Mumsnet has not checked the qualifications of anyone posting here. If you have any medical concerns we suggest you consult your GP.
ZOMBIE THREAD ALERT: This thread hasn't been posted on for a while.
If you know more than me about vaccination(196 Posts)
I am researching vaccinations and am interested in opinions/knowledge on the following issues which worry me, if you think I am wrong please correct me, I am not looking to get flamed or start a fight, just researching and trying to make decisions. These are my thoughts and worries based on my research so far, I am looking for more knowledge:
1 - Dwindling natural immunity to disease, so antibodies not being passed on through breastmilk from mothers who have been vaccinated and so have not been allowed to build natural immunity.
2 - Associations with cot death, i.e. same time frame as vaccination schedule
3 - Damage to immune system by vaccination. Mainly that since vaccinations were introduced chronic illnesses have rapidly risen
4 - High levels of vaccinated children contracting diseases and finding it harder to fight them off
5 - Toxins and preservatives in vaccines
6 - Suppressed reactions to vaccines causing a compromised immune system which finds it hard to fight illness and possibly causes chronic illness
7 - Bypassing natural immune response system
Thanks again, I am looking for a reasoned debate if possible, not a hate campaign like so many other vax threads turn into!
My worry is the real possibility of death or serious impairment from disease. For me, it trumps all of those theoretical worries. I also want to add to herd immunity for those children who cannot be vaccinated.
Well all those worries are very real as well....
As is the possibility of death or serious impairment from vaccination reactions
Actually that's a point...
8 - Those who cannot be vaccinated...is it because it would further impair their immune system or only because their immune system is currently impaired and would find it hard to fight disease?
I think you could rework your questions to be more objective. At present, IMO they read rather like a treatise from an anti-vaccinationist. Though I don't know how you came to formulate them, so maybe I'm reading too much between the lines!
Perhaps you could also consider the following (numbers refer to your questions above):
1. Is "natural" immunity different (physiologically speaking) from that gained via vaccination? If so, how? Is one better than the other? If so, why?
2. What are the statistics for SIDS in unvaccinated babies versus vaccinated babies? Are there any confounding factors eg parental smoking, which must be controlled for?
3. Stats to verify the assertion that chronic illnesses (such as?) have risen with increased use of vaccinations. Again, are there any confounding factors (eg obesity, increased longevity)?
4. See 3 above - evidence required.
5. Define "toxin", and examine evidence of harm caused by like substances (NOT simply deciding that because a compound shares an element with other, toxic, compounds, it must itself be harmful).
6. Again, evidence is required.
7. See 1 above.
By "evidence", I think you should be looking for as many properly conducted, peer reviewed, controlled medical studies as you can - both which support and contradict the assertions you list. Be somewhat wary of second-hand reports eg in newspapers, or be aware of the particular agenda that that source may have. Meta-analyses can be particularly helpful.
Good luck - I'd be interested to know what you find.
As a science teacher not a scientist i would certainly argue about point number 1
Vaccinations trigger a natural immune response from your body and therefore give natural immunity that can also be passed on in breast milk but those effects do wear off fairly soon!
I will also add that with the increased use of antibiotics people are recovering better from infections but these can lead to other problems too - in general the health of the population in the UK (not sure where you are) is still improving and vaccinations have formed a part of that.
Where have you done your research, there's a lot of quack websites ignore anything that links to a website called whale.
1. Immunity is passed on from the mother to the child ie measles it averages out about a week or two less not much though.
2. There is no link with cot death. The rumour is based on a woman called Vera Schreibner. She claimed that there were no cases of sids in Japan after they moved the dtp vaccines to 2years of age. Children were still dying of sids at the same rates but could no longer be listed on the vaccine reporting system because they weren't vaccine. Schreibner claimed there was no more sids because they were no longer listed.She ignored the fact children hstilled of sids and more started to die from whooping cough.
3. No evidence for this at all. In fact vaccines tend to prevent things like diabetes as it often occurs after virus.
4. The majority of children who catch disease are unvaccinated vaccinated children tend to catch disease much milder.
5. Not sure what you mean by toxins. If you mean aluminium and terminal. The amount of aluminium in a vaccine is tiny and you will pass on through breast milk or in the food you eat.
Mercury is no longer used in most of baby jabs and never in mmr. Again there evidence that it is harmful.
6.never seen any evidence for it and have asked many times from those who claim but not got a reply.
7.again never seen any evidence that this is a problem.
I am on phone so came do links but will do later.
