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?

Bumbley I am struggling to understand whether or not I'm missing something.

I'll lay it out for you.

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

Do you agree we currently have no way of identifying these susceptible individuals or not?

So we have no way, now, at the moment, in March 2015, of doing the tests that YOU would accept. Which is very convenient for your POV really!

"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?"

Are you talking about autism or vaccine damage?

1 is definitely caused by vaccines (vaccine damage) the other isn't (autism). One is pretty useless trying to research, as it would be probably almost impossible to identify those who would have a bad reaction beforehand, the other we already know isn't triggered by autism.

I'm pointing out that taking 100,000 people, vaccinating them, and seeing if there's a correlation between getting vaccinated and developing autism (or indeed a peanut allergy) is a perfectly valid strategy for evaluating whether or not autism is triggered in susceptible individuals. Unless you think the incidence of susceptible individuals is so low that the sample size needs to be much larger...

Bumbley, I remember you saying that you were concerned that the HPV vaccine would reduce the effectiveness of cervical screening, which has so successfully reduced mortality from Cervical Cancer in the UK.

Of course, deaths from cervical cancer had already started to decline before the introduction of cervical screening, so really by your own logic the Cervical cancer screening must have had no effect, right?

www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-info/cancerstats/types/cervix/mortality/uk-cervical-cancer-mortality-statistics#trends

Aly, that's correct, they are not currently identifying susceptible individuals. That does not, however, mean that it is 'not possible' to identify them as you have been saying.

You also seem to have jumped to some conclusion that I am suggesting that people don't vaccinate because we are not currently testing for susceptible individuals. I am not. Waaay back in the thread it came up about triggers for autism and I (and another poster) accepted the possibility that vaccines may trigger autism in certain susceptible individuals. This then led to several loooooong pages of debate about how this isn't possible because population studies had been done showing that 'MMR doesn't cause autism' etc etc. Not the same thing at all and not what we were saying.

Quote in context:

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

Me: 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?"

This was to do with autism.

"1 is definitely caused by vaccines (vaccine damage) the other isn't (autism)."

There you are saying caused again. Can you not get this - no one on this thread is saying that vaccines CAUSE autism. Seriously. How many more pages before you get that?

"it would be probably almost impossible to identify those who would have a bad reaction beforehand"

Why do you think that? It is possible to identify groups of people who will respond well/badly to different drugs - why not vaccines? (no one is suggesting it will be 100% accurate)

"Unless you think the incidence of susceptible individuals is so low that the sample size needs to be much larger…"

Do you want to explain the logic in that? I know you think that having more people increases the likelihood that you will include a few more of the target group but it also gives you a LOT more people in the non-target group.

"the HPV vaccine would reduce the effectiveness of cervical screening"

When did I say that? IIRC I said that there are concerns (not just mine I may add) that people will not go for cervical screening because they think they are 'protected from cancer' by the vaccine.

"Aly, that's correct, they are not currently identifying susceptible individuals. That does not, however, mean that it is 'not possible' to identify them as you have been saying."

Right, so please, please, please tell me how to identify them. As I've asked you. About 10 times.

"There you are saying caused again. Can you not get this - no one on this thread is saying that vaccines CAUSE autism. Seriously. How many more pages before you get that?"

Yes, well done, I meant trigger. Or cause to appear in someone.

"Why do you think that? It is possible to identify groups of people who will respond well/badly to different drugs - why not vaccines? (no one is suggesting it will be 100% accurate)"

Did you forget that whole conversation we had about this already? The incidence of severe vaccine reaction is so low that a test would give completely meaningless and unactionable results. It might be possible to create a test, whether or not you would act on its results are another matter. Much like the PSA test for men.

"Do you want to explain the logic in that? I know you think that having more people increases the likelihood that you will include a few more of the target group but it also gives you a LOT more people in the non-target group."

