MMR - peoples view on combined or seperate jabs?
16 December 2003, 10:08 AM
#3
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: from a land thats cold and wet
Posts: 2,088
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We think the government are just trying to save money but not taking parents feelings into consideration
our kids have had it but for the youngest as we feel they should wait till they are a bit older but you should have the choice
our kids have had it but for the youngest as we feel they should wait till they are a bit older but you should have the choice
16 December 2003, 10:11 AM
#6
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: God's promised land
Posts: 80,907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is no firm proof that the combined jab causes autism, just some circumstantial evidence, as you'll know. In fact, there are greater clinical dangers from having the jabs separately, apparently.
It's a personal choice thing at the end of the day, surely?
The biggest regret over the whole predicament is that there are now parents not getting their kids immunised at all. That can't be a good thing.
It's a personal choice thing at the end of the day, surely?
The biggest regret over the whole predicament is that there are now parents not getting their kids immunised at all. That can't be a good thing.
16 December 2003, 10:13 AM
#7
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: from a land thats cold and wet
Posts: 2,088
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
you dont have a choice of single jabs that is all people want 
just this superdose or nothing
Tel there is no proof it doesn,t cause autism either
just this superdose or nothing
Tel there is no proof it doesn,t cause autism either
Trending Topics
16 December 2003, 10:15 AM
#8
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 6,086
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TB - that is a bad thing I agree.
Personally I'm happy with the combined one and have booked up the jabs for next week. Its the gf who has the worries after seeing the programme (which we both thought wasnt scaremongering BTW).
Personally I'm happy with the combined one and have booked up the jabs for next week. Its the gf who has the worries after seeing the programme (which we both thought wasnt scaremongering BTW).
16 December 2003, 10:19 AM
#9
Guest
Posts: n/a
My 6 year old son hasn't had the MMR or the single jabs. Do not trust the Government on any medical advice as its all based on money and contracts with drug manufacturers.
I have had measles and survived it, I hope my son never gets it but if he does I will have to deal with that scare as and when.
I would do the single jabs if they were offered on the NHS but I have looked into them being done privately and there are just too many cowboy setups to trust any clinic
I have had measles and survived it, I hope my son never gets it but if he does I will have to deal with that scare as and when.
I would do the single jabs if they were offered on the NHS but I have looked into them being done privately and there are just too many cowboy setups to trust any clinic
16 December 2003, 10:25 AM
#10
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: God's promised land
Posts: 80,907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
B20, who/what scared you into that position?
Don't you think you're putting your son at even greater risk from NOT having them done? Isn't relying on your own past experience a bit of a straw-clutch?
Don't you think you're putting your son at even greater risk from NOT having them done? Isn't relying on your own past experience a bit of a straw-clutch?
16 December 2003, 10:31 AM
#11
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: from a land thats cold and wet
Posts: 2,088
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with bravo all people want is a choice single or triple
they are not saying they dont want the jab just not all at once
pete can you relay this to tony please
they are not saying they dont want the jab just not all at once
pete can you relay this to tony please
16 December 2003, 10:42 AM
#12
Guest
Posts: n/a
TB enough stories of parents having normal kids who then have the MMR and then develop Autism a short time afterwards. The fact that the measles disease is found in the gut of these children is enough for me. I am not saying its dangerous for all children but at the same time I firmly believe that its not safe for all children due to allergic reactions like are possible with any drugs and until an answer is found as to what has caused some children to develop autism after the jabs I am not taking the risk. People seem to think Autism is a risk worth taking, its not! Once developed thats that kids life ruined for ever. With measles there is a good chance you survive it with no long lasting side effects.
I do not trust Government research and any statement they make on the safety of MMR. If they were putting children first they would allow the single jabs to be given. Its all about money and I am not having the Government dictate to me about whats best for my son [img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img]
Edited to add that I am in an impossible position. I am damned if I do and damned if I don't because both choices can result in life ruining side effects And what made me more protective Tel was the fact I have lost one son already to the NHS and I am not prepared to put the life of my other son in their hands.
