Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

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.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

Refusing to vaccinate your child

575 replies

Organic100 · 15/08/2013 22:34

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 posts:
CoteDAzur · 31/08/2013 13:43

bruffin - That is not a "theoretical" risk for waning. That study is done by adding up the numbers of actual live people who were infected with mumps after they had MMR. Not theoretical people. Real people.

And the result of the study shows that 1 dose of MMR leads to immunity in 96% of 2-year-olds. By the times they are 11-12 years old, only 66% are immune to mumps. That means vaccine immunity to mumps wanes over time. It also shows that the 99% effectiveness of 2 doses of MMR at age 2 declines to 86% by the time they get to age 11-12. That also means vaccine immunity to mumps wanes over time.

Your very own Public Health Englad concurs, saying that protection from infection falls to around 60% after 10-15-years.

bruffin, just say you were wrong and move on. Every post you refuse to accept this fact is making you look more and more intellectually dishonest.

saintlyjimjams · 31/08/2013 14:00

What a disingenuous website geneticsbunny.

cerealandtoast · 31/08/2013 14:03

oh fgs. just clicked on the link.

what a load of rot.

Geneticsbunny · 31/08/2013 14:09

Whoops didn't realise this 'discussion' has got so heated.

saintlyjimjams · 31/08/2013 14:15

Not heated really. Considering what? A few of us on this thread have severely autistic kids, some have vaccine damaged children. And the purpose of that website is what? To make us look like loons?

LaVolcan · 31/08/2013 14:16

cerealandtoast - I was very moved by your post.

Vaccine damage does happen. I do wish that those who are pro vaccine at any cost, and argue that we have a duty to society to vaccinate would be prepared to admit that this duty cuts both ways and that we have the same duty to support those who are damaged by it.

As cerealandtoast makes clear this support is largely absent.

Crumbledwalnuts · 31/08/2013 14:18

I agree LaVolcan - and that support starts by acknowledging it in the first place.

EachAndEveryHighway · 31/08/2013 14:30

I know someone who didn't vaccinate their child, then the poor child died aged 8 months of whooping cough.

Stories like that rarely make the news ... I guess no parent would dare face the press for fear of the ensuing flaming.

Crumbledwalnuts · 31/08/2013 14:33

Very sad. There are people who did vaccinate and whose children are damaged, or died. Stories like that rarely make the news either. Did you know there are thousands of people reporting severe vaccine damage? When was the last time you heard that on the news?

CoteDAzur · 31/08/2013 15:58

LaVolcan - re 'measles is nasty, therefore you must have a vaccination against a couple of other diseases whilst we are about it.'

My DC have had single measles vaccines. I don't understand why this shouldn't be possible for everyone.

"For those who argue that if you react to the vaccine, you would have reacted to the disease, I am sure that could be true, but you are not forced to catch the disease in the first place"

And you are not forced to catch the disease as a baby with an immature nervous system.

LaVolcan · 31/08/2013 16:04

My DC have had single measles vaccines. I don't understand why this shouldn't be possible for everyone.

Nor do I, except that it has become a political issue and that MMR is the only show in town.

Also the reason given that this would mean a small child has to have six innoculations instead of 2, for me doesn't wash, because you would have the other two vaccinations at a later age.

twistyfeet · 31/08/2013 16:05

the vaccine damage compensation is something like 120K and you have to prove '80% disablement'. That amount of money is pathetic. There was a child in dd's brain injury group damaged by a vaccine who had been awarded that amount. It would be used up in a few years just by the fact his parets couldnt work, would do bugger all about his needs for however long he lived. It should be a proper amount, every year.

CatherinaJTV · 31/08/2013 16:57

"genetically predisposed to epilepsy and that the vaccination triggered it rather than caused it. Robert would have developed epilepsy in any event, even if he had not had the vaccination.?

thanks for finding that, bruffin - that is what I thought.

Cote - yes, mumps immunity wanes.

saintlyjimjams · 31/08/2013 17:10

I'm not sure I buy this 'genetic predisposition' 'would have developed it anyway'. Does anyone have any actual evidence (rather than an opinion) for this.

DS3 is - I'm pretty sure- genetically predisposed to regression into severe autism. However, he's 8, talking (doesn't stop), does well at school, bonkers but very NT. If he had become ill at the age as ds1 did & regressed would they have said he would have developed it anyway? They don't suggest ds1 would have 'developed it anyway' - they said his illness, together with a genetic susceptibilty led to regression. Well that's their best guess anyway & fwiw I think they're broadly correct. Is it only if a regression is vaccination triggered it 'would have happened anyway'.

