To wonder why on earth you would not vaccinate your DCs?

[olimpia]

I hear from another thread that some people choose not to vaccinate their DCs at all and I'm genuinely interested to hear why because I can't think of a single reason not to. I can perhaps understand opting out of the MMR if someone believes the bad press (not that I do) but all the other vaccinations? Why, oh why?
(not a troll! Just relatively new to MN)

oh and parents know when something specific has caused their child to regress, spectacularly and overnight. To suggest they don't know what they are talking about is arrogant and patronising.

You can have a reaction to any drug.

Endless studies on vaccine safety have been carried out. Because vaccine damage is so rare, it's hard to identify risk factors without excluding a vast swathe of the population who would be, at the population level, more at risk from the dz. there are some risk factors which have been identified, eg immunocompromised kids.

How do you know also that children at risk from vaccine damage aren't the very same children at even higher risk from complications of the dz? Makes perfect sense to me theoretically although obviously impossible to test.

I'm talking at a population level. It's a known fact, not just for vaccines. I wouldn't want to comment on individual cases since I'm aware that this established phenomenon of confirmation bias at a population level is taken personally. While I appreciate why that may be, it doesn't negate it's existence however much you may wish this to be so.

I don't think anyone is saying vaccine damage isn't real - I haven't had a baby on the NHS as I live abroad and I can't comment on nurses/health visitors without a clue, but ....

Argh threads like this are so hard, I shouldn't have opened it.

No one thinks airbags are perfect. Airbag damage exists- sometimes they fail to inflate, or they can break your nose or your collarbone. But it is an improvement in car safety that they are in cars, and statistically fewer people die from car accidents because they exist.

In this kind of thing I wonder if problem is that, as parents, we don't see 'statistics' and 'population health' in the same scale of value as the health and safety of our precious children. And that's appropriate - what monsters we'd be if we did! - and yet, statistics indicate factual evidence. And population health is vital for the health of the society our children grow up in.

How many people who have not vaccinated their DCs would be willing to take them to countries like India? If it doesn't come up because you wouldn't - what are you going to do when they want to go travelling on a gap year - or working abroad as an adult- are you not going to worry that they are not properly protected? Will you not feel guilty, if like my friend's DD, they are offered a wonderful work experience job at university and can't take it because they have not been vaccinated?

Or don't you see at as your problem- just something they have to sort out as an adult?

'Endless studies on vaccine safety have been carried out.' Really? I've not seen evidence of this, hense my concerns. Can you link to these studies?

'How do you know also that children at risk from vaccine damage aren't the very same children at even higher risk from complications of the dz? '

Yes, I agree with this totally. But that's the point isn't it? Doctors are often quite open to the idea that someone has become brain damaged following an illness but vaccinations couldn't possibly cause any harm. That's because vaccines are a holy cow, totally beyond reproach.

However, this illustrates why the decision is not easily made. You take your chances with the vaccination, or you take your chances with the disease. And the reason I tend not to go along with the programme is that sometimes the statistics are contrived to ensure people see what they want us to see and go along with it. When, in fact there are certain studies that nobody will ever fund.....because it isn't in the interests of the authorities for certain things to be discovered.

Measles itself isn't dangerous but it actively supressses the immune system and that's why you're at risk of getting other diseases complications such as pneumonia. Therefore having a healthy immune system to begin with (healthy lifestyle, breastfed etc) makes it much more likely to be a very mild desease. Also when vit A suppliments are given to an infected person, again the risk of complications become massively reduced.

Mumps. This is not a particularly nasty disease for young children. It is for adults. Natural immunity lasts a life time. Vaccine immunity lasts pretty much till early adulthood if you are lucky. Its well documented that the mumps vaccine is pushing the disease into the very population that it actually needs to protect.

Rubella is only dangerous to pregnant women. Makes far more sense to vaccinate girls when they are in their early teens and not when they are tiny babies. The rubella vaccine also does not last that long (varies with individuals) so women will think they are immune as they were vaccinated as babies but by the time they are young adults, they could well not be.

Tetanus. this is very rare and in the cases that occur, there are as many vaccinated individuals as unvaccinated, so this is a very non proven vaccine.

Hibb. Really only danferous to non breastfed babies where overcrowding and poor sanitation is prevalent.

Whooping cough has the highest rate of vaccine reactions and they can be really nasty.

Combine this and the fact that various auto immune disorders are greatly on the increase, aside from the risk of autism and bowel disease.. that is why some people choose not to vaccinate.

bumbleymummy said "techno dad, 'unlikely to be associated with' isn't exactly concrete proof is it?"

What you have done there is exactly what the media do. The medical profession will use a word like "unlikely" in a statistical context. I don't know what their terms directly relate to but we use similar words in my profession too, but for example, "unlikely" will probably mean something like "the risk is below 1x10-8", and therefore is a quantifiable and clearly not absolutely zero" (I made up the 10-8 figure, but it will be something like that).

What you have done is said "well, if it is only unlikely, then it is therefore possible and therefore I am scared" - this brings me back to my idiot friend who won't go on the underground because it is "unsafe". You then feel happy to tout your viewpoint that it is unsafe across the internet for all to read, and a good proportion of people who also don't understand statistics and are scared for their children will think "blimey, she has a point, init" and so it spreads.

If you read statistical terminology and apply a human emotion to them, you might as well have not bothered with spending all the money on the statistical research and asked a witch doctor to do a rain dance for you, sacrifice a goat and tell you how many molecules of an unproven remedy are required to give your water memory.

