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)

Which reasons are "bona fide medical" ones, though?

I have multiple allergies. Is MMR safe for my babies?

Are you sure?

Bumbley, it's statements like 'we haven't reached herd immunity' which demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of the concept of herd immunity! It's not all or nothing! Obviously there herd immunity, even for whooping cough, or it would be endemic, it's not - any outbreak is localized.

Well to be fair the authorities treat is as all or nothing when discussing it.

Elaine, I'm pointing out that we haven't reached the herd immunity threshold of 95% in the UK. That threshold being the point at which major outbreaks are not supposed to occur - similar to the observation of natural herd immunity to measles where outbreaks weren't happening when over 68% of the population were immune.

What is your understanding of the 95% vaccination threshold?

Do you know how many whooping cough cases have been diagnosed this year already? It's incredibly under reported too. What proportion of the population do you think are currently immune to whooping cough seeing as the vaccine only provides protection for a few years?

You're not listening Bumbley. You have herd immunity below 95% take up. It's not all or nothing! 85% confers herd immunity, not as well as 85% but better than 50%. And you don't need such high numbers among adults or the elderly who mingle less than children. You get more herd immunity with lower levels of immune people.

I think you need to explain that to the National Public Health Service and BUPA Elaine (and that was just the top two google search results, I'm sure there are pages and pages of examples). I'm certain bumbley understands what you are saying - but you're rather moving the goalposts used by national health authorities.

From the BUPA link " Because measles is highly infectious, at least 95 out of every 100 people need to be immunised to create herd immunity. "

If you disagree with them (and many, many others) then take it up with them.

I'm surprised at the level of scientific analysis of some posters who should know better - you can't prove a negative. Even Dawkin's said he was only 6.9/7 sure there is no god. This nature review gives a nice overview of the situation. Even this quote at the end "We can never make them [vaccines] 100% safe."

I'm also really shocked that posters are still denying the terrible effects of childhood diseases, just because for the vast majority they are in no way serious. In the report above "If you don't know the diseases and you haven't seen them, then you really aren't willing to accept any risk," I feel that is the POV of many posters on here.

In RL I unfortunately know two families who refuse ALL vaccinations, each family has four kids. I live in France were vaccine refusal is on the up, so much so that measles is becoming endemic. Two of these aforementioned children caught measles and were extremely ill. Both were hospitalised. I had just bought home my month old prem DS from hospital...just to show this 'mythical' vunerable child targeted by herd immunity arguments does actually exist.

Who is denying the 'terrible effects of childhood diseases'? I'm well aware that in not vaccinating ds2 and ds3 they are more likely to catch the diseases that are vaccinated against. Although we don't travel, so I guess polio and probably diptheria aren't a risk, and ds1 has had rubella, and ds2 has had whooping cough. Neither of which was bad (and as already mentioned we stayed in, so didn't spread it around). And I'd rather they caught mumps as children than have a vaccine as a child and not then know whether they had immunity as an adult. DS3 has been exposed to mumps, he didn't show any signs of it, so I'm hoping he was in the 1/3 children who are asymptomatic.

Can you be more specific about the 'terrible effects'? My Mum is deaf in one ear from measles contracted as a child, she still thinks we were right not to vaccinate ds2 and ds3 (probably because she spends a lot of time caring for ds1). I had measles as a child, and remember it well.

Also you have misunderstood what I was saying about the 'mythical child'. I'm talking about children like ds2 and ds3 who I believe have very good reason to not go gung ho into receiving multiple vaccinations at once. I know a number of doctors who agree with me. Yet according to the dept of health there is no reason not to vaccinate them - according to the dept of health there is pretty much no child who should not be vaccinated with the standard protocol. Usually preemies are vaccinated at the same time as full term babies - i.e. two months from birth. If you become concerned and ask to delay until 2 months after full term you'll find your concerns dismissed.

Well, I've had all childhood diseases (had measles twice, actually) like all my contemporaries, so I do know them.

Am I allowed to have an opinion, then?

Fwiw, my DC have had single measles vaccines, but we didn't bother with mumps & rubella. If DS hasn't had mumps by 8 or so, he can have the vaccine then. If DD hasn't had rubella by 18 or so, she can have the vaccine then.

Would you agree that this strategy is in the best interests of my DC as individuals?

Who asked for a negative to be proven?

I can't tell you if your DCs will not have an adverse reaction to a vaccine. I can't tell you either that you will not have an accident the next time you drive a car. I can't prove a negative.

