Separate Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Vaccines No Longer Available? What Can Parents Do?
Friday, October 30, 2009
One of the most challenging and controversial parts of the alternative vaccine schedule is splitting up the MMR into three separate shots, spread out over a few years. The reasoning behind this idea is to expose a child to only one live viral vaccine at a time to allow the child’s immune system to better handle each vaccine and possibly experience fewer side effects. Although there is no medical evidence that this precaution is necessary or even useful, some parents, long before my book came out, have been skipping the MMR over fear of side effects. Some of these parents are more open to getting the separated vaccines. I present this option as a way to allow such families to vaccinate for these diseases. I don’t claim that it is the best way to go. I simply acknowledge it as an option.
Now, however, it seems that this option has been taken away from these families. The official word on Merck’s website is that these vaccines are not available for order. I’ve called Merck to ask if they are planning to start making more, but I can’t get anyone from the company to call me back. I have heard from numerous people and some news reports that Merck isn’t currently making the vaccine. I haven’t heard that they’ve decided to stop permanently, just that they aren’t producing any at this time. So, it’s pretty clear that, at least for the time being, there is no more to be had. It is probably safe to say that there won’t be any more for at least 6 months to 1 year. It is also possible that they won’t ever make the separate vaccines again.
This puts many parents in a difficult position. Some children have already received part of the series and are now left without a way to finish it without getting the entire MMR (and thus accepting extra doses of some components). Part of me wonders if Merck has stopped production as a way to force parents into an all-or-nothing decision. The AAP and CDC continue to insist on a “one size fits all” approach to vaccinating, without offering any suggested alternatives. Is this their way of forcing parents into the full MMR? I don’t know. The official word from Merck is that they need to devote all of the manufacturing capabilities to the full MMR and Chickenpox. They also state that the demand for the separate vaccines is so low that it doesn’t justify its production. One news story stated that the separate components only make up about 2% of the total MMR demand. Well, with 5 million babies being born each year in the U.S., that could be as many as 100,000 families searching for the separate vaccines each year. That would be a lot of unvaccinated children if these parents refused the full MMR.
One issue that I don’t understand is that the separate rubella vaccine is routinely used for adult women after they have a baby. Any new mom who doesn’t have rubella immunity is given the vaccine. If Merck stops making it, such women will have to get the full MMR, even if they still have good measles and mumps immunity.
The separate mumps vaccine also has its usefulness. During the outbreak of 2005/2006, many teens and adults needed a mumps booster to help contain the disease. If separate mumps vaccine isn’t made available for such events, the full MMR will have to be used. The same would be true if a measles epidemic occurs.
So, what can parents do? Parents hate to give their children an extra dose of a vaccine if it isn’t needed. You’ve gone to all the trouble to try to split it up, and now you are faced with having to give it all together anyway. I know it’s frustrating. One note of encouragement is that there is no known harm in getting an extra dose, other than the fact that you are taking the small risk of a side effect an extra time and the frustration of knowing the separate shot you gave earlier was all for naught. If a child already has some immunity to one of the diseases from a previous vaccine, I’ve never seen any research that shows a child is any more likely to react to a second dose compared to anyone just getting their first dose. I’ve seen no evidence that getting an extra dose is dangerous. I know it’s very small consolation, but I just mention this so that parents aren’t afraid to get any extra components of the MMR if they decide to.
Part of me wants to rally the nation’s parents in a campaign to insist that Merck begin making the shots again. Write your Senators, email Merck (politely!), refuse to get the full MMR! But that just isn’t responsible. Skipping the shots altogether leaves children at risk, the riskiest disease being measles. Of course, parents do have the option to skip the vaccine altogether. Even in states with mandatory vaccines laws, parents can still exercise a religious exemption (except for West Virginia and Mississippi).
But for those of you (which is most of you) who do want MMR protection, I will offer you some choices. There isn’t one right choice here. When it comes to MMR there is so much controversy that I don’t believe there is one clear option. So, I will lay out all the choices so you can think it through. Most people who are very pro-vaccine feel my MMR recommendations should more closely reflect the standard American vaccine schedule. Now that the separate M-M-R vaccines are no longer available, most such vaccine advocates are hoping that I will now begin recommending the MMR at the standard ages of 1 and 5 years. To these people I would like to point out that I don’t make absolute recommendations. I present options. That’s what I’m going to do here.
Here are all the options, depending on whether or not your child has received some of the separate components:
CHILDREN WHO HAVE NEVER HAD ANY MMR COMPONENTS
- Parents who feel confident in the safety of the MMR vaccine should go ahead and vaccinate at the recommended age of 1 and 5 years.
- Parents who were planning to do it separately because they have some worry about side effects should wait until a later age to get the full MMR. I suggest waiting until a child is either 4 years of age or enters school, whichever comes first. The reason for the 4-year recommendation is two-fold: 1. Many kids don’t enter school until age 4, so their risk of catching measles, mumps, or rubella is very low, and the risk that they would expose other kids if they got sick is very low, and 2. Most states only require one dose of mumps and rubella if that one dose is given at age 4 or older, because the vaccine works much better for older kids like this. Some states do require a second dose of measles, however. See the State Requirements section below.
- Parents who don’t feel comfortable leaving their children susceptible to these three diseases until age four, but want to delay it for at least a little while, can get the MMR at whatever age you feel most comfortable. If your toddler or young child is entering early preschool at age 2 or 3, you may want him to have the disease protection. If you get the MMR before age 4, your child would need a second dose around age 5 according to the regular vaccine schedule. This second dose is given because a small percentage of kids lose their immunity from the first dose and need a booster. From a health care cost perspective, it isn’t economical to test every child’s blood at age 5 to see which kids need a booster, then only give those kids a booster. So, the routine practice is to just give the two doses to everybody. If you don’t want to simply follow this routine 2-dose schedule, and instead want to try to get by with just one dose, you can do the one dose at any age, then get a blood test around age 5 to check immunity, then repeat the MMR if needed.
- When you do get the MMR, I would suggest getting it alone, without any other shots. You can pick any time in the vaccine schedule to do it. There is no exact time that I would place it into my Alternative Vaccine Schedule. It’s an individual choice for each parent. If you get the shot at 1, 2, or 3 years of age, you can then either get the booster at 5, or do blood testing to confirm immunity and skip the booster if your child is still immune to all 3 diseases. There is also the possibility that in a few years we will have separate M, M, R component vaccines again, and you can give a booster shot for only those diseases your child needs a booster for, based on the blood immunity results. If the separate shots are not available, and 1 or 2 parts of the first shot (but not all three) have worn off, it’s okay to get the full MMR again. Or, you could just leave your child susceptible to a disease. The choice is yours.
