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)
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.
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.
"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.
he was feverish and very upset for several days. Sick and grumpy. No rashes but it was pretty awful.
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.
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 )
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.
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?
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).
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
When did she have mumps lljkk?
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.
My DD1 had a reaction to 1st (not life threatening) and was fine with the second.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Measles is a horrible disease..
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.
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 .
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.
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.
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.
Join the discussion
Please login first.