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)

We have held off any Imm's for dc's 3 & 4 until they are 3.

We couldn't get the separates (which my other 2 have had) for MMR due to the Mumps vaccine not being available.

We told our HV we would wait until our dc3 had speech, then start Imm's.

He had the MMR last week and is fine (I wasn't )

We've decided to space the others 3 months apart. So in November he goes back and will have the 5in1.

He is going to Nursery in September hence the MMR now.

I'm undecided whether to allow the MenC or Pneu, will cross that bridge.

It wasn't a problem to space the Imm's out at all.

The WHO stated that the Imm's shouldn't start earlier than 8 weeks, but gives no upper limit.

The government takes advantage of mothers of newborns being cautious in the early weeks so recommends Imm's at the very earliest, as the course is more likely to be completed.

It's your call really. CPox Imm is utterly unnecessary imho.

I was told by pead that Americans don't have the men c jab, as that stain is not as prevalent here. Different countries, different germs. The jabs are more spaced out over here as well, 2 4 and 6 months with at least six weeks between vs 2, 3 and 4 months in the UK. Mostly they are the same jabs. (we moved when LO was 3 months)

crumpetsolo - I completely agree.

As more vaccines become available - they will be added to the schedule for children/adults. For example the Gardisil jab (cervical cancer vaccine), became available a few years ago, and so would be added to the list of jabs for most 10 - 12 year old girls. So it would be the same with Men C and pneumococcal.

Of course the NHS want people to have them (as do governments around the world) as it is easier and cheaper to prevent disease then treat it further down the track. Which is pretty sensible IMO.

I understand that people have a range of views and opinions on this subject. It can be very personal. And I understand that people have opinions that are very different from mine.

My question for those who choose not to vaccinate (and this is a legitimate question not an attempt to shit stir) is how do you rely on herd immunity? And what happens if your child does contract something that they could have been immunised for?

I say this coming from a very ingrained medical family (not one myself, ick ick ick) and married to a surgeon. It's just something that would never have occurred to me. I've never heard of anyone selecting which vaccines they won't have.

I suppose it comes down to a personal cost/benefit analysis. And I'm interested to know what it would look like from a non-vaccinating or selective vaccinating standpoint.

The point of my post (which I've realised wasn't very well explained) was that different medical communities can come to very different conclusions based on the same evidence. As others have mentioned, how a vax programme is implemented is going to come down to social and economic factors as well as medical concerns.

My DH and his brother didn't have measles jab (based on advice back then if they had a febrile (sp?) convulsion). They both came down with it so herd immunity didn't stop it.

Herd immunity only works if a minimum percentage of the population are immunised.

The last vaccine added to the childhood imms programme was the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine back in 2006 (I think). As a HV I had two weeks notice of its introduction bloody DOH!

So far I haven't heard they are introducing anything new although rumours abound that the chicken pox vaccine may be introduced - this is no more than rumour though.

I cannot understand why you would vaccinate against CPox

Me neither sorky as 95% of the population are immune by adulthood ( wasn't but that's a whole other story). On the other hand we did have a 3 year old girl die locally from complications of chicken pox - she was otherwise healthy too.

cpox is not serious enough for me to ever consider getting a jab for it. My fear is that they stick in the 5-in-1 jab and then I'll have to consider whether my next child (due in December) can have the 5-in-1. (as it stands now he will get it)

Regarding the cancer jabs, the NHS has actually chosen Cervarix and not Gardasil. This choice is a bit controversial, and of course based on the "value" it brings to the NHS and not the medical benefit it would bring to our daughters. But, as DD is only 7, this decision is not really on my radar yet. Most of the western world (including the US) has opted for Gardisil.

www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Prevention/HPV-vaccine

cancerdrugnewsblog.blogspot.com/2008/06/uk-chooses-cervarix-over-gardasil-for.html

Some info on the US immunization schedule:

www.cdc.gov/vaccines/events/niiw/2010/downloads/educ/parent-ver-sch-0-6yrs-508.pdf

hillee, you mentioned that it is easier and more cost effective to vaccinate against diseases than to treat them. I'm not really sure that this is true. In the case of MMR, the 3 diseases are usually self limiting and can be treated at home. Rubella is usually v mild and is frequently not even noticed and mumps is asymptomatic in (iirc) 15-20 % of cases.

Even in the case of the new MenC vaccine, there are (thankfully) not many cases every year (even before vaccine was introduced). I'm not denying that it is a v scary disease but does it warrant vaccinating the entire population to prevent a few cases? Esp because vaxing doesn't guarantee immunity do even though you have been vaxed, you could still catch the disease.

IMO, the vaccine schedule is unnecessarily crowded. I think the CP vaccine is a complete waste of time but no doubt it will end up in the UK as well alongside hysterical media coverage about the dangers of chickenpox.

Sorry, 30% of cases of mumps are asymptmatic - here

Also interesting to note from the hpa website :

"Despite common belief there is no firm evidence that orchitis causes sterility."

Hopefully this might reassure some of you who are worried about the unavailability of the single mumps vaccine.

Strix,

have finally got a minute to reply a bit more in depth.

I know you said there was ASD in oyur wider family - are there any other auto-immune diseases, like diabetes, Chrohn's, coeliac disease, etc?

