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?

So a serious allergic reaction. Which might happen in response to any drug. Or, for that matter, practically anything else you might come into contact with for the first time...". Not sure I get the point.....

Just pointing out that it's not 1 in a million. :)

Well, not all vaccines are the same. As I told you upthread, the 1 in a million came from the CDC website in relation to DTAP.

"Severe Problems (Very Rare)
Serious allergic reaction (less than 1 out of a million doses) Several other severe problems have been reported after DTaP vaccine. These include:
Long-term seizures, coma, or lowered consciousness
Permanent brain damage."

www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/side-effects.htm#dtap

And anyway, when we talk about serious adverse reaction, I thought we were talking about

*brain damage
*death
*debilitating seizures
*coma
*other things that are worse/same as the complications from getting the disease the vaccine prevents

What do you think is a serious adverse reaction that merits millions in compensation, Bumbley?

"Sigh…most studied at population level perhaps. "

How would you identify those susceptible and study them Bumbley? The population studies are our gold standard, and if there was a significant proportion of susceptible individuals, the 100,000 sample study would have picked them up. They didn't.

I think it's impossible to look at any one thing in relation to autism and say "that was the trigger" without rigorous scientific research. We know vaccines aren't a trigger because..wait for it...lots of research has been done!

And again, Bumbley, if OP said she never wanted to leave the house with her child because of the risk, what would you say to her? If you're scared of the low risk of vaccine reaction, why aren't you scared of crossing the road? Would you ever take your child swimming - how did you calculate their individual risk of drowning?

It is for some vaccines Bumbley. As I've illustrated several times.

Well Pediacel is the one that we use in the UK Aly so I think it makes sense to use it. Don't you?

Why do you keep asking me the same questions? Just because you don't like the answer? Why are you asking me how I'm going to identify and study people? I'm not.

So you don't appreciate the difference between population and individual risk then? I thought we'd got there.

Can you link to the 'lots' of research that you keep talking about in relation to susceptible individuals? Still no?

Why are you saying that population studies are our 'gold standard' by the way?

Bumbley, do you accept that there is no way to currently identify these susceptible individuals? So the trials you would accept can not be run?

"Why are you asking me how I'm going to identify and study people? I'm not. "

Who is?

But this is all irrelevant, because do you not accept that enormous population studies are not enough to pick these people up despite the evidence that are sufficiently large to do so, because apparently you know better than everyone else.

Perhaps it's a difference of magnitude - the CDC's serious reactions are more serious than your serious reactions. Like I said:

"when we talk about serious adverse reaction, I thought we were talking about

*brain damage
*death
*debilitating seizures
*coma
*other things that are worse/same as the complications from getting the disease the vaccine prevents"

What do you think is a serious adverse reaction that merits millions in compensation, Bumbley?

And again, Bumbley, if OP said she never wanted to leave the house with her child because of the risk, what would you say to her? If you're scared of the low risk of vaccine reaction, why aren't you scared of crossing the road? Would you ever take your child swimming - how did you calculate their individual risk of drowning?

Because they are incredibly well run, huge, well respected and accepted by all non-anti vax authorities as confirming that vaccines do not either cause or trigger vaccines.

Sorry Aly, just want to clear this up a bit. Do you think people aren't currently researching autism and its causes and trying to identify genetically susceptible individuals? Your line of questioning seems to be suggesting that you do.

You think that the larger a study is the more likely it is to be able to identify a small group of susceptible people?

Millions in compensation? Ha! You think vaccine damaged children get millions in compensation? The vaccine damage payment in the UK is £120,000.

Rose - "My son has a close (unvaccinated) friend. He is mortified that his parents made this choice and can't wait to be 16. He is studying a lot of science, is very bright and knows full well that the world of woo and nonsense is putting others at risk."

Presumably if your son's friend is articulate enough to be able to say this, if he were to go to his GP independently, there would be a very good case for the GP accepting that he was Gillick competent and vaccinating him at his own request even if he is under 16.

Aly - so, regardless of what you're looking for, population studies are the 'gold standard' in your opinion?

