scared of not vaccinating

[mumsgotatum]

Hello, At the moment I am currently reading Dr Richard Halvosen's book, 'The Truth about Vaccines'. I am finding it and interesting and quite alarming read.
I have a 7 mth old DD who has not been vaccinated apart from BCG in hospital. I have been reluctant to take her for any of her vaccinations; partly because I have a DS (3.5 yrs), who I did get vaccinated and I just couldn't bear taking him. (Dad took him)...and also because I have been procrastinating about it, and can't make up my mind one or another. It's a minefield!
I have quite a few friends who have not vaccinated at all, and then it looks as though Dr Halvosen does offer some single vaccinations. With my DS I did get him vaccinated because I didn't really know any better and wasn't so informed on the subject. He has had only one MMR.
As mentioned quite a few of my friends have not vaccinated and very happy with their decision. They have made an informed choice and are convinced they are doing the best for their children.
But somehow I do feel scared of not vaccinating, are there any mums out there who did not vaccinate and do you feel ok about your decision? Did you ever feel fear? What about playgroups or large groups of children?
Or any mums who did vaccines privately or have consulted with Dr Halvosen?
Just trying to get help making a decision...it's very difficult....

Thanks

Thanks Balia - you didn't mention that you got your figures from the US before - most of us are in the UK so those are the figures that I am familiar with.

Is it not a bit strange that rubella only became a notifiable disease in the US in 1965 - mid epidemic? The CRS figures just don't seem to tie in with those in the rest of the world so it just seems a bit atypical....I'll do a bit more reading about it later if I have time :)

When you talk about the rubella vaccine - you now it is part of the MMR don't you? If you are in the US then you will probably be aware of the Hannah Poling and Bailey Banks cases. This is one from the UK. So there you go - links to payouts for the serious damage that the vaccine can cause - obviously there are also milder versions as well - you can google side effects MMR if you want a more detailed breakdown of the possible side effects and their incidence. The specific ones I have mentioned just happen to be quite well known :) hth

I wasn't talking about MMR, bubbleymummy - that is a much more complex issue, obviously. Whilst you can opt for MMR (and I did, with all 3 of my children) Rubella can also be vaccinated against using a single jab. I have not heard of any case of damage or serious side effect.

I think it is really important to move away from the scaremongering of for and against; lists of scary-sounding chemicals or damaged relatives (not that these things are not valid). Parents should have precise information so they can weigh up the risks, not just to their own children, but to others and their community as a whole. Rubella was declared eliminated in the USA in 2004. And not by Mother Nature.

FYI - Hannah Poling had an underlying mitochondrial disorder, and was injected with a very large number of vaccines all at once ( I think 9? and those vaccines were not Thiomersal free, like UK Childhood vac's are).

Sorry balia - are you in the US or the UK? You seem to jump back and forth a lot! :) WHat about the boy in the UK link I sent you - I don't think he had any underlying conditions prior to his vaccination.

WRT a single rubella injection - why not stick to the schedule that was proving to be effective prior to the introduction of the MMR vaccine. ie. vaccinating all girls between 11-14 and testing to make sure that they were immune (as I think they were doing in Scotland). This allows the opportunity to contract it naturally and have lifelong protection but also catches any of the girls who for whatever reason didn't catch it. After all, why vaccinate 50% of the population who won't ever have to worry about catching rubella during pregnancy :)

Have you any idea of the millions of virus's bacteria and other harmful agents your child is exposed to every single day? yet you worry about the tiny amounts in a vaccine?

sitting in a car is a dangerous thing, yet we think of it as an acceptable risk.

Bubble, you make my point very clearly and easily. we DIDNT all make it into the 21st century. The vast majority of people not only didnt, but still arent because they are dieing of communicable diseases that can easily be prevented by vaccinations and modern drugs. Look at the history of the world. Its population never really went above one billion, until the advent of modern medicine, ie vaccines, the pharmaceutical industry, antibiotics. until we started moving food around in vast quantities, people ate what was produced locally, and was usually fresh and wholesome. their lives didnt lack excercise, or nutrition. But it did lack healthcare and that is why even the ones that did survive, usually only made it to forty odd. people didnt die of cancer not because cancer didnt exist, but because they were usually killed off by other more dangerous things long before then.

but the human experience would be pretty boring if we all thought the same way. good luck :)

Ladysybil - I agree that medical advancements are wonderful. However, if you look at, for example, the measles vaccine, its effect on reducing the number of measles cases in the UK was a tiny drop in the ocean in comparison to what better sanitation, healthcare (including the availability and use of antibiotics to treat the secondary infections) and nutrition (it is well known that malnutrition esp vitamin A deficiency leads to a higher risk of complications from measles.) had done BEFORE the vaccine came along.

