Postponing vaccinations?

[Ravensmommy]

I know this is controversial subject and I have seen a few comments on other threads that, I fear, will be coming my way. BUT, I am slightly concerned about vaccinating my 2 month old little girl.
It all started when I read about the Mercury present in flu jabs while I was pregnant, I was already aware that I should only eat 2 tins of tuna per week due to the Mercury levels, so I can't see how injecting me with it would be any better than eating it, and if there is a limit to the safe amount of Mercury in a pregnant woman, I'd rather stay below it, so did not to get this jab. However I did see more pros to the whooping cough vaccine, so I did go for that. Since lo has been born, I have questioned my HV and Midwives about the vaccines that babies need in their first year. They didn't really answer many of my questions, so I took to researching the internet myself.
I obviously came across lots of different opinions and arguments; the most concerning being, the ingredients of some vaccines being Mercury, formaldehyde and aluminium; that they can cause developmental issues and autism. Also the fact that these babies are given all of these vaccines at such a young age, some 2-3 in one go. I kind of feel like no wonder the little mites suffer fevers etc afterwards.

A midwife did tell me that she had the same concerns as me when she had her baby, so she waited until her child was due to attend school before vaccinating her.
I am not against vaccines, they just concern me, so I have made that same decision- to vaccinate her before attending school- and my HV is treating me like a bit of a maniac. Telling me 'everyone' has their children vaccinated at this age. And she thinks it's best I do go ahead.

I have asked her to arrange someone to talk to me and convince me otherwise with facts that I am unaware of; in fact I have asked her, my GP, midwives and not one of them want to give me the time of day to explain why I should have her vaccinated next week. I feel if no one is willing to talk to me regarding this, why should I just have her done because they say so? If there were no concerns, why can they not give me the facts I need to put my mind at ease?
I guess what I'm asking is, has anyone else has the same concerns as me and not vaccinated /postponed until school age?

Atenco what people have said is that the childhood vaccines do not contain thiomersal. Which is true, and this is stated in the very link you have just given!

Thiomersal, also called Thimerosal (a preservative)

Thiomersal is a mercury compound used to prevent the growth of dangerous bacteria and fungus. It is not found in any of the childhood vaccines routinely used in the UK. However it is still widely used outside of Europe and the USA in cheaper multi-dose vaccines, because it is an important preservative.

Did you not actually read the link you posted?

Someone died of measles during the 2013 outbreak in South Wales and a lot more spent time in hospital. Because they hadn't been seen for so long people forgot what nasty diseases these are and the reason why vaccinations were developed in the first place.

I know it's difficult, when you hold your vulnerable tiny child, to contemplate anyone sticking needles into them with chemicals etc. but for me the thought of DS or DD with drips and tubes as a result of one of the diseases far outweighed that.

South of France near Toulouse. Tetanus is a very real concern here as the weather is a lot warmer. The diphtheria case was in Barcelona, three hours away from us, the rubella cases are is Alsace.

Booboo, I didn't realise that tetanus was a bigger risk in warmer weather, but fair enough if it is, then that might be a reason to vaccinate, I can understand that. I wouldn't worry about the rubella unless I was pregnant, and pregnant women can make sure they are vaccinated. Understand that you are close to a diphtheria case so can see the concern, these concerns will change with where you are and individual circumstances.

The people most at risk of tetanus are older people not babies but yet UK policy is to vax babies but not older people.

I'm not anti vax (even though I'm sure I'll be name called that) but I do have criticisms of the UK's vax programme.

If you look at international comparisons you will see that the vax schedules vary widely.

Yet we are meant to trust that our doctors know better than every other countries.

For example the chicken pox vax is given in the USA but not here. Why? Money. But shouldn't decisions be based on clinical need not finances?

There's also the withdrawal of the BCG for 13 year olds, at a time when tuberculosis (by far the worst of the diseases on the vax schedule) is on the rise.

In the UK we also give babies their vax very early compared to other countries. Historically this was because we had a shorter maternity leave than most of Europe. So babies were missing the later vax when their mums were back at work (mat leave was 18 weeks c. 15 years ago). But now we have longer mat leaves yet the gov hasn't changed its policy.

We also have contradictory policies about gender. Eg we just give the hpv vax to girls but the same logic would say rubella should just be given to girls and mumps just given to boys. They can't have it both ways!

Imo it all needs tidied up and decisions based on clinical need.

