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)

A friend of mine collapsed (in the surgery) after getting a flu jab - was blue-lighted to hospital, and was in a bad way for a while (thankfully ok now).

no interest in recording it whatsoever - I gave him the yellowcard link (and he wasn't aware that was possible, so not a case of hospital staff not recording and saying 'report it here')

There is no Gp conspiracy not to record vaccine reaction s. They are reported in the exact same way that other medicines are.

What's interesting is that rubella infection in utero is a known risk factor for asd

Have you ever tried to report a vaccine reaction, Elaine?

What's interesting is that rubella infection in utero is a known risk factor for asd

yes which is why I think it's bonkers that pregnant women end up vaccinated with MMR. (Know someone who happens to have an autistic child who had MMR vaccination during pregnancy - I suppose that should have been recorded really).

"Widespread immunization coverage with diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis (DTP) vaccines is the cornerstone of prevention."

Considering the waning immunity, regular epidemics and the fact that it is still endemic worldwide despite high levels of vaccination coverage for years, I wouldn't say it's been that great tbh.

From what I've been reading they are looking into different ways of tackling it because they've accepted that it's not working that well.

Anyway ladies, I'm off to bed. Busy day tomorrow! Good night :)

It doesn't matter if there's a conspiracy or not Elaine, because if they're not being reported, it doesn't matter why, it just matters that they're not being reported, that vaccine reaction is under-reported and that's a good reason not to trust official statistics.

I don't know why you'd say "they are reported in the same way as other drug reactions" after just reading about cases where they obviously should have been reported and weren't. Do you think other drug reactions are also not reported efficiently.

here's a fairly recent review of the under reporting of ADR's. I'm sure I read somewhere that vaccination reactions tend to be even more under reported than other drugs. But I may have dreamed that.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16689555

Anyhow, that review would suggest it's not controversial to say it's a problem.

Ha good timing. Yesterday's Guardian

Thanks. Don't know what's going on wth the Guardian, first they report the Merck outrage now this. They must have had a fit of the vapours.

Let's not forget Glaxo's recent £2 bn fine.

And weren't concerned parents complaining for some time about what was happening to their children after being prescribed anti depressants. Then being dismissed by GPs because Big Pharma said it's OK, they wouldn't be marketed in this way if there was a problem, that would be irresponsible ..... And the parents were right all along.

This is scary - read the article and then some of the comments.

This is an interesting article, "Letting Big Pharma Review Its Own Drugs - What Could Go Wrong".

www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/07/letting-big-pharma-review-its-own-drugs-8212-what-could-go-wrong/259666/

I'm surprised this hasn't been a bigger scandal in the news.

It does make me wonder how many other times there has been failure to report patient safety data and the like.

Bit sad to be staying up this late but anyway, ironically it was the Guardian who firsxt reported problems with the MMR long before Andrew Wakefield, it was being linked by parents to immune malfunction, asthma &c, I remember the pictures in the paper of cross looking mothers.

The point is though that vaccinations are no different to any other medication. Indeed, given the level of scrutiny and publicity, I'd say that if they are different it is only that they are studied more than other medications since they are given to so many children.

And this an important point, vaccinations are given to millions upon millions of children globally. Small side-effects will be piced up given the magnitude of the program despite under-reporting.

And, also importantly, what would have happened to children who did suffer side effects had they been exposed to the disease? Fairly likely it would have been worse on average.

I don't quite understand how people can say 'yes, i weighed up the risks and benefits and decided not to vaccinate' and then in the same breath say 'and I don't care what other people do, it has no influence on my decision' which would mean that the probability of your child catching the disease in question is of no consequence to you in your decision making since that probability is the product of other's behaviour. Which means it wasn't really a proper analysis of risk. Unless like Bumbley where you're openly happy to live in a world with no vaccines and have your kids get every diease going including smallpox.

Here's The observer's investigation into the super-toxic whooping cough vaccine that was knowingly released in the late 60s and early 70s.