[Edited by ************** - 12/16/2003 10:45:58 AM]
I do not trust Government research and any statement they make on the safety of MMR. If they were putting children first they would allow the single jabs to be given. Its all about money and I am not having the Government dictate to me about whats best for my son [img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img]
Edited to add that I am in an impossible position. I am damned if I do and damned if I don't because both choices can result in life ruining side effects
And what made me more protective Tel was the fact I have lost one son already to the NHS and I am not prepared to put the life of my other son in their hands.[Edited by ************** - 12/16/2003 10:45:58 AM]
16 December 2003, 10:50 AM
#14
Scooby Senior
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wildberg, Germany/Reading, UK
Posts: 9,706
Likes: 0
Received 73 Likes
on
54 Posts
Being ignorant here but what is the difference in having them singley or together??
1 jab with all 3 drugs in it
3 jabs with 1 drug in it
They all end up being mixed about in your body anyway so what is the difference how it is injected??
And no I do not have kids.
1 jab with all 3 drugs in it
3 jabs with 1 drug in it
They all end up being mixed about in your body anyway so what is the difference how it is injected??
And no I do not have kids.
16 December 2003, 10:53 AM
#16
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: from a land thats cold and wet
Posts: 2,088
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
you are giving them 3 different things for their body to deal with with the mmr jag
bit like having the flu the flu and the flu
not nice
bit like having the flu the flu and the flu
not nice
16 December 2003, 11:07 AM
#17
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: God's promised land
Posts: 80,907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pugoetru, are you a doctor??
B20, i believe the Government's stance on this is because there *is* proof of greater risk from separate jabs, they don't want to offer a riskier alternative, for the sake of the children.
Difficult to prove either way. If autism didn't develop in kids at precisely the sort of time in their lives that these jabs were being administered, it would be very easy to prove whether there is indeed anything to worry about. I think if you saw the hard numbers of how many people get their kids MMR'd with no ill effects whatsoever, rather than the headline-grabbing scare stories, you'd come down in favour of them.
But then, people play the Lottery with little comprehension of what 1 in 14 million really means....
B20, i believe the Government's stance on this is because there *is* proof of greater risk from separate jabs, they don't want to offer a riskier alternative, for the sake of the children.
Difficult to prove either way. If autism didn't develop in kids at precisely the sort of time in their lives that these jabs were being administered, it would be very easy to prove whether there is indeed anything to worry about. I think if you saw the hard numbers of how many people get their kids MMR'd with no ill effects whatsoever, rather than the headline-grabbing scare stories, you'd come down in favour of them.
But then, people play the Lottery with little comprehension of what 1 in 14 million really means....
16 December 2003, 11:10 AM
#18
Scooby Senior
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wildberg, Germany/Reading, UK
Posts: 9,706
Likes: 0
Received 73 Likes
on
54 Posts
Another question
I rememeber when I was at school many moons ago that they only gave the rhubela(sp) jab to girls as boys can not contract this disease whatever it is.
So why are they giving boys MMR jabs anyway?
Or have things changed and boy now can get this disease??
I have never had mumps or measles either but did get chicken pox and whooping cough, do they vacinate against these aswell?
I rememeber when I was at school many moons ago that they only gave the rhubela(sp) jab to girls as boys can not contract this disease whatever it is.
So why are they giving boys MMR jabs anyway?
Or have things changed and boy now can get this disease??
I have never had mumps or measles either but did get chicken pox and whooping cough, do they vacinate against these aswell?
16 December 2003, 11:13 AM
#19
Guest
Posts: n/a
TB there is no greater risk given seperately. I have no idea where they get that load of tosh from, its just to try and put people of demanding it.
The seperate jabs are given at a minimum of 6 months apart. That way the body only has to fight off one disease at a time and can cope with it much easier than 3 serious diseases in one go.
