If you decided to postpone baby jabs...

[thehouseofmirth]

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

but I think with perfectly healthly children, for some people who vaccinate, there is an element of wanting it to have a herd benefit and be for the public benefit. I don't think that's bollocks at all. A few people have said they felt that way. That's not to say it was their prime motivator for getting their children vaccinated but it may well have played a part. I can't see a problem in admitting that.

God ruty that sounds dreadful

I know someone who had something very similar - well it sounds similar symptom wise following flu jab. Guillaine Barre Syndrome (GBS) he had to be on a ventilator for a while and had paralysis.

ruty, I remember having a conversation with jimjams about these horrible conditions and I'm sorry your dad is suffering from one.

I wonder if at some point they will find that some people are kind of 'immune vulnerable' and are a lot more susceptible to things like vaccinations.

I think there's an element of that in allergies which is sometimes why they are nervous of highly allergic kids having vaccines (i.e. not only because of the vaccine but because they have a capacity to react to anything).

But I do think that possibly some of the autism like illnesses and other well acknowledged immune disorders may turn out to be some sort of ultra sensitivity to chemicals or subtle immune deficiency that means the chemicals in the vaccines trigger a reaction.

yes foxinsocks, so much more research is needed. I just hope it gets done.

I hope your father improves Ruty.

ruty i'm sorry to hear about your dad...

thanks you two. he's improving but very, very slowly.

Most of my dcs have had their jabs, albeit delayed. I prefer the idea that I can see development of language etc before getting mmr done.

I'm still waiting for dt1 (2) to have the mmr as every time I book an appt she comes down with something the night before and they cancel (currently chickenpox), the same with ds3 (1) who has missed most of his jabs for the same reason. The other 3 are up to date, although getting dd1's pre-school boosters was horrendous and really upset me for ages afterwards.

My surgery only does jabs once a fortnight and it coincides with my school run times so I wonder if I'll ever get the others done .

ruty that's terrible - so sorry to hear it and also that the docs just dismissed any possibility of a link with the flu jab. Hope he gets better soon.

My Dad had a bad flu-like illness immediately after the only flu jab he had (11 years ago now) - he has since steadfastly refused it. And he hasn't had flu since.

ruty - I can't remember if I have seen you on other vaccine threads or not - are you familiar with Dr. Rosemary Waring's research? She is at Birmingham University and has done work that suggests there are groups of people at higher risk of vaccine malreaction and autoimmune disease etc. because they have higher natural levels of active cytokines - and it runs in families as you would expect. It might be of interest to you if you have access to academic research papers. She also has theories on autism and sulphation mechanisms that are interesting. I think she is amazing - I have met her and she makes a lot of sense.

she sounds very interesting thumbwitch. maybe i should try contacting her.

if you google her you can find her contact details at the Uni easily enough - she is a "top bird", afaiac. Her and Dr Alex Richardson, another of my favourites.

thankyou. Do you know about Paul Shattock, at Sunderland University?

yup, lovely bloke. Difficult to get hold of but fab when you do.

I have been to a few autism conferences and worked for someone who did nutritional work with autistic children, often to very good effect.

Rosemary Waring is great. So many of the academics in this field are really approachable and helpful. I saw an online conference about mild mitochondrial dysfunction recently - very interesting wrt to some of DS1's issues- emailed the guy in the States. Wasn't sure I'd get a reply as he's a bit of a bigwig. Within 12 hours really helpful reply giving me contact details of someone in Cambridge, then further back and forth detailed discussion about ds1 with advice on where to go next etc.

Coming back to this thread, I see things have moved on a bit but would like to reply to a couple of things from earlier.

@Beachcomber: thanks for the link to that article with the summary table, which you and the author of that website appear to have completely misunderstood. What I referred to in my post earlier was the high (~90%) risks to the baby when the mother was infected by rubella in the first trimester. The data in your linked table is from rubella infected women at any stage of pregnancy. Therefore the total proportion of infected babies will be smaller since we know that the risk to a baby being affected falls off dramatically at around 16-20 weeks gestation. In the article you linked to, in the third box from the bottom of the table, it is even stated that "14 of those were infected prior to 12 weeks and 7 of those had serious malformations (6.3% of 111)"
Hmmm... well I make that 50% (7 out of 14) rubella infections in the first trimester as having malformations. This is actually in agreement with the prospective study carried out in the UK by Miller (1) in 1982, which prospectively followed up for 2-3 years the babies of over a thousand women having had lab-confirmed rubella in pregnancy. There were 10 maternal infections at

Musukebba thanks for your detailed response. Sorry I missed that you were refering only to the first trimester infection.

