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)

Elaine, not necessarily. It depends on what it is in the vaccine that causes the damage for a particular child. It may not be exposure to the disease itself.

I think everyone understands the theory behind herd immunity. Natural herd immunity was observed back in the 1930s (before vaccines) when it was noted that epidemics of measles only occured when less than 68% of children were naturally immune. With vaccines, that figure was revised up to 95% vaccinated and even then (because vaccines are not 100% effective and immunity from them can wane) there are still large outbreaks of the disease.

I don't think there's anything wrong with saying, 'I want to reduce the chance of my child getting one of these diseases so I will vaccinate them' but pointing the finger at everyone else and telling them to do the same for 'the greater good' does not sit well with me because it ignores the need of the individual.

www.patient.co.uk/doctor/Acute-Nephritis-and-Nephrosis.htm

One of the causes of the above is the DTP. Woukd you give your child this if your brother suffered from above autoimmune disorder?

Starlight No, I would be unlikely to give that vax to my child. However, it clearly says that one of the causes of this disorder is the DTP vax. For other AI disorders, a link has not yet been identified. If a link is observed in the years before I have children, then I would think very carefully before vaxing my child/ren. I have Rheumatoid Arthritis, Sjorgren's Syndrome and in the process of being diagnosed with Systemic Lupus. As I said above, all I was making clear is that you cannot make blanket statements because each person and each family is different. No one else has an AI disorder in my family except me, so when I have children, my choices will be based on different factors.

'pointing the finger at everyone else and telling them to do the same for 'the greater good' does not sit well with me '

This is the interesting thing about Mumsnet. Social responsibility exists only as an excuse for reporting your neighbour because they are claiming benefits and have a new boyfriend, or for reporting a stranger shouting at their child on the way to school.But when the boot is on the other foot ,the idea social responsibility flies out of the window!!

My point Elaine, is that ime it seems that the only child who is 'allowed' not to be vaccinated is someone mythical. When presented with a child where there is good reason not to vaccinate parents are put under enormous pressure to do so. If you can be bothered to search the archives you will find, for example that one mother was told to vaccinate repeatedly. Because of an issue her child had she insisted on seeing an immunologist who told her had she allowed her child to have then polio jab (at the time it was the oral version) then the child would have died.

I have met others with similar experiences in RL.

I feel we have very good reasons not to vaccinate our younger two. And at various times various doctors/consultants have actually agreed with us (to my surprise tbh). It hasn't stopped the occasional junior doctor spouting the party line. They seem to go away if I ask a couple of sensible questions.

And my point about herd immunity is that you are berated if you don't vaccinate 'for the greater good', to protect the vulnerable when there's no actual definition of who the vulnerable may be. And to date no attempts to identify them prior to vaccination. Personalise the vaccination program, think about it in terms of individuals, not populations.

I actually think that insisting on vaccination for the 'greater good' is wrong anyway when if it all goes pear shaped you are the one left utterly alone (and usually given a pile of abuse as well). Put in a decent, sensible response to cases of potential vaccination damage, start to support families living with severe disabilities properly, invest in adult services that you're not afraid to send your adult child to and yes I'll consider vaccinating. They need to develop the safety net first, not insist when there's nothing there to catch those who are damaged.

And I say it again, there is more than one way to be socially responsible.

DS1 caught rubella from a vaccinated child because the mother wasn't socially responsible enough to do the research and find out that a vaccinated child could have rubella.

Ds1 didn't spread rubella anywhere as we knew he had been exposed and stayed in.

Saintly, please tell me those sensible questions that makes them all go away!!!!!

Yes, absolutely saintly. I'm not afraid of my 3 week old developing the signs of autism. What frightens me is having to deal with the agencies that are theoretically paid to shit on us support us.

Well I usually tell them my eldest regressed after a viral infection and is now aged 13, non-verbal, severely autistic and has severe learning disabilities. I tell them at the time of his regression he developed gut issues which are now largely sorted, and I tell them that his regression involved losing speech sounds as well as words. I also tell them there is a family history of autoimmune conditions (and give examples of who has what, as some are sightly unusual). I then ask whether this indicates that there may be some sort of family issue with the immune system (especially given that so much research is now going on into autism and the immune system) and ask them if so, can they test for it, and how would vaccination affect it? Or would is be sensible to hold off vaccinating for a while.

