or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › does delaying MMR make a difference?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

does delaying MMR make a difference?

post #1 of 26
Thread Starter 
is there a "safer" time to give the MMR then 12 mo? would delaying the shot decrease the risk of autism? (i noticed some people vax, but just delay the vax. how do you know how long to delay a vax?)
post #2 of 26
Waiting till your child is older will not decrease the risk of adverse reactions to the MMR.The only benefit to waiting is that your child will be able to better describe what he/she is feeling.A 1yo can only scream/cry,and typically your doctors response will be...that is normal after vaccines,give some tylenol.
The other benefit of waiting is that typically children are dx with autism in the 1-3yo age range.It is less typical for a normally developing child to suddenly become autistic at age 4(and up),and the doctor will have a harder time explaining it away unlike a 1yo becoming autisic after vaccinations. So if you vax during the ages of 1-3,and your child becomes autistic,doctors will say they were autistic anyway and vaccines had nothing to do with it.

Honestly,there is just no *safe time* to vaccinate.Your body either handles it or not.I did ok with my childhood vaccine(as did my dh),but was injured as an adult by vaccines(same with dh). If you choose to vax just know what to look for,and how it can be dealt with alternatively.Don't count on conventional medicine to help with vaccine injury,and definatly
don't count on the national vaccine injury compensation program to help with medical bills.That program was put into place just to wear out parents financially(and emotionaly),and provide legal protection for vaccine makers.
post #3 of 26
I think in Japan they delayed all vaxes until school age and found that did not decrease the number of autism cases. They also separated the MMR into M, M, and R and found no decrease.

My facts could be wrong, but I've heard this several times.
post #4 of 26
There may be advantages... vaccines are not dosed according to weight, like regular drugs are. The dose for a 250 pound man is the same as for a six pound baby. So by delaying, your child grows, puts on weight, has a more mature immune system, and a larger liver. A larger person may be better able to detox or handle the vaccine than a younger child.
post #5 of 26
A newborn's brain neurons (actually all nerves) are not yet covered by myelin sheeth (sp?) and is in process. When that is interrupted, all sort of problems occur. Like speech delay, ADD, even MS.

The process is most vigorous at age 0 to 5 yrs. So, the more nerves are covered by the myelin the less chance of damage there is. Although in a very young child the nerves actually shrivel up when injected with mercury and have to start growing all over again.

It is amazing that the body will constantly try to repair itself, but after a while, after so much mercury is injected, in some kids, it just can't handle it any longer.


Maybe you want to read what I had written a few months ago:

http://www.mothering.com/discussions...ht=Myelination
post #6 of 26
Maybe Stephanie Cave's book would have some helpful info as she is into delaying.

The MMR has never contained mercury as it is a live virus vaccine, but Andrew Wakefield's research has shown that the live measles virus takes up shop in the intestines and spinal fluid (or maybe that was another researcher re: spinal fluid?) of autistic kids and effects the immune system in that way as to trigger autism.
post #7 of 26
Thread Starter 
what do you mean "MMR has no mercury in it"? i thought that was the problem with it. then what's w/ the thimiserol thing? i thought that was in the MMR? i'm confused... anybody?
post #8 of 26
Jane is right, there is no and never was thimerosal/mercury in MMR. Unless the MMR is given in combination with another vaccine that contains thimerosal.

The mercury in other or previous vaccines does the damage. So when the MMR is given the body is already damaged and will not get rid of the measles virus. It then is stored in the gut or brain where the body continuously tries to fight it off like any other virus. But it can never succeed.

Read Evidence of Harm - the book.

here are some videos on autism - http://www.autismmedia.org/media2.html
post #9 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by jee'smom
is there a "safer" time to give the MMR then 12 mo? would delaying the shot decrease the risk of autism? (i noticed some people vax, but just delay the vax. how do you know how long to delay a vax?)
that depends on the child.

One case I was involved in, the child concerned had the MMR at 5 years of age, got Mumps encephalitis after the shot, which IMO was deliberately ignored and not diagnosed for obvious reasons, but later developed seizures and autism.

It was only at the end, when the significance of certain immunology tests were brought to the defence's attention. Up until then, some of the weirdest excuses by "world-famous" US infectious disease experts had been made.

After explanation of the tests, and presentation of the medical articles backing that up, the judge with and granted the compensation.

So the answer is that it depends on the child's immune system. This child had had very few vaccines actually, and the parents were bull-dozed into having it to get her into school.
post #10 of 26
The MMR has no mercury in it, that is true. However Prof. Boyd Haley has run toxicology tests on the contents of the MMR and discovered that there is something in the MMR which is equally toxic as mercury. He doesn't know what it is yet.
And then there is all Wakefield et al who have shown how the mutant variant of the measles virus inside the MMR can wreak havoc also.
post #11 of 26
One reason given for delaying immunization is that the immune system is not fully functional until about 2 years of age. Before this, immune systems can't fully respond to a virus invader.
post #12 of 26
Reduced risk of autism doesn't mean safe. I find the MMR a very scary vaccine.

In addition, measles is not necessarily a super dangerous disease if you know how to treat it. Mumps is even less dangerous, particularly for children. There is a long thread currently running on rubella that covers the risks and arguments about this particular disease.

To sum up: the vax has a scary history of bad reactions and the diseases are not nearly as bad as they are made out to be, so why do it?

On the other hand, due to the use of vaccines, there is now a large population of adults and small babies with no protection against measles, so an epidemic would probably kill a lot of folks and make a lot of others very, very sick. This situation is not the fault of non-vaxers, it is the fault of the people who invented and pushed the vax without thinking through the possible consequences.