The risk of skipping or delaying the MMR
Although these diseases are rare, outbreaks can occur. I encourage you to re-read the MMR chapter to refresh your memory on these diseases. The riskiest disease is probably measles. While most kids weather the disease without problems, occasional complications do occur. The risk of suffering a fatality from measles is about 1 in 1000 to 1 in 3000 cases. The risk of suffering a non-fatal complication that requires hospitalization (such as pneumonia, dehydration, and a variety of others) is unclear, but is probably 1 in 100 to 1 in 300 cases. Many years have gone by in the U.S. without a measles fatality. I pray it stays that way.
CHILDREN WHO HAVE ALREADY HAD ONE DOSE OF ALL THREE MMR COMPONENTS EITHER SEPARATELY OR TOGETHER
This decision is easy. Either get the 5 year booster of MMR, or do a blood test around age 5 to check immunity and don’t get any more MMR if immune to all three diseases. If your child is only immune to 1 or 2 diseases, but not all, it’s OK to get a full MMR. Or you can wait for the separate vaccines to come out again.
CHILDREN WHO HAVE ALREADY HAD 1 OR 2 COMPONENTS OF THE SEPARATED MMR VACCINES
Those of you who have already begun the process of separated MMR vaccines, you probably did so with two things in mind: You at least had some concern about MMR safety, and you felt comfortable to some degree with leaving your child susceptible to some of these diseases during the early years until all three doses were given. But now what do you do?
- If your child has already received 1 dose of rubella (but no mumps or measles yet), you either have to get the full MMR now or wait until 4 years of age and get it then. It all depends on how comfortable you are with leaving your child susceptible to mumps and measles. You can review the book information on mumps and measles to refresh your memory. Leaving a child open to measles is probably the riskiest of the three diseases. If you get the MMR at 4, you can verify mumps and measles immunity with a blood test about 6 to 12 months later if your state requires it, since your child only received one dose. If your state doesn’t require it, I wouldn’t bother with an immunity check since most kids get full immunity after just one dose given this late. See State Requirements below.
- If your child has already received 1 dose of mumps (but no rubella or measles), the same information applies as the previous paragraph. Rubella is extremely rare, and harmless to young children. Review the disease information in the book to remind yourself of the risk to pregnant women.
- If your child has received 1 dose of measles, but not mumps or rubella, then I suggest you wait until age 4 to do the full MMR. That will give your child the required 1 dose of mumps and rubella, and 2 doses of measles. I wouldn’t bother checking blood immunity levels in this instance – you are pretty well covered. Since rubella is harmless to young children, and mumps is virtually always harmless, it is generally safe to remain susceptible to these until 4, especially if not in school yet. However, you should fully inform yourself about the personal and public health risks of delaying these shots by reviewing those pages in the book.
- If your child has received 2 out of the 3 components already, it is not worth getting a full MMR prior to age four just to get protection from the third disease now, only to have to get another booster dose at age 5. Just wait until age 4 or 5 to get the full MMR, as long as you feel comfortable with the disease risk for a couple years for whichever vaccine hasn’t been given yet. See State Requirements below if you worry that your state laws may require you to get the shot sooner. If the third disease that you haven’t gotten the shot for yet is measles, I would just wait until 4 to get the full MMR dose.
- Technically you can get the full MMR as close as only 1 month after any doses of the separate vaccines. However, as a precaution I would suggest putting at least a few months between them if you move on to the full MMR
MEETING STATE REQUIREMENTS
If you live in one of the 20 free states (these are listed on page 218 of the book) that allows parents to skip a vaccine for personal beliefs, and you chose to skip the MMR during infancy, I would suggest getting the MMR around age 4 or 5 when your child is going to have more exposure to other children and the general public. I wouldn’t bother with immunity blood testing – this one shot works very well in virtually all kids who get it late. If you want to skip the shot until the pre-teen years, it may be useful to check blood immunity around age 10 prior to the shot, since by that time your child will have been around many kids for many years and might have acquired some natural immunity. If your child does not have immunity to one or more diseases, you can either get the full MMR or separate components if they are available at that time.
If you live in one of the 30 states that have mandatory vaccine laws, and you don’t want to claim religious exemption, realize that this doesn’t mean you absolutely have to get the MMR at age 1 and 5 years. You only have to meet the state requirements by the time a daycare, preschool, or kindergarten is going to enforce it. So, this means that if you are worried about the MMR, you can delay it for a year or two (or more) until your child enters school. Most states only require one dose of mumps and rubella if given at age 4 or older (since getting the shot at this later age works much better). Most states, however, will require either 2 measles vaccines, or a blood test to verify immunity from just the one dose. I suggest getting a blood test 6 to 12 months after the shot to prove this immunity. If not immune to measles, a second dose may be required by your state. This may mean another full MMR if the separate shots aren’t being made yet. If you do need (or want) to get the full MMR at an earlier age (between age 1 and 3 years), I suggest you do it alone, without any other shots.
SUMMARY
In the vaccine book I clearly state that vaccines are important, and that I believe the benefits outweigh the risks. Each vaccine can have a serious side effect, but in most cases this is rare. The MMR, however, is unique in that it is a triple live virus vaccine, and therefore has a more extensive list of possible reactions. These reactions mimic what the actual disease complications can be. Some of these reactions are very serious. Yes, the serious reactions are extremely rare, but it is a risk nonetheless. However, vaccinating for the MMR diseases is also a very important individual and public health concern. Measles will continue to increase if parents don’t vaccinate. Rubella may come back. The more people that don’t vaccinate, the more likely this is to happen.
I have presented the options here. It’s not based on what the right or wrong decision is. It all comes down to what you as a parent and individual believe about the safety of the MMR and the risks of the three diseases. Remember, my alternative vaccine schedule isn’t a reflection of what I believe all parents should do. It is a suggestion for parents who are more worried about vaccines than the average person, and want to vaccinate their child more carefully. Splitting the MMR was part of that approach, but now it’s not an option for the foreseeable future. If I was to have written my alternative vaccine schedule without the separate vaccines, it would probably look something like this: MMR at age one and five, with an asterisk that says if you are worried about a reaction to the MMR, wait until age 4 to get the first (and only) dose, or get it sooner if your child will be entering early preschool (and possibly need a booster dose around age 5 or 6).
