hi both me and my 10 year old daughter had this thing on friday, saturday and today.
high fever, being sick and diarrhea.
hopefully its gone by tomorrow.

I hope so she hasnt been sick yes just been complaining of stomach ache for the last few days

my little one has had terrible nappies, v v whingy and sleepy for a couple of days now. she also keeps being sick, usually on me :(

my little one has had terrible nappies, v v whingy and sleepy for a couple of days now. she also keeps being sick, usually on me :(

oh no mines like that and shes 6 but not sick yet :gag: i hope she doesnt it'll start my sickness off :hihi:
Hi hope shes better soon

my daughter started with this yesterday ,feeling sick and high temperature ,don't think she will be at school tomorrow .

Babybonny was ill last week. Went to GP surgery Monday lunchtime and his temp was 40.3. Thankfully he's fine again now.

well i kept her off i gave her medicine and she was still hot shes seems ok now but it might come bk so keeping her off just incase

yep mine have got it too,,, had alot of sick to clear up yesterday!

Yes I had the luvverly job of cleaning a sicky daughter and bedroom at 5am this morning.
There seems to be alsorts flying around, she was off for a week only 2 weeks ago.

Yes I had the luvverly job of cleaning a sicky daughter and bedroom at 5am this morning.
There seems to be alsorts flying around, she was off for a week only 2 weeks ago.

my friend little girl had it then it went and come bk again shes off shes had 2 wash every cover in the house she was that bad i think im starting with it also i dont feel to good just had 2 dive to loo :gag::(

Hi all evie is 8 week on friday and has her first needles then too. I was woundering if she can have calpol before she goes for needles. Or do i have to wait and ask doc,ect im not too sure as to what she can have. Her weight gain is fine she has gained a whole lb every week since being born she weighs 11lb2 now that was last week.
Considering she was early (3 week 5 day) and weighed 6lb 2 she aint done bad. Do they give calpol depending on weight charlie xxxx

p.s. im dreading taking her for injections eeeeekkkkk

Hi!!
ive just got back from taking Joe for his first injections. The doctor gave him a prescription for calpol (2.5ml of the 120mg/5ml liquid). It's not nice and i cried aswell as him. He seems fine now - he's been smiling so it looks like i've been forgiven!! Not looking forward to going back in a month for the next ones. I'm going to take my mate with me next time!!
good luck!! XX

I never gave my DD calpol before the injections. I know some people do, but I don't see the point unless you know they have a bad reaction. Make sure you have some calpol or neofen for infants (I prefer this, but not sure how young they should be for it), and if they do get a temerpature after the injections then you can give them some to help bring it down.

It's personal preference I guess, but I don't take any meds unless I need them and do the same for DD. DD was fine with injections and the only one we had problems with was the very last one around 14 months which was a flu one and MMR. She just had a bit of a rash and a raised temperature. My DD didn't even notice the first injection, but they do notice them more each time as they get older.

See if you can get somebody to go with you for support, I always did, because I hated it. Good luck.

Tip - hold your baby with his face to your front, then he won't see the needle and you can keep a tight grip on him. And expect screeching - if a baby doesn't cry then that's when you should worry!

Its always been my job to hold the baby for the jabs because mum cant bear to even be in the room.
We give them calpol afterwards- Calpol is bloody good stuff, the bloke who invented that should be given a medal.

No hun, you shouldn't give her calpol unless the doctor says to (which they probably will) - calpol isn't recommended for babies under 3 months without doctor's advice as babies' livers aren't able to break down the paracetamol as well as adults' livers can. The calpol should only be given if she's in pain or has a fever, and there's every chance that a few minutes after the jab she won't be in any pain and her temperature won't rise. Wait and see if she needs it before you give it to her.

Just seen a woman on tv explaining that she refuses any kind of injection for her kid, she gets them immune to disease by making them stay near other kids with the illness because she believes its safer than jabs.

Ill try to find out the name of the programme so you can look for it if its repeated if youre interested, but, would you do that to your kids? I always thought that the jabs were to stop the disease from killing or permanantly harming the baby, yet this woman, and according to her, many others go the same thing.

In my opinion, she and others are at best misguided, and at worst guilty of causing serious potential harm not just to their own children but to others as well.

Just get the jabs. They have eradicated or made very rare many killer diseases, and in my opinion if you care about your child and other children, you must behave responsibly to ensure that these diseases do not become prevalent again.

