GP unfriendly due to non vaccinated child

[Elf]

Our GP is a bit of a git anyway but the last time I went to him about a slight problem I had, he asked me about DD's lack of vaccinations. She hasn't had any because we are in that camp of thinking they are not a good idea. Anyway, he wasn't aggressive but it was the first time I had been challenged by a professional like that. ( DD has never been to see him as we see a homeopath if she as teething probs or whatever). When we get back to England I would like another GP because he is horrible but I wondered if it is possible to find a GP who is sympathetic to the non vaccinating parent as presumably they are all pro. Do any of you have an understanding GP?

no no I didn't say Randal Neustaedter was neutral I said his book is balanced (and very well referenced).

The problem with the resurgance of TB has very little to do with vaccination. The efficacy of the BCG vaccination is controversial and studies vary from suggesting it gives very low protection (to about 20% of population) to a high of about 80%. The problem with TB is due to the misuse of antibiotics. This has allowed the evolution of a virulent (and often untreatable) form.

Polio is found in small areas of the world (India's a bit of a hot spot). If people were vaccinated against polio before going into hot spots there shouldn't be much of a problem.

The trouble with relying on drs or publich health officials is that they are not interested in your child. Nor are they interested in the rates of chronic disease (although as these reach epidemic proportions they may become more interested). They are simply interested in reducing the rates of infectious disease. My interest is in raising healthy children (and hopefully ones who will not provide lifetime care). Probably too late for ds1, but I weigh up every possibility for ds2 and any future children.

You are very cynical about doctors and health officials. I choose to believe that they have got my child's best interest in mind when they set up their vaccination programme. Who else should I believe ? I wouldn't believe your arguments because I don't know what you are referring to and I have a feeling you pick a little bit here and a little bit there and present them as "facts". You write very well, but it would be interesting if you could provide more links/sources to back up your arguments.

As usual, this seems to be getting really heated!!!

I'm pro-vaccination but I can certainly see why a lot of people have doubts about vaccinating or don't want to, if their child has some reason why vaccinating might not be a good idea. But what really REALLY p*es me off are the people who see one report on the news quoting one study that says there might be a link between a jab and a certain condition. And then they refuse to give their child any vaccinations even though the child may have no hint of 'contraindictions' at all. I think that sort of thinking is totally irresponsible.

I totally agree that every parent should be able to make up their own minds. The problem is that going blindly ahead with vaccination can only possibly hurt your own family, eg if there are bad side effects. Whereas blindly not going ahead with it can have consequences for everyone your child comes into contact with. That's why I get fed up with the scare stories and people who refuse jabs just because of them.

If you've done a good amount of research and feel you have good cause not to vaccinate your child, fine IMO. Then if everybody finds they have good cause, it's something that obviously needs tackling by the government/NHS.

My dd is 3 months and won't have her MMR until at least 12 months. Between now and then she could pick up one of those diseases from an unvaccinated child and there's not a lot I can do to protect her. IMO, if that child hadn't been vaccinated because of a possible medical problem, that would be unfortunate but understandable. But if it was because their mum caught the end of a news story and didn't bother to look into further I would hit the roof.

There are good arguments either way and the choice should be up to each parent, I just don't like the thought of parents putting other children at risk because they can't be bothered to get the facts first.

(sorry, rant over, going to leave this thread and hide!!!)

Wobblymum, you put it very well. This is exactly my opinion too, but not able to write as well as you can!

"cynical of doctors and health officials" ?? too right. Have you read the Nick Hornby link given earlier
observer.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4353211-102273,00.html

i think you'll find a lot of parent of SN children are cyncial of doctors and health officials, especially those who believe their children have been damaged by something like vaccinations.

Actually to be honest I'm not really cynical of them (I am cynical about the dept of health and drugs companies). Your average GP hasn't read around the subject, and your public health official has different priorities. It is not their job to worry about how many children become autistic or are damaged, its their job to worry about number of cases of infectious disease. I had a chat to a public health official who was in charge of Surrey's vaccination programme, he wasn't fussed about ds2 not being vaccinated against men C as he said he was so unlikely to get it anyway. however he was very concerned about lack of measles vaccination (as it is highly infectious). Yet surely for mothers men C is more of a "worry" than measles (in terms of consequences if your child caught it). It's not that he's wrong, or I'm wrong, it's just different priorities.

