To think this nurse was exaggerating the truth...

[Likeaheadlesschicken]

I have just been to take my DD (13 months) for her injections. I very politely requested to have the 12 month boosters on a separate visit to the MMR. The nurse then told me that every other child in the country has their's together. AIBU to think this isnt the case???

In the end she agreed but after trying to make me feel silly and very PFB-ish. I definately don't want to turn this into a MMR/vaccinations debate, I just feel that it should be "my baby my choice" on how things are done (obviously working within the constraints of the NHS) and that it simply isn't true that ALL children have their injections together.

Dementedhousewife I'm sorry to hear about your sister.

The vaccine used now against pertussis is enormously different to the one that used to be given. You can also get a vaccine against diphtheria tetanus and polio without pertussis if you wanted to vaccinate your children against those things - it is licensed from the age of 10.

I did them separately on the nurse's advice because ds had a bad reaction to his 2 months jabs. It took about 6 months to get them done too as he either had a fever with ear infection or on antibiotics. He didn't have his 4 month jabs done until he was over a year because of the ear infections.

He's due his preschool boosters and I will have them done separately too for the same reason.

There is no evidence to suggest that there is any risk to kids wjho are otherwie in good health having the vaccinations together. Therefore it is a waste of resources to insist it is done separately.

There is evidence of risk with regards to vaccination and therefore it is better to spread them out.

May I also just say: almost every child who suffers vaccine damage "is otherwise in good health" until they have the vaccine.

Wouldn't it be a good idea to pursue research into those who will have a reaction - rather than dismissing their parents as "whackdooodles" when they have?

The consensus is that in healthy kids the risk of vaccination is far far less than the risk of no being vaccinated and there is nothing to be gained from separating vaccines that are given together. The 'evidence' to the contrary is mainly based on gut feeling and emotive language. You could list the chemicals in the food your child eats in a day and make it sound terribly scary if you were so inclined - all those chemicals - how will their bodies cope?
Of course there will be some anomalies that show it to be unsafe - just like there is some research that shows no link between cancer and smoking. But the way science works is that you look at what the vast majority of research shows - not the exceptions.

Unfortunately the risk numbers for vaccination are not known so the consensus is only an assumption. The evidence for this is based on larged numbers of reported reactions, large numbers of officially unreported reactions, clinical diagnosis, and the assessments of parents, doctors and paediatricians. It is not based on gut feeling or emotive language - to suggest this is insulting. Unfortunately the research in the field is rather limited and not encouraged. Many of the studies in the "vast majority of research" are accepted as worthless by the scientific community.

There is risk to spreading them out as well.

All health interventions are made on a risk-benefit basis and it is up to the individual to decide to what degree of risk is acceptable to them.

The numbers of reported reactions are likely to be inflated because when people/peoples kids become ill after a vaccination many will attribute it to the vaccination whether it was the cause or not. There are obviously some cases where causation has been proved but the number of these cases is minute compared with the number of people who die of diseases that vaccines prevent. Using basic risk analysis it is safer to vaccinate than not providing you aren't in a specific at risk group.

This is taken from Wikipedia

"Vaccine overload is the notion that giving many vaccines at once may overwhelm or weaken a child's immature immune system and lead to adverse effects.[46] Although the scientific evidence strongly contradicts this idea,[45] some parents of autistic children firmly believe that vaccine overload causes autism. [47] The resulting controversy has caused many parents to delay or avoid immunizing their children.[46] Such parental misperceptions are major obstacles towards immunization of children.[48]
The idea of vaccine overload is flawed for several reasons.[45] Vaccines do not overwhelm the immune system; conservative estimates predict that the immune system can respond to thousands of viruses simultaneously.[45] Despite the increase in the number of vaccines over recent decades, improvements in vaccine design have reduced the immunologic load from vaccines, such that the total number of immunological components in the fourteen vaccines administered to US children in 2009 is less than 10% of what it was in the seven vaccines given in 1980.[45] Vaccines constitute only a tiny fraction of the pathogens naturally encountered by a child in a typical year[45] and common childhood conditions such as fevers and middle ear infections pose a much greater challenge to the immune system than vaccines do.[49] Second, studies have shown that vaccinations, and even multiple concurrent vaccinations, do not weaken the immune system[45] or compromise overall immunity.[50]"

If you are against vaccines then that is your choice but to argue that the overwhelming majority of sound evidence isn't against you is simply false.

Do you mind if I don't read what wiki says? Thanks.

On the contrary: vaccine reactions are often under-reported. You have no reason for assuming the adverse event is caused by another randomly coincidential otherwise symptom-free physiological event unless you investigate. If you are shooed away that is not going to happen.

The risk-benefit analysis is not available, Sidge.

I'm not sure wikipedia is real evidence tbh. I've read plenty of real evidence so perhaps you can be surprised now

I think the pro-vaccinists are the denialists myself.

Not formally no but that's why parents must make an individual assessment based on their children, lifestyle and health.

It's not exactly quantifiable but you have to do the best you can. Pretty much like all parenting really.

On the contrary, I'm not dead set on that - I've read most of the pro-MMR epidemiological studies at sources so your concern is misplaced. You sound like you're getting rather cross.

Sidge - it's true but so much evidence is misleading. If we can't trust the information we have we can't make an appropriate decision. It's just guesswork.

YANBU, whats the issue. Ignore her, you are getting them done in the recommended timescale.

People who dont vaccinate are VVVVU. It really pisses me off. Childhood illnesses that were virtually erradicated making a comeback compromising the health of not only your own children but others and immune surpressed people too. If my 2 month old caught measles from a non vaccinated child I would not be responsible for my actions. Some countries with huge infant mortality would be thrilled to have a comprehensive vaccination programme. We don't know how lucky we are.

Thats the thing that gets me with the anti vaccine camp, they spout 'there isnt enough evidence' or 'its not reliable enough to believe' yet if there WAS scientific evidence which proved beyond all doubt vaccines are harmful to kids they would be the first to shout their evidence from the rooftops....maybe any research is dismissed as its not sound evidence and would be harmful and misleading to people?

So all those who are in favour of the vaccine are in the wrong and in denial then? Ok.....

"spout"?

ignoring if you are going to be silly

Hear hear Bimbo. Like the creationists who point to the gaps in the fossil record as proof that we were created by God - completely dismissing the fact that their version of events is completely fanciful.

Blue I'm not getting cross just frustrated - in the same manner that I do when trying to explain to my 3 year old that the sea doesn't touch the sky at the horizon.

If most good peer-reviewed research points to one conclusion yet you choose to believe the opposite does that make you intelligent?

Well you see quite a lot of it is flawed, and not good at all. And that's not just me saying it: if you look at the Madsen study 2002 you'll find it says so in the introduction and in the body of the research itself. (NEJM).

And yet those piece of research were publicised as reassurances. I'm afraid it's not good enough.

You seem to forget that I am more open-minded than you. I have, after all, believed both sides of the argument, examined the evidence and acted upon it. I have not simply enjoyed blind faith in judgments handed down to me.

I'm so sorry I don't have a wikipedia reference for that piece of research.