Just my tuppence worth....

When I was a kid and contracted chickenpox, other children were sent to play with me.

And when other kids got mumps, I was sent to play with them.

Her kids won't get immunity - just contract the bugs, unless they have some sort of natural immunity anyway.

The thing is, its very easy for people that have not had first hand experiance with damage caused by vacines to say "just get em done".

My daughter has aspergers (she has had her jabs) but because of this i have spoken to lots of parents who believe that their children have been damaged by jabs.

Ok in many cases you could argue that it just a coinsindence, but there are also alot of cases whereby by the child has been 2-3 before they have had the offending jab, There has then been a regression, they were potty trained and had excellant speech ect ect. And have then gone on to loss all this!!

I personally think that we should have the right to choose weather or not to give or children combined vacines or single shots. I agonised for weeks before letting my daughter have her pre school booster.

When I was a kid and contracted chickenpox, other children were sent to play with me.

And when other kids got mumps, I was sent to play with them.

Her kids won't get immunity - just contract the bugs, unless they have some sort of natural immunity anyway.

Yes, I've come across this with chickenpox. When my kids had chickenpox several other mums sent their kids to play with them. I seem to remember hearing that in America they have "chickenpox parties!" I think the idea is that the parents want their children to catch the disease when they're younger, as it can be much more unpleasant if you get it when you're older.

But that's the point. As Joe says, the kids catch the disease. They don't somehow magically become immune just by being in contact with it. With something like chickenpox that might be OK. I'm not sure I'd have sent my kids to play with someone on purpose to try and catch it, but I can understand why some mums do. What I really can't imagine, though, would be deliberately putting my child at risk of catching something like measles, mumps or whatever.

When I was a kid and contracted chickenpox, other children were sent to play with me.

And when other kids got mumps, I was sent to play with them.

Her kids won't get immunity - just contract the bugs, unless they have some sort of natural immunity anyway.

me too joep

back then children recovered easier than adults with illness, therefore it was deemed better to get chicken pox and measles out of the way when we were kids (mumps obviously to stop infatility)

The thing is, its very easy for people that have not had first hand experiance with damage caused by vacines to say "just get em done".

My daughter has aspergers (she has had her jabs) but because of this i have spoken to lots of parents who believe that their children have been damaged by jabs.

Ok in many cases you could argue that it just a coinsindence, but there are also alot of cases whereby by the child has been 2-3 before they have had the offending jab, There has then been a regression, they were potty trained and had excellant speech ect ect. And have then gone on to loss all this!!

I personally think that we should have the right to choose weather or not to give or children combined vacines or single shots. I agonised for weeks before letting my daughter have her pre school booster.

The overwhelming body of research that has been done says that it is simply not the case that the MMR, which you are clearly referring to, has anything at all to do with either autism/aspergers or the bowel disease that appears to be related to these illnesses.
It is, however, very human to want to be able to a) protect your child from harm and b) find something to blame when something bad does happen to them.

This is where the constant touting of studies, regardless of how well researched they are or are not, can cause serious actual harm, both psychologically and physically.

Apparently there is a jab for chicken pox now, but mine is too old for it, I believe. Because of that, and because it is for the most part a fairly mild illness in childhood, and because it can be a very nasty disease in adulthood, yes, I would put my child in the way of getting it. Because as has been pointed out, he would GET it, not just become imunised through contact - wouldn't that be nice!

I don't think it's possible to say that these people are misguided. Some children tolerate vaccinations and other do not, it's down to their "make up" and who can account for that or predict it? There is as much research and evidence (as with most things) to say that vaccinations do more harm than good and that children thrive who are not vaccinated, or given antibiotics. My family have a history of reacting badly to vaccinations, so we avoid them and have not suffered for it. In fact we have the constitution of an ox (in plural ;))

Here's one for a quick start:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16387585

http://www.gnhealth.com/articles/whichArticle.php?article=129

If you knew someone who had a child who took 9 years to die after brain injury caused by measles then you wouldn't ever question the need for vaccinations.

I personally know of one child who died as direct consequence of measles (albeit 9 years later) and 2 adults who had their sight seriously damaged by measles as small children.

I also know of 2 people who had children affected by birth defects thought to be the effects of being exposed to rubella during the first trimester of their pregnancies, one whose first child had very severe complications of HiB menigitis which are likely to be lifelong and another whose little one was hospitalised with complications of whooping cough.