I have a friend whose wee one has cancer. If vaccinating my DD can help children like him, I'm there. DD is healthy so vaccination poses a far, far smaller risk than the risk of disease for her.
I'm no expert; but my responses are:
1) it doesn't matter how the mother acquired her antibodies, they will be passed on in utero (eg for measles - the typical wearing off period for maternal antibodies is a year, which is why first dose MMR is 13 months) and the passing of protective antibodies in breastmilk (ie mother exposed, her immune system swings into action, baby benefits from their protection to some degree) also happens regardless of how mother became immune. Immunity can wear off for some diseases, regardless of whether acquired by disease or immunisation, and if that has happened then the protective effect will not happen.
2) none known. SIDS rates have dropped since 1970s, despite more vax on the schedule and better uptake.
3) no evidence for this
4) no evidence for this
5) thiomerosal has been phased out. Preservatives are necessary in all medicines, and I'm not sure what toxins you might mean. There is rigorous safety testing, and continual review of all paediatric (and other) medicines as part of licensing conditions.
7) ? I suppose you mean that wild microbes encounter other parts of the immune system (mucus membranes etc) in their route to infecting the body. But if you look at say the polio vax (used to be oral, now by injection), there is no evidence that 'bypassing' has made any difference at all.
Apologies meant to say. You have more aluminium in food and breast milk than in vaccines and the body eliminates it very quickly.
1. The immunity to measles inherited from a mother through passive immunity in the womb will last only a week or two longer if wild than if mother was vaccinated. It makes very little difference.
Thanks for responses. Most of my research so far has come from various websites and a pamphlet called "dispelling vaccination myths" by Alan Phillips?
I hadn't searched him online yet but am getting the 'whale' site someone mentioned...what's the issue with this site?
2. There is no link with cot death. The rumour is based on a woman called Vera Schreibner. She claimed that there were no cases of sids in Japan after they moved the dtp vaccines to 2years of age. Children were still dying of sids at the same rates but could no longer be listed on the vaccine reporting system because they weren't vaccine. Schreibner claimed there was no more sids because they were no longer listed.She ignored the fact children hstilled of sids and more started to die from whooping cough.*
It's things like this that worry me, studies can really be adapted or presented in any way to give the results you want. It makes it extremely hard to do research and make a decision!
Whale was banned from wikipedia because he couldn't back anything he said. Its all scaremongering, full of dodgy papers like the Vera Schreibner one. Lots of information misrepresented ie graphs missing years so they tell a different story.
Ok, well having looked at the whale site I can see the pamphlet is basically the same. However, he doesn't seem to have an agenda or monetary gain to be made so the points still concern me.
I am not sure where I read about the antibodies not being passed on in the same way if you have been vaccinated. Will see if I can back track and find out.
Everyone has an agenda. That's life.
Stargirl, you are not really helping, have I offended you in some way by asking for information?
Um, no. Sorry. I thought you asked for opinions. I'll bow out. My sincere apologies.
Yep I did, but I wasn't sure that you were giving an opinion or just trying to enforce yours on me.
No need to bow out, just wondering if I had upset you.
In answer to your post about your friend, I wonder whether you would change your mind if your DD hadn't ended up healthy as a direct result of the vaccine.
I honestly don't know. The risk of disease seems so high to me. I had myself vaccinated for whooping cough when she was 6 weeks old to try to reduce her risk. I was utterly terrified she would catch it. There were 5 babies under 12 weeks with WC in ICU in the local area when she was born. I didn't go anywhere or allow many visitors till her first set vaccinations.
Hmmm...according to the pamphlet I am reading the risk of the vaccine is higher, although bruffin says this is bad information. I'm not sure, you can see it here if you're interested:
It's really bad science but...I go with what happened to 'everyone' I know. Bloody shocking really!
I got laser eye surgery because 'everyone' I know who had it was fine. There are risks associated - I nearly backed out signing the waiver. 'Sands of the Sahara' syndrome did NOT sound pleasant!
I don't anyone who has been damaged by vaccines. I do, however, have older relatives who have been damaged by diseases caught in infancy.
I think it's harder for our generation as it was very unusual for children to catch these diseases when we were at school. I don't know anyone in my generation who had measles, whooping cough, etc.
It would appear that infant mortality has declined since the introduction of widespread vaccination. This does mean there will always be a few unfortunate casualties who would've been better off without vaccination.
On the balance of probability, I think DD is more at risk of the disease than the vaccine. Life is risk, life is choice.
Join the discussion
Please login first.