LOOKING INTO THE FUTURE – WILL WE HAVE SEPARATED DOSES AGAIN?
I think that one of two things are going to happen:
1. Many angry parents are going to delay or skip the MMR vaccine (either out of protest against Merck or out of worry over side effects), and once the government notices this (as measles increases or reports on non-compliance grow) they will ask Merck to begin producing the separate doses again. Post-partum moms who need a Rubella shot, but refuse the full MMR, may add to this campaign. When outbreaks of measles and mumps do occur (and they will!), and the parents of any unvaccinated children refuse the full MMR (but make it known they would happily accept the single component vaccines), the government might take notice.
OR
2. Only a small minority will skip the full MMR. Most parents who wanted the separate shots will go ahead with the MMR at the recommended age of 1 year, and enough children will be vaccinated so we don’t see any appreciable rise in measles, mumps and rubella. Merck won’t begin making the separate shots again.
Now, however, it seems that this option has been taken away from these families. The official word on Merck’s website is that these vaccines are not available for order. I’ve called Merck to ask if they are planning to start making more, but I can’t get anyone from the company to call me back. I have heard from numerous people and some news reports that Merck isn’t currently making the vaccine. I haven’t heard that they’ve decided to stop permanently, just that they aren’t producing any at this time. So, it’s pretty clear that, at least for the time being, there is no more to be had. It is probably safe to say that there won’t be any more for at least 6 months to 1 year. It is also possible that they won’t ever make the separate vaccines again.
This puts many parents in a difficult position. Some children have already received part of the series and are now left without a way to finish it without getting the entire MMR (and thus accepting extra doses of some components). Part of me wonders if Merck has stopped production as a way to force parents into an all-or-nothing decision. The AAP and CDC continue to insist on a “one size fits all” approach to vaccinating, without offering any suggested alternatives. Is this their way of forcing parents into the full MMR? I don’t know. The official word from Merck is that they need to devote all of the manufacturing capabilities to the full MMR and Chickenpox. They also state that the demand for the separate vaccines is so low that it doesn’t justify its production. One news story stated that the separate components only make up about 2% of the total MMR demand. Well, with 5 million babies being born each year in the U.S., that could be as many as 100,000 families searching for the separate vaccines each year. That would be a lot of unvaccinated children if these parents refused the full MMR.
One issue that I don’t understand is that the separate rubella vaccine is routinely used for adult women after they have a baby. Any new mom who doesn’t have rubella immunity is given the vaccine. If Merck stops making it, such women will have to get the full MMR, even if they still have good measles and mumps immunity.
The separate mumps vaccine also has its usefulness. During the outbreak of 2005/2006, many teens and adults needed a mumps booster to help contain the disease. If separate mumps vaccine isn’t made available for such events, the full MMR will have to be used. The same would be true if a measles epidemic occurs.
So, what can parents do? Parents hate to give their children an extra dose of a vaccine if it isn’t needed. You’ve gone to all the trouble to try to split it up, and now you are faced with having to give it all together anyway. I know it’s frustrating. One note of encouragement is that there is no known harm in getting an extra dose, other than the fact that you are taking the small risk of a side effect an extra time and the frustration of knowing the separate shot you gave earlier was all for naught. If a child already has some immunity to one of the diseases from a previous vaccine, I’ve never seen any research that shows a child is any more likely to react to a second dose compared to anyone just getting their first dose. I’ve seen no evidence that getting an extra dose is dangerous. I know it’s very small consolation, but I just mention this so that parents aren’t afraid to get any extra components of the MMR if they decide to.
Part of me wants to rally the nation’s parents in a campaign to insist that Merck begin making the shots again. Write your Senators, email Merck (politely!), refuse to get the full MMR! But that just isn’t responsible. Skipping the shots altogether leaves children at risk, the riskiest disease being measles. Of course, parents do have the option to skip the vaccine altogether. Even in states with mandatory vaccines laws, parents can still exercise a religious exemption (except for West Virginia and Mississippi).
But for those of you (which is most of you) who do want MMR protection, I will offer you some choices. There isn’t one right choice here. When it comes to MMR there is so much controversy that I don’t believe there is one clear option. So, I will lay out all the choices so you can think it through. Most people who are very pro-vaccine feel my MMR recommendations should more closely reflect the standard American vaccine schedule. Now that the separate M-M-R vaccines are no longer available, most such vaccine advocates are hoping that I will now begin recommending the MMR at the standard ages of 1 and 5 years. To these people I would like to point out that I don’t make absolute recommendations. I present options. That’s what I’m going to do here.
Here are all the options, depending on whether or not your child has received some of the separate components:
CHILDREN WHO HAVE NEVER HAD ANY MMR COMPONENTS
- Parents who feel confident in the safety of the MMR vaccine should go ahead and vaccinate at the recommended age of 1 and 5 years.
- Parents who were planning to do it separately because they have some worry about side effects should wait until a later age to get the full MMR. I suggest waiting until a child is either 4 years of age or enters school, whichever comes first. The reason for the 4-year recommendation is two-fold: 1. Many kids don’t enter school until age 4, so their risk of catching measles, mumps, or rubella is very low, and the risk that they would expose other kids if they got sick is very low, and 2. Most states only require one dose of mumps and rubella if that one dose is given at age 4 or older, because the vaccine works much better for older kids like this. Some states do require a second dose of measles, however. See the State Requirements section below.
- Parents who don’t feel comfortable leaving their children susceptible to these three diseases until age four, but want to delay it for at least a little while, can get the MMR at whatever age you feel most comfortable. If your toddler or young child is entering early preschool at age 2 or 3, you may want him to have the disease protection. If you get the MMR before age 4, your child would need a second dose around age 5 according to the regular vaccine schedule. This second dose is given because a small percentage of kids lose their immunity from the first dose and need a booster. From a health care cost perspective, it isn’t economical to test every child’s blood at age 5 to see which kids need a booster, then only give those kids a booster. So, the routine practice is to just give the two doses to everybody. If you don’t want to simply follow this routine 2-dose schedule, and instead want to try to get by with just one dose, you can do the one dose at any age, then get a blood test around age 5 to check immunity, then repeat the MMR if needed.
- When you do get the MMR, I would suggest getting it alone, without any other shots. You can pick any time in the vaccine schedule to do it. There is no exact time that I would place it into my Alternative Vaccine Schedule. It’s an individual choice for each parent. If you get the shot at 1, 2, or 3 years of age, you can then either get the booster at 5, or do blood testing to confirm immunity and skip the booster if your child is still immune to all 3 diseases. There is also the possibility that in a few years we will have separate M, M, R component vaccines again, and you can give a booster shot for only those diseases your child needs a booster for, based on the blood immunity results. If the separate shots are not available, and 1 or 2 parts of the first shot (but not all three) have worn off, it’s okay to get the full MMR again. Or, you could just leave your child susceptible to a disease. The choice is yours.