Yes, and as I have said many times before, it would allow you to see if there was a correlation between vaccines and autism...because the susceptible group would be part of the main group. In fact, it would be very much like trying to see whether peanuts cause allergic reactions. Most people aren't allergic, but there are enough allergic people that the effect would pop up. Or do you disagree with that too?

If people choose not to go to screening, that rather reduces the effectiveness of the surgical screening, does it not?

And what so you to your favourite debate gambit re: vaccines - "it was reducing anyway"!!!

*cervical screening!

Aly - it's still being investigated and I'm not the one investigating it so why (again) do you keep asking me how to identify them?

"The incidence of severe vaccine reaction is so low that a test would give completely meaningless and unactionable results."

Isn't this where you were using your 1 in 10,000 figures and assuming some arbitrary level of accuracy?

"it would allow you to see if there was a correlation between vaccines and autism"

and again, that's not what we're looking for.

Not sure how many different ways there are to say this. We're getting through quite a few though.

No, it doesn't reduce the effectiveness of the screening.

"your favourite debate gambit re: vaccines" Where have I said this?

oops sorry, your 1 in 1,000,000 figures

"Aly - it's still being investigated and I'm not the one investigating it so why (again) do you keep asking me how to identify them?"

Because you're the one bringing it up? Are you not interested? Are you not keeping up with the studies? Do you have any interest at all in this?

Do you at least admit that there is no way to run these studies you keep suggesting as our current state of knowledge stands?

"Isn't this where you were using your 1 in 10,000 figures and assuming some arbitrary level of accuracy?"

I don't know Bumbley, 99.9% was me being extremely generous in terms of accuracy. Most tests are no where near that accurate! As we have no test yet, all we can do is hypothesise. I hypothesised a situation where the accuracy of the tests was exceptionally high, to show that even in that happy situation, the results of the test would be useless.

""it would allow you to see if there was a correlation between vaccines and autism""

Is this really not what we're looking for? We want to see if vaccines trigger autism in susceptible children. Susceptible-to-vaccines children if they exist in any significant numbers will be found in a population of 100,000. If we look 100,000 kids and we find no correlation between vaccines and autism, to me that is pretty compelling that vaccines neither trigger autism in non-susceptible kids or susceptible kids. Because if they did, kids would have developed autism after being exposed to vaccines in greater numbers than kids that weren't....

If people don't go to a screening progamme, how can that screening programme be effective?! I'm not suggesting you think colposcopes will suddenly no longer work, I mean the aims of the screening programme...which is to screen all women between the ages of 25 and 65 every three years...will not be as effective...because fewer women will attend. Is that clear?

""your favourite debate gambit re: vaccines" Where have I said this?"

You love dismissing vaccines by saying "how do we know the vaccine reduced/eliminated deaths from this illness? Incidence and mortality was reducing before the introducting of the vaccine". Like you just did for Men B.

"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?"

Mortality from cervical cancer started falling before the introduction of cervical screening. Does that mean cervical cancer screening had no effect in reducing mortality?

This is a rhetorical question by the way, intended to point out that you apply your own logic rather inconsistently.

Who is doing the research? Who's funding it? How far have they got?

Rotashield was withdrawn after 15 adverse reactions out of 1.5 million doses.

Would you say that those adverse reactions were akin to 'needle in a haystack' proportions? That would be a "small subset of babies" no? Whether it's caused or triggered is irrelevant - the vaccine was withdrawn.

Whatever is in place to monitor adverse reactions to a vaccine will be triggered by 0.001% of cases showing an adverse affect. Because, you know, the medical professional isn't actually in the business of harming babies.

Aly - Yes, I'm interested. That doesn't mean I can tell you how they're doing/going to do it. I've already said they're not doing it at the moment.

I wouldn't say the test was useless if your child was one of the ones correctly identified but you're entitled to your opinion.

If you have enough of the susceptible children in the population - otherwise they're just background 'noise'.

