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?

risk is 1 in 300 to 1 in 6000 according to the CDC. Many sources seem to use 1 in 1000. Just checked the encephalitis society's figures and they state 1/200 to 1/5000 so you misrepresented them a bit there. Why did you do that?

Also, why did you link to the CDC site for vaccine side effects? They have different vaccines to the UK.

"diseases can be eradicated by vaccines if everyone is vaccinated"

Do you think that is possible for whooping cough or do you accept that a high degree of vaccination coverage isn't the only thing required to eradicate a disease?

oh sorry my mistake for the mumps encephalitis, just tiny writing on a screen, i read it wrong. no conspiracy here

btw, this 1/ 10 000 figure for pedicel, having flicked thro the uk data on this, it seems to be the last category, 'very rare', less than 1 in 10 000 with no real data about how much less. so could be, say, 1 in a million? i linked to the usa data just as an example of what data could easily be provided to parents, but i did notice there was nothing like a 1/10 000 risk of severe side effects, more like say 1 in a million for the common childhood vaccines.

i have no idea for whooping cough not being an expert
i know polio is very nearly gone and it is a tragedy it still exists but will be even more of a tragedy if it resurfaces properly again

what about tb for instance? what caused that to decline so much? is that vaccine/hygiene/modern medicine or a combination?

Just going by what's written on the leaflet San. I'm pretty sure if they could write 1 in 1 million they would have though :)

They'll need to switch to the IPV if they want to eliminate polio. They're still using the OPV which is causing small outbreaks of polio in some areas.

TB is actually still a big issue due to drug resistant strains emerging. They are trying to develop new treatments/vaccines.

ok so i think this explains the less than 1/10 000 uk stats vs all the 1/million stats on the us site

there is an eu document on the european medicines agency that lists the categories as follows:

Frequency Grouping
Very common (â?¥1/10);
common (â?¥1/100 to

i hate the way the app changes the numbers!

very interesting also about polio. why do they not use the other type of vaccine? cost?

Nah it's because IPV allows some polio replication in the gut, allowing the disease to stick around. IPV makes sense where the incidence is already low ie the the uk because in 1 in a million cases the vaccine can seri inert an give you the disease. About to have dinner so will reply to Bumbley later :)

They are also different vaccines san so not directly comparable.

The OPV is cheaper and easier to administer (drops). It is also more effective but can cause cases of polio.

i know but i am guessing that a sudden change of risk from less than one in a million to less than one in ten thousand would be an unacceptable change in risk for the regulatory authorities. that is a guess.

Sorry - first para in relation to US vs UK vaccines.

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?

HPV is better at detecting pre-cancerous cell changes than Smears. The presence of HPV tells you with more accuracy if you have pre cancerous cell changes than a positive smear. You accept this, so why is it such a leap to say that HPV is a test for pre-cancerous cell changes? That is one way that it is currently being used, both in the UK and the US.

*"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'?*

Sophistry of the highest order. Lletz, Colposcopy, Hysterectomies, Conisation are all part of the NHS Cervical Screening programme. Do you think women randomly waltz into gynaecology departments to have parts of their cervix burnt off?

See above figures re mumps - it is relevant.

I'm totally lost - you accept that Mumps and Rubella can kill and disable children, but don't think that's an adequate reason to protect them via vaccination? Especially given the safety of the vaccine.

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.

You're the one who accused us all of scare mongering in the first place, so I'm delighted to hear that in this thread and subsequent threads, mentioning that Tetanus, Mumps, Rubella, Measles, Polio, Diptheria, Hib, Meningitis C, Meningitis B etc. kill and killed children and disable and disabled children will not be labelled by you as scare mongering.

And it would be nice to hear why you accept invasive medical procedures you might not need but are unhappy to deploy one of the most effective medical advances ever.

Also, I still haven't seen your position on Tetanus - I'm assuming you're against vaccination as that's certainly the way your post comes off. Apparently I always misread the impression you're trying to give - so do feel free to correct me...

And another question! Well three questions.

Do you have opinions of other posters?
What would be your opinion of someone who came on to every thread about Cervical Cancer to moan about how dreadful screening was and how ineffective it was, without mentioning its many successes?

two questions!

"why is it such a leap to say that HPV is a test for pre-cancerous cell changes? "

Because it isn't. The HPV test is testing for the virus. That's it. It is not testing for pre-cancerous cell changes. That it what the pap smear does. They are different things. Can you see how that isn't the same as saying that the HPV test is 'detecting pre-cancerous changes'?

From the CDC: "While the Pap test helps find cell changes on the cervix, the HPV test checks for the HPV virus that can cause these cell changes."

The idea for future screening seems to be that the HPV test will be done first and then if you have the virus they will screen you further for cell changes. In the UK, at the moment, it's mainly still just the smear test although some areas are now using both. In the US they seem to be using both.

Not sophistry at all. You do not walk in to be screened and have a lump of your cervix cut off for that purpose. Clearly "CC screening has way worse side effects!" is not an accurate thing to say.

"you accept that Mumps and Rubella can kill and disable children"

Where? Did you look at the above mumps figures from San and me? The fatality rate? Did you look up the fatality rate for rubella? (You'll struggle with that one)
How can rubella disable children who contract it?

As I said earlier, it depends on risk. I maintain that telling someone that their child could die from tetanus from playing out in the garden when the pre-vaccine incidence was 0.4 per 100,000 in the population is scaremongering. Considering that you accepted that a 1 in 10,000 incidence of something was 'very rare' or 'vanishingly rare' I'm surprised that you don't agree.

"are unhappy to deploy one of the most effective medical advances ever."

