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?

Aly, I'm aware that false positives and negatives exist. :) I'll amend my previous question - why are you assuming that only a 'tiny proportion' of those who test positive would actually have a reaction. Why are you assuming so many false positives? You just seen to be plucking figures out of the air here.

I didn't say the population study was inaccurate. I said it doesn't show what we were talking about - ie. vac vs unvaccinated in susceptible children. That's about the third time I've pointed that out now.

First para of previous post was to Hak re her 'mining' for tetanus figures.

In the US before vaccine there was an "average of 580 annual cases of tetanus and 472 annual deaths from tetanus. But since the vaccine there is an average of 41 annual cases of tetanus and 4 annual deaths from tetanus. This is 93% reduction in occurrence of tetanus and a 99% reduction in fatalities resulting from tetanus" I don't know how many of them were children, and I don't know the figures for the UK. Happy to find them, but not for people who do not believe vaccination works at all.

Bumbleymummy- why do you think that the MMR might be a trigger for autism?

So pre 1930s then?( it wasn't in widespread use then either) Any idea what else may have helped reduce the number of cases/fatality or are you attributing it all to the tetanus vaccine?

So try and find the figures then Hakluyt because I for one am asking and I am up to date with my tetanus vaccines (unless they have changed the advice since I asked.)

No I'm not! We know that 1 in a million people have a serious vaccine reaction. Your super duper new test can pick this up. Great. However we now need to screen 800,000 babies every year for this before we can give them vaccinations. Our test is highly accurate as tests go - 99.9% accurate, in fact.

However, even being 99.9% accurate means that around 1000 babies will test positive, when we know only one is actually effected (0.001*1,000,000 = 1000). Therefore the test is functionally useless, as even if you test positive the risk of you having this "sensitivity" is 0.1%, or 1 in a 1000. Does that make sense now?

How do you identify these susceptible children? How would you define a protocol to find them? I don't think there is a way to do it, and therefore that study is the best that we have, and if indeed there is any link at all, it would have popped up, given that those susceptible children are within that study in the first place.

Also, 580 cases in the population of the entire US?

I've answered that already Hak - see up thread. :)

Still waiting for an answer to my other question too...

Are you finally accepting that you don't actually know how to identify the susceptible children? So when a parent looks at the same info as you did but makes a different decision for their child you are not actually in a position to tell them that they have made the wrong choice for their child?

Are you implying that 580 people having a highly unpleasant, preventable disease is somehow trivial?

Hak - (question reminder) Do you think severe reactions are never not reported?

Aly - no. I'm saying that telling someone with an unvaccinated child not to let them play outside is scaremongering a bit. Also, those cases weren't just prevented because a vaccine was introduced - other factors are important too.

Bumbley, I am saying what I have always said. The risk is low. It is lower than crossing the road. We know some kids shouldn't have vaccinations (those on chemotherapy, for instance). But we know vaccination, as one of the most studied medical interventions we have, is exceptionally safe.

So I don't understand why you focus on it more than you focus on swimming pools, cars and crossing the road as causes of preventable brain damage.

Would you support OP if she made the decision to never leave the house with her DC in case they were run over? Would you describe yourself as a libertarian?

Hak - (question reminder) Do you think severe reactions are never not reported?"

Already answered. I said I thought it was extremely unlikely that anyone whose child had a severe reaction to a vaccination would not report it, particulary as in order to get the compensation they would presumably need to look after their child properly they would have to report it.

But it's not scaremongering to imply that vaccines trigger autism, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary?

Sigh... At a population level it may be low but you don't now the individual risk. Therefore, if someone is making a decision for their individual child you are not in the position to tell them that they are wrong if they make a different decision to you. You are not in a position to judge them because, actually, you don't know if their child is one of the ones who will react badly. You may be happy to take the risk for your child but they aren't.

Yes, we know some risk factors but we don't know them all. That is why I think it's important to take reactions seriously - report them and investigate them. Yes, they may turn out to be nothing but if we dismiss every one of them as 'coincidence' we're missing out on an opportunity to make them safer.

And Bumbley - do you finally accept that attempting to screen children before vaccination for these "sensitivities" is exceptionally difficult, if not impossible?

"Sigh... At a population level it may be low but you don't now the individual risk."

Risk of what? Of MMR triggering autism?

Hak - Didn't see you saying that but as I pointed out earlier we are talking about reports from medical professionals. Do you think if a parent reports a reaction to them that they always get reported? Do you think none if them never get told it was a 'coincidence' etc?

Aly - that vaccines may trigger autism in certain susceptible individuals? Where is the overwhelming evidence against that?

No Hak, we're talking about vaccine reactions in general. Aly is using the figures from a vaccine insert.

Why do you think parents are uniquely able to judge their child's individual risk beyond a doctor or nurse taking a thorough history?

No one's suggesting we don't take reactions seriously. But we know that very severe reactions are very rare.

Why do you think the doctor/nurse knows the child's individual risk even if they do take a thorough history?

Are you still not willing to accept that everything is a gamble and you are not in a position to tell someone that they are wrong because they made a different decision to you?

I'm glad you think that reactions should be taken seriously. Do when someone thinks that their child has reacted badly it should be reported, recorded and investigated - yes? (Even if it turns out to be nothing)

Choose to vaccinate and protect against what you do know or choose not to vaccinate to protect against what you dont know?

Can you honestly say you would not vaccinate if those diseases were still rife in the UK?

On the experience factor I know people who have gone both ways and have had no bother from the doctors.
My DS reacted the the first set and got a swollen leg. The next lot were done in hospital so they could keep an eye on him. Never got a letter for the rest so I ended up going in and reminding them that he had not had his MMR!

i am amazed some people dare leave the house, so risk averse are they