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)

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.

Yes, whooping cough can be nasty, as can measles but who has heard of a child catching all these diseases at once? Although vaccines do save lives, it's the advisability of bundling them all into one jab and giving them to small babies which many of us question. Who has heard of anyone catching diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis (whooping cough), polio and Haemophilus influenzae type b, (first vaccine at 2 months), plus the same again at 3 months when a booster is given and plus a meningitis C jab and then MMR at a year old?

there's no evidence that vaccinating against a number of diseases at once versus separately is any worse. The child is not 'catching the disease'. The body is constantly exposed to viruses and bacteria, the immune system is constantly stimulated. Adding the vaccines together is not 'too much' for the immune system. This idea has NO basis in scientific fact.

Here you go
AAP article

To avoid more confusion
My issue is that the numbers of children who suffer as a result of vaccine damage is not recorded accurately, therefore not giving a true reflection of the numbers available
The amount of children who are affected versus the numbers who aren't will still be hugely higher
But, because it is a minority group, does that mean we accept these children as collateral damage?
When, clearly, if procedures to collect data on children affected were better ( based on what is actually happening now, very few except known exceptions), then information could be collated on which children were reacting with what history etc etc
Or even, look at the children thought to have been affected by vaccine damage already, and test that group for similarities
I've put that very simplistically, but you get the idea

Since the number of children is miniscule, it's highly unlikely you'd be able to find anything that you could generalize to a population of children. Even the idea that there are identifiable markers is controversial. And, of course, you are then exposing them to the disease itself without even knowing how they'll react to the disease.

It's not a 'minority group', it's hardly a group at all.

And 'collateral damage' is a very loaded term. You vaccinate primarily to protect yoru child. As with any intervention, there are risks, albeit very very small in this case. It's not collateral damage anymore than if you get brain damage from mealsles from a decision not to vaccinate is collateral damage.

But how do you know it's a small group, if the data is not collected accurately?

It's just one source of data. you also look at retrospective studies, you also look at ecological studies. It all says the same thing.

It's probably not the best term to use for clarity
I'm just unsure as to why anyone would not support, more accurate data collection, more questioning by GP's, more research (based on gathering data we already have), more interest in potential pre disposing factors
More prevention of vaccine damage
Why would anyone oppose that?

Elaine - perhaps they could start by examining children who end up in ICU post vaccination then look at their siblings? Yellow carding children who end up in ICU post vaccination would be a not too difficult start.

Examining children who regress post vaccination would be another start.

I'd support better patient safety overall including vaccines.

I'd support even safer and more effective vaccines plus new vaccines for other diseases including neglected diseases like malaria (coming soon hopefully).

What I would hate to see is more and more children damaged by vaccine preventable diseases because of scaremongering about vaccines.

I know :counts on fingers: hm about 20 children who had adverse reactions to vaccinations. From seizures to trips to ICU to bowel problems and regression. None were investigated as potential adverse reactions. They could start with them :helpful:

just a point about:

• I do find this a good example of the medical establishment's overarching tendency to treat the symptom and not the cause. It's all very well producing stronger and stronger drugs to treat the stronger and stronger bugs that are arising in reaction to our policies but it's a bit of a viscious circle n'est pas? MRSA anyone?

The reason measles is a (relatively in comparison to some diseases) mild childhood illness is because it has evolved to be that way over generations and generations being infected and made immune. That trend would only continue, the virus would get weaker, not stronger over time.

Seems to me that our policies are actually causing the reverse, to our possible own detriment.

People talk about social responsibility. What about the longterm health of the species?

Just a thought.

It's always scaremongering isn't it?

If you were changing your teenage child's nappy and their post MMR trip to ICU had never been investigated you'd be cross yes? Even crosser if you were told you were scaremonegring.

You do realize that we can eradicate polio through vaccination? And smallpox has already been eradicated? I'd say that contribute to the long term health of our species.

And actually you may find that using vaccinations helps reduce antiobiotic resistance since you are having to treat less secondary infections.

You have ZERO evidence showing that vaccinations make a virus become more virulent.

Just unbelievable.

Elaine. I think it's fair to say that the majority of the posters on this thread have been informed, articulate and knowledgable
I think throwing in the word 'scaremongering' at this point in the discussion isn't that helpful, particular considering that at least one parent has been adversely affected themselves

Oh I was just reading earlier today that polio is proving to be harde to eradicate than expected. I'll link when I'm back in my computer (if the read isn't full). Was a thought provoking article.

There was zero evidence that antibiotics would evolve resistance when they were introduced (although people were warned - went to a lecture where John maynard smith ranted about that). Certainly the selection pressure from a vaccination may result in reduced virulence in evolving strains, but it's all a bit random.

Adding the vaccines together is not 'too much' for the immune system.
AAP article - OK one source to say not. I haven't had time to read it yet.

This idea has NO basis in scientific fact.
I don't think anyone can ever say something has NO basis - our knowledge is so incomplete in so many areas. The best we can say is that our current understanding says that it doesn't appear to be so.

This suggests new strain whooping cough is more virulent. Will search later for a better source. Ds1 is having a bad day - later.

www.abc.net.au/news/2012-03-21/whooping-cough-strain-27breaking-through-vaccines27/3902762

And actually you may find that using vaccinations helps reduce antiobiotic resistance since you are having to treat less secondary infections.

That's an extremely woolly statement if I may say so. You go to the Dr, they tell you that you've got a virus, which antibiotics are no good for, and then they go and prescribe an antibiotic just in case you get a bacterial secondary infection.

www.bmj.com/content/344/bmj.e3769 this bmj article talks about the interactions between vaccinations (and vitamins/sex differences/changes ti timings etc)

Darn it www.bmj.com/content/344/bmj.e3769

This for example is from the article:

A notable exception is the high titre measles vaccine, which was withdrawn because an interaction with diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis (DTP) vaccine resulted in a 33% (95% confidence interval 2% to 73%) increase in mortality among children aged 4-60 months in several west African randomised trials.3.

"You have ZERO evidence showing that vaccinations make a virus become more virulent. "

I think people are talking about mutations Elaine and there is evidence for this.

Also, wrt polio. I'm not sure if you missed the discussion earlier but it is going to be difficult to eradicate polio while the live OPV is still in use.

Can anyone reproduce that article in full for non subscribers?