spread them out?

[surfmama]

has anyone spread out jabs? dd is due first lot soon and i think i want them spread out. does this go down like a sack of sick?

Well, there you go. But there is a difference between discussing with gp in advance and going in on the day of the vaccination having made up your mind

Eh? What are you going on about? With ds2 I went on the day the vaccination was due - to my vaccination appointment, told the GP I wasn't prepared to vaccinate that day as he was just out of hospital. Explained the concerns relating to his brother (which was a lot of guess work at the time as he wasn't dxed) and talked through the various options. We had something called a conversation. He was very helpful and not at all upset that he didn't get to jab ds2 there and then. He took my various concerns seriously and discussed them.

Elaine, but the scientific evidence is equivocal. So when any parent is unsure about the current nhs standard approach surely it is a question of looking at the evidence AND following your instincts.

You can spread the jabs I did with dd and no one seemed to mind. For example the wider you spread the pneumococcal the less jabs the kid needs anyway. I successes it with the nurse and she was v supportive. I will be delaying jabs until 6 months with dd2 and spreading them again

Good, I'm glad you acted on medical advice. And I'm very pleased for you that you managed to have a conversation with your gp. Exactly what I recommended to the op.

For some vaccines there is strong scientific evidence as to when they should be given. For others, less so but could be influenced by local conditions. Your instincts can't tell you which vaccines these are. Your instincts can't tell you if there has been an outbreak of whooping cough.

Well I made the decision not to vaccinate so I doubt you'll be that pleased with the GP's advice.

I'm not quite sure who you think has suggested she doesn't speak to her GP.

Well, that's good then. We're all in agreement that the op should discuss her concerns with her gp and act on medical advice. Wonderful!

I think we all agree that the OP should discuss her concerns with her GP who will be able to let her know what the various options are, and then she can make her decision.

No-one has ever said anything different.

Spink excellent post & I agree completely

I think that spink's right. Sometimes the scientific evidence is equivocal and all we can do is fall back on our instincts. Thankfully, that's not the case with common vaccinations.

That said, it's worth remembering that our instincts can mislead us. We evolved in an environment where sugar and salt were rare. Now that they are plentiful, our instincts trick us into over-indulging. Similarly we evolved in small social groups, so if you heard about a murder, you needed to worry. Now when people hear about murders on the news they tend to over-estimate the threat. The same type of over-estimation sometimes occurs when people read of cases where children became ill after a vaccination. Through understanding the origins of instincts we can use them to better effect, and appreciate why sometimes they need taming with data and rationality.

Why are the very hot and heavy pro-vaccine campaigners here so very argumentative and vitriolic? This is an appeal for an advice and some people are using it as a soapbox and opportunity to sneer! I think there's a lot of fear that people might inform themselves rather more than would be "helpful" to the health authorities. Good advice from bumbley and saintly, and very moderate too.

I'd say the advice which we've all agreed is correct is to talk to your gp about any concerns. We've reached a consensus.

Mrsgeranium - I agree it's always a hysterical debate wherever you go for info or advice. I halted dd's jabs to research before we went on and I found it almost impossible to make an informed decision because the anti vax crew are like a cult following dr tenpenny and the pro jab folk won't see it any other way either. I got blocked from a Facebook group called earthymotherhood ( I was happy to leave!) for daring to question the hysteria.

Scarred: to be fair I don't think it's hysterical by necessity. The very passionate pro-vaccination campaigners make it like an aggressive point scoring game. Look back at the posts by people like Saintly, bumbley and Tabitha and you'll see how non-hystiericcal they are. Whereas the posts by people who disagree with them, are much more hostile and aggressive, as if they don't want the other point of view to be heard at all. All the hysteria and aggression, sarcasm, and most of the scare-mongering, comes from the pro-vaccine side on the whole.

and the weasling, the poor-quality non-evidence, the abuse and untrue accusations, and the vague assertions with no evidence to support them, come from the anti-vaxx side.

They come largely from the very pro-vaccination campaigners as any reader of these threads will see.

I'm with pigletjohn in my experience of these debates here and elsewhere

Scarred: perhaps you should read back the threads. The name-calling and hysteria has not come from people who express concern about vaccines. You may choose to think something else of course; that's called having an article of faith over the evidence right in front of your eyes.

For example, pls don't object if I quote from another thread
this sort of thing -

"The anti-vaxer reasons that uncle Bert gets hay fever, hay fever is hereditary and something to do with immune system, vaccine damage is also something to do with the immune system, DC are related to uncle Bert, and are thus more likely than average to suffer vaccine damage. They thus don't vaccinate them. The anti-vaxer believes that the evil quartet of doctors, scientists, govt and pharma conspire to under-report vaccine damage. All part of their thirst to play god, and make lots of money by making people ill, not forgetting generous measures of incompetence and stupidity. They reason that vaccine damage is under-reported so they don't vaccinate their children. I have never seen any attempt to quantify whether either 'the more susceptible than average' or the conspiracy theory could plausibly be sufficient to justify not vaccinating. It's incredible lame."

It's patronising, untrue, abusive in the extreme - and people defend it and agree with it! People acros all these threads at the moment. How can you possibly justify it if you are genuinely interested and concerned about child health?

I'm not talking about everybody who is generally supportive of vaccination - I mean the very vocal group who jump on every thread and suddenly start to be sneering and patronising, accusing people of being self-declared health experts and so on. There's no need for it. Unless you are very uncertain of your case of course. But if you're confident - there's no need for it at all.

I meant on the whole, not restricted to mn threads but on the net in general. Though I have seen the hysteria here from time to time. To be fair this is the only place I have seen anti vax posters quote from varied sources instead of the usual default. Though I still see them refer to Wakefield

Scarred: I think it might be a good idea to acknowledge the name-calling and abuse from the pro-vaccination camp.

And I mean "on the whole" on mn, not just this thread. Recent ones have been particularly unpleasant.

Good idea for whom? I am saying they are as bad as each other.

I don't think on mn they're as bad as each other to be fair. I'd like to appeal to the particular group of pro-vaccine campaginers to tone down their posts and make them less hostile, agrressive, insulting and rude. Lay off the name calling too. I think it will really help the debate.

Hopefully in the morning Mn Hq will be along to cancel you about again.

Mrsgeranium, accurracyrequired,juicyfruits,blueberties,gooseberrybushes, applets, backtotalkaboutthis. Have I missed any out.