"You love dismissing vaccines by saying "how do we know the vaccine reduced/eliminated deaths from this illness? Incidence and mortality was reducing before the introducting of the vaccine". "

Are you confusing me with someone else? Where have I said this on this thread to warrant it being considered one of my 'favourite gambits'? Yes, mortality to many diseases was reducing prior to the introduction of vaccines. Do you deny that? It's a fairly easy thing to see so I'm not sure why you would but you've surprised me a few times so far!

The men B vaccine hasn't been introduced yet. The fact that MenB incidence is quite low and that cases are decreasing (and the effectiveness of the vaccine itself) may be reasons against it from the JCVI's point of view. Are you disputing that?

Where have I said that vaccines have done nothing? Please point it out because I think you're imagining quite a lot at this point.

Hak - Google is your friend. :)

Are you going to answer that question about whether serious reactions are never reported? I found another interesting article today about serious ADRs not being reported in a hospital environment . Must link to it later.

DS had his first round of vaccs today :) he was a proper little trooper and is now smiling at me.

The HV, on top of going through all the info she normally does, actually went and read through the list of all ingredients in front of me (and double checked one she wasn't sure about), because ds has already had allergic reactions to some medicines. I didn't ask her to do it btw.

It was almost as though she actually wanted to make sure he was ok.

So round one down!

"Yes, I'm interested. That doesn't mean I can tell you how they're doing/going to do it. I've already said they're not doing it at the moment."

Seems very mysterious Bumbley, how do you know "they" are doing it at all? Why do you not feel that the huge population studies are good enough for you when they are good enough for everyone else? Odd. Almost like you're rejecting medical evidence in favour of your own hypotheses!

"I wouldn't say the test was useless if your child was one of the ones correctly identified but you're entitled to your opinion."

If a test tells you you have a 1 in 1000 chance of a serious reaction, that's really not any better odds than the serious side effects of measles/mumps/rubella/whatever. So yes, it is pointless. Of course you have no way of knowing whether the wild disease would affect your child even worse than the vaccine...so all in all, a pretty useless test.

"Are you confusing me with someone else? Where have I said this on this thread to warrant it being considered one of my 'favourite gambits'? Yes, mortality to many diseases was reducing prior to the introduction of vaccines. Do you deny that? It's a fairly easy thing to see so I'm not sure why you would but you've surprised me a few times so far!"

No, you just said it in relation to Men B "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?"".

You've also said similar things on many other threads in vaccinations.

Do you think the introduction of vaccines has reduced deaths from measles, mumps, rubella, diptheria, tetanus, meningitis C, etc.? Just a question, you understand.

You never come out and say anything Bumbley, that's your MO. You're the master at innocent sounding questions.

"Are you going to answer that question about whether serious reactions are never reported? I found another interesting article today about serious ADRs not being reported in a hospital environment . Must link to it later."

What question? Refresh my mind.

You still haven't answered how you determine individual risk for wild viruses/anything else.

In fact your whole position seems to be that you don't have a position at all, that you're just here as an entertaining way of whiling away the days, asking innocent questions and apparently never making any points at all.

"Hak - Google is your friend. smile"

I'm assuming that means you don't know. Which is a little odd, considering that you have been very firmly asserting for several pages that such research is taking place.......

And no, I am not saying that serious reactions are sometimes not reported. But I have said several times that a life changing reaction would be reported, if only because the getting the compensation required to care for the person thus damaged would involve reports as part of the process.

In terms of identifying susceptible groups, collection of data via the yellow card scheme is an obvious starting point. Unfortunately there is still a lack of awareness that adverse reactions can and should be reported as well as other factors that may contribute to underreporting.

Alyosha
In fact your whole position seems to be that you don't have a position at all, that you're just here as an entertaining way of whiling away the days, asking innocent questions and apparently never making any points at all.

Just one example above, Alyosha, but can't you argue your position without resorting to speculative and unfounded personal comments about other posters? Totally unnecessary.

Is it unfounded? I've asked Bumbley her position on vaccines several times, and she's refused to outline a position, correct my interpretation of her position or in fact say what she thinks of vaccines at all.