The risk of skipping or delaying the MMR
Although these diseases are rare, outbreaks can occur. I encourage you to re-read the MMR chapter to refresh your memory on these diseases. The riskiest disease is probably measles. While most kids weather the disease without problems, occasional complications do occur. The risk of suffering a fatality from measles is about 1 in 1000 to 1 in 3000 cases. The risk of suffering a non-fatal complication that requires hospitalization (such as pneumonia, dehydration, and a variety of others) is unclear, but is probably 1 in 100 to 1 in 300 cases. Many years have gone by in the U.S. without a measles fatality. I pray it stays that way.
CHILDREN WHO HAVE ALREADY HAD ONE DOSE OF ALL THREE MMR COMPONENTS EITHER SEPARATELY OR TOGETHER
This decision is easy. Either get the 5 year booster of MMR, or do a blood test around age 5 to check immunity and don’t get any more MMR if immune to all three diseases. If your child is only immune to 1 or 2 diseases, but not all, it’s OK to get a full MMR. Or you can wait for the separate vaccines to come out again.
CHILDREN WHO HAVE ALREADY HAD 1 OR 2 COMPONENTS OF THE SEPARATED MMR VACCINES
Those of you who have already begun the process of separated MMR vaccines, you probably did so with two things in mind: You at least had some concern about MMR safety, and you felt comfortable to some degree with leaving your child susceptible to some of these diseases during the early years until all three doses were given. But now what do you do?
- If your child has already received 1 dose of rubella (but no mumps or measles yet), you either have to get the full MMR now or wait until 4 years of age and get it then. It all depends on how comfortable you are with leaving your child susceptible to mumps and measles. You can review the book information on mumps and measles to refresh your memory. Leaving a child open to measles is probably the riskiest of the three diseases. If you get the MMR at 4, you can verify mumps and measles immunity with a blood test about 6 to 12 months later if your state requires it, since your child only received one dose. If your state doesn’t require it, I wouldn’t bother with an immunity check since most kids get full immunity after just one dose given this late. See State Requirements below.
- If your child has already received 1 dose of mumps (but no rubella or measles), the same information applies as the previous paragraph. Rubella is extremely rare, and harmless to young children. Review the disease information in the book to remind yourself of the risk to pregnant women.
- If your child has received 1 dose of measles, but not mumps or rubella, then I suggest you wait until age 4 to do the full MMR. That will give your child the required 1 dose of mumps and rubella, and 2 doses of measles. I wouldn’t bother checking blood immunity levels in this instance – you are pretty well covered. Since rubella is harmless to young children, and mumps is virtually always harmless, it is generally safe to remain susceptible to these until 4, especially if not in school yet. However, you should fully inform yourself about the personal and public health risks of delaying these shots by reviewing those pages in the book.
- If your child has received 2 out of the 3 components already, it is not worth getting a full MMR prior to age four just to get protection from the third disease now, only to have to get another booster dose at age 5. Just wait until age 4 or 5 to get the full MMR, as long as you feel comfortable with the disease risk for a couple years for whichever vaccine hasn’t been given yet. See State Requirements below if you worry that your state laws may require you to get the shot sooner. If the third disease that you haven’t gotten the shot for yet is measles, I would just wait until 4 to get the full MMR dose.
- Technically you can get the full MMR as close as only 1 month after any doses of the separate vaccines. However, as a precaution I would suggest putting at least a few months between them if you move on to the full MMR
MEETING STATE REQUIREMENTS
If you live in one of the 20 free states (these are listed on page 218 of the book) that allows parents to skip a vaccine for personal beliefs, and you chose to skip the MMR during infancy, I would suggest getting the MMR around age 4 or 5 when your child is going to have more exposure to other children and the general public. I wouldn’t bother with immunity blood testing – this one shot works very well in virtually all kids who get it late. If you want to skip the shot until the pre-teen years, it may be useful to check blood immunity around age 10 prior to the shot, since by that time your child will have been around many kids for many years and might have acquired some natural immunity. If your child does not have immunity to one or more diseases, you can either get the full MMR or separate components if they are available at that time.
If you live in one of the 30 states that have mandatory vaccine laws, and you don’t want to claim religious exemption, realize that this doesn’t mean you absolutely have to get the MMR at age 1 and 5 years. You only have to meet the state requirements by the time a daycare, preschool, or kindergarten is going to enforce it. So, this means that if you are worried about the MMR, you can delay it for a year or two (or more) until your child enters school. Most states only require one dose of mumps and rubella if given at age 4 or older (since getting the shot at this later age works much better). Most states, however, will require either 2 measles vaccines, or a blood test to verify immunity from just the one dose. I suggest getting a blood test 6 to 12 months after the shot to prove this immunity. If not immune to measles, a second dose may be required by your state. This may mean another full MMR if the separate shots aren’t being made yet. If you do need (or want) to get the full MMR at an earlier age (between age 1 and 3 years), I suggest you do it alone, without any other shots.
SUMMARY
In the vaccine book I clearly state that vaccines are important, and that I believe the benefits outweigh the risks. Each vaccine can have a serious side effect, but in most cases this is rare. The MMR, however, is unique in that it is a triple live virus vaccine, and therefore has a more extensive list of possible reactions. These reactions mimic what the actual disease complications can be. Some of these reactions are very serious. Yes, the serious reactions are extremely rare, but it is a risk nonetheless. However, vaccinating for the MMR diseases is also a very important individual and public health concern. Measles will continue to increase if parents don’t vaccinate. Rubella may come back. The more people that don’t vaccinate, the more likely this is to happen.
I have presented the options here. It’s not based on what the right or wrong decision is. It all comes down to what you as a parent and individual believe about the safety of the MMR and the risks of the three diseases. Remember, my alternative vaccine schedule isn’t a reflection of what I believe all parents should do. It is a suggestion for parents who are more worried about vaccines than the average person, and want to vaccinate their child more carefully. Splitting the MMR was part of that approach, but now it’s not an option for the foreseeable future. If I was to have written my alternative vaccine schedule without the separate vaccines, it would probably look something like this: MMR at age one and five, with an asterisk that says if you are worried about a reaction to the MMR, wait until age 4 to get the first (and only) dose, or get it sooner if your child will be entering early preschool (and possibly need a booster dose around age 5 or 6).