Have a look on the HPA website if you don't believe me. Look at how much the number of cases reduced by from the 1940 (when antibiotics started to be used) up to when the vaccine was introduced in 1968. Yes, cases decreased after that to the low levels we have today but they had already decreased by a huge amount without any help from a vaccine and may have continued to do so anyway....

Also, have you heard of skin? It's quite an important part of our immune system defence and guess what? - vaccines bypass it completely. So when discussing how many pathogens we are exposed to every day and comparing them to the contents of vaccines is ridiculous - unless you completely strip us of our skin and see how well we fare against those 'everyday pathogens' then. :)

Not sure if this helps at all ( haven't read the entire thread, sorry, brain too monged at the moment to cope with all the info).

I find the following website a VERY good source of unbiased oppinion.

Bad Science

My feeling is that Vaccination is best having read the literature and taken time to talk with GP.

1717 - which literature did you read?

Sorry - that sounded confrontational! I'm just wondering what information you read because most people base their decision on an NHS leaflet and not much else! Also, doctors can't necessarily be considered an unbiased source of information because they do get bonuses for reaching target vaccination rates etc. Although some, if you read some MNetters stories, do actually advise against them in certain cases due to family histories etc so I suppose it's really luck of the draw! I think it's important to actually read about each disease, its incidence, risks, side effects etc, why we vaccinate against them and decide whether or not you feel it is necessary for your child.

LeonieDelt, never suggested Ben was an expert just that he offered an unbiased view and good links on his website to the Academic data by whom you hold such stock.

Jeez

I used pubmed combined with other literature searches to find papers which helped me get an overview of the field. Also links from trusted Academic and scientific blogs.

however, i don;t like to recommend as such as I think this is dangerous and can lead to introduction of bias by proxy.

Sorry 1717, just to clarify, was it specifically the mmr autism link you were looking at or vaccines in general?

Don't be so insulting. The point is not whether you are up Ben's arse or not, it is about accessing information.

The masses you so offhandedly dismiss are crying out for accessible ways to get to grips with complicated science and his blog is one of those ways.

It offers an OPINION. Whether you agree or not is besides the point.

If you prefer another opinion, such as Richard Halvorsen , that's fine, but I would always encourage people to check his sources and follow the links to the original research (I couldn't find any published literature from him or his group on pubmed, or other scientific literature databases, so couldn't comment on his authenticity).

Putting academics on a pedestal will get you nowhere:

"I lean towards trusting the actual experts on this one. And by experts, i mean the academics who do the research. Or, in this case, DID the research."

You don't know that they haven't got just as much chance of an untoward affiliation or conflicts of interest as a non-academic source.

No source is totally transparent, but some offer better transparency than others, and also offer readers the opportunity to explore other sources, which is something this blog does well. In my opinion.

leonieDelt you are being unnecessarily obtuse.

Go stick you head in PubMed - Don't forget to read all the competing interest statements and look up each and every author to check their professional and academic affiliations and also then all the affiliations of their affiliations then come back and have a go at posters who like a particular source or who offer an opinion based on their reading and independent investigation.

As previously stated
Jeez.

It is people like you who are killing attempts to make science accessible.

Just re-read the above post.

Think I ranted a bit, but glib dismissal of opinion and deliberate obtuseness get me going...

Think I will have to sign off this thread at this point.

Before I go though, in response to Question from Bubbleymummy, its my job to literature search as I an Information scientist (and a scientist) working in the health care sector so vaccines in general, specific links and also LOADS of other avenues in the literature.

Thanks 1717 :)

And that is where my responsibility ENDS. My duty is to MY CHILDREN

Well there's no point arguing if that is your feeling. Really, though? Do your kids feel the same? That if they give rubella to a pregnant mum the baby's brain damage is just her tough luck? And what happens if your daughters don't get rubella?

I'm currently in the UK, bubbleymummy, but was in the states when doing some of the research and looking into it. I'm not sure why it is relevant - the diseases are the same.

My point would be that you can get rubella as a single jab & I haven't heard of major side effects from that jab. Leaving MMR to one side, it seems there are very few arguments against having the rubella jab, and yet many anti-vaccine posters still spout stuff about risks and 'poisons', as if all vaccines were exactly the same. If the goal is to give people information, then it should be accurate information, surely? Not 18 year old cases for a different jab anyway? And the problem with the previous system (eg vaccinating only girls) was that the disease still got through.

"Incidentally i would add that my children are healthier than their vaccinated peers. The plural of anecdote is not data, of that i am well aware, but it cannot be coincidental."

Of course it bloody well can!! If you seriously think that then you obviously have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.