Mumsnet has not checked the qualifications of anyone posting here. If you have any medical concerns we suggest you consult your GP.

Would it be really bad for me to not let my son have his second set of MMR?

(44 Posts)
DuelingFanjo Thu 09-Aug-12 11:03:28

He had a really bad reaction to the MMR/12 months vaccinations (They do them at the same time here) and it has made me really reluctant to put him through it again.

Tabitha8 Thu 09-Aug-12 15:44:30

If you are worried about measles, you can have his immunity checked (I think you'd have to pay). Most children are immune after one shot.

www.nhs.uk/Conditions/MMR/Pages/When-should-it-be-done.aspx
"Between 5-10% of children are not fully immune after the first dose"

What sort of reaction was it?

If it was a measles/mumps or rubella type reaction then it would suggest they have worked pretty well anyway and immunity testing could confirm that.

DuelingFanjo Thu 09-Aug-12 17:15:28

he was feverish and very upset for several days. Sick and grumpy. No rashes but it was pretty awful.

Pooka Thu 09-Aug-12 17:18:03

Second one was a breeze for all of mine. Dd had rash, runny eyes and general ill health after the first, but nothing after the second. Other two were fine for both.

Do you think you'd kick yourself if he got measles? Unless you test for immunity you don't know whether the first one worked. Better (IMO) to get both done for peace of mind.

morethanpotatoprints Thu 09-Aug-12 17:27:41

This happened to my ds2 and the doctor said it would likely happen again with the second set. He wasn't done again until before school.
I was often on pins if I heard of an out break and also took some stick from parents at pre school. However, I think your dcs health is more important and my ds2 did have an awful reaction which caused asthma attck and severe swelling.
I'd say add up the consequences and if you don't have it done please be thoughtful and let all the settings your ds attends know you haven't, even if it means some people are a bit off with you.

I wouldn't take any stick off other parents. I would get immunity checked, then worry about it if it comes back as not immune (and if you do that you have done more than 99% of parents who will assume that vaccination = certain immunity).

Chances are with that sort of reaction he's immune anyway.

If you don't give a booster you might want to check immunity again pre-teens to check it hasn't waned. (Actually you might want to do that if you do give a booster as well grin )

ElaineBenes Fri 10-Aug-12 12:23:17

If everyone who could get immunized did get immunized, no one would really need to go around testing immunity since the few who didn't respond would be protected by herd immunity.

Op, why not make an appointment and speak to your gp about your concerns? If your ds had such a strong reaction to the attenuated virus, imagine what his reaction could be to the real thing? Maybe, as an older child, it'll be easier to manage a few days of feeling miserable (schedule in pajama days with lots of snuggling in front of the tv).

Your gp should be able to give you the medical advice you need to make an informed decision and should take your concerns seriously.

bumbleymummy Fri 10-Aug-12 17:34:57

Personally, I would feel more comfortable going down the immunity test and then 'vaccinating with caution if required' route. I know that some people have arranged to have certain vaccines administered in hospital due to allergies etc. Maybe you could discuss that with the doctor if he does need to have the booster?

I don't agree with Elaine's suggestion that he would react worse to the real thing because you don't actually know what it is in the vaccine that he reacted to. The measles component can occasionally cause a rash, fever etc but iirc it is more likely to come around 10 days after the vaccine. Was his reaction straight after the vaccine or was it weeks later?

lljkk Fri 10-Aug-12 17:39:28

If he had a strong reaction at 12 months it's rather likely he won't have any reaction at all this time (he's had a proper full strong immune response first time around).

Up to you. The bad reaction you describe still sounds pretty mild compared to active measles in the vaccinated (as described by anti-vax MNers whose school-age kids got measles) so I'd go for the jab in a heartbeat.

Female friend who got mumps said it was worse than her bout of measles (she had everything, her mum against all jabs too).

ArthurPewty Fri 10-Aug-12 17:42:21

Fanjo, its up to YOU what you do with your son. Do not be guilted, pressured or otherwise cajoled into doing something you dont want to do. You cannot take it back...

bumbleymummy Fri 10-Aug-12 17:44:04

When did she have mumps lljkk?

RedKites Fri 10-Aug-12 17:46:57

I agree with PP about talking to a GP who you trust.

FWIW, NHS information says reactions are less likely after the second dose. Anecdotally, my DS came out in a rash 9/10 days after the first dose, but has had nothing after the second. The linked page also tells you the timings where different reactions typically occur. This might allow you to check whether what he had was a MMR reaction, or whether he might coincidentally have been ill.

jellybeans Fri 10-Aug-12 18:04:07

My DD1 had a reaction to 1st (not life threatening) and was fine with the second.

lljkk Fri 10-Aug-12 20:26:44

Bumbley: I believe it was school age, not very young, somewhere between 1983 & 1991.

