Changes to baby vax programme -- necessary? risks? do you accept all of them?

[Strix]

I am rather opposed to the MMR because I think it's main driver is the nanny state who thinks they are going to make me get all or none. And I refuse to get it partly on the basis that I will not have the government telling me what vaccinations I am allowed to give my children.

My first cousin has a son who is autistic. I'm not very close to them and so don't know a lot of details. So, he is obviously my kids' second cousin. And on the slight possibility that the condition is genetic and my children could have it too (slight possibility because 2nd counsins are pretty distantly related), My first two have not had the MMR. DD (now 7) has had singles, and DS (now 5)has had measels and will have mumps and rubella when I can comfortably part with the £££ for it. The austistic cousin is a couple of years older than my oldest (DD). When I was pregnant with DD I heard that he was austic and I just decided that I didn't know if there was a link or not, but I wasn't prepared to take even the slightest of chances. Then when DS was born, I followed suit. I am now pregnant with a third child, and plan to do the same.

But, further to the MMR, I have noticed that the baby vax programme seems to have a few more jabs on the schedule than it used to. And I'm wondering if I really want them all. I'm okay with the 5-in-1 since they no longer put mercury in it. But not sure about the need for and risk of men c and pneumonia. I obviously need to do a bit of research but thought I'd start here.

Any thoughts would be much appreciated.

(I am not really interested in an MMR debate as I am firmly of the decision that we will not be getting that one in the form of a combined jab)

It's not a pick and mix, there is a vaccination programme in place for a reason.

So you think I as a parent don't have the right to say I'll have this one, but not that one?

The reason is convenience IMO and it's not a good enough reason.

I'm not anti-vax. All mine have had their childhood jabs (and some extras) but personally I'm losing confidence in the whole thing and I'm glad I don't have to make those decisions again.

Singles should be readily available for those that want/need them.

What do you mean by convenience?

Do you think these new vax are in the gov't interest, and not really the interest of the individual child?

I mean convenient and cheaper for the government to put them all together and vax in one go.

If the interests of the individual child were paramount then singles would be available and parents could make a proper choice, although I don't profess to know anything about changes to the current schedule as my children are way past that.

In haste, as I am off to the dentist (urgh!)

I would thoroughly recommend Richard Halvoerson's book - "the truth about vaccines"

He is a gp, the only one who offers singles alongside combined jabs. (how he has managed to continue doing so, in current climate, I have no idea)

You can book consultations with him, and go through family history/risk factors. He will (and does) recommend what he truly thinks is best (ie not necessarily singles).

By way of background, dd1 had all jabs (and fun some, due to living abroad). Dd2 has had none, and we are not planning any for her anytime soon.

Sorry, no manners - congratulations

Why did they bring in the pneumococcal infection and meningitis c jabs? Why are these necessary now but weren't 5 and 7 years ago? What is the likelyhood of my baby catching these if he is not immunised?

STRIX

Some thoughts/questions.

Are you medically trained? It's amazing how many people make "informed" choices about vaccination with no professional qualifications after reading the opinions of some random internet site ( An assumption I know)

I'll ask you some questions;

1 You hint at the connection between MMR and autism. Hasn't that theory been debunked several times by different researchers.
2 In this time of cuts why would our and every other developed world government and WHO recommend such vaccinations without just cause?

God there are many more questions/thoughts but (fully vaccinated) 2 year old needs drink and (fully vaccinated) six year old needs his cheesy pasts!

My children are fully vaccinated and will continue to be so. I have full confidence in the medical profession and truly believe they do have my children's interest as paramount. I realise not everyone shares this opinion and I respect that.

Catrinm, as I said earlier, my decision regarding the MMR is firmly made. I do not wish to debate here. What I hope was for some intelligent debate regarding the vaccines which have been added to the baby vax schedule in the last few years.

I do not share your blind faith in the NHS, but that is a topic for another day/thread.

I have not decided against the new jabs. I just want to know why they are necessary before I can make such a decision. And, as I said earlier, I though mumsnet was a good place to start. I did not say it would be my complete source(s) of information on the matter.

Right, back from dentist (much!)

Halvoerson's book really is a good place to start - he goes through all the background, lead up, stats on illness rates before and after vax were intro'd, etc. He talks through why the schedule might be as it is, and gives info to help you weigh up whether the risks (and there are risks, with any jab) are, in your view, worth it.