By continually saying I had x disease as a child, or even I know 20 people who had x disease as children and it wasn't bad IS denying the fact that SOME people have terrible side-effects. One terrible side-effect of measles is DEATH - most people agree this is pretty terrible.

I think the problem I'd that having measles does not make death a sure thing, but that the way it is often sold is as if it does.

It is not a nice risk to have to take, for any parent, but it is a bit more of a known risk. The vaccination risk is unknown, not safe. Some people would prefer to take the known risk.

I'm intrigued actually that France has high numbers of measles cases as vaccination is required to attend school in France (well officially, there are ways around it according to people I have met who have lived in France and not vaccinated). Anyway my understanding is that the French have a pretty high coverage - according to this table from WHO 90% of children in 2010 (and 2009) had been given at least one measles containing vaccine apps.who.int/immunization_monitoring/en/globalsummary/countryprofileresult.cfm?C=fra Are the outbreaks in pockets of non-vaccination (eg Steiner type schools ) or is it as a result of vaccine failure? Here's the UK figures apps.who.int/immunization_monitoring/en/globalsummary/countryprofileresult.cfm - similar level of MCV coverage to France.

I wonder whether single vaccines given are included on those tables (probably not is my guess, at least in the UK where it has to be given unofficially). In which case MCV given must surely be approaching 95%?

I've just pointed out my Mum is deaf in one ear from measles (which I have seen on here described as a terrible effect of measles). I'm not denying that it happens, I grew up knowing she was deaf in one ear from measles. We made the decision not to vaccinate ds2 and ds3 knowing my Mum was deaf in one ear from measles.

To answer OP's question, with my sample size of 2 (!) I reckon that anti-vax stance is partly born out of a general mistrust of the medical establishment. But that the most important reason is more subtle. That opting to take a risk now (to vaccinate DC) is too much. Doing nothing means not actively taking the vaccine risk, but in so doing, of course, face a greater risk sometime in the future.

That is not what "you can't prove a negative" refers to.

My question was: I have multiple allergies. Are my DC safe from vaccine damage? This has nothing to do with asking you to prove a negative.

The point was that "bona fide medical reasons" not to vaccinate children are not clear. They say "it's not safe if you have a family history of auto-immune problems". Which ones, though? Not clear. Do DC get tested for those problems before vaccination? No. That is my point.

In other words, nobody can prove the statement "There are no blonds with exactly five dark hairs on their head" because there might be in some corner of the world. However, you can find out which children are in danger of vaccinations and treat them accordingly, rather than just ignore the fact that some children are damaged by vaccines permanently and irreparably. Until that minority of children who are at risk are identified, it is totally understandable that parents will take a risk-averse approach and refuse to vaccinate if they feel their babies are at risk of permanent damage.

saintly - MMR is not one of the required vaccines for school in France.

French kids are required to be vaccinated, the recent surge in outbreaks is caused by an increasing number of HE kids and Steiner schools. In fact, in my sample of 2, one family is HE, the other mum sent all her kids to to a Steiner school, then HE.

I haven't got the article I read to hand, but seem to remember that in some areas the vaccination rates were really low - it coincided with the time the two kids went down with measles, so it stuck with me.

Well not in my case. Obviously I trusted the medical establishment or I wouldn't have had ds1 vaccinated. My decision not to vaccinate was based on a decision of what was right for my children, given our family history and their brother's regression (figured they're pretty likely to share whatever genetic predisposition he has) and was made following an awful lot of reading of peer reviewed journals (whilst bearing in mind how the system of peer review affects what is eventually published). I've also spoken to many researchers working on the immune system and autism, and attended conferences where they have presented papers (always more interesting than a paper tbh - as you get to hear what they really think).

Then made the decision, which may alter with future information. And at some stage they'll be old enough to make their own mind up anyway.

MMR not required? OK

Oh okay thank cote - that makes more sense then.

And cote - yes that is exactly my thought process.

See here

I find it interesting that people assume their DC are more likely to a) have a bad vaccine reaction b) not benefit from the vaccine (i.e. DC are likely to not suffer too badly from the disease and likely to have an adverse vaccine reaction) rather than the contrary. I.e. thier DC will have no vaccine reaction and benefit hugely from it (would be hit hard by the disease).

In a better world with genetic typing we would know in advance these kids and vaccinate selectively. For the moment, we don't, so development is on-going to make vaccines safer for more people