Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

To vaccinate newborn or not

714 replies

confusedaboutclothes · 10/01/2024 10:37

I know this is a very sensitive subject, but i’m asking please for FACTS only - I don’t want answers like ‘because the NHS recommends you to vaccinate your baby etc’

Id like to point out i’m not ‘anti vax’ as such, but covid really opened my eyes to researching vaccines etc i’ve done my own research on whether i should be vaccinating my newborn but it’s hard to find unbiased facts.

What I don’t like, is the pressure that is put on us to do as we’re told with our babies. I don’t like the constant reminders, the phone calls and the pressure to vaccinate - it all feels like a box ticking exercise not because the NHS are actually worried about my baby.

Please be kind, I really am confused about this and would love some different perspectives

OP posts:
Thread gallery
27
startatthegin · 10/01/2024 17:11

I think all it would take is for a few kids to be allowed to sue their parents for the sequalae of these illnesses if they weren't vaccinated, for parents to get a grip.

I know of a woman at 25 who has cervical cancer at her first smear. Mum didn't consent for her to be vaccinated at 15 as it was 'too early'. Too late now.

Sidge · 10/01/2024 17:05

Tryingmybestadhd · 10/01/2024 12:55

It’s different. They get paid a incentive not to give the vaccine so your comparison makes nil sense .verbena is right they get bit incentives , I don’t think people realise this .

No we don't.

We get no financial incentives for giving baby/childhood vaccines. It's part of our global sum under our contract.

We get QOF points for demonstrating that we've offered them and kept a record of vaccinations. Not for actually giving them.

CouCouCachou · 10/01/2024 17:05

Ann3347 · 10/01/2024 16:40

Long term side effects are not looked for in vaccines it doesn't mean they are not there.
Like I said before there should be large scale studies comparing overall health of vaccinated vs unvaccinated. There aren't any substantial ones I wonder why?

you can do a brief version of this by looking at the numbers of deaths caused by vaccine preventable diseases in countries with poor vaccine provision vs countries with good vaccine provision.

Topjoe19 · 10/01/2024 17:03

If you ever use the NHS for help for your poorly child, one of the first things theu do is they will ask you if your child has had their vaccinations.

What explanation will you give if you say no? What good reason will you give? And if your child god forbid have an illness that you could (& should) have vaccinated them against, how would that make you feel knowing you could have protected them but you didn't?

Beezknees · 10/01/2024 17:03

Why on earth would you take the anti vaxxers seriously? Those people don't have medical qualifications, they're just gobshites online who think they're intelligent because they're not "sheep" as they like to say.

Ann3347 · 10/01/2024 17:00

Biochemist · 10/01/2024 16:52

Both these points are untrue.

I gave an explanation as to why long-term emerging side effects are not biologically plausible in my PP (which you quoted but are ignoring!)

There are numerous studies that look at outcomes in vaccinated vs unvaccinated populations - it seems that you are not trying very hard to find this primary evidence? Or are just repeating claims from people who don't bother looking either?

The anti-vaccine industry, and how it is spreading from US to the UK, is deeply depressing.

I've looked for studies and the only ones I've found are small scale and show unvaccinated are healthier. I'd 100% read any you can link for me please.

Biochemist · 10/01/2024 16:57

confusedaboutclothes · 10/01/2024 16:52

It doesn’t sound like you’re read the whole thread or even any of my replies. I’m not sure why there was a need to be so rude, but i’ve actually had
more helpful (unfortunately not
yours) and factual responses from MN that any information that has been provided to be from
the NHS.

@confusedaboutclothes sadly this has been something has been highly politicised so on the internet you are going to be faced with a tsunami of things that are untrue, including on MN.

I would suggest looking at charities that are focussed on childhood health, like Tommy's. I would also question why you are happy to follow NHS guidance on all other aspects of your health, but are suddenly distrustful when it comes to vaccination.

There is a reason that these vaccines are recommended globally - simply because it is is better for your child to have them than to not.

I would just be aware that there is real issue with the anti-vaccine industry, and how powerful and lucrative it has become, especially in the age of social media. I'm an epidemiologist and it is considered to be a huge threat in terms on undermining public health and the things that we can do to improve health and wellbeing around the world.

justteanbiscuits · 10/01/2024 16:56

Happybunnytoday · 10/01/2024 16:47

Actually, not really. And I’m not really getting your point. As I said above, real world evidence, which is a long term follow up and evidence that drugs actually work outside of the clinical trial setting, is needed for all drugs, whether trial lasted two years or five, to be able to declare that a drug has a favourable safety profile. Patients in trials aren’t followed up forever and there is only a very small number of them anyway. You cannot just claim that trial wasn’t conducted correctly based on your “logic”. There are regulations and all sort of scientists working on trial designs, and health authorities that also include scientist that review it all. And yes there are bad trials out there, but COVID wasn’t one of them, perhaps also because of the worldwide scrutiny.

