MMR booster question

[cardy]

I really don?t want to get into a debate about MMR v single vaccines.

My dds both had single vaccines and are both overdue their pre-school boosters. I have ignored this for too long (mainly because it worries me) but I need to do something about it. I can?t decide whether now given all the evidence there really isn?t anything to worry about and MMR booster will be fine. Nearly all of my friend? s children have had MMR booster and they are fine.

My questions is - do any of you know anybody who?s children have had MMR booster and now have some kind of health problem that they think is linked to it.

It would also be helpful to hear from people who?s children have had MMR booster (esp. after single first vaccines) and are fine!

i debated long and hard over this especially with all the media hype.

All my dc had the original MMR but at a much later age as i wanted to make sure they were developing normally first.

None of mine have had the pre school booster.

Its your personal choice really. I have one friend who says her child was developing normally until she had MMR she is now severly autistic. Is this true i dont know she had the MMR when she was about 18 months and is difficult to say.

i think the 1st MMR offers something like 80% and the booster boosts it up to about 93% or something like that.

I couldnt possibly advise someone to give/not give their dc the booster.

Thanks. Dh and I have had various conversation with our GP, who we trust, about this. One thing she has said is that she has never seen a child develop autism at the age of my dds (5 and 7.5). I guess my worry is not just about autism but other (I don't know what) side-effects.

I have some wierd worry about immununations and what is actaully put into a body through an immunisation , not sure why?

I can understand people reluctance to discuss this, but anybosy please?

BTW - there have beem some cases of measles locally.

Anybody??? Please??

A single measles vaccination - whether in MMR or otherwise - is 90% effective in protecting an individual. So your DCs each have a 9 out of 10 chance of being already protected.

Giving a second dose will not affect them adversely, because if they do have antibodies from the first dose it will simply stop the vaccine working or maybe give them a boost. If they haven't made antibodies to measles (i.e. they are one of every ten children that don't) then this second dose will give them an additional 9/10 chance of being protected.

There are no preservatives (eg thiomersal) in MMR.

Whether they had a single vaccine or MMR the first time, whatever side-effects of the vaccination tend to be fewer in number or less severe after the second dose.

Giving them a dose of MMR now will also protect them against rubella and mumps. And you won't have to worry about it again.

Remember there are considerable health risks to children of wild-type measles (pneumonia, encephalitis, immunosuppression) and mumps (aseptic meningitis): in my opinion there's no contest.

measles immunity can be tested by doing a mouth swab. not sure if NHS GP would be amenable to testing by swab or by blood tests (to see if booster was needed, or if your dds were already immune), or if you would have to go private for that.

DS's SN could be linked to the MMR booster. As a result, my subsequent DCs have only had the 1st MMR which sometimes worries me.

My Ds2 developed ASD after ( and in my opinion at least in part as a consequence of) his MMR.
I obviously have therfore refused to let DS1 have the booster or DD have any.

I think that although I know there are incidents where children crash after the booster it is considerably more rare as childrens immune systems will be much better developed IYSWIM.
I have met a woman whos son crashed at 3/2 after booster and Clive Lloyds son developed an array of symptoms after he had the booster at ( if I remember rightly) 13.

But I do think way more rare. But the 90% thing is a big deal - the chances a child who has had the first will already have protection . And i believe ( although no basis for doing so other than a hunch ) that the children who do not attain immunity from the first jab have immunity issues which make it less likely to work the second time anyway. It isn't maths after all.

[Oops sorry I forgot to say I have two DDs and they each had 2 x MMR (standard timing of 13m and 4y) with no side-effects.]

My son has had the first but not the booster and I won't be giving it to him (he is mildly autistic). It's all very well to say "mine had it and are fine" but there are genetic markers which predispose a child to SN, and these markers are not fully and completely understood yet, despite the official party line being 'the mmr is 100% safe".

IMO it is 100% for 99.99% of children. We have no way of identifying the tiny minority for whom it's not safe.

sorry that should be 100% SAFE for 99.99% of children.

Cardy, my answer probably wasn't much use to you, but if your children are girls and there's no history of allergy to egg or digestive problems and they are already speaking and showed no sign of being visual learners/late talkers etc.... Then, I'd say go ahead and give it to them (and I'm cautious)

that sounds hypocritical when I've said I'm not giving it to my own son though I guess.

