The government has revealed plans for the five-in-one jabs which will protect children against diphtheria, tetanus, whooping cough, Hib and, for the first time, polio in a single shot.

The concerns are that this new vaccine could overload the babies immune systems.


http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/health_medical/story.jsp?story=549862

It does sound like too much for such a young body to take.

I wasn't botheres at all by the MMR - autism stuff, but this 5 in one thing I am pretty nervous about, is this going to be the only option or will we be able to ask for single vaccines.

I get really fed up with being told "there is nothing to worry about" then a few years later it "oh sorry we f***** up".
I've learnt to go with my instincts and this 5 in one just doesn't sound good.
Even adults have bad reactions to multiple shots when they are vaccined to go traveling so I am sure it would be worse for kids.

The current immunisation is 4 + 1 diphtheria, tetanus, whooping cough, Hib as an injection and then the polio as an oral vaccine. Therefore the new jab doesn't increase the load on the baby's immune system it may even lower it as the new polio vaccine is a dead one as opposed to the current live one.

If you were to use us single jabs your child would be at risk for a much longer period of time.

IMO anyone who doesn't give a baby an immunisation is not only being negligent to their child but is also putting other peoples children at risk. We are extremely lucky in this country that beacuse of our immunisation program it is extremely rare that we have children die of these diseases. Don't forget that they are killers.

I totally agree with immunisations, I would never not immunise my child but you do get bombarded with loads of worries as a parent and you have to make the best decision you can at the time, but sometimes it feels like the NHS fob you off and you do get bad advice.
Maybe the press were just scare mongering with the new jab, from what you say it sounds fine.

Originally posted by sanman

IMO anyone who doesn't give a baby an immunisation is not only being negligent to their child but is also putting other peoples children at risk. We are extremely lucky in this country that beacuse of our immunisation program it is extremely rare that we have children die of these diseases. Don't forget that they are killers.

I don't think anyone would disagree with immunisation - I was immunised against measles, for example, but still ended up with damage to my eyesight after contracting neasles not long after the vaccination!

However, people are generally distrustful of the medical profession and especially public health after various high-profile cock-ups over the years - Thalidomide, CJD, MMR (whether or not the case if proven) Alder Hey hospital, etc. The issue of overloading an immune system is interesting - it's been suggested that some aspects of the 'Gulf War' syndrome may have been due to the way in which troops were vaccinated against the possible use of bilogical weapons.

Yes, vaccinate, but allow the use of single vaccines. And wasn't it an amazing coincidence that we first get told that a mercury containing single vaccine is to be withdrawn - horrible stuff, mercury, after all - and then told immediately it's to be replaced by the 5 in 1 jobbie?

I'm not shouting conspiracy - I believe more in cock-ups than conspiracy - but I can quite happilly understand why people do feel scared for their kids.

Joe

Originally posted by sanman
The current immunisation is 4 + 1 diphtheria, tetanus, whooping cough, Hib as an injection and then the polio as an oral vaccine. Therefore the new jab doesn't increase the load on the baby's immune system it may even lower it as the new polio vaccine is a dead one as opposed to the current live one.

If you were to use us single jabs your child would be at risk for a much longer period of time.

IMO anyone who doesn't give a baby an immunisation is not only being negligent to their child but is also putting other peoples children at risk. We are extremely lucky in this country that beacuse of our immunisation program it is extremely rare that we have children die of these diseases. Don't forget that they are killers.


All the diseases that we vaccinate babies against were in steep decline long before vaccinations were available against them, thanks to victorian improvements in public hygiene.

It is impossible to predict side effects of vaccines accurately but one thing is sure that they are more likely and more severe in the most vulnerable....a catch 22 situation surely.

In nature it is virtually impossible to be challenged by 2 viruses at once. Therefore to challenge the body with 3 never mind 5 viruses at once is in my opinion courting disaster.

The day that the government accepts independent research into vaccine safety is the day that I will belive their spiel. Their research is done by the vaccine manufacturers. How perverse is that?

It's not a catch 22 situation, because it's not just your child you are protecting through vaccination. Not immunising your child is irresponsible behaviour, and the current media feeding frenzy only blurs the facts and encourages this sort of behaviour.

