MMR - Yes or no??

[Gabe'sMummy]

I live in England and here the vax schedule is the Dtap/hib etc vax at 8, 12, and 16 weeks (although DS had these quite a bit later). He had no problems with them, absolutely no side effects & I think i made the right choice. We will choose for him to have the booster at 12 months (the next one) but as for the MMR (which is given at 13 months here) we are not sure.
We asked the practice nurse at our GP clinic about it and told her we were thinking of having them seperately but she said under no circumstances we should and that we *must* get the MMR. I am also wary about getting them done seperately because 1) we really, really can't afford to pay for it and 2) I have heard that the seperate vax are not even licensed in England.
But the MMR...I dunno...seems so scary. I know a lot of kids who have bad reactions to it and even caught measles from it! But at the same time, DP was unvaxed (at least from the MMR) and was very ill as a child with both measles and mumps.
I'm clueless! Does anyone know of a website where me and DP can get honest, balanced advice? Everything we have read seems to be pro-MMR.

[carriebft]

If you are actively seeking the arguments for the "don't do MMR" side, the biggest ones specific to the MMR vaccine itself are:

1) Wakefield argument: MMR vaccine causes chronic measles found in the gut which travels to the brain and causes autism/autism like symptoms (very simplified). You can find information on this really by googling Wakefield as well as the studies contradicting his work.

2) ingredient argument:
-some claim that there may be residue tissues from aborted fetuses in the vaccine
-egg allergy issue
(see archives for MMR for this info)

3) possibility of waning immunity

4) reported reactions- which can be found on the VAERS site.

Obviously there are other arguments that center around vaccines themselves or the non life threatening nature of the diseases prevented by the vaccine.

I don't agree or find fault in all of the above and I feel the vaccine is very effective (both in preventing the diseases and in preventing transmission) so we do do the MMR. And, because we saw no reason to separate them, we figured less visits and less $$= get combo.

[CookAMH]

Originally Posted by Gabe'sMummy

I live in England and here the vax schedule is the Dtap/hib etc vax at 8, 12, and 16 weeks (although DS had these quite a bit later). He had no problems with them, absolutely no side effects & I think i made the right choice. We will choose for him to have the booster at 12 months (the next one) but as for the MMR (which is given at 13 months here) we are not sure.
We asked the practice nurse at our GP clinic about it and told her we were thinking of having them seperately but she said under no circumstances we should and that we *must* get the MMR. I am also wary about getting them done seperately because 1) we really, really can't afford to pay for it and 2) I have heard that the seperate vax are not even licensed in England.
But the MMR...I dunno...seems so scary. I know a lot of kids who have bad reactions to it and even caught measles from it! But at the same time, DP was unvaxed (at least from the MMR) and was very ill as a child with both measles and mumps.
I'm clueless! Does anyone know of a website where me and DP can get honest, balanced advice? Everything we have read seems to be pro-MMR.

Just a couple thoughts :

- Your DP probably got a stronger immune system by contracting those illnesses as a child. I believe that is better than artificial immunity. DP has lifetime immunity...your DS will not.
- be wary of a medical professional telling you that you "must" do anything. It's your choice and needs to be done because you think it's necessary, not your doc or nurse.
- no outward side effects does not mean there is no internal effect that may not show itself until later
- separate shots may not be licensed...but do you think the combo shot was safety tested? It may be licensed...but is it safe? Licenses doesn't equal safe.
- if you are not sure, you can always hold off and look into it more. You can always vax later, but you can't un-vax.

[Mirzam]

Originally Posted by Gabe'sMummy

Does anyone know of a website where me and DP can get honest, balanced advice? Everything we have read seems to be pro-MMR.

I would recommend you start here:

http://insidevaccines.com/wordpress/

FWIW, I was born and grew up in the UK and I, as did my brother, cousins and friends had measles and I cannot remember one of them having any complications from them. My sister (who also wasn't vaxed for MMR) never got them.

[nia82]

It's not just a claim, the rubella part is cultured in aborted fetal cells. It's a fact! This is why I would never ever touch MMR with a 10 foot pole. Only the separate measles or mumps vaccine would ever be acceptable for me.
As Merck decided to put a lid on the separate vaccines, we will not vaccinate against either disease.

[carriebft]

That doesn't mean there are aborted fetal cells in the vaccine itself. I call it a claim because I do not think there is 100% solid evidence on either side. At most, there are cells in the vaccine that were made from an aborted fetus many years ago. But some do claim there could be residue from the original line...at least this is how I have read the claim here.

[PaigeC]

Although many mainstream sites will say that Wakefield's studies were debunked. Dr. Hewitson is doing actual research (as opposed to epidimological studies) on the vaccine schedule that also back up Wakefield's studies.

