Mumsnet has not checked the qualifications of anyone posting here. If you have any medical concerns we suggest you consult your GP.
Single measles jabs not recognised . What to do for the best ?(90 Posts)
This is my first visit and posting to Mumsnet . I was originally just hoping to look and find the help and advice to my question on here already, but it isn't as far as i have read. I am expecting to be shot down in flames sadly as both my children have had single vaccinations , and from what i have read on here so far single vaccinations are a very emotive subject . My Daughter is 19 and i can't begin to describe how terrifying it was to be a parent around the time Andrew Wakefield was in full flow . I decided rather than not vaccinate at all to pay for singles so both my children have had 2 doses of each vaccine. School rang up about my youngest child yesterday saying that they do not recognise single vaccinations and urging me to have him re vaccinated and once again i am struggling with what to do. I feel they are both protected , but reading words on this site such as 'dodgy vaccines ' etc etc i'm more confused than ever. Talk about single jabs being a money spinner for private companies makes me laugh as GP's get paid for every child they jab and we were thrown out of our doctors practice all those years ago because i told my GP i was having single vaccinations , so where lies the difference between the government paying GP's and private practice ? I look forward to an informative debate .
I posted on this thread about exactly the same thing a few days ago. I got in touch with both Public Health Wales and Public Health England ( previously HPA) and PHE got back to me with confirmation that latest advice is it has to be 2 mmr jabs. They gave me links to documentation - haven't had time to read thru yet. Hope this helps x
Thanks for all of your comments. I do find it strange that these clinics have been allowed to offer single jabs privately if there were doubts about the effectiveness of them. Surely that would be fraudulent if they were offering jabs that offer no or very limited protection?
I wonder if the push to get kids to have the MMR even if they have already had the single vaccines is more related to the need to maintain the 'MMR only' policy. If my kids hadn't been vaccinated, I actually would be happy for them to have the MMR now, but at the time of my decision, there was a lot less confidence in it's safety. And I am not keen on the idea of 'double vaccinating' them unneccesarily. I may well think about getting their immunity checked with a test, not that that will make me very popular...
I think you're right about the 'mmr only' policy. Ridiculous that politics are being put before children's health!
I took evidence of my children's single vaccines into their school yesterday and was told by one of the visiting nurses that they'd been advised not to recognise single vaccines as they were inferior to the MMR and that my children would have to have the MMR. My children received single vaccines after a lot of worry and thought due to family medical issues and I am also reluctant to introduce yet another 2 vaccines into their systems when they are very likely already covered. Also I would like to question why the single vaccines are considered suitable by many other countries , including France, but not in the UK.
That's shocking Doodli. Whether they recognise it or not you know their vaccine status.
I have no problem with parents choosing single jabs over the MMR. It's not a decision that anyone takes lightly - single jabs require quite a commitment to get them all done at the right intervals.
The current advice about not recognising single vaccines seems odd to say the least. If it was me in this position though, I think I'd be getting the immunity of my dc's tested to shut up the authorities and to reassure myself.
I'm sorry, I can't get over the fact that you were removed from your GP's list for wanting the injections separately? Did I read that right?
Are they even allowed to do that?
As for the school not recognising them, or them being ineffective, I think health professionals would have discovered that fact by now?
Hi Pregnant Pain, not sure if your question is for me. But if it was, you did misread it, we haven't been removed from the GP's list. They were just telling me that my kids need the MMR despite having had the single vaccinations.
Anyone like me hope the single isn't that less efficient because after all that is all that was offered in my day.
There is no evidence that the single is less effective, and indeed it is still licenced for use in some countries. It stopped being available on NHS because the government chose not to re-licence it, not because of any concerns about effectiveness or safety.
Yes , That's right pregnant pain. Something to do with the P's practice meeting their targets of the MMR immunisations to get his dosh ( GP's got paid for each child jabbed ) and the practice hadn't met them . It was along time ago and i can't remember the exact details, but we were all removed until such a time as his targets were back on point when we re-joined the exact same practice . It was all government targets and at the time we weren't the only ones , it was happening across the country, because i read in the papers and then it happened to us.
My DCs all had single vaccinations (in 2003 and 2007). We didn't take up the offer of an MMR booster because they had only recently finished their course of singles, so I felt it wasn't needed as their immunity would still be high.
However now that the Govt are stating that only 2 MMR doses will provide sufficient protection, I'm considering getting the DCs immunity levels checked. This raises two questions - 1) can we ask our GP to do the blood tests, or will we have to have it done privately, and 2) what happens if they are found to be deficient in their immunity for M, M or R - is it only MMR that's now available or is there still a market in the UK for single booster vaccs?