The seperate jabs are given at a minimum of 6 months apart. That way the body only has to fight off one disease at a time and can cope with it much easier than 3 serious diseases in one go.
16 December 2003, 11:15 AM
#20
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 1,285
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To be honest it wouldn't bother me having the combined drug.
I am just as likely to get knocked over by a car or something, people are getting to paranoid nowadays, I will just live my life and deal with problems when they come.
I am just as likely to get knocked over by a car or something, people are getting to paranoid nowadays, I will just live my life and deal with problems when they come.
16 December 2003, 11:22 AM
#22
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I found a website somewhere once which collated all the published evidence on MMR and the risk of Autism and Bowel disease.
It transpired the the main chap behind this, Dr/Prof Wakefield started by looking at the effect on using the seperate jabs, and he, in his first paper, concluded that there was a link between Autism and the Measles jab.
He then re-ran the research on the MMR, and found autism again, so he decided that his first research was rubbish, and concluded that MMR is linked with Autism/bowel disorders.
So, the only proper research linking MMR with anything is by no means proven (Or the bloke is a Charletan). There was a study in Norway I think it was that looked like it had shown a link, but the designers of the study neglected a control group to compare against.
It transpired the the main chap behind this, Dr/Prof Wakefield started by looking at the effect on using the seperate jabs, and he, in his first paper, concluded that there was a link between Autism and the Measles jab.
He then re-ran the research on the MMR, and found autism again, so he decided that his first research was rubbish, and concluded that MMR is linked with Autism/bowel disorders.
So, the only proper research linking MMR with anything is by no means proven (Or the bloke is a Charletan). There was a study in Norway I think it was that looked like it had shown a link, but the designers of the study neglected a control group to compare against.
16 December 2003, 11:30 AM
#23
Guest
Posts: n/a
My feelings on this though arnt based purely on his research but on the number of parents who have come forward publicly to give their story on what happened to their kids.
Until they can find the link between the measles germ being present in the bowel and autism then I am not taking the chance to find out whether my son would be one of the children who has this problem!
The one thing that I am not sure about is whether measles is more dangerous to contract the older you get? Is this true or is it more dangerous for babies?
Until they can find the link between the measles germ being present in the bowel and autism then I am not taking the chance to find out whether my son would be one of the children who has this problem!
The one thing that I am not sure about is whether measles is more dangerous to contract the older you get? Is this true or is it more dangerous for babies?
16 December 2003, 11:31 AM
#24
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
B20
Of course there's a clinical risk - there's an inherent risk every time any injection is given. The greater risk is that your kid will catch something in the additional months they're unprotected.
What astonishes me is that this was all based on research done on a limited sample by two doctors, one of whom has since gone on to say that he's changed his mind on the matter.
This whole debate is symptomatic of the suspicion we have of doctors. Do you really think that every known medical council (who aren't excatly known for bowing down to the government) is wrong, or would you rather trust some lay people who think there's a link but don't know.
And as for people having choice; what the medical profession are offering is, in their view, the best clinical and medical practice. To offer separate jabs is to go back 20 years. So if you want to do that, fine, but why expect the government to pay for your irrational fear?
FWIW, I have children, all of whom have had the combined jab. I never had concerns, but my partner did. Rather than trawl the Internet and get bound up in gossip and hype, I asked my GP. She has several children of her own, and gave the following advice: there's a risk with any immunisation, but the risks of NOT being immunised are so much higher than any which might come with the combined jab that it's a chance not worth taking. She did say that she'd do the single injections privately, at minimal cost (I think she mentioned £20 per shot or thereabouts, though this was a few years back), but that she strongly advised against it because it left the kids exposed for longer. Her kids have had the combined jab, BTW.
I made my decision and slept easy that night. I trust my GP and will bow to her knowledge, as she'd bow to mine in my field of expertise.
