Re: USA source of monovalent MMR equivalents??

[Elana]

Richard > wrote:

> Can anyone give a source of monovalent vaccines (one per injection)
> for measles, mumps, and rubella in the USA or Canada?

Our health center was able to order a single vax for rubella for us, but
I haven't been able to get one for mumps or measles. We go the MeruVax
II for rubella.

E

[Karen]

DS is now 3 and just had his first MMR a few eeks ago. Our family dr was
trying to get the individual vaccines for a year and was never able to.
We took ds to a pediatrician for his 3 yr check-up and they also checked
into the individual vaccines for us and found out that only the Rubella
is available separately (because they need it to give to adult women as
per the pregnancy issues w/ rubella), and the company which manufactured
the separate vaccines is not making them any more, so only the
combination is available. That's what the ped said. So we went ahead and
got the MMR, but only the MMR and have no reactions to report.

-Karen, mom to Henry-

[==Daye==]

On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 19:17:56 EDT, Karen >
wrote:

>Our family dr was
>trying to get the individual vaccines for a year and was never able to.

My family doctor was not able to get separate vaccines either.
He called the national vaccine register (or something like that)
and the manufacturer of the vaccines. Nothing. They just don't
make them anymore.

FWIW, this was in Victoria, Australia.

--
==Daye==
Momma to Jayan
#2 EDD 11 Jan 2004
E-mail: brendana AT labyrinth DOT net DOT au

[Robyn Kozierok]

In article >, Richard > wrote:
>Thanks, Karen. :( At least we (just barely) escaped the new
>combined five-component pertussis-diphtheria-tetanus-inactivated
>poliomyelitis-Haemophilus b conjugate vaccine.

I'll probably be sorry I asked, but what is the advantage of / obsession
with uncombined vaccines? The above combination represented 3 jabs for
my kids, and I'm sure *they* would have preferred a single shot. They had
them all at the same time anyhow, so in our case it would have been just
less pain, unless there is some disadvantage to mixing them in one shot
that goes beyond having to get them all at once. I presume there is
some theory that it is safer to get them in separate jabs, possibly at
separate times? Is there any research to support this? We're done with
vaccinations for a couple of years now, so this is mostly just curiosity.

Thanks,
--Robyn (mommy to Ryan 9/93 and Matthew 6/96 and Evan 3/01)

[==Daye==]

On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 11:55:02 EDT, Richard >
wrote:

>At least we (just barely) escaped the new
>combined five-component pertussis-diphtheria-tetanus-inactivated
>poliomyelitis-Haemophilus b conjugate vaccine.

That is the scariest vaccine I have ever heard of! Where on
earth do they give that and at what ages?

--
==Daye==
Momma to Jayan
#2 EDD 11 Jan 2004
E-mail: brendana AT labyrinth DOT net DOT au

[Michelle J. Haines]

In article >,
says...
> In article >, Richard > wrote:
> >Thanks, Karen. :( At least we (just barely) escaped the new
> >combined five-component pertussis-diphtheria-tetanus-inactivated
> >poliomyelitis-Haemophilus b conjugate vaccine.
>
> I'll probably be sorry I asked, but what is the advantage of / obsession
> with uncombined vaccines? The above combination represented 3 jabs for
> my kids, and I'm sure *they* would have preferred a single shot.

No kidding. I think Gareth was at four shots for his first ones --
DTaP, IP, Comvax (Hep B and Hib), and Prevnar. This with get Theona
down to two -- the new combination, Hib, and Prevnar. It's too bad
they couldn't put Hib in the combination since they have it combined
with HepB in one vaccine, but hey, it's still one less stick.

Michelle
Flutist

--
In my heart. By my side.
Never apart. AP with Pride!
Katrina Marie (10/19/96)
Xander Ryan (09/22/98 - 02/23/99)
Gareth Xander (07/17/00)
Zachary Mitchell (01/12/94, began fostering 09/05/01)
Theona Alexis (06/03/03)

[Karen]

Our own personal reasoning, based more on what seems common sense to us
and the fact that there are autoimmune issues in my family tree than on
necessarily anything that we've read,is that bombarding a still
developing immune system (some reading suggests the immune system isn't
mature until around age 5) with so many doses all at once of foreign
stuff for the body to figure out what to do with is unwise.

