Refusing to vaccinate your child

[Organic100]

For a while now I have been researching the dangers of vaccines and all the cases of children dying or being made sick after having a vaccine, all of which is not reported in mainstream media. How do you feel about vaccines? I've heard that the medical profession encourages pregnant women to get the flu vaccine, and that babies are vaccinated at birth. I've also researched stories where parents have been reported to social services by a spiteful doctor or nurse, simply for refusing their child a vaccine. It seems parents are losing their rights. What do you think?

Levolcan - I got tested by my OB when I mentioned babies, your daughter might want to consider that (she should do toxoplasmosis and chicken pox titres at the same time.

Yes, Catherina - I will pass that on - a woman in Germany thinks that you ought to be tested for immunity to rubella and chicken pox (which she has had). Perhaps you could give some advice as to where exactly she should go for this testing? My daughter doesn't have an 'OB' so she can't ask him or her.

Yeah, I admit, the UK system is not great for that sort of pre-conception care. I would suggest her GP (and I am not in Germany, I live in the UK). If she has had chicken pox then she should be fine. I couldn't recall having had them, so my doctor had me tested when she did everything else.

My daughter, isn't, as far as I know, trying to get pregnant. This wouldn't mean that she or thousands of others couldn't accidentally end up getting pregnant without being immune to rubella.

So how would you tackle that problem?

Have a regular screening programme to check for immunity? IMO it's unlikely to happen, because the government would have to be prepared to admit that the vaccination programme wasn't quite as effective as they would like us to believe.

Or how about offering the vaccination later? Nope, we used to do that but we don't want to go back to that policy because it doesn't square with pushing the MMRat small infants. Although we never offered it to boys, so a reintroduction of that programme aimed at both sexes might be worth trying.

Offer a genuine booster to people in their early twenties? Good idea, fits in with their information about the protection lasting 20 years. Lots of money for the pharmaceutical companies. Could be a likely policy. But oh wait, a number of parents will say, why bother innoculating a baby against rubella. They are not going to be able to get pregnant. In which case, take rubella out of the MMR and then you are almost back to a single vaccine. Can't have that now, can we?

Forgive the cynicism but I have lived long enough to see HCPs do about turns on policy. Just occasionally they will admit that the advice has changed because further research has been done. Just as often, they will swear black is white that they never did or said such and such.

So how would you tackle that problem?

get everyone vaccinated with 2xMMR before puberty, catch up immigrants from countries without vaccination programme. Works like a charm in every country that does it and is not particularly expensive (especially compared to the costs of life long care for even one child with CRS - the medical costs for the victim I know, including three open heart surgeries would have vaccinated at least 20000 kids). Has nearly eradicated rubella from the Western Hemisphere and if it wasn't for the vaccine refusers, we'd be there already and no one would have to be afraid of the (already super low) risk of catching rubella while pregnant.

The information is that immunity lasts at least 20 years. There is no indication that immunity wanes and if everyone gets 2xMMR, rubella circulation can be completely interrupted, so that the odd non immune person will not be at risk.

immunity lasts at least 20 years. There is no indication that immunity wanes

Yes, you have told us a number of times that there is no indication that immunity wanes. I pointed it out to you that, the NHS says that it lasts for 'more than 20 years if you have had 2 MMRs' so you don't really need to tell me again thanks. What you can't say, and neither can the NHS is how many more years. If it's 25 years, a decline in immunity is still potentially serious, 40 years, probably OK for a majority of women, 60 years - virtually no problem in that the number of women getting pregnant over 60 is very very small.

As far as I know there is no talk as yet of being able to eliminate rubella globally, so you also need to tell women of childbearing age never to travel outside the western hemisphere if there is a slight chance that they might get pregnant - they could easily catch it without knowing.

What if its waning but people are contracting rubella itself (very mild) and are therefore immune from that? Both my DSs had it when they were too small to have been offered the vaccine. (Doctor confirmed but not reported afaik
I'm sure they aren't the only ones.

Do you not think its a bit crap that in order to get protection to one disease you have to be vaccinated against 3? Even though you may already be immune to the other two?

Bumbley suggested vaccinating teenage boys and girls. ges ago. What a good idea bumble.

Great post about the options LaVolcan.

"Do you not think its a bit crap that in order to get protection to one disease you have to be vaccinated against 3? Even though you may already be immune to the other two?"

I do Bumbley are you surprised.

