Bravo2Zero -- a second vote for no real upper age limit. Worth having it done because measles can still be damaging to adults, and mumps can make boys sterile.

At age seven your child will have a stronger immune system so should take it in his / her stride.

Cheers Brickboy, that was my thinking but I have to try and convince his mum :rolleyes:

There is another risk with single jabs. As I undrestand it the three separate inoculations need to be given 6 months apart. This means that the kid is exposed to the risk of contracting either measles , mumps or german measles for 18 months longer than if they had the MMR.

In the case of measles, this is a significant risk as its a potentially very nasty disease

My son had his MMR and Booster. No problems at all. :D

You may call it "hype", but i actually cried (and this is not my style) when i read the Private Eye report - have you read it? If not, please don't critisise it!

The NHS "professionals" that i have seen/heard seem to regurgitate the government mantra verbatim - and thus i tend to doubt their integrity. Also, why do other NHS professionals, who happen to disagree with the forced MMR policy, get their funding cut???

But let me suggest the following...

If this government was serious about the state of health in the country, and for whatever reasons - citizens through their own free choice don't want the MMR vaccine - then WTF don't they provide single vaccines for free on the NHS???? YOU CHOOSE - 2 MMRs or 6 singles!

mb

I'm talking about REAL WORLD NHS professionals and not the "professionals" you are seeing/hearing in the media.

ie, those that actually have to deal with day-to-day real world cases in real NHS hospitals, and have access to statistics which show disease incidence.

Feel free to read all you like in satirical magazines, but I'll stick with hard facts from source thanks....

The agenda of a satirical magazine is to question/oppose the goverment. The agenda of the NHS is to ensure the health of the nation. If the evidence was overwhelming, it simply WOULD be withdrawn. There is no reason why the NHS would keep peddling dodgy drugs - what does the NHS have to gain from it??

So i take it that you haven't read "MMR - The Story So Far" :rolleyes:

Oh, and as for the NHS Professionals, are you referring to the ones that "regurgitate the government mantra verbatim" or the ones that "who happen to disagree with the forced MMR policy"???

WHY DOESN'T BLIAR ALLOW SINGLE VACCINES ON THE NHS???

mb

p.s.
Reminder:
Measles did NOT kill me!
Mumps did NOT kill me!
Rubella did NOT kill me!

...how did i miss this? :rolleyes: :mad:

THINK ABOUT IT!!!!!!

mb

Not yet, as I'm not paying for it! :)


Perhaps because there's nothing really wrong with the triple MMR :)


No-one said they did. It's not a death issue that is being discussed. Measles can certainly lead to complications such as, for example, deafness amonst other things.

Umm.....I've thought about it, and I'm failing to see what you are trying to imply?

Because the people whose job it is to quantify these things are of the opinion it is greater risk than the MMR

Some of you seem to be looking for some big conspiracy theory on this one. I don't know why. It shows how easily journalists can manipulate your minds.....

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. If there were known issues with the triple MMR and there were alternatives available (which there are), do you REALLY REALLY think that the NHS would continue to dispense this drug? What is there to gain from doing so? Knowingly harming the future generation of our country? What purpose is there in that?

As I said before also, there are risks associated with ANY drug. However, the NHS do their best (to the best of their knowledge & experience) to minimise these risks to us, the general public. There is no hidden agenda.

Go look at: http://www.vaccination.inoz.com/ particularly the bit about what is actually in the vaccines. Mercury for example, which I believe is the *preservative* in the current MMR vaccine. If I was a toddler and had a choice there is NO way I'd want that stuff injected into me. Quote "Mercury is the second most poisonous element known to man (next to uranium and its derivatives).". And they also put in in your mouth as a filling! The wife had to have 12 fillings replaced with non-mercury ones as she was diagnosed with mercury poisoning.

Got a kid coming along in a couple of months and we are both agreed that it will have NO vaccinations. Who was is that said they'd campiagn to get kids who weren't vaccnated removed from nursey/school in this thread? If vaccination is so good and you've had yours done no danger to them is there??

Go read some of the literature about the negative effects rather than just say 'well the government wouldnt recommend anything bad would they'?? There's an old Chinese proverb, something along the lines of 'all the worlds worst problems are caused by someone who knows they are right'. i.e. those who allow no room for debate if it goes against their beliefs.

Start with the url I give above and do some proper research ...

Dave

If you're wanting to do proper research, I don't really think the website you have quoted is the best place to begin....

In fact, for proper research, the web is perhaps the LAST place you should be looking.

So, if your non-vaccinated kid contracts measles and ends up being deaf, whilst his best friend (vaccinated) is not deaf and has not contracted any other diseases, do you think your kid will ask WHY you chose not to vaccinate?

Of course, I'm sure you will state YOUR case of mercury poisoning, but current statistics show that the chances of measles and related damage FAR outweigh any other risk.

Measles is potentially dangerous in a very small number of cases - it can lead to pneumonia or brain swelling.