Side all bacterial infections are more common in warm, damp climates, although of course you can come into contact with tetanus in cold climates, especially if you are in contact with soil and manure.

It is worth looking at an uptake map like this one from this article to see what your area is like - if there is over 95% then she should benefit at least in part from herd immunity, if it is lower then the risks of not having her vaccinated are higher.

I'm not anti vax either, it's a fantastic idea, but I do object to who they are given to and when. My biggest objection is rubella given to babies. I also dislike how they are all combined together. Whooping cough is most dangerous to very young babies, yet by the time babies get vaccinated much of the danger has passed. We need a whooping cough vaccine for new born babies, the idea of vaccinating pregnant women is good, why not let them protect their own babies. Flu vaccine in children to protect the elderly is another objection.

"There's also the withdrawal of the BCG for 13 year olds, at a time when tuberculosis (by far the worst of the diseases on the vax schedule) is on the rise."

I think that's because they found it wasn't that effective at protecting against pulmonary TB. They still give it to young babies in high risk areas because it offers some protection against TB meningitis.

Booboostwo wrote on Fri 31-Jul-15 15:58:58

"Mercury was removed from vaccines quite a while ago even though there was no evidence of harm, so frankly I would question where you are getting your information from. Anyone can post any kind of rubbish they want on the Internet, case in point the vaccine/autism claims."

I'd like to cite my 10 days in intensive care as a child and the subsequent investigations which found that Mercury was the cause, as evidence of harm caused by Mercury. Is that the kind of rubbish you're talking about.

Billie you were hospitalised due to mercury poisoning from a vaccine? Your case must have been pretty famous, where has it been written up?

You CAN give one at a time, change the order, postpone all or any...

But you may have to pay privately to do so. No GP really has the time or often has the statistics and knowledge to go in depth with you these days, any i discussed with were reading from the same sheet I could print off the internet! I paid for a private consultation when I started vaxxing DS and found it reassuring to be talking to someone who acknowledged risks and benefits openly.

And obviously you should thoroughly research (not Internet forums but real studies) and weigh up the risk/benefits to your individual circumstances and location and be comfortable with your choice.

Don't only research pro or anti - both sides are very biased and fear mongering (because they both strongly believe what they advocate but emotional reasoning doesn't really help in this one in my experience) if you look at anything more than objective studies - read both arguments!

Some things will lower/raise risks eg, area you live, breastfeeding, family history etc

Vaccines do cause fever... Fever in itself is not dangerous, it's the correct response to fight illness and create antibodies. The one thing I wouldn't do unless it was incredibly high is ever give calpol, there have been studies that call into question its safety given with vaccines due to its effect of lowering gluthiathone. But also reducing a mild/moderate fever may mean creating less antibodies so the jab is less effective

I think the people most at risk of adverse vaccine events are ones with mitochondrial disorders, or methylation problems. Of course it's unlikely this is picked up in a 2 month old baby unless a family history... But I understand the fear, I have it...

Your concerns are very out of date and I would urge you to think again. I'm a GP and I know of a six month old in my area who died of whooping cough. I see measles quite often since the MMR scare - there is a significant risk of brain damage with it, it isn't just a harmless childhood illness.

Also the fact that these babies are given all of these vaccines at such a young age, some 2-3 in one go

A child meets many many more stimuli to their immune system just being out in the open air than they do having a vaccination. The argument about them being spread out has no scientific validity.

Whooping cough is most dangerous to very young babies, yet by the time babies get vaccinated much of the danger has passed.

This also isn't true, it picks up where the mother's antibodies (acquired via the placenta) start to reduce.

I would consider this. How many doctors do you know who haven't vaccinated their children? I don't know a single one. If we really thought it was harmful - and were doing it for the targets, or the money, or any of the other made up reasons that you hear - then surely we would quietly leave our kids unvaccinated? Mine in fact had an extra MMR, because they both went off to nursery before the age of 1 and I was worried about the drop in herd immunity after Wakefield (who, I would remind you, has been struck off and was being funded partly by solicitors with significant conflicts of interest).

Please, please think again. You are much more likely to cause harm to your child by not vaccinating than by vaccinating. Best of luck with your decision.

"A child meets many many more stimuli to their immune system just being out in the open air than they do having a vaccination."

Not in the same way as a vaccination though.

"The argument about them being spread out has no scientific validity."

Can you link to the studies showing how giving them on the current NHS schedule is better than other schedules?

