SIL has not vaccinated my nieces

[Pittcuecothecookbook]

My baby has been booked in for her vaccinations soon. I asked my sister in law, who has primary school aged kids, about the experience and I was flabbergasted when she said she didn't get their jabs. I can't quite believe it!

When I asked why, she said the risks outweighed the pros but she struggled to articulate what the risks were beyond 'potential death'. I said that that was also the downside of not getting the jabs too! She said she was persuaded when her friend said that the jabs couldn't be undone if her kids had a reaction.

AIBU to be shocked and quite disappointed about this? I'm not looking forward to it by any means, but the eradication of many awful diseases and protection against those still prevalent is surely a non negotiable?

When her kids don't get these diseases, she'll be vindicated but that will likely be because the majority have had their jabs rather than proving jabs were unnecessary.

I imagine I'll get over this - my child will be protected - but I'm just at hearing this news.

"The issue really is the certainty that the risks outweigh the benefits."

There are two considerations here:

One is that some diseases for which vaccines exist are not terribly scary - e.g. chicken pox - so the small risk of the vaccine is perceived to be not worth it. I have not vaccinated my DC for chicken pox. They both had it and are now immune for life. You can shout "Selfish! Selfish!" at me all you like but it won't change the fact that it was a perfectly valid choice.

Second is that the more people vaccinate in a community, the less likely it is for a child to get a disease. As herd immunity increases, the risk of not vaccinating decreases (yes, now you can shout "Selfish!" ). This is why there are quite a few Game Theory papers out there that mathematically show that it is impossible to eradicate a disease with voluntary vaccination programs.

"the selfishness of creating risk for others based on nothing more than feelings and irrational fears (irrational because they have no foundation in fact)"

It's not just feelings and irrational fears, though. Some (few) babies do react terribly to their first vaccines. Some (few) children do regress following vaccinations. These don't seem possible to diagnose before the vaccination.

"Like my fear of flying is irrational. People have died in planes. But the benefit to me of flying to somewhere (as opposed to the statistically greater risk of driving) is greater than the that tiny risk of crashing."

I think you might be confusing Probability with Risk.

Risk = Probability of something happening x Just how bad that something would be if it actually happened.

For example, I had two amniosyntheses in my two pregnancies despite everyone saying "But the risk of a miscarriage is so much bigger than the risk of a genetic problem!" which was a misrepresentation. The probability of a genetic disorder was much smaller than that of a miscarriage, but I wouldn't have minded miscarrying a fetus as an outcome as much as an incurable genetic condition in my baby so the risk of the amnios was actually more acceptable .

"Can we run society on unfounded ideas and irrational fears?"

I don't think this is a relevant question. Arguably the society is already running on unfounded ideas and irrational fears, at least if my Facebook feed is anything to go by.

"Or should we run then on fact and for the good of all?"

Dictatorship of the scientifically minded, in other words. I wouldn't mind it but some others might not be happy with this plan of yours.

Sorry for the epic post. I didn't realise how long it was before I posted it

It is very much up to each parent to decide the risk to their child.

And the parents will have to live with their choices whatever the outcome.

It's not just feelings and irrational fears, though. Some (few) babies do react terribly to their first vaccines. Some (few) children do regress following vaccinations. These don't seem possible to diagnose before the vaccination.

Which brings to mind the phrases

Correlation is not causation

Anecdotes aren't data

A parents belief that that their child was affected by a vaccine doesn't necessarily make it so.

If they get a fever it may have been they were incubating an entirely different infection before getting the vaccine which just timed in with the vaccine (my dd had a stinker of a cold brewing before her mmr booster vaccine, a couple of people said to me it was the vaccine but she'd not responded that way before and a couple days later it was clear). If there's other issues it's entirely possible there were symptoms presenting before the vaccine that were either so mild the parents didn't notice, or they ignored or falsely attributed to something else. Then are hypervigilant following the vaccine and/or symptoms become more noticeable.

It's why we don't just rely on parents observations.

Personal I'd take issue with chicken pox being 'not that bad' too. I've a sibling was admitted to hospital as a result of chicken pox. The reasons for it not being part of the vaccination schedule are hotly debated.

