single mmr vaccine

sorry didnt mention that my little girl is due her booster, as already had the 1st single mmr when she was about 18 months

Laylaxx;)

Hi Layla

Yours is an interesting question. And a fairly contravercial subject.

My kids are grown up now, which makes me a bit older than you and I can only give you my experience. Only you can decide what's best for your children.

When I was a little girl, when one kid had measles or any other childhood illness, the mum would invite all the neighbourhood kids round for a party, so that everyone got whatever it was and it was over and done with. No, it wasn't very comfortable for a couple of weeks, but then it was over and we all got better and went on with our lives.

The result is I was never afraid when my kids got sick. I expected it and invited my friends' kids round so they could get it over with ... some took me up on the offer, some didn't.

My oldest daughter had MMR when it was just introduced, just before she started school. It was a single immunisation at that time. Then they found that kids got measles, mumps and rubella anyway and so they introduced a booster.

Vaccination is something of an issue right now. My kids got the immunisations for the real killers - dyptheria, polio, etc - not whooping cough, though. After my daughter had had her MMR, I began to think differently, do some research and make decisions based on that, rather than what I was told.

And that's what I recommend you do. Do some research about this - google MMR ... and you might like to go to the site [url]What Doctors Don't Tell You[/url] for some information on vaccines, generally or to [url]Dr Mercola[/url]. But don't just go there - google, get all the angles and make an informed choice.

Fx

Layla- I agree with everything that Fiona's said but you really need to form your own opinion- no-one can decide for you- not even the doctors- what to do about vaccinations. Don't be scared- the chances are your child(ren) will stay fit and well, whatever you do. I don't think any of us really knows the 'truth' about vaccinations, their risks and advantages. You just have to follow your convictions and have confidence that your children will be fine! HTH Hom

hi all,
just thought i would let parents know, my daughter is due her mmr single vaccines, but due to mumps being unavailable, if your child had the first vaccinations and is due thier booster, they can have a blood test done that looks at the antibodies and tells whether they are immune from the virus the first time round, the child will not have to have the remaining two injections, unforunately its not available on the nhs as was not the single injections, so the blood test is expensive as but at least parents would have some sort of worry lifted,
thought i would just share that info.

Laylaxx;)

I agree, I believe that childhood illnesses are there for a reason.. to strenghten your childs ability to deal and overcome diseases, and build their immune system. There is a lot of controversy about the MMR and the first court case has already been won from parents of an autistic child. Andrew Wakefield's findings have since been confirmed by independent researchers. So it is really worth researching this issue.

Personally i'd rather have mumps than a vaccine for my son, as the vaccine side-effects are too horrendous to contemplate.

and the first court case has already been won from parents of an autistic child. Andrew Wakefield's findings have since been confirmed by independent researchers.

Hello Maya. Colleagues of mine were discussing this a few days ago, but I was unable to contribute to the conversation because I know very little about it. One of them did say that the Wakefield findings were found to be rubbish. I'd love to have a link to the findings you refer to above, if you have it - because I wasn't entirely convinced that my (very much loved and respected!) colleague was completely sure of his facts on that one [i.e. his body language seemed to be betraying him].

Thanks!

Ava x

Andrew Wakefield's findings have since been confirmed by independent researchers. So it is really worth researching this issue.

Where do you get your facts from?

There are is far more published research supporting the safety of the MMR jab.

As for Andrew Wakefield, here is the General Medical Council's outcome:

[DLMURL] http://www.gmc-uk.org/Wakefield_SPM_and_SANCTION.pdf_32595267.pdf [/DLMURL]

Myarka.

[DLMURL] http://www.gmc-uk.org/Wakefield_SPM_...f_32595267.pdf [/DLMURL]

Yes, that's the one my colleague referred to: he said it came out a few months ago from the GMC.

Ava x

Wakefield's conduct was found to be inappropriate, the GMC said nothing about his findings. He is still writing papers, very good ones, but nobody will publish them now.

As for immunity, there is no proven correlation between antibodies and immunity. When a disease has no vaccine (eg HIV/AIDS), antibodies are supposedly proof of infection. When there is a vaccine, apparently it means confirmed protection from infection - which is it? Nobody knows. Try getting your doctor to explain the relationship and the inconsistencies.

Then there are plenty of things that we can be immune to without showing antibodies, and vice-versa. It's a fallacy that immunity is all about whether or not you have anitbodies and nothing else.

So when it is claimed a vaccine has shown to be protective, what this means is that the vaccine has been shown to produce antibodies. It does not mean they have tested the actual protection in the face of exposure to disease. It's a big fat assumption that antibodies say it all, they do not.

Furthermore, they do not test vaccines in randomised controlled trials against inert placebo. They only test them against other substances that will create an immune reaction, eg older vaccines. When a vaccine was last tested against placebo in an RCT, 250,000 test subjects were tested, half with BCG (TB vaccine), half with true placebo. Those who were vaccinated were more likely to get sick with TB than the placebo group. Some countries therefore banned BCG, others, including Britain, did not. Since then this kind of study has not been done on any vaccine. Go figure.