TheJester - my DS had the first MMR but not the booster for similar reasons (he's supposedly probably not on the spectrum but a visual learner, and clawing his way up from a severe language delay at 3). I thought relying on first MMR he would be OK - but then he got measles just before Xmas, and has come down with 2 nasty tummy bugs since mid-January, which has me worried as to the effect of measles in the disease form (hopefully it's just the case that his immunity is still temporarily a bit lower after having measles). So it might be worth you going down the private route if necessary and getting immunity tested and hopefully you will find your DS is immune and so there is no issue, or if not, consider whether single jabs would be appropriate.

Thanks for this. All my RL friends really think I am paranoid still worrying about this. I will reread you comments and consider some more.

my ds had singles at 2 ish and is now 7 1/2. docs sent an appointment for booster, which is on Monday. Dh and I both agreed that now he is older his immune system is more mature and we are happy for him to now slot back into the nhs, As I assume they need boosters throughtout their lives?? has this been researched?

the individual parts of the MMR last different lengths of time. Which is why the generation of boys given the MMR are now getting mumps as young men. which is far more dangerous.
I am sure JABS website will have the effectivness schedules.

Sorry pagwatch but that's not correct. The vast majority of young adults in the recent mumps outbreaks were born before 1988 and so never even had the MMR.

My friends son was 17 - born in 1991 and given two doses of MMR - when he got mumps. along with some of his college friends who had apparently had MMR too.

Of course I am only going on personal experience. I am sure many outbreaks included older men.

Sorry to hijack threads but what genetic markers would be potentially worrying to give MMR to DD - I have lupus, sister probably has osteoarthritis, other sister thyroid problems???? Would this be something to consider.

Sorry again for hijacking thread

Mine had single jabs but don't have the MMR part of the pre school booster.

Boys round the corner had single MMR at 15 months and then mother mad a snap decision and they had the full booster at 4.

Also DD late at milestones, i.e. sitting, crawling, walking but not talking or sight..

amireallythatsad: I think you should go to your GP and discuss the contraindications of MMR, simply because they should have a more detailed picture of your DD's health, and that of your family background. Alternatively, if you are getting paediatric follow up for your DD development then they can get specialist advice too.

There are only three contraindications though: immunosuppression, pregnancy, and a history of anaphylactic reactions.

In all of this remember that the potential effects of wild-type measles infection need to be balanced against the worries about vaccination.

Musukebba your info isn't right either. My eldest 2 were born before 1988 and were both offered MMR.

Well the single MMR routine vaccination schedule wasn't introduced in the UK until October 1988, and the two-dose schedule started in 1996. I don't doubt your DC both born pre-1988 might have had two vaccinations one way or another but it certainly wasn't the routine for the whole population. That's the problem with interpreting epidemiology in terms of personal experiences, because on a nation-wide basis there were definitely enough non-vaccinated susceptibles accumulated over time to spark the recent mumps epidemics.

For interests sake, might you be able to say in which years your DC were born, and which subsequent years they received their 2 x vaccinations?

One in 1986 and one in 1987. Both were offered MMR in early 1989.

Your actual comment I was responding to was "The vast majority of young adults in the recent mumps outbreaks were born before 1988 and so never even had the MMR." You didn't mention 2 doses.

When MMR came out in our area they first offered it to the babies the "right" age, then to the older children, so even children born before 1986 were offered it.

You're quite right on the semantics and I should have been more specific: of course starting the MMR campaign in October 1988 for children aged 12-15 months would mean that children born before 1988 would be included. And yes, that it was sometimes offered to slightly older children.

However I maintain the central point that the majority of young adult cases in these recent outbreaks had not received any vaccination; rather than the point being made earlier that they became susceptible after their MMR vaccine protection waned. For evidence see the graph here:

www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/330/7500/1119/FIG1

It's no secret that the mumps component of MMR is relatively weak and can give protection sometimes as low as 60% of the population, which is part of the reason why two doses of MMR are needed. However that is not the same thing as saying that for those people who are successfully immunised by MMR, their individual immunity is of short duration.