Thanks to anyone who can offer advice!
for once I am agreeing with Bumbly get your kids tested, if they are immune there is no problem, if they are not then they will need MMR.
There is actually a reason for this, at the time you opted for this there were very reputable clinics offering singles.
There were also some very dodgy clinics set up. I heard of one that was a camper van in a car park.
In both cases, there was a sudden high demand and all the single shots had to be imported. Some were just sent through the post or by fedx so they were fairly useless.
The problem is that unless you blood test every child you do not know their status.
The same is true of MMR, but due to licensing and the way they are transported the government, schools, parents, anyone who cares can be sure 90% are fully immune and the herd immunity will keep the others safe.
If you are immune to one or two or all three of MMR having an extra dose does no harm. You might have a sore arm and a temperature but nothing serious.
Those very rare cases where someone has an adverse reaction are when someone is not immune.
Personally I would just let them have MMR, but as you are worried get blood tests. Yes you may have to pay.
It depends, it's like holiday vax, my GP things it's better that everyone has them so they don't get rabies or yellow fever so does not charge. Many GPs do.
Your dd is also old enough to decide for herself.
At the moment the chances are that your children are immune, but you don't know.
If they are not immune to any of the three then your only option is MMR or no immunity. Does your dd want to have children?
I'm too old to have had MMR, I had mumps as a child. measles vaccine as a baby and rubella jab as a teenager.
But if I was in Swansea, I'd be queuing up for MMR just in case my immunity has waned.
You didn't mention the age of your younger child but dd is an adult, and your other child I'm guessing is a teenager.
Talk to them. This is their risk, and their bodies. As you mentioned school at least one of your children is interacting with a lot of other children who may or may not have been exposed.
What does she mean, not recognised? Is she planning on excluding your child?
sashh - you did not just say that very dodgy clinics
I got word from PHW now - not very helpful:
^Public Health Wales
Hi there Catherina, sorry if we missed an earlier message from you. Two doses of the single measles vaccine would in theory fully vaccinate a child against measles but not against mumps and rubella. We do still see mumps outbreaks in Wales and it would be wise to ensure your children are fully protected against all three diseases. You should be aware that the single measles vaccine is not licensed for use in the UK or quality assured. Therefore our advice as health professionals would be that even if your children have received two doses of the single measles vaccine, you would be safest starting again with a full course of MMR. It is not possible to be over-vaccinated against measles so perfectly safe to start again. Hope that helps!^
I asked for further clarification, but I guess this is the official line "safest to start again with full course of MMR".
The fact that the medical establishment are pushing this mmr only agenda really worries me.
Im not one for conspiracy theories usually and both my kids got thourougly MMRed eventually but it why not recognise the single jabs?
That reply from them is a bit ridiculous Catherina. It just shows how restrictive having a 3-in-1 vaccine is. So many situations are arising where it is unnecessary to vaccinate against all 3 (eg if you're already immune via a single vaccine or through having one if the diseases) but you still have to have all 3 again!
Why is it ridiculous for them to point out, that immunisation against mumps and rubella is as important bumbley?
Your response actually demonstrates quite well one of the advantages of MMR over singles - which is people protecting only against one of 3, either because they forgot the others or mistakenly believe that the other two aren't dangerous
See sashh's post though, Bumbley. I am torn between agreeing with you and sympathising with PHW who have to make easy recommendations that are quick and safe and applicable to everyone. Giving the MMR in case of any doubt is probably the best in the acute outbreak situation. Testing immunity and proceeding from there could be the way out for those who live further away from the outbreak area. I had an unclear measles situation before coming to the UK - my immunisation record says "3x measles 1967" on it, but I actually was not sure whether that was measles immunisation or exposure (my cousin had measles in 1967), so I had my titers tested before moving to the UK. Had I lived in the middle of an outbreak at some point before testing my titers, I would have gone straight for the MMR (despite having had rubella and mumps). It is faster and safer, IMO.
The fact that the medical establishment are pushing this mmr only agenda really worries me
Me too, it's just so wrong that we aren't allowed any real choice, not in their eyes at least & not if you can't afford to pay & it certainly sounds as if its become worse since my DDs jabs were due - after nearly losing our DD due to a reaction her first multi jab at 10 weeks, there was no way in hell were we going to risk her having an MMR - I'm sure these multi jabs are fine for most DCs, but not for all & we as parents should have a right to be able to way up the pros & cons & make an informed decision on whats best for our own DCs - after all, WE know them best
Easier if they had the option to just vaccinate you against what you aren't immune to. All these children who currently have measles will have lifelong immunity to it but their only option to get immunity to mumps and rubella and still the MMR. Crazy. It's like bundling two or more medications together and any time you need a paracetemol you're also getting an antidepressant or something else completely unrelated!
Join the discussion
Please login first.