However, as to whether single jabs should be an option... well, that's another debate.

urgh.

I saw this story on BBC news last night and had to leave the room. What is WRONG with people?!

"I'm really worried about our precious little Zak's health. WIll giving him immunisation against some of the major diseases that can hurt babies be good for him? Will this injection, that has evidently been through numerous testing in some of the most advanced medical labs, and been approved by medical associations and those with the intellectual authority and knowledge, be the best thing for my precious little diddums?"

It wouldn't be offered if it wasn't regarded as ok for babies! A 1 in a million chance of paralysis apparently. Well here's something that may shock you...

Everything is bad for you! If you heeded the 'warnings' of all medical/health/environmental scares we'd be bloody starving with no....anything!

I'm not saying I don't care about any of these things, of course we should all try to be as careful as possible, but do you really think the doctors are out to 'get' your kids? In the past we have been told that washing up liquid and burnt toast can give you cancer. Are you sure you rinsed off all of the Fairy? Hmm?

You are young Nosyrosie and I would assume that you do not therefore have children. Every parent (well apart from the obvious ones) wants whats best for their offspring.

Believe me when you are faced with holding an 8 week babe in your arms and watching and endorsing the administation of a substance which may cause irreversible damage you do think twice.

My children have not had MMR and never will have. They have extremely strong immune systems because they are allowed to come into contact with dust and dirt. They play outside in the soil and get very dirty. I do not continually follow them round with antibacterial this and that like many parents do, neither do I forbid them to get dirty like many do. A child that has a robust immune system does not fall prey to one illness after another. My youngest daughter has just completed her first two years at school without one day off. Some record.

Not vaccinating is not an irresponsible action but rather an alternative way of looking at health. Perhaps more people should question so called facts churned out by the government. As I said MMR research is done by the vaccine manufacturers. How can that possibly be impartial?

Seems to be about fear again. I think it's natural if you're holding your child in your arms to worry about what the jab will do to them, but the chances are so small that the risk of damage to the child is worse if they don't have immunisation.

My sister is a scientist that works for the NHS and comes into contact with things like this all the time. She has a very strong opinion about this, and believes that parents who refuse to give their child the MMR jab are putting their child at risk.

I wouldn't think this new jab would be used if it isn't safe either, but we'll have to wait and see. MMR has been around for nearly 30 years, and is now used in over 90 countries and there is still no concusive evidence that it linked to autism.

Mo

Totally disagree with you when you say that not vacinating your child is not irresponsible, it most certainly is. Not only are you increasing the risk of your child catching these diseases but you are increasing the risk of everyone else who is in contact with your children being exposed to these diseases. I personally would exclude any child from school that has not been immunised. During the last MMR scare children died who had not been immunised.

As for MMR research being done by the manufacturers this is some what miselading. All drugs that are on the market have to be tested, this testing is obviously done by the manufacturers as part of the process of getting drugs approval by bodies such as the FDA & MCA.

Originally posted by Mo
Not vaccinating is not an irresponsible action but rather an alternative way of looking at health. Perhaps more people should question so called facts churned out by the government. As I said MMR research is done by the vaccine manufacturers. How can that possibly be impartial?

No, it IS an irresponsible action because it puts other children at risk from these diseases, which are extremely dangerous. By not vaccinating you're playing with other children's lives.

As for the second point re. research, come on. The regulations for getting drugs approved are extremely stringent in this country. And there's no link between MMR and autism - so why would there be any need for independent research?

If people think that MMR is dangerous then maybe they should look at what the diseases do to children and weigh up the two. The more children who are not immunised, the more children who will suffer.

Rubella, if caught in the early stages of pregnancy, can severely damage the unborn child. If a pregnant woman catches it early in her pregnancy, it can seriously harm her unborn baby’s sight, hearing, heart and brain.

As many as one out of 20 children with measles gets pneumonia, and about one child in every 1,000 who get measles will develop encephalitis. (This is an inflammation of the brain that can lead to convulsions, and can leave your child deaf or mentally retarded).