As for sources, I have given sources all over mumsnet at various times. I have read a lot of original sources (ie the original papers) but tbh the easiest way to get hold of this stuff is to either google or to buy a book and follow up the references. I pick a little bit here and a little bit there as I am addressing the arguements you are raising. If you raised different arguements I would pick different bits.

I don't expect you to believe me, I don't expect you to not vaccinate your child. All I am saying is that my decision for my second son is based on a lot of evidence and a lot of reading and therefore I shouldn't have to defend it.

BTW for some recent good stuff have a look at the vaccinations aluminium and mercury link. There is a very good radio link there (the interviewees are not anti vaccination, in fact they recommend a lot of the vaccinations but they are anti thimerosil- its an interesting piece). There's also a good summary of the whole MMR thing by another dr, who again isn't anti vaccination per se- both are well worth looking at. the radio show is quite easy listening as well (although long- about 2 hours).

Aha but wobblymum if you had had measles as a child then your dd would be well protected for pretty much the frst year, if you had the vaccination then she may or may not be (depending on whether you still have immunity).

Should add she could also catch measles from a vaccinated child as outbreaks have occurred in 100% vaccinated populations.

Cases of measles in infants have increased as a result of the introduction of measles vaccine. Used to be childhood disease now its an adult/infant disease.

Incidentally chickenpox will go the same way if varivax is introduced.

Have flicked thrugh thread-wow, you all know your stuff! Sorry, not meant to be patronising but I have 4 kids. The first three were immunised (even my little girl whose MMR I agonised about, because I had prayed so hard for a girl and then stupidly imagined that she'd be "THE ONE" who'd get a reaction) and becuase I work with SN kids, and have had people telling me various horror stories about autism and MMR and also a doctor who refuses to have her twins done, well, what do you do? Everyone has their own mind to make up and it's bad enough feeling guilty about your kids and everyday life, but this is so difficult!
Good luck to everyone and remember, it's your decision-make your own mind up. LOL

This is interesting too, look
here

do as I say and not as I do ?? Tony Blair??????

This is well worth a read too.

Not getting into the debate, but I'd like to point out that GPs don't line their own pockets by encouraging people to vaccinate their children. The "bonus" goes into the practice budget which is spent on the population it serves. True, partners get to keep a proportion of any "profit", but they have usually had to take out a huge loan to buy into the practice in the first place, so I think that's fair enough. Salaried GPs do not get a penny more for themselves by encouraging vaccination.

Personally I think they should just scrap the targets and pay the GPs the money anyway (I think most GPs would prefer this as well).

I don't believe that GP's profit from reaching targets- I tend to think they are penalised for not meeting them (which isn't quite the same thing). It's not fair on them and the payments system should be changed.

Whether the money is going to the GP personally or not, until the financial link is removed, there always has to be a suspicion that reasons other than health play a part in their enthusiasm for vaccination.

If doctors were so convinced of the benefits of vaccination, why were the targets introduced and linked to finance in the first place?

Because the government wanted the vaccination rate improved. Gps were so busy with other things that it was felt to be only way to get them to put an effort into the vaccination program.

But doesn't that just mean that the GPs didn't consider the vaccination programme to be worth pursuing for its own sake?

I really think the targets (or at least the financial incentives/disincentives) should be scrapped. Until they are scrapped, I have to treat the information given by GPs as biased.

fairymum - that's sweet of you - shows I spend too much time writing on Mumsnet!!!!

jimjams - I totally support your decision not to vaccinate because it's obvious you've done your research, so it's an informed decision. My only point is parents who don't bother to make an informed decision are irresponsible and could put other people's lives at risk. Surely making any decision for your child without knowing a little about it is irresponsible?

Also, I've had the MMR and so dd may be protected but it's not guaranteed. If I'd had one of the MMR diseases I could easily not be here today to have a dd. And she could catch it from a vaccinated child but that child does have less chance of carrying it and however good a vaccine is, it can't be expected to be 100% effective 100% of the time.