I still don't get how a transmission rate of 50% in the first trimester as shown in the Danish study correlates to the 90% shown in the Miller study though.

There does seem to be much debate over CRS statistics. You say 90% of rubella infections in the first trimester lead to CRS, I say that 92% of all pregnant women infected with rubella go on to have healthy babies. It seems that both of these figures are true that the same time.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3829734?dopt=Abstract

However I think we can all agree that CRS is devastating and should be prevented when it is safely possible to do so. Both your figures and mine lead me to the conclusion that the best way to protect babies from CRS is to allow as much of the population as possible to develop natural immunity and then screen teenage girls and vaccinate as required.

I think the current policy of MMR or nowt is manifestly NOT the best way to address CRS. Studies show that this policy is in fact leaving more young women vulnerable to rubella infection at the time when they are fertile. This policy is also putting the onus for taking an unnecessary risk on children too young to give their consent and at an age where they are more susceptible to adverse vaccine reactions.

Rubella is very much a case where the, to my mind, hugely flawed and unethical concept of social responsibility comes into play. There's more I'd like to say on this but I've got a cake to bake to take to my MIL's for Sunday lunch.

(Thanks sophable for your earlier comment).

Ok so back to social responsibility and why I think it is a crock hypocritical crap of in the current mass vaccination context.

Firstly, quite simply, it is medically unethical to carry out a procedure on an individual that is not for the benefit of that individual.

Not all vaccines contribute to the dubious concept of "herd immunity". Vaccines such as whooping cough and injected polio do not prevent infection, carriage and transmission, they are designed to stop the individual from getting too sick. Tetanus vaccine is also a purely individual decision as tetanus is not transmissable.

We know that some individuals react badly to vaccines. Unless every effort is made to screen for conditions that make people susceptible to risk then we cannot, with any conscience, expect individuals to take an unknown risk with their health or that of their children. Currently little effort is being made in this direction. Had proper screening been in place my own child would not be vaccine damaged as would countless others.

The government itself admits that the current reporting process for adverse reactions is woefully inadequate. Only around 10% of reactions are reported. Therefore our safety data is 90% inaccurate and cannot be used as an argument about the risks of vaccines compared to disease. Yet again one is being required to take an unknown risk.

Recruits for vaccine safety testing pre-marketing are carefully selected and in no way representative of a real population. In other words vaccines are not tested for safety on an average population. Logically, in my opinion, this means that no-one can make claims about safety for an average population. This outrage is confounded by the poor post-marketing safety surveillance due to the flaws and inadequacies of the reporting system. The fact is that nobody has a clue how safe or dangerous vaccines are for the general population. Anyone who claims otherwise is either misinformed or lying.

When a person does react badly to a vaccine medics are generally unwilling to admit that the vaccine is at fault and prefer to declare ill health (or death) following a vaccine as 'coincidence'. Victims of vaccine damage are rarely investigated, compensated, treated or helped in any way.

Little effort is being made by mainstream medicine to identify previously undetected manifestations of vaccine damage. A long list of conditions have been linked to vaccines but few are being thoroughly investigated and there is a general climate of any research which implicates vaccines as contributing to conditions such as autism, ME, CFS, diabetes, allergies, asthma, cancer, MS, AIDS, SIDS, autoimmune disease, etc as being very unpopular. This is neither scientific nor ethical. One should not shun science or scientists because they have uncovered inconveniant facts. This again adds to the unknown risk factor.

The studies used to deny the vaccine/autism link are flawed and unscientific. The fact that so many so inadequate studies are touted as being conclusive whilst children suspected of vaccine induced autism are not being examined is sickening beyond belief. A rather chilling chapter in the history of vaccination is happening before our very eyes.

There is a long history of vaccines being contaminated. Some of the most concerning types of contamination take the form of animal viruses. The most well known example is polio vaccine being contaminated with the monkey virus SV40. This virus has been linked to (and found in) certain types of cancer tumor. Millions of doses of SV40 contaminated polio vaccine have been given to unsuspecting individuals.

Bovine viral diarrhea virus has also been detected in vaccines and in sick children

Avian leukosis virus is also a vaccine contaminant

So we haven't even got as far as examining vaccine adjuvants, their toxicity and affect on human health and yet I'm being asked for the sake of social responsibility to take an unknown risk with my child's health in a climate where vaccine damage is badly recorded, poorly investiagted, denied and hidden. I'm being asked to allow my child to be vaccinated with a product that may or may not be contaminated. Chances are that I'm being offered the vaccine by a medical professional who has never even heard of vaccine contamination and who has no way of knowing if my child is high risk for vaccine damage or how at risk my child is to complications from infectious disease.