I really am not going to get into the whole mmr/autism/wakefield thing (famous last words!) but no, it hasn't been debunked at all. It was never claimed that mmr caused autism, and it was never suggested, off the back of that non-claim, that non-vaccination was ideal.

Please don't let this request for info turn into yet another wakefield-mmr witchhunt

Strix,
Thanks for raising the question, I wait for the answers with you. I questioned with HV, GP and practice nurse why new jabs were included. HV said they're are no new ones, so I took my DS's red book along to next appointment and she said 'oh yes, well there must be a higher risk now, it's probably because of immigration .

GP said new jabs were included due to new Department of Health reccomendations (no shit, Sherlock!) but didnt seem to no why. Practice nurse gave me a leaflet detailing the jabs which just explains the benefits of vaccinations but nothing about the risks.

As DD2 has had several febrile convulsions I decided that she would have all jabs that were on offer to minimise the risks of illnesses which woould raise her temperature. I was in the process of looking at a chicken pox vaccination, partly due to the convulsions and partly because a friends son has been left paralysed because of the virus' effect on his immune system. The pox eat me to it though and she wasnt too badly affected.

I would like to have a coherent explanation as to why extra vaccines have been introduced. Will wait to see if I get one on this thread.

I'm not actually a big fan of the pox vax. I think diseases which are not really serious are better fought by the natural immune system. I am American, and when I told my sister the kids had pox a few years ago she was surprised there was no vax. But, really, I think kids are better off getting the real disease. It is good for their immune system.

Anyhoo... I had a quick google of the American jab schedule and I see they also do the pneumococcal (sp?) but not the men c.

I would definitley stop listening to anyone who said the jabe were a result of immigration.

Am lucky that she was not my normal HV, part of the team and covering holidays. I had a word with GP who is going to pass this on to her manager.

I didnt realise that Chicken Pox had any serious effects until my friends boy was and still is so poorly. This is what made me look into it.

The Men C and the pneumococcal jabs are relatively recent because research goes on and new drugs/vaccinations are developed and made available after testing and cost/benefit analysis. AFAIK this has nothing to do with immigration, frankly the person who said this sounds at best an idiot.

In some at risk areas they do offer TB to babies but this is not widespread I think.

The men c was added to the programme,from what I remember, as soon as it was licenced for use. I don't think it has been around that long as when DS1 was a baby (11 years ago) I can remember all the meningitis warnings and at that time they were warning about men b and men c because there wasn't a vaccine for either. Then, after a few years, they devised a men c vaccine and it was added to the programme. Men c is now rare compared to men b because of the vaccine. Given how serious it is(it's not like anyone gets a mild case of meningitis!)i think it was a good idea to add it.

i think the pneumococcal was introduced because there was a sharp rise in the numbers of under twos getting pneumonia. I know this because DS2 was one of them and i read everything i could get my hands on! He was extremely poorly (although he had been perfectly healthy prior to this) and it left him weak and with chest problem and asthma for some years after. (Fingers crossed, now at age 8 he might be growing out of it!)

I'm not trying to lecture to you about vaccines BTW . I have actually had all DCs vaccinated with single jabs because I was worried about MMR but even worried about that, because, as someone here said, all vaccines have risks. But (trying to be logical), so does everything in life!

Yes, London hospitals offer bcg (for tb).

Just to add a note, I was told that we could pick and mix any NHS jabs that we want. So far, we haven't taken DS in for any. He's 14 mths. We were also told we could start a programme of jabs for him at any stage.

Do you mid if I ask why he hasn't had any of them (yet)?

Need to look up the link but there is some research which suggests that the body builds up more effective immunity to M+M+R when they are all given as one does. Need to find the research though.
My son is autistic and had the MMR but the issues regarding his problems were present well before the MMR which he had no ill effects from.

Check out the JABS website for info too.

Dose and not does - Duh!

dd1 is almost 11 & had Men C injections.

I had it too as I still fitted in the age range so must have been 21 still. It really hurt compared to the others.

Strix My dithering began when I looked at the vacs schedule and thought it just seemed to be so big. So many more jabs than I had as a child (but then, I'm in my mid-40s). They also start them earlier.
I then started doing some reading about the issue and, what can I say? I was put off.
We have been considering tetanus and polio jabs, but have been dithering over this since December .
We ruled out MMR. That was an easy one. I am not worried about Mumps (at least until DS is 10 or 12) or Rubella for a boy.
I am less worried about his catching measles than I used to be.
Have a look at the arnica.org.uk/ website. There isn't a group local to me, but there might be to you? It might be of help.