MMR booster. should my autisic son get it?

[yogabonkers]

my 5 year old had all his vaccinations when he was a baby, including his MMR at 13 months.

however, i never got him his booster when he was 4.

i believe you are born with autism, and it is not caused by the MMR, however, i didnt want to give him anything which could exacerbate it.

now i'm not so sure and think he should maybe get it. i'm very pro vaccination usually.

anyone have any thoughts?

I think I just read someone had died of it for first time in ages. Which is different, I agree, my mistake

deaths are certainly unusual, although not unheard of. I would be interested to read a link, if you can recall it.

Want2sleep, are you sure it's 98%? I thought it was 98% were covered after 2 MMRs, only approx 80% after the first.

Just checked the NHS website. It's 90 - 95% immune after one shot, 99% after 2 shots. NHS website here

silverfrog, this was a little one who used to go to one of the same groups as us, was very sad.

To make this thing even more of a hot potato, childhood immunity is affected by mothers immunity and length of breastfeeding relationship........

I bf dd for LONG. I had measles. She is protected. I don't mind her getting mumps and no-one knows yet if the rubella vaccine will last to reproductive age as it hasn't happened for any children yet.

Good, I breastfed for 14 months each time and have had measles.

I BF ds, lots but not as long as dd. He has had the first MMR, but I don't mind him getting rubella and again the mumps vaccine has not yet been proven to last to reproductive age when it causes problems.

DS2 had had the first, at 90-95% effective, that'll do for now. I should get DS3 done at some stage, mumps not nice for young men.

You can't get single mumps at the moment.

I had measles at five then mumps, chicken pox and rubella almost one after the other at six / seven. My school friends had them all too. It was normal in the seventies.

I wonder if this is an economic thing. My Dad was from the East End, Mum emigrated from Ireland, neither of them especially advantaged. My mother worked a few hours every night doing hospital admin to pay for family extras not just so that the rent and later, mortgage was paid. She was unusual. There was no need for my friends' mothers to work because housing was so affordable.

Not the case now. And employment is very different too with zero-hours contracts and no employee benefits. Competition for jobs is fierce and people just can't take two weeks off here and there to nurse DC through normal childhood illnesses.

Mumps is interesting. I would much prefer DS caught mumps at four and had life-long immunity rather than the vaccine wearing off and him getting it as a young adult.

So my not giving DS3 his MMR until later (he's 9) is a good thing, really? I'm so pleased.

I'm not sure. Neither are 'they'.

The MMR jabs are made up with the quantities required for a baby (although my research shows that they pretty much make that up). I don't think that you get adult versions, so it might not be strong enough if given later.

Absolutely!

Oh well, better than nothing! Maybe next year...

X-post with Starlight.

Good point there.

thanks for the link, NinjaGoose. I was aware of the death in 2008, which was, as you say, very sad. I wonder whether Fanjo has read of a more recent case?

Star: when you say "no-one knows yet if the rubella vaccine will last to reproductive age as it hasn't happened for any children yet." - can you clarify what you mean by that?

my dsd had mmr, way back in the mists of time. and she is certainly now of reproductive age (21) - I have said to her she shoudl get her immunity checked, but kids! will they listen?! I think her main thought is that she does not want to have the blood test (no actual phobia, just general girly shrieky-ness at thoguht of needles), and that it'll all be ok (head in sand). same for my dss, tbh. he is off gallivanting around europe right now, with no knowledge of whether his immunity is in fact A-ok or not (and has been at university for the last few years without checking his mumps status - not advisable, imo, given the levels of outbreaks of mumps amongst university students...)

Star - you are right that they pretty much make up the doses as they go along for mmr. the dosage amounts of each component have changed amny times over the years - mumps in particular, as the immune resonse was not strong enough, so they doubled, doubled again, and feck knows where they are now, tbh.

Interesting point re: children/adults. if you go for a booster as an adult you are just given the same old vaccine, but I have not read anywhere of studies to check whether there is adequate response in adults. hmmm.

sliverfrog I understand that the rubella hasn't been given to babies long enough for enough of those babies to have reached reproductive age, so they don't yet know what the impact of giving it early will have on unborn babies iyswim.

Before that, rubella was given to early teenage girls so it DID last most of their reproductive age.

Was your dsd in the early 'batch'? I just don't think they've done a follow-up study, or whether enough babies have been born with rubella complications, or not for them to yet know whether the programme is successful.

That doesn't mean it isn't.

And perhaps she IS immune at 21, but won't be at 35 when she has a child!?

I know that the rubella was ineffective for me. No MMR although I did have the illness as a child. Vaccinated at school at fourteen or so, had DD at twenty eight and was found to be not immune so they gave me a jab just as I was going out of ward door. The same thing happened when I had DS seven years later.

So from my limited understanding, both rubella and mumps vaccines don't give life-long protection and the measles one did DS no good because he had a "measles-like illness" months after having the triple jab.

Yet the baby MMR changed my son's digestion and acceptance of all foods dramatically when he had recovered from a two-week period of being unable to keep even water down.

It's nice to be able to discuss this in a sensible way on this thread.

the mmr was intorduced to the uk in 1988. the pre-school booster was introduced in 1994 (or was it 1996?) meaning that all children born since 1992 have had the chance of the standard mmr scehdule (ie 2 jabs)

I agree with you that it is entirely possible that dsd is immune currently, and also that her immunity may wane with time. I don't like the head in sand attitude of her not knowing her immunity status, given that she is of reproductive age, and could at any point get pregnant. the mumps component of the mmr has been shown to not be as effective as it shoudl be (hence all the tinkering with the dosage amounts), and as you say, there is no proper follow up to see whether the immunity is lasting as it should.

The thing I found the most difficult was the idea of a blood test. I couldn't for the life of me find a doctor who would do one and I had already almost broken DS' neck holding him down while blood was taken in order to rule out something else at a hospital in London.

I cried and cried and I am usually very stoic. DD has had that sort of thing many times and worse besides but because she is NT it was so different.

The jab was so quick compared to that experience and I felt that because he is so much bigger and stronger now... and huge pressure at TAC meetings...

My rubella vaccination at 13 was effective up to 37 for me. Bit late to test once you are pregnant. As the blood test is so much more traumatic (and expensive) than the jab, I suppose that's why they prefer to give the 'booster.'

Yes, at least on here people understand the reluctance despite all the scientific evidence, and we are all a bit less convinced by doctors' and scientists' superiority to us lesser mortals. No-one is going to come out and call us all selfish 'cahs' for putting their DC at risk.