If you decided to postpone baby jabs...

[thehouseofmirth]

how long did you delay them for and what was the rationale for your decision?

My DD has had both sets of MMR at 18 mths and 4 yrs as she is older and they were the guidlines then) and her triples at the set ages.

When I had DS he was very poorly from birth, in SCBU, had ongoing breathing/feeding/everything problems and referred for his first EEG/VEP at 8 weeks when he didn't smile or focus.

His Paed advised me not to start him on the course of triples as they didn't know what was wrong with him, his exact words were "let's not add another variable to the mix." DS did go on to have them later, but more in line with the guidelines of some years ago. The Paed said they had been made earlier/closer together to increase the % of DC finishing the course - the older a DC is the more likely they are to be exposed to illness and miss jabs because of this.

Before this I had no concerns whatsoever about giving my DC vaccinations.

The adverse events also need to be taken seriously. Something they are not at the moment. It can be very difficult to get an adverse reaction recorded.

I find it odd for example that should your child die from a vaccination, they will receive no payout if they die before age 2. Of course a payout can never replace a lost child, but why pay after 2 and not before?

As a parent I am interested in my individual children. I have one severely disabled, it seems likely (from current peer reviewed journal papers) in part his disability has arisen from his immune system - in ways not currently well understood- I therefore need to proceed with caution to protect my children. Their interest is the most important to me as a mother. I take action to protect public interest by being aware of the symptoms of the diseases and quarantining where necessary.

saintly I disagree. Obviously there is a benefit to having MMR jabs but for me the social responsibility issue was important too. And that is from someone who had to rush ds to hospital with a severe allergic reaction after he had his first MMR jab.

Well being blunt there is a difference between an allergic reaction and a lifelong condition requiring 24 hour care (which my son had). I'm afraid that avoiding severe learning disabilities/severe autism and a lifetime of care was (and remains) the priority for my other children.

sorry mollie, that is smug. one anaphylactic reaction is patently not the same than lifelong disability.

cross posts....x

and that is a non-argument saintly. obviously!

mine had them all late because they were ill too

and one child got a measles type reaction to the MMR and the other a mumps one

but I'd still rather immunise than not, I think largely from being brought up in Africa and seeing the effects of having no medical systems and no immunisations (I know different here but it does make you grateful for what you've got)

surely foxy that is much much more about sanitation??? nutrition???

I agree with saintly, I deleted my final para (as felt it was overly emotive) which was along the lines of...

My DS has severe SN, including immune system problems, metabolic and malabsorbtion problems. Every developmental step he has taken have been painful and exhausting, with every basic skill having to be learnt and relearnt over and over - he is 4.8 and is just learning to feed himself.

Of course I have a social responsiblity, but my first is to ensure that I place no more burden on my DS' health than is necessary.

If I watched him regress after vaccinations, I think I would go slowly mad.

even in developing countries people get pissed off with vaccine damage. I have some links on my other computer, to newspaper articles from eg India where mother's are ranting about adverse reactions and lack of testing.

If I did give MMR to a child of mine I would be quite pleased to see a measles type reaction tbh- at least you know it worked

oh I'm sure it is sophable but I'm saying from personal experience, not from me looking with medical eyes or even with the eyes of a parent but with the eyes of a child or teenager growing up with it, that sort of situation where diseases like measles are still fairly widespread just makes your eyes open as to what those illnesses are really like on a big scale.

Sorry saintly I didn't mean to cause offence. My decision wasn't taken lightly and was the result of a number of conversations with his paediatrician. It is an honest reason (at least for me) and wasn't meant to be smug or hurtful. We all have different issues to deal with and different reasons for making the decisions we do, each are equally as valid.

Should also add that ds's reaction wasn't a mild measles-type reaction.

sorry mollieo, didn't mean to bite your head off! but just think that an adverse vaccine reaction is kind of the taboo of the medical world.

No problem. Ds was prem, very poorly (I was told he was unlikely to survive). Developmental delay and other problems that will last his life and continue to cause problems but nothing on the scale that MS has to deal with.

yes, tbh, was pleased to see the reaction (though also because they were hopping up and down wondering whether she should have the jab in hospital due to previous reactions and allergies so was slightly concerned when it happened because didn't want them saying I TOLD YOU SO (she wasn't unwell in any way otherwise I wouldn't have thought that!).

Think Mollie has a point though and was just countering your statement below about people not doing it out of a sense of public duty. I think there is an element of that in people who vaccinate. I know there was an element of that with mine (as quite a few people we knew were pregnant and I had the fact that I hadn't given the kids the MMR at the back of my mind so it nudged me to remember to do it).

But not sure why I post on these threads as I respect others choices not to vaccinate tbh.

No I didn't think it was, that was in relation to a later post.

I suspect had you felt that a vaccination had the potential to cause lasting damage to your child then you would be more concerned with the individual reaction that the public though. I merrily vaccinated ds1 happy in the thought I was doing public good. ds1's regression made future decisions much harder and followed a lot of reading (and continues reading and conference attendance) of the published literature.

In the meantime there are other ways of being socially responsible such as knowing the symptoms of diseases. (As I said before ds1 caught rubella from a vaccinated child).

I think I hate the suggestion that those of us who don't vaccinate are automatically socially irresponsible. Had I vaccinated (which I did with ds1 - all jabs up to the single measles, when we stopped because of his regression) I still don't think I would have spread rubella everywhere because I would have know that my son could still get rubella even though we had vaccinated. I'm not going to say the mother was irresponsible not to know that, but will say that for example, I would never visit a newborn with a child with a cold, in case the cold was a prodomal stage of eg measles.

not suggesting anyone on here is specifically saying those of us who don't vaccinate are irresponsible, but it does get said. A lot!

If there is one thing that gets my goat it is the 'I vaccinated dor the greater good of society' line that always gets trotted out. I think vaccination is a good thing on the whole, but there is no way any parent would vaccinate their child if they genuinely thought those vaccines might cause them harm - whether it benefited society or not would be neither here or there. And it would be highly unethical to deliberately put a child at risk for the greater good of society. Parents always vaccinate or do not vaccinate out of a desire to protect their children.

I think what you're saying is that it is bolleaux!