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)

Vol, for some the benefits do not outweigh the risks and unfortunately at the moment there is no way of knowing whether your child is one of them.

X-post saintly. Sorry!

Can I ask a question? All this talk of vaccines acting as 'triggers' for conditions like Autism/bowel conditions has me wondering... if you didn't have the vaccine trigger, would the child have developed the condition at a later date, by possibly another trigger (such as an illness or another environmental trigger)? Genuinely curious, or would the child not have developed the condition, even if they had a predisposition to it (ie, family history etc)?

I was brought up in a Mediterranean country, where 30 years ago, children were offered very few vaccinations. I contracted whooping cough, rubella and mumps as a child. It wasn't fun but I survived unscathed.
Nevertheless I wouldn't even consider not vaxing my DCs for a second. Whoever said "live healthy" and you won't catch a nasty disease is an idiot.

"most people think that vaccination damage is fine, providing it isn't their child"

But equally you could turn it round and claim that "most people think that permanent disability or death from a preventable disease is fine, providing it isn't their child".

In any case, I don't think anyone has said it is "fine", have they?

"Vol, for some the benefits do not outweigh the risks and unfortunately at the moment there is no way of knowing whether your child is one of them."

Statistically the benefits do very much outweigh the risks. And since there is "no way of knowing" where there may be a risk, best to go with statistical evidence I think. This will bring the most benefit and least harm to the greatest number of people.

Sorry Vol, but I don't really like the 'collateral damage for the sake of the greater good' argument.

Sorry, but the statistics support the conclusion that if you are vaccine damaged then your risk was 100%.

There was no-one with an ASD diagnosis in our family when DS had his MMR.

He regressed (within the space of a fortnight) from a sociable, happy toddler who had started walking and talking, to an introverted mute who stopped walking.

I cannot say that this would not have happened if he hadn't had the jab, and I cannot say that the jab caused this.

So I can understand people being reluctant to give their DCs the jab, even if they don't have a family history of ASD.

EasilyBored
I'm not entirely sure I subscribe to the 'trigger' theory. However, Autism was around in all it's forms before vaccinations, and fairly well documented in various ways, too. Whether it manifested itself due to other factors or would have done anyway, is one of those things that we just don't know.

By avoiding chemicals etc in daily life, does this also include medicines?

If your child has, say, an ear infection, do you give antibiotics?

Genuinely wondering how far the choice to decline vaccines goes? By taking a new medication you risk a reaction to it of some description... admittedly possibly not as severe as 'vaccine damage' (although some medications can cause irreparable harm / damage). Where does it stop?

For me, it comes down to risk. I have seen a child dying of Measles. I would not take that risk with my DCs, which is why they are vaccinated. The same reason I choose to use seatbelts in the car - I would not risk mine or my DCs life by not wearing them, because "it won't happen to me" is not a valid reason IMO.

Soozy, it's awful to watch a child sick or dying from anything. The chances of a healthy, well nourished child dying from measles is actually very small. For some children the risk of being damaged by the vaccine is far greater. I don't think it's as simple as 'it won't happen to me.'

With regards to medicines,i cant say i would never ever use mainstream medicine,but i would most likely look to natural alternatives and homeopathy first.My children have never been ill,yes they have had the occasional runny nose but no illnesses or infections,so i cant give an example.I put that down to a mixture of full term breastfeeding,a really good diet,lots of fresh air,good genes and a bit of good luck too!

Its funny how people have mentioned my child being a danger to others,i am more worried about school being a danger to my son,sitting in a room with a load of other kids all day,some of who are bound to be the type that always gets ill,does worry me slightly,but its not like we never mixed with other children before,and if you look at it from the point of view that vaccines work,he was more at risk before because the kids were mixing with were not vaxed,yet they were all the healthiest robust kids ive ever known.(im not saying i believe he isnt safe at school,just saying you could look at it like that if you are pro vax).

Where did you see a child dying of measles? Was this abroad soozywoozy?

We avoid antibiotics as well. Obviously if they are absolutely necessary they will be given, but ds2 has had one round, ds3 none (he's now 7). This is no longer out of kilter with medical opinion. When ds1 was little he had about 8 sets of antibiotics by the time he was 2 - mainly for repeated ear infections. Ds3 had repeated ear infections & burst ear drums, we decided not to treat with antib's. When he was hospitalised following a seizure from the ear infection I was given a long lecture in hospital about how they would not prescribe antibiotics and there was no need to give them for ear infections. (They didn't seem to notice I was agreeing with them, and saying we didn't want them anyway).

I do know a few people who's children ended up in ITU after the MMR and are now autistic (three people I think). In two cases they were told the trip to ITU was definitely not associated with the MMR. Not sure how they could be so confident without investigation, but still. In one case the paediatrician did say a few later he felt the MMR had probably led to the ITU trip and resulting autism, but it wasn't possible to say for sure.