[Edited by the moose - 12/16/2003 11:34:18 AM]
Of course there's a clinical risk - there's an inherent risk every time any injection is given. The greater risk is that your kid will catch something in the additional months they're unprotected.
What astonishes me is that this was all based on research done on a limited sample by two doctors, one of whom has since gone on to say that he's changed his mind on the matter.
This whole debate is symptomatic of the suspicion we have of doctors. Do you really think that every known medical council (who aren't excatly known for bowing down to the government) is wrong, or would you rather trust some lay people who think there's a link but don't know.
And as for people having choice; what the medical profession are offering is, in their view, the best clinical and medical practice. To offer separate jabs is to go back 20 years. So if you want to do that, fine, but why expect the government to pay for your irrational fear?
FWIW, I have children, all of whom have had the combined jab. I never had concerns, but my partner did. Rather than trawl the Internet and get bound up in gossip and hype, I asked my GP. She has several children of her own, and gave the following advice: there's a risk with any immunisation, but the risks of NOT being immunised are so much higher than any which might come with the combined jab that it's a chance not worth taking. She did say that she'd do the single injections privately, at minimal cost (I think she mentioned £20 per shot or thereabouts, though this was a few years back), but that she strongly advised against it because it left the kids exposed for longer. Her kids have had the combined jab, BTW.
I made my decision and slept easy that night. I trust my GP and will bow to her knowledge, as she'd bow to mine in my field of expertise.
[Edited by the moose - 12/16/2003 11:34:18 AM]
16 December 2003, 11:42 AM
#26
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 2,965
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is an incredibly emotive area. The key thing is to have your kids vaccinated, whether by single jabs or the combination MMR.
Measles is a killer disease: of course lots of people have survived it but it also causes deafness, blindness, brain damage etc.
Also, keeping measles down relies on herd immunity. If the vaccination rates keep dropping there's a very real risk of a serious measles outbreak.
Measles is a killer disease: of course lots of people have survived it but it also causes deafness, blindness, brain damage etc.
Also, keeping measles down relies on herd immunity. If the vaccination rates keep dropping there's a very real risk of a serious measles outbreak.
16 December 2003, 11:47 AM
#28
Guest
Posts: n/a
Irrational fear? Don't patronise me Moose!
Trust your GP and Health Authority? Glad you have such trust. I definately do not as these 'experts' are responsible for the death of my youngest son through ******* up a procedure! So don't tell me I have an irrational ******* fear OK?
Trust your GP and Health Authority? Glad you have such trust. I definately do not as these 'experts' are responsible for the death of my youngest son through ******* up a procedure! So don't tell me I have an irrational ******* fear OK?
16 December 2003, 11:51 AM
#29
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
S96
I mentioned that to my GP, who bitches and whines about costs (I know her personally as well as professionally) but said that this would be one of the last things she'd cut.
I really don't believe it's a cost issue for the government, so much as a desire to get as many children protected as early as possible in their lives. FFS, have people not seen the effects of mumps, measles & rubella? Not all governments are evil, you know, and most MPs (regardless of party) genuinely want to improve the lot of Mr & Mrs Jo(sephine) Public.
I mentioned that to my GP, who bitches and whines about costs (I know her personally as well as professionally) but said that this would be one of the last things she'd cut.
I really don't believe it's a cost issue for the government, so much as a desire to get as many children protected as early as possible in their lives. FFS, have people not seen the effects of mumps, measles & rubella? Not all governments are evil, you know, and most MPs (regardless of party) genuinely want to improve the lot of Mr & Mrs Jo(sephine) Public.
16 December 2003, 11:55 AM
#30
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 6,086
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
moose - who knows - they're hardly likely to admit it are they
As I said my kids are going next week - our choice as parents but there should be an alternative choice for others who want seperate. If the risks are greater then why dont the government publish the stats?
As I said my kids are going next week - our choice as parents but there should be an alternative choice for others who want seperate. If the risks are greater then why dont the government publish the stats?