Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Children's health

Mumsnet doesn't verify the qualifications of users. If you have medical concerns, please consult a healthcare professional.

Flip

1 2 3

Original poster

Single jabs - DON'T DO IT! There are no mumps vaccines left!!

55 replies

spicemonster · 17/04/2009 20:48

My dad was really keen that my DS have single jabs and wanted to pay for it so that's what I've done. But the clinic where he went to last summer ran out of Mumps vaccine and said they'd get some early this year. And now they say the manufacturer (Merck) has stopped making them so they don't know what they're going to do.

They have refunded me my money for that vaccine but now it means that my DS isn't protected at all against mumps which I'm not happy about. And I don't really want to give him the MMR now because that means he'll get double doses of measles and rubella.

I rang another clinic and they said they'd get some 'soon' but couldn't say when. Now if my clinic are telling the truth (and I have no reason to believe they are not), then there are a hell of a lot of clinics who advertise online who don't mention that they can't get Mumps vaccines. So potentially a mumps outbreak

If you've managed to vaccinate your child against mumps recently, please let me know where you took them. And if you're thinking about it, please check very carefully with the clinic that they have all three components of the MMR in stock.

OP posts:

Are your children’s vaccines up to date?

Set a reminder

MollieO · 17/04/2009 21:46

I thought none of the single vaccines were licenced for use in the UK. Also, because they are not designed for UK market they may protect against different strains of MMR that aren't prevalent here. Meaning you may go to the time and expense of doing single jabs but be left with little actual immunity.

Sawyer64 · 17/04/2009 22:07

Tell me about it Thisis!,I've joined Nursing Agencies.First they wanted proof of measles immunity,I hate to imagine how much it cost them to have my immunity checked.Less than 6 months later they now want proof of Mumps !!

So at the grand old age of 44,I shall probably end up having an MMR, at this rate! Would've have been cheaper for them in the long run.

StripeyKnickersSpottySocks · 17/04/2009 22:12

This has happened before, about 5 years ago. Mereck stopped making it for a while and you couldn't get it in this country for 6 months. Think some clinics got imports.

How old is your DS? I may be wrong but I didn't think mumps was a concern until puberty? Our Doc said not to bother with it (for DD) until she was 9 and hopefully she would catch mumps before then and then not need the vaccine. She hasn't got it yet and only a year to go. She'll have MMR next year though if need be.

Sawyer64 · 17/04/2009 22:21

Not really a problem for Girls though Stripey as although Girls could get(unlikely though) Oopheritis(inflammation of Fallopian Tubes) it doesn't cause Sterility.

Sawyer64 · 17/04/2009 22:23

Sorry meant "Ovaries" not fallopian Tubes.

See here

StripeyKnickersSpottySocks · 17/04/2009 22:23

I think the Doc was more saying it so that when she's at that age she'll help herd immunity by not passing it on to a boy who's at the risky age.

saintlydamemrsturnip · 17/04/2009 22:27

I wouldn't worry about mumps until post puberty. In a third of cases in children it is asymptomatic. So if you hear of someone with it expose your child then stay in (so you dont infect any adults!).

Single mumps vaccine gives better protection than MMR, so giving it singly later may be more likely to protect during fertile years.....

M1SSUNDERSTOOD · 17/04/2009 22:42

I am not sure that NHS do give single jabs. My Ds was allergic to egg and we had to pay privately to get jab. however after 1st dose Nhs said they would give it to him in hospital but it was still MMR triple dose. As I understand it this is ok even though he then had had two doses of the mumps vaccine.

thisisyesterday · 17/04/2009 22:44

they absolutely can give singles. they just don't very often because not many people know they do it.

before the MMR furore they were a lot more careful about which children received the MMR and which would get singles, often administered in hospital.

now in an attempt to "prove" how safe it is pretty much all children are given it regardless.

M1SSUNDERSTOOD · 17/04/2009 22:55

People don't know because they aren't given the choice. It was mmr or nothing. tbh I should have twigged they were covering theirselves by administering it under hospital conditions. Thankfully it was all ok.

Sawyer64 · 17/04/2009 23:07

Unless the child has had an Anaphylactic Reaction to Egg or the vaccine previously,or a component,then it is considered the safer option to give it under "medical surveillence".

very few DC's have a true anaphylactic reaction,even if they do "react" to a vaccine,or something they are allergic to.

If it was totally unsafe to give the vaccine,then singles would be considered ofcourse,but thats rarely required.

M1SSUNDERSTOOD · 17/04/2009 23:17

But he had an anaphlatic episode , that's how we knew he was allergic to egg. He swelled up and had to be rushed to A /E after eating boiled egg on his 1st birthday.

Sawyer64 · 17/04/2009 23:23

I would imagine if that was left untreated it would have progressed to Anaphlaxis,but the swelling etc. is considered a "severe reaction".

Not much difference in my book,and who would want to wait and see

M1SSUNDERSTOOD · 17/04/2009 23:30

Thanks for your advice. HTH others in the same situation.