There is plenty of findings and research available on the negative side-effects of vaccines.. from GI disease, autism spectrum disorders, auto-immune disorders, SIDS, it really isn't hard to find. It stands to reason why Andrew Wakefield was made a ridicule of by the BMJ, and it had nothing to do with parents concerns, just follow the money.. Where would we be if he 'officially' was proven correct? That was never going to be allowed to happen. At the end of the day, until there is independent research done on vaccines, we can forget about fair trials.

A recent article I read, put it like this:
Public confidence in the safety of vaccines is at risk until safety studies are performed that are required by law, ethics, and science. NAA calls for a vaccinated vs. non-vaccinated study comparing all health outcomes including autism. The CDC is in charge of vaccine safety, owns patents to vaccines (according to a UPI Investigative Report from 2003) and is in charge of promoting vaccines. The public should demand that vaccine safety be taken away from an agency with such conflicts and support HR#1973, the Vaccine Safety and Public Confidence Assurance Act."

Here's some links you may find interesting:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-388051/Scientists-fear-MMR-link-autism.html
http://antioligarch.wordpress.com/2010/08/17/most-kids-with-autism-misdiagnosed-they-have-vaccine-induced-brain-damage/
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/75333.php
http://www.cbsnews.com/8300-31727_162-10391695.html?keyword=hannah+poling
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/75333.php
http://organic-health.us/videos/vaccines-immunizations.shtml
[DLMURL] http://www.vierascheibner.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=80:review-of-vaccination-by-viera-scheibner-irene-alleger&catid=52:general-essays-by-viera&Itemid=63 [/DLMURL]

If you're on facebook, I recommend VINE (Vaccine information network)

I did a lot of research on vaccinations when I was pregnant with my first child and decided not to vaccinate at all. Vaccination does not prevent disease, it only increases profit and decreases our immune systems. I turned to homeopathy and herbal medicine instead and my children, now 10 & 8 years old are extremely healthy. They have had some of the childhood diseases and I have never been fearful of them catching anything. They have always had a good diet and never had any pharmaceutical medication. They are both as strong as oxes and suffer far less illness than most of their classmates, most of whom seem to be on antibiotics for most of the winter.

Dr Wakefield's conduct was found to be inappropriate because he was challenging a product made by huge pharmaceutical companies and if his findings were proved to be correct, it would have had a huge impact on their profits and in turn affected the kickbacks received by doctors. His findings would NEVER have been allowed to be shown as sound. It's interesting that none of the parents of the children that he treated testified against him and most of them came forward to speak on his behalf.

I would advise anyone to read some of Viera Scheibner's findings as she has done some very interesting work in Australia.

... just follow the money..

From Wakefield's hearing:

In February 1996 Dr Wakefield agreed to act as an expert in respect of MMR litigation. In relation to the Legal Aid Board (LAB), the Panel found that Dr Wakefield accepted monies totalling £50,000 procured through Mr Barr, the Claimants’ solicitor to pursue research.

Dr Wakefield admitted that the funding subsequently provided by the Legal Aid Board had not been needed for these items because these costs were borne by the National Health Service as the patients were being admitted as NHS patients.

The Panel found that Dr Wakefield had a duty to disclose this information to the Legal Aid Board via Mr Barr. It was dishonest and misleading of him not to have done so. The Panel concluded that his intention to mislead the Legal Aid Board was sufficient on its own to amount to serious professional misconduct.

The Panel also found that in respect of £25,000 of LAB monies, Dr Wakefield caused or permitted it to be used for purposes other than those for which he said it was needed and for which it had been granted. In doing so he was in breach of his duties in relation to the managing of, and accounting for, funds.

Yep, following the money ;).

Unfortunately it's sad that someone who is responsible for such misconduct is seen as a saint by some.

Myarka

Interview with Dr Wakefield:
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/04/10/wakefield-interview.aspx

Links at the bottom to research 🙂

Interview with Dr Wakefield:
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/04/10/wakefield-interview.aspx

Links at the bottom to research 🙂

Hi Suzanne

This is one of the most interesting and telling interviews I have ever listened to. Thank you so much for pointing out this link.

How the GMC, media and other medics have obviously not read the information presented and certainly not understood what Dr Wakefield was doing nor his conclusions - even timescales weren't checked. He is at last free to put his side of the story. It is appalling the way he has been treated - one of the foremost research paediatric gastroenterologists in the world has been lost to this country by the ignorance and incompetance of 'those in charge'.

Do not believe all that is printed in the newspapers - or what the pharmaceutical companies put out.

Please take time to watch this interview. Sorry Myarka - I disagree completely with the conclusions of the GMC - as i do with their judgement on Dr Sarah Myhill.