to not allow ds2 to have mmr jab?

[TheLadyEvenstar]

I don't think I am, after ds1 had it i noticed a major difference in his behaviour and don't want to go through it again,

I just write 'not vaccinated on medical advice' on the form.

My DD2 is completely unvaccinated.

I don't really worry about it as such because there is no point as they are too high risk for a bad reaction. There is no way either of my DDs are having anything certainly in the next wee while, possibly until they are old enough to make that choice for themselves.

I found it really helped to get as much info as possible on the diseases in question so that you know how dangerous they really are and how to treat them properly if your children do catch them.

We took both DDs to Tunisia for a month this summer to visit my FIL and to be honest I didn't even think about the fact that DD2 is unvaccinated and DD1 has only had the first two sets of baby jabs. They swam in pools, the sea, etc.

When I have to hand in some paper or other for school I give them a photocopy of their healthbooks and accompany it with a note from their doctor. However I live in France where vaccination is manditory for school entry (although it is not too difficult to get an exemption from your doctor if he or she is reasonably sane).

you see i'd be terrified of polio in certain places abroad, though i know the risk in Eastern Europe is extremely small. I thought i'd made my peace with my decision until dd came along, and now suddenly i'm veering. I have a form of lupus [now in remission thanfully] which only arose a few years ago, and that is when i started questioning the issue.

Dontwanttobe - with lupus I'm not surprised you are carefully considering your options. In answer to your question, ds had DTP and booster and measles (single) vaccine. I don't particularly worry about him getting mumps or rubella at this age (he is 4). I am concerned that the government no longer vaccinates adolescent girls against Rubella but at the same time, I don't see why I should overload ds's system unnecessarily. It was hard enough for me to take him for the jabs he's had without contemplating ones I feel are not important for his own health and may even jeopardise it.

I have to say I can't understand why they stopped vaccinating teenage girls against it as well - perhaps the success rate of that vaccine was too low to be effective in protecting against german measles while pg? I know when I started work in a hospital I had my rubella status tested, as we all did - my antibodies were fine (over the top of the measurable limit) but some girls/women needed a booster.

Mind you, I had had german measles aged about 9, so maybe that helped.

Don't understand the mumps at such a young age at all. It could easily be done when the boys are about 10.

I can't see how an immunisation at 2yrs of age could be more effective than one given at 12yrs of age - I surmise it has more to do with saving money.

it would be far more effective at 11/12 years as would have less chance of wearing off. I think it is scandalous actually.

Thing is though if it gets given at 11/12 years old not so many vaccines get given as by that age most people are already immune. Not good.

Cuts profits you see, can't have that. It's all about pharma profit margins public health policy of course.

Presumably the point of vaccinating at such a young age is to try and get the diseases out of circulation altogether, thereby protecting those who are unable to be vaccinated (like my friend's daughter who is neutropenic due to chemo, age 5) and those for whom vaccination doesn't work. If children aren't vaccinated until their teens then the diseases are still free to circulate. If they do a good enough job eradicating the disease (as with smallpox) then in future generations nobody need be vaccinated.

problem with current system tho is vaccination immunity can wear off, thus leaving the most vulnerable exposed to infection.

Mmm. Can you explain how that would really work though considering that vaccines are not 100% effective and uptake is far from 100%?

Also viruses and bacteria mutate and change serotype in order to survive anyway. Men C/B is the most well documented example I have come across of this happening.

Also are we sure that we want to/should be interfering with human, bacterial and viral ecosystems when we don't really know what the wider consequences of this can be?

For example there is a whole body of research that suggests that polio has mutated and now exists as many different strains, some of which are implicated in diseases such as CFS and ME.

I'm uncomfortable with this playing God aspect of vaccine policy.

I suspect that giving MMR at such a young age is more likely to change the age distribution for these diseases than eradicate them.

Still I guess everybody could get boosters regularly.

Seems a crazy, expensive and very medicalised way to go about things IMO. Ups the risk and lowers the benefit of the old risk/benefit ratio too.