Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

To not give my children the swine flu vaccine?

652 replies

wintersnow · 17/12/2010 16:15

I decided not to last year as I wanted to wait and see how safe it was but am reconsidering this year after several people have died. Did you give it to your children and what were your reasons to give/not give it?

OP posts:
claig · 20/12/2010 15:28

where is the evidence-based research that it is safe? Why is it ok at 8 weeks? why not 7 weeks?

ArthurPewty · 20/12/2010 15:30

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

electra · 20/12/2010 15:31

Well I think we all want 'the best' for our children.

If 'the best' is not available for my child then I'll pass, thanks. Given that they were supposed to be having a 'preemptive' treatment and were not already ill.

TheCoalitionNeedsYou · 20/12/2010 15:34

Leonie - that is a huge logical leap.

"Because a causes b which is also caused by c, then a must also cause d which is caused by c"

TheCoalitionNeedsYou · 20/12/2010 15:37

electra - We all want 'the best' for everyone - but our resources are not unlimited.

If someone can't afford to take their children to see Santa in Lapland, do we say "oh well you can't go and see Santa at the school xmas party then - it' not the best'?

electra · 20/12/2010 15:39

TheCoalition - it sounds as if you are saying someone has to prove, for example - that vaccinating at 8 weeks 'causes harm'.

That is not ever going to happen. It is not in the interests of those who profit from vaccination schedules for any evidence to emerge that, actually vaxing 8 week old babies is not very good for them.

I am the one who needs to see proof that it is safe if I'm signing my child up to such an invasive procedure at such a young age (and having to consent on their behalf) There is no way that adopting some sort of blind faith will suffice for me.

claig · 20/12/2010 15:39

I think you have misunderstood what Leonie was saying.

electra · 20/12/2010 15:42

'If someone can't afford to take their children to see Santa in Lapland, do we say "oh well you can't go and see Santa at the school xmas party then - it' not the best'?'

Huh? What a strange analogy Hmm Anyway I've stated my points above. I think you are more or less agreeing with me, anyway - the system is not ideal because of cost. Yep, too right - so I'm keeping my kids away from it. Because it's a preemptive treatment on otherwise healthy people.

claig · 20/12/2010 15:42

that was of course meant for TheVaccineCoalitionNeedsYou

ArthurPewty · 20/12/2010 15:42

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

StataLover · 20/12/2010 18:12

Leonie

"2 weeks after viral infection? Not too much of a leap to conclude INJECTION OF VIRII, too ???"

And is that demonstrated in the statistics? It would be pretty easy to empirically test that hypothesis and show an association between vaccinations and SIDS if there was one, no need to speculate.

ArthurPewty · 20/12/2010 18:16

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

ArthurPewty · 20/12/2010 18:19

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

StataLover · 20/12/2010 18:26

Leonie

Children with measles don't die 'of measles' per se. They die of encephalitis or secondary infections such pneumonia. Vaccines elicit an immune response without having to suffer the disease, that's the whole point of them!

Even in developed countries, you're talking about a case fatality rate of 1 in 1,000 for measles, with higher levels of morbidity such as brain damage, deafness and blindness. Vaccines don't have anywhere near that rate of fatality or we'd be seeing hundreds of children dying from the measles vaccine.

So I guess you either
a) think the data are flawed (why? these are data from hospitals all around the world)
or
b) hundreds of children are dying in the UK from vaccines and thousands are being damaged but we don't know about it (how would that happen? what is their cause of death)

Abr1de · 20/12/2010 18:31

I already know of two people getting pneumonia in the last five days. Both previously had viruses that may or may not have been SF. Both are very, very ill. Why would you take the risk if you didn't have to?

StataLover · 20/12/2010 18:33

Leonie

"Do you think for ONE second they're going to let that out of the bag?"

Who is exactly is 'they'????

Are you seriously suggesting that there is data showing a link between SIDS and vaccinations and there's some conspiracy to suppress the data Shock potentially putting hundreds of children at risk. That's a very grave allegation.

tryingtobemarypoppins2 · 20/12/2010 18:36

I thought there was a link between SIDS and the DPT vaccination.....I think I was told this by a CONI nurse....

bubbleymummy · 20/12/2010 18:38

Stata - where are you getting this 1 in 1000 fatality rate for measles?