Turns out she has a reason (genetic, highly investigated as an adult) to perhaps be slightly immuno-compromised, so maybe hit harder than some by VPD.

bumbleymummy Fri 10-Aug-12 20:34:34

Thanks lljkk. I only asked because mumps is usually fairly mild in childhood (asymptomatic in over 1/3 cases!) and I always thought measles was the worst of the two but I know it can be more serious in adults. Saying that, I had both in childhood but barely remember either. I guess it just depends on each person and, as you say, being immunocompromised probably made it harder for her.

veryberrymummy Sat 11-Aug-12 17:02:36

Vaccine injury is real and it happens with the MMR. Personally, I would not proceed with the second one until you have done further research. Do what is best for your child, don't be guilt tripped into thinking you have to do it for 'herd immunity.' It is likely your child will have enough immunity already. I had measles , mumps and rubella when I was little. My parents kept me indoors and I didn't suffer or pass it on to anyone else. Measles is only a real problem if you have a Vitamin A defiency and are in poor health anyway. Sometimes, vaccines can cause more damage than the diseases they are meant to protect against imo. I'd rather risk these diseases than participate in active destruction and injection of aluminium, hydrochloric acid, formaldehyde aswell as the disease toxins into my child.

ElaineBenes Sat 11-Aug-12 17:40:51

Vaccine injury is extremely rare. there is no scientific evidence that it is more than extremely rare with the mmr

Measles can be fatal or lead to permanent brain damage even if you supplement with vitamin a. It is a myth that it is not dangerous.

The above post is scaremongering and misinformation par excellence. Thank you for the example very berry.

jellybeans Sat 11-Aug-12 18:19:20

Measles is a horrible disease..

bumbleymummy Sat 11-Aug-12 18:22:18

Measles can be a horrible disease.

No Measles IS a horrible disease. As is Mumps. As is Ruebella if you contract it whilst pregnant. The severity to which individuals are affected varies but the disease is a killer and kills thousands of children across the globe every year.

OP - what you describe sounds like the normal vaccination response but do talk to your GP before you make any decisions.

bumbleymummy Sat 11-Aug-12 19:18:19

I suppose it depends on what you mean by horrible. Being ill with anything is unpleasant but not everyone has serious cases of measles, hence why I said can be.

Mumps is asymptomatic in over 1/3 of cases so for those people it couldn't really be called 'horrible' - they don't even know they have it!

Yes, rubella can be horrible for your unborn child if you contract it during pregnancy (the risk is greatest in the first 16 weeks) but I'm not sure how relevant that is to DF's young son confused.

Yes, measles can be a killer. "The overwhelming majority (more than 95%) of measles deaths occur in countries with low per capita incomes and weak health infrastructures." (WHO)

By horrible I mean a disease that has the potential to end life or cause serious permanent ill effects. It's incredibly rare to lose a child to measles in this conutry. Still not a risk I would want to run when there is a safe vaccine available.
Ruebella affects everybody in the community. It is now rare for women to be vulnerable to it but it can happen. It could happen when the OP's son is grown up and having his own children, it could happen in their family or it could happen to people that they will never know. Again it's a risk she does not need to run.

BeaWheesht Sat 11-Aug-12 19:29:32

His reaction sounds like a normal reaction to me. Was it more than that?

Its much less likely to react the 2nd time and less likely again if he reacted the first time because his immune system will kick in and fight it off if he has immunity and if he doesn't, well, isn't it better he has the vaccine than the disease?

Its up to you, you could delay a while / get immunity checked. Also, I can't remember if they get any other vaccine at the same time as the mMR but remember you can ask to separate them. I did.

Also, both mine had a bad reaction to the 12 month jags.

bumbleymummy Sat 11-Aug-12 19:33:01

Surely every illness has the potential to end life or cause serious permanent effects?

Vaccines are not safe for all children and DF's son reacted badly to the first one so I think it makes sense for her to consider her options and weigh up whether the risk of a second vaccine is worth taking.

Not sure what you mean by 'ruebella affects everybody in the community' (sic) As said before, rubella is mainly a risk to pregnant women in their first/second trimester.

ElaineBenes Sat 11-Aug-12 19:36:55

Rubella is not a risk to pregnant women, it's a risk to their unborn children

Yes, every illness has the potential of complications. Some, like measles, are riskier than others. THis is why we vaccinate against them - we dont like to see children dying or being left brain damaged or even blind or deaf.