I think it's a completely justified observation.

Considering you accused Hakluyt of fabricating statments upthread and I think you've got a shaky leg to stand on taking the moral highground tbh.

That's going without pointing out how those of us who accept the overwhelming medical evidence of the safety of vaccinations have been called "breathtakingly cruel" by the anti-vaxers upthread too.

Yes it was unfounded, it's not an isolated example, and you've refined its content somewhat. I'm not sure I buy the necessity of getting posters to declare the finer details of their positions. It's not something I feel compelled to ask.

Considering you accused Hakluyt of fabricating statments upthread and I think you've got a shaky leg to stand on taking the moral highground tbh.

Very different. I said her statement was fabricated. I didn't make any personal comments about her. The reason I said her statement was fabricated was because not only was her claim highly improbable and unprovable, her claim related to children and she subsequently said that she didn't know the figures for children (the subject of her statement)

That's going without pointing out how those of us who accept the overwhelming medical evidence of the safety of vaccinations have been called "breathtakingly cruel" by the anti-vaxers upthread too.

I doubt very much that you and others have been called 'breathtakingly cruel' just for holding the position you describe. Feel free to dig out the quote, though.

I said a significant number of children got tetanus before vaccination. Children got tetanus- that is a significant number as far as I'm concerned. It was never a common illness apart from in battlefield situations and in new born babies in very insanitary conditions, but it is incredibly devastating- and the vaccination is as near as dammit 100% effective. I find it extraordinary that anyone would risk getting a really horrible illness rather than having a proved safe vaccine.

"I'm not sure I buy the necessity of getting posters to declare the finer details of their positions. It's not something I feel compelled to ask." I don't usually- but if a poster persistently casts doubt over something that many parents agonize over then I think it's irresponsible for them not to declare their position. Parents seeking information need to know where that information is coming from.

"Yes it was unfounded, it's not an isolated example, and you've refined its content somewhat."

What are you talking about exactly? What's isolated and what content has been refined?

"I'm not sure I buy the necessity of getting posters to declare the finer details of their positions. It's not something I feel compelled to ask"

Isn't it funny how people have different opinions on things? Bumbley hasn't outlined any details of her position. The only think I know is that she thinks Rubella vaccination is justified for young non immune girls. That's it.

And Bumbley has a long history of not stating what she thinks, despite being asked in multiple different threads by multiple different people. I think it's curious someone would come and debate vaccinations seemingly for the hell of it - I assume she must have some point of view, no matter how coy she is about it. I am interested to know what that view is, as we have spent many, many pages discussing vaccines. It comes across as though she doesn't want to disclose her point of view, the better to change it as necessary to the argument she's having.

I find it exceptionally disingenuous.

From Pandas.

"Umm, yes, I believe I did.

Did you mean to be so breathtakingly cruel when you dismissed parents knowledge of what happened to their children?"

That was because someone said just because a parent thinks something, it's not necessarily true.

I personally think accusing someone of lying is the same as making a personal attack, but obviously YMMV.

I said-
"Human beings search for patterns. That's what we do. There isn't a parent of a child with a disability who doesn't hunt for explanations, for reasons. Hence the "never been the same since..[some significant event]" It's in fairy stories, mythology......In my family, a child was born in the 1890s with some unspecified disability "because his mother was frightened by a black cat when she was carrying him" (bizarre but true). MMR is a significant event-and the timing matches."

To which another poster replied-

"Did you mean to be so breathtakingly cruel when you dismissed parents knowledge of what happened to their children?"

Even the gentlest questioning of parents on this subject is completely forbidden.

Sorry for the delayed reply. Busy few days.

Aly - "Mortality from cervical cancer started falling before the introduction of cervical screening. Does that mean cervical cancer screening had no effect in reducing mortality?"

