5 month imms - Necessary?

If he's woken with a temp this late in the day you need to take him back to the doctor, that's NOT normal, and may be an adverse reaction to one of the imm's.

Have you given pamol and if so has the temp started to come down? Is it a slight temp or quite high?

I personally would take him to an ED (not to freak you out but my Paed says at night to take Jake straight to ED rather than an after hours!) if pamol has not lowered the temp or it has gotten higher...

It is worth investigating as I opted out of giving my DS the next MMR injection which was offered during the outbreak in ChCh.

Something like 80% of children are immunised after the first vaccine. I was happy with that and am tossing up still whether to vaccinate for MMR again at 4 years as only 95% of children are covered after both injections.

Am thinking if he needs a blood test between now and then I am going to get his immunity to everything tested.

I am trying to find the site that I found my stats on but can't at the moment. Its def worth looking at the figures though.

Edited by Peanut

nkap9 wrote: But unfortunately they need all the jabs to be protected.

I could be wrong but when I looked into this I found that this isn't true. Some kids will be protected after 1 immunisation and the reason they do 2 or 3 in some cases is to bring the numbers up. I also find it interesting that some kids can have the full course and not be immunised at the end of it.

If it was me, I would give it 24 hours and see how things were going before deciding about the 5month jabs. My DD always got a temp and majorly grumpy each time for a couple of days (later we found out she had allergies to some of the components in the jabs), but generally as she got older, she reacted less. The volume of vaccine they give is the same, regardless of whether they are 6 weeks or 6 years, so the older they get, the better they cope.

You don't have to do the third lot, but as others have said, some kddies are not protected by just the 2 doses - and unless you get a blood test to check for antibody levels, you won't know if your son is in that number or not.

I guess I look at it that my DD having a mild temp and being grumpy for a couple of days is still far better than if she actually contracted any of the diseases that the vaccines offer some protection against. I would suggest doing your own research though, so you feel comfortable with whatever decision you make. Hope he's feeling better soon - it's hard when they're so little and you can't do an awful lot to make them feel better.

Peanut wrote: nkap9 wrote: But unfortunately they need all the jabs to be protected. I could be wrong but when I looked into this I found that this isn't true. Some kids will be protected after 1 immunisation and the reason they do 2 or 3 in some cases is to bring the numbers up. I also find it interesting that some kids can have the full course and not be immunised at the end of it.

Oh yeah, I forgot my mum's work colleagues grandson had the full course and didn't end up fully protected.

The nurse told me they need all to be protected, then again she would say that as she has to promote it to us!

I found the 3 month jabs the worst too. He hardly grizzled at all when he actually got the injection, but he was really upset etc for a couple of days afterwards. I had pretty much the exact reaction you are having now, should I continue. After a lot of thought and consideration we will be continuing with the next lot, I'll let you know in a couple of weeks how the 5 month ones were in comparison.

But, I have been told that the 3 month ones are by far the worst

DD gets a temp after her jabs, and is pretty grumpy, but I'm not too worried. Rather that than she gets meningitis or something. Our 5 month jabs were fairly similar to our 3 month jabs, for us the 6 week ones were the worst. Although for the 3 and 5 month jabs we gave her pamol as soon as we got home rather than waiting until she got a temp like at 6 weeks. I think she needed pamol twice on the day of jabs and then again at around 5 the next morning (her jabs were all around noon). The hardest part for me was knowing that it was something I'd inflicted on her, although I made DH hold her for the jabs

At the end of the day it's your choice - as others have said, do your research and pick the option that sits well with you.

My personal opinion is that I would rather deal with a day or so of discomfit rather than having my boy contract a serious preventable disease like polio.

Ah, here we are - a quote that explains my view a lot better than I actually do:

"Some parents focus on the side effects of the immunisations more than on the diseases the child is protected from. It is important to understand that the risk of serious complications in connection with vaccination is very low, compared to the risk from the diseases should a child contract them." from www.immune.org.nz

The latest North & South magazine has as its cover story all about immunisation if you are interested.

Personally I would immunise -- I lived in the Middle East for a while and have seen the effects of those illnesses where there isn't an immunisation programme.