The reason people dismiss it is because we now have so few cases due to an effective immunisation programme. Remove that programme, and measles cases (as is happening) will rocket, and the small number of serious cases will also rocket.

I think that website has one agenda only, selling it's Video/DVD. It appears to be biased against ALL vaccines and tries to scare the reader into buying their material. IMHO if you want a balanced view on what risks are associated with vaccines and not having them, you should give that website a miss.

two pages on and no hard facts???

the bottom line is ... as parents its your decision...

rightly or wrongly the outcome is down to you and you alone...

its a harsh fact i know,, but parenting is about decision making...

how many parents here still worry about there children?? even when they are approaching adulthood??..

if you dont have the jabs and your child contracts one of the 3 and has serious side effects how would you feel??

Mrs NM here!
Well I read all your comments with interest, I feel like it is a bizarre game of Russian Roulette, we have a beautiful 14 month old little girl who is due her MMR, I have done lots of research and spoken to lots of people and we have decided she will be vaccinated… but she will have the single jabs, which do not have the mercury in them. For those interested its about £75 -£100 per shoot. There is lots of info on www.jabs.org.uk, giving locations around the country that administer single jabs. Email them, click on link on left hand side “single vaccines e-mail” and they will mail you back a list of locations, prices and contact info

I must stress it is important to get your children immunised and not rely on others to have vaccinations to protect your own children, For example, on the news the other day they said that there is an area in London where only 52% of the children in the 12-15 month age range have had the MMR vaccine, people are really scared. My nephew is autistic and that gives me enough concern to go for single jabs. Also think about it,- this is a triple vaccine, Cheaper to administer as its only one trip to the nurse not 3, its a huge amount for such a tiny body to cope with, our little girl was poorly after her 2,3 and 4 month immunizations.

Anyway check out the website above and go with your gut feelings, these little people are the most precious things that you have.

Just to emphasise the need for immunisations :

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3162844.stm

well thanks for all the replies/opinions!

Not doing the immunisation was never an option just which way was best.

It makes me really proud of this forum when you can ask a question on any subject and how others are prepared to share their opinions and experiences.

cheers!

Gary

My Daughter is 9 months old and is too young to have the MMR innoculation. Other in the nursery ar 18 months old and are more than old enough to have an innoculation.

If even one of those who are old enough to have an innoculation but haven't contract measles it doesn't take a genius to see that they could pass this on to those too young to have innoculations. Contracting Measles at such an early age presents a higher risk of the many complications that Imlach has detailed above.

So, you can see that a decision not to have your kid immunised could directly impact on me and more importantly my child.

Any parent who doesn't act to minimise a risk to their kids is, IMHO, negligent (not that I'm suggesting your decision not to have any innoculations is negligent, although possibly misguided).

Are you really not going to give your child any innoculations ? No diptheria, whooping cough, polio ? There vacinations which do not use mercury in the medium available for all of these on the NHS - you just have to ask. I'd recommend you do some proper research on these diseases as well and ask your self if it is worth the risk not getting your soon to be born child immunised against them

I love the bit in bold, and who wrote the article??

Dr Viera Scheibner and Bronwyn Hancock BSc

Think we should take her advice and ignore her, look like a bunch of hippies who think nature will keep you safe, if you are dying of cancer suck on some garlic and you'll be OK :rolleyes:

The problem is that there is a widespread distrust of the MMR vaccine. This is not helped by the govt who have a reputation for telling the odd 'pork pie'. If Blair was serious about this he would state what Leo received.

The issue surrounding non vaccination which Imlach is pushing, is whether the risk of contracting measles is higher than the risks associated with MMR. Making single vaccines available on the NHS would (IMO) return the take up of such vaccines to the 95% plus limit which effectively eradicates these diseases.

Those who choose not to vaccinate using single vaccines, either can not afford to or are not aware of the alternatives.

It all comes to choice, the MMR vaccine is significantly cheaper for the govt, and that is a reason in itself to use it. If I were a cynic I would suggest the govt will have weighed up the potential risks of MMR and compared the cost of single vaccines and made a cost\risk justification.

His son is not an elected MP.
Why should his son's life be made public?

Reminder:
Measles did NOT kill me!
Mumps did NOT kill me!
Rubella did NOT kill me!

Oh please. Because you never suffered any complications from M, M or R (yes, I had all of those too as a kid) your personal single statistical sample proves they're safe does it? I've read about people who have contracted the Ebola virus and lived to tell the tale ... does that mean Ebola is safe and is not a killer?

My daughter had the MMR vaccine and we didn't really think too hard about it. The killer argument for me was that autism is (and always has been) diagnosed at around 18 months of age and, conicidentally, that's when the first MMR jab is usually given. Of course it's easy for the sensationalist press to find loads of parents who claim their child developed autism immediately after having been jabbed ... it's a statistical certainty just because of the conicident diagnosis/dose.

Ian.