Nana
post #13 of 26
It has been my understanding that vaccines don't provide immunity. If that is the case, why is there a need to vaccinate at all?
post #14 of 26
What Gitti said. From what I've read, the main issue with the MMR vaccine is the mercury from OTHER vaccines causing a reaction where measles builds up in the gut of the injected child and creates a major problem.
Supposedly, there is less risk of adverse reactions if you get the MMR after age 2 AND do not give any other injections at that time.
But yeah, measles, mumps and rubella just aren't life threatening. Why get it anyway? I hope my daughters somehow develop natural immunities to rubella as this will protect their fetus and newborn children from rubella, whereas the vax may not protect the fetus and will not protect a newborn.
post #15 of 26
http://66.70.140.217/a/carley.html

Quote:
The basic truth that served as the foundation for the mountain of lies known as vaccinations was the observation that mammals who recover from infection with microorganisms acquire natural immunity from further infections. Whenever T cells (the little packman cells which kill viruses, bacteria, and cancer cells, thus conferring cellular immunity) and B cells (antibody producing cells which confer humoral immunity) are activated by various substances foreign to the body called antigens, some of the T and B cells become memory cells. Thus, the next time the individual meets up with that same antigen, the immune system can be quickly triggered to demolish it. This is the process known as immunity.

This truth gave birth to a beLIEf that if a foreign antigen was injected into an individual, that individual would then become immune to a future infection. This beLIEf, (you see the lie in the middle), was given the name, "vaccinations". What the promoters of vaccination failed to realize is that the respiratory tract of ALL mammals (since animals are just as devastated by these inoculations with disease as are humans) contain secretory IgA (an antibody which initiates the natural God given immune response) within the respiratory tract mucosa. Bypassing this mucosal aspect of the immune system by directly injecting organisms into the bloodstream leads to a corruption in the immune system itself. As a result, the pathogenic viruses or bacteria cannot be eliminated by the immune system and remain in the body, where they will further grow and/or mutate as the individual is exposed to ever more antigens and toxins in the environment which continue to assault the immune system.

The mechanism by which the immune system is corrupted can best be realized when you understand that the two poles of the immune system (the cellular and humoral mechanisms) have a reciprocal relationship. Thus, when one is stimulated, the other is inhibited. Since vaccines activate the B cells to secrete antibody, the T cells are subsequently suppressed. This suppression of the cell mediated response is a key factor in the development of cancer and life threatening infections. In fact, the "prevention" of a disease via vaccination is, in reality, an inability to expel organisms due to the suppression of the cell-mediated response. Thus, rather than preventing disease; they actually prevent the disease from ever being resolved. The organisms continue circulating through the body, mutating and transforming into other organisms (as demonstrated by the work of Professor Antoine Bechamp), depending on the acidity and toxicity of the internal terrain of the body. Note that Bechamp proved that Louis Pasteur's "germ theory" of disease was incorrect due to this ability of organisms to transform and mutate based on the body's internal terrain (as Pasteur admitted on his deathbed). Thus, treatment of infection with antibiotics as well as "prevention" of disease with vaccines are both just examples of cutting off the branches of dis-ease, when the root of the cause is a toxic internal environment. However, since Pasteur's germ theory was conducive to the profits of the burgeoning pharmaceutical companies who only manage dis-ease, no mention of the work of Professor Bechamp has been made in medical school curricula.

To make matters worse than the suppression of cellular immunity which occurs when vaccines are injected, adjuvants (which are substances added to vaccines to enhance the antibody response) can actually lead to serious side effects themselves. Adjuvants include oil emulsions, mineral compounds (which may contain the heavy metal aluminum), bacterial products, liposomes (which allow delayed release of substances), and squalene. The side effects of adjuvants themselves include hyperactivity of B cells leading to pathologic levels of antibody production, as well as allergic reaction to the adjuvants themselves (as demonstrated in Gulf War I soldiers injected with vaccines containing the adjuvant squalene, to which antibodies were found in many soldiers). Note that the pathologically elevated hyperactivity of antibody production caused by adjuvants also results in a distraction from the other antigens that the immune system encounters "naturally", which must be addressed to maintain health.
post #16 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by C&C
It has been my understanding that vaccines don't provide immunity. If that is the case, why is there a need to vaccinate at all?
I think many of us here wonder this very thing.
post #17 of 26
'Tis a fair question. I think vaccines often do provide a limited immunity. Not all vaccines, and not for all recipients. However the artificially induced immunity is not as lasting as that derived from experiencing the diseases naturally. Nowhere near as much.

I believe this is why teenagers and adults who were vaccinated when young, are more likely to experience these childhood illnesses than ever before.

Well, that's my 2 cents.
post #18 of 26
This is a really great link explaining the MMR/Autism theory - definitely worthy of a bookmark:

http://www.healing-arts.org/children...mmr.htm#autism
post #19 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deborah
To sum up: the vax has a scary history of bad reactions and the diseases are not nearly as bad as they are made out to be, so why do it?

Nana
Does anyone have a link to numbers on bad reactions to MMR (and other vacs if possible)? I have seen the CDC numbers on the low occurances of diseases but want to see specific evidence of bad reactions. I downloaded the VAERS list recently but it didn't give straight numbers of reactions. TIA
post #20 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by KateMary
Does anyone have a link to numbers on bad reactions to MMR (and other vacs if possible)? I have seen the CDC numbers on the low occurances of diseases but want to see specific evidence of bad reactions. I downloaded the VAERS list recently but it didn't give straight numbers of reactions. TIA
I don't think it can be calculated. Doctors, in general with a few exceptions, absolutely refuse to acknowledge adverse vax reactions.
So we just don't know.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › does delaying MMR make a difference?