Has anybody decided not to vaccinate their child or to only selectively vaccinate them?

[arabella2]

And if so, how did you come to that decision. Ds has not had any vaccinations as yet, but once he goes to nursery I think it may become more important. Even then though we do not want him to have the whole lot as we think it's too much for the system to absorb, but it is very difficult to know which ones are more important and also better tolerated by the body. We would also go for mercury free vaccinations which my gp told me were available. I want to know, if they are available, why aren't they offered as a matter of routine - expense presumably.
The whole thing is a minefield because it seems to be very difficult to get a balanced viewpoint of the whole issue with the pro people being very pro and the contra people being very against.
Any thoughts appreciated but no lecturing please.

My GP friend denied that concerns about non-compliance were the only reasons and said that there were doubts about whether single vaccines have been adequately tested. But the explanation she gave was not very coherent and we were left feeling that she was saying this because we thought concern about non-compliance was not a good enough reason alone to deny people access to single vaccines.

There are no concerns about the jabs themselves as they are the same as the ones in the MMR. just given one at a time. The dept of health gives reasons such as it being inconvenient to have 3 appointments (less inconvenient that a dose of autism in the house believe me but still), the vaccines being less safe- because children are left unprotected for longer. I suspect it comes down to cost. Three lots of appointments and vaccines to ship round etc are more expensve than one. I suspect the drugs companies prefer MMR as well- although no idea why.

There are places in the world where it would make sense to not need 3 visits to clinic but I doubt that would include the UK.

Oldiemum- the single vaccines are the same strains as in the MMR. I don't think as many doses were given as they had a very poor uptake rate in most countries- except rubella of course (at the time mumps and measles were not seen as killers). So this is what they mean by not being tested as well. More doses have been given of the MMR. But since they refuse to entertain the idea that it may be causing a problem in suscpetible children I'm not sure its that reassuring. I'm not sure whether actual clinical trials were carried out on the MMR seperately- or whether the safety data was taken from the monovalent and assumed to be the same.

Thanks, jimjams. I'd also like to add to the 'I hope my child gets measles' debate - when I lived in a village in Kenya, the baby of one of my neighbours died of measles. Until then, I hadn't realised just how dangerous it is.

Oldiemum. The dangers of measles depend on where you live. In a population never before exposed to measles it is extremely dangerous and will kill many- this is what happened to Amazonian Indians when loggers arrived. In people who are vitamin A deficient it is also dangerous. Vitamin A supplementation when someone has measles reduces the complications and death rate dramatically (this is why there are so many eye complications- bascially your retina needs vitamin A). It is nowehere near as dangerous in Western Europe- partly because its been around for a long time so resistance has evolved, and partly because very fe people are vitamin A deficient.

Talking of GPs, interestingly, my GP said when asked about his view on MMR "It seems to me to be a lot to expect a young child's immune system to cope with in one go, but unfortunately I am unable to offer you the single jabs." Say no more. Needless to say, my ds has had single measles and we are due to have mumps in 2 months although I understand it is nearly impossible to get an effective vaccine. My consultant have said the reason for MMR over singles is non compliance

arabella - my son has come to the age now and we have been offered the MMR. After 2 months of looking at all sides of the debate I know how you feel. It is so hard because all you want is whats best for your child.
We have now decided for single jabs. The measles is costing us £100 and the mumps and rubella £80 each. To us this is a lot of money at the moment - but I think it is worth it. I am sure that the MMR is probably fine - but we would like to have the single jabs just in case.
I found the website www.jabs.org.uk really helpful. The clinic we are using has even sent us a batch of vitamin tablets to boost my ds immune system before he has the jabs!
I think what also put me off my ds having the MMR at our local NHS clinic was the way in which his earlier jabs were administered. My local clinic is like a mad house and it is a case of them immunising 5 babies at one time. You are literally in there for 20 seconds before you are ferried out again!! I know what a worrier I am - so this is another reason I am paying for the jabs - a bit of TLC! At the clinic we are using you wait around to check for any reactions and have a 24 hour helpline number.
Good luck, sorry if I have repeated any info from this thread there were so many posts couldnt read them all properly!

