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)

So, you know more than the specialists (not just talking about my nurse) who have trained and have experience for years? They know my medical history.

Can you see why it's hard to take you seriously? A stranger on the internet telling me that they know more than those who know me, my disease and my history.

'I would imagine someone can; though not a random group of mums in a chatroom.'

Why do so many people assume that vaccination policy is so scientifically based? I have found that it is not. I have found that no HCPs are able to explain to me why babies are vaccinated, except for one health visitor who told me it was to catch the children before their mums go back to work.

And why do you assume (patronisingly) that mums are not in a position to make their own minds up based upon the available (or distinctly unavailable) evidence?? At least one poster on this thread is actually a scientist. Though you don't even have to be a scientist to see when something makes no sense whatsoever!

Also, I was told the flue jab would not 'save my life' but it might prevent me from getting really ill.

I don't like the insinuation that I cannot make informed choices or that my doctors tell me vaccinations are life savers. They are honest; about the efficiacy and the side effects. They're not out to get me. I believe in my doctors and know they are trying to help me. The crap spewed by strangers making blanket statements are dangerous. Do your own research, speak to your doctors and make your own decision.

crashdoll, while I don't think it's appropriate for anyone who doesn't know you to tell you vaccinations you may have may cause x, y or z it is worth considering that HCPs are all taught that vaccination is a holy cow, beyond reproach etc and this does mean that usually they don't have an alternative view. They are also under a lot of pressure. As I've said the main problem is that HCPs are unable to answer many questions about how vacciantion policy is decided - because nobody ever questions it. Or that has certainly been my experience.

Perception, perhaps you are right. However, I have (for example) been told that the flu jab will not 'save my life' nor protect me from flu but it could very well prevent serious complications but it might not. I wasn't told vaccines are the holy grail.

I don't think doctors are out to get anybody.

Well I would never say that I was opposed to all vaccinations no matter what but I do disagree with the way vaccination policy is implemented, particularly in the case of young babies who are more susceptible to neurological damage than an older person.

You only have to look at what happened to Andrew Wakefield. He was never anti-vaccination, he only merely said that more research was needed.

^'I would imagine someone can; though not a random group of mums in a chatroom.'

Why do so many people assume that vaccination policy is so scientifically based? I have found that it is not. I have found that no HCPs are able to explain to me why babies are vaccinated, except for one health visitor who told me it was to catch the children before their mums go back to work.^

LeVolcan was asking, specifically, why babies were routinely vaccinated against rubella and so far no-one on this thread had come up with an answer. Whether it is scientifically based or not, there would have been a particular reason for the change in policy. I don't think the working mums explanation carries much weight as far fewer mums went back to work when MMR was introduced and, at that time, if they did, maternity leave was 6 months.

And why do you assume (patronisingly) that mums are not in a position to make their own minds up based upon the available (or distinctly unavailable) evidence?? At least one poster on this thread is actually a scientist. Though you don't even have to be a scientist to see when something makes no sense whatsoever!

Hardly patronising as I was including myself amongst those who do not know the answer. It has nothing to do with making up your mind, as it was to do with an explanation of change in policy regarding rubella vaccination. I wouldn't expect it to make sense to every scientist (and for most branches of science, it would be wholly irelevant), but it must have made sense to someone - hence the policy change.

You only have to look at what happened to Andrew Wakefield. He was never anti-vaccination, he only merely said that more research was needed.

I think you will find he did a little more than that, perception.

I can't remember the full details now, but I watched the Channel 4 Dispatches documentary about the case in 2007, and remember being pretty appalled by what Wakefield had done.