"Vaccines interfere with the body’s ability to express symptoms"

I don't think you understand what a vaccine is and I very much doubt that you have a "medical background", at least in the sense of formal education in this subject.

CoteDAzur

Good post. I can’t really disagree with any of it. I think it comes down to the fact that I am suffering ongoing complications from preventable childhood disease and I wouldn’t wish it on anyone.

If you asked me ‘Are we responsible for each other’? I would give a resounding ‘Yes’

It’s just a different outlook. I do find the concept of treating ourselves as islands with no responsibility for our fellow man a bit abhorrent really. Which is probably why I find conversations with my Conservative family so difficult.

Graphista - It is not a secret nor a conspiracy theory that some (few) children are negatively affected by vaccinations.

Viral diseases as well as vaccines can trigger regressions in a very small minority of children. This is well documented and I believe the current theory is that (previously unknown) mitochondrial disease might have something to do with the susceptibility of these children.

I'm not saying it never happens, I'm saying parents own reports of it happening aren't necessary reliable. And it's happening as a direct result of vaccination even more so.

Such cases would need to be assessed by medical professionals.

MissSusan - I had all childhood diseases because there were no vaccines for them when/where I was growing up. I had one of them twice, actually, because the 1st time was when I was a small baby and lifelong immunity was not acquired. I was lucky I guess that I had no lasting effects and neither did anyone I know or heard of.

Yes, I am all for helping our fellow men as well, and will happily donate and work for causes I find worthy. However, I will not take risks with my children's health and well-being for someone else's benefit. That is where I draw the line.

So many comments talking about how stupid or unloving some parents are to choose to ignore robust and well known scientific research.
I reall hope that all you rude and judgemental mummies are, in that case, breast feeding your children (because science...and I have researched and written about this...absolutely says that if there is no medical reason to prevent breastfeeding then it is the best and most healthy way to raise your baby) for at least 9 months, that you did not drink alcohol while pregnant (again, real science is thoroughly against this) and that you are not fat from eating shit processed food and that you will not allow your children to have that either, or to be obese. Because...well... that would make you as stuid as the parents you are judging who are choosing to ignore sound scientific advice. And you would be directly putting your children's health at risk, and putting financial pressure on the NHS. God forbid. As you so eloquently say yourselves, if you don't follow all of the above advice (as strongly recommended by science, not the little magazine articles attempting to appease you and encourage you to have that second glass of prosecco etc.) then you clearly don't give a shit about your children, right?

Aopologies for typos. The venom I read must have been catching and led to furious unproof-read typing.

And finally, OP, if you are following everyone's advice here and being a perfect loving caring mummy that gives a shit about her baby then you are breastfeeding. And your baby will be protected against the usual childhood diseases by your breast milk.

cotedazur apologies since I may not be following properly but does that mean your children are not vaccinated based on the belief there is potentially more harm from the vaccine than from the illnesses they are designed to protect you from?

Spirited - It's usually a good idea to read the thread before commenting, especially when you are asking a question that might already be answered.

Ohhhhh buddhababy...

I had 2 mc before dd. As a result I did a LOT of research - I've spoken about this before on mn.

Before even coming off pill to ttc I cut out alcohol, caffeine, unpasteurised dairy, raw or undercooked eggs and certain food additives.

I'm veggie anyway, so eat a fairly healthy diet and was never a big drinker. Also a lifelong non-smoker, but I also avoided as far as possible public places where a lot of smoking was going on.

I ended up having an emcs unfortunately and dd was in scbu due to in part to the birth issues. So while she was tube fed initially as soon as possible we switched to bf which luckily i was able to maintain for 9 months. I loved it. Personally I found it far easier than formula which I had to switch to as a medical condition (endo) made my milk dry.

Dd has always been slim and just naturally doesn't like "junk food" she hates chips and chocolate in particular. Her favourite meal is my homemade (from scratch) veggie chilli.

I've unfortunately gained weight since my late 30's having until then been no bigger than a size 14 (while pregnant and immediately after birth) through a combination of ageing, disability meaning it's hard for me to be active and meds prescribed for various conditions (inc steroids). I'm now a size 16.

However, all that said your self righteous rant is nonsensical to a degree because

A mothers pregnancy choices re nutrition/smoking will make no difference to whether vaccination is effective.