I recognise that there are questions about the safety of vaccines and that these need to be answered, but the answer to anyone who thinks that these are just simple childhood diseases that all children get over is that they are shortsighted and incorrect. There is no way that the millions of research money would be committed to developing and administering a vaccine if there wasn't a significant chance of complications which are life long or life limiting resulting from catching these infections.

But it does work both ways. My brothers life was risked by a vaccination which was terrifying for my mother (I was too young to remember full details).

There is as much research and evidence (as with most things) to say that vaccinations do more harm than good and that children thrive who are not vaccinated, or given antibiotics. My family have a history of reacting badly to vaccinations, so we avoid them and have not suffered for it. In fact we have the constitution of an ox (in plural ;))

This is simply untrue. There is an overwhelming amount of research demonstrating that the benefits associated with vaccines vastly outweigh the risks, and that vaccines are not related to autism, aspergers, etc. Andrew Wakefield, the doctor who originally proposed the link, is now facing charges for unprofessional conduct. His conclusions have never been demonstrated -- in fact every study ever done contradicts his results. It also turns out that his "research" was funded by lawyers who were searching for evidence that could be used to help take legal action against vaccine manufacturers.

As for you not suffering because of your lack of vaccination -- this is quite simply a function of the fact that most other people have been vaccinated so the diseases are rare.

However, since vaccination use has dropped around the world -- largely because of the publicity surrounding Wakefield's flawed research -- these diseases are coming back. And they are killing children.

Earlier this year in San Diego there was the first outbreak of measles in 17 years -- none of the affected children had been vaccinated.

In Iowa a recent out break of mumps -- same reason.

In London, the number of mumps went from 4.204 cases in 2003 to 16,436 in 2004 and 56,390 cases last year.

May people say, so what, measles and mumps aren't that bad. This is as wrong as wrong can be, and is simply because our generation hasn't seen first hand the real effects. Measles, in a significant number of cases, leads to blindness, encephalitis, brain damage and death.

There is no "natural" way to gain immunity. Intentionally exposing your children to other kids who have measles, mumps, etc., not only misunderstands disease transmission and immunity, but it is potentially life threatening. Calling this approach "misguided" is being charitable.

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2008/02/yet_another_really_bad_day_for_antivacci.php

This is simply untrue. There is an overwhelming amount of research demonstrating that the benefits associated with vaccines vastly outweigh the risks, and that vaccines are not related to autism, aspergers, etc. Andrew Wakefield, the doctor who originally proposed the link, is now facing charges for unprofessional conduct. His conclusions have never been demonstrated -- in fact every study ever done contradicts his results. It also turns out that his "research" was funded by lawyers who were searching for evidence that could be used to help take legal action against vaccine manufacturers.

As for you not suffering because of your lack of vaccination -- this is quite simply a function of the fact that most other people have been vaccinated so the diseases are rare.

However, since vaccination use has dropped around the world -- largely because of the publicity surrounding Wakefield's flawed research -- these diseases are coming back. And they are killing children.

Earlier this year in San Diego there was the first outbreak of measles in 17 years -- none of the affected children had been vaccinated.

In Iowa a recent out break of mumps -- same reason.

In London, the number of mumps went from 4.204 cases in 2003 to 16,436 in 2004 and 56,390 cases last year.

May people say, so what, measles and mumps aren't that bad. This is as wrong as wrong can be, and is simply because our generation hasn't seen first hand the real effects. Measles, in a significant number of cases, leads to blindness, encephalitis, brain damage and death.

There is no "natural" way to gain immunity. Intentionally exposing your children to other kids who have measles, mumps, etc., not only misunderstands disease transmission and immunity, but it is potentially life threatening. Calling this approach "misguided" is being charitable.

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2008/02/yet_another_really_bad_day_for_antivacci.php

My post didn't relate to Andrew Wakefield and his findings at all. I supplied a link to some of the research I was referring to, and as far as I'm aware it isn't flawed.
I still think it's luck of the draw for both arguments. Both my father and brother contracted mumps (brother as a child, father in his 40's) I've had measles too, and like I say we survived unscathed wheareas vaccinations have been a problem. Also it isn't always the vaccination that is the problem it's the carrier solution which can be just as harmful if not more so.