There are many other reasons why I find the concept of "social responsibility" utterly derisible, hugely hypocritical and unethical but this post is getting a bit long now.

well said Beachcomber.

I also think that social responsibility should include isolating your child if it seems to be unwell, not dragging it round to your pg friend's house, or taking it to see a new baby.
The example given by a previous poster of a friend who brought her sick child around, because it couldn't possibly have rubella, it had had the MMR, shows a HUGE level of irresponsibility. If your child is sick and has an unidentified rash, the LAST thing you should be doing is exposing other potentially vulnerable people to it! Keep it indoors!

Thank you Sooty and thumbwitch. I've been reading about this for over 5 years now, since my daughter reacted so badly to her baby DTP jabs. I've found it very difficult to get medics to acknowledge that my daughter's health problems are a direct consequence of a vaccine despite her problems mirroring those of so many other children who are known to be vaccine damaged by their parents and despite the violence of her reactions at the time of vaccination.

In the beginning I only started to read about vaccines because I wanted to find out how to make my daughter better and no doctor had any clue how to help us sort out the distressing mess they had made of her immune system. We were on our own so we had to find out what we were dealing with. I started reading and then just couldn't stop. Now I'm used to it but when I started I was appalled by the amount of shonky science, arse covering and deceit. The first time it really hit me that not only can vaccines trigger autism but that this was being covered up I just sat and wept. All those children, all those lives. My child is not autistic but she suffers from many of the bowel problems that autistic children have. The autistic community has helped me enormously to nurse my child back to some sort of health. That's why I fight their corner, they need as many voices as they can get to force the government to listen to their stories. (The government has steadfastly refused to examine these children and their Legal Aid was withdrawn so they were forced to stop their litigation. And this is despite children having been compensated in the US for vaccines having triggered their autism).

The first time I really looked into animal virus contamination I couldn't believe what I was reading. The FDA and the CDC have clearly admitted that polio vaccine was contaminated with SV40 but they are still denying on their website the research which clearly shows this virus to be linked to certain types of cancer.

It is like banging your head against a brick wall as far as the ignorance, arrogance and dishonesty on the part of much of the medical profession. However parents have rallied together and created some amazing websites with so much information. You can't mess with children's health then lie about it and cover it up and expect to get away with it. Parents just won't have it and there are so many of us now working together.

Vaccination looks just great on paper but the reality is that we are messing with an immune system and other mechanisms that we know little about. We are messing with viral and bacterial ecosystems that we know little about. The arrogance of the medical profession in refusing to accept parent eye witness accounts of vaccine damage because it doesn't suit their ideals, delusions of grandeur and unrealistic public health policy is astounding.

When a child becomes sick following a vaccination the only honest and ethical route is to work from the premise that the vaccination is involved. One can then work towards exonerating the vaccine only if the science is there to to so. Currently the official line is that it is never the vaccine and must be some mysterious "coincidence" of which we know nothing and have no explanation. This is medicine and science at its worst.

(Oh and anyone who thinks yeah, yeah, she thinks her kid is vaccine damaged just like loads of other hysterical, neurotic, conspiracy theorist antivaxxers when everyone knows that vaccine damage is like really really rare and like only happens to hardly anybody so it doesn't really count, needs to explain to me how they can claim to know anything at all about vaccine safety figures. There are no reliable safety figures because the people responsible haven't bothered to gather them.)

Vaccination is not perfect but it may be the lesser of two evils though. A population bereft of any vaccination programme at all would result in a significant number of infant and child deaths. It really would, and that is the one thing i can't get my head around when people talk about the evils of vaccination. I feel very much caught in the middle of the debate.

ruty, in general you might be right - but your comment is a bit straight after beachcomber's, for whose DD vaccination was distinctly NOT the lesser of the evils.

oh god sorry Beachcomber, I should have been clearer with what I said - I am aware of the terrible things that parents have had to go through as a result of vaccination, sorry I didn't mean to be insensitive to your dd's experience. It is a subject I wrestle with within myself constantly - I just feel so torn - I do feel vaccination could be made much much safer, and as you say, safety testing is woefully inadequate. I just also feel that no vaccination at all may not be the best solution on a nationwide scale. I'm not really articulating myself very well, I find it such a difficult subject. Sorry.