The benefits of the vaccine should always be weighed against the risks, which is why I support mums who decide not to after looking into it from their own situation, and is also why I don't support a chickenpox vaccine. Each of the MMR diseases can so easily be so serious that IMO it's worth protecting against them. Whereas chickenpox is generally not much more than a big inconvenience. I don't agree with trying to get a vaccine for every tiny illness just because we can, but the major ones should be protected against.

pimpernel - surely the incentive needs to be there because else GP's get too caught up in treatment than in preventative medicine (which is essentially what vaccines are). Eg, that's why BUPA push their preventative angle so strongly, because most people know GP's are generally so caught up in treating current problems, that they don't make time to help prevent future problems. Whereas, as a parent, you will naturally want to know about all the options open to you to protect your child from potential problems.

IMO, that's why the incentives are there to force GP's to take an interest in preventative medicine, not because they don't actually believe in the vaccination programme.

wobblymum

This is a direct quote from a family health book- written by a Dr Trevor Weston MD MRCGP in the 80's (so at a time when measles rates were still farily high)

"In most communities of the western world (where measles has been established for centuries), the condition is mild"

This is a bit on mumps "Like many of the common childhood illnesses, mumps carries with it the guarantee of future immunity. In adults the condition can be more serious- but it is not usually as drastic as old wives tales would make out"

(so lets stop it being a childhood illness and make it an adult illness by vaccinating babies and having protection wear off after 10 or 20 years).

Rubella as you will know is mild for the recipient (the danger being for unborn babies). The vaccine however has a number of well documented side effects including encephalitis, and arthritis. I do think its entirely sensible to vaccinate teenage girls who have not had rubella (the trouble again with vaccinating babies is that these girls may lose immunity in their early 20's right when they need it more than ever).

These diseases are not usually killers. Measles is made out to be a highly dangerous disease, and it can be nasty- especially for those with vitamin A deficiency, but in a well nourished western child its not dangerous enough if the vaccine is not virtually risk free. Maybe the vaccine is risk free, but the studies haven't been done either way. And they still haven't explained why autistic children have vaccine strain measles virus in their guts and spinal fluid. There's not much point in removing a childhood disease which was usually mild (although occasionaly nasty) if you replace it with a generation of children who grow up unable to live independently. I had measles as a child btw- I felt horribly ill for about 2 days (I remember it) and then I spent the rest of my quarantine playing with my friend who had whooping cough.

Watch the information on chickenpox over the next few years. Mild illness with very few side effects (although always a very small possibility if complications- a friend's child developed encephalitis following chickenpox)???? Oh no! The government wants to introduce varivax- which means that soon they have to start promoting the horror side of chickenpox.

The problem is where do people go to get the information to make a decision? The government propoganda (sorry "information" is at best ignorant of the facts at worse deliberately misleading. I've been reading this stuff for over 3 years now and I'm still stunned by some of the stuff the dept of health churns out.

My background? I started reading everything when ds1 was due his MMR (having gone ahead and given him the early jabs). I was rabidly pro vaccination. The only reason I read anything was becuase it was around the time the Wakefield stuff started blowing up, so I went to the original research to reassure myself - fully expecting it to- (and having told a friend the week that I was definitely going to get MMR), and to be honest I was absolutely horrified by what I read - especially wehn compared to quotes coming from the dept of health, and at that stage I started to wonder what they had to hide!

Having seen BSE, and the who weapons of mass destruction sagas I'm not really surprised that people don't trust the dept of health. Why would they? And I do therefore understand people acting on gut instinct.

Other thing about measles mumps and rubella of course is that there is an alternative which may well be a safer way to protect a child if someone decides they want vaccination- single vaccines......

The spin that is put on childhood diseases amazes me, Jimjams. I had my first babies in 1975 and '79 and my baby book said that measles, mumps, German Measles (as it was known then) and chicken pox were irritating but mild illnesses, although measles could occasionally develop into pneumonia. My boys had all those illnesses apart from measles and whilst they were'nt fun, it wasn't much worse than a nasty cold and a lot easier to deal with than the asthma attacks ds2 suffered from. Now, I'm told these are all serious illnesses - how did that happen??