Bumbley, I'm sure they are. I am asking you to acknowledge that you have outlined an impossible framework for debate - one in which we can already identify susceptible individuals and conduct research. We can't.

And yes, the larger a sample size, the more likely susceptible individuals will be in it and the higher likelihood you will have of seeing a correlation. And, thanks to the large sample sizes and lack of correlation we know there isn't a vaccine-autism link.

I don't think it's irrelevant at all; you clearly think vaccination risk is too high for "susceptible individuals". After all, we've spent several days and many posts arguing this point. I'm sure if you were totally agnostic to the risk inherent in vaccination you wouldn't have bothered. But you haven't enlightened us on why you aren't on the swimming threads/car threads warning posters about individual risks of drowning or crashing.

You also can't blame me for thinking you're risk averse when you spend so much time focusing on the 1 in a million/1 in in 10,000 (0.0001% and 0.01% respectively) risks of vaccine damage/allergic reaction. It seems a bit odd from the outside that you're arguing that you're not risk averse at all when this entire conversation has been about trying to avoid that tiny risk.

What are you under the impression we were talking about?

Bumbley - yes, and if we were looking for a link between peanuts and allergic reactions and didn't know one already existed, they would be a bloody excellent way to find out.

Actually Aly, I didn't outline anything. I said I thought it was possible that vaccines may trigger autism in certain susceptible individuals and you went off on a big tangent trying to prove that a population study can show individual risk and (somehow) identify susceptible individuals.

The larger the sample size, the less likely that you are going to be able to determine anything about a small subset of that sample. Surely that's obvious? Needle in a haystack analogy? No?

Still don't have those studies looking at vac vs unvac in a group of susceptible individuals. Population studies aren't looking at susceptible individuals.

"you clearly think vaccination risk is too high for "susceptible individuals""

Hold on. I thought you agreed with this as well? Didn't you agree that there are "Medical reasons to not vaccinate"? My point was simply that we haven't identified all these 'medical reasons' yet and we should be continuing to try to do so. That's how safety can be improved. In order to do that, you have to actually acknowledge that the reactions can occur, take them seriously when a parent reports them, record them and investigate them.

I'm not focussing on figures at all. You brought them up and used them for hypothetical calculations. I just produced more relevant ones from the vaccine we use in the UK.

The conversation hasn't been about trying to avoid every tiny risk. (Did you think it was?). It was (among other things) pointing out that you aren't in a position to say that someone has made the wrong decision for their child. You don't know whether they have or not.

(It was also correcting some misinformation about various diseases/likelihood of contracting tetanus etc.)

"yes, and if we were looking for a link between peanuts and allergic reactions and didn't know one already existed, they would be a bloody excellent way to find out."

I can't believe you still don't get this after all these pages and pages of posts. If you were trying to find out something about just the peanut allergy sufferers would you use a population study? All you want information on is the peanut allergy sufferers - just them, no one else. Population study is still the 'gold standard' for that in your opinion?

Bumbley, you really aren't getting it.

There is no way to identify these susceptible individuals you keep talking about.

So we can't do any type of trial that looks at only these people.

Do you understand that?

Do you think there is only 1 susceptible individual in 100,000? Because if you think the incidence of "susceptibility" to vaccination is higher than that then yes, a larger trial will pick up more "susceptible" people, making it easier to see a correlation, if there is one.

Again, please outline how you suggest others would find these susceptible individuals: "Still don't have those studies looking at vac vs unvac in a group of susceptible individuals. Population studies aren't looking at susceptible individuals."

Yes, I feel I am in a position to say that someone seeking to avoid a 1 in a million/1 in 10,000 chance of severe vaccine damage/an allergic reaction is making the wrong decision about their child's health, as the diseases are more likely to cause harm than the possibility of a reaction.

"Hold on. I thought you agreed with this as well? Didn't you agree that there are "Medical reasons to not vaccinate"? My point was simply that we haven't identified all these 'medical reasons' yet and we should be continuing to try to do so. That's how safety can be improved. In order to do that, you have to actually acknowledge that the reactions can occur, take them seriously when a parent reports them, record them and investigate them. "

Yes. These are very rare. I don't see a way that we can avoid severe vaccine damage, unfortunately, as it appears to be exceptionally bad luck and, as I have outlined, would be very difficult to pinpoint in advance due to low incidence of the severe reaction causing a large number of false positives.

