Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
General health

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

Original poster

Early mmr booster - should we have one?

100 replies

blossombath · 03/06/2013 09:05

I posted about this on AIBU a week ago, if you are interested the original thread is here

Basically there was one case of measles at my son's nursery and we were given conflicting advice about whether to give him an early MMR booster (six weeks after his first). In the end, after reading green book and making own assessment of the urgency of his need we decided against it. Would have meant taking him out of normal vaccination schedule and we felt the risk was not large enough to merit this since he is otherwise healthy and will get the next booster in six weeks anyway (it is routinely given at 16 mo in our area).

Perhaps unsurprisingly there is now another case of measles at his nursery; so am worrying that we should in fact give him the early booster.

If there are any experts out there I would really value advice on the following points to help our decision

  • if he has already been infected and we give him the booster, will this help or harm him to fight off the virus in his system?
  • He is only at nursery 1.5 days a week and I'm not sure he crosses over with the second child who has measles - am I wildly optimistic to think this small time at nursery reduces his risk?

And any general advice really welcome; I am not anti vaccine and will definitely give him the booster; it's just a question of whether it is worth doing this early.

OP posts:
noblegiraffe · 04/06/2013 09:22

so far as I know

How far is that, Crumbled? You've said before that you don't have access to academic journals. What particular qualifications do you have in this area compared to, say, the people who put together evidence-based policy for the NHS?

LaVolcan · 04/06/2013 09:54

"so far as I know"

How far is that, Crumbled?.

It's not far at all, which is why she is asking for the information. Is it a crime to ask?

noblegiraffe · 04/06/2013 10:03

Dismissing the NHS information as 'publicity material', with a claim 'as far as she knows' is sounding rather confident in her own assessment of the situation, e.g. NHS advice as lacking.

LaVolcan · 04/06/2013 10:57

But it does seem that no one does know whether

"three combined vaccines + wild measles virus + three more combined vaccines within three months is safe for a child of about 15 months"

which might help to account for OP being given conflicting advice and not being sure which advice to take.

noblegiraffe · 04/06/2013 11:08

You say no one does know, how do you know that?

I mean, I bet the situation has come up before. And people who know about immunology would know about exposure to wild viruses and vaccines and how they interact, and be able to make informed opinions about the situation even if there haven't been strict clinical trials.

LaVolcan · 04/06/2013 11:15

No doubt there are people who know about immunology and could advise.

In which case they need to be sending out that advice to GPs surgeries because they don't seem to know either.

noblegiraffe · 04/06/2013 11:21

GPs in don't know everything about everything shock. Hmm

LaVolcan · 04/06/2013 11:38

noblegiraffe - I am aware of that, but the surgery is going to be the first port of call, so it would be advisable for them to be as well informed as possible.

Do we know whether there has been any research done on the interrelation between vaccines and wild viruses? The average person probably won't be all that interested, but those advising on vaccinations ought to IMO.

Crumbledwalnuts · 04/06/2013 12:02

Noblegiraffe: "how far is that"

Well I'm waiting to see if there is any basis for Caterina's advice. We all know that MMR was inadequately tested in itself, and unless there's eveidence presented here, it seems to be absolutely untested for this situation. It's irresponsible to recommend it.

And yes, it's publicity material.

noblegiraffe · 04/06/2013 12:03

You can't 'test' for every single scenario. However, an understanding of immunology might help.

Crumbledwalnuts · 04/06/2013 12:07

"I bet the situation has come up before."

That's quite a gamble on the health of someone else's child about whom neither you nor Caterina know anything at all.

Crumbledwalnuts · 04/06/2013 12:08

Quite. It's an untested hypothesis. It's an unknown. That's another piece in the jigsaw of information for the parents to use for their decision-making. It should not be presented as a known, tested hypothesis. It isn't.

noblegiraffe · 04/06/2013 12:12

Er, how am I gambling someone's health? I haven't made any recommendation. I have snorted at your dismissal of the NHS advice, however, seeing as you don't seem to be better qualified than the people who put it together.