(so sorry to the monkey's I don't like vivisection, but..)

Dr. Laura Hewitson , Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences at The University of Pittsburgh recently reported her study on primates receiving the 1990-1999 childhood vaccine full schedule. Macaques are often used to test human treatments prior to human trials. Vaccine producers and the CDC do not do animal studies prior to approval of a vaccine for our children. Dr. Hewitson did a controlled trial of fully vaccinated vs. fully unvaccinated subjects (note: human studies have never compared a true unvaccinated control group or included the whole vaccine schedule instead of just one vaccine shot). Here is a summary of Dr. Hewitson’s research (Pediatric Vaccines Influence Primate Behavior, and Amygdala Growth and Opioid Ligand Binding Friday, May 16, 2008: IMFAR):

‘Compared with unexposed animals, significant neurodevelopmental deficits were evident for exposed animals in survival reflexes, tests of color discrimination and reversal, and learning sets. Differences in behaviors were observed between exposed and unexposed animals and within the exposed group before and after MMR vaccination. Compared with unexposed animals, exposed animals showed attenuation of amygdala growth and differences in the amygdala binding of [11C]diprenorphine. Interaction models identified significant associations between specific aberrant social and non-social behaviors, isotope binding, and vaccine exposure.’

At the same conference Dr. Walker of the Institute for Regenerative Medicine at Wake Forest University reported on chronic inflamation and gene expression in vaccinated and unvaccinated macaques. Microarray Analysis of GI Tissue in a Macaque Model of the Effects of Infant Vaccination Saturday, May 17, 2008 IMFAR.

“Histopathological examination revealed that vaccinated animals exhibited progressively severe chronic active inflammation, whereas unexposed animals did not. Gene expression comparisons between the groups (vaccinated versus unvaccinated) revealed only 120 genes differentially expressed (fc >1.5; log ratio p<0.001) at 10 weeks, whereas there were 450 genes differentially expressed at 14 weeks, and 324 differentially expressed genes between the 2 groups at necropsy.”

This seems way worse to me than normal childhood illnesses like measles, mumps, and rubella

[carriebft]

And if you want to read the real methods Walker used and why the studies, IMO, are pretty useless:

http://www.ageofautism.com/2008/05/pediatric-vacci.html

also I thought this blog picked apart the studies quite well and brought up a lot of good points beyond the big problems (N=13 v N=3 I would say is the biggest issue)

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/20...m_research.php

Walker critique starts a little down the page.

I especially like this part in response to the second quote by PaigeC:

One thing that leaps right out at me is the question of why on earth specimens from only slightly more than half of the vaccinated monkeys and only two out of the three unvaccinated monkeys were evaluated. What happened to the other specimens? No explanation is given for why specimens from all the monkeys weren't studied. This alone makes me highly suspicious of the all the results.

Good question, IMO.

[elizawill]

my kids have not had the MMR. my ped will do a titer test when they are 12. if they don't have natural immunity by then, i may get it it at that time. my favorite book for vaccine research was by dr. sears (the vaccine book). i found it incredibly helpful. good luck!

[carriebft]

yeah i thought the Sears Book was great! I highly recommend. You may not end up liking everything or agreeing with everything, but it's a good way to get your mind organized.

also, the inside vaccines link has a bar on the right hand side that links to lots of scholarly article sites (like google scholar) and thats a great tool to use to look up actual studies.

[Marnica]

Originally Posted by carriebft

That doesn't mean there are aborted fetal cells in the vaccine itself. I call it a claim because I do not think there is 100% solid evidence on either side. At most, there are cells in the vaccine that were made from an aborted fetus many years ago. But some do claim there could be residue from the original line...at least this is how I have read the claim here.

Here is a list of aborted fetal cell line products in vaccines. It also lists the animal growth mediums

http://www.cogforlife.org/fetalvaccines.htm

The fetal cell lines are listed on the package inserts so I don't think it's all that confusing. Here is the info about the fetal cell line MRC-5 from the company that sells it: http://locus.umdnj.edu/Sections/Sear...965-C&PgId=166


and for the line WI-38: http://locus.umdnj.edu/Sections/Sear...814-J&PgId=166

When new vaccine batches are needed, the virus is cultivated on the existing fetal cell lines, which in turn have been sub-cultured numerous times over the years. We have already discussed the absolute finite lifespan of these cell lines and we know the end of that timeline is rapidly approaching. According to the “Hayflick Limit”, the population can only double a limited number of times (around 50) before the cells senesce and are unable to grow any more.

This means they are and will continue to seek new fetal cell lines as the old ones run out.

