Mothering › Forums › Health › Vaccinations › Big change in MMR shot in 1990 and 2007
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Big change in MMR shot in 1990 and 2007  

post #1 of 10
Thread Starter 
Did anyone read this article on the Age of Autism blog?

Quote:
"In 1990, Merck & Co., manufacturer of the mumps-measles-rubella vaccine known as the MMR, made a significant but little-noticed change: It quadrupled the amount of mumps virus in the combination shot, from 5,000 to 20,000 units. Then in 2007 it reversed course, reducing the amount to 12,500 units. Neither the measles nor the rubella (German measles) component of the MMR was changed at all -- each remained at 1,000 units throughout."
(81 words)

Thoughts?
post #2 of 10
Yes, I did. Not sure what to think except it is VERY unnerving that they will not say WHY they did it. Once a vaccine is 'approved', shouldn't the ingredients and antigens stay the same? Why is it OK for the to change the ingredients willy-nilly? Of course, thimerosal went down in some vaccines and they weren't re-tested or re-approved.
post #3 of 10
That's why I don't buy their "trace" amounts of thimerosal. For all we know they made a special batch with amounts close to nil for FDA and as soon as they got their stamp of approval, it was back to the old ways.
post #4 of 10
Are they allowed to make such changes to biologics without going through safety and efficacy testing again?

And why is this not big news, I think this is HUGE.
post #5 of 10
I hadn't read that !! UGGHH

Does this mean the 3 separate vaccines will no longer be available separately? For example if one wanted to get just the measles vaccine and NOT mumps or rubella, will that no longer be an option- one will HAVE to do the MMR or nothing? I thought I read on another post the shortage was temporary and the individual vaccines would be available again next year, but, I could be wrong.

This sounds like HUGE news and more people should be talking about it. Why not the reduction in the mumps-only vaccine too? So maybe the mumps-only vax is still not as "safe" as it was before 1990 when potency was lower? why did they increase it to begin with?

Actually, how can they possibly take away the options of having separately M M and R vacines ? I mean, what if someone had natural occuring measles and mumps ( a lady for example) and wanted to just get the rubella vaccine (before getting married, let's say) - that will no longer be an option and she would have to get MMR if she wanted the R vaccine? what happens when one already has natural immunity to a disease and then gets vaccinated for that disease? Just wondering if anyone knows!

Come to think of it - what happens in the opposite too - like what if you are vaccinated for something (most people today) and then come down with that disease anyway - (like if the vaccine didnt work for you) - would the natural immunity you would get from the disease last as long and be just like if you had gotten it naturally WITHOUT having been vaccinated, or, would it somehow be different being that you HAVE had the vax for it, BEFORE coming down with the disease
post #6 of 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by newmum35 View Post
I hadn't read that !! UGGHH

Does this mean the 3 separate vaccines will no longer be available separately? For example if one wanted to get just the measles vaccine and NOT mumps or rubella, will that no longer be an option- one will HAVE to do the MMR or nothing? I thought I read on another post the shortage was temporary and the individual vaccines would be available again next year, but, I could be wrong.

Actually, how can they possibly take away the options of having separately M M and R vacines ? I mean, what if someone had natural occuring measles and mumps ( a lady for example) and wanted to just get the rubella vaccine (before getting married, let's say) - that will no longer be an option and she would have to get MMR if she wanted the R vaccine? what happens when one already has natural immunity to a disease and then gets vaccinated for that disease? Just wondering if anyone knows!

Come to think of it - what happens in the opposite too - like what if you are vaccinated for something (most people today) and then come down with that disease anyway - (like if the vaccine didnt work for you) - would the natural immunity you would get from the disease last as long and be just like if you had gotten it naturally WITHOUT having been vaccinated, or, would it somehow be different being that you HAVE had the vax for it, BEFORE coming down with the disease
I just read recently, I think it was official too, that Merck is NOT continuing to separate the MMR and will strictly produce the MMR together. I think they are the only ones who do the MMR here in the States? I wonder if another company will produce and separate it.

You have some very good points about not having access to separate vaccines, unfortunately the manufacturers nor the gov't care.

A while back I asked the same question as you, if a person is vaxed for something and get it anyways, will it be just like they got it naturally? the answers were yes.
post #7 of 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ophelia View Post
I just read recently, I think it was official too, that Merck is NOT continuing to separate the MMR and will strictly produce the MMR together. I think they are the only ones who do the MMR here in the States? I wonder if another company will produce and separate it.

You have some very good points about not having access to separate vaccines, unfortunately the manufacturers nor the gov't care.

A while back I asked the same question as you, if a person is vaxed for something and get it anyways, will it be just like they got it naturally? the answers were yes.
Merck has not made up their mind if they will manufacture monovalnet vaccines again in the future, but they HAVE stopped now, but chances are not looking good. Read this:

http://www.aafp.org/online/en/home/p...erckcombo.html

Quote:
Merck & Co. Inc. has stopped production and sales of its monovalent vaccines for measles, mumps and rubella. The manufacturer instead plans to focus on its combination vaccine, MMRII.
Quote:
Merck had not decided when, or if, it might make the monovalent vaccines available for sale in the future.
Quote:
There's no harm if you need one in getting all three.
No proof of that!

Quote:
There are some parents out there that want a delayed vaccine schedule. They want the vaccines spread out over a longer period of time and not so many at once. That's a lot of hooey. Alternative schedules have never been proven to be superior." (100)
That's because they've never been studied so to make this statement is just moronic!
post #8 of 10
Quote:
That's a lot of hooey. Alternative schedules have never been proven to be superior." (100)
Has the current cdc schedule ever been proven safe, beneficial or anything?

P.S. I didn't know that "hooey" was a word choice of the AAFP. lol.
post #9 of 10
[QUOTE=kiara7;12996397]Has the current cdc schedule ever been proven safe, beneficial or anything?QUOTE]


NOPE!!!! but that doesn't matter because they are the CDC and they know best!
post #10 of 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sileree View Post
Thoughts?
I just re-read it and I don't know what to make of it.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations
This thread is locked  
Mothering › Forums › Health › Vaccinations › Big change in MMR shot in 1990 and 2007