Do a search on MN for how many women found out at their booking in appt they were not immune to rubella. It comes up a lot on vaccine threads - where posters who decline the mmr are called all kinds of irresponsible because the women who are not immune to rubella didn't check their status before getting pregnant. It is very common.

There is also a poster whose (unvaccinated) child caught rubella from a vaccinated child. Clearly immunity didn't last there (and this case also counts for the scenario mentioned earlier - the 'oh, it can't be X as they've been vaccinated' one which a poster didn't believe ever happened).

It's fine to believe vaccinations are the best thing for your child. But let's at least be realistic, and acknowledge the real-life situations that are happening, which show that vaccination is not the holy cow it is sometimes made out to be.

how many of these women had 2xMMR?

As for an unvaccinated child catching rubella from a vaccinated child, I want to see the lab conformation for both, also no one said vaccine induced immunity was 100% (especially after one shot), but on a population level, you can eradicate rubella if everyone gets 2xMMR. It's not like the vaccine has been invented last week. Different schedules have been tried in a number of countries and we know that not vaccinating doesn't work, and vaccinating only girls doesn't work, but vaccinating all kids does (and then, even if there were the odd 40 year old losing her immunity, there wouldn't be a child to infect her during pregnancy).

Is it wasteful to vaccinate a child who has had rubella with MMR? No, it is frivolous to allow your child to provide breeding ground for a vaccine preventable disease. If a rubella immune child gets the MMR, the M and M are going to do their bit and the R is just going to get neutralised by the immune system. If the child's titers were lowish, the R might boost the child. Not wasteful - efficient. I am old enough to know the girl with full blown CRS, my great-uncle was "only" deaf. I had a colleague who had an abortion because her son infected her with (confirmed) rubella in pregnancy. Both situations are entirely preventable.

LeVolcan - in Germany they don't routinely test for rubella immunity before you are pregnant. My doctor did that on her own initiative (and that was not in Germany). The idea to screening for immunity once the woman is pregnant is silly (at least in an environment in which rubella does still circulate - we had two cases in DD's kindergarten in Germany in the two only unvaccinated children, two siblings, probably picked up from the Steiner community down the road), after all, you cannot get the MMR during pregnancy.

That doesn't change the fact that 2xMMR on a population level will get rid of all indigenous cases of CRS and that, in my opinion, is something to strive for.

A doctor cannot confirm that your children have had rubella without a lab test. Over 95% of lab tested rubella comes back negative. Threre are so many viruses that are very similar.
Its all very well saying that you keep reading about women who are not immune but have you actually read of anyone who actually had to have an abortion for CRS.
As it was epidemics didnt happen that often before vaccination which is why so many women didnt get it until they were old enough to be pregnant. They had to build bulge classes for blind colleges in the US, in the
70s for the children born in the the last big epidemic of the 60s. Im sure SENSE would be shouting loud from the rooftops if we saw CRS coming back in this country.

They had to build bulge classes for blind colleges in the US, in the
70s for the children born in the the last big epidemic of the 60s. Im sure SENSE would be shouting loud from the rooftops if we saw CRS coming back in this country.

^ that

We don't know if vaccinating teenage boys would have had the same effect. They didn't try that before bundling it in with two other vaccines and giving it to young children. Why are you saying 'women in their 40s'? It could very easily be women in their 20s no longer being immune. As for giving vaccines when you're already immune, I think it's comparable to doctors giving out antibiotics to children 'just in case' instead of testing to see if they need them/which one they need. We all know how well that's turned out!

As for it being misdiagnosed, of course it's possible. Although the doctor we saw (older) said the swollen glands at the back of the head were quite a distinctive sign of rubella.

frontdoorstep you may not have noticed that there are still horses.

of course if your kids never leave tarmac they have less risk of tetanus. They'd better stay in the city, no blackberrying, no farm visits, no trips to the country, no trips to the beach etc.

'no vaccine, no risk'. Oh well, Darwin will out. Unfortunately in your children, not you. Do let them know when they are old enough that they are unprotected, won't you? (let's hope they don't catch anything that will disable or kill them in the meantime)

Bm
Again please tell me where there is any evidence at all of immunity being a problem in the uk or the states. They have been vaccinating against mmr for 40 years and the only cases of CRS they have are in immigrants who came into the country pregnant.Uk it has been 30 years.
What is wrong with vaccinating young children. The only affect of age is in herited immunity from the mother interfering with the vaccine. Babies dont react any worse than adults or older children.
There is also no evidence whatsoever that mixing three vaccines together is a problem, not one person on these boards has ever shown any research that shows singles are safer. Unless they are dumb enough to have read Richard Hs book and fallen for it hook line and sinker.

