MMR booster being given at 18 months in parts of the country - is it safe?

[Tapster]

Heard from other mums that in my part of west london because so few children are being given the MMR that its effectiveness is reduced. So once you get your MMR at 13 months then they want you to get a booster at 18 months instead of 3-5 years old. My DD had to have hers in the hospital last week at 16 months (egg allergy) no mention by the nurse of the booster. Surely this is unnecessary and experimenting with children without knowing the impact of two MMRs so close together. Even if its less effective even if DD gets measles she will have some immunity and not get the serious measles side effects. Im going to refuse the booster until she is 4 or 5, poor DD has been ill ever since her MMR last week.

I'd be amazed if this were the case.

Hope your DD cheers up very soon.

They're always fiddling with the timing of the MMR. It was originally given at 18 months, then 15 months then 13. When they moved it to 13 months I was surprised as studies have shown it to be more effective when given post 15 months.

It's effectiveness is nothing to do with other people giving (or not) the MMR. It isn't safe earlier because antibodies from the mother interfere with the child making their own immune response to the MMR. So if they have a lot of antibodies left then they won't develop immunity from the MMR. By 18 months those antibodies should have gone and the effectiveness of the the MMR will improve.

I wouldn't give it twice though. I'd just hold onto post 15 momths.

oh if you\ve already given it you can always get immunity checked via a blood test.

I would wait a bit too.

Can I hijack a little bit pls. Yurt did you see the US federal court ruling ?

should say absolutely don't want to start a debate or undermine the op, just thought you might be interested

sorry tapster

I hope you little girl is better soon.. very hard when something rec'd by medical professional worries you like this.

I did stuffit- I started a thread in SN

my ds's immunologist stated quite frankly that MMR jab is most effective given at between 15 and 18 months [the first jab] so babies being given it at 13 months may well have reduced immunity. To introduce a booster at 18 months is bizarre beyond belief, IMO.

Well as my DD was vaccinated at nearly 16 months she should be fine so I will use that. Definitely they are recommending a booster 5 months after the first in this area, heard from two different mothers who go to two different GP practices. I do think its very bizaree.

I took my Dd to docs a couple of days ago as she has/had all symptoms of the measles. She hasn't yet had the MMR and I insist that she has it at 18 months as my Ds did. My nephew is autistic and I don't want to take too many chances, but do want my kids protected. Anyway my GP said that it was 'just a virus' as the rash was not dark enough to be measles and that I should get the MMR done as soon as she is well and not wait until 18 months. I think it's so difficult to know what to do for the best and just exactly when to do it. I hate the idea of all these jabs anyway-who knows what it could be doing to our babies.

Ds is supposed to be having his MMR tomorrow (13 months). he is allergic to egg as well and I did ask about whether he needed to have it in hospital. They seem to think it's fine for him to have it at the surgery though.

It's worrying me that some egg allergic babies have it in hospital. I think I might put it off until I have spoken to the allergy consultant myself......

you've got time to put it off trixymalixy. It is better to get it done at around 15 months at earliest anyway, more effective. Speak to allergy consultant, more often than not they are very happy to do it in hospital and observe them for a little while.

I think many measles cases go undiagnosed these days solo, as doctors are so reliant on MMR. Measles can be terribly dangerous, it can also be milder. If you have any worries there are plenty of places you can get the singles.

Hi ruty, I did ask about the singles when Dd had her last jab, but when I heard that the singles are licensed in Croatia and not the UK, it put me off big style...my Dd is 14.5 months, so I don't have much time to think about it.
trixy, I hope all goes ok whatever you decide. Allergies are such a worry.

Singles aren't licensed here because the manufacturers haven't requested a license here. At least that's what the Dept of Health told me (presumably they want to sell MMR here).

i thought it was the govt who didn't want to provide them with a licence here? There are some very reputable doctors who provide safe and well stored single vaccines in the UK.

Nope. Well not in 2001 when I wrote and asked. The dept of health assured me that they were not blocking licensing - but that the manufacturers hadn't applied.

They also said that confidence in the MMR was high as was take up (which makes me PMSL when they start berating Wakefield for falling vax rates).

Haven't heard that one here, I knoiw they are giving the hib etc booster early before 2,

how weird. You'd think the manufacturers would happily apply for a licence..

They do that abroad already anyway . dd had her booster at 18 months.

The hib vaccination was meant to be 'one shot for lifetime protection' when introduced. Then they discovered protection didn't last for 2 years

hi yurt - you mentioned the baby having antibodies from the mother for a while; is that period extended while the mother is breastfeeding? and if so, do you know if a mother breastfeeds longer if the anitbodies will then be present longer --- or is there a point beyond which it doesn't make a difference?

a friend of mine had said that breatsfeeding may interfere with a baby's immunity after a while...she may have said even when the baby is one or two. know anything about this?

I never managed to find that out tricey. I think possibly but I;m not sure how many antibodies there are in bmilk post colostrum.

no, breastfeeding does not interfere with immunity! Breastfeeding provides antibodies for immunity for as long as you breastfeed. There is also some research to suggest that antibodies get concentrated in the milk when you do extended breastfeeding, because the baby is not taking as much milk as before.
Breastfeeding antibodies confer no protection for things like polio, diptheria and tetanus, as far as i know. they can provide some immunity to measles, mumps and rubella, assuming the mother has actually had those diseases. If the mother has only been vaccinated, then she cannot confer any protection. Breastfeeding is good for protecting against general colds and bugs, and the research suggests that it protects against Hib. HTH.

check out www.kellymom.com for good sound info about breastfeeding and immunity.

What they might mean ruty is that if antibodies are high because of breastfeeding then the immunity developed by the child might not be lifelong. This can happen with chickenpox- so if a child gets chickenpox at a very young age it is often mild (because of antibodies from the mother) so they might get it again. It's not necessarily a bad thing though!

yes as far as i kow imunity only lasts as long as you breastfeed and even then it is not foolproof - but useful. Have i got the wrong end of the stick?