Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
General health

Mumsnet doesn't verify the qualifications of users. If you have medical concerns, please consult a healthcare professional.

Original poster

Delaying Immunisations?

81 replies

Spink · 15/04/2007 21:30

ds is due to have his 8 wk jabs soon. I'm pretty ambivalent about immunisations, have read up a little and found it all fairly confusing.
In the end, I don't want to take the risk of not immunising him at all. But I think I'd like to delay him getting them until he is a little older, so that he is bigger and stronger and more able to manage any side-effects (I hope).

What are your thoughts/advice on this? Has anyone else delayed their baby's jabs? what kind of reaction did you get from the medics? If I do postpone having them, how long should we wait?

Thank you

OP posts:
1dilemma · 17/04/2007 21:06

KerryMum hope it's not a piece of information you ever need!

gess · 17/04/2007 21:10

1dilemma- it;s given to everyone in the US. I have no problem with it being given to prevent maternal transmission- benefits outweighing risks etc- but in the US it is part of the standard vacccination schedule and given at birth.

gess · 17/04/2007 21:13

If you go to A&E with a young child in the UK needing tetanus you will get 5 in 1. TBH it's too late anyway by that stage- so they should be given passive antibodies aswell- which isn't ideal- made from blood products.

After school age I think you can still get the DTaP. But to be honest I don;t want my kids getitng the P. Think ds2 has had whooping cough anyway. I'm not so fussed about the DT (providing there's no thimerosal) as in vaccinaiton terms that is a very safe jab, and tetanus does worry me (WE'RE RURAL). whoops sorry!

KerryMum · 17/04/2007 21:16

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

1dilemma · 17/04/2007 21:20

Yes gess if you're ging to give it to everyone and the reason to give it to some is to prevent maternal transmission then you prob. need to give it to everyone at birth running 2 parallel streams would prob. not work. It appears that the Aussies give hep b to all at birth too. But I suppose most of them are still in bed and we won't get this comfirmed until later!

1dilemma · 17/04/2007 21:25

Have looked it up apparently the US and others give eye antibiotics at birth to prevent blindness due to infection either from sexually transmitted diseases or other bugs. It said it was the most common cause of infant blindness!

aviatrix · 17/04/2007 21:35

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

danae · 17/04/2007 23:05

Message withdrawn

1dilemma · 18/04/2007 02:06

So guys can I ask would you have the oral polio vaccine? ie is it the combined/injection that puts you off or is it something else. (Fond memories of the suar lumps here)

1dilemma · 18/04/2007 02:07

sugar sorry computer very dodgy!

electra · 18/04/2007 08:25

1dilemma - in my case I'm particularly concerned about the pertussis element of the vaccine but also don't like so many given altogether. With oral polio there is a risk of transmitting it to other people (usually via a baby's nappy) which is why they said they changed to the 5 in 1, but I think it's probably to do with research on thimerosal (though they denied it).

Hilllary · 18/04/2007 08:30

electra I have had to send my puppy away for a couple of weeks due to him having his jabs and us being sensitive to the ingredients, I phoned the manufacturer and they advised we did not approach the pup for 3-4 weeks these were all deemed safe by the vet We are unable to vaccinate due to allergies, we are far too high risk. Three generations of my family have not received any immunisations.

gess · 18/04/2007 09:02

danae- if I was in an area where there was polio around I would give the jab (singly- orally pereferably- providing there was no-one in the family suscpetible- I prefer orally as it's the 'natural route' for polio infection- and I suspect (but would have to check) will come with fewer added ingredients). In our case I particularly don't like the added ingredients.

As for the tetanus risk- ds2 is pretty cautious, ds3 is a nutter- he worries me a bit We stayed in a yurt last year which was lovely although I did have kittens everytime they fell over- lots of thorns and prickles and it was on moorland. My Mum and Dad pointed out that they were never given tetnaus until adulthood and were both brought up on farms - so I stopped worrying so much then.

Can't say I'm particularly happy with them not haviing tetanus, but there's no way I'd give a 5 in1. If there was a reaction how would we even know which component had caused it?