We don't know if it's a problem yet - MMR was only introduced in the late 80s. The NHS are saying it provides protection for around 20 years. It is given to children from 12/15 months. That could mean that we are in for a rude awakening in the next few years. What's wrong with giving it to teenagers? All teenagers, male and female.

Why bundle it in with 2 other vaccines and then have to give all 3 again if you don't have immunity to one? It's illogical. Can you imagine having to take an antidepressant every time you wanted some paracetemol just because they happened to be in the same pill?

They're already accepting that immunity from the mumps component of the MMR wanes. Would it be such a surprise if the same applied to the rubella component?

I was diagnosed by the GP as 'yes that looks like rubella' .The only reason I saw him was that he had come to visit my sick grandmother. It was later confirmed at pregnancy.

The idea to screening for immunity once the woman is pregnant is silly - it is, yes, but that has been the policy for years. Re termination - it's not a solution for those who won't have one.

We aren't telling people that we are trying to wipe the disease out. The story goes you must have MMR because measles can be nasty and cause death, mumps nasty and cause sterility, rubella could be nasty and cause CRS.

Why not try treating parents with a modicum of common sense and tell them that the aim is to wipe the disease out more than to protect their child? If they said that the policy of vaccinating girls only at puberty didn't wipe it out, so that is why they have gone to the policy of vaccinationg boys also, and it needs to be done in babyhood, I think a lot of parents would be happy to go along with this. It still doesn't explain whether vaccinating boys at puberty would have had the desired effect because no one tried that.

I got that message, have no idea why you didnt Lavolcan. I have always assumed. FWIW i was diagnosed by a GP back in mid 70s but that was in the middle of a known epidemic and it was confirmed when i was pregnant. I caught it from my mother who was 38 at the time. Rubella comes around in big epidemics every 5 to 7 years which is why its not something that you get easily as a child.
BM i know maths isn't your strong point but in the US they introduced MMR in 1971, 40 years ago and they still do not have rubella circulating and only CRS cases are in immigrants who had got pregnant before coming into the US. Your arguments are all about what might or might not happen if we do or don't vaccinate and never make sense. You seem to think measles would have eradicated itself without vaccination, yet just before vaccination was started there were epidemics of 600,00 or 700,000. When we get large enough epidemics as there have been recently in europe we start seeing deaths and The mumps waning has been in those who had a single dose of MMR. If you go on any university website, the advice is to make sure you have had two doses before starting uni, not get another booster.There is no evidence that having mmr a third time is in anyway harmful.

Presumably I didn't get the message because a) the MMR wasn't around when my children were babies, and b) the NHS doesn't give you this message.

There was no message about trying to wipe the disease out when my daughter was vaccinated - it was entirely about being protected during pregnancy.

www.nhs.uk/Conditions/vaccinations/Pages/mmr-vaccine.aspx

Please tell me where on this website it says 'we are trying to eliminate rubella' or words to that effect.

It does say "People born between 1970 and 1979 who may have only been vaccinated against measles also need the MMR vaccine, as well as those born between 1980 and 1990 who may not be protected against mumps."

I can't see where it says why they need the MMR vaccine?

Then follow the link for why teenagers might need it to see if that told me why but that is all about mumps.

You didn't mention the US, the rest of us have been talking about the UK. The second dose of MMR wasn't introduced until the late 80s. (Not sure why you decided to try to insult my Math skills - bit petty don't you think? Although you do seem to have to resort to childish tactics quite a lot. )

"Your arguments are all about what might or might not happen if we do or don't vaccinate and never make sense. "

This doesn't make sense because I'm talking about what would happen if we vaccinated all children later - in their teens.

"You seem to think measles would have eradicated itself without vaccination"

Haven't said this either. I have said that the numbers of deaths were decreasing prior to vaccination ie. it was becoming a less dangerous disease. I have linked to figures on the HPA website on other threads previously - it's nothing new.

The mumps waning has been in those who have had the MMR. There was an article about it recently here you go

I haven't said anything about extra doses being harmful - just unnecessary and illogical.

Based on your last post I could insult your reading and comprehension skills - perhaps something along the lines of them not being your strong point - but I don't need to insult others to try to make myself feel superior :)

The second dose of MMR wasn't introduced until the late 80s in the US