LOOKING INTO THE FUTURE – WILL WE HAVE SEPARATED DOSES AGAIN?
I think that one of two things are going to happen:
1. Many angry parents are going to delay or skip the MMR vaccine (either out of protest against Merck or out of worry over side effects), and once the government notices this (as measles increases or reports on non-compliance grow) they will ask Merck to begin producing the separate doses again. Post-partum moms who need a Rubella shot, but refuse the full MMR, may add to this campaign. When outbreaks of measles and mumps do occur (and they will!), and the parents of any unvaccinated children refuse the full MMR (but make it known they would happily accept the single component vaccines), the government might take notice.
OR
2. Only a small minority will skip the full MMR. Most parents who wanted the separate shots will go ahead with the MMR at the recommended age of 1 year, and enough children will be vaccinated so we don’t see any appreciable rise in measles, mumps and rubella. Merck won’t begin making the separate shots again.
Labels: Vaccine News
posted by Dr. Bob Sears @ 11:33 AM
30 Comments:
At October 31, 2009 9:26 AM ,
banderson said...
Thanks for the email this morning regarding our options for MMR. If my 18-month old daughter has already received a separate Measles and has access to receiving a separate Rubella, would it be advantageous for us to administer the separate Rubella at 2 years old, and then wait to do one full MMR at age 4? I know you suggest waiting till 4 to get a full MMR if you have already had one measles, but I am just wondering since she is a girl, would it be wise to give her two doses of the Rubella since I have that option? Thanks so much for your time!
At October 31, 2009 2:03 PM ,
Anonymous said...
I have just received a letter from Merck saying that they "have decided not to resume production of the monovalent componenets af the combination vaccine for measles, mumps and rubella" I guess its now official and forces us into the all or nothing decision.
At October 31, 2009 11:35 PM ,
NAJ FROM OZ said...
In Australia, we do not have the option to have seperate MMR vaccines.... Most still vaccinate (90%)...So dare I say, that Merck will win in the end and everyone will probabaly still vaccinate..
The fact that I had no option, means I did not vaccinate at all. If people want to give their child that many diseases at once, then thats their choice... but what frustrates me is that i was not given that choice. ALL or NOTHING it is for us. So I chose NOTHING.
It seems as though every second child or so, is really struggling somehow... People say its because of diet, but has our diets changed that much in the last 15 years or so to warrant such dramatic increases in childhood illness????
At November 1, 2009 9:58 AM ,
Catherina said...
The only people "winning" if parents vaccinate against MMR at ages 1 and 5 are the children who will not succumb to vaccine preventable diseases on the whim of a media manufactuversy, eagerly supported by some *private* doctors. There is no indication that MMR works better when given at age 4 vs age 1, there is no indication that the singles are any less reactive than the MMR either.
A generation of parents who have believed the MMR is dangerous myth have had their lives complicated and have been in fear over this without any need.
At November 1, 2009 12:10 PM ,
Anonymous said...
My reading of the book originally, and of hearing your great lecture at the LLL International Conference, Dr. Bob, was that measles is a childhood disease, and most dangerous when caught at the wrong time (i.e., too young or too old). With that in mind, we planned to wait until my younger child (who reacts to all vaccines) is around 10 (and, of course, I was going to get the titres first and the vaccines separately). He may be considered a child now, at almost 4 1/2? Anyway, I hope that what I'm remembering is still true; yes, the complication figure is out there, but I thought that was more for children who caught measles at age 2, for instance).
I'm hopeful that by the time he is 10, there will be separate components again. And, I hope there will be when my daughter is around 10 (2 1/2 years from now), because we checked her titres for measles before K instead of doing the booster (and I recall you suggesting we check again as immunity could wear off).
Thank you!
Beth
At November 1, 2009 1:32 PM ,
Catherina said...
FYI the children who died of measles in Germany in 2007 were 1 and 2 years old, a 7 year old girl had encephalitis and permanently lost her speech. Olivia Dahl, Roald's daughter, to whom the BFG is dedicated, was 7 when she died of measles, the girl who died of measles in Switzerland earlier this year was 12. We know that measles are particularly dangerous for infants and that there is a tendency for more encephalites in older patients (although, in the well documented Swiss outbreak of 2003, the encephalites occured in patients who were 10, 10 and 17), but apart from that, there is no 'ideal' age to get measles. Measles cannot be counted on to be "harmless" at any age and I hope that any parent who is seduced by such stories does not get a rude awakening before their children are caught up on their vaccines (like the parents of the unvaccinated preteen who infected a handful of babies in the pediatrician's waiting room, effectively killing two).
At November 1, 2009 9:24 PM ,
Anonymous said...
I learned during my first pregnancy, 8 years ago, that I was not immune to Rubella. I received the single Rubella vaccine before going home from the hospital. However, I would not have been willing to receive the whole MMR. It's terrible that parents and post-partum moms are faced with all or nothing. We should have a choice!
At November 2, 2009 8:54 AM ,
Anonymous said...
After some searching, I found a feedback form on the Merck site, where I requested that they bring back the individual vaccines. Maybe if enough of us did this...?
https://www.merckvaccines.com/srv/gw/contactus/contactUsGeneralQuestion.jsp?frame=1
At November 2, 2009 9:44 AM ,
Science Mom said...
I think parents need to consider many things before using this 'alternative' recommendation, which was fashioned by a paediatrician that has never even seen a measles case. Moreover, this recommendation was pulled out of thin air with absolutely no scientific basis and done simply to be 'alternative' and confers no advantage, unless you consider your child going for years unprotected for preventable diseases an advantage.
There is no evidence of increased efficacy at 4 years old as opposed to 15-18 months old. There is, of course, no evidence to support an MMR-autism association so there is no need for 'just in case'. Most states (if not all) require 2 measles doses and many, or most will not accept titres as a substitute. Most, if not all insurance will not pay for titres under these circumstances. Now if you decide to get an exemption, most are 'all or nothing', which means that you sign off that your child has had no vaccines for religious reasons, even if they have had most the school requires. Now the school reserves the right to keep your child out of school for weeks if there is an outbreak of a VPD.
I can certainly understand the feeling that you are being forced into something that you don't want. But please take a step back, a deep breath and look at the actual evidence. MMR has been used for decades in several countries with an excellent safety and efficacy record. Measles and mumps cases are increasing as a direct result of vaccine refusal and you simply can't rely upon the herd any longer. As the U.S. moves towards a national healthcare system, it is even less likely that you will see monovalent jabs in the future. And no, I have absolutely no ties to pharma, just science.
