Declining 8 week vaccinations for my baby - experiences?

[Plasticpineapple]

I don't want this to be about whether you should or shouldn't vaccinate your baby. I have chosen not to and I'm looking for experiences from others who have done the same. What did you say? What did the doctor say? Did you discuss vaccination once the child was older or flat out decline all vaccines?

It's not just middle class thing .

Nope, there are fcking idiots across all classes and people. It's equal opportunity stupidity.

It's a Taliban thing too, sadly.

My guess would be the inner circle mentioned by the pp would have said that the rest of the herd being immunised, the risks are lowered for the individual.

Watch out for the measles outbreak - just spread to Sweden apparently.

My god there are some really scary opinions on this thread. I thought anti vaccers had been wiped out like ... Measles. Oh wait measles hasn't been wiped out because idiots like to think their kid is more special than anyone else's.

The anti-vax thing started as 'blasphemy' in the time of Jenner. i.e. it was against "god's way" - disease was God's will.

Seems unbelievable now, but it was - and is - a religious thing. "Going against God." In the same way that IVF is, stem cell research is - and is probably similar to the Taliban's thinking.

Hence the 'religious' exemption' thing in the US now. They've just brought the "chemicals" thing in as an 'enhancer' - an additional scaremonger. The were scaremongering about vaccinations from before they even knew what chemicals were. They thought that innoculating against smallpox with cowpox would make you "bovine" - ie turn you into a cow. Hence this painting with people being vaccinated having bits of cow sprouting out of them.

People who are considering not vaccinating their dc should really check out the roots of the anti-vaccine lobby. It is, and always has been, based on fear not scientific fact.

Well, shortly after the study was conducted, the UK decided to discontinue thimerosal. Coincidence? At the time, the U.S. had not used it in vaccines for many years and it was advised against by the WHO.

My point is that the government had taken the position that for years a vaccine was ok to give to 8 week old babies and now it wasn't.

I don't blame people for being concerned and questioning public health officials. It's normal for such people to be concerned about disease control and I would not dispute that vaccination plays an important role in that. But collateral damage is not acceptable for any family in my opinion.

Nancy - most people think about their child's interests first. Do you really disagree that that is the case? People vaccinate because they believe it is primarily in their child's best interest and because they assume their child would not be adversely affected. Nobody would do it, knowing their child would be damaged as a result.

Thiomersal was removed from vaccines in 2001 in the US- not because of any scientifically proven danger, but because of public demand.

Many parents saw the action to remove thiomersal—in the setting of a perceived increasing rate of autism as well as increasing number of vaccines in the childhood vaccination schedule—as indicating that the preservative was the cause of autism.[8] The scientific consensus is that there is no scientific evidence supporting these claims, including the observation that the rate of autism continues to climb despite elimination of thiomersal from routine childhood vaccines

Thimerosal is a red herring - the anti vaxxers moved onto aluminium as the probelm when T was removed from vaccines. If it was T causing autism, a significant reduction in autism would have been reported in the last 14 years. It hasn't.

Interesting article in the Guardian by an adult whose parents didn't vaccinate her.
Guardian

two unvac boys here, aged 7 &10, always had reminder cards for the first (smaller unvac movement then) and have been asked by GPs over the years to 'explain myself', I let them talk and say thank you I'll give it further thought. We moved a year ago, asthma nurse made a point of saying 'hmmm yes, your name had come to my attention anyway' as an opener into her trying to get them 'done'. Expect to be asked, I'm always open to being convinced I'm wrong, so give them my ear, but as yet not my childrens' arm

I'm sorry but injecting a toxin into a person that serves no other purpose than cost saving is ethical, how exactly?

In other words the thimerosal was there only as a preservative. Would any government do anything for public demand alone without reasonable evidence to suggest that it would be a sensible thing to do when it would cost more? I doubt it.

It serves the purpose of preventing diptheria, tetanus, polio, meningitis, measles (still a global big killer) and many others.

You don't need to be vaccinated against smallpox any more because it is eradicated by vaccines.

All the removal of thiomersal meant was that third world countries had to pay more for individual vials of vaccine.

Don't listen to shit on YouTube. It's not true.

Major scientific and medical bodies such as the Institute of Medicine[27] and World Health Organization[28] as well as governmental agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration[7] and the CDC[29] reject any role for thiomersal in autism or other neurodevelopmental disorders.[30] This controversy has caused harm due to parents attempting to treat their autistic children with unproven and possibly dangerous treatments, discouraging parents from vaccinating their children due to fears about thiomersal toxicity[31] and diverting resources away from research into more promising areas for the cause of autism

Sad, huh? Anti-vaccine rubbish does not exist in a vacuum - it has a detrimental effect.

