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)

Hello! Can you not hear me?

What is so "interesting" about a mum (me) with allergies so severe that she had to be hospitalised, wondering if this is what authorities mean by "auto-immune problems in the family"?

What is so "interesting about another mum (jimjams) worrying about what happened to her DC1 also happening to the other DC?

Seriously, are you talking to us or over us?

Well it wouldn't be that difficult to find out which kids are more at risk tbh. There are ways of doing it already. It wouldn't even be that expensive. There's no official interest in doing so.

I don't think just randomly people assume their children are more likely to have a bad reaction. If you watched your child lose speech and ability to produce speech sounds after an immune event (and still be unable to speak at all aged 13) you might be a bit careful about introducing additional immune events.

Thanks cote.

And ds3 has had some very strange inflammatory reactions in his time (as did ds1) - so there is no way I'm fiddling with his immune system unless the risk from the disease is very high indeed.

Sometimes you get very agressive Cote - I cross posted - I like to verifiy the info I type.

Doing what you feel is not very scientific. In the nature paper I linked to above, they say that the number of bad vaccine reactions (not the small injection-site inflammations) is often so few they have to roll out vaccinations to populations in order to have enough of a sample size. When they talk about immumo-compromised individuals they are refering to people with AIDS and the like, surely?

I'll come back with more once I've thought on it

Btw, I also though that most of the allergic reactions to vaccinations was to the gluten or egg white often in them. So do you have a history of these allergies?

Also, cote, given your immunology, perhaps your DCs would be a candidate for vaccinations? Perhaps your DC would be less able to fight off these infectious diseases?

I have multiple allergies. Is MMR safe for my babies? Proving a negative: I can't prove that your DC will NOT react badly to a vaccine.

No one can prove this - even if we find out a whole lot more about how susceptible some children are etc, there are always babies born with new genetic variants.

I already answered this. Asking clarification of which immune diseases in the family make DC susceptible to vaccine damage is NOT asking anyone to "prove a negative".

You are being deliberately obtuse, and then saying I'm oh so aggressive when I start to get annoyed.

"given your immunology, perhaps your DC would be less able to fight off these infectious diseases?"

I had no trouble with the actual diseases myself, naturally spaced out over time, and don't have any reason to expect DC to.

"Doing what you feel is not very scientific"

Yeah, well, I don't have much choice when the scientific community isn't allowed funded to investigate this issue. It is somehow preferable to pretend that vaccine damage doesn't happen, to maximise vaccine uptake. And costs associated with vaccine damaged children are somehow preferable to making this research, identifying those at risk, and treating them accordingly - possibly because the costs of a permanently damaged child are primarily born by their family only

A lot of the research is at population level, not individual. Limited investigations (if any) are carried out on children who become ill after vaccination.

Ultimately all any of us can do is read what is out there about vaccinations, read what is out there about conditions that are found in our family histories, talk to researchers who are working on those conditions, then make a decision based on all that information. That's as 'scientific' as anyone can get.

And yes, the costs of a permanently damaged child should be funded by the state, rather than families.

And I would call the above doing what you 'feel'. It's making the best decision when there gaps (pretty major ones) in current knowledge.

Yes. It's an educated guess guiding a risk-averse choice.

Asking clarification of which immune diseases in the family make DC susceptible to vaccine damage is NOT asking anyone to "prove a negative".

If you read the Nature paper, you'll realise that very little is known about adverse reactions to vaccinations. Sample sizes have to be enormous to have a significant result when we're talking about a 1:10,000 or 1:100,000 event. I haven't read the literature to be sure, but from a glance, it doesn't seem obvious what immune diseases will make a person vulnerable to having a bad reaction to a vaccine (outside immunodeficient conditions).

If you wanted to correlate people with unusual immune diseases with adverse reactions to the vaccine, you're talking about tiny, tiny numbers. I think this is what hinders research into adverse vaccine reactions rather than the they're-all-in it-for-the-profit agenda that gets bandied around.

Sorry but I haven't read all 25 pages of this thread.
Ds1 is up to date with his vaccines. Ds2 had lots of food allergies so I was wary of vacciniation. He hasn't had his mmr but I think I'll ask for it soon.
I'm pregnant at the moment and I'm intending to delay all the baby vaccinations for a few months.
There are a lot of theories how overloading some baby's immune systems by so many vaccines can cause problems like food allergies.
I'm just not willing to take the risk and hope that new baby won't pick up anything in the first 6 months.

My gp friend had to go a conference about food allergies and was told that around 50% of UK children have food allergies now. There is something definitely wrong there and I wonder if it is the vaccine program.

The choice to not vaccinate is not a risk-averse choice.

It is an exchange of risk: the risk of a bad vaccine reaction with the risk DC contracts and suffers from the disease in question.

The research supports the idea that vaccine risk is far, far outweighed by the disease risk..otherwise why spend all that money and time vaccinating people? And please don't say it's to make pharmaceutical companies rich because I just don't buy that.

problems like food allergies. I'm just not willing to take the risk and hope that new baby won't pick up anything in the first 6 months.

FFS - I bet you vaccinate your dog! If it were the choice between a food allergy or my baby contracting and suffering the bad reaction to a disease like measles in his first 6 months of life, I would chose the food allergy!

You need to tea Game Theory.

A parent's risk calculation and cost/benefit analysis is very different than a government's risk calculation and cost/benefit analysis.

Tea? Read it, rather.

Oh yes, I hadn't thought about the dog.

What if he regresses and can't talk for the rest of his life?

Have you ever had a child with food allergy? LeBFG
It's very difficult to deal with. Especially if the child is anaphylactic.

And I don't have a dog.

Just as well exexe.

At least the government's analysis is based on facts, not feelings.

LeBFG, you don't get vaccinated against measles in the first 6 months.

Also, there is a great deal of under reporting wrt vaccine reactions.

I can only imagine how difficult it would be if my DS had a peanut allergy.

I can only imagine how horrific it would be if he had brain damage following an attack of the measles, or worse, that he died.

If this were the choice, I would chose a peanut allergy.