Not inconsistent at all. No one is trying to claim that screening is the only thing that has reduced mortality from CC are they? It's also not really a great comparison to vaccination because the reason it has reduced mortality is because it is(mainly) identifying pre-cancerous cells so that they can be removed before they develop into cancer.

Silence - "Rotashield was withdrawn after 15 adverse reactions out of 1.5 million doses."

Where did you get your figures from?

Different figures from this paper:

"By the beginning of October 1999, 101 confirmed and presumed cases of intussusception had been reported to VAERS. "

Yes, they became aware of it after 15 reports but they didn't withdraw it right away - only after another 86 reports.

I'm also not sure why you think this is relevant to my 'needle in a haystack' comment to Aly. Unless you are suggesting that they identified those individual reactions using a population study? ( I don't think you are)

Also Hak - look, acknowledgement of under reporting of vaccine reactions from that paper:

"However, in light of under-reporting of vaccine-associated adverse effects, these data suggested an increased risk of intussusception following rotavirus vaccination."

Aly - How do I know? Because people are researching it at the moment. Not sure why you think that is some kind of mysterious conspiracy theory.

Here are just a few studies that have been published and there are more in the pipeline:

Trying to identify children who are more likely to develop autism:

Here

Here

Here

Population studies being 'good enough for everyone else' - Good enough for what? It depends on what you're trying to use them for.

"If a test tells you you have a 1 in 1000 chance of a serious reaction"

Why would it tell you that? I think you're getting confused. If the accuracy of the test is 99.9% then it would get it wrong 1 in 1000 times. Not tell you that your chance in reacting badly is 1 in 1000. The harmony test is around 99% effective in identifying children with Down syndrome. Is it a pointless test too?

"you just said it in relation to Men B"

The Men B vaccine hasn't been introduced yet. So how can suggesting that the drop in cases over the years may be a factor (among the other things that I mentioned too) influencing the JCVI's decision not to introduce it the same thing? You're reaching a bit there. Again, are you denying that mortality to many of the diseases that we vaccinate against was declining prior to the introduction of the vaccines? (You can check the figures on the PHA website).

"Do you think the introduction of vaccines has reduced deaths from measles, mumps, rubella, diptheria, tetanus, meningitis C, etc.? "

The vaccines have decreased the incidence of the diseases, yes. This has resulted in fewer deaths. However, vaccines are not the only thing that this can be attributed to which is what people tend to be pointing out.

The serious reaction question was to Hak.

"You still haven't answered how you determine individual risk for wild viruses/anything else."

I don't. (Again)

Hak, no, it's more like "I'm posting from my phone and it would be easier for you to look them up yourself." See above links for some examples of researchers and their centres.

Hak - "a life changing reaction would be reported, if only because the getting the compensation required to care for the person thus damaged would involve reports as part of the process."

By whom? The parents, yes. The doctors? Not necessarily - Even serious reactions are under reported. (see review paper I linked you to earlier in the thread).

Aly - "she's refused to outline a position, correct my interpretation of her position or in fact say what she thinks of vaccines at all."

Now, that's just a lie :) I've answered you several times. You just don't believe me/disagree with me.

Hak - "I said a significant number of children got tetanus before vaccination. Children got tetanus- that is a significant number as far as I'm concerned. "

Yes, you weren't able to tell us how many a significant number is though. Did you just mean any? By that logic can we say 'children have been damaged by vaccines' (which you have acknowledged) and therefore that is a significant number? Didn't think so.

Hak "if a poster persistently casts doubt over something"

Again, I'll ask you to point out what information you think is factually incorrect. Unless you think giving any information is 'casting doubt'?

Aly - "I know is that she thinks Rubella vaccination is justified for young non immune girls. That's it."

And you got that wrong! Although I suppose it depends what you mean by 'young'. I suggested vaccination at 11/12 for non-immune girls.

Hak - "the timing matches"

I think you've been asked about this before. The scheduling for the MMR has changed over the years so which timing do you think matches the onset of autism?

Tell me about the schedule changes you mean, then I'll comment.