Mumps - should I expose them?

[Kiara.I]

Okaaaay.

We have done some vaccines with DS1, but not the MMR. I had the mumps as a child, and as I recall it just wasn't that big a deal.

We are definitely delaying vaccines, and possibly not doing some. I know the measles and rubella vaccines are still available individually, but mumps is not, correct? So if they got the mumps, we could choose to do the others individually later...

Well. A friend's son has just been diagnosed with mumps. (After he was vaxed for it... ) So, do I deliberately expose the kids? Pros? Cons?

DS1 is just over 2.
DS2 is 2 months.

It's remotely possible they were exposed 1 week ago anyway, as we were at her house (but her kids were in bed at the time.) Is it likely he was contagious then?

[Gitti]

I was just going to type out about my three kids having mumps when I remembered reading somewhere that kids don't get mumps until at least the age of 2. So, your kids may not get it even if they are exposed.

You know that thing about Mother Nature knowing what's best for kids...well seems like she does.

[homewithtwinsmama]

I didn't look it up but my mother (who had mumps) told me boys could become sterile from the mumps in some cases. I don't think I would purposely risk that.

[runes]

Originally Posted by homewithtwinsmama

I didn't look it up but my mother (who had mumps) told me boys could become sterile from the mumps in some cases. I don't think I would purposely risk that.

You're talking about orchitis, and the chances of it happening are very very rare, and the chances of it happening to both testicles is even rarer than that.

[karne]

Originally Posted by kidspiration

You're talking about orchitis, and the chances of it happening are very very rare, and the chances of it happening to both testicles is even rarer than that.

That's still quite a risk to purposefully take, with a potentially life changing outcome for a boy. I think one should very carefully weigh whether it's ok to be deliberate about exposing a child to something that may cause sterility. Would you feel ok about that, on behalf of your child if it DID happen?

[Kiara.I]

I guess I'm a little confused. Are all the people that are NOT vaxing just hoping their kids never get sick?

See, my thinking goes a bit like this. We don't know if vaccines confer immunity or not. Depends on the kid, or the situation or something. If they DO confer immunity, we don't know if it's temporary or permanent. So say the kid is immune, but it wears off. Now you have an adult who can catch an illness that is much more severe in adulthood than it would have been as a child. And doesn't know it, because, having had the vaccine in childhood, assumes they're immune.

Wouldn't it make more sense to just have childhood illnesses BE childhood illnesses? Yes, I know there can be severe complications, but I also know those are rare. And there can be severe reactions to the vaccine, too. It's all kind of a gamble.

Am I the only one who thinks it would be better if they just caught the childhood illnesses as children, and got their immunity that way? (Not all diseases. Not keen on risking polio or smallpox, for instance. But chicken pox...mumps maybe...)

[alegna]

The risk of sterility from mumps is a theoretical risk. IF possible, it is so incredibly rare that there are NO statistics on it.

I have not read a single case of it actually happening.

-Angela

[MCatLvrMom2A&X]

Originally Posted by Gitti

I was just going to type out about my three kids having mumps when I remembered reading somewhere that kids don't get mumps until at least the age of 2. So, your kids may not get it even if they are exposed.

You know that thing about Mother Nature knowing what's best for kids...well seems like she does.

I have also read that but I can tell first hand that it isnt true. It is probably true that it isnt as common under the age of 2y but I got them at 10 months old documented by a Dr.

My mom went to the Dr. without me and there was a child there that had them and somehow she picked it up and brought it home to me.

I was fine by the way and actually very cute in the pictures since I always had big chubby cheeks anyway so having them on both sides really pooched me out there

[runes]

Originally Posted by karne

That's still quite a risk to purposefully take, with a potentially life changing outcome for a boy. I think one should very carefully weigh whether it's ok to be deliberate about exposing a child to something that may cause sterility. Would you feel ok about that, on behalf of your child if it DID happen?

As alegna pointed out, there are no documented cases of full, bilateral testicular mumps induced sterility.

PS. Check the vaccine insert. Orchitis is listed as a possible side effect. The vaccine is a deliberate exposure to the virus. Would you feel ok if your son became sterile because of the vax?

[humptydumpty]

http://www.patient.co.uk/showdoc/40024613/

This article answers your question if your friends children are still infectious. And it lists the possible complications from mumps. This article also cites the sources, so I would consider it quite informative and reliable.

[luminesce]

Originally Posted by MCatLvrMom2A&X

I have also read that but I can tell first hand that it isnt true. It is probably true that it isnt as common under the age of 2y but I got them at 10 months old documented by a Dr.

My mom went to the Dr. without me and there was a child there that had them and somehow she picked it up and brought it home to me.

I was fine by the way and actually very cute in the pictures since I always had big chubby cheeks anyway so having them on both sides really pooched me out there

Young kids usually don't get mumps because the immunity a mother passes on to her baby lasts a while. The reason the first MMR shot is not given until the 1-2 age range is because the mother's antibodies can actually interfere with the vaccine.

If, however, a mom didn't have Measles, Mumps & Rubella naturally, the immunity she passes on to her baby is not as strong. This is, I think, why they have started giving the MMR a bit earlier (like around 12 months instead of 15-18.)

This, of course, varies between children - there is no concrete rule of thumb when it comes to immunity.

[Rico'sAlice]

My understanding was that the tiny possible risk of loss of sperm producing ability from orchitis goes down to basically non-existent if the male is pre-pubescent. IE- Like with other childhoos illnesses not such an issue for children- more of a problem for older teens and adults.