(sorry, edited as quoted wrong post)

confusedaboutclothes · 10/01/2024 16:52

AffableApple · 10/01/2024 16:24

Yeah so you say you want "facts". Then you dismiss the "NHS recommendations". You'd rather ask about on Mumsnet for opinions rather than deal in scientific evaluation leading to widely-researched recommendations. Here's a fact for you: If I hadn't had my babies vaccinated, if I brought mine near yours at a playgroup or restaurant or supermarket, and they got ill - with say measles - yours could die or have life-changing consequences. Good enough? (Mine could too, but you don't care about them.) YABVU.

It doesn’t sound like you’re read the whole thread or even any of my replies. I’m not sure why there was a need to be so rude, but i’ve actually had
more helpful (unfortunately not
yours) and factual responses from MN that any information that has been provided to be from
the NHS.

OP posts:
Biochemist · 10/01/2024 16:52

Ann3347 · 10/01/2024 16:40

Long term side effects are not looked for in vaccines it doesn't mean they are not there.
Like I said before there should be large scale studies comparing overall health of vaccinated vs unvaccinated. There aren't any substantial ones I wonder why?

Both these points are untrue.

I gave an explanation as to why long-term emerging side effects are not biologically plausible in my PP (which you quoted but are ignoring!)

There are numerous studies that look at outcomes in vaccinated vs unvaccinated populations - it seems that you are not trying very hard to find this primary evidence? Or are just repeating claims from people who don't bother looking either?

The anti-vaccine industry, and how it is spreading from US to the UK, is deeply depressing.

Happybunnytoday · 10/01/2024 16:47

Ann3347 · 10/01/2024 16:23

No offense but it only takes logic to know if a new drug has only been in a human for one year you cannot know the possible (long term) side effects.

Actually, not really. And I’m not really getting your point. As I said above, real world evidence, which is a long term follow up and evidence that drugs actually work outside of the clinical trial setting, is needed for all drugs, whether trial lasted two years or five, to be able to declare that a drug has a favourable safety profile. Patients in trials aren’t followed up forever and there is only a very small number of them anyway. You cannot just claim that trial wasn’t conducted correctly based on your “logic”. There are regulations and all sort of scientists working on trial designs, and health authorities that also include scientist that review it all. And yes there are bad trials out there, but COVID wasn’t one of them, perhaps also because of the worldwide scrutiny.

Ann3347 · 10/01/2024 16:40

Biochemist · 10/01/2024 16:30

But this is a complete misunderstanding of vaccines and immunology

Vaccines are not "drugs" and they're not "in a human" for any substantial period of time

For medications which are taken continually, there is the potential for long-term emerging side effects, because the drug is present within the body for this time.

For a vaccine, side effects can only emerge in the short or mid term (i.e., days to weeks). Your immune system produces a response and quickly degrades the antigen which is the active component of an innoculation.

It is biologically implausible for someone to suddenly have a side effects from a vaccine they had a year ago, which is why the world's scientists and clinicians are confident in the safety profiles of SARS-COV-2 vaccines*.

*not going to derail the thread but yes there are those using a dr/professor title who are making a career out being an anti- evidence based science contrarian, however it is easy to disprove their claims if you have the time/patience to follow them back

Long term side effects are not looked for in vaccines it doesn't mean they are not there.
Like I said before there should be large scale studies comparing overall health of vaccinated vs unvaccinated. There aren't any substantial ones I wonder why?

enchantedsquirrelwood · 10/01/2024 16:33

ItsTheDramaaMick · 10/01/2024 13:23

If you choose not to vaccinate your child you should have to pay privately if they need icu

Well then we'll start making everyone pay privately who is obese, does not exercise, smokes, drinks to excess, takes drugs, takes part in winter sports, drive s a car, falls over on ice because they wore the wrong shoes.

No. It is always a personal choice. And if your children are vaccinated, it doesn't affect you what someone else does. I don't know why people get so emotional about it, it's like the smear test thing. It doesn't affect me whether you get a smear test or not!

I don't agree there's a social contract either - if your child is the one who is vaccine injured, nobody will help you. Ultimately you have to weigh up the tiny risk of the vaccine against the greater risks of getting the illness and make your mind up.

I also think women who are TTC should take responsibility for themselves and make sure they are vaccinated against rubella and chicken pox if they weren't as a child.

Biochemist · 10/01/2024 16:30

Ann3347 · 10/01/2024 16:23

No offense but it only takes logic to know if a new drug has only been in a human for one year you cannot know the possible (long term) side effects.

But this is a complete misunderstanding of vaccines and immunology

Vaccines are not "drugs" and they're not "in a human" for any substantial period of time

For medications which are taken continually, there is the potential for long-term emerging side effects, because the drug is present within the body for this time.

For a vaccine, side effects can only emerge in the short or mid term (i.e., days to weeks). Your immune system produces a response and quickly degrades the antigen which is the active component of an innoculation.

It is biologically implausible for someone to suddenly have a side effects from a vaccine they had a year ago, which is why the world's scientists and clinicians are confident in the safety profiles of SARS-COV-2 vaccines*.

