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?

OP - you are brave posting this on mumsnet.

Let me start by saying in general I vaccinate my kids and its hard to argue that most vaccines work.

But I do sympathise with you. All vaccines carry risks and are not completely safe. Autism, ADHD, childhood cancers are on the rise and no one really knows why. There are certain additives in vaccines that no one really knows aren't harmful. Allergies are rocketing - no one understands why.

I also wonder whether our young immune systems learn to cope by dealing with certain childhood illnesses like measles and if that is taken away perhaps it increases the risk of allergies.

It is easy to look for something to blame.

I also don't like the fact that more than one vaccine is given at once. You can tell me all you like that only minute quantities are given etc but the immune system still has to learn to understand each virus.

Andrew Wakefield may have been struck off but has anyone actually tried to do that study again, properly?

Anyway OP I looked at all the evidence and decided to vaccinate. However I spaced them out a bit and have opted for single measles. My GP office, whilst they did not agree, was supportive.

At the end of the day, you make your own decision best you can.

I wouldn't discuss this on mumsnet if I were you - never has any subject provoked such entrenched positions and histrionics. I would never judge anyone for their decision - vaccinated or not - I don't even discuss it.

You people still don't get it.

There is no benefit to a baby from rubella vaccinations. None, whatsoever.

And you can't force anyone to vaccinate their babies against mumps or measles, regardless of how many links you post here, and how risky you feel the disease to be.

Vaccinate your own, and move on. If yours can't be vaccinated, you still need to move on, because YABU to expect the entire world's DC to be vaccinated to lower risk for yours.

Cote I know no one beyond my immediate family would vaccinate their child for the sake of mine.

I hope you never have to face the gut-wrenching anxiety of having to rely on herd immunity to protect your child.

Although you can't expect it you would hope that the world would be sympathetic and want to help- unfortunately they don't.

That vulnerability might never be triggered were it not for vaccine trauma. (as acknowledged by Catherina above).

I did not such thing. I said that the seizure 10 days after the MMR may very well have been caused (in all likelihood was caused) by the MMR. However, genetic seizure disorders develop independently of vaccination and their progression (in the case of Dravet this has been investigated) is independent of vaccination. It is the genetic make up of the child.

Of course severe damage, sometimes death, occur due to vaccines. The risk is minute. It is 1000x lower than the risk of complicated and severe courses of measles alone. Therefore, the MMR is totally worth it, the risk is acceptable (I was asked for my opinion, that is mine and that of 99.99999 of any doctor, especially of those who have seen measles).

If the court had compensated the Fletchers because a causal relationship could not have been excluded, I would have fully agreed with them.

Tazzletoes - I totally get it and a huge motivation for me to vaccinate myself and my children is that I don't want to risk us infecting a cancer or transplant patient (we have/had both in the family and amongst friends and neighbours). I honestly think that the very very small risk of vaccination is worth the protection vaccination affords to us and the "community" (at the risk of sounding like a sanctimonious cow on a very high horse).

and yes: the MMR is absolutely worth the minute risk it poses, because it protects against three diseases, two of which have a, in my opinion unacceptably high, risk of complications/severe illness to my child and one poses an unacceptably high risk of causing damage to someone in my community

This is where we each have to make our own judgement. I, my brother, DH, SIL all had measles, so the risks to me do not appear that high. Mumps my brother managed to catch, after puberty, at no expense to his fertility because he's fathered children. I didn't catch it, despite spending most of the time with him. Rubella, I caught in my teens, but had no problem with my daughter having the vaccine at puberty which was then the option.

I do have friends and a relative with severely disabled children (caused by a variety of reasons) and the day to day battle and lifelong struggle they have to get support for their children is something I do not envy them for. For me, this answer to MMR would have been no - the balance of risks came down in favour of risking the disease, but probably single vaccines when necessary.

And yes, this argument about how worthy we all are protecting the immune damaged and those with cancer gets trotted out - there are so many bacteria and viruses - it's impossible to avoid them all. One of these could knock an immuno-compromised person for six and not affect a healthy person. And of course, you assume that your vaccination worked 100%, so that you could never catch the disease.

Of course it's impossible to avoid them all. I'm not quite that stupid as not to recognise that, thanks.

But measles and chickenpox are particularly dangerous for my DS. Chickenpox has led to the members of my close family who haven't had it being vaccinated to protect DS. Plus we keep DD at home when it's going round nursery just in case the vaccination wasn't completely effective. Plus there is medicine that can help DS if he's exposed to chickenpox provided he's treated quickly enough.

Measles relies more on him not getting it in the first place. Which relies on the people he comes in to contact with him not having it.

As so often on vaccination threads, your response was pretty glib. Again, I hope that you never have to face this anxiety.

this argument about how worthy we all are protecting the immune damaged and those with cancer gets trotted out

Herd immunity protects people with cancer, damaged immune systems, people whose vaccinations didn't take, those who have rejected vaccination and those too young to be vaccinated. It protects them against some of the most deadly and difficult to treat diseases. It is real and it saves lives.