There is a difference between objecting to multiple vaccinations - like the MMR - and having appropriate single vaccinations.

I'd ahve no problems with having my kids vaccinated, but would avoid the MMR and pay to have the single vaccinations.

Oh, and I actually had my sight affected by catching measles a few days after my vaccination - just wasn't quite soon enough. :)

I had to take malaria tablets once and everytime I took them (they were a course) for the rwo days after I had a really bad headache, the runs and felt really out of it.
Symptoms of malaria: Headache, Vomiting, Nausea, Flu-like symptoms, Fever!!!!

But my own opinion, I think its a bizarre idea to knowingly let, and encourage, your children to play with groups of infected children/people rather than let them have a vaccination.
For the reasons above in other posts I do not include chicken pox.

In some countries certain vaccinations have been dropped and interestingly so have the rates of incidents of the diseases. How do you explain that?
Incidents of some diseases were declining from the 1930's anyway, naturally.

Are these incidents not due to other factors though Titan, some of which may actually be due to the widespread vaccination programs.

As circumstances change, it may not be necessary to physically immunise people from certain diseases as the actual risk of getting each specific disease drops. The disease has not gotten any less deadly, however the chances of getting it are lower. This would explain your point. (I hope!)
As for how this relates to whether parents should decide if their children will be vaccinated..... if i was a parent I would chose vaccination if i belieed (or admittedly led to believe) that there was a significant risk otherwise

Both my father and brother contracted mumps (brother as a child, father in his 40's) I've had measles too, and like I say we survived unscathed wheareas vaccinations have been a problem. Also it isn't always the vaccination that is the problem it's the carrier solution which can be just as harmful if not more so.

You and your relatives may have survived unscathed, but as pointed out by Medusa, you can't guarantee that any pregnant women they may have come into contact with while 'catching' would not have had their unborn child seriously harmed, or that any other person they may have come into contact with didn't suffer far worse consequences as a result of contracting the disease - that's a very 'I'm all right, Jack' way of looking at things, in my opinion. It's one thing not minding if you or your children get something, but it is putting others at high risk of harm, and that is wrong, wrong, wrong in my book.

Children who are not vaccinated against these diseases are a walking time-bomb, and the harm they can cause to others is simply NOT inconsequential.

I don't know what can be done about people who have bad reactions, but those who choose not to for various other ill thought out, ill informed or just plain selfish reasons are, to me, in serious need of a reality check.

In some countries certain vaccinations have been dropped and interestingly so have the rates of incidents of the diseases. How do you explain that?
Incidents of some diseases were declining from the 1930's anyway, naturally.


Again, this is simply not true. In each case where vaccinations have been dropped, incidence rates have risen. To the extent that there were pre-vaccination reductions in the late 1930's, it was because people realized how bad the diseases were, and severely quarantined the sick. They certainly didn't develop a "natural" immunity by exposing children.

As for it being the carrier fluid (i.e., thimerosal) not the vaccine -- there is absolutely no research demonstrating this. In fact, the research demonstrates the opposite.
http://interverbal.blogspot.com/2006/09/listing-of-articles-which-do-not.html

The same is true of the triple jab vs the single jabs. I'm sorry, but there are no credible scientific studies demonstrating the triple has any increased risk than the singles, and there are loads demonstrating the opposite.

To present this debate as if there is an "equal" amount of research on each side is simply false.

All I go by is the experience of my mother who suffered just about all the diseases possible while a child, because she was not immunised. It left her with a heart defect and she was about 2-3 years behind everyone else at school because she was off sick so much - that's affected her all of her life.

Even so, I refused to have Tetanus and Polio jabs at 15 because of the harm done to me by having a badly done TB jab - scarred for life and left with numerous skin allergies.

I'm not convinced that people who reject modern medicine and want everything 'natural' have read any history or understand what 'natural' actually means?

Personally, I can only comment based upon personal experience. The only jab I did not have as a child was the Whooping cough jab because there was a feeling at the time that the vaccination MAY cause brain damage.

I had Whooping cough which I can assure you was no fun at all and has left me with a shadow on one lung and still effects me all these years later. I think I would rather take a calculated risk that my baby may be the one in a million who has a bad reaction to a jab than risk them getting any of the horrendous illnesses which can have just as strong a life changing effect.

Only my opinion.