I also once read a newspaper report from a county MOH who mentioned an epidemic of measles that had killed a number of children in the north of England, which sounded just terrible. When I read a bit further on, this epidemic had happened in the 1930's when we were in the depths of The Depression, there was no NHS and antibiotics hadn't been invented!!! Talk about scaremongering.

PS for anyone interested, my children have had some jabs and not others, so I'm not rabidly in either camp.

wobblymum, like Jimjams has just explained, the problem is where do I go to get unbiased information about vaccination? Information given by the GPs is incentivised, and therefore biased imo. I wouldn't discount a GP's opinion, but I would treat it with caution because of the money.

I understand all these concerns, which is the whole reason I'd never critize someone who'd done their research and decided against vaccination.

I'm personally totally pro-vaccination, even after everything I've read, because I feel that for my family, it's the most protection with the least risk.

I don't think anyone gives truly unbiased info about vaccination, you just have to get well-researched info from both sides and make up your own mind. And I think the GP's opinions are biased, not because of money, but because in their eyes, the vaccines pose a minimal risk for a potentially great gain.

The other problem is that the risks do keep changing. In the early 20th century, measles and mumps were terribly damaging, mainly because they didn't have the knowledge to deal with them. Now they are still potentially damaging, because firstly we don't expect them as they were expected years ago, but mainly because as a disease takes hold there is a higher possibility of mutation. If less and less people get vaccinated, these diseases may easily become more virulent, mutate and then our ability to deal with them will drop. Then this could end up producing epidemics once again, turning what may currently be a fairly minor (compared to meningitis say) disease into a huge concern once again. And then all the children who have been vaccinated may be at risk from a new strain. I know this could happen anyway but it is more likely the lower our 'herd' immunity is.

If parents feel they have a good reason not to immunise, and they've weighed the risks against each other, fine, don't. But I personally (just IMO) don't like it when parents don't get their children immunised JUST because the diseases aren't so widespread anymore, without doing any sort of research. This, IMHO, is naiive, dangerous and irresponsible.

wobblymum- the biggest selection pressure on diseases such as measles in recent years has been vaccination. The reason that it is generally a mild illness in the UK is because of thousands of years of co-evolution (generally diseases become less virulent to their main host over many years). People not vaccinating does not cause mutation. The whooping cough bacteria has supposedly mutated so that vaccination no longer protects against it- and the selection pressure bringing about this? Vaccination. I think you are confusing something you have read on antibiotic resistance- where misuse of anitbiotics produces resistant strains.

The problem with say the rubella vaccine is that it aims for herd immunity to provide protection for unborn babies, rather than aiming to protect all women of childbearing age. This is always going to be difficult to achieve as the vaccine efficacy isn't that great (the best way to get lifelong protection against rubella is to have it as a child). Say its around 77% (studies vary wildly- but that seems fairly average). That is just not enough to provide herd immunity.

Why not check the immune status of every teenage girl? vaccinate those that need it and then discuss the importance of having a rubella status test before ttc (this would hopefully protect all planned pregnancies- and if vulnerable girls have been protected at say 13 most will be protected through their childbearing years anyway).

The best way to really find out what is going on is read the research. And then you discover that the reason you read so much conflicting advice is becuase the research has not been done.

I'm all for protecting against measles if say one in every 100000 doses there's a serious adverse reaction. With the exception of the unlucky family who have the adverse reaction everyone's laughing. But if say one in every 1000 doses of measles vaccine damaged a normally developing child so they became autistic then no thanks. These are figures plucked out of thin air, but until someone actually looks at the damaged children to find out what the hell happened to them (and they may have vaccine mealses virus in their tissues for another reason) then it really is a bit of a shot in the dark. If a new disease sprung up which infected everyone (as measles does without vaccination although not all will be ill) but killed 50% of people it infected then of course I'd happily accept the odds of a vaccine which damaged one in 1000 children. But for a disease such a measles which isn't usually serious then you have to be pretty sure that you know your vaccine to entirely safe.