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?

Yes it is - HPV testing is better at detecting pre cancerous cell changes than smears. Smears have a much higher error rate of around 20%.

It's all outlined in the article I linked...

They could get tetanus playing in the garden - children did before. Do you deny that? Is it wrong to warn parents of the consequences of not vaccinating their children? Would it be wrong to warn someone with a swimming pool in their back garden that their child might drown?

What figures?

Bumbley, I'm having difficulty finding it, just do a copy and paste fgs.

What do you think someone who came onto every thread just to talk down CC screening should be characterised as? That's a cute line about boxes. You fit very into the anti box Bumbley, so that's why I've put you there.

Smear tests are less effective at preventing CC than Men B is at preventing Men B. Why are you against one but for the other?

Why isn't it necessary? Some of those 1 year olds who get Mumps and Rubella will die, why do you want to take that risk? Why can't I tell parents that they're risking the death and disability of their child by not vaccinating? Is it too scary???

You seem entitled to tell parents who vaccinate about the vanishingly rare possibility of severe vaccine reaction. But apparently when you do it, it's just "facts" and when I do it, it's "scare-mongering".

HPV testing is not 'detecting pre-cancerous changes'. It's testing for certain HPV strains.

What you wrote earlier was incorrect. I'm not debating its usefulness as a test.

Yes, as I said earlier all our grandparents were kept indoors because they might get tetanus if they played out in the garden. Did you find that 'significant number' of tetanus cases from puncture wounds in children that Hak was looking for earlier? Much higher likelihood of drowning in an unsupervised swimming pool.

The 'saving 3 million lives' figure.

Just found it myself by looking back so you'll find it easy enough if you look. You still thought I was 'anti-vax' though so it won't make any difference. "You fit very into the anti box Bumbley, so that's why I've put you there." See :)

Incidence of CC compared to MenB? Also, as mentioned earlier, coverage for CC screening is important.

"Some of those 1 year olds who get Mumps and Rubella will die"

Still haven't looked at the figures yet then?

Vanishingly rare? 1 in 10,000 risk of 'serious reaction' according to Pediacel. So what does that make the chance of contracting tetanus playing in the garden then? Infinitesimally rare?

San - The virus usually causes mild disease in children, but in adults can lead to complications...

No Bumbley, it does detect pre cancerous changes. You're more likely to have pre-cancerous changes (as confirmed by colposcopy) with a positive HPV test than a positive smear.

Not sure why you're getting so humphy - are denying that children died from tetanus caught in their gardens before the introduction of Tetanus? It's still a possibility today. Why is wrong to point out that if you forgo an exceptionally safe vaccine, your child might die? That's a fact. I know you're fond of facts.

Wait, so now you're accusing Unicef of making things up?

How very useful of you to find it but not actually show it to me. What was the purpose of that, exactly?

Interestingly it's almost exactly the same - around 3000 cases every year. Now, why do you support CC screening and not Men B vaccination?

Are you denying that Mumps and Rubella kill and disable children, Bumbley? Why is it wrong to warn that they can do that and that it is easily preventable with a vaccine?

Yes 1 in 10,000 is very rare Bumbley. Those reactions didn't result in death or permanent disability either, so outcome is not as bad as dying or being disabled from disease. And in case you didn't realise, DTAP prevents against more than 1 illness...not just Tetanus.

Why is it scare mongering when I tell parents that they are risking death and disability for their children by not vaccination, but just "facts" when you tell them that they might be 1 in 10,000 or one 1 in 1,000,000 who have a nasty/life threatening reaction?

What do you think someone who came onto every thread just to talk down CC screening should be characterised as?

Sorry, its actually ~1700 cases

hit enter too soon! }~1700 cases of Men B every year. Could easily rise though (as you've observed Bumbley, these things tend to cycle around). And I think 1700 is high enough to work to eradicate, don't you?

Aly, the test is for strains of HPV present. It is not 'detecting pre-cancerous changes' as you previously stated.