In our particular situation, we are concerned about a body which may
have genetic markers for autoimmune diseases being triggered into an
autoimmune reaction by a huge dose of vaccines. My thoughts on this are
based on my mother-gut-instinct and a general cynical and suspicious
view of any established ideas on anything, my husband's view on this
comes from having a background in science, incuding his undergraduate
degree in meolecular biology from a pretty major school for such things.

Personally, I don't care how many extra trips to the doctor's office we
have to make, and ds has always been nursed through every shot so he
really has no issues with shots. We are doing selective vax, so he
hasn't had quite as many shots anyway. I don't like this coersion into
getting medical treatment you don't want simply because individual doses
of the vaxs are no longer available. Ds would have been vaccinated for
MMR a year earlier had the individual doses been available, but the
government and medical establishment doesn't seem to want to trust
people with choice. Don't get me started!

-Karen, mom to Henry 3-

[==Daye==]

On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 17:55:22 EDT, (H Schinske)
wrote:

>What's the big deal about it? It's the same stuff the kids were getting before
>in separate doses.

Given that my reasons for vaccinating my child the way I did (see
other post), it is a big, fat, hairy deal. I would NOT vaccinate
my child with a 5-in-1 vaccine.

--
==Daye==
Momma to Jayan
#2 EDD 11 Jan 2004
E-mail: brendana AT labyrinth DOT net DOT au

[David desJardins]

Karen writes:
> Our own personal reasoning, based more on what seems common sense to us
> and the fact that there are autoimmune issues in my family tree than on
> necessarily anything that we've read,is that bombarding a still
> developing immune system (some reading suggests the immune system isn't
> mature until around age 5) with so many doses all at once of foreign
> stuff for the body to figure out what to do with is unwise.

In all seriousness, the response of the immune system doesn't involve
any "figuring out". It's purely a mechanical reaction: this, triggers
that, triggers the other thing. Independently in lots of cells. I
don't think there's any evidence for any central coordinating agent that
goes, "Hey, I need to think about what to do about this, but I can't
really think about that at the same time." Such an anthropomorphic
analogy seems only misleading, to me.

> Ds would have been vaccinated for MMR a year earlier had the
> individual doses been available, but the government and medical
> establishment doesn't seem to want to trust people with choice. Don't
> get me started!

There's certainly a deliberate effort to coerce and convince and
persuade people, in all sorts of ways, to get vaccinated, because a
large part of the benefit from vaccination is to other people, not to
the recipients of the vaccines. So society sets up systems to try to
get people to do that, in the same way that we have systems and
incentives to get people to do lots of other things that benefit society
as a whole. The motivation of laws requiring vaccination isn't unlike
that of laws against speeding, or requiring polluters to clean up their
output, or setting licensing and performance standards for service
providers, etc.

Whether that's a good idea or not, in this particular case, is of course
open to debate.

David desJardins

[Scott Lindstrom]

Robyn Kozierok wrote:
> In article >, Richard > wrote:
>
>>Thanks, Karen. :( At least we (just barely) escaped the new
>>combined five-component pertussis-diphtheria-tetanus-inactivated
>>poliomyelitis-Haemophilus b conjugate vaccine.
>
>
> I'll probably be sorry I asked, but what is the advantage of / obsession
> with uncombined vaccines? The above combination represented 3 jabs for
> my kids, and I'm sure *they* would have preferred a single shot. They had
> them all at the same time anyhow, so in our case it would have been just
> less pain, unless there is some disadvantage to mixing them in one shot
> that goes beyond having to get them all at once. I presume there is
> some theory that it is safer to get them in separate jabs, possibly at
> separate times? Is there any research to support this? We're done with
> vaccinations for a couple of years now, so this is mostly just curiosity.


DD had a reaction to the Haemophilus vaccine -- although
I thought it was the Haemophilus A, not the b conjugate
vaccine (whatever that is -- it's been a while :) ) With
5 shots in one, it's kinda hard to tell what's causing what
if something goes awry.

Her reaction (fever) was fairly rare, btw, and certainly
can't be linked to the vaccine, but it did recur each time she
got the shot ( there were 2 or 3 of them )

Scott DD 10 and DS 7

[Robyn Kozierok]

In article >,
==Daye== > wrote:
>On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 15:27:11 EDT,
>(Robyn Kozierok) wrote:
>
>>I presume there is
>>some theory that it is safer to get them in separate jabs, possibly at
>>separate times? Is there any research to support this?
>
>I am not sure of research. However, these are my personal
>reasons for vaccinating my DD the way I did.

