Bcg choice

[Icelollycraving]

Ds will be 1 in a few weeks & starts nursery next week. Our borough offer bcg up to a year old at a walk in surgery,which is today.
He hasn't really mixed with other babies as such & has just recovered from a bug which he caught at settling in at nursery.
The info I've looked at online is very mixed. The efficacy of the jab is disputed & is said to scar or be quite irritated for a while.
The hv said it was my decision as to whether to get him done,but I don't want to get something which might him feel poorly or is considered unnecessary. I also don't want to be worrying if I've not been sensible.

FWIW, I had my DD done. Actually, I had no say or choice or even knew it was going to happen. She was born by CS and I had a GA. `By the time I woke up, she'd been given measles, TB, HepA and Polio. All were prevelent where she was born.
IMO, if there is a vaccination for something use it. I know I am in the minority though.

Thanks. I'm pro vaccinations generally but this one seems to be less effective than others. It is offered as we are in London.

IMO, anything that gives them a tiny advantage in the war of the germs is worth doing.
DD was born in a country where people died of those diseases. I wasn't ecstatic that she'd been given so many within an hour of being born, but she's fine now.

We're in London too and both mine have had it, neither had any reaction to it. The advice in our borough has become
even more pro it recently - when ds1 was
born (he's 3) it was advised within the first year, with ds2 (6wks) it was advised ASAP after he was 2wks old.

My thinking is that it's a vaccine that's been around a long time so should be adequately tested etc and the only thing that's changed is that it's given much earlier where TB is prevalent and although the protection isn't 100% TB is a nasty disease and I'd rather they had some protection than none.

DD was done about 10 weeks old. We aren't in London but she was classed as high risk due to MILs country of birth. I was quite happy for her to have it. DS who is 5 months (same father as DD) was considered not high risk and has not been given it. I wish he had but there's nothing I can do.

DDs arm looked a bit scabby for a few months and now has a little scar. It just looks the same as the scar I have.

I'm 26 and had the vac when I was 1. Still have a tiny, v faint scar on my arm. I was in some sort of risk group as was not routinely given when I was little, most of my friends had it done at school when we were about 13.

There's no vac here now (Scotland) as far as I know. DS has not been given the option and I don't think they do it at school. I wish they would (probably irrational but hey).

I would get it done.

Will he get fever etc like with other jab?

DD1 got it in maternity hospital (in Ireland) before she was discharged. DD2 was born in Belgium where it isn't given as standard (you can get it but you have to go to the hospital where they treat TB, so I was advised against it). I arranged for her to have it when we moved briefly back to Ireland when she was 4 months. I never really considered not getting it for her.

Neither child had any reaction to it. DD2 (6 months later) still has a little red spot at the site, which will fade eventually. DD1, like myself, has a small scar on her arm that you really have to search to see.

Personally, I'd get it for any subsequent children - especially if it is being offered due to the prevalence of TB in the community.

I didn't get it for the DSs. I have a horrible scar from mine - it was very painful and infected, as were most people's in my class. I temember the boys rinning around hitting prople on the bump to make them cry! All that and, as you say, it's not even that effective! I don't understand the idea that you should be vaccinated in certain parts of London but not others either seeing as everyone from different areas gets crammed together on public transport/work together etc. So personally, no, I wouldn't get it done.

It wasn't recommended where we lived when DD and DS were little and I wouldn't have gotten them it as teens, because the vaccine doesn't protect against TB infection very well and is quite reactive in older vaccinees. That said, it does protect against TB meningitis in babies and small children, so if you are in an area with high TB prevalence, it is one to consider.

Well I did I took him today. It was all of the advice but particularly that of ripishere The emotional blackmail card worked,kept thinking of him as a tiny frail little baby after that although he is mistaken for a toddler of twice his age

Oh & thank you to everyone for all the advice!

I doubt your child got the measles vaccine at birth. As maternal antibodies render it useless.

It's what I was told and what was written on her health card. We were overseas.

I was told that mothers only have antibodies to pass on if they have had measles themselves as opposed to the vaccination. Not sure if that is true or not.

Mothers can pass on some antibodies if they are vaccinated but they do not provide protection for as long as antibodies from mothers who have actually had measles.

Maternal immunity is not protective up to the first vaccine whether it was vaccine-acquired or disease-acquired.

Good for you ice lolly.

In the space of a year, we had two notices home from the public health people saying me or DD1 might have been exposed to tb.

In DD's case it led to heaf test, chest X-rays, hospital appointments and blood tests. She had been vaccinated, but so soon before the "exposure" that her heaf test results were confusing for the docs. She was seven months old and it was horrid.

Anyway, it was a great big palaver and one I could have avoided if I'd had her jabbed sooner. Tb is a bastard of a disease and seems very common in London.

It wasn't offered to DD2 (different area of London) but I would have given it to her if it had been available.

I wonder if they've recommended that everyone travelling to London for the Olympics should have the BCG? I doubt it - because it isn't effective!

Catherina, babies whose mothers had measles have higher levels of antibodies that last longer. Quite shockingly, some babies whose mothers had been vaccinated had no antibodies to measles at all! Some the vaccinated mothers didn't even have high enough levels to protect themselves. It's no wonder there are so many cases of measles in young babies now. The decline in breastfeeding probably didn't help much either...

My son had it -im a archaeologist and considered at higher risk of exposure lives in the bones etc. he had no side effects.

Breastfeeding does squat for measles immunity beyond the first couple of weeks. In prevaccine US, an underreported 80 infants died annually of measles. The cost for a couple of months more protective titer is MUCH too high.

Catherina, tragic as it is that 80 babies died, that is still quite a small proportion of the cases in total. Proportionally, there are more cases in babies now. Also, bf does do something for immunity. I'm very aware that this has gone off topic from TB vaccination! Should we carry on this discussion on the other MMR thread?

Thanks rancerdoo we are in London & although ds is starting nursery in another borough,they also offer it. I figured better to be safe than sorry.