At November 2, 2009 11:31 AM ,
Catherina said...
Bob says:
When outbreaks of measles and mumps do occur (and they will!), and the parents of any unvaccinated children refuse the full MMR (but make it known they would happily accept the single component vaccines), the government might take notice.
let me translate that:
When outbreaks of measles and mumps do occur (and they will!), and the first unvaccinated children die, parents might realize that they were led on by a false prophet and get their children the MMR, because if children die (and they will!), it will not be the fault of the government. There is a safe vaccine available.
At November 2, 2009 3:52 PM ,
NAJ FROM OZ said...
Catherina and Science MOM, you are both incredibly inetlligent passionate woman and I respect that. BUT such intelligence does not mean you are speaking the truth.
AND using outrageous scare tactics just is NOT FAIR!!!!!!!!!..
When you say things like oh when your unvaccinated kid dies, it is incredibly manipulative and dangerous... This is how we have ALL been manipuilated into inoculating our children with these toxic poisons. YOUR KID IS GOING TO DIE!!!!!!!!!! For Gods sake ENOUGH!.. You claim no scientific basis for Dr Bobs alternative schedule, BUT yet, it is something that has been suggested by the HIghest US officials....
Did you read that document I put a link to? It is CLEAR that the government are admitting that there has NOT been research on giving our children that many vaccines. Only 2 ingredients have been researched etc..They suggest that there is a plausibale link between autism and vaccines, that it is worthwhile to study vaccines and other various illnesses etc...
http://www.hhs.gov/nvpo/nvac/documents/NVACVaccineSafetyWGReport041409.pdf
Please explain to me why are sooooooooooooooooooooooooooo many children struggling? We all use the arguement oh, mercury is in the air, aluminium is in childhood antacids( which is contraindicated for children with kidney problems) etc... BUT does that make it OK to have it directly injected into our poor little babies bodies? AND even if the POISONS are everywhere, SHOULDNT we make effort to MINIMISE this?
My son became critcially ill early in his life. IT HAPPENS! He could have died. IT HAPPENS... So is it ok to keep this massive human experiment going when we really have NOT done the research because a very very very few will die???..
What about the massive amounts of children struggling? Does that matter?????? AND maybe vaccines are NOT the only reason. I grant you that, BUT shouldnt we AT LEAST try and MINIMISE the amount of TOXINS?..I cant understand how we continue to ignore this!
At November 3, 2009 12:09 AM ,
Catherina said...
NAJ,
I am from Germany, where there is a robust fraction of non- and delayed vaccinators. There are measles outbreak every year and every year children die from measles or SSPE. This is entirely preventable. It is entirely irresponsible of Dr Bob to suggest that parents delay the MMR to age four and only get one MMR. It will lead to outbreaks. It will lead to children, un(der)vaccinated by choice, or because they were just too young to get very sick, some of them will die. If you are delaying the MMR, you need to be aware of your responsibility in this, too. I am not saying YOUR child is going to die, I am saying, some children are going to die because of this.
MMR is not a poison, it is a very well researched, life saving vaccine that has been used for decades and has saved more lives than anyone could count. It is sad that deaths will have to occur for some to re-evaluate their irrational fears.
At November 3, 2009 5:39 AM ,
Science Mom said...
NAJ,
You claim no scientific basis for Dr Bobs alternative schedule, BUT yet, it is something that has been suggested by the HIghest US officials....
No it hasn't.
Did you read that document I put a link to? It is CLEAR that the government are admitting that there has NOT been research on giving our children that many vaccines. Only 2 ingredients have been researched etc..They suggest that there is a plausibale link between autism and vaccines, that it is worthwhile to study vaccines and other various illnesses etc...
http://www.hhs.gov/nvpo/nvac/documents/NVACVaccineSafetyWGReport041409.pdf
No it is not clear and no they haven't suggested a plausible link between vaccines and autism, quite the contrary in fact. The NVACV Working Group has outlined study directives with no consideration for cost or feasibility for the appropriate agencies to decide what can and cannot be done. They are recommendations, not admission that vaccines aren't researched. Vaccines are the most researched pharmaceutical in the world; the working group is merely providing recommendations for future study directives, just as they always have.
What about the massive amounts of children struggling? Does that matter?????? AND maybe vaccines are NOT the only reason. I grant you that, BUT shouldnt we AT LEAST try and MINIMISE the amount of TOXINS?..I cant understand how we continue to ignore this!
I don't know what you mean by 'children struggling'. You are making incorrect statements with regards to toxins; you need to qualify and quantify what you think are toxic. Chemicals are not toxic simply by existing, if they were, we wouldn't be here.
At November 3, 2009 10:17 AM ,
Anonymous said...
Catherina and Science Mom Don't you have your OWN blog somewhere! Why do you constantly have to come on here and bombard all of Dr Sear's blog's.
Just post it already and if people want to read what the two have you have to say then they will come to YOUR website next time
At November 3, 2009 10:21 AM ,
Catherina said...
Anon - it is here where the dangerous suggestions are spread, so it is here where I post. I do have my own blogpost on an earlier version of Bob's thoughts on justthevax. Do you think I should update that? Maybe I will then - thanks.
At November 3, 2009 5:54 PM ,
NAJ FROM OZ said...
Thank you Catherina. I appreciate you response.
Science MOM... You have obvioulsy NOT read that link.....As it clearly says that there are new developments that need further investigations. YES they have said that there is a possible link between autisim and a small subset of the population!. Maybe my choice of the word plausable was not the best. Nevertheless they do not admit it enitirely, but are agreeing that it is a possibility with all the new developments..
Why are they even considering this?
They argue that "Large population-based studies will be needed to identify a possible relationship of vaccination with autistic regression in persons with mitochondrial cytopathies," the authors wrote, and it looks like members of the NVAC concur.
One reason for the "important" caveat about high-risk subgroups, the NVAC wrote, was "recent case studies and research reports around the incidence of mitochondrial dysfunction in children with ASD," which have been estimated at somewhere between 7%-to-30% of all ASD children, and possibly higher among children who regressed following normal development
Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kirby/top-us-panel-some-vaccine_b_211843.html
Please explain to me why they say say in that document that the study proving mercury is safe may be SPURIOUS in nature?
Poling and Baily proved that the vaccines triggered there autistic traits and hence were paid large sums of money. So if in this particular instance it was provan than how many more are there?
