To not give my children the swine flu vaccine?

[wintersnow]

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?

bubbleymummy

It's not hard to measure severity of an illness. It's established that children who have been immunised experience a milder form of the disease if they contract it.

I don't expect my children to be 100% protected. I'm aware that vaccines aren't 100%. But their risk is far reduced. I wonder how many of those 4,648 cases were accounted for by the unvaccinated 5%.

Do you honestly think that vaccines offer no protection against disease??????

Do you honestly think that vaccines pose no risk??????

Stata, I think it's very difficult to know how much protection they do actually offer when vaccinated people still contract the disease and other factors come in to play that could also impact on disease fatality eg. improved sanitation, better nutrition, use of vitamin A supplements for treatment of measles, availability of antibiotics for complications such as pneumonia. I have to say that I think the role of vaccines in reducing disease incidence and fatality may be a lot less than what we are led to believe.

In that link, the unvaccinated actually made up less than 5% of the population although who really knows how many of the other 'vaccinated' people were also vaccine failures but didn't catch the disease or caught it relatively mildly. Even if you took it that the entire

How can you establish that a vaccinated child has a milder case? They may have had a mild case anyway - there is no way of knowing for that particular individual.

'They all carry risks and some side effects may not show up for years or could show up as something that people wouldn't think of attributing to the vaccine.'

that is the key. People say I had it and I'm alright. How do you know what the long term effect is?

In answer to the questions, no, i don't expect a vaccine to work 100%. And I don't need it to work 100% in order to take it. What I do need to know is that the risks of the disease outweigh the risk of the vaccination. We've been vaccinating for generations now, plenty of time to see a long term effect.

Of course, there are treatments available for the complications of measles which means even in developed countries far less children will die of it. But if I can avoid having my child hospitalised and being pumped full of antibiotics to treat pneumonia, then i will certainly do it.

Vaccines save lives. There's no other reason to do it. It's also the reason why the Gates foundation have chosen to focus on immunisations - it's a failsafe way to save lives. Sounds good to me.

www.gatesfoundation.org/vaccines/Pages/default.aspx

I should say that risk of the disease and the efficacy of the vaccine together.

I'm also wondering if the anti-vaccine movement extends to ALL vaccines.

If you were bitten by a rabid dog, would you get the rabies vaccine?

If you trod on a rusty nail, would you get the tetanus vaccine?

Do you think the smallpox vaccine campaign was a good thing for the world or would you rather be in an unimmunised world facing smallpox?

I don't know much about the Gates Foundation. Do they save lives by feeding the starving or is their focus mainly vaccination programs?

My point is that we don't fully know the risks of the vaccine so it isn't possible to accurately weight up risks vs benefits of disease vs vaccine. I guess I'm more in the 'better the devil you know' camp :)

A vaccine against malaria would probably save more children's lives than any other single campaign right now...

they save lives by vaccinating children so that those children can grow into healthy and productive adults.

Completely agree heathen.

The Gates foundation are talking about rolling one out in 2013. Only 60-70% efficacy but think of the lives that would be saved.

yes I thought so

So am I bubbly. We KNOW that measles, polio, pertussis, diptheria, tetanus kill. So far, vaccines have been shown to be safe. We could be wrong but that's the best evidence to date. I far prefer the devil I know.

As in Bill Gates using his own money (and Warren Buffet's) to pay for vaccinations since he has been convicned that it is the most cost-effective way to improve health and well-being. I agree with him.

claig you mentioned the age at which vaccinations are given....
Immunization schedules are not one of those things that is delayed based upon prematurity. In other words, vaccination is based upon time after birth not gestational age. So 7 or 8 weeks makes little difference on the immune responce that takes place.

claig

would you get vaccinated against rabies if you were bitten by a rabid dog or would you take your chances?

would you get a tetanus shot if you stood on a rusty nail?

What about all the healthy children and adults who die because of starvation and disease due to lack of clean water? Aren't there more of those that could be saved than the ones that can be helped by vaccination?

claig have you been vaccinated against anything? Or vaccinated your children against anything?

thanks tryingtobemarypoppins2.

The BMGF do work on reducing diarrhoeal disease, including water and sanitation.

They also do cross-cutting work on under-nutrition. But they found that the toll of childhood disease on an already malnourished population was devastating. Vaccines also offer the prospect of eliminating the disease completely, eg smallpox. It might be achieved with polio in our lifetimes. Don't you think that a polio-free world would be wonderful?

Yes, stata, we also know that vaccines have killed some people too and we don't know what they do long term. No vaccine trial is followed up for that long. With vaccine benefits being exaggerated, them wearing off and/or failing altogether how can you make an accurate comparison of whether the risk of getting the vaccine is safer than catching the disease, particularly when we are fortunate enough to live in a country with good sanitation, nutrition, healthcare etc.

There have been many instances where drugs that were said to be 'perfectly safe', effective and that any side effects they may have had were outweighed by their benefits have been withdrawn because they were found to be not as safe as expected. Can you not even consider the possibility that vaccines may not be as safe as we've been told?

Yes I had some vaccines when I was young and my DS also had some vaccines. But now I know more about it, so I am much more wary of vaccines.

I don't know about rabies and tetanus, I would have to look into it and ask for medical advice. If it was possible to do without the vaccines then I would go without.

I don't undderstand rabies and this may be naive. Why take a rabies vaccine after you have already been bitten?

bubbley

Vaccines have been studied so much because of all the hype about their safety. What outcome are you concerned about?

Vaccines may have killed some people. Diseases have killed LOTS of people. Everything has some risk attached. Catching measles is far more risky than being vaccinated.

Again, same questin, would you get a rabies vaccine if you were bitten by a rabid dog (or give it to your children). Or the tetanus vaccine if you trod on a rusty nail?