Glaxo Wellcome admitted it knew this was the case some 30 odd years after the fact.

www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2002/jun/30/tracymcveigh.antonybarnett

And in the forty odd years since this happened, many other pharma scandals have broken. Vaccines are no different to any other medicine.

Someone I know just posted this on Facebook

www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=412511538792567&set=a.139128532797537.20543.133579170019140&type=1&theater

It's a card from "The truth about Vaccines" which said "Why would my unvaccinated kid be such a threat to your vaccinated kid if you're so sure that vaccines work?"

Herd immunity, perhaps?!!!

But Elaine you have side-stepped the question about under-reporting. The point is actutaly that you say that the risk is such and such and when you do that you are ignoring under-reporting, I think you don't understand that. It is oneof the reasons why people are suspicious of official statistics and also don't forget lots of rsearch has been done but not the right kind. When you look at the type of research that has been done it is as if it's been designed not to show a link between vaccinations and ASD or MMR and auto-immune etc. Once I saw a study which showed "no link betweween mmr and Crohn's disease" and the only people they counted were those who went to emergency departments, they didn't count the rise in people who have a managed condition and go to hospital as outpatients or see their GPs. You hae got your facts wrong about the risks.

motherofhangovers, a vaccine works or it doesn't. You would be immune whether or not people around you are vaccinated. If you are worried about catching the disease you must think the vaccine hasn't worked. Please don't bang head on desk in that way it's patronising especially when your point is very badly flawed and doesn't really make any sense IYSWIM.

Mother, I don't understand what point you're trying to make. They're saying what risk is an unvaccinated child to a vaccinated child. The herd immunity concept isn't about protecting the vaccinated.

Elaine, It's also been posted a few times now that safety studies into vaccines were inadequate as well as there being under reporting of reactions. Did you know that the first MMR was released in the UK despite safety concerns that had resulted in it being withdrawn and investigated in other countries? Unsurprisingly, those same safety concerns resulted in it bring withdrawn in the UK as well. Does that make you feel confident about safety being taken seriously?

Also Elaine, you know that I did not say that I would be 'happy for my children to catch smallpox' so stop being silly. It derails the discussion when people have to defend themselves against silly accusations.

Also there is one MMR study which says in the introduction that all the other MMR studies were useless up till now, that's all the studies that were hailed as dsiproving any link between MMR and ASD. That study then goes on to say, but THIS final study proves it all, except that one itself doesn't do it either. And the Cochrane study which says that safety testing was inadequate but never mind, it seems that the MMR doesn't trigger any ASD incidence, that was supposed to be an overall view based on thousands of pieces of research, well in the end it wasn't at all, it was based on only two two or three.

Sorry, x-post accuracy (typing slowly this morning!)

I'm not sure if mother is the same person but I did have a discussion on here once with someone who thought a certain percentage of the population had to be vaccinated for the vaccine to actually start working. I'm not really sure how she thought that worked.

Bless.

Well even cochrane said that safety studies on the MMR were 'wholly inadequate'. Therefore I would have thought that a functioning yellow card system was essential. I think the paper I linked to above shows under reporting to be a massive problem.

And of course I have thought about the likelihood of my child catching the disease. Have also thought about what would happen to them if they did. If i was so terrified of the disease then i would vaccinate. Obviously. I rather hope they will catch mumps as children tbh. And rubella (one down, one exposed so maybe he's immune as well?) I don't think you quite understand what having a child regress into a severe disability does to the risk-benefit ratio. When you are dealing with a neurological regression - age of exposure also becomes key.

As I have already said we don't travel so diphtheria and polio aren't really relevant. By the time the younger two are old enough to travel independenly they'll a) be old enough to have their own say and b) there will be more research published that is likely to be highly relevant to our family so providing further information for decision making. Ditto meningitis C as they're not in the risky age group atm. If they head to university they might want to consider it.