JollyPirate · 18/04/2009 08:08

To go back to the OP - as she has rightly said, the issue here is not singles versus MMR but any clinic claiming they can give single vaccines - taking £300+ and then suddenly turning round and saying "by the way we now cannot get the mumps vaccine". I think that's called breach of contract.

As far as lifelong immunity goes - if we achieve herd immunity then as far as I can see it will not be an issue if immunity wanes after a time as the illnesses will be virtually eradicated.

CoteDAzur · 18/04/2009 12:17

JollyPirate - Wouldn't you say it is rather irrational to expect the eradication of mumps, measles, and rubella, given that MMR is not even used in half of the world, including Russia, China, and most of Africa?

Also, do you know that immunization rates from MMR are nowhere near 100%, and that even vaccinated kids can catch & pass on these diseases?

How about:
(1) vaccinate for measles (not mumps & rubella)
(2) check prepubescent boys for mumps immunity & vaccinate those who are not immune
(3) check prepubescent girls for rubella immunity & vaccinate those who are not immune

Job done.

CoteDAzur · 18/04/2009 12:21

Also, do you know that immunization rates from MMR are nowhere near 100%, and that even vaccinated kids can catch & pass on these diseases?

Job done.

littlerach · 18/04/2009 13:41

I think there has often been a shortfall in the Mumps vaccine.

Both dds had single jabs and we had to wait each time.

Dd2 had her mumps booster in the autumn, in Bath, if that's nay help to OP?

WRT allergies and MMR, my friend's daughter has severe anaphylactic allergy to egg. She requested single jabs and they refused. She had to have the booster done at the hospital with the crash team on standby
Whilst she was fine, she was v poorly afterwards.

JollyPirate · 18/04/2009 14:22

If we had herd immunity here though then it wouldn't matter what the rest of the world do.
This isn't really the issue though (and I am NOT going to get into a debate about the MMR) the issue is that a clinic has taken £300+ from the OP for a service they are now saying they cannot provide. That is just plain wrong imo and if they cannot provide the service she paid them for then they should be refunding her money.

crokky · 18/04/2009 14:30

Both my children are in the process of having singles.

My DS has had all three jabs singly (1st lot only) and my DD is about to start hers - measles and rubella as there is no mumps atm.

So this is the reason: Merck have had to temporarily stop producing the mumps vaccine. The reason is because they also produce MMR and had to recall loads and loads of MMR jabs - now they have stopped producing mumps vaccinations in order to make up the shortfall of MMR. There was never any problem with mumps production, but there was a problems with MMR production and it has impacted the supply of single mumps. Merck have temporarily stopped producing mumps a couple of times in the last 8 years and each time, supply has returned.

Don't like the title of this thread - particularly the "don't do it" bit. By all means make an informed decision, but for those of us who have seen with our own eyes the damage MMR can cause, there will still be no way I'd risk MMR.

CoteDAzur · 18/04/2009 17:15

JollyPirate - They already refunded her money. Read the OP.

Original poster

spicemonster · 18/04/2009 22:25

cote - they are refunding me the cost of the mumps vaccine, not the entire cost.

But actually that isn't the point. The point is that I wanted my DS to have all three vaccinations. Which is what was paid for.

The clinic have told me that Merck are not saying if or when they are going to produce mumps vaccines again. And they are the only company with a licence.

So actually what people should be making a decision on is "do I want my child to have the MMR or do I want them just innoculated against measles and rubella?"

I think it's absolutely fine if parents are choosing single jabs on that basis but what isn't fine is clinics pretending they can give all three when they patently can't.

I can't see how that is in any way a controversial point of view.

OP posts:

CoteDAzur · 19/04/2009 16:05

I understand that you are quite rightly enraged on the issue, but it doesn't sound like it is the clinic's fault that Merck stopped production, nor were they "pretending" they could supply mumps vaccine. It is a live vaccine that requires refrigeration, so I am guessing they could not have stockpiled years worth of mumps vaccine supply. So when Merck stopped production, they would run out of supply fairly quickly.

It is unfortunate, but seriously, not the end of the world in the grand scheme of things. There is another decade or so until the time when mumps would be dangerous for your DS. I'm sure there will be a vaccine available until then.

CoteDAzur · 19/04/2009 16:06

Why do you expect clinic to refund you the "entire cost", including the cost of the measles and rubella vaccine they already gave your DD? I don't get it.

Original poster

spicemonster · 19/04/2009 16:36

I think it's disingenous to get people to pay for something upfront when you don't actually have 1/3 of what you're charging them for.

And that while I don't think they have done anything especially wrong (in that I agree that they probably did fully expect to get some more mumps vaccine in), they didn't have any when I paid and I think they should have told me.

Also (and this is really the point), other clinics are not even mentioning it. Which I think is actually pretty fraudulent. I think it's ripping parents off, whether or not mumps is dangerous for my DS now or not is not the point. What if it were measles they'd run out of?

OP posts:

Flip

1 2 3