You and your relatives may have survived unscathed, but as pointed out by Medusa, you can't guarantee that any pregnant women they may have come into contact with while 'catching' would not have had their unborn child seriously harmed, or that any other person they may have come into contact with didn't suffer far worse consequences as a result of contracting the disease - that's a very 'I'm all right, Jack' way of looking at things, in my opinion. It's one thing not minding if you or your children get something, but it is putting others at high risk of harm, and that is wrong, wrong, wrong in my book.

Children who are not vaccinated against these diseases are a walking time-bomb, and the harm they can cause to others is simply NOT inconsequential.

I don't know what can be done about people who have bad reactions, but those who choose not to for various other ill thought out, ill informed or just plain selfish reasons are, to me, in serious need of a reality check.
I think that's a little harsh. I haven't expressed a personal opinion on vaccinations, just stated facts about my own family history. Are you suggesting that a mother who knows her own child will have it's life threatened by a vaccination should put aside her natural instincts and worry more about another mothers child? I just can't see that happening. I haven't even gone into details about the reaction my brother had and I don't feel it appropriate, but I will say he was lucky to survive.
You have children cosywolf, and I assume they will or do attend a nursery/school etc. There is a possibility that they will come into contact with unvaccinated children, should these children be removed from any nursery? If your children are vaccinated then you should have no worries. I have children too and I'll leave you to make your own mind up about whether my children are vaccinated or not. I will tell you though that this wasn't ill thought out, ill informed or plain selfish reasons.

I think there are fair points for both arguments and that is my only personal opinion on vaccinations. I don't even want to go into the Andrew Wakefield research as it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realise the flaws in it, and I have not referred to it at all. I have, however posted at least two links to research (call it devils advocate if you like) about vaccinations.

Parents have the right to choose what they feel is best for THEIR child, and must take responsibility for that choice. Children are not a walking time bomb and I feel that is a very unfair judgement to place on any child.

Again, this is simply not true. In each case where vaccinations have been dropped, incidence rates have risen. To the extent that there were pre-vaccination reductions in the late 1930's, it was because people realized how bad the diseases were, and severely quarantined the sick. They certainly didn't develop a "natural" immunity by exposing children.

As for it being the carrier fluid (i.e., thimerosal) not the vaccine -- there is absolutely no research demonstrating this. In fact, the research demonstrates the opposite.
http://interverbal.blogspot.com/2006/09/listing-of-articles-which-do-not.html

The same is true of the triple jab vs the single jabs. I'm sorry, but there are no credible scientific studies demonstrating the triple has any increased risk than the singles, and there are loads demonstrating the opposite.

To present this debate as if there is an "equal" amount of research on each side is simply false.

Remind me again what the levels of mercury are in thimerosal, in the UK? Hasn't thimerosal now been phased out in the UK? Why if it was not harmful?

Also, I haven't posted you links to blogs, it has been research. Can you tell me why it isn't credible?

On another point; Thalidomide, was deemed as a safe drug.

I think that's a little harsh. I haven't expressed a personal opinion on vaccinations, just stated facts about my own family history. Are you suggesting that a mother who knows her own child will have it's life threatened by a vaccination should put aside her natural instincts and worry more about another mothers child? I just can't see that happening. I haven't even gone into details about the reaction my brother had and I don't feel it appropriate, but I will say he was lucky to survive.
You have children cosywolf, and I assume they will or do attend a nursery/school etc. There is a possibility that they will come into contact with unvaccinated children, should these children be removed from any nursery? If your children are vaccinated then you should have no worries. I have children too and I'll leave you to make your own mind up about whether my children are vaccinated or not. I will tell you though that this wasn't ill thought out, ill informed or plain selfish reasons.

I think there are fair points for both arguments and that is my only personal opinion on vaccinations. I don't even want to go into the Andrew Wakefield research as it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realise the flaws in it, and I have not referred to it at all. I have, however posted at least two links to research (call it devils advocate if you like) about vaccinations.

Parents have the right to choose what they feel is best for THEIR child, and must take responsibility for that choice. Children are not a walking time bomb and I feel that is a very unfair judgement to place on any child.

I do realise I came out a little in-your-face, and I wasn't pointing my finger at you and you alone, Titian. I apologise if it took you aback or made you feel attacked.