Mumps can affect the pancreas or, in females, the ovaries. Although is a less dangerous disease.

Plus the fact that there is no evidence that shows, without a doubt, that MMR is a dangerous jab... i personally believe it's more dangerous not to have it.

It is reaaallly irresponsible not to geiv your kids the MMR vacine, even if they themselves do not visibly get measles, mumps or rubella they can still be carrying the virus - you can be putting pregnant women at risk of harming their babies etc, vaccinatons are not just about the person having the vaccine but about those around them too.

It's very odd how the MMR vaccine was used for so long on so many people, without a fuss, without significant evidence of side-effects, etc, and then, all of a sudden, some mysterious 'research' that there may, possibly...perhaps if you squint a bit... be some kind of link to autism. I'm fine, I've never met anyone or heard of anyone of my generation (we all had the MMR) with linked problems. Parents are at risk of worrying so much that they are going to harm their own kids themselves through emotional instability, never mind the immunisation.

Well Rosie, lets hope that if one day you have a perfectly healthy child until it is given the MMR jab, when he/she suddenly develops Autism, people don't treat you with the same high-horse contempt with which you sometimes seem to treat other people. If that happens to you and everyone tells you it's an unfortunate coincidence will you suddenly believe them? My Brothers little boy was VERY ill after being given the MMR, luckily he did get better but it was touch and go for a while. I am fairly confident that if he had not got better you would never have heard about it. How many of these cases actually come to light? The issue with MMR is as much that there are alternatives that are not made available. If the MMR was the only way of protecting against these illnesses, then the percentage of children who encounter serious problems is probably much smaller than the amount that could suffer from no protection at all, the fact that we hear anything at all indicating that a problem might exist to me is evidence, why else would the research have been conducted in the first place? Possibly because so many parents of autistic children screamed and shouted until some news finally escaped into the mainstream. I am happy that you have such confidence in the information you are fed on this matter, and I hope you never have reason to question it. I for one would pay privately for separate jabs, lets hope I would be wasting my money.

Originally posted by noseyrosie
It's very odd how the MMR vaccine was used for so long on so many people, without a fuss, without significant evidence of side-effects, etc, and then, all of a sudden, some mysterious 'research' that there may, possibly...perhaps if you squint a bit... be some kind of link to autism. I'm fine, I've never met anyone or heard of anyone of my generation (we all had the MMR) with linked problems. Parents are at risk of worrying so much that they are going to harm their own kids themselves through emotional instability, never mind the immunisation.

You've not heard of anyone so therefore it must be ok hey? You've never met anyone, well perhaps you didn't meet anyone because the autistic kids of your generation were in special schools that can deal with autism, so you didn't make contact with them.

My cousin had the MMR, he has autism. I can't prove a link but he wasn't diagnosed till after he had the MMR.

I actually think that immunisation can be damaging full stop. I had measles, mumps, chicken pox, whooping cough as a child and, ok it wasn't nice, but I got through it (like the majority of kids did in those days) and have a good immune system now. I think it's good for children to get a few illnesses as it does build up the immune system.

My concern with the five-in-one jab is that it appears the Government isn't listening to the concerns of parents.

After the MMR 3-in-1 fiasco, the Government bring out a 5-in-1 jab, telling us it's safer because it dosn't contain mercury...so why was mercury in the original baby jabs anyway?

By Noseyrosie
It's very odd how the MMR vaccine was used for so long on so many people, without a fuss, without significant evidence of side-effects, etc, and then, all of a sudden, some mysterious 'research' that there may, possibly...perhaps if you squint a bit...

Noisyrosie, I'm surprised you came out with this...there does appear to be a minority of babies who do suffer adverse effects to the MMR jab. Coincidence or not; the subject needs much further study, but disregarding parents' concerns in such a way as you do makes me think you got out of the wrong side of bed this morning (and that's me being polite)

Mercury was in the original jabs as a preservative for the whooping cough component which has now changed and therefore doesn't need the mercury (which by the way passed through the body within 24 hours).