*not going to derail the thread but yes there are those using a dr/professor title who are making a career out being an anti- evidence based science contrarian, however it is easy to disprove their claims if you have the time/patience to follow them back

enchantedsquirrelwood · 10/01/2024 16:28

porridgeisbae · 10/01/2024 13:57

@confusedaboutclothes Some people had bad reactions/symptoms from the covid jab. I imagine negative consequences of the routine vaccines are far, far less common.

Exactly. Also, everyone was being vaccinated against covid in a very short period - so all the side effects happened together and made it seem like there were a lot more than there were.

bobomomo · 10/01/2024 16:27

The diseases that are vaccinated against killed thousands of babies in Britain every year before vaccination, what's more is that they are still endemic in parts of the world so if you travel, or someone travels here from other parts of the globe your child is at risk.

The main early infant vaccinations are been around in different combinations since before I was born, the mmr (given at a year) is over 30 years old.

justteanbiscuits · 10/01/2024 16:25

Ann3347 · 10/01/2024 16:23

No offense but it only takes logic to know if a new drug has only been in a human for one year you cannot know the possible (long term) side effects.

It also takes logic to understand that MRNA vaccine trials well predated Covid.

AffableApple · 10/01/2024 16:24

Yeah so you say you want "facts". Then you dismiss the "NHS recommendations". You'd rather ask about on Mumsnet for opinions rather than deal in scientific evaluation leading to widely-researched recommendations. Here's a fact for you: If I hadn't had my babies vaccinated, if I brought mine near yours at a playgroup or restaurant or supermarket, and they got ill - with say measles - yours could die or have life-changing consequences. Good enough? (Mine could too, but you don't care about them.) YABVU.

Ann3347 · 10/01/2024 16:23

Happybunnytoday · 10/01/2024 16:06

You literally do not know what you’re talking about. Drugs in clinical trials aren’t given to people for years, usually it’s a set time eg weeks or months. However, trial starts when first patient is enrolled and ends when the last patient is enrolled, and yes this time can take years until the desired number of patient has been enrolled. Especially for rare diseases where certain diseases aren’t common so trialing a drug in sufficing amount of people can take a very long time.

I left academia few years ago and I now work in early and late stage clinical trials. So you don’t really understand trial design to insist trials have to take years. For COVID, patients were treated for five days, and there were approx 1500 patients enrolled in treatment arm. If they were enrolled fast, trial didn’t have to take years and so it took just over a year. It doesn’t mean corners were cut.

No offense but it only takes logic to know if a new drug has only been in a human for one year you cannot know the possible (long term) side effects.

TizerorFizz · 10/01/2024 16:23

If insufficient DC are vaccinated, no dc is covered - certainly for some vaccinations like MMR. It’s not just about your child, it’s about protecting all dc. I agree that if parents understood about measles, pregnant women getting German measles and the outcomes as well as other awful outcomes from childhood illness we would embrace vaccinations. As those who went through childhood illnesses did when vaccinations became available. They are a wonder of science,

paulhollywoodshairgel · 10/01/2024 16:19

My dad telling me about whole families being wiped out by measles, diphtheria and polio scared me as a kid. Also telling me when they invented the polio vaccine families queuing round the block to get it. There was no way I wouldn't get my kiddos vaccinated and gasp they've both had the covid vaccine. They save lives and eradicate illnesses.

confusedaboutclothes · 10/01/2024 16:11

EvelynBeatrice · 10/01/2024 15:06

You just want the best for your child and given the deplorable character and judgement displayed by our politicians and many doctors all over the press, I don't blame you for the nervousness about trusting others generally.
All I can share is my own thought processes. I looked at statistics and so on and this cemented my preconception that immunisation is one of the greatest things invented for the human race. As my children didn't have any extraordinary risk factors, I didn't worry about baby vaccinations but was a bit concerned about the vaccine against cervical cancer for teenage girls first brought in when my eldest was in that age range. New and no track record at that time. Though I knew my way round statistics etc I'm no biochemist , but I checked with my lovely sister in law who is and she was a fan and had her own girls done, so that was good enough for me.
I believe there is a risk - yes- in extremely rare cases people are damaged by vaccines, but you have to look at greater likelihoods of benefit and the risk of and damage from the disease.

I think this has summed up exactly where my ‘alternative’ thinking has stemmed from.
The lack of uncertainty around the government and other things in the media has made me question things that I know usually I wouldn’t. From all the replies, benefits far outweigh any risks though, thank you

OP posts:
SherbetDips · 10/01/2024 16:11

vqccinations have wiped out a lot of deadly childhood diseases in the country.

I think it’s your responsibility as a parent to make your own choices tho. Stupid ones personally but yours the same.

Itsreallynotdifficult · 10/01/2024 16:10

100% vaccinate. These vaccines have been around for years saving lives, preventing diseases etc. never ending amount of research and facts to prove this. Agree in regards to the Covid vaccine though, we haven’t had it, it was rushed and absolutely not enough research and long term results to risk it