Haven't said I am. Just don't think one-size fits all.

No, not 'against' tetanus vaccination but if someone had decided not to vaccinate and another poster comes on and tells them that their child could contract tetanus and die from playing in the garden then I will point out the incidence rate pre-vaccine.

Yes, I do have opinions of other posters occasionally.

I don't know if I would have one. It would depend on what they were actually saying. If they are giving facts you mentioned about it in relation to under 30s then you can't really question it. It's true and it's relevant.

Rubella disables children before they are born; once they are born then it is a very low risk. Surprised at your ignorance, I thought everyone knew this.

www.patient.co.uk/health/rubella-german-measles-and-pregnancy

You will note that this entirely avoidable serious damage to babies is now very rare in the UK. Why could that be?

You just contradicted yourself - it is being used a test for pre-cancerous changes, as it is a more accurate indicator of the existence of pre cancerous cells on your cervix than a smear test. We know this because those who tested positive for HPV were more likely to develop invasive cervical cancer (i.e. the HPV caused pre-cancerous cell changes that were not picked up by smear) than those who had dysplasia on smear.

Having cells burnt off your cervix is a direct result of cerivcal screening, as it is part of the cervical screening programme? Are you denying that?

So you're saying that Mumps and Rubella has never killed a child or never resulted in disability? Are you sure about that , Bumbley?

So 1 in 10,000 isn't scare mongering but 1 in 100,000 is? 1 in 10,000 doesn't relate to death remember - just allergic reaction. And in fact, more severe reactions are so rare that they can't even be estimated! Why is scare mongering to tell people facts. Do you deny that it is possible to die from Tetanus? Why is wrong to tell people that??

And if the limitations of screening was the ONLY thing they talked about and they agreed with all the rabidly anti-screening posters...?

Yes special, I'm aware of that thanks. :)

We're talking about the need for 1 year old children to be given the rubella vaccine. I've asked about disability caused in the children who contract it. You'll see on pretty much every medical website that it is described as 'mild condition' in children.

No Aly, I haven't contradicted myself. It is not a test for pre-cancerous changes. It does not looking for the existence of pre-cancerous cells on your cervix - it is looking for strains of the HPV virus - that's it! You don't seem to understand the difference despite me trying to explain it several times. I'm not sure how to make it any easier for you.

Yes, I'm denying that having cells burnt off your cervix is a 'side effect of the screening program because it isn't. What you are talking about is treatment - not screening.

Do you want to produce the figures to show me that they have?

0.4 in 100,000. That isn't deaths either.

You seem to think it's scaremongering to tell people there is a 1 in 10,000 risk of reaction even though it's a fact. I don't think it is. I think telling people that their child could die from tetanus from playing in the garden when the risk of contracting tetanus pre-vaccine was 0.4 in 100,000 is scaremongering, yes. If you think 1 in 10,000 is scaremongering why isn't 0.4 in 100,000?

If you're trying to make your screening analogy fit this thread I haven't seen any 'rabidly anti-' anything on this thread. (Nor do I only talk about limitations :))

It is not looking - not does.

So you accept that HPV testing is a more accurate indicator of the existence of pre cancerous cells, but not that it can be used as a test for that even though it already is?!

Do you think and HIV antibody test isn't a test for HIV because it only looks at the antibodies, not the virus? Do you think doctors immediately diagnosing patients with Aids after presenting with Aids defining illnesses are wrong, because they're not directly testing for HIV?

Cerivical screening includes the colposcopies, biopsies etc. that are part of cervical screening. Genuinely odd that you can't understand this! Punch biopsies and LLETZ are taken as part of confirming a diagnosis of CIN 3/ CC (LLETZ is also treatment - but it is only done as a result of screening!) so still part of screening.

What about you insinuating that MMR triggers autism - scare mongering? You are the one who said we were scaremongering Bumbley....I replied saying that if we were, you were!

So your position is that no child has ever died or been disabled from Mumps or Rubella? Just want to make sure...

Well Bumbley, I do think its a little odd that you meet challenge people (ie starlight on the other thread) who are anti vac given you claim to be neutral. You'd think you'd see you challenging both sides. Wouldn't you?

I think if I started talking about how shit screening was you'd probably pull up in the plus sides, no?

Your work really is never done, is it, bumbleymummy? There you are on another thread starting your doubt dripping process all over again.

Stop being a hypocrite.

Jeez Aly. It isn't already used as a test for the existence of pre-cancerous cells. This really isn't that hard a concept to grasp. You're clearly not stupid, I'm not sure why you're struggling so much with this. HPV is not pre-cancerous cells. You know that right? So when you're testing for HPV you are not testing for pre-cancerous cells.

No, cervical screening does not. If you won't take my word for it - even the NHS has it under 'treatment' here. Not screening here.

I didn't 'insinuate' it. I was asked my opinion and I said I thought it may be a possibility in 'certain susceptible individuals' (you keep forgetting that part )

So you think a risk of 0.4 per 100,000 is equivalent to a risk of 1 in 10,000?

Still waiting for those figures Aly. Why can't you produce them?

I 'meet' challenge people? Typo?

Possibly - to balance discussion if it was relevant or if something they were saying was inaccurate. Of course, if I came on and ONLY talked about the positives of screening someone might come on and point out the negatives too. If lots and lots of people came on and kept pointing out the positives and no one mentioned the negatives except one person then would you automatically assume that they were 'anti-screening' or would you consider the possibility that they might just be trying to balance the discussion and give accurate information?

Hak - was it not you earlier on this thread that said you 'can't prove a negative'. Just thought it made sense to point out the flaw in your post. You could have written it differently :)