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)

Wow, you guys are exhausting! The stream of misinformation is endless.

OK, regarding India - look at what lavolcan and accuracy are saying. They weren't talking about polio but babbling on some complete tosh about how they didn't get sick in INidia because they weren't vaccinated.

Now, regarding polio in India. If you use OPV, there is a small chance of vaccine induced polio - that is a well documented side effect (despite the fact that you all beleive that side effects aren't documented). However, OPV is essential for preventing polio transmission so in countries like Nigiera and India, if you want to eradicate you must use it. For individual protection, you can also add IPV which is why the Indian Academy of Paediatrics recommends both vaccines together. It is NOT a reason to abandon vaccinations as actually getting polio is far more risk and there are ways to reduce the chance of this unfortunate side effect (it may not always happen in many of these countries but that is not vaccine specific and applies thoughout the medical system and beyond).

regarding measles mutating - OK, so we need to continue to research and find new vaccines for the mutation. Again, not a reason not to vaccinate as the old virus may still be circulating.

And finally, there is endless research into vaccines and side effects are maybe under-reported (as for all medicine) but unlike other medicines, vaccines are given to hundreds of millions of children (and adults) throughout the world, Even under reported small effects will be picked up. You have plenty of information on which to base an informed decision and that evidence is that apart from a very small number of children, it is in the best interest of children to be vaccinated agaisnt the majority of diseases we vaccinate against.

sorry, you're right lavolcan, i put you and accuracy together because you were so busy agreeing with one another.

You're the one who 'well believes' that measles can protect against asthma because you feel better after having a cold and accuracy is the one who thinks people get sick when they go to India because of the 'immune trauma' they've been through when vaccinated. Did I get that right?

bless!

But Elaine, are you suggesting we abandon that small number of children to the greater good?
Isn't it imperative we spend more time and money researching which children are likely to be pre disposed to vaccine damage?
Again, when you take your children to be vaccinated, do GP's ask of family history, and previous (unreported) reactions to vaccines? Or any questions at all really, apart from recent temperatures?
Certainly not in my experience
That just seems fundamentally wrong to me

Elaine

Yes, I do think that getting some diseases might protect against allergies. However, I strongly believe in a foundation of good nutrition and, with particular respect to developing countries, the need to provide clean drinking water and good sewage treatment, (which is something that we take for granted now).

Bless As I said, you are at perfect liberty to disagree. You don't help your own arguments by being patronising.

I've no problem with the idea of making vaccines (and all medications) safer. That's certainly a good thing.

But as it stands they are very very safe. The number of children who suffer any damage is tiny, especially in comparison with most of the diseases. It's very hard to identify markers for children who may be at risk, other than the ones already developed - eg those with compromised immune systems, as you'd then exclude so many children who would be perfectly fine to have the vaccine and who are then exposed to the disease which would be far more risky, especially if large numbers of children aren't being vaccinated due to the loss of herd immunity.

I think if your child has previously had a bad reaction to a vaccine, even if only temporary, then it's really your responsibility to flag this. I know I would.

I agree lavolcan. I think saying 'bless' is quite patronizing which is why it annoyed me so much when accuracy (and cote) did it further up the thread

Drinking water and sanitation are important in development but actually childhood vaccinations are one of the most cost effective interventions in saving lives and promoting good health. Resources aren't endless and if you wish to save the most lives for the money available, you need to vaccinate. Sanitation (while very important) can only go so far. You should have a look at what the Gates foundation are doing. Fanstastic work and kudos to them!

www.gatesfoundation.org/polio/Pages/end-polio.aspx

a bit more about the wonderful Gates foundation
www.gatesfoundation.org/vaccines/Pages/default.aspx

Just because it's hard to find pre disposing markers, isn't a reason not to do it
It is of course down to the parents to flag this, because the GP's don't. However, this does put the onus on every single parent, many of which would not think to question a GP
And once/if flagged, we have to rely on the fact that GP's will be open to accepting our concerns, recording our concerns, acting on our concerns
Bit of a leap

Numbers are too tiny, mine. It's like looking for a needle in a haystack.