Why do you need to deny this?
I agree that without chemicals we will not exist. However, it is a completley different story when they are poisions such as aluminum and mercury. Especially when directly injected into our blood stream.
You say that vaccines are the most widely studied product and I ask, who is conducting and funding these studies?
Are you telling me that we have studied and PROVAN that giving 30 vaccines by the time a child is 1 years old is in fact SAFE???? If so, please refer me to those studies. And show me they have not been paid for by the pharmecuetical companies.
Yes, children are struggling. There is more asthma, autism, autoimmune dieseases, diabetes etc then EVER before. Here in Austalia 1 in 3 people will get cancer. This is something we HAVE NEVER EVER experienced before as a society.. I am not blaming vaccines enitirely. Something in our environment is causing this. I believe its a combination of everything. Thats why I say we just need to minimise it.
The fact of the matter is that we have not studied all the ingredients in the vaccines, which that document ADMITS. We have not done proper double blinded studies. We have not, compared the vaccinated to the unvaccinated. We have not done our due diligence when it comes to vaccines...
I think we are too busy trying to justify,defend annd make excusses for why vaccines are our saviour instead of looking at the possible harm it is doing. Instead why dont we spend our time just making sure they are safe. I would definately vaccinate then!
There are many Doctors and Scientist that are finding problems with vaccines. Why do you choose to ignore them? Are they not just as intellignet as the others or you perhaps?
I am open minded and am more than willing to learn why I should vaccinate my son. At this point in time, there are too many unanswered questions.
Thanks
At November 4, 2009 11:44 AM ,
Amy D said...
Dr. Bob,
Isn't this the same post that you posted in January 2009? This makes me wonder if the post in May 2009 is still true-- that Merck will have the separate MMR vaccines available in 2011? Have you heard that this is not the case?
Thank you!
At November 5, 2009 7:38 AM ,
Science Mom said...
NAJ, I have read that document and I'm afraid that you are misinterpreting it and making overreaching conclusions.
Science MOM... You have obvioulsy NOT read that link.....As it clearly says that there are new developments that need further investigations. YES they have said that there is a possible link between autisim and a small subset of the population!. Maybe my choice of the word plausable was not the best. Nevertheless they do not admit it enitirely, but are agreeing that it is a possibility with all the new developments..
Why are they even considering this?
They argue that "Large population-based studies will be needed to identify a possible relationship of vaccination with autistic regression in persons with mitochondrial cytopathies," the authors wrote, and it looks like members of the NVAC concur.
They are not suggesting that there is a vaccine-autism association; they are recommending that a study may be conducted to explore IF there is a possible association. They have also based their recommendations upon the current climate of parental concerns, zero cost and zero feasibility. Which means that they don't even know if their recommendations can be crafted into actual studies due to cost, ethical concerns and feasibility. I guess no good deed goes unpunished.
One reason for the "important" caveat about high-risk subgroups, the NVAC wrote, was "recent case studies and research reports around the incidence of mitochondrial dysfunction in children with ASD," which have been estimated at somewhere between 7%-to-30% of all ASD children, and possibly higher among children who regressed following normal development
Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kirby/top-us-panel-some-vaccine_b_211843.html
Please explain to me why they say say in that document that the study proving mercury is safe may be SPURIOUS in nature?
This is a good example of how you are not reading the report correctly. This is what they ACTUALLY state:
The study, “Early thimerosal exposure and neuropsychological outcomes at 7 to 10 years,”36 found increasing exposure to mercury both prenatally and postnatally to have no consistent pattern of effect, with few significant associations being both beneficial and deleterious. The Working Group was impressed by the study design and that the data are publicly available but feels further evidence on whether any associations suggested are real, spurious, or artificial is needed.
And the Huffington Post, particularly where Kirby is concerned, is one of the most inaccurate that you can find. You would do much better to just read the document yourself, rather than rely upon such tortured regurgitations by rather inexpert people.
At November 5, 2009 7:39 AM ,
Science Mom said...
NAJ, I had to answer in 2 parts so this is the second:
Poling and Baily proved that the vaccines triggered there autistic traits and hence were paid large sums of money. So if in this particular instance it was provan than how many more are there?
Why do you need to deny this?
No they didn't prove anything. Hannah Poling has a mitochondrial disorder that could have resulted in the same constellation of symptoms (or even worse) with a wild-type disease. Unless you are saying that autism is just the behavioural symptoms that accompany mitochondrial disorders. Which, of course, is ridiculous. Bailey Banks has ADEM, this is not autism, nor autistic-like. It is, sadly, a very rare side effect of a live viral vaccine and far more common with wild-type viral diseases.
I agree that without chemicals we will not exist. However, it is a completley different story when they are poisions such as aluminum and mercury. Especially when directly injected into our blood stream.
Since you just spouted off the usual and incorrect canards of an anti-vaxer, I don't know why you are even concerned with vaccinations. Dose makes the toxin and vaccines aren't injected into the bloodstream. If you can't grasp this, what else do you not grasp?
Are you telling me that we have studied and PROVAN that giving 30 vaccines by the time a child is 1 years old is in fact SAFE???? If so, please refer me to those studies. And show me they have not been paid for by the pharmecuetical companies.
Please avail yourself of PubMed:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/journals or Google Scholar. There are thousands of relevant publications for you to peruse and funding sources are claimed so you can discard any pharma-funded ones (which are in the minority).
Yes, children are struggling. There is more asthma, autism, autoimmune dieseases, diabetes etc then EVER before. Here in Austalia 1 in 3 people will get cancer. This is something we HAVE NEVER EVER experienced before as a society.. I am not blaming vaccines enitirely. Something in our environment is causing this. I believe its a combination of everything. Thats why I say we just need to minimise it.
And this is where your woeful misinformation and fear of vaccines has thrown you into a stasis that renders you incapable of a.)Failing to examine the literature to actually grasp what the epidemiology really is and b.) Grasp the more obvious aetiologies of these diseases. Environmental pollutants, urbanicity, obesity, and other radical lifestyle changes that have nothing to do with vaccines are far more relevant.
There are many Doctors and Scientist that are finding problems with vaccines. Why do you choose to ignore them? Are they not just as intellignet as the others or you perhaps?
There aren't many, just the same players trying to make a name for themselves. I don't ignore them, I do read what they have to say and it's rubbish. When and if they can produce properly-conducted studies, then they can start to garner some credibility. It is so hypocritical of you and others to blindly accept this rot from pseudo-scientists but ignore the much higher-quality studies from real scientists and physicians. Where are all of the randomised trials that your so-called experts have produced? What have they proven?