The current vaccination schedules, which do vary from country to country, are the result of historical factors, the country's assessment of the cost of providing vaccines for free vs the benefits from doing so and the need to vaccinate as soon as possible. There are no studies, to my knowledge, comparing current standards to idiotic alternatives, primarily because the alternative schedules are based on idiotic ideas. If I want to delay vaccination for my child because I think vaccinated babies are abducted by aliens we don't need a study to compare the two alternatives; my reasoning is just idiotic.

It's your opinion that alternative schedules are 'idiotic'. The schedule and, quite likely, the vaccines themselves will change in the future.

Well no it's scientific opinion which is quite another matter. And while vaccines and schedules may well change in the future, why would they not, this is not the same as saying that they will change more in line with the idiotic alternatives.

I haven't seen a scientific opinion stating that it is 'idiotic' to vary the schedule. As you've pointed out yourself, it does vary from country to country and some GPs do recommend delaying certain vaccines/recommending alternatives for some children as well.

By alternative schedules I don't think anyone means reasonable variations between countries that offer standard vaccination schedules, nor exceptions for specific individual cases with comorbidity factors, but rather eccentric alternatives such as that of Dr Sears which counsels skipping vaccines such as polio and delaying many other on no scientific basis whatsoever.

Such alternatives are idiotic. The reason there are no studies comparing them to the standard is because they are idiotic. Scienc just does not work this way. If I write a book suggestion delayed vaccination based on my aliens hypothesis you won't find scientists devoting time and effort to prove me wrong as I am, so blatantly wrong.

There are, however, a lot of qualitative studies trying to understand why parents buy into the alternative rubbish in the hopes that if we understand the reasoning we can talk them out of it. See for example
pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2011/09/28/peds.2011-0400.short

The parents of the six year old who died of diphtheria is Spain have laid the blame at the door of the anti-vaccines. They claim they were misinformed. Bollocks, they should be charged with neglect. The information is very easily accessible, they just chose to believe rubbish. They paid a high price for this, but their child paid a higher price.

'Anti-vaccers' that should be

Iirc Dr Sears prioritises certain vaccines based on the risk of a child actually coming into contact with the disease.

I don't think delaying certain vaccines or choosing singles makes someone 'idiotic' or 'anti-vax' but I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that.

Most childhood diseases are coming back or are on the increase (see the diphtheria case in Spain, first one for 28 years, or the repeated measles outbreaks), so delaying vaccination in this background is clearly idiotic.

The conclusion by itself cannot tell you if an argument is idiotic, you need to look at the validity of the premises and their relation to the conclusion. If a child is undergoing chemotherapy it's reasonable to delay vaccination; if a parent is concerned about overloading the immune system it's idiotic to delay vaccination. If a parent thinks the triple vaccine causes autism it is idiotic reasoning and does not justify single vaccines.

I'm a scientist (PhD and everything!) and I choose to spread out vaccinations - needless to say I don't think it's idiotic, and I'm most definitely not alone in this. There is good evidence that fewer immune stimulations at once give fewer side effects (pretty obvious when you think about it), and since it lowers the chance of needing paracetamol through reducing side effects etc (paracetamol is known to reduce the effectiveness of vaccines on average), it can also increase the effectiveness of the vaccines, although this effect is relatively small.

As mentioned above, vaccination is not a normal route of exposure, and most of the bugs you come into contact with daily don't give you a noticeable immune response (you don't get ill) because they never make it past the outer defences (skin, mucosal membranes etc).

Leaving this aside, for inactive vaccines it is the adjuvant that is creating the immune response rather than the pieces of the bugs in the vaccine, and unfortunately these do so in a rather lop-sided way giving overstimulation of Th2 rather than Th1 arms of the immune system. Vaccine research is trying really hard to address this issue but isn't there yet. Research in other fields has shown that allergies and weakened immune systems are linked to a disproportionate Th2 response, so it is scientifically plausible that the use of multiple adjuvants at the same time (from multiple vaccines) could contribute to problems, and that spreading them out may be better in some respects.

(Other things can also effect the Th1/Th2 balance, but vaccine adjuvants are on the list, and I figure that since this is something I can control with little if any downside, I will.)

I don't think one case of diphtheria in Spain means that it is 'coming back'. I also think the dip in vaccination levels for measles could have been avoided if the single measles vaccine was kept available when concerns were raised about the MMR.(It was still available on the NHS at that point).

Good post YouCannotBeSerious. I find the research into microneedles for vaccine delivery fascinating.