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

1 2

Original poster

How necessary is the MMR Booster?

44 replies

MarshaBrady · 26/10/2009 22:32

We have done all the immunisations. This is the last one.

Apparently the vaccine doesn't work in 5 - 10 per cent of children who receive the first dose of MMR.

So it is fairly likely that ds will be immune from the first one.

Any thoughts?

OP posts:

stuffitllllama · 27/10/2009 14:45

It's not a booster, it's the same vaccination, and it's given because a. sometimes it doesn't work first time b. even if it has worked the immunity wanes that quickly.

Sooty7 · 27/10/2009 14:58

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

Original poster

MarshaBrady · 27/10/2009 14:58

But a large proportion will be immune won't they?

According to this NHS website immunity appears to be long lasting and effective and the second dose is only needed to protect those children who did not respond to the first dose...
here

Although they do say at the bottom the children who did respond will get a boost to their antibodies with the second.
How necessary this is, I do not know of course.

OP posts:

Original poster

MarshaBrady · 27/10/2009 14:59

Oh right well the information was from my mother who runs a doctor's surgeries in Aus.

Not really here or there to me, just going on what she said this morning.

OP posts:

Sooty7 · 27/10/2009 15:03

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

Original poster

MarshaBrady · 27/10/2009 15:05

Yes I think it must be!
I did think how awfully binding it must be to have to have it regardless given that some children will have a reaction.

That would make me feel frustrated and cross, so glad there is a way out.

OP posts:

Beachcomber · 28/10/2009 16:07

The second MMR dose didn't even exist in the original programme. The MMR was designed to be a one off vaccine that offered high protection.

Then it was discovered that some people didn't produce antibodies after MMR vaccination. The figure given is around 90 to 95%, although despite having looked, I can't find impartial documentation which backs this figure up.

So the second dose of MMR was introduced in order to catch all those who didn't take the first time. Seems like a pretty gung ho approach to me, unnecessarily vaccinating so many children with a live triple vaccine but hey, nobody ever said that the DoH is mean when it comes to spending on vaccines that may not be required.

So, one can test for immunity to see if the child concerned has reasonable antibody levels or not. If yes there is NO NEED to have the second dose as it is only provided with the intention to catch those who didn't convert with the first dose. The first dose is not rendered useless if the second is not given.

If child tests negative then a real decision needs to be made IMO. Perhaps the child is a non taker (person who doesn't convert no matter how many vaccines they are given) in which case it is pointless to jab the child again. Perhaps the child had been immune but is no longer (this to me would mean that the vaccine is not very good and there is little point in having it again).

Perhaps the child will develop antibodies after the second shot despite not having done so after the first one but there is no way of knowing for sure.

Then there is the option of going for well spaced out singles with ONLY the vaccines which could benefit the child (so not rubella for a boy and none of the others for anything your child tests positive for).

That's how I see it anyway, although personally I wouldn't vaccinate any member of my family with the triple vaccine no matter what the results of antibody testing.

Original poster

MarshaBrady · 28/10/2009 18:34

Thanks Beachcomber, that is very informative.

The softest option for ds at the moment is a swab test for immunity. Now I just need to find somewhere that does it.

OP posts:

sowhatis · 28/10/2009 18:47

my two havent had it, got a few calls from surgery, told them a firm NO THANK YOU and thats all ive heard.

Original poster

MarshaBrady · 29/10/2009 09:16

Ok had a look around, the Measles vaccine as a single is £95.

Blood test for immunity is £50.

Can't find swab test unfortunately.

But they don't do mumps and ds doesn't need rubella. So not doing mumps is that ok?

OP posts:

Beachcomber · 29/10/2009 10:40

Remember that before the MMR existed the single mumps vaccine wasn't given because it was considered unnecessary and not very effective.

I would check out this site if I were you and try to get some advice from them. I haven't dealt with them (am not in UK) but know others who have and who have been very happy.

There is lots of good info on the site.

Shells · 29/10/2009 19:04

I don't rate that website to be honest and I am not particularly pro MMR. Has typos and gross generalisations. You're better off reading some of the very good info on MN threads.

Beachcomber · 29/10/2009 19:45

Shells I'm surprised you say that. The website is that of the clinic run by the well known Dr Halverson. He, his book and his clinic are regularly recommended on MN, particularly by saintly/yurt/jimjams who is very well informed on vaccination.

I agree there is some great info on MN, much of it from saintly.

Shells · 29/10/2009 23:20

I just don't like the way they describe risk factors and MMR in relation to autism (my son has ASD). Its not clear and distorts what Andrew Wakefield's report said.

I've got no opinion about Dr Halverson although, as you say, I know he's had some good press on MN.

Beachcomber · 29/10/2009 23:43

I'm not seeing what you're seeing re risk factors/MMR/autism/Wakefield.

I don't see how Wakefield's report has been distorted. Are you referring to the section on MMR?

Shells · 30/10/2009 00:09

Yes. If I were a parent with no knowledge of the area it would look to me like my child could 'get' autism from MMR, which is not what Wakefield was suggesting at all. Much more complex than that.
I think the way it is written is designed to put doubt in the minds of all parents rather than those with children at risk.

I wish I had had better information about MMR when my son had the jab. I might not have given it to him then. But the way that info is presented it comes across to me as alarmist rather than factual and measured. Which makes me switch off immediately.

Its just my opinion.

jabberwocky · 30/10/2009 00:40

We are in the US and have done singles. Ds1 is due his measles vax and then will be done. I still worry every time he has anything- he has sensory problems, possibly Asperger's. Fortunately our state has a user-friendly exemption law so I do that every year for school since both dcs are on an alternative schedule.

Beachcomber · 30/10/2009 07:51

OK Shells, thanks. I don't see it that way but fair enough if you do. I see it a bit more like Halverson is being careful about what he says, possibly because he doesn't want to end up before the GMC.

When I said the site is good for info I meant general info about vaccine decisions/singles/testing, etc.

You are right that it isn't easy to get info on MMR. Sorry to hear about your son, I hope things are OK for you all. My DD1 has all manner of health issues too, it's hard to see them suffer.

Shells · 30/10/2009 09:12

Thanks Beachcomber. DS is ok and I don't think he was vaccine damaged. I do feel very upset for those parents with DC who have been.

The whole thing is a minefield isn't it.

Flip

1 2