Crumbledwalnuts · 04/06/2013 12:17

You are backing up Caterina's advice. It doesn't matter how much you snort noblegiraffe. We do all live in the real world, with real children being given real medications which have real risks. Caterina presents herself as an expert by giving advice: she should be able to back it up. I do not present myself as an expert, nor am I giving advice about a medical intervention. I am dissecting what comprises information and what comprises, basically :"oh it'll probably be alright".

noblegiraffe · 04/06/2013 12:21

Er, how is suggesting that the NHS might know the evidence better than you 'backing up Caterina's advice?'

Crumbledwalnuts · 04/06/2013 12:21

Do you not back up Caterina's advice?

Crumbledwalnuts · 04/06/2013 12:24

"You've said before that you don't have access to academic journals."

And by the way, this was in response to you saying you didn't have access to specific academic papers (after you linked to some publicity material.) I said that in that case, I probably didn't either: and that you should be able to back up claims you make. I didn't make any claim - you did, if you insist on bringing up something on another thread. I have read studies and papers, that are available on pubmed, on google: that was a specific response to your own failure to support a claim you made and provide a link for it.

noblegiraffe · 04/06/2013 12:30

Why would it matter if I backed up Caterina's advice or not? Confused

Caterina's information would appear to be backed up by the NHS, who tend to be medically qualified.

Crumbledwalnuts · 04/06/2013 12:44

Because if you're backing up Caterina's advice you're taking the gamble which you said you weren't taking... are you following?

Caterina's advice was not based on NHS advice. Caterina's advice relates to a 15-month-old child having two combined x 3 vaccines plus wild measles within 2-3 months. The NHS advice she linked to does not relate to this.

noblegiraffe · 04/06/2013 12:46

I haven't advised whether to have the vaccine at this time or not. And I'm not going to.

Crumbledwalnuts · 04/06/2013 12:48

So you don't back it up, and you don't intend to give advice on a medical intervention for a child you don't know. Fine. I think that's admirable.

CatherinaJTV · 04/06/2013 16:46

Caterina's information would appear to be backed up by the NHS, who tend to be medically qualified.

that - apart from the "h" that is missing from my name. The NHS says:

www.nhs.uk/conditions/vaccinations/pages/measles-outbreak-advice.aspx

Children aged up to three in outbreak areas who have had their first MMR dose at 12-13 months or later, can have their second MMR dose one month after the first.

I don't need to be medically qualified to give this as advice, because a) the NHS recommends this and b) MMR is not over the counter.

Crumbledwalnuts · 04/06/2013 17:57

This does not relate to a 15 month old child receiving 2 x 3 combined vaccines and contracting wild measles within 6-8 weeks. When you give advice you need to be able to back it up. If you have some study demonstrating the safety of 2 x 3 MMR vaccines + wild measles within 6-8 weeks please post it.

MMR is not over the counter

Yes, it's quite a struggle to get the MMR isn't it? You really have to fight for it. They make you go through all your child's immune issues, family history, and explain the side effects thoroughly, and warn that the safety testing was inadequate. Oh, hang on, they don't, do they?

noblegiraffe · 04/06/2013 18:13

The 2 jabs in 8 weeks doesn't seem to be a problem, except possibly in terms of efficacy.

Not sure why wild measles exposure would make a difference, apart from the evidence saying that the MMR can help if you have contracted measles.

The options are:
1st jab works, child is immune, does not contract measles, has second dose in reasonable timeframe

1st jab doesn't work, child is not immune, luckily doesn't contract measles, has second dose in a reasonable timeframe and is now immune

1st jab doesn't work, child does contract measles, has second dose before rash comes out, antibodies possibly boosted by MMR and measles is possibly milder

1st jab doesn't work, child contacts measles, comes out in rash, 2nd dose of MMR not given, child is poorly.

??

Crumbledwalnuts · 04/06/2013 18:17

The 2 jabs in 8 weeks doesn't seem to be a problem, except possibly in terms of efficacy.

Study link please?

Not sure why wild measles exposure would make a difference
So let's not bother finding out if it does or not? It's only other people's kids after all.

I think the rest of that post is just rambling. Caterina, none of the studies referred to by Blossombreath (quoting the NHS) backs up your advice. Have you got another one, or more than one.

Swipe left for the next trending thread