Surprisingly oftenly they've said hold off for a while . Especially if they have tried to examine ds1 . Actually my old GP initially said I should vaccinate, but two years later he told me he'd changed his mind.

Actually tbh I rarely get further than my eldest regressed after a viral infection and is severely disabled. Then they go away. But that's the full version above, if someone wants to discuss it.

I'm sorry saintly for your experiences, but it doesn't negate the fact that your other children are protected by the action of others and I'm glad of it. The social good is a plus but for the vast majority of children, they themselves are the main beneficiary as herd immunity isn't perfect so it's not like they are sacrificing their children for yours but the social benefit can't be ignored.

We've all had bad medical advice, I know I have, vaccines are no different. However, there's so much misinformation about vaccines and so much scaremongering that for every parent who has a valid reason not to vaccinate there are probably ten who are basing it on misinformation which doesn't help matters (my personal guess!) .

Bumbley - I'm not so sure the theory of herd immunity is well understood. There was a post on this thread which said theres no such thing as herd immunity! As though it's a made up concept!!

Well tbh I know many many parents who haven't vaccinated. The vast majority haven't vaccinated because of something that happened to an older child. This varies from regression, to trips to PITU, to time in HDU, to seizures and so on and so forth. A couple of friends haven't vaccinated because they don't want to risk it, and I think that's fair enough. Anyone who says there is no risk is mistaken.

As I said before if people are to be told they should vaccinate, then adequate safety nets should be put in place for those families who end up paying the highest price. One change that could be made is within the vaccine compensation scheme - currently you only get a payment if your child dies from vaccination if they are over 2 years old. Now no payment is going to bring a child back of course, but it does seem rather a kick in the teeth to not recognise that loss in terms of payment from the state because they happen to be too young (and the payment for a death isn't very much - never mind how inadequate the larger payments are for those left severely disabled, that's another issue)

Well, I know very few who haven't vaccinated. I know two people who missed the 3rd MMR booster as their children were at that age when the Wakefield study was in the media. Apart from that, everyone else I know has fully vaccinated. See how useless anecdotes are?

when the Wakefield study was in the media (I assume you mean 1998 onwards for a couple of years), there wasn't a third mmr booster, was there?

iirc, there were only 2 (as standard, if not in an area with current outbreaks) when my eldest had the mmr in 2004/5 (it was 15-18 months and then the pre-school booster then, iirc)

I think it depends on the circles you mix in.I know probably 30 or 40 other parents whose kids werent vaccinated.

It very much depends which circles you mix in. Until I had a severely disabled child I knew 2 people who hadn't vaccinated. Now, like cuddler I know probably thirty or forty who haven't.

Yes I meant the 2nd booster. My sister was born in 91 and my mum and her best friend chose to skip it due to the media frenzy. Incidently, my sister had the booster the other day as she needed it for an internship in a clinical setting.

Well exactly andl my point still stands that anecdotes like that serve no purpose - on either side of the argument.

there was no media frenzy associated with Wakefield in 91

there was (quite rightly) controversy over the mmr at that time - it was in the middle of the Urabe strain furore (eventually withdrawn in 92? I think). but absolutely nothing to do with Wakefield.

No but she was due the booster aged 7 in 1998. Sorry on phone, not being clear!

was it the mmr she had? or did she have mr, and was part of the catch up programme?

it's just that there hasn't ever been a booster at 7 afaik.

Elaine, perhaps they were saying that we haven't reached the level of vaccination coverage for herd immunity in the UK or were debating the idea of herd immunity for certain diseases when the vaccines don't provide long lasting protection eg. The whooping cough vaccine. I think most people understand the idea of natural herd immunity and how it works.

"the idea social responsibility flies out of the window"

Excuse me, did you just say people should risk severe & permanent damage to their precious babies for "social responsibility"?

clearly this doesn't apply to children who have recognised bona fide medical reasons for not having the jabs

Ariadne, did your doctor check your medical history before administering your children's vaccines? How do you suggest that we figure out which children have genuine bona fide medical conditions that contraindicate vaccination? Currently no one is trying to figure that out and usually it's the parents who are flagging up issues or learning too late that their child shouldn't have been vaccinated which then makes them question vaccinating future siblings.