DS had all is 2, 3, 4 months jabs but as someone else said, if they know now what they didn't know then, I probably would have 'thought' abit more about it. His reaction just got worse every month, so Dh and I decided singles for the MMR. We have just hade the mumps (hoorah) vaccine last Saturday after being on the waiting list for over a year.

Pupuce, of course I respect your views
Mine were both nearly 2 when they had their MMR (dithering). Was living in Eastern Europe when had DD1 vaccinated, made the doc show me that vaccine was a) not produced locally (think it was German) and b) in date before she stuck the needle into DD1's chubby little leg

Having read this thread, am wondering if they'd have had natural immunity anyway, given how badly I got it?? Anyone know the answer to that one?!

ooh furball, who was that with as we've been waiting just over a year with Direct Health 2000?++

tanzie- they would have had natural immunity for a year or so- but it wears off as its passive. How badly you got it doesn't make any difference. However its best that it has worn off by the time they have the jab as any residual immunity can interfere with it. This is why they hold off giving the jab until at least 15 months. Minefield isn't it?

I think the risks of none of us vaccinating our kids would be much worse than the risks to some children of vaccination.

JimJams "In a population never before exposed to measles it is extremely dangerous and will kill many" Isn't there a risk this will happen here if vaccination rates continue to fall?

Tinker - depends how long vaccination had been going on. If it was abandonned after hundreds of years maybe. Not if it was abandonned now- it's been present in this part of the world for too long. Nice bit of natural selection has gone on already iyswim.

Not particularly arguing either way about this- just pointing out the pros and cons.

Interestingly the States set a national goal to eliminate measles by 1982- This didn't happen obviously, but the blame was not put on the unvaccinated- it was blamed on either primary vaccine failure, or waning vaccine immunity. NOw that measles outbreaks have been recorded in fully vaccinated populations the goal to erradicate it has I believe been shelved. One potential problem with vaccinating kiddies, if you don't then go on to erradicate the disease is that because if waning vacine immunity you leave adults at risk of catching the disease- when it is more serious. I think we'll have to consider (as a society) introducing measles boosters- at the moment the older generations are protected as they were all exposed as children, as they die they will be replaced by generations who have been vaccinated. The thought scares me a little. I think the States give the MMR suring teen years as well- this generation may continue to need boosters every 15 years or so. I think its something public health officials should be considering anyway.

jimjambells,

Blimey - you really have encyclopedic knowledge on this don't you (no sarcasm). Am dead impressed!

hmc- all gained very quickly. If I had been posting on here 4 years ago I would have been very much pro-vaccination. DS2 (2 next month) was born just as ds1 was diagnosed with autism. I knew he hadn't been vaccine damaged as such, but I suspected they may have played a role- the first in a series of unfortunate incidences- (with ds1 I had just marched him off to the baby clinic as expected). I couldn't decide what to do with ds2- and whether to give him his baby jabs and couldn't get any sense out of our locum GP so I read and read and read. I had to postpone his jabs as he was ill anyway- by the time he was well enough to have them I'd decided it was a route I didn't want to go down.

Hoping to learn more next November- there's an international vaccine conference in London.

Agree Jimjams have a lot of knowledge. At the same time I know people with the same level of knowledge who would probably disagree on many of the points Jimjam makes....That's the problem. Most of us don't have enough knowledge to really understand the whole vaccination-issue. We have to read what we can and choose the sources we think are the most reliable and trustworthy.

Bring them on FM- happy to debate it with anyone. I don't see what they could disagree with really. All I'm saying is that vaccinations can cause problems in some children (even the drugs companies admit that). I don't disagree that they reduce the incidence of infectious disease. I happen to think that our family is more at risk from adverse reactions to vaccinations than the Joe average. This is why I have chosen not to vaccinate.