There are, of course, lots of viruses they can't be protected from by herd immunity because vaccination isn't available or because the risks in general aren't considered sufficient to justify a vaccination programme.

BM
For the millionth time, the risk from mumps is greater than the risk from MMR.
Even Jerrilyn strain only had a slightly higher risk of aseptic meningitis than other strains. you seem to think AM is acceptable in the disease but not in a vaccine at the fraction of the risk. Then you get a risk from the actual disease of encephalitis, which may be rare but not as rare as from the vaccine.
There is also research that links pancreatitis caused by mumps leading to diabetes type1.
I would rather take the risk of 1 in million of the vaccine than the much greater risks from mumps
Cote
you do know that there is a risk of 1 in 5000 of encephalitis . A child being vaccinated against rubella will be protected against that as well as creating herd immunity against CRS.

Trazzletoes, I'm sorry your son has health problems. I can understand members of your family having a chicken pox vaccine to protect him, if it was my child I might be prepared to have a vaccine myself to protect my child. However, if it was me that needed to avoid these diseases I wouldn't risk my child to protect me.

Again, I object to the herd immunity theory purely on moral and ethical grounds, it is risking my child to help another. We also do not know if there are any long term problems to these vaccines.

I find it ironic that vaccine refusers ride on herd immunity while "objecting" to it on moral grounds.

catherina

We also do not know if there are any long term problems to these vaccines.

We have been routinely vaccinating against some of these diseases for over 50 years, i would have thought we would know the long term problems by now.

Bruffin, you would rather take the risk - others perceive that risk differently and choose a different course of action. In any case, my quoting the risks of mumps at you was not anything to do with me comparing risks of MMR to the disease - it was in response to you scaremongering about the rare complications of mumps. I didn't try to tell anyone that having mumps was safer than MMR so I'm not sure why you are telling me that it isn't for the 'millionth time'

Worth noting, however, that vaccine reactions are under reported so I'm not sure where you're getting this '1 in a million' risk for the vaccine. I'm pretty sure you'd have something to say if I started plucking figured out of thin air.

Front thank you for your post.

You are lucky to have a choice in whether or not your child has a higher chance of contracting these diseases. I have no choice at all and the consequences for my DS are likely to be much much worse.

Bruffin - how on earth do we know there are no long term problems from vaccines?!

On the whole I am for vaccines but whenever I see the huge numbers of allergies in kids that were not around decades ago it does start me wondering. And other illnesses too - eczema, autoimmune issues. That's before you wade into the autism side!!

Trazzle - I know about your DS and have posted on your threads several times. I wish him the best possible outcome from his ongoing treatment

I didnt realise that he is vulnerable to measles. Has he not had the MMR before his recent diagnosis at the age of 3?

"I find it ironic that vaccine refusers ride on herd immunity while "objecting" to it on moral grounds."

You have understood nothing at all

I want DD to have rubella so she can be immune to it for life and never have to worry about CGS during any future pregnancy. But she doesn't get it because of this laughable policy of vaccinating all babies rather than screening teenage girls & vaccinating that point if necessary.

Actually Catherina, I have seen plenty of people on these threads wanting their children to contract things like rubella and mumps so if there is herd immunity to those diseases (and it seems to be questionable over mumps) then they aren't too happy to be 'riding' on it.

How can you take a decision about vaccinating without comparing the risk of the disease to the risk of the vaccine, only a fool would not look at both risk. I was not scaremonger, other than pointing out the risks.

for those who are actually interested in the risks of the disease and the vaccine The IOM Adverse Effects of Vaccines, Evidence and Causality

Mild vaccine risks tend to be under reported ie nobody would really report a sore arm for a couple of days, but there is considerable evidence that serious risks are actually over reported. Just looking at the Dravets/ vaccine damage links above. Vaers can also be distorted by those looking to make a case for litigation and by those who confuse causality and correlation.

There we go! Cross-posted with Cote :)

Has he not had the MMR before his recent diagnosis at the age of 3?

Prior vaccination doesn't help people who are going through treatment for cancer and, if I were Trazzle, I'd be quite upset by the implication of that question.

On the whole I am for vaccines but whenever I see the huge numbers of allergies in kids that were not around decades ago it does start me wondering. And other illnesses too - eczema, autoimmune issues. That's before you wade into the autism side!!

There is absolutely nothing to wade into on the Autism side. It is a non-issue dragged up by people who do not understand the basics of scientific research.

The NHS wouldn't be very likely to continue vaccinating children if it caused masses of auto-immune problems and more damage in vaccine reactions than the diseases themselves could cause. That wouldn't be ethical or cost effective.

Of course they would look at both risks if they are making the decision but I'm not telling them that one is safer than the other - which you seem to think I am. I was just pointing out the the complications of mumps that you were talking about are rare. It's a good job really considering that immunity from the vaccine is waning and leaving people unprotected when they are more vulnerable.

Not everyone who catches the disease will remain immune for life 5% of those who have had rubella dont have any immunity.

they should look at them - not many people do.