That would raise red flags for me - and lead me to be cautious when it comes to jabs.

imo, it is not just the mercury withdrawal form a jab that makes it safer. and I don't like the way the 5in1 was rushed through - essentially with no reasonable length safety trial.

there is a lot written about the vaccine load in infancy. and I am aware that a lot of people will now come along and say "oh, but the human body can cope with 6 hundred million trillion microbes" etc etc. but the load worries me.

as I said before, dd2 is unvaccinated, completely. I couldn't risk baby jabs for her, and wanted to postpone until she was older. as she got older, it became apparent that she has a very similar gut profile to dd1, and she is intolerant to gluten and dairy. as she got older still, there was enough dodgy stuff going on to wonder about mitochondrial dysfunction with her, and so she remains unvaccinated.

I believe dd1 was damaged by vaccines, but not by the mmr. it is not only the mmr that can lead to some of the reactions that cause concern.

you should be aware that the single mumps vaccine is no longer available, afaik. severe shortages, and clinics cannot guarantee when stocks will return. which might be a deciding factor for you.

as for whoever asked how I rely on herd immunity? my answer is, I don't. I do not sit here all nice and relaxed, content to think that dd2 is "safe" because others have vax'd their children. partly becasue I think the efficacy rate of the jabs are highly overstated in many cases.

if dd2 contracts something that she cuold have been vax'd against? well, then she does, and we will cope. the risk factors were (and are) too high for her to have any jabs. imo, better for her to take her chances (and I do not mean that as callously as it sounds - we are very vigilant, as of course some of the illnesses can have serious complications) than face the almost certainty of her being severely affected by the jabs (given what we now know about her digestive state, and possible mitochondrial dysfunction)

Thanks, Silverfrog. I don't think we have any other auto-immune diseases. My aunt has diabetes but it didn't develop until her 70s so that probably doesn't count.

I think I'll get that book you suggested and have a read whilst on mat leave.

In the states you have a choice of combined or single MMR. I think the same is true in France. It is a pity the NHS does not recognise the value of patient choice.

it is the very absence of that choice (which, originally was available, and was available after the Wakefield press conference) which makes me so suspicious about the propaganda, tbh.

so much of the history is manipulated, and the attempt to re-write it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

hte choice was there initially - why is it not there now (especially since in some areas the uptake is so low as to cause concern)?

the book is very interesting - lots on the histories of the jabs, as well as looking at why certain jabs (especially the newer ones) may have been introduced.

Good grief. I am American and everybody caught chicken pox when I was a kid. It was no big deal. You just got ugly spots and itched like mad for a week or so. And of course scratching was forbidden which made the whole experience rather unpleasant. But, in the greater scheme of things, it was hardly a serious illness.

this was 2 years ago. and dd1 had a typical case - yes she felt a bit grotty, but was not particularly ill with it.

we had to go to the hospital that could cope with serious diseases , and were put inot an isolation room.

it really panicked everyone around.

Having read up on it all, I seriously debated whether to take her at all, but we needed the dated letter to be certain of gettng on the flight back home again.

we spent the next week praying that dd2 didn't go down with it while we were still there

Gosh, it's amazing how things change from one generation to the next. All of those parents will have had the pox when they were children. Maybe they were more worried about the inconvenience of having a child with pox rather than the seriousness of it.

I'm trying to remember when the pox vax was introduced in the states. I know my neices had the pox in the late nineties. So I'm thinking it can only be about 10 years old.

Not nice for people having chemo or who are pregnant while your child is incubating these non-serious diseases.

shaz, no it's not. no-one has said it is.

conversely, it is not nice that my dd1 has had numerous complex complications as a result of having jabs, so that the pregnant people and people having chemo are apparently (and I say apparently because the efficacy rates are not as good as quoted, and the result of jabs in children mostly means these non-serious childhood diseases are being pushed in to an older population, leaving those people most at risk more exposed)

Strix - it is amazing, isn't it? I think partly it is due to the intro of a vaccine - diseases do get re-labelled once a vaccine is available/part of a schedule, and all of a sudden they are seen as more serious, mostly because not as many people have come across it in a while. I find it quite bizarre, and even if my two were up for any more jabs, I would be avoiding the chicken pox one unless I had very good reason not to.

I agree that sometimes it is due to the inconvenience of having an ill child. lots of people also say that they just want to avoid all unpleasantness for their children - "why wouldn't you avoid then getting ill if possible? it's not nice feeling grotty for a week or so", which completely sidesteps the argument that mumps and chicken pox seem to be hitting later teens with ever more regularity - and they are both more serious then.

shaz, sorry. that came across as a bit harsh.

All I meant was - this is not a black and white argument.

what is best for one person/family is not best for another.

My duty to look after my children is always more important than my duty to society. Anyone who would have their priorities otherwise arranged should probably have their dedication to their children questioned.

As it stands, DS2 will most likely get the baby jabs. He will absolutely not get the MMR (combined). If mumps is not available here we will have to get it elsewhere when he is a bit older. Same goes for DS1, who is now 5.

Anyone know where the nearest country is that offers a single mumps jab? If nothing else, I'm sure we can get it in the states at some point.

I will not be told by the government/NHS what jabs to give my child. It is my place to tell them what jabs my child can have. It is their place to provide me with the information which I require to make that decision. And if they refuse, I will seek medical attention where I can be treated like an intelligent equal and not merely a brainless subject who can not be trusted to think for herself.

Duty to society my arse. Where is society's duty to the individual when they have damaged a child?

Strix, I quite agree. And will now be withdrawing from this thread - its too nice a day to get embroiled in yet another vax thread :)

Email me if I can be of any further use, I am happy to discuss if you have any more questions.