Also I'm trying to avoid heavy metals etc on a young developing brain so that gets mixed into the decision as well.

onthefence · 18/04/2007 09:03

my gp has recently leant me a book called 'immunisations against infectious diseases' it is the DoH book sent round to all gp's who need to advise parents so it should answer any question that you could ask your gp. It was very reader friendly and came with refrences that can be easily followed up.

Throughout the book I was looking for research that I could not argue with that clearly states that unvaccinated children are statistically CURRENTLY more at risk of the diseases than vaccinated children.

I didn't find what I was looking for.

In fact the book did a very good job of putting me off.

I did, however find a lovely long chapter very near the beggining of the book titled 'vaccine damage payment scheme' which somewhat made me think.

I found the website 'the informed parent' usefull, also the leaflet 'what doctors don't tell you' (think it is also on-line)

We are making the decision based on as much information as we can find from both sides. After we have reached a decision, we will then consider the herd immunity aspect as I am well aware that to a large extent, the reason the risk of diseases are very low is because so many kids have been immunised.

This could reverse in the future if more people decide that the vaccine risk outweighs the risk of the disease and choose not to vaccinate.

we are all over the place with this. good luck to everyone in the same position.

gess · 18/04/2007 09:11

The vaccine damaged payment scheme doesn't pay out if your child dies and is under 2 (according to something on the JABS website). Not that a payment would make any difference, but I thought it was odd. It's woefully inadequate as well. And would presumably get eaten up in care costs.

When ds3 was in hospital one consultant who saw him had students with him. He was passing out at ds3 not being vaccinated at all initially, but quickly recovered, and said to the students 'of course one must remember that the main benefit of vaccination is to the herd and not to the individual". Which I thought was interesting. In the context in which he was saying it I think he was particulalrly making the point that even with vaccination you can still get the diseases, so you musn't assume that just because a child has been vaccinated they're not presenting with disease x. Although vaccination has decreased the incidence of the diseases overall.

onthefence · 18/04/2007 09:14

gess I read in this book that the payment would not be made untill the child was 2 or untill the child would have been 2 if the child had died.

strange though.

gess · 18/04/2007 09:18

oh- the person on the JABS forum may have misunderstood.

Did it mention the US scheme. That used to be mch better (although I understand Bush has now spannered it). The vaccine manufacturers had to pay in a set amount per jab given. The amount they paid in depended on how "dangerous" the jab was. So for the DTP for example they paid several dollars iirc (could have remembere incorrectly), for the DT without the P they paid a few cents. MMR was 2nd to the DTP (from the normal childhood vaccinations). So the vaccine manfucaturers bore the cost of those damaged by the program. It seemed a good way of doing thing to me.

gess · 18/04/2007 09:25

the UK figures on here are a bit frightening

IN fact that's another reason why I won't vaccinate. I know that if it does go wrong (and I know the chances of that are small, but probably larger for us than many), then we'll be completely on our own. I've been in this game long enough now to know that there is no help out there, that if you suggest a vaccination may have played a role you're classed as a nutter, and that when your child needs extensive help you have to fight for every tiny piece that is available. And often the help that they need simply does not exist.

gess · 18/04/2007 09:26

If I had time I would want to check that first UK statement as I thought the maximum payout was set lower than that (although I know there have been changes)- onthefence - your book will probably have that info.

iris66 · 18/04/2007 09:39

what a brilliant thread so many vaccination threads seem to degenerate into slanging matches abouts the rights & wrongs of vaccinating. It's lovely to see a proper discussion.
DS hasn't been immunised (allergies & fam history of crohns) butI found this site {://www.wddty.com/\What Doctors Don't tell You} really informative.

iris66 · 18/04/2007 09:40

oops... or even What Doctors Don't tell You

1dilemma · 18/04/2007 09:41

Hi electra (sorry went to bed after posting!) thanks for replying I thought for most it would be the combined element putting them off I was wondering whether the change may end up a mixed blessing if people then opt out due to that and ironically they would have been better sticking with the sugar lump!

iris66 · 18/04/2007 09:42

I may get it right eventually - sorry
What Doctors Don't tell You

1dilemma · 18/04/2007 09:42

Hi iris it is sin't it thought I'd made it wobble about 10 am yesterday but it recovered!!

KerryMum · 18/04/2007 09:45

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.