News1 min ago
single jabs
Why doesn't the government want to give us the choice of single jabs rather than the MMR?
Answers
1 to 17 of 17
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by jayne b-t. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
A few reasons. How valid they are is a matter of opinion.
the mmr is cheaper than the singles, and involves two injections rather than six, and so is less distressing. There is less risk of parents forgetting the vaccination, and less time spent unvaccinated: there is a gap of at least a month between the single vaccines, during which time the child is unprotected.
Like I say, assess the validity yourself.
Some additional thoughts: the Government are also saving money in not commissioning studies to identify which group of people (in terms of genetic make up and medical history) is more likely to be adversely affected. If it were possible to identify these people, it would be possible to give them the single injections, and keep the MMR for everyone else. But such a study would take a long time and be costly, and the number of people is probably so small, that it will always be possible to argue that any adverse effects must be a coincidence. The cynical view is that the powers that be think that it is not worth spending huge sums to ensure the safety of a tiny number of people.
I have just finished reading the information on www.jabs.org.uk and the recommended break between single jabs i.e between measles and say mumps is 12 months!!! This would cause an adminstration night mare to the health authorities trying to call individuals in to have the injections completed; and obviously put the child at risk to the diseases that they have not been innoculated against. I am currently trying to make a decision for my child and believe me its a nightmare.
A purely personal opinion Misty....get mmr. The singles wont be available here for a good long time due to restricted supply rather than anything else. MMR is available and even if you took the worst data (say it does cause crohns and autism, which isnt proven...) then the risk of you getting a sverely disabled child is still 1000 times less than if the child catches just one of the three diseases immunised against. We think of them as childhood diseases (those of us from before mmr days) but they were and are crippling killers.
Dont envy your position, but if it were mine Id do mmr.
I would like to say something: I have had my daughter inoculated without any problems - but I do not believe that giving the individual injections would lead to a decline in the number of people vaccinated. Quite the opposite, numbers would go up; my reasoning is as follows: the problem at the moment is one of trust; people are not having the vaccination because they simply do not trust the Government; if individual vaccinations were allowed for those who request them, people would not feel "railroaded" and the compliance rate would go back up for MMR, with a few die hard skeptics taking the individual injections. I have read something on the evening standard about the Japan experience: they claim that after Japan reverted to individual injections, 85 children have died of measles between 1994-98, but in the previous regime of MMR, the complications had been 2000 times higher than expected, even when Japan switched to a different strain of MMR the complications did not go down. The Government bang on about the 85 dead, but they are careful to withhold information about the "complications". They don't tell us whether they were a few sniffles, of autism, or what. If anything, this has convinced me that separate injections are better. When I was a child in the 60s everyone that is everyone had measles and rubella and quite a few had the mumps as well, and I have never ever ever heard of a single death from the measles. So where are all of these measles victims they talk about?
Me again - I just want to stress again that this story about the administrative nightmare about recalling people for all those jabs, is, no my mind, just another Government lie. Like I said above, if people were given the choice, they would regain trust, and most people would opt for MMR, with just a minority choosing single jabs, so the administrative nightmare would simply not happen.
Your points about administration are valid. Your doubt about the deaths from measles are not, I fear. You simply have to go back through the medical records to find it. Measles causes brain damage, febrile convulsions and death. Mumps causes meningitis and male infertility. Rubella causes deformity and deafness in unborn children. The statistics are available. Measles mortality declined sharply prior to vaccination due to improved nutrition, but the remained at a fairly constant 2-10%. One comprehensive study shows the statistics quite well:
www.nevdgp.org.au/other/project/immunemyths/dis_facts2.htm
Ask any doctor who was active in pre-vaccination days and they will tell you the same.
www.nevdgp.org.au/other/project/immunemyths/dis_facts2.htm
Ask any doctor who was active in pre-vaccination days and they will tell you the same.
Unfortunately I have not enough time to look at the site you mention, but statistics are just statistics; my mother once spoke to a friend paediatrician (in Italy) - what I remember is that he was as surprised as we were that measles is now regarded as a killer when it used to be an ordinary childhood ailment nobody was afraid of; it was a necessary evil and families often got their children to infect each other, to get it over and done with; I had it at 2, my sister at 5, and I simply cannot accept that it causes the things you say; mumps only causes male infertility if caught by an adult male, not if caught by a child; rubella causes deformity and deafness in the unborn child if caught by a pregnant mother, not if caught by a child. Therefore, mumps and rubella inoculations could be given at any time before puberty. They don't need to be given at one year of age; another point is that I know from experiece (I have loads of friends with young children, my daughter's friends) that in reality, most children are vaccinated some time between 12 and 18 months and almost never the minute they are 12 months; so assuming that measles is the killer they say it is (and I simply cannot accept that) then it would be quite alright to give a single injection for measles at 12 months exactly, and wait for the other injections. Another point: the government claim (but don't give reasons so far as I know) that separate injections will not protect the child's immature immune system unless the gap is 12 months; in Japan, separate injections are given for measles and rubella on the same day (or so I read in a newspaper a few days ago), mumps is only given on request; yet the "complications" have gone right down, so the point about having to wait 12 months cannot be right; sorry I can't remember the newspaper, but we read the Guardian, the Observer, the Independent and the Eve Standard, so I can never remember which.