Not humphy at all :) (great word though)

Do you have those tetanus figures? We were asking Hak for them earlier too.

No, not accusing them of making anything up. Pointing out that they were figures that you used so you should know where they came from and what they mean.

Yes it does. It is more effective at detecting pre-cancerous cells than smears are. If you have a colposcopy after a positive HPV test, it is more likely your cells will be pre-cancerous than if you had a positive smear.

Yes, they came from Unicef who said vaccination saves around 3 million children's lives every year. What's your problem with that figure?

Because Men B vaccination is more effective at preventing Men B than CC screening is at preventing cancer. But you're against one and for the other...And CC screening has way worse side effects!

I got 1700 from the Meningitis foundation website.

www.meningitis.org/facts

As the cases cycle up and down, they weighted the figures.

Are you still not looking up the fatalities for mumps and rubella Aly. I think you should. Or are you finding it difficult to find that information?

Why should I look it up? Are you denying that Mumps and Rubella sometimes kill children or permanently disable them? Is it wrong to tell parents that that outcome is easily avoided by vaccinating?

Are you denying that children can and do get tetanus and die from playing outside? It's a possible outcome of refusing a safe and reliable vaccination. Why is it wrong to point that out?

"That is relevant to the fact that we don't use it in the UK how exactly?"

What are you talking about?! DTAP is what Pediacel is... I'm pointing out that in a combined vaccination, you can't compare the risk of the vaccination vs. one illness, you must look at the risk of the vaccination vs. the risk of all illnesses it prevents.

What would you think of someone who was relentlessly negative about CC screening? Would perhaps thing they were gasp anti-screening?

Still don't know your position on vaccines

And again...

Why is it scare mongering when I tell parents that they are risking death and disability for their children by not vaccination, but just "facts" when you tell them that they might be 1 in 10,000 or one 1 in 1,000,000 who have a nasty/life threatening reaction?

Aly, again, it is not 'detecting pre-cancerous changes' as you previously stated. Do you know what 'detecting pre-cancerous changes' means/involves?

Prevents deaths from those diseases - not in general.

Which side effects of cervical screening are 'way worse'?

General cycle - still reducing overall.

If you think that mumps and rubella kill children then you should be able to produce those figures. Why can't you?

Not denying that tetanus can occur. I just want you to produce these figures showing 'a significant number of cases' in children with puncture wounds pre-vaccination. Shouldn't you have those figures so you can compare risk? Do you know what the incidence of tetanus was pre-vaccine?

DTAP is not 'what Pediacel is'.

You have been using a 1 in 1 million risk from a vaccine that we don't use in the UK.

"I'm pointing out that in a combined vaccination, you can't compare the risk of the vaccination vs. one illness" Where was I doing this? I wasn't talking about Tetanus because you were using the 1 in 1 million figure from the DTAP vaccine. It was because other people had mentioned it earlier.

What is your obsession with having to 'classify' people? It's very strange.

"Still don't know your position on vaccines" Ok

Depends what the risk of death/disability is. See tetanus example above.

Yes it is...An HPV test more accurately tells you if you have pre-cancerous cells. This is partly because smear tests have a high error rate, but also because inflammation and infection can look similar to pre-cancerous cell changes. HPV is a better predictor of the existence of pre-cancerous cells on your cervix than a positive smear test.

What are the downsides of inaccuracy in cervical screening?

• Having to have an uncomfortable procedure where people dab solutions on your cervix
• Having to have parts of your cervix burnt off
• Having to have chunks of your cervix removed
• Having to have a hysterectomy

Not according to the meningitis foundation - they say it could bounce up at any time. But of course you know better!

"If you think that mumps and rubella kill children then you should be able to produce those figures. Why can't you?"

Are you trying to imply that it is impossible for a child to die of Mumps/Rubella and impossible for a child to be disabled by Mumps/Rubella?