Apart from a tiny number of children eg those who are immunosuppressed, vaccines are very safe. Much safer than the illness. THis is why we vaccinate.

Pregnant women live in the community. They are have partners, children and parents, all of whom are affected. That's what I mean. It's staggeringly selfish and shortsighted to think that because you are making the decision to vaccinate a child who happens to be a boy, you can do so assuming that they will not be affected.

The Op's child had what sounds like a normal reaction to vaccination. He did not have an allergic response which imo would be the only reasonable cause to defer vaccinating.

bumbleymummy Sat 11-Aug-12 19:48:27

Yes, EB, I did say 'unborn child' in my PP but I said pregnant women in my last so apologies if that was confusing for anyone.

As you know, there are parents on MN who have vaccine damaged children that were not immunocompromised when they were vaccinated so it's not really accurate to say "Apart from a tiny number of children eg those who are immunosuppressed, vaccines are very safe."

Also, in the case of the rubella vaccine it's not given because it is 'safer than the illness' for the child.

NL, the 'greater good' argument doesn't sit well with me. I think everyone should have their own individual child's best interest at heart and I don't think there is anything wrong with being concerned after a bad reaction. Dueling has been offered some good advice wrt testing for immunity etc and I'm sure she will make the decision that she feels is best. She doesn't need to be guilted into worrying about pregnant women in the community who could have protected themselves against rubella.

ElaineBenes Sat 11-Aug-12 20:22:17

OK bubmley let's rephrase it to the scientific evidence shows that vaccine damage is tiny to get past the 'but look at what people say on an anonymous internet forum'

bumbleymummy Sat 11-Aug-12 20:25:34

Better. We could also add 'but there is currently no way of determining whether or not your child will react badly to their first or subsequent vaccinations' if we wanted to be really thorough. smile

Haven't read all this thread - but DD had a bad reaction to MMR first time round - had rash - temp & poorly. Actually ended up in hospital (but she has other complex health issues that contributed to this)
BUT was fine second time round aside from have a seziure in the waiting room afterwards (again this isn't uncommon for her)

Bloody glad she did as school had a measles outbreak this year, alot of very poorly children who hadn't been vacinated.

ElaineBenes Sat 11-Aug-12 20:34:16

Ummm. I'd prefer to say that the scientific evidence says that the risk to your child from a vaccine is tiny and far far far less than the risk from the disease.

We could equally say you don't know if your child will be the unfortunate one who dies from measles. Rare but far less rare than vaccine damage (according to the best scientific evidence).

bumbleymummy Sat 11-Aug-12 20:41:08

Well, that's difficult to say given the under reporting of vaccine reactions but hey ho!

ElaineBenes Sat 11-Aug-12 20:49:10

Not quite as that is only one source of data. You can look at ecological data, retrospective reports, association between exposure and outcome - none of which shows evidence of more than very small amounts of vaccine damage.

bumbleymummy Sat 11-Aug-12 20:50:57

How would they show up vaccine damage that isn't reported?

ElaineBenes Sat 11-Aug-12 20:54:32

You would see an association between exposure to vaccine and x outcome (the damage that the vaccine is hypothesized to cause)

bumbleymummy Sat 11-Aug-12 20:56:48

How, if the reaction/damage isn't recorded?

Btw, I have asked a few questions about Al on the other thread (and started a new one) that you may be able to answer.

ElaineBenes Sat 11-Aug-12 21:09:41

It can't be very serious damage then if it's not recorded anywhere. Certainly death or severe disability would be reported.

ElaineBenes Sat 11-Aug-12 21:11:23

And there are other ways of getting at the data if you're talking about something like developmental delays. What's your hypothesis? What's your outcome of interest? I could then answer with more specifics.

bumbleymummy Sat 11-Aug-12 21:12:41

It may not be attributed to the vaccine though.

ElaineBenes Sat 11-Aug-12 21:29:06

No, but you'd see an association between vaccine exposure and outcome x. You don't.

ElaineBenes Sat 11-Aug-12 21:30:53

Other than very rare cases which ARE picked up and known eg vaccine induced paralytic polio from the opv

bruffin Sat 11-Aug-12 22:13:39

There is evidence that some reactions are over reported by lawyers to make evidence for law suits
There is also evidence that some developmental epilepsy diseases have been reported as vaccine damage.
There are studies that show this but am on phone and can't link.

MousyMouse Sat 11-Aug-12 22:28:05

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now