Breastfeeding is not as effective as vaccination. It's an additional layer of protection but it's by no means an adequate replacement.

Nutrition can support and help maintain a healthy immune system but again is no substitute for vaccination.

Plus if a mother chooses, to have coffee, the occasional drink, not to bf etc surely that's even more reason to vaccinate and have as much of the rest of the community vaccinated as possible, as arguably that child is LESS protected?

Graphista - you have misinterpreted my post.
I was being a bit sarcastic about other posters opinions (of which there are many here in the vein about which I am talking) that people who choose not to vaccinate, despite lots of science saying that it is better to, don't give a shit about their children.
IF that is the case, that people ignoring science are deliberately harming their children and are also very stupid (this has been repeated many times in this thread...that these parents are really stupid for ignoring a plethora of scientific advice) then I trust that the posters here accusing the 'stupid science ignroing parents' follow ALL other well documented and robust scientific advice, in order to keep themselves and their children healthy.
Otherwise they, by their own definition, are stupid and don't care about their children.

I veered away from vaccinating specifically, but the point is the same.
There is a lot of good scientific advice (and not so good, even in the Lancet and BMJ) but to pick one thing in particular and do the online equivalent of lynching any parent who does not follow the advice, is very hypocritical and, dare I say stupid, if one is not also following other good scientific advice.
I bet a large % of the harshly judgemental posters here do not follow all that advice, regardless of whether it is to do with screens, nutrition, alcohol, family relationships etc.

I know what you were trying to do

You are wasting your time - hell has fury like a bunch of outraged MN-etters against someone who dares questions the current vaccination schedule.

Interestingly, in the Doghouse, it seems generally accepted that vaccination risks are real, that dogs are over vaccinated and that many choose to ignore current advice.

Weird old world

CoteDAzur

Yes, you were lucky. I wasn’t unlucky. I just didn’t have access to the best vaccines. If I’d had the combined jab I wouldn’t be in this mess.

People have forgotten what the price of these illnesses is. They think they know what they are risking. They don’t. I am going progressively more and more deaf. I will lose all hearing before the age of 40. And that is a mild outcome.

buddhababy123, thanks, yes I do all those things. My baby is also yet to see a screen. I'm a real stickler for the rules. 11 months and still only had breast milk, and never had sugar other than fruit.

But none of that has anything to do with the junk science and outright lies posted by anti vaccine conspiracy theories on this thread.

You might notice that:
They complain no-one reads their evidence
They don't read the evidence anyone else posts
Their evidence doesn't say what it says it does
They haven't read their evidence because they don't know it doesn't say what it says it does
Any time you ask them a question or try to engage them in debate about evidence they ignore you completely

A question for those who won't vaccinate (and especially for those saying that they refuse to vaccinate for the benefit of others)

If vaccination rates were very low and therefore disease much more prevalent would you still refuse to vaccinate? In other words, are you refusing vaccination because the risks of catching these diseases is lowered by herd immunity?

My friend refused to have the MMR vaccine for her children. She also refused to mix with other unvaccinated children in case they gave her children an illness. She was very happy to mix with my children though because they were deemed "safe" due to being vaccinated! She was mightily shocked when I refused to see her children because they were a risk to me (I am immunocompromised).

Buddhababby

There are some differences though, quite strong btw, your arguments are weak :

• not vaccinating a child puts said child at risk of contracting a deadly disease. The child can die as a result. Breast milk is better than formula but formula isn't going to kill a baby.

• more importantly, that decision affects not just that child, but everyone else and immunosupressed people are at risk. If you give formula/junk food only that child is affected.

Lots of cases of mumps at the moment in young adults who had the MMR and the mumps protection wore off

Should I stop seeing older adults in case they are a “risk” to my baby

Of course not. But don’t assume that only the unvaccinated are the “unclean” ones

Called, where there have been outbreaks among the vaccinated:

1. Those who contract it generally suffer milder symptoms

1. The outbreaks have prompted calls for another booster to avoid the effects of declining immunity, especially with the number of parents refusing to vaccinate having increased

They are in no way an argument for the idea that it is less risky to be unvaccinated. It is still far riskier to be unvaccinated.