"Not denying that tetanus can occur. I just want you to produce these figures showing 'a significant number of cases' in children with puncture wounds pre-vaccination. Shouldn't you have those figures so you can compare risk? Do you know what the incidence of tetanus was pre-vaccine?"

Why do you want me to produce those figures if you accept that Tetanus infection and death is a possible outcome of infection in an unvaccinated child? Surely that means you support Tetanus vaccination?

Pediacel: www.nhs.uk/medicine-guides/pages/selectorshow.aspx?medicine=Pediacel

Yes it also now protects you against Hib & Polio, an advance from my day I see.

"I'm pointing out that in a combined vaccination, you can't compare the risk of the vaccination vs. one illness" Where was I doing this? I wasn't talking about Tetanus because you were using the 1 in 1 million figure from the DTAP vaccine. It was because other people had mentioned it earlier"

Err...you were comparing the risk of 1 in 10,000 to the risk of dying/being disabled by Tetanus. But you need to compare 1 in 10,000 vs the risk of dying/disabillity of all the diseases the vaccine protects against.

"What is your obsession with having to 'classify' people? confused It's very strange."

So you would have no opinion of the views of someone who came onto CC threads to talk about how crap screening is? Do you ever have any opinions, Bumbley?

"Depends what the risk of death/disability is. See tetanus example above."

Where have you outlined an opinion on Tetanus in your post above?

And again....

Why is it scare mongering when I tell parents that they are risking death and disability for their children by not vaccination, but just "facts" when you tell them that they might be 1 in 10,000 or one 1 in 1,000,000 who have a nasty/life threatening reaction?

It tells you if you have certain strains of HPV it is not 'detecting pre-cancerous changes' as you previously stated. You seem to be missing that what you have said is incorrect. I am not questioning the use of HPV testing. Look at what you have written - 'detecting pre-cancerous changes' HPV testing is not 'detecting pre-cancerous changes'.

You stated: " CC screening has way worse side effects! "

I asked you which side effects of cervical screening are 'way worse'?

Wrt to screening you have come up with "Having to have an uncomfortable procedure where people dab solutions on your cervix " Ok. that is worse than the potential side effects of vaccines how exactly?

Haven't said it won't bounce up. Just pointing out what it has been doing which is what the JCVI were considering.

Are you still not looking up the figures? Why? Don't you want to know how many children were dying from mumps and rubella pre-vaccine?

Again, I'm asking you to look at the incidence of tetanus pre-vaccine. Do you know what it was? 0.4 cases per 100,000 in the population. Now, seeing as you think that 1 in 10,000 is 'very rare' (or even 'vanishingly rare') what do you call the risk of contracting tetanus pre-vaccine?

Yes, it does. Not the same vaccine.

Ah, I see what you took from the tetanus thing. Maybe it's been explained better in this post (above). So talking about the possibility of a 1 in 10,000 risk of a serious vaccine reaction is 'scaremongering' but telling people not to let their children play in the garden because they could get tetanus (risk 0.4 in 100,000) isn't? Interesting.

"Do you ever have any opinions, Bumbley?"

Yes. It is my opinion that it is very strange that you want to classify anyone who posts on MN as pro or anti something. :)

See above re tetanus.

the 1/10 000 risk is just the allergic reaction type risk though isnt it? same risk as taking antibiotics etc? not the serious risk of harm that the vaccine damage payment scheme was set up to deal with?

similarly, with some vaccines eg mumps, the risk is of vaccine caused encephalitis, but that risk is far smaller than the risk of mumps encephalitis from wild mumps. serious complications affect about 15% of people according to WHO.

the risk of death from mumps is 1 / 10 000 interestingly

www.who.int/immunization/monitoring_surveillance/burden/vpd/surveillance_type/passive/mumps_standards/en/

sorry, i meant the risk of death from mumps encephalitis is 1/ 10 000

i'm really glad i didnt read up about mumps when my son had it
apparently 15% of people get meningitis

It's what is listed as 'severe reactions' on the Pediacel insert.