In terms of public health there are certainly advantages to vaccination- obviously particularly in relation to incidence of infectious disease.

The point about having to provide boosters for life BTW. my friend took part in a Radio 4 phone in- and made that point to a big publc health official (think it was David Salisbury- someone that high up anyway), and the bigwig conceded that he had a point and repeated boosters for life may have to be introduced. This isn't particularly controversial.

I wasn't thinking particularly about this post. I think I was referring more to your post where you go through the flaws in the studies done on the MMR. I thought there were major flaws in the study done by Wakefield too BTW. My point is that you need to look at both sides of the arguments and whenever I read your posts I always think it would be interesting to see others views on them too.

What about BCG? In several continental countries bcg is not given routinely. Some arguments incl that the vaccin isn't that effective. Also that you can not use the Heaf or Mantoux test as a diagnostic tool in diagnosing tb (as they say; you should have negative tests normally but if you are pos you may have tb, while in UK you should be positive anyway).
BTW, ds and dd have all their vaccines according to the book, incl bcg as babies...

Jimjambells - I take it that it is our own generation that is at risk as we grow older then? I am 30 and had a single measles vacc in early childhood.

FM Wakefields work does not prove a link between MMR and autism. No-one says it does. All anyone says is that there may be a problem in a small number of children and that needs to be investigated further. Jeff Bradstreet has written a very interesting article about causality between autism and the MMR:

www.whale.to/a/bradstreet.html

I'm not particularly anti-vaccination per se. I don't think their s necessarily much sense in vaccinating well nourished populations against common childhood diseases, but there are pros with that approah and cons.

FWIW I think there are pretty good arguement for vaccinations against diptheria, tetanus and polio (although these should be mercury fee, and according to the americans killed polio should be used rather than oral- not sure I agree with that but still). There's probably some sense in vaccinating certain groups of babies against hib. The meninigitis C vaccine may be useful for teens, I am not convinced it should be routinely given to babies. I'm totally unconvinved by the pertussis vaccination. That's just my view- it's all swings and roundabouts as for each vaccintion there are pros and cons.

I am oppsed to giving multiple vaccinations- especially live ones. FWIW the MOD is against giving multiple vaccinations to troops now. For the recent Iraq conflict it was advised that where possible multiple vaccines should not be given. Interesting as gulf war syndrome sufferers share certian biochemical similarites to MMR damaged children (see the Uni of Sunderland Autism Research Unit webiste for details).

I'm not particularly anti vaccination- I'm happy to not interfere too much in my children's immune systems- but then I do think our family's is particularly susceptible to interference. What I would like to see is a rethink- and also questions to be asked over whether they are being given in the safest way possibele. For example why is the UK still giving thimerosil containing vaccines to babies when the US and Aus (and the veterinary world over here apprently- although i have never checked out the validity of that statement) discarded them years ago as being unsafe for children under 5 to receive routinely. Why was the DTP etc changed to being given at 3 4 and 5 months rather than spread out over the whole of the first year (this change was made when MMR was introduced which makes it particularly interesting). Vaccination like antibiotics provides and opportunity to improve public health, but lile anitbiotics only if used wisely and sensibly. Incidentally when antibiotics were introduced evolutionary biologists warned that misuse would lead to massive resistance problems. They arose within 50 years.

Bozza our generation wouldn't be particularly at risk (from a population point of view) as the uptake of measles vaccine was never that high.

Fairymum..... I know a hell of lot more about diseases and pharmaceuticals than you think..... and I use to work in crisis management for one of the world leading vaccine manufacturers.... I choose not to vaccinate...... I have seen and heard things you and many have not..... and I DO NOT believe scientists and medics, they have their own interests/agenda (as we all do).....

did you pupuce? I didn't know that- that must have been interesting!

I do not know what you know or don't know Pupuce. I know a lot of doctors and I am sure they have seen things too which makes them choose to vaccinate. I don't buy the conspiracy theories at all!