It just so happens that autism is generally diagnosed around the age when children have their vaccinations, and that is the limit of the link IMO. MMR has also been linked with bowel disease, I suffer from Crohn's but still had all my children vaccinated. Why, because the danger from mumps, measles etc far outweighs the danger from the vaccination.

I agree that it is personal choice whether you have your child vaccinated or not, however, if I have my child vaccinated it doesn't effect your child at all, on the other hand by not vaccinated your child you increase the risk of my child being exposed to these diseases and I do take objection to that.

I think...maybe...I didn't put that very well. <Ashamed cowering>

I don't mean that because I've never met anybody with a proven link that there may not be one, but I know a couple of autistic kids and that doesn't mean that it has a link with MMR, if you get my drift.

My intention was to say that there's a real danger here of parents these days becoming very paranoid about a number of things, and making poor judgements because of it. As far as I can see, with no real conclusive evidence on a link, the MMR should be the only route parents should want to take.

Thanks for your comments, sanman.

Originally posted by sanman
Mercury was in the orginal jabs as a preservative for the whooping cough component which has now changed and therefore doesn't need the mercury (which by the way passed through the body within 24 hours).

Is this true? I thought the concern over having mercury in the jabs was that heavy metals stayed in the human body forever.

And as for the fabulous typo "Noisy Rosie", I think I may use it in future. :D

As for getting out of bed the wrong side, it's up against the wall, although the rain woke me up several times in the night. Note my grumpiness in other threads today.

Originally posted by noseyrosie
And as for the fabulous typo "Noisy Rosie", I think I may use it in future. :D

Hey, you noticed :thumbsup:

As far as I can see, with no real conclusive evidence on a link, the MMR should be the only route parents should want to take

There is an alternative route, seperate jabs. It's a shame that this is not offered.. I would guess (although I may be wrong) that many of the people who avoid the MMR jab may not be so opposed to the seperate jabs but they are not given the option, as a result many children have no innoculations at all.

Abdul

Yes my statement about the mercury is correct, the form of mercury used passes through the body within 24 hours and is expelled in your urine.

Neek

The trouble with single jabs is that they would prolong the amount of time that babies would be susceptible to the virus that is why we use the multiple vaccinations. In some countries they use 7 in 1 and 8 in 1 vaccinations.

Also you could have the single jabs if you were prepared to go private. Did you see the news recently were children were having to go back and have more jabs because they hadn't been adequately protected.

Maybe the people who want separate jabs are also likely to be the ones complaining about the lack of NHS funding in other areas? Separate jabs are surely more expensive.

Originally posted by Snook
If people think that MMR is dangerous then maybe they should look at what the diseases do to children and weigh up the two. The more children who are not immunised, the more children who will suffer.

Rubella, if caught in the early stages of pregnancy, can severely damage the unborn child. If a pregnant woman catches it early in her pregnancy, it can seriously harm her unborn baby’s sight, hearing, heart and brain.

As many as one out of 20 children with measles gets pneumonia, and about one child in every 1,000 who get measles will develop encephalitis. (This is an inflammation of the brain that can lead to convulsions, and can leave your child deaf or mentally retarded).

Mumps can affect the pancreas or, in females, the ovaries. Although is a less dangerous disease.

Plus the fact that there is no evidence that shows, without a doubt, that MMR is a dangerous jab... i personally believe it's more dangerous not to have it.

Talk about me going off on one. What we have here is panic at it's most extreme.

Suffering,dying, and all the rest. Lets just get a grip on this one for the minute. Measles, mumps and rubella are childhood diseases that are in the main dangerous to very few. I grew up with them all and know of noone who was adversly affected by any of them. Like many of the people who use this board to me they were part of growing up.When you talk of the fatalities of measles understand that most people caught it and made a full recovery without any ill effects. Whats more they carried a lifelong immunity, which vaccination does not offer.

Rubella is dangerous to the unborn child that is why everyteenage girl should have the jab and every woman of child bearing years should make sure that she is immune. It is unreasonable to expect all young children to be unnecesarily jabbed for rubella when it poses THEM no threat at all. Many children have rubella without even realising they have it,so mild and innocuous is the disease.