Anyway, vaccines are made safer and better all the time so clearly research is going on.

Elaine I personally would put sanitation above vaccination but I don't see it as either/or. We would need to do a cost analysis to say whether vaccination is cheaper than providing sanitation. I found this report addresses this very question:
www.irinnews.org/Report/84386/GLOBAL-Sanitation-vs-vaccination-in-cholera-control

Yes, recorded numbers are too tiny
That's my point

Anyway, vaccines are made safer and better all the time so clearly research is going on.

Could you provide some scientific references to back this statement up?

I don't see it as either/or either. I think you need both. But as the article points out, sanitation is a long term investment and quite slow in being rolled out whereas a cholera vaccine is a quick-fix and can be implemented quickly. Once you HAVE a good sanitation system and clean drinking water, there's no need for a cholera vaccine but until you do, what a great intervention to save lives!

BUt wouldn't you say vaccination is introducing a pretty strong selection pressure?

Your complete dismissal of vaccine damaged children is pretty irritating. Clearly they are acceptable collateral. Despite the fact an honest look at vaccination and reactions would allow some predictions to be made in advance, now, today. It would cost more per jab, granted. But worth it to avoid the misery of brain damage?

I'm stunned that you think the reporting system works well. It didn't with the urabe strain MMR www.telegraph.co.uk/health/3347742/Early-fears-about-MMR-in-secret-papers.html

As an aside my grandmother died (unexpectedly) whilst on a drug trial (for statins I think - but would need to check - she died from unexpected internal bleeding). Anyway it was never investigated as a potential adverse reaction, and that was during a trial. I would have expected it to be yellow carded at least.

what a great intervention to save lives!

One of the problems will be who you give it to e.g. the report says "IVI?s director said the vaccine has not been tested on infants under one year old." So, will they give it to babies under one, and it will be a great life-saver, or will it endanger them because because there are side effects that no-one has tested for? Or will it not be given to them at all, so they won't have the protection from cholera, (although if they are breastfed they will presumably get some via the mother). So I would have to say, maybe to your statement above.

And it's not like looking for a needle in a haystack if you look at individual children, rather than populations.

I never said the reporting system works well. I just said that vaccines have the same problems as other medicines. If you are talking about improving patient safety across the board, I'm 100% behind you.

Vaccines are given to HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of children across the world. Even small side effects will be picked up. The numbers of children who are vaccine damaged are so small that you can't accurately identify them beyond what's already been done without including huge numbers of children who can be vaccinated. Indeed, you don't know that the tiny number of children at risk of vaccine damage are at even more risk of disease damage so if large numbers of children aren't vaccinated, you are exposing them to even more risk.

I'm sorry if this irritates you but I'm basing this on the evidence in front of me and I have been careful throughout to say that I don't know anything about any one individual case as I am talking at a population level. A lot of things which have been said here equally irritate me, if you are that sensitive I suggest you hide threads about vaccinations.

I don't know about the side effects of the cholera vaccine. If babies are being breastfed exclusively, then the risk of cholera is almost zero. However, we also know that babies who DO get cholera are incredibly vulnerable so I'm not sure what they'll decide to do in areas where cholera is a problem.

The sad fact is that the side effects just aren't picked up
If a proper procedure was put in place to track responses to vaccines effectively, then that level of information based on the hundreds of millions of vaccines would provide sufficient evidence to begin to screen children pre disposed to vaccine damage effectively
It's not being done
You have to question why that is

Because you're talking in the region of one or two children per 100,000 vaccines who may suffer a more serious reaction.

It would be incredibly expensive and probably impossible to identify those children as we'd need a test which would be specific enough not to exclude the many many children who are perfectly fine to be vaccinated.

Why not just use the evidence we currently have
They aren't excluding anyone at the moment

Yes they are. Here you go
www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/should-not-vacc.htm

And let's not forget, the figures you are quoting are based on info actually gathered, not info not currently gathered

Plus retrospective studies plus ecological studies. If you triangulate from different sources, you get the same evidence - vaccines, especially modern ones, are very very safe.

Sorry, I think you misunderstand what I am saying
I'm talking about using the information that is already available, not creating a new test group