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

General health

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

Flip

Original poster

So my dd has had her mmr seperatly..and...

17 replies

shhhh · 21/06/2007 16:21

Apparentlt according the the DOH (Haaa is quite apt for them.!) she is NOT protected against measles, mumps and rhubella...

They insist on me taking her to the gp's for a "top up" vaccination of MMR combined.

So,tell me why we went to all the trouble of having her vaccinated seperatly only to follow their advice and have the 3 in 1 AS WELL.

I have today spoken to a guy from our local childs health who basically was very condesending and is adament she isn't protected.

WASTE OF TIME

OP posts:

Furball · 21/06/2007 16:27

'they' are never going to admit that singles are just as good as 3 in 1. If you are worried hat she isn't protected you can get an immunity test.

Original poster

shhhh · 21/06/2007 20:12

Its just that you make these choices about which vaccinations are right/wrong for your lo's and then to have some guy tell me I was wrong..Arrggh.!

TBH, Im not to concerned about her immunity as I know the single vaccinations are enough immunity, just had never heard what this guy was telling me and mainly wondered if anyone else had been aware of this..? Not even my hv knew .

Thanks for the reply furball. x

OP posts:

Jossiejump · 21/06/2007 20:31

My DSs both had singles, when it came to pre-school boosters, they had blood tests to check their immunity and then just had a single jab for the one that they weren't fully immune to. I took them to a clinic specialising in the singles, painless as they had anaesthetic cream on their arms (DS1 was disappointed as they only had to use one arm when both had been creamed!

gess · 21/06/2007 20:38

Strange as the single jabs use the same strains as the MMR. When I searched on this (a while ago) the only published paper I could find (published pre the MMR fiasco) found that single jabs were slightly more effective than the MMR.

They do suggest that every child receives a 2nd MMR as a pre-schooler (those who had MMR as well), but this isn't really a booster, it's to catch the ones who didn't develop immunity first time round.

Original poster

shhhh · 21/06/2007 21:23

gess, those were our views as well. We couldn;t find enough evidence for dd to not have the single vaccinations iykwim....
We also read that the single vaccinations gave a slightly stronger strain.

TBH the guy I had the conversation to today..im sure if you cut him in half he would say "DOH" .

OP posts:

BarefootDancer · 21/06/2007 21:25

That can't be right. Unless it was a dodgy vaccine. Surely singles would give the same immunity as MMR.

gess · 21/06/2007 21:25

What age did you do them? That has an effect as well. Post 15 months measles vax slightly more likely to be effective...... Not much in it though.

JodieG1 · 21/06/2007 21:26

I went and am going single vaccine route and have no intention of giving MMR. Singles are fine.

JodieG1 · 21/06/2007 21:27

And let's not forget the reason the MMR is given over singles is the cost

popsycal · 21/06/2007 21:28

gess while you are there....
ds1 had first mmr at 4 years old.
They have been nagging me to get him to have a booster from 2 months after.....so far he has not had it....

is it really necessary?

sorry for hijkc

gess · 21/06/2007 21:29

If you want to give a booster you're better off giving it just pre puberty- measles & mumps do become nastier then, and the original immunty may need a boost. You can always get an antibody titre to check immunity anyway.

gess · 21/06/2007 21:30

oh ha ha that cross posted, but is kind of relevant. To be sure get an antibody check, (& perhaps again at puberty). But most children do get immunity from the first jab.

slalomsuki · 21/06/2007 21:32

I have gone down the route of singles with all of mine and have recently had a booster for the measles part for both Ds's. The doc who did it said the mumps and rubella part were 99.999% effective and the measles part was 95% effective which is why they recommend a second dose. They can then catch the 95% of the 5% they didn't get first time if you see what I mean.

I am sure if they were not effective he would have suggested getting a second dose of all of them since he would have also made money on it.

My own GP will not give dd the PCV vaccine unless she has the MMR but she has had 2 out of the three single ones with the third on Monday so he can stuff off.

popsycal · 21/06/2007 21:33

thanks gess - that was my feeling too

Original poster

shhhh · 21/06/2007 22:07

dd started then at around 13/14 months and finsihed them at around 17 months due to being ill partway through..

I thought the same barefoot..that the immunity wouldn't be so much less as to require the 3in1 as well..?

Jodie,dh said the same tonight.!

OP posts:

mummytosteven · 21/06/2007 22:12

yes, when I looked into effective of singles v MMR, I didn't find that singles seemed to be any less effective than MMR.

berolina · 21/06/2007 22:13

We gave ds MMR rather reluctantly - we had planned to go down the singles route but had incredible hassles sourcing, and in the end decided he was likely to be fine, and he was - and will not be giving the 'booster' - we don't want to push our luck. We've moved since then and our new doctor has 'reminded' us that there's a vaccination 'missing' - I explained what I knew about it not actually being a 'booster' at all, but there is clearly a policy to push it. What we plan to do instead is give him a single measles (if necessary) before he starts kindergarten (they are easier to get hold of here) and then the mumps and rubella at some point pre-puberty. Dc2 will have singles.

Flip