[luminesce]

Adverse Events Associated with Childhood Vaccines: Evidence Bearing on Casuality (1994) Institute of Medicine (IOM)

So basically, this says if you get mumps, you have roughly around a 2-25% chance of getting orchitis. And if you get orchitis, you have a 13% chance of having impaired fertility and probably not much of a chance at all of complete sterility. After puberty = higher risk. In my opinion, mumps and chickenpox are diseases you'd probably not want to have after puberty.

[GAmomto5]

Originally Posted by Kiara.I

I guess I'm a little confused. Are all the people that are NOT vaxing just hoping their kids never get sick?

See, my thinking goes a bit like this. We don't know if vaccines confer immunity or not. Depends on the kid, or the situation or something. If they DO confer immunity, we don't know if it's temporary or permanent. So say the kid is immune, but it wears off. Now you have an adult who can catch an illness that is much more severe in adulthood than it would have been as a child. And doesn't know it, because, having had the vaccine in childhood, assumes they're immune.

Wouldn't it make more sense to just have childhood illnesses BE childhood illnesses? Yes, I know there can be severe complications, but I also know those are rare. And there can be severe reactions to the vaccine, too. It's all kind of a gamble.

Am I the only one who thinks it would be better if they just caught the childhood illnesses as children, and got their immunity that way? (Not all diseases. Not keen on risking polio or smallpox, for instance. But chicken pox...mumps maybe...)

Nope, you're not the only one. I so hope my LO gets everything she can that will give her natural lifetime immunity (i.e., chicken pox, mumps, etc.)

[Gitti]

Originally Posted by homewithtwinsmama

I didn't look it up but my mother (who had mumps) told me boys could become sterile from the mumps in some cases. I don't think I would purposely risk that.

It is only theory. Look for proof and you'll hit a wall.

Even theoretically it could only happen in mature males. Never in a child.

[Gitti]

Originally Posted by Kiara.I

Wouldn't it make more sense to just have childhood illnesses BE childhood illnesses? Yes, I know there can be severe complications, but I also know those are rare. And there can be severe reactions to the vaccine, too. It's all kind of a gamble.

I feel the same way except that I really believe that there is a much greater chance of a severe and life long reaction to vaccines than there is to a natural childhood disease.
And I also believe there is no such thing as a vaccine NOT altering the immune system in a negative way.

Am I the only one who thinks it would be better if they just caught the childhood illnesses as children, and got their immunity that way? (Not all diseases. Not keen on risking polio or smallpox, for instance. But chicken pox...mumps maybe...)

I feel that ALL diseases that are vaccinated against are better off to get naturally. But I want to also say that kids have a very slim chance of getting most of them. Even before the vaccines came on the market.

As for small pox - when there was an epidemic, the group of people who were not vaccinated had the least deaths from the disease.

As for polio - 98% of people who got it never even knew they had it. Chances of having a lasting paralysis was extremely rare. And how do we know for sure that some of the new modern diseases are not what would have been counted as "polio" before the vaccine. Guillaine-Barre for instance which is a known reaction to some vaccines.

[newmum35]

I can't really help, but wanted to comment. I'm still in the research phase myself. My son is 18 mo. (has only had DTaP series) I have no idea as of yet, about MMR, if, or, when. I'm leaning towards NOT, however, I still may consider when he's a little older, and I've made no definite decision on it, yet .. I do want to comment on one of the links someone posted.

http://www.patient.co.uk/showdoc/40024613/

under "complications" it says aseptic meningitis is in 15% of cases! Now I take this to mean that 15% of people who get mumps, get aseptic meningitis, correct? If so, it seems like this is a big risk. Or am I wrong? I looked up the term and I understand it is NOT bacterial meningitis, but the other kind (viral?) This seems to be good news... Still, I know I'd be scared if he got mumps and had a 15% chance of meningitis. Someone please educate me on this who has researched more!

If almost everyone pre-vacc. had mumps, that means a LOT of people out there must have gotten aseptic meningitis, right? What happened to these people (as a result) , and, did the total # of cases (of aseptic meningitis) drop dramatically as a result of the MMR vax. (after it introduction)? anyone?

[Deborah]

Well, one really obvious question:

Was that 15% of all cases or 15% of reported cases? Because reported cases are going to be a lot more serious and complicated, overall. Not that mumps is, honestly, a serious or complicated illness when you get it in childhood. Even back in the days when people were living in filthy slums and half starved, I bet it was really rare for kids to die of mumps.

[Deborah]

Okay, here is a chart, which has made up numbers of what would happen if we stopped vaccinating an imaginary group of 3,803,295 children. This is one of the articles that insidevaccines has been critiquing in their scary stats series. Overall, these numbers are as inflated as the authors can make them (or think they can get away with). Here is the chart: http://archpedi.ama-assn.org/cgi/con...136/POA50071T4

On mumps they propose 2,100,718 cases and 11 deaths. Please remember that these numbers are speculative, based on pre-vaccine cases (and they sort of get to choose when pre-vaccine is, actually, for diphtheria they went back to 1921 or so) and that they wanted to make it look as bad as they possibly could.

Would you risk vaccine side-effects for a risk that low? I wouldn't.

Here is the link to the complete article: http://archpedi.ama-assn.org/cgi/con...ll/159/12/1136

[MissRubyandKen]

In regards to that article-

Every time I see a cost benefit/risk assessment with regards to HEALTH matters I want to puke, literally. It makes me sick. It's all a load of bull anyway. I'll do my own benefit/risk assessments for my own children, thanks, and you can bet it will have nothing to do with the all mighty dollar.