For very interesting and eyeopening read about the history of aborted fetal cell lines in vaccines read here http://www.cogforlife.org/fetalvaccinetruth.htm

[carriebft]

The cells listed on the insert are cells made from those tissues (many generations later). They are not the aborted cells themselves.

It's the same idea when they use the cells from foreskins to make lines like this.

I am not saying I agree with this or think it is ethical or not, I am just stating that the cells inside the vaccine itself are not aborted fetal cells themselves but a line developed from those original cells.

[carriebft]

So I guess a more compact way of saying what I am trying to say is:

The argument (take out word 'claim' since it is causing issues) is that the vaccine contains aborted fetal tissues or cells made from an aborted fetus, which makes the vaccine morally unacceptable (or unacceptable because of foreign DNA)

I disagree with the actual cell inclusion but obviously the lines were made from cells taken from an aborted fetus.

My only aim was to present the argument. So, it has been presented and OP can look into it. It was not my intention to create a debate, so I will stop debating here

[1Plus2]

I have a quick MMR question. We are going by Dr. Sears' delayed vax schedule for our daughter. He calls for the MMR to be given seperately and I see some posts here saying that it may longer be given as that option. So, if I want to wait it out for her and get the combined vax later, at what age is it "safe" to give?

[THANKFULFORFIVE]

My gut reaction is to just yell "no, no, no"! Please get ALL the info and don't feel pressured into it. It's okay to wait until you have done more research. My son was lucky...he had the MMR at 18mos back in 1995---had the febrile seizure 10 days later. 106 degree temp, rash. Try to picture your little baby writhing on the ground, eyes rolled back, drooling...then watch as they pack him in ice and he just stares unresponsive for hours... For years after he kept having unexplained extremely high fevers. Thankfully, he has recovered, but not all children who have had this exact same reaction, have been so fortunate. I have learned sooo much since then and have not vaxed my newest child at all at 13 mos. Especially now. The proof is out there! Please take your time in your decision making, boys are more susceptible. I had both measles and mumps as a child and sailed through smoothly. Your DP survived them too. Good luck in your decision making. God bless!

[MamaRose74]

Originally Posted by elizawill

my kids have not had the MMR. my ped will do a titer test when they are 12. if they don't have natural immunity by then, i may get it it at that time. my favorite book for vaccine research was by dr. sears (the vaccine book). i found it incredibly helpful. good luck!

I'm really having issues with getting my son the MMR imm. He'll be 2 years old next month and our pediatrician is really pushing for us to get it. For some reason, my gut tells me to wait. Now with our nb here, I'm leary of him contracting something and passing it to her, which is also our peds newest arguement for me to vaccinate my son with MMR. I've never heard of the titer test that you are speaking of...what is it?
Also, does prolonging the vac MMR help lower his odds of having a reaction to it-both physically and neurologically?

[Mirzam]

Gitti posted these figures on measles and I think it puts it into perspectively very nicely:

In 1959 basically everyone had measles. So that would be 2,000,000 kids a year. And as recorded, 385 died.

In 2000 there were 86 kids with measles (that they know of) and 1 died.

2008 there were 131 cases. How many deaths? Obviously NONE!

and

http://www.hpa.org.uk/webw/HPAweb&HP...=1191942172799

Deaths rates from measles were going down long before the vaccine was brought on the market -

1940 - .20%

1945 - .16%

1950 - .06%

1955 - .25%

1967 (yr before vax) .02%

2007 (since the vax) .27%

So that means the MMR has done nothing to save lives, and, with 131 reported cases of measles in the entire country in 2007, really how likely is your child to get them and pass them onto your newborn? There is more chance of the vaccine shedding.

The titer test tests for antibodies. An older child has a more mature immune system, so would probably deal with the vaccine more easily, no guarantees though.

[kiara7]

Also, don't forget about breast milk's protective properties.

But yes, MMR is live and does shed. I would be more worried about that.

[MamaRose74]

I've read that out of the 131 cases last year, that half were not vaccinated. My arguement is, is that would mean half of them were and still got it. My husband and I have had this ongoing debate about it. He says do what you want, but will still argue for it -or else he's just playing devil's advocate? (which actually strikes me as odd, since his mom was a midwife back in the 60-70's and still is into natural living. He was raised that way and yet is tending to be convinced by our ped, though he won't admit it!) Anyways, thank you for the stat's...it has helped me confirm to just go with my gut instinct and not vac my DS with MMR.

[carriebft]

This is real break down for the 131 cases:

6 vaccinated completely
5 vaccinated partially
63 unvaccinated for rel/philo reasons
17 unvaccinated for age reasons
50 of undetermined status