Thanks for describing your reasons in detail. Although I personally
disagree with the whole "overloading the immune system" theory, the
idea of knowing which vaccine a child reacted to, if they have a
reaction, makes a lot of sense to me.

--Robyn

[Astromum]

Robyn Kozierok wrote:
>
> I guess that was my main point. Is it known or believed that administering
> the vaccines separately "nullif[ies] any chance of side effects"? Unless
> parents are skipping the vaccines they consider too risky, which has its
> own risks.
>

Can't help you there. I think this is one of the points that needs
to be addressed by future studies. Many people seem concerned about
it, and my gut feeling is that it makes sense the 3 shots in one
have a higher risk than 3 separate shots. However, I don't believe
the risks are ever truly zero, they are just a whole lot smaller
than the risks of your child getting ill with the disease.

--
-- Ilse
mom to Olaf (07/15/2002)
TTC #2
"What's the use of brains if you are a girl?"
Aletta Jacobs, first Dutch woman to receive a PhD

[Lee]

Astromum said:
>
>Robyn Kozierok wrote:
>>
>> I guess that was my main point. Is it known or believed that administering
>> the vaccines separately "nullif[ies] any chance of side effects"? Unless
>> parents are skipping the vaccines they consider too risky, which has its
>> own risks.
>>
>
>Can't help you there. I think this is one of the points that needs
>to be addressed by future studies. Many people seem concerned about
>it, and my gut feeling is that it makes sense the 3 shots in one
>have a higher risk than 3 separate shots.

That's not the way I would look at it.

As I understand it, nearly(?) every adverse reaction that has been
tracked down to the causative agent has been found to have been a
reaction to something in the liquid medium, rather than the antigen
itself.

Giving three separate shots means three exposures to three different
batches of liquid medium.

It makes sense to me that one shot would be much safer.

[Astromum]

Lee wrote:
>
> As I understand it, nearly(?) every adverse reaction that has been
> tracked down to the causative agent has been found to have been a
> reaction to something in the liquid medium, rather than the antigen
> itself.

That could be, I don't really know.

> Giving three separate shots means three exposures to three different
> batches of liquid medium.
>
> It makes sense to me that one shot would be much safer.

Depends on how the vaccin is 'made'. In the Netherlands they
have been known to just mix the two vaccines for DTP and Hib
and give them in one shot. So if an allergic reaction occurs,
you never know which one caused it, and you have a 50% chance
of reoccurence if you want to find out.

--
-- Ilse
mom to Olaf (07/15/2002)
TTC #2
"What's the use of brains if you are a girl?"
Aletta Jacobs, first Dutch woman to receive a PhD

[==Daye==]

On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 11:53:20 EDT,
(Robyn Kozierok) wrote:

>Although I personally
>disagree with the whole "overloading the immune system" theory, the
>idea of knowing which vaccine a child reacted to, if they have a
>reaction, makes a lot of sense to me.

My mother is allergic to the Tetanus vaccine. So knowing if DD
was allergic to any was important to me.

--
==Daye==
Momma to Jayan
#2 EDD 11 Jan 2004
E-mail: brendana AT labyrinth DOT net DOT au

[Lee]

Astromum said:
>
>Lee wrote:
>>
>> As I understand it, nearly(?) every adverse reaction that has been
>> tracked down to the causative agent has been found to have been a
>> reaction to something in the liquid medium, rather than the antigen
>> itself.
>
>That could be, I don't really know.
>
>> Giving three separate shots means three exposures to three different
>> batches of liquid medium.
>>
>> It makes sense to me that one shot would be much safer.
>
>Depends on how the vaccin is 'made'. In the Netherlands they
>have been known to just mix the two vaccines for DTP and Hib
>and give them in one shot. So if an allergic reaction occurs,
>you never know which one caused it, and you have a 50% chance
>of reoccurence if you want to find out.

If you get an allergic reaction, you do skin tests to determine
what the factor was. Even if two separate shots were given at
the same visit, you would want to do skin tests to be sure you
knew which one had caused the reaction.