Right ... I'm at work and a quick run through my internet history has brought these up
*Here is one that discusses the way that maternal antibodies (in this case for whooping cough) effectively blunt a newborn’s immune system from developing antibodies in the first months of life
https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/752408_4
*Here is an interesting one that discusses preemies in particular and weighs up the pros (protecting those most at risk) and cons (immature immune systems in those born at less than 32 weeks gestation)
https://adisonline.com/pediatrics/A...tive_Immunization_of_Premature_and_Low.3.aspx
*This explains how long term immunity is achieved both in terms of the body’s responses and effective immunisation
https://www.who.int/immunization/documents/Elsevier_Vaccine_immunology.pdf
*Here is a study carried out in the US that seems to show that early immunisation (in this case with the measles vaccine) ‘primes’ the body for a better antibody response once the booster is given (thus providing better protection long term)
https://www.jstor.org/pss/30077588
*This one explains both why it is important for very young babies to be protected (against whooping cough in particular) and why the doses are spaced as they are (to achieve maximum protection during the first year of life when the risk of both contracting diseases and suffering complications is highest)
*https://ecdc.europa.eu/en/publicati...tific_Panel_on_Childhood_Immunisation_DTP.pdf
I still for the life of me cannot find the specific paper I was reading yesterday that summarised independent studies in the US, New Zealand and Germany
… it seems to have vanished from my ‘History’ and I can’t remember the search parameters I used - I'll keep looking though
It’s
really annoying that these studies are always tucked away in scientific journals and often only available if you subscribe
It's actually a fascinating subject ... I've become quite hooked - and learned a lot!