Statistics are just statistics? And yet statistics are the things on which the scare about autism is based! What you are saying is that you will accept evidence to support your viewpoint but not evidence contrary to it. Yes, children were routinely infected with these diseases in childhood. And yes there were and are complications, and yes 2% will die. Its not high, its a similar mortality to the flu, but it is real. Live with it. The difference is that it is preventable.
The thing with childhood diseases is that they are dangerous but best caught when young. Before vaccination exactly the same thing was done by parents with smallpox: infect the child young and the disease is less severe. If you read my inputs above you will see that I say a delay of 1 month between jabs is accepted. Any vaccination is better than none: I merely said that in the absence of the singles go for mmr.
I had measles as a child. I had a freind who had it at the same time and became deaf as a result of febrile brain damage. We thought that I had chicken pox as a child, as I had shown symptoms after one of those "Infect your children" parties, and yet I got it at 18 and was seriously ill.
As I say, I only advocate mmr in absence of an alternative. The mortality and complication rates of the diseases mentioned are real, learn to cope.
Hi there, yes my daughter has had MMR, but I would have chosen the single injections if I had had the choice. Yes I think people should have the option of the single injections. They say MMR is safe for the vast majority of children, and I think we should find out who is in the minority for whom it is not safe, and offer an alternative to them. The other point is that once confidence is restored, and you achieve your 95 per cent of vaccinated population, you have the herd immunity and it does not matter if the 5 per cent has not been vaccinated. All I read in the papers is about measles cases, but not a single case of mumps or rubella, so I conclude that if the Government had been flexible (dare I say democratic) and allowed the single vaccines, these children would not have the measles now. Funny Incitatus mentions chickenpox as I had been thinking about it myself. I had it at 36 and it was not at all serious, just itchy, and my daughter who was one did not even notice she had it. What was scary though was people's ignorance - some people treated us like lepers and even believed they could catch it if they touched a door handle we had touched - pathetic. I read in an article that in the US children are routinely vaccinated against chickenpox the reason behind the policy being to prevent the parents taking time off work and I do not accept that any kind of treatment should be administered for the employers'/industry's convenience!
I have no children of my own, but took my nephew and neice to be vaccinated. I agree that the singles are an alternative. Read back and you'll see that I never said otherwise. And do measles first, its probably the most important. But MMR is a viable alternative.
As to Vittoria's points:
there is no way of telling who will be susceptible to side effects. Its a lottery. Same as theres no way of telling who will get complications from a disease. Sad, but true.
I envy your easy escape from adult chicken pox...had there been a vaccine available I would have loved it! Anything is better than 2 weeks in bed and delirious fever, which is what I got.
You are right that no clinical deision should be taken on commercial grounds, but remember that chicken pox has complications too....much rarer than measles though, so the benefit is less clear. Mind you it does scar. My whole family have had it, and every one of us can point to at least one permanent scar from it. Its link with shingles is notorious though. It is very rare to get shingles (same virus) without having had chicken pox. And shingles is very very nasty. Rarely fatal, but extremely painful and disfiguring.
Chicken pox is contagious by the way.
Thank you both for your replies. My daughter contracted rubella at 14 months - in my area they call for MMR at 18 months. I asked if there would be a problem with my daughter having the MMR so soon after contracting one element of it......they couldnt give me an answer, in fact they said they were not sure?? The disease did put her under the weather for a few days but no more than when she has a bad cold or tummy bug. I was then called for her MMR at the same time as the meningitis jab, I asked whether this was a bit of an overload of jabs, again I was told there wasnt a problem but I declined the MMR at the time. Two months ago my friends son contracted measles, he had not been innoculated, 5 other children contracted it from the same nursery, how come this was not on the news and in the papers? I don't think it even made the local papers. All along the line there are inconsistencies in every thing every one says or does. How on earth can a responsible & caring parent take the best option. No disrespect Incitatus, you are a very knowledgeable individual but when its your own flesh and blood its one of the toughest decisions in the world to make. In the words of Disraeli "there are lies, damned lies and statistics"
As I said, I dont envy your position. The statistics to which I refer are taken directly from the patient notes f british GP's. They arent thought up by some academic. In terms of your daughters case you are probably right to be cautious. This kind of thing happens rarely so the data is not there for guidance. If I were you I would seek out the singles, and do measles first, mumps second and rubella never, as having been exposed to it she should not need it at all, and would be more likely to react, if only with an itchy arm. But still do vaccinate if at all possible.
People say that about statistics, but normally because they dont understand them. They are a guide to the probabilities, not a guarantee in a particular case, and so responses should be tailored to particular cases, but informed by the stats. Government agencies are very bad at this. As I said, I took my nephew and neice to be vaccinated. Had either been previously exposed to the diseases I would have hesitated, and sought specialist advice.
1 to 17 of 17