Vaccine damage compensation is for 'serious disability'.

No, the risk of death from mumps encephalitis is 1 in 10,000 and it occurs in around 1 in 1,000 cases of mumps. So a much lower risk of death.

Asceptic meningitis - not the same as bacterial meningitis.

"Aseptic meningitis most commonly occurs in infants and young children. Although aseptic meningitis can make you feel ill, it is typically milder than bacterial meningitis. According to the Mayo Clinic, serious complications are rare and you will most likely feel completely better within two weeks (Mayo Clinic)."

Yes it is. If you test positive for HPV, you are more likely to have pre cancerous cervical cell changes than if you had a positive smear. How is that not detecting pre- cancerous cell changes?

How are LLETZ/Top HAT/Conisation not effects of cervical screening? They wouldn't happen nearly as much if people weren't screened for CC.

I'm not sure why it's relevant Bumbley - what's relevant is that it can happen, and that it can be prevented by a very safe, very well tested intervention.

1 in 10,000 doesn't refer to dying though, does it Bumbley? You are still more likely to die from Tetanus than the Tetanus vaccination, and I don't see the problem telling people that.

I don't recall anyone saying "your child WILL DIE if they play in the garden without a vaccine", just a "you're risking Tetanus, people used to die of this you know" advisory. And you know what, some kids did get it playing in the garden and it's not scare mongering to point that out. And it was you (or fascicle) that accused us all of scare mongering in the first place...Considering you like to insinuate without foundation that vaccines trigger/cause whatever all sorts of maladies and are pretty much useless, I think you've got a shaky leg to stand on accusing us of scaremongering.

How funny that on a thread about vaccines it's useful to discern if one is generally for or against vaccinations. I know you apparently have a posiiton, but I still haven't seen you articulate one, even for Tetanus... What is your position on Tetanus vaccination? I'm getting the feeling you're against it. Is that right?

You seem to trust the WHO so you can see a couple of nicely laid out rebuttals to your main anti-vaccination points here: www.who.int/features/qa/84/en/

What would your opinion be of someone who only ever came onto threads about CC to say how shit screening was?

Aly, what you are saying is not the same as saying that it is 'detecting pre-cancerous changes'. HPV screening does not detect pre-cancerous changes. It can tell you if you have certain strains of HPV on your cervix. Can you not understand the difference?

"How are LLETZ/Top HAT/Conisation not effects of cervical screening? They wouldn't happen nearly as much if people weren't screened for CC."

Not what you said and not what I asked.

You stated: " CC screening has way worse side effects! "

I asked you which side effects of cervical screening are 'way worse'?

Wrt to screening you have come up with "Having to have an uncomfortable procedure where people dab solutions on your cervix "

So can you explain how that is worse than a vaccine reaction please? I'm pretty sure that people who have had/whose children have had bad vaccine reactions will disagree with you.

See above figures re mumps - it is relevant.

So it's not scaremongering then? We can tell people that there is a 1 in 10,000 chance of a severe reaction without it being considered scaremongering? Good.

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

nothing wrong with telling anyone what the risks are so long as it is balanced by the risks of the disease

measles is about 1/1000 risk of encephalitis. mumps is much higher, the most common cause of viral encephalitis before mmr, about 1/200 or 250 according to the encephalitis society.

a table like the one the encephalitis society have would be useful. it wont copy/paste properly sorry

Balance of risk comparing measles and MMR vaccine
Comparing Children affected after catching
measles
with
Children affected after the
fi rst dose of MMR

Convulsions 1 in 200 ->1 in 1000

Meningitis or encephalitis 1 in 200 to 1 in 5000 -> Less than 1 in a million

SSPE 1 in 8000 for children under 2 -> 0

Death 1 in 2500 to 1 in 5000 depending on
age
-> 0

equally, people should be told that diseases can be eradicated by vaccines if everyone is vaccinated
that is an amazing thing
it is so sad we have only achieved/nearly achieved it a couple of times