I just really do feel strongly about this. And yes, I think perhaps children should be taken out of nursery if their parents won't give them vaccinations...my child is vaccinated, yes, but you will find younger children who haven't had full jabs at nursery (they can start at many nurseries from 3 months), and you will find a high proprtion of pregnant mothers whose children attend who may no longer have the defences provided by jabs given when they were children (they check and update when you are pregnant, but not in the first trimester) who will also be put in danger.

So yes, I do feel that unimmunised children are a time bomb.

And yes, I do feel that parents have to choose what is best for their children - I believe adamantly that what is best is immunisation.

I do however admit that I could be less RAAARRRGGGHHH about saying so. Please put it down to a blecccchhhh day at work and accept my apologies for growling instead of being cosy.

All fine by me cosy cosywolf, no harm done. ;)

Remind me again what the levels of mercury are in thimerosal, in the UK? Hasn't thimerosal now been phased out in the UK? Why if it was not harmful?

Also, I haven't posted you links to blogs, it has been research. Can you tell me why it isn't credible?

On another point; Thalidomide, was deemed as a safe drug.

If you had read the blog article, you would have seen that it ends with an extensive list of peer-reviewed medical literature specifically dedicated to vaccinations. Including a long list of peer-reviewed studies examining thiomersal. It was removed as a precautionary measure and to help encourage parents to keep up with getting the jabs because they "hype" had resulted in a low vaccination rate, despite all the evidence showing no links. While you didn't bring up Wakefield, it was his flawed research that set this all up.

The first study you linked to demonstrated a correlation between one vaccine and hayfever. (1) the correlation was extremely small. (2) Correlation does not equal causation -- there is also a correlation between increase in vaccine rates and computer use between 1980 and 2000, but nobody would argue that this relationship is causal. Likewise, no study has ever shown that vaccines cause hayfever or anything else. (3) Even if vaccines did result in a slight increase in hayfever, in the balance, hayfever (rhinoconjunctivitis) is a magnitude less risky to a child and to the population at large than measles, mumps or rhubella.

The second page you linked to is not a peer-reviewed scientific article. It is an article written by a "natural living" practitioner who is trying to sell you his books, dvds, natural "medicines", etc. He is hardly an unbiased source, and his article trots out all of the same nonsense that every peer-reviewed study has rejected time after time. When the person posts an article advocating using "natural" medicine on the same website where he sells "natural" medicine, well, let's just say it should be taken with a grain of salt.

Look. I'm not saying you were wrong to not have your kids immunized. If you have a family history of bad reactions, then it was probably a prudent decision. But that is quite different than the millions of people who are deciding not to immunize their children based on bogus science, incorrect statistics, and the ridiculous (and dangerous) claims of "Natural Living" practitioners.

May people say, so what, measles and mumps aren't that bad. This is as wrong as wrong can be, and is simply because our generation hasn't seen first hand the real effects. Measles, in a significant number of cases, leads to blindness, encephalitis, brain damage and death.

There is no "natural" way to gain immunity. Intentionally exposing your children to other kids who have measles, mumps, etc., not only misunderstands disease transmission and immunity, but it is potentially life threatening. Calling this approach "misguided" is being charitable.

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2008/02/yet_another_really_bad_day_for_antivacci.php

thats what my son had :(

I won't be giving my child the MMR as one big injection but will be having it on three separate occasions, one month after the other.

I don't think its right to overload a little ones body with the dosage of an immunisation that would be given to an adult? Just doesn't sound right to me. I also don't like the thought of injecting my child with heavy metals such as aluminium (tetanus), formaldehyde (tetanus), or foetal tissue from other animals (MMR). Just my opinion, the thought of that doesn't turn me on :)

I also won't be giving the meningitis vaccination as I had a very severe reaction to it. I haven't had any updates on my jabs since I was in school when I has my meningitis at 11. I don't intend on getting them updated either unless I really need to. My Mum, me and my sister are all naturally immune to TB so I suspect the little one will be too, so it more than likely won't be having that either.

my 18mth old has about 10 yellow pin pricked sized spots on the end of hie tongue which i think are ulcers, any ideas what to put on them? he pulling at it n scratching it n trying to wipe them off bless him p:confused:lus he sucks his thumb which he cant so wont go to sleep!!

i use anbesol liquid for anything in the mouth lol, it numbs everything! (its antiseptic as well) you only need a tiny bit rubbed on though.

my 18mth old has about 10 yellow pin pricked sized spots on the end of hie tongue which i think are ulcers, any ideas what to put on them? he pulling at it n scratching it n trying to wipe them off bless him p:confused:lus he sucks his thumb which he cant so wont go to sleep!!