The only vaccine my parents didn't want me to have at school was the BCG because my sister had a severe allergic reaction. The school nurse went against my parents and I had the injection. A week later my arm was about a ft in diameter with black goo coming out of it. My dad took me straight to our family doctor when he saw it and I was given an injection to kill off the vaccine. A few months later I was given the alternative one.

Personally I'm a firm believer in vaccines and my kids have them all including chicken pox.

Actually I don't listen to shit on YouTube but I do listen to peer reviewed studies. Don't be so patronising.

The cost difference is very little actually.

Which peer reviewed studies say thiomersal causes autism?

"Actually I don't listen to shit on YouTube but I do listen to peer reviewed studies. Don't be so patronising."

Link please. Just one would be fine.

The WHO don't seem to think the cost difference of thimerosal free vaccines is very little Anonimousy

Vaccines could be supplied in single-dose vials, but this option requires a significant increase in production capacity and has a high cost. Single-dose vials require significantly larger cold storage space as well as increased transport needs.

I would think in third world countries this would have a major impact on the costs and ability to administer vaccinations.

Also interested in hearing more about the peer reviewed studies you refer to.

Just a little bit more re costs

In fact, thimerosal-containing vaccines are critical in the efforts to distribute vaccines to developing countries for several reasons. The use of multi-dose vials reduces the cost of vaccines and the demand on already constrained cold-chain systems (vaccines must be kept at stable temperatures to remain viable, a particular challenge in resource-poor countries).

According to the WHO, if thimerosal is no longer in use, single dose vials will increase the amount of transportation and storage space required more than threefold with an estimated cost increase that exceeds 300 million annually.

Th Hornig et Al study does stand up to scrutiny and is peer reviewed.

I'm amazed that so many people think if you question anything, anything at all about vaccination schedules, which change all the time you are accused of being anti vaccination. It has become ridiculous. Most people are not generally anti vaccination.

hak, "What it looks as if you're doing is dropping seeds of doubt in people's minds. It looks like a very clever, subtle anti vaccination campaign. It looks as if you're putting forward an anti vaccination point of view, then rapidly reeling it back the minute you're challenged. It looks as thought you will never answer a direct question about your own opinion. "

I'm sorry if you find talking about the very real issue of under reporting 'dropping seeds of doubt.'

Here is a review paper for you that discusses it in more detail.

Silence/countess, the under reporting is by medical professionals (See above review).

Some reasons given for under reporting:

"Many physicians report that they have detected an ADR during their practice but a significant pro- portion do not report the ADR to a regulatory body.[62,63] Several surveys[54,55,64-66] have investigat- ed the reasons for under-reporting of ADRs. Com- mon reasons for not reporting include a lack of time,[54,66] different care priorities,[66] uncertainty about the drug causing the ADR,[55,64-66] difficulty in accessing reporting forms,[54] lack of awareness of the requirements for reporting[65,66] and lack of un- derstanding of the purpose of SRSs.[54] Well known and trivial ADRs are less likely to be reported.[55,65] In addition, physicians’ attitudes towards reporting ADRs contribute to under-reporting. For example, a recent survey has reported that physicians may not report ADRs because they believe that serious reac- tions will be well documented by the time a drug is marketed or that one case reported by an individual doctor will not contribute to medical knowledge.[67]"

I'm not sure why you still think I am putting forward an 'anti-vaccination' point of view when I've already given just a few examples of where I am clearly not 'anti-vaccination'. Do you think anti-vaxxers are the only ones who ask questions? In order to be considered 'pro-vax' do you have to blindly accept things without looking at the information yourself (and throw in a few insults at people who decide not to vaccinate for good measure)?

Silence, that's not scaremongering. That's pointing out that what someone has said that is not the same as 'MMR causes autism.

Hi Bumbley

Sorry for taking so long to reply!

Well it's not so much that you just respect their choices - you in fact agree with their choices by the look of things! Am I right in thinking that?

I'm sure people who don't vaccinate think they are doing the right thing, but I'm not sure how pointing out that they might be putting their own and other children at risk is not "respectful"? Surely if someone refuses to take their children for other preventative aspects of medicine (eye tests/hearing tests/dentistry) you would try and change their minds? Or maybe you have a libertarian view of children's health and think it's entirely up to the parent what healthcare children receive and no one should question it?

You've nicely outlined the reasons why you don't think you're anti-vaccination, but I have to say I'm a bit confused as to why you said that weren't against vaccinations generally? The examples you gave were all very specific cases where you weren't anti-vaccination, implying that you don't think that almost all standard vaccinations in the UK aren't neccessary. From what you said it seems that you are against routine MMR, DTAP, TB etc. etc. as the schedule currently stands. Is that right?

Sorry for the derail - I know the thread has moved on now.