## shelley (Nov 22, 2004)

scoTTy said:


> True but do you think I'd risk the future of my child* because of that reason?
> 
> *I'm still not 100% convinced there's no autism risk. :?


No - if I did think there was a risk I wouldn't use MMR either, but there is a wider downside to that thinking as evidenced from the decline in immunisation levels which presents a seperate risk.


----------



## shelley (Nov 22, 2004)

mike_bailey said:


> I must confess though that Tony Blair's decision to send his children for single jabs in France was one of the factors when we made our decision.


What is that based on? An article in the Daily Express? Should that be any more believable than the original MMR scare stories carried by the Daily Mail that contributed to the hysteria around MMR?


----------



## scoTTy (May 6, 2002)

shelley said:


> scoTTy said:
> 
> 
> > True but do you think I'd risk the future of my child* because of that reason?
> ...


So if I do it secretly then there's no problem? I better not post about this on the web then!


----------



## shelley (Nov 22, 2004)

I just mean that as long as there are reports that people are choosing to pay for single shots rather than get MMR on the NHS, this in itself will mean that some people assume there is a problem with MMR.


----------



## mike_bailey (May 7, 2002)

shelley said:


> mike_bailey said:
> 
> 
> > I must confess though that Tony Blair's decision to send his children for single jabs in France was one of the factors when we made our decision.
> ...


Widely reported at the time and not much argument from his office - why would he have resorted to the old "this is a personal matter and I won't be drawn on it" excuse otherwise? Most kids have MMR, I've never met anybody who doesn't offer up that information gladly even the first time you've ever met them, nobody's been shy on the forum about disclosing it. Then consider the positive impact it would have had if he'd have told us all that they'd had MMR at the time? The press are to blame for a lot of it but Blair nailed the lid on the coffin for them.


----------



## jonhaff (May 20, 2002)

scoTTy said:


> So if I'm happy to pay Â£450 I see that
> 
> I'm saving the HNS a bit of cash
> I'm removing the autism risk (even if it's incredibly small)
> ...


"My child still covered" ?! No gaurantee here either; that clinic in north london was giving incorrect injections. So at least with MMR you get what you expect !
Based on the extremely unscientific sample size of the so called research I still dont think there is any link. So we had MMR with no problems on both our kids.


----------



## scoTTy (May 6, 2002)

The thing is the percentage of people it has allegedly gone wrong for is very small. At the end of the day 10000 people could say "our kids were ok" but there's always that small chance. I guess it's the same reason I have had my eyes lasered. :?


----------



## scoTTy (May 6, 2002)

p.s. Didn't we have it as separates when we were young or was mumps not included?


----------



## jonhaff (May 20, 2002)

Mens Health mag May this year page 138.
According to this article another study in Japan proved the opposite and reduced the risk of autism !

Ultimetly we all do what we think is best !


----------



## scoTTy (May 6, 2002)

What did? MMR or singles?


----------



## GW1970 (Jul 4, 2005)

scoTTy said:


> What did? MMR or *singles*?


I believe studies have shown that married life does extend life expectancy! :wink:


----------



## mike_bailey (May 7, 2002)

GW1970 said:


> scoTTy said:
> 
> 
> > What did? MMR or *singles*?
> ...


My mate was informed by his doctor today that he only had 30 days to live so he told me he's going to get married.

I said "You crazy or something, you've only got 30 days to live?"

and he said "It may only be 30 days but it'll seem like a lifetime"

Boom, boom!

Working late tonight


----------



## jonhaff (May 20, 2002)

Having MMR reduced the risk of autism thats what the Japanese research showed. although again Men Health didnt give any specifics as to sample size etc, although its likely to be a better sample than the other one.


----------



## scoTTy (May 6, 2002)

I'm resurrecting this thread from a couple of months ago as Ben had the MMR on the 29th June.

What side effects did your kids have?

We're now at 12 days and for the last three he's been a bit grumpy and generally under the weather. All the web sites (and our nurse) said there may be a rash (he may have a very very slight one), possibly swollen glands and a bit of a fever. His temperature is normal but he's behaving like he has a bit of a bug.

I'm not overly concerned at the moment as it seems it's all expected ... but we are keeping a close eye on him.


----------



## BAMTT (Feb 22, 2004)

From what i remember pretty similiar to what you are describing, just a bit grumpy


----------



## DXN (May 18, 2002)

scoTTy said:


> I'm resurrecting this thread from a couple of months ago as Ben had the MMR on the 29th June.
> 
> What side effects did your kids have?
> 
> ...


had very similar thing with both of ours and its completely normal and expected. 24-48 and there back on form.

regards


----------



## mike_bailey (May 7, 2002)

Had this also on two of the single jabs.


----------



## Lisa. (May 7, 2002)

Back in the news today, thought I'd resurrect a 3 year old thread and see whether any ones opinions have changed?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7872541.stm


----------



## alexasTT (Jan 19, 2005)

We went for the triple vaccine last summer for our daughter Maisie,she was 18 months glad we did after todays reports.

Derek


----------



## J55TTC (Apr 25, 2005)

This thread was conceived at about the same time as our son, only just seen it now for the first time.

After a lot of research we decided to have the all in one at around the 18 month mark as there was nothing difinitve linking it with autism. Wish I'd have saved all the links etc now as it was all quite comprehensive.


----------



## scoTTy (May 6, 2002)

As I posted above we decided to follow the medical advice and have the MMR. It still plays on my mind a bit especially when a little while ago we had the last jabs.

However seeing the latest news I have to admit to being a little a angry at those that have chosen not to get on board.


----------



## jonah (Aug 17, 2002)

scoTTy said:


> As I posted above we decided to follow the medical advice and have the MMR. It still plays on my mind a bit especially when a little while ago we had the last jabs.
> 
> However seeing the latest news I have to admit to being a little a angry at those that have chosen not to get on board.


Don't blame the parents blame the media :?


----------



## scoTTy (May 6, 2002)

Got to disagree.

Too many things in this world get blamed on others rather than individuals taking responsibility. :?


----------



## jdn (Aug 26, 2002)

I have long held the view that the only thing that will boost the MMR uptake rates is for a 'famous' child to get the neasles and a celebrity to endorse it given the fickle nature of many and poor quality reporting (Daily Mail etc.).


----------



## mike_bailey (May 7, 2002)

Single jabs for both, this is my most recent creation


----------



## Matt B (Apr 8, 2007)

MMR for my 1st (who is now 8 ) and it will be MMR for Emma - who has now reached the grand old age of 10 days old.
I work in the field of human vaccines and many (many) years ago actually manufactured measles vaccine, which was used in a triple vaccine. 
There is no conclusive evidence linking MMR to autism. There is however conclusive evidence to say that the poor uptake of MMR has lead to a resurgence in measles :?


----------