"I can't believe you still don't get this after all these pages and pages of posts. If you were trying to find out something about just the peanut allergy sufferers would you use a population study? All you want information on is the peanut allergy sufferers - just them, no one else. Population study is still the 'gold standard' for that in your opinion?"

There you go again, making a false equivalency. We are not trying to learn something about autism sufferers. We are trying to learn if vaccines cause autism (or trigger autism). The analagous situation was if we were trying to find if there was a link between between peanuts and allergic reactions. In your example you already know the people you want to look at.

As I have asked you multiple times, you know of no way to identify this sub population you want to study, so no research that you will accept can be done.

Convenient.

rotashield was withdrawn after 15 adverse reactions. Out of 1.5 million doses.

That's pretty much needle in a haystack proportions.

Can I ask those who are sceptical about vaccines/the current vaccine schedule how they feel about vaccines for things like meningitis? I've just watched a news report about menningitis b and the fact that the vaccine is not yet available publicly because of a cost dispute. The consequences of contracting meningitis can be devastating and I'm now considering private vaccination for men b. Do those who don't vaccinate consider that the risk of contracting it is so low, despite the possible severe consequences if it is caught, that its worth taking the risk? I've read several times here by those sceptical posters that many of the diseases vaccinated for are 'relatively harmless', I don't agree with that point of view but certainly don't in this case.

"I've read several times here by those sceptical posters that many of the diseases vaccinated for are 'relatively harmless', I don't agree with that point of view but certainly don't in this case."

Only ever said, I suspect, by people who don't have polio, diptheria or TB in their family history. Or even, in some cases in living memory.

Plasticpineapple, you say "I don't want this to be about whether you should or shouldn't vaccinate your baby.", but honestly you're asking "Is your baby one of the few lucky ones to still be healthy after not receiving vaccines". Seriously, if you don't trust the doctor, change the doctor, but have the vaccines. You're rejecting one of the most valuable achievements in human history.

Yes I agree Hakluyt, I would think that it's likely that they don't have anyone in their close circle who has experienced any of the sometimes severe consequences of these diseases. If they had, they would likely have a different view.

I had an adverse reaction to the smallpox vaccine (yes, I'm that old) - were my parents right to vaccinate, being educated people who knew that all vaccines carried a risk of adverse reactions? Of course they bloody well were - the mortality rate for the V major strain was 30 to 35%.

My maternal grandmother was one of 7 children. She lost two of her siblings in a diptheria epidemic.

I have every sympathy with those who cannot vaccinate for genuine medical reasons, but those of you choosing not to because of discredited internet scare stories and vague lentil-weavy "it ain't natural, innit" gut feelings are (a) thick, (b) utterly self-absorbed to the extent of putting your children's health on the line due to your own ignorance and (c) morally bankrupt.

Aly, I think you're being disingenuous. Despite the number of times you have been corrected you keep referring to 'MMR causing autism in the population in general'.

"There is no way to identify these susceptible individuals you keep talking about."

Really? Do you think the same about genetic susceptibility to other conditions/diseases or just autism? The people currently researching this should just stop should they?

"We are not trying to learn something about autism sufferers. We are trying to learn if vaccines cause autism (or trigger autism). "

IN SUSCEPTIBLE INDIVIDUALS not the population as a whole. You need to identify the subgroup first before you can test your hypothesis.

School, re men B vaccine. Possibly the low incidence rates (2 per 100,000 in the population) and the fact that the case fatality is lower in B than C? (Although of course, as you've said, the potential consequences can be devastating).

Hak, why have you picked polio diphtheria and TB when most of the ones mentioned on this thread as being 'relatively mild/harmless' in childhood were rubella and mumps?

School, just looking at figures there. Could there also be reluctance to introduce the MenB vaccine given that the cases have decreased by over 50% since 2000? If they think that trend is going to continue perhaps that might influence the weighing up of cost/benefit?

The 73% effectiveness and evidence of waning immunity over time also seems to be an issue for the JCVI.