Regarding pertussis vaccination. DS2 was exposed to whooping cough at 8 weeks. I was very concerned - obviously - because it can be fatal in a 2 month old baby, and he had an exposure of a few hours in a small closed room. He was also on antibiotics at the time following a nasty infection - & underweight due to the infection - so not in the best of health. Everything I read at the time said it was unlikely he would have enough passive antibodies to protect him - and that for pertussis there didn't seem to be very good maternal transfer (although that opinion seems to have changed now as that's the rationale for injecting pregnant women). Anyhow, he didn't get it so presumably did get passive protection from me.

Anyway - point of this being, this close shave with what could have been a fatal disease didn't actually make the decision any easier. DS2's close shave didn't magic away what we were going through with ds1. It didn't cancel out ds1's condition. It didn't suddenly make vaccination seem any safer. It just added another rock to sit opposite the hard place.

Crumbledwalnuts · 31/08/2013 17:14

It might not have developed "in any event" Catherina and Bruffin. Do you understand that? Perhaps you could provide evidence for this. Or perhaps admit it's impossible to come by? Just an assumption, like Catherina's assumption about Robert Fletcher.

So it was worth triggering his epilepsy unnecessarily?

CatherinaJTV · 31/08/2013 17:14

Saintly - maybe the antibiotics helped your baby against the pertussis?

Does your DS1 have epilepsy?

saintlyjimjams · 31/08/2013 17:24

I don't want to say he doesn't have epilepsy as I don't want to tempt fate. He has had a couple of events when younger that looked possibly like seizures, but given the severity of his condition it is sometimes hard to tell. He cannot have an EEG, so we're not sure.

He is at high risk of developing epilepsy at the age he is now. So I cross my fingers and hope he doesn't as god only knows how we'd get any medication into him, or do EEG's or anything else that goes with epilepsy.

Hm I doubt the antib's did much. Think he was just finishing them as he had the exposure. More likely he had passive immunity from me and I have a good resistance to w/c. I think anyway.

Ironically the person whose kids had whooping cough had w/c when we were kids. I had measles at the time and was sent to play with her because I wasn't allowed back to school and my mum had to work. :1970's: so I was sat there with measles next to a child with w/c & our parents didn't seem concerned by this :1970's:. She didn't catch measles - she may have already had it I guess - and I didn't catch w/c. Anyway I definitely had a whooping cough antibody top at at that time

CoteDAzur · 31/08/2013 17:41

Catherina - No, "mumps immunity" doesn't wane. Immunity from mumps vaccine wanes.

"Nearly all people who have had mumps are immune for life and, therefore, won't catch it again"

A pretty good argument for actually having mumps as a small child rather than possibly postponing the infection to adulthood, when it's much more dangerous. Wouldn't you say?

Then we can screen boys at the age of 7, for example, and vaccinate those who are not already immune. That is what I intend to do with DS (4) who is not vaccinated against mumps.

CoteDAzur · 31/08/2013 17:45

Jimjams - "so I was sat there with measles next to a child with w/c & our parents didn't seem concerned by this :1970's:. She didn't catch measles - she may have already had it I guess - and I didn't catch w/c"

I seem to remember reading somewhere that you cannot have two such diseases at the same time - immune system is at high alert already and another pathogen can't take hold.

CatherinaJTV · 31/08/2013 17:48

Saintly, crossing fingers against any epilepsy.

CatherinaJTV · 31/08/2013 17:49

Cote - not sure that disease-acquired mumps immunity will last if it is not boosted by exposure... we won't know, I guess. Too little mumps around (luckily).

CoteDAzur · 31/08/2013 18:09

"Not sure"? "We might not know"? How strange. looking at your posts on this thread, one would think you know everything Grin

You might not know but NHS knows. You believe the NHS, right? Well, NHS says "Once you have been infected by mumps, you normally develop a life-long immunity to further infection".

Now, would you say it is better to have mumps and be immune for life than having to depend on waning immunity and take the very real risk of mumps in adulthood when it is truly dangerous?

bruffin · 31/08/2013 18:12

CW, I am really struggling to understand the point you are trying to prove. There was obviously some medical evidence given to the panal which lead at least one of the panal to feel that RF's seizures would have happened whether he was vaccinated or not.
Just like my son would have had febrile seizures whether he was vaccinated or not. It just so happened that DS first FS was within a few weeks of his MMR. Still to this day we dont know what caused the temperature except that he cut a tooth that day. He had croup a few days later but that could easily have been caught in A&E as it was full of children struggling to breath that night.

If we go backwards and chose not to vaccinate are you going to back a compensation all those that are left damaged from Measles, Mumps and Rubella or the babies that die from pertussis or any other vaccine preventable disease. What about the 11 that died in the last european measles epidemic, or the girl that was in a coma or the baby that goes onto get SSPE that i linked to above.

CoteDAzur · 31/08/2013 18:17

bruffin - Are you ready to accept that vaccine immunity for mumps wanes over time? Just wondering Smile

Look, Catherina had no problem recognising a fact when she sees one. Why don't you join her and get it over with. You know, like pulling a band-aid in one go.