Could be ulcers, but could also be Thrush. Check it out with the Doc next week, if it doesnt get better. Yes, Ambusol is good for ulcers.

I was going to say thrush. My youngest got it at about 4 months, a bit of daktarin cream on his tongue and it cleared up very quickly

anyone tell me whats best to do my youngest is 5 yr old as has got them,
any advice school outings etc??

until the spots scab over he will be contagious. School will probably not be happy about him being there or going on outings.

until the spots scab over he will be contagious. School will probably not be happy about him being there or going on outings.

so how long will he need to be off school?

Not very long about 5-7 days I think.

Just have Calpol to hand, keep his fingernails short and don't let him pick or scratch the heads off or that may leave a scar. (I put socks on my kids hands to stop it).

Calamine lotion should soothe the itching too. :)

my yougest has had them since last friday,they look horrid,hoping to be back to school monday

My 18 month old has just had it. Took around 7 days for the spots to scab over. Only just taken her out of the house yesterday to be on the safe side.

I bathed her every night and put on Calamine lotion to help ease the itching. I cut her fingernails as short as I could and gave her calpol when her temp went up (this was only on day 4/5 for us).

wish my 2 would get them!
would like them to get them as they are 6 and 7 and i know its worse as you get older!
dunt get why they havnt had them yet to be honest!

Lots of info on this site...
http://www.nhsdirect.nhs.uk/articles/article.aspx?articleID=97
hopefully it won't last too long.

wish my 2 would get them!
would like them to get them as they are 6 and 7 and i know its worse as you get older!
dunt get why they havnt had them yet to be honest!

not everyone does catch them,:)

the chicken pox virus hangs around in the population all the time - it's estimated that 1 person from any random group of 15 people will have the virus at high enough levels to cause an immune response, so even if your child has never had chicken pox it's pretty likely that they're immune because they will probably have been exposed to it previously. I've never had it, but have antibodies galore.

calamin cream is much better and less messy, also an antihistamine like piriton can help with the itching too :)

my little girl is now 7 months old and ive just noticed she has a tooth coming throw.

she is constantly crying, and winging, unless she is being carried around then most of the time she is fine.

today though shes not taking her bottle feeds as usual,

ive managed to get her to have part of a rusk and a bit of food and juice and 2 9oz bottles which isnt like her at all its usually 9oz bottle every 2-3 hours.

i dont know if this is because she is teething?

myother 2 never bothered when they were teething.

any advice please

Has she also got red cheeks and is drooling? Our lad has been doing that since just past 3 months (wish these flippin' teeth would just come through, grrrrr) - I rub his gums for him, or use teething gel or calpol as a last resort! Try those three steps!

yes she has bright red cheeks and snotty nose, and dribbling a lot ive tried teething gels they dont help for very long, tried calpol last night helped her to sleep for an hour anyway and she wont hav the teething rings just throws them at me lol.

i dont know if she needs to go to doctors

Have you taken her temperature? If she has a raised temp, regardless of whether it's due to teething or a minor illness, I'd be tempted to calpol - as Mathom said, it's a last resort as you don't want a calpol junkie on your hands (actually, calpol is quite good when kids aren't eating properly - even if you're only getting sugar into them by the calpol route it's better than nothing at all).

It's quite possible that she has an infection as well as the teething pain, and you'll never know which one is bothering her. I know it isn't much help this time, but take note of how long she continues to be clingy for so that next time she's teething/being ill you have a good idea of what behaviour to expect from her.

Well, if she throws them at you don't give her any teething rings!:D

Have you tried yoghurt/fromage frais? They should be cool enough to take the ache off her gums if it is her teeth, and as far as I can tell a kid has to be pretty darned unhappy not to want either of them.

Whether to take to the doctors - if I were you I'd take the temperature, do a check for meningitis rash just in case, dose with calpol if appropriate, and accept that you might have an extra little visitor in your bed tonight. If there's no improvement by tomorrow morning I'd make an appointment to see the GP - you can always cancel it.

shes asleep at moment, and seems quite settled shes not sleeping threw the night yet anyway so i never know if she just wingeing or wants feeding or what really, ive never had this problem with my other 2.

and my partner works nights so dont wana risk putting her inbed with me incase she rolls out