Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
General health

Mumsnet doesn't verify the qualifications of users. If you have medical concerns, please consult a healthcare professional.

Original poster

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

155 replies

arabella2 · 16/12/2003 10:07

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.

OP posts:
FairyMum · 19/12/2003 09:50

And actually, not all of has have only our own interest and agenda. Obviously the drugs companies do. Their interest is to earn money. I don't think all the medics, scietists and health officials around the world are that unethical.

I am really suprised that I seem to be more or less the only person with this view every time there is an MMR-debate on Mumsnet.

twiglett · 19/12/2003 10:05

message withdrawn

lailag · 19/12/2003 10:13

fairymum, I am on your side. I accept there are risks involved in vaccinations like everything has risks and benefits. DH and I are "happy" to give ds and dd the usual vaccines. But we would say so as both of us are part of the "other side"...

Tinker · 19/12/2003 10:23

FM - you're not the only one with that view

Jimjambells · 19/12/2003 10:30

twiglett- gp's are in a tough position. They can provide them but only on a named patient basis which means something like they are personally liable if something goes wrong. Eeek. At least he didn't strike you off your list!

My GP jokes about it with me. We make little jokey comments to each other about it. Every time I take ds2 in for anything he says "oh it's because he isn't vaccinated" so I laugh. I always say "no if he was vaccinated he'd be sitting in that corner rocking" then he laughs. He doesn't put me under any pressure though and I've never received a "be wise immunise" reminder from him. He's a good GP- he was happy to order in thimerosil free if I wanted them.

FairyMum · 19/12/2003 10:30

Twiglett, I understand why you won't vaccinate and probably wouldn't vaccinate if I was in "your" shoes either. I know parents who have been advised by GPs not to vaccinate or to wait until their child is older. In one case because the child has severe allergies and is sick a lot and in another case because of a heart-defect. I guess my experience of GPs in this respect has been very positive and that they aren't just one-sided. I do support these parents right not to vaccinate, but I think it's important that the rest of us do!

Jimjambells · 19/12/2003 10:31

his list I mean

tamum · 19/12/2003 10:33

I'm not anti-MMR either, but then I'm a scientist and am clearly not to be trusted as I have my own agenda, apparently.

twiglett · 19/12/2003 10:37

message withdrawn

tamum · 19/12/2003 10:41

Absolutely, twiglett, I shall be personally ensuring that no further research is ever done into this area

Jimjambells · 19/12/2003 10:43

lol tamum- only if your middle name is Brent Taylor!

GladTidings · 19/12/2003 10:44

lol Tamum.

GeorginaA · 19/12/2003 10:44

I'm pro-vaccination in general (even had the chickenpox vaccination for myself although not my ds). I do think, however, that the singles should be available on the NHS for any family who has any close relation with a condition in the autistic spectrum. I can appreciate the difficulties and extra costs involved and realise that it would be a horrendous drain on NHS resources to unnecessarily offer that option to everyone, but do recognise in some cases the singles are definitely the best way to go.

My gut feeling after reading much of this research is that there's actually a link between the measles virus and some types of autism/gut disorders which would mean there's a high risk whether the child is vaccinated or not. Jimjams has pretty much convinced me over the months that chickenpox virus probably plays a part in some cases too. I am not an expert though

I do value all your information though, Jimjams - always read your posts with interest and have learnt so much about autism as a result.

taBrentTaylormum · 19/12/2003 10:45

That's me!

GeorginaA · 19/12/2003 10:48

Oh, btw, I don't think that singles are bad, per se, I just think they should only be available on the NHS for those who really need them. I do think something should be done to make them more readily available for those who choose to pay and who aren't in an at-risk group (like finally getting those mumps vaccines registered or whatever they have to do to get more available - that's just plain ridiculous).

bossykate · 19/12/2003 10:56

FM you are not the only person on mumsnet who thinks like this.

i do not call epidemiological (sp?) studies "flawed" because they haven't tested a hypothesis which conforms to the anti mmr agenda. these studies show that the mmr is ok in the vast majority of cases.

having said that, i would like to see research which does test the hypothesis that mmr could be dangerous to a specific subset of children - due to either genetic predisposition, a concurrence of specific factors or whatever - the research should cover all the bases.

this hypothesis has not been adequately tested yet, imo.

i just do not subscribe to conspiracy theories, which only contribute to a level of hysteria around this subject, to the detriment of the necessary debate on this subject.

Jimjambells · 19/12/2003 10:58

ROFL taBrentTaylormum. Now you have to sart every conversation with "the case against the MMR is closed."

OldieMum · 19/12/2003 10:59

This is a very useful and enlightening thread, thanks to all. To clarify, is it the case that we would have to wait about a year to start a course of single vaccines, if we went down that route? If so, how likely would it be that we'd be putting dd significantly at risk of contracting one of these diseases in the meantime? She is currently 11 months old.

bossykate · 19/12/2003 10:59

ds has had all his plus bcg - the area in which we live is one of the most diverse in the country, ds could easily come into contact with someone from a high risk country. no relying on herd immunity for measles where we live either, mmr uptake rates being around the 60% mark. although i do take the point that some of the 40% could have had the single measles vaccine.

Jimjambells · 19/12/2003 11:00

errr BK- I have agreed that they show the MMR is safe in the majority of cases. They are flawed because the dept of health (and in one case- hi taBrentTaylormum- the authors themselves in their press release) say that they "prove" the MMR is safe. They do no such thing.

Jimjambells · 19/12/2003 11:04

No-one knows Oldiemum.
What is known is that if you catch measles and mumps in the same year of life you have an increased risk of autism (not sure if its a significant increase though- chickenpox and mumps is a significant increase).

I wouldn't have measles before 15 months at the earliest. It often doesn't work very well if given earlier as maternal antibodies are still circulating- this is particularly important if you had measles yourself as a child as you will have antibodies.

Anyway ds2 has woken up so we are off to post parcels, and maybe put some xmas tree lights on whilst ds1 is out.

bossykate · 19/12/2003 11:06

well then jimjams, i think we agree on the fundamentals if you look at my post.

Jimjambells · 19/12/2003 11:07

No-one knows Oldiemum.
What is known is that if you catch measles and mumps in the same year of life you have an increased risk of autism (not sure if its a significant increase though- chickenpox and mumps is a significant increase).

I wouldn't have measles before 15 months at the earliest. It often doesn't work very well if given earlier as maternal antibodies are still circulating- this is particularly important if you had measles yourself as a child as you will have antibodies.

Anyway ds2 has woken up so we are off to post parcels, and maybe put some xmas tree lights on whilst ds1 is out.

twiglett · 19/12/2003 11:07

message withdrawn

bossykate · 19/12/2003 11:10

do people seriously think that vaccines are risk free? i don't. but i do think the risks are infinitesimally small compared to the risks of complications from the diseases.