I do know that the population of ds1's SLD school has changed over the last thirty years, and during the last 15 years there has been a big increase in the numbers of children with severe autism. There used to be about 1 or 2 in the school, now there are two classes (plus a few others in mixed classes). These are children who are non-verbal, in many cases still in nappies as teenagers and who have no dysmorphic features and nothing indicative of a syndrome, nor were they damaged at birth. Everyone I have spoken to who has been involved with the school over that long period of time has commented. Locally social care provision is changing as well to recognise the increased numbers of individuals with severe autism coming through the system (and to try and make it slightly cheaper for the council - there are now too many kids to keep sending them out of area for social care). Now the numbers coming through still aren't huge. But the lifetime cost of caring for a non-verbal individual with severe autism is huge, so I'm vaguely surprised that no-one is tracking these children/young adults or investigating where they're coming from really. Especially as social care and education funders talk about the increase as it if exists.

Please not I am not talking about Aspergers or even HFA in the above. Only the most severely affected group.

Ah yes; homeopathy. I always treat my illnesses with water and sugar pills too.

saintly just because there are more people with ASD coming through the system, and into the school, doesn't mean there are more people with ASD.

I've read about the suspected rise in ASD being to do with a mix of better diagnosis, more recognition of there actually being a problem, and people being more willing to seek treatment. I don't doubt that there has actually be a rise in the amount of children with ASD either, but I just doubt that the vaccine has had the massive effect people have claimed.

soozy well said

The chances of a healthy, well nourished child dying from measles is actually very small.

Unfortunately because everyone has been protected no one remembers how dreadful it used to be.

cuddler are your children ever going to travel to less developed countries when they're older? assuming they'll be allowed to board a plane

The rise of Kanner Autism is non existent, unless you are talking in terms of a clearer diagnosis and population increase. The perceived increase is because it's a site more visible than it used to be. Thirty years ago, if a child had Kanner Autism, said child was generally institutionalised. This is no longer the case, ergo awareness has increased.

Exotic, my parents remember it well and I had it myself. It wasn't that long ago.

You can also look at the current figures in developing countries and see what a difference poor sanitation, nutrition and healthcare provision actually makes.

Olimpia, you're coming across as quite rude now. Do you actually want a civilised discussion about people's reasons for not vaccinating or do you just want to sling mud at people who have made a different decision to you?

Er easily bored - I specifically discounted groups where better diagnosis/more recognition would play a part. I am talking about teenagers unable to talk at all, who need full time 1:1 24 hour a day and for whom the council is having to create new provision as they had nothing suitable for them. They are open about this. They have for example created something called 'wrap around care' because they could no longer afford to pay for resi placements for the larger numbers coming through with very high levels of need. Wrap around care is designed to remove the need to place children out of county in resi placements by providing a very very high level of care within the city. And please note the group in large part targetted for this so far is the kids with severe autism. I specifically said I was NOT talking about those with AS/HFA - where yes, better recognition and change in dx probably has played a part. The group I am talking about could not have been missed.

And actually no-one (not even Wakefield) claim that MMR has contributed to the rise in autism numbers. If you read what he said, (and others) they are talking about MMR affecting a small subgroup with very specific symptoms.

As I said before autism is not one thing.

And just to be clear I am not saying that MMR has led to the increase in numbers of kids in the group mentioned above. I'm simply expressing surprise that no-one is bothering to attempt to find out.

Dawdonna as I said in my opening post I am talking about children in a SLD school - that is the institution for goodness sake. DS1's school has been around for over 30 years and has taken the most severely learning disabled in the city for that time. The population change is (according to those who have been around for that time) obvious. I spoke to a governor who's grown up child went to the school a quarter of a century ago. She said to me (and I quote). 'Where are all these autistic kids coming from, when my child was here I remember one or two, now I see classrooms full of them'. She's not the first to say that to me.

The kids described by Kanner by the way - were far more able than this group.

Saying 'oh the increase isn't real' and then talking about AS/HFA is nonsensical. I'm not talking about AS/HFA. I'm talking about an increase in a specific group of the most severely affected (and without other diagnoses - no dysmorphic features/no PD's/no syndromes).

I'm interested that so many of the people I have met over the years have commented in the increase. I'm interested in why and for what reasons. Whatever they are.

I have a friend who thinks (rightly or wrongly, I have no idea), that the increase might be due to the changes in our lifestyles - namely that rather than staying in one place (roughly) and having children with smeone from that area, you are now more likely to move and meet someone woh has similar tastes/similar personality and background than you, and have children with them. so you end up with a lot of well educated people, who may have some predisposition towards AS tendencies, meeting and having babies with other people of the same nature. And thus more liklihood of genetic AS traits coming forward.

Now, as I said, I have absolutely no idea if this true, if it's a valid theory, or if it's total junk. But I did think it was an interesting idea.