At November 5, 2009 3:29 PM ,
NAJ FROM OZ said...
I have an exam, and need to focus on it whilst my son sleeps. I will definately respond to this in a couple of weeks...
It is interesting debating with you. I will just say before I go, there are many contradictions in your claims and you seem to be in major denial about certain issues. I will show you what I mean in a couple of weeks.
Take care
Thanks
At November 6, 2009 12:02 AM ,
Catherina said...
NAJ - all the best for your exam :)
At November 6, 2009 8:52 AM ,
Science Mom said...
Take your time NAJ; school takes precedence. Good luck with your exam.
At November 6, 2009 12:02 PM ,
Anonymous said...
NAJ - PLEASE post your responses on the main blog page - I want everyone to see this. This should be interesting...Good luck on your exam.
At November 7, 2009 6:19 AM ,
Anonymous said...
It's a pity really that Dr Bob isn't an expert on vaccines.
If he had been, he would know that the second MMR recommended for children isn't as a "booster" because of waning immunity. It is to catch children who weren't immunised by the first dose.
Still, Bob's making a pile of dough out of all this, so what the hell if he doesn't know what he's talking about?
At November 8, 2009 2:28 AM ,
Anonymous said...
Hey annonymous,
Its interesting you say that. As, every single doctor that has tried forcing me and scaring me into vaccinating my son, are not experts either. But, yet are happy to tell me he is in danger, when they have not done their own homework....Each time I was considering vaccinating him, I would ask questions and no one knew how to answer them. On alot of literature it says it is a booster anyway...
No one can possibly know everything there is to know, and we all have new things to learn.
The sad thing is that some people pro claim to know everything and thats what stops us from moving forward with this crisis we are having.
At November 10, 2009 10:23 AM ,
Anonymous said...
there is no such thing as a "booster" of MMR. it is the same shot. it drives me mad to see such a trusted professional as dr sears refer to it as such and continue the misinformation.
from the CDC: "Why is a second dose of MMR necessary?
About 2%-5% of persons do not develop measles immunity after the first dose of vaccine. This occurs for a variety of reasons. The second dose is to provide another chance to develop measles immunity for persons who did not respond to the first dose."
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/combo-vaccines/mmr/faqs-mmr-hcp.htm
At November 10, 2009 6:52 PM ,
Anonymous said...
I am an RN who has worked in alternative medicine for 10 years. Our pediatrician has seen countless cases of children in our clinic, all of whom the parents state that their child was fine, progressing normally until a week after they received the MMR vaccine. Then, they regressed, stopped speaking, stopped affection, stopped eye contact, became withdrawn. Between the ages of 18 months and 3 years the immune system is still fragile and receiving 3 live vaccines at once is too much for their bodies to handle. Why are some kids okay with it? There are other factors involved, such as environment, genes, etc. But who knows which child will have a reaction until it is too late. I do not need scientific studies to prove this wrong. The many children I have seen with parents stating as I have mentioned is enough for me. I am not against the monovalent doses of MMR, if they become available, however they do need to be spaced apart.
At November 11, 2009 2:12 PM ,
Anonymous said...
BTW, it's very easy to get titres for measles. My daughter had an MMR at 15 months. I requested the titre at age 5. She was immune. I will test her again later on in life. For me, I had the measles vaccine around age 1 or 2, and had it again at 17. I didn't have the extra shot at 5. There is no reason not to get titres. (Our insurance could be better than others, I do understand that, and we live in a state that accepts titres.)
Also, if someone is exempted, it's very easy to pull up the complete vaccination form if need be. So, let's say there's a measles outbreak. I can prove my child had the MMR and is immune with simple documentation. Yet, in the meantime, I can exempt her to protect her from future forced nonsense like Gardasil, or whatever else.
Beth
At November 12, 2009 8:54 AM ,
Science Mom said...
there is no such thing as a "booster" of MMR. it is the same shot. it drives me mad to see such a trusted professional as dr sears refer to it as such and continue the misinformation.
Actually, even though it is the same vaccine, there is a 'booster' effect with subsequent doses. Look at any U.S. Mumps data and this for rubella: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10856790
I am an RN who has worked in alternative medicine for 10 years. Our pediatrician has seen countless cases of children in our clinic, all of whom the parents state that their child was fine, progressing normally until a week after they received the MMR vaccine. Then, they regressed, stopped speaking, stopped affection, stopped eye contact, became withdrawn. Between the ages of 18 months and 3 years the immune system is still fragile and receiving 3 live vaccines at once is too much for their bodies to handle. Why are some kids okay with it? There are other factors involved, such as environment, genes, etc. But who knows which child will have a reaction until it is too late. I do not need scientific studies to prove this wrong. The many children I have seen with parents stating as I have mentioned is enough for me. I am not against the monovalent doses of MMR, if they become available, however they do need to be spaced apart.
Too bad you let your personal biases preclude you from obtaining useful information from controlled clinical and/or epidemiological studies. Yes, you do need them to tell you what observations are real and what are not. Parental reporting is notoriously erroneous and biased and as a healthcare professional, you should know that.
Also, if someone is exempted, it's very easy to pull up the complete vaccination form if need be. So, let's say there's a measles outbreak. I can prove my child had the MMR and is immune with simple documentation. Yet, in the meantime, I can exempt her to protect her from future forced nonsense like Gardasil, or whatever else.
Beth, Most exemptions do not work like this, they are all or nothing in the school's perspective. So if you have an exemption and suddenly provide proof of vaccinations as it suits you, then the exemption will become invalid. There is good reason not to get titres; they can be very traumatic for children and you can't guarantee that a girl, for instance, is going to keep up on this to ensure her immunity to rubella prior to child-bearing. Many states do not accept titres also.
At November 12, 2009 5:39 PM ,
Anonymous said...
Our state does accept titres. And, as long as she's in my house, I'm going to make sure she checks them. I would get her the MMR again pre-puberty (so, around 10 or 11), assuming her titres are no longer good. If she has good titres, I'll get her the MMR before college.
Neither of my kids finds blood draws to be traumatic. (They're not too traumatized by shots, either, but it's my younger child's reactions that our troubling, not either kid's immediate fear and/or pain.)
We turned in her titre record with her exemption, since the most likely exclusion would be for chicken pox (in fact, I'm recently hearing of outbreaks among twice-vaccinated children). Her exemption post-dates any vaccinations she has received; that works in our state.
Beth
Post a Comment
<< Home