Sorry you are wrong evidence does not show without a doubt that MMR is safe..........no medicine or vaccination can promise that.

Originally posted by sanman

I agree that it is personal choice whether you have your child vaccinated or not, however, if I have my child vaccinated it doesn't effect your child at all, on the other hand by not vaccinated your child you increase the risk of my child being exposed to these diseases and I do take objection to that.

But if you have your children vaccinated with something you hold in such high regard then surely what I do is no business of yours. Your child should be protected.

Originally posted by sanman

Also you could have the single jabs if you were prepared to go private. Did you see the news recently were children were having to go back and have more jabs because they hadn't been adequately protected.

The fact that they were called back had nothing to do with the efficiency of the single vaccine but rather the storage method. Vaccinations had been drawn up too far in advance of their use. Had this been done in an NHS clinic , then we wouldn't have heard a thing on the news about it.

the funny thing is, none of us is qualified to make sensible judgements on this and none of us has done any serious research into it.

For christs sake, it sounds like some of us believe that their is metallic mercury in the original jab!

With regards to vacination/immunisation approvals, I presume that they have to go through a process much like drug approvals. Which means that a government body tests them, not just the companies that produce them.

Did anyone notice the bit about the vacine having been used in canada for the last 7 years? Sounds like a fairly extensive test, although whether anyone has properly studied the data is unclear.

The fatality/damage rate for measels is higher than the rate of side effects from the jab. It's just maths. Unfortunately the tabloids can't make a story out of 1 in 1000 children dies from measels. They can make a story out of 1 in 10000 children might have autism due to mmr. One of those is a fact, the other was based on flawed and unverifiable research. But which makes the better story.

Originally posted by Mo
Talk about me going off on one. What we have here is panic at it's most extreme.

Suffering,dying, and all the rest. Lets just get a grip on this one for the minute. Measles, mumps and rubella are childhood diseases that are in the main dangerous to very few. I grew up with them all and know of noone who was adversly affected by any of them. Like many of the people who use this board to me they were part of growing up.When you talk of the fatalities of measles understand that most people caught it and made a full recovery without any ill effects. Whats more they carried a lifelong immunity, which vaccination does not offer.

Rubella is dangerous to the unborn child that is why everyteenage girl should have the jab and every woman of child bearing years should make sure that she is immune. It is unreasonable to expect all young children to be unnecesarily jabbed for rubella when it poses THEM no threat at all. Many children have rubella without even realising they have it,so mild and innocuous is the disease.

Sorry you are wrong evidence does not show without a doubt that MMR is safe..........no medicine or vaccination can promise that.

Appparently the rubella jab doesn't necesarilly give you long term immunity anyway - i had the jab aa a teenager and was told that would be me protected for life - but now I am pregnant and the midwife tells me that some peoples immunity against rubella goes down again and you may be at risk!?!
They do an immunity test during pregnancy then will give you a jab after the birth if you need it.
See - every few years they are telling you something different.
You just have to go with your instinct an dhope for the best.

Originally posted by Mo
Talk about me going off on one. What we have here is panic at it's most extreme.

Actually, i'm not going off on one, just using simple facts rather than scare tactics. I was just pointing out that one in twenty kids who get measles gets pneumonia, which still kills one in three people... can you say that the odds are anything like that small for MMR?

Originally posted by Mo
Suffering,dying, and all the rest. Lets just get a grip on this one for the minute.

I agree, that's my argument for people who are scared of jabs.


Originally posted by Mo
Sorry you are wrong evidence does not show without a doubt that MMR is safe..........no medicine or vaccination can promise that.

There has never been a vacine studied anywhere near as much as MMR, in countries all over the world. You can get a list off all the research here... http://www.mmrthefacts.nhs.uk/library/research.php
Yet there is still no evidence to show any more danger with MMR than any other vacine, and no clear link between it and autism. I'm not saying it's 100% safe, but what is?

There are just no facts to support the case for not having it, as far as i can see, but that fact that my child would have a 1 in 1000 chance of developing encephalitis seems a real risk, and not something i should need to 'get a grip' on.

BTW, there facts aren't taken from a newspaper like most of the 'facts' about MMR.