No techno, I wasn't doing that. I didn't link to that article to in any way suggest that vaccines were linked with autism. It was to do with safety studies - remember? You were the one who posted that quote. I assumed you were trying to suggest that it meant that vaccines couldn't possibly have caused autism which was why I responded the way I did. Perhaps I was wrong though - why exactly did you post that quote from the article?

Exotic, you mentioned that earlier in the thread and people already replied. Yes, some people are happy to travel through those countries without being vaccinated. If the children want to get themselves certain vaccines (for travelling or for a particular job) when they are older then they can. I don't really understand your 'being excluded from certain jobs' comment. Iirc if you are going into healthcare you need to have a hepatitis vaccination. They don't immediately exclude anyone who wasn't given that vaccine as a baby (we don't give it routinely in the UK) they just give it to them as an adult.

Wilf hasnt had his MMR jabs because he had unexplained fits when he was three weeks old and the doctors could say 100% that he woudn't fit again when he had the jabs!!

I would also add that we are very keen on giving vaccines that combine lots of different vax together, some of which are actually live vaxs.

So, here a baby with a undeveloped immune system, hence the reason why a lot mothers will avoid their baby getting in contact with someone with flu or whatever. Hence the fact babies and toddlers in nursery settings gets so much bugs, colds etc...
So we think it's OK to give a multiple vaccine to a someone who basically has a deficient immune system. I don't think we would do that to an adult so why is it OK to do it with a baby/child?

Someone up thread asked when you would vax someone if you don't do it as a baby.
Personally, I would not do that until they are at least 7yo and would prob wait until teenage hood.

BTW, the vaccine for tetanus is pointless. If you arrive to A&E with an injury, they will automatically give you a booster because they will always presume that, even if you are vaccinated, it will not be efficient any more. My PILs who are farmers have always being very keen on keeping up to date with their booster for tetanus. Something they very very few adults would do. But even them have been told there is no point for them to carry on doing the boosters. So do we need to vaccinate children?

I actually think one of the reason is that we live in a risk adverse society and will buy into anything that tells us that it will protect us against any risk we can have in life. We have insurance on everything. We even have insurance for lost baggages. Getting a jab is similar to buying an insurance. We take it with the hope it will protect us from evils, because we have been lead to believe that we can live our life wo ever being ill, and if we do, it should mild and quickly sorted by a few drugs.
And pharmaceutical companies know that very well. Just look at the latest vaccine for 'cervical cancer'. What did it say? 'If only it saves one woman life, it will be worth it'. Really? Even if it causes lots and lots of side effects on 100s other women?

Very true about tetanus. The vaccine isn't actually much use when you've been injured anyway - its tetanus immunoglobulin (Tig) that you should be given.

Don't get me started on the HPV jab! Some experts have already expressed concerns that it may do more harm than good because people think they can't get HPV if they've been vaccinated and so put off going for smear tests etc.

I know and if I had a girl, I would strongly recommend that she does NOT have the jab but have SMEAR tests for that specific reason.
But have you seeing adverts for the jab? Every day 6 women died of cervical cancer and 9 are diagnosed. If you are sexually active or have had an sexual encounter, you might be at risk!...

well if you are have had sex, the jab already has lost a big part of its interest as you probably have been in contact with said virus.
And talk about playing on people biggest fear - CANCER .....

I know. I hate the way it is promoted through cancer. Yes, a high percentage of people who have cervical cancer had HPV BUT the very small percentage of people with HPV go on to develop cancer. People are getting the impression sex = HPV = cancer and yes, if you've already had sex or are sexually active and have come into contact with hpv then the vaccine wouldn't work anyway. Flawed in so many ways!

Have only read the OP.

I believe in vaccination because I developed a serous case of Whooping Cough earlier this year and to be hospitalised, I caught it from the un-vaccinated children at my mother's work. (I know this to be true as I suffer from agoraphobia.)

I believe not vaccinating should be illegal.

Please no aggressive posts, this is just MY personal belief, everyone is welcome to their opinion. :)

I'm just tired of catching painful illness' that cause me to need to be quarrentined and cause me to miss so much uni.

lurking I appreciate your beliefs because I've had them for a very long time too!
but it might be worth for you reading the whole thread just to get an idea as to why people have a different pov. It might be that you will still think you are right. Or it might make you wonder if some people don't have a point in some areas.
If you read the thread you will see that quite a lot of the people who are against vaccinating children for everything and under whatever circumstances do so after done some serious reading from serious medical journals.

Leonie what I appreciated on this thread was the fact that people stayed very polite on a subject that usually sets people off on MN.
It would be nice for it to stay like this. There is no point to be so aggressive against people who have different opinions.

Lurking - re "I believe in vaccination because I developed a serous case of Whooping Cough earlier this year and to be hospitalised, I caught it from the un-vaccinated children "

If you believe in vaccination so much, why didn't you get yourself vaccinated?

What makes you think toddlers of the world should all be vaccinated to protect you from all diseases?

BTW lurking if you catching something all the time, I would really look at your diet, vitamins levels etc... Just to boost up your own immune system.
It is not normal to catch everything under the sun, regardless of whether people are vaccinated or not. Or whether you are vaccinated or not.

Also be careful of the assumption that 'being vaccinated will protect you from everything'.
Sounds crazy but I have hear health professionals having a right go at parents of a child who didn't have X vaccination, saying he would be catching any bugs under the sun because of that . When it is obvious that being vaccinated for X will only 'protect' from X illness and will not have any effect on immunity for any other illness.