I posted another link earlier for you to regarding our discussion yesterday about herd immunity and measles outbreaks occurring in highly vaccinated populations. Here it is again to save you trawling back through lots of posts.. :)

StataLover · 20/12/2010 18:41

I also had a quick look at the Japan example. They delayed the pertussis vaccine from 3 months to 2 years in 1975. The rate of SIDS increased. So did pertussis cases. There was a slight decrease in severe reactions to the vaccine - but more than outweighed by the increase in SIDS and pertussis. THe vaccine has since been improved and has far less likelihood of any reaction. Clearly the Japanese weren't impressed with the results since they now give the DTP at 3 months.

tryingtobemarypoppins2 · 20/12/2010 18:42

Sorry to be clear:
"There was NO link between the DPT vaccination and SIDS dispite a rise in SIDS between 2-4 months"

StataLover · 20/12/2010 19:00

bubbley

Yes, I saw it. To be honest, I don't understand why that would be an argument not to innoculate. I'm not relying on herd immunity for my children's safety. Herd immunity exists but it's not 100% and vaccines aren't 100%. As those examples show, the people who are far less likely to contract a disease if herd immunity fails are the vaccinated. Those examples reinforced my thinking about vaccines - I want my children to be protected and can't rely just on herd immunity to achieve that protection.

StataLover · 20/12/2010 19:11

pag

I'm sorry for all the difficulties you've gone through. I think there could be a small sub-group of people for whom vaccines could be problematic. Since vaccines studies are done at the population level and either the group or the risk is small, we don't see the effect.

You're quite right to have your concerns taken seriously. But that doesn't mean that mass vaccination isn't right. If you said, look, I think we need to look at the markers for sub-populations who might be high risk, I'd say, that makes sense to me.

But to rubbish the huge amount of evidence that says that vaccines save lives, based on some fear that all medical professionals are in cahoots with the pharma companies, just doesn't hold water for me.

At the population level, vaccines don't have a negative effect - if it is then it's so small it can't be detected. But that doesn't mean that there can't be a very small group who have higher risk which is lost in the larger population. If I felt that my children were in that group, based on family history or whatever, then I probabyl wouldn't vaccinate. But I'd really really want everyone else, who don't have those concerns, to vaccinate theirs in order that my children are protected. And that's not the message I'm getting.

bubbleymummy · 20/12/2010 19:15

I wasn't using it as an argument not to vaccinate - iirc this particular discussion started in response to people using the 'herd immunity' argument as a reason TO vaccinate. ie they vaccinate to protect others. I think these types of figures call the herd immunity argument into question.

In '97 there was an outbreak of 4,648 cases in a population of 24,680 - that is over 18% of the population despite a measles vaccination rate of over 95%. That is an awful lot of 'vaccine failures' don't you think? Exactly how reliable is this measles vaccine? If it isn't going to prevent you from catching the disease then what is the point of introducing an unknown risk (because every vaccine carries a risk) by getting vaccinated. I don't buy the 'oh, you get a milder case if you're vaccinated' argument either because how on earth can anyone show that? You could have a mild case anyway!

Also, where did you get the 1 in a 1000 fatality figures again?

PrincessScrumpy · 20/12/2010 19:16

I'm not having it even though I'm asthmatic and DD (nearly 3) isn't having it either. I don't believe it's been tested enough and was rushed out as a knee-jerk reaction so calm people down.

DH had it in October 2009, then we were offered jab in Jan 2010. We stayed in the house and both myself and DD didn't catch it so that backed up my worries. To be honest it was simply a gut feeling. DD's had all her jab up to this point but something didn't sit well with me regarding this one. When doctor called to offer it (village doctor) he wasn't surprised when I said no so others must have said the same.

Also, when DH had swine flu, doctor said he wouldn't bother taking tamiflu if he caught it! The side affect of the tamiflu are worse than the flu and only save one day max (for usually healthy people - bit different if there are complications).

Know lots who have had it and they seem fine though. Go with your gut feeling. If they've had it you're not supposed to catch it again.

LifeForRent · 20/12/2010 19:21

I was 7 months pregnant last December and refused the swine flu jab as it hadn't
a) been around long enough to see the long lasting effects
b) been tested on pregnant women (as they can't do it).

Same goes this year, I'm avoiding all jabs at all cost for me and my ds, I think the majority are unnecessary-it's mostly hype.

Double check about the people who died, you'll find the majority are very old, very very young, or have illnesses or weak hearts/prone to infections etc. Don't be scare mongered!

Swipe left for the next trending thread