Advanced search

Mumsnet hasn't checked the qualifications of anyone posting here. If you have medical concerns, please seek medical attention; if you think your problem could be acute, do so immediately. Even qualified doctors can't diagnose over the internet, so do bear that in mind when seeking or giving advice.

Can dd have the MMR at 11 months?

(22 Posts)
TheThreeFillyjonks Sat 03-Jun-06 21:36:25

Right, don't want a huge debate here about vaccines, I want my dd to have the MMR, we are spending the summer among unvaccinated children (camps, friends, etc) and I don't want her to get measles or mumps in particular,also we have several friends who are trying to be pg and I don't want her to pass on rubella or anything else.


1. Can she have the MMR at around 11 months?

2. If not, to what extent will being largely bf protect her from catching anything? Could she still incubate rubella and pass it on?


foundintranslation Sat 03-Jun-06 21:39:09

1. I think I remember Jimjams posting that the MMR is less effective before 12 months, which would mean a booster sooner than usual.

2. being bf (IMO and E) improves the immune system in general, but it's no guarantee of anything. HTH

foundintranslation Sat 03-Jun-06 21:39:35

(p.s. sorry Jimjams if I got that wrong or it wasn't you)

dinny Sat 03-Jun-06 21:41:04

maternal antibodies still circulating until at least 13 months, that's why MMR's not offered till then.

have you had natual measles, mumps, rubella? if so, bfing will help her immunity. if not, it won't

foundintranslation Sat 03-Jun-06 21:41:28

That said, I originally had an appt for ds to have the MMR at just under 12 months (he didn't and we're going for singles, but that's another situation and hence another thread).

Sorry for fragmented answer.

dinny Sat 03-Jun-06 21:43:24

our old borough was just jabbing willy-nilly too (or so it seemed ) friend's dd had MMR then a booster a month later ?????

sorry, off-topic a bit.

expatinscotland Sat 03-Jun-06 21:44:03

some utter pillocks gave MMR to a 7-week-old not too long ago here in Edinburgh.

dinny Sat 03-Jun-06 21:45:42

nooooo??? by mistake instead of DTP whatsit?

TheThreeFillyjonks Sat 03-Jun-06 21:46:03

Why will it work if I've only had these dieseases naturally?

Surely vaccines stimulate the immune system by mimicking the diesase, so producing the same antibodies, no?

Because I've had measles, no mumps, and rubella vaccine. (my mum doesn't do vaccines, but the rubella was done at school)

Jimjamskeepingoffvaxthreads Sat 03-Jun-06 21:46:56

If you give pre-12 months they usually make you have another one at 15 months ish. If you are bfeeding and had measles etc then if she caught something it would probably be a mild dose. Or at least they used to. You could check as they change these sorts of guidelines all the time.

She could still incubate rubella and pass it on, but that could also happen if she was vaccinated. DS1 caught rubella from a vaccinated child. Rubella's a dodgy one because it's so mild that you don't realise they're ill, and of course if you have vaccinated then you assume they're immune.

dinny Sat 03-Jun-06 21:48:37

nope, Fillyjonks, only natural immunity can protect your child.

Jimjamskeepingoffvaxthreads Sat 03-Jun-06 21:48:58

oh my sentence order got mixed up in the 1st para- did it make sense

If you have antibodies from vaccines then they will be passed on, but often the antibody count is lower, and immunity can wear off. It can wear off after natural infection as well (especially now people aren't getting natural boosters from contact with people incubating these diseases), butius less likely to.

dinny Sat 03-Jun-06 21:50:34

sorry, stand corrected. always thought only nat immunity could be passed onto your baby.

Jimjamskeepingoffvaxthreads Sat 03-Jun-06 21:53:00

If you have antibodies they'll be passed, the problem really at the moment is that they immunize toddlers against M M and R, and then don't give any boosters, so in some people the antibody count will be low. I suspect they'll be introduced sometime- they give boosters in the States.

Jimjamskeepingoffvaxthreads Sat 03-Jun-06 21:55:36

It's not an exact science as to how long the passive antibodies last anyway.

Although interesting story here.

Ds1 had chickenpox when he was 3, and ds3 was 8 months and bfed. DS2 didn't get chickenpox.He was bfed until 2. He was then repeatedly exposed to chickenpox and didn't get it until....

.......he was 4. And ds3 (bfed for a much shorter time- 4 months iirc) caught chickenpox from him when he was 12 months......

Chandra Sat 03-Jun-06 22:04:48

I think that if The MMR is not being offered from an earlier age it should be for a very good reason.

I believe that if you insist enough you may get it but I'm not quite sure that it would be for the benefit of your child. Besides, there are many situations when babies are in "risk" of contacting illness, lots of babies have older brothers who are surrounded by lots of other children at nursery or school, who may bring home any single thing they catch out there and yet, babies are not given the MMR anyway.

Chandra Sat 03-Jun-06 22:05:32

Incredible, there was a sinfle post when I started writing, apologies for the Xposting

TheThreeFillyjonks Sat 03-Jun-06 22:08:59

ah yes, that makes sense, jimjams. Can I ask a science question, more out of interest than anything else. Do you know why the immunity is lower? Can the immune system recognise that the virus is dead, or is it simply that the amount of virus introduced is much lower? (this is just out of interest really-am doing a science degree and such things interest me)

anyway sounds like its probably ok to leave a few months but might try to keep dd away from ttc friends. I know some of my non-vax friends are planning a rubella party, for example.

Jimjamskeepingoffvaxthreads Sat 03-Jun-06 22:41:25

The viruses are live in the case of MMR. I'm not sure why the immunity would be lower. I would guess it might have something to do with the time it is circulating, and the length of exposure. But that's a guess. Everything will be individual though - so a vaccinated person could have a higher antibody titre than one who had the disease naturally.

Also- and this wil remain to be seen- but I have heard- that- in the past you had the disease, then you were exposed repeatedly to the same virus. Each time you were exposed you had in effect a mini-booster, so immunity is lifelong. Now even if you have the disease you may be unlikely to get the repeated further exposures so immunity may be less likely to be lifelong, even naturally aquired.

However I must emphasise that my knowledge of this sort of stuff is very basic. Although just found this on a website (pro-vaccination)- a medical website- "Vaccines do not necessarily confer life-long immunity; the duration of immunity typically is dependent on to what degree the vaccination mimics a natural infection plus to what degree subsequent natural infections are capable of boosting the immunization"

RobertdeNiroswaiting Sat 03-Jun-06 22:52:49

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Jimjamskeepingoffvaxthreads Sat 03-Jun-06 23:20:06

In the case of MMR its not really meant as a booster- but to catch ones that didn't develop immunity. In states they do teen boosters as well.

TheThreeFillyjonks Sun 04-Jun-06 08:24:15

jj in particular, thanx for all this, I know you probably don't agree with giving an MMR at all, and I don't blame you, but I really want to thank you for helping me get the info I need to make the decision that works for my family. Thanks again!

Join the discussion

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

Register now »

Already registered? Log in with: