What were your reasons for not vaccinating your child?

[Londonmamma]

I don't think we've done this for a while and I like to keep up to date on the vaccination issue so - fire away!

(sigh) ... OK Gess/Electra. Just wanted to contribute to the debate from my perspective. I don't have an autistic child, so my opinion is not as valid, and I appreciate your pointing it out to me.

I'll go and find another, less emotive thread.

Well hey, I've currently got the mumps contracted, we think, from an unimmunised child while my immune system was compromised following a stay in hospital. Dh, a virologist so he knows his stuff on this matter, is freaking out at the possible complications for me (encephalitis amongst others) and the possibliities for him should he catch it from me (swollen testicles and infertilitity...nice). He reckons he's only seen mumps two or three times in his career, a result of MMR. The problem is that with people stopping immunising their children, vulnerable people like me are no longer protected by herd immunity.

The sluglet HAS had the MMR.

Er, that's not what I meant to suggest at all. But the thing about link between age MMR is given at and age autism is noticable is something that was put out by the government and which a lot of people now say and it is as far as I'm concerned not correct. At 13 months you probably would not know your child had autism even if severe which was my point. However, you would know that something had caused it if one day your child was pointing and talking and the next they had lost all communication and seemed to be in pain.

I had measles, german measles, chicken pox, mumps ... the lot. So did my brothers and sisters. So did all my school friends. No-one was scared of measles or any of these illnesses in the past.

If you're well nourished with a decent immune system, these diseases pose a really tiny risk of serious complications.

If you're ill and immuno-comporomised, like the teenager who died from measles a couple of years back (chest condition, on v strong immuno suppressants) it's a different story. This is still NOT a good argument to expose an entire society to a risky jab in the name of herd immunity. Esepcially as in the recent outbreaks of measles (during which no-one suffered serious complications, funnily enough!!) the people getting measles had had their jabs and often their boosters too.

I agree with Cazee that soon we'll be subjected to propaganda about what a nasty killer disease chicken pox is and how anyone who doesn't jab for the sake of the herd is either evil or loony.

I don't believe mass vaccination has led to the eradication of these diseases. The statistics show they were running their natural course, as most diseases do, and had begun steep delcines BEFORE the vaccinations were introduced.

Immunisation is a sacred cow but I'm glad to see, judging by this thread, more and more people are questioning it.

dinosaur - I agree but isn't it the case that MMR triggered regression is more noticable and immediate? My dd lost skills but it was not in a spectacular overnight way.

Well currently I'm extremely pissed off at whoever did not immunise their child then let them out near me.

Dh says some of the complications from measles are truly devastating and don't exhibit till 10 or more years later. Just because you did not get any complications from your illnesses does not mean that your child won't either.

slug - cases of diseases do occur even in communities where the jab uptake is high.

I do hope you don't suffer any complications. The MMR schedule doesn't really help the problem you and other adults who get the diseases have though because there is no booster for young adults. So the jab is wearing off when people reach an age where the disease is more likely to cause complications.

Your immunistaion does not wear off. There is no need for a booster for young adults. Children get the disease once and then are immune. All immunisations are doing is mimicking this process without the need to get the symptoms as well.

I live in a middle class area where MMR uptake is not very high. We've had to notify the school as about a third of the sluglet's classmates are not immunised and are therefore vulnerable.

It does wear off, absolutely it does (though nobody really knows how long they last exactly and it's probably variable from one person to the next). I thought it was well known that getting the disease naturally conveys better long-term immunity?

When I had dd2 & having blood tests the doctor told me that many women who were immune to rubella during their first pregnancies were found not to be for subsequent pregnancies because they had had rubella vaccinations and the effects had worn off.

Why start another thread like this? it's obvious this was going to kick off!!

"I don't believe mass vaccination has led to the eradication of these diseases. The statistics show they were running their natural course, as most diseases do, and had begun steep delcines BEFORE the vaccinations were introduced."

Spidermama i really don't think this counts for every disease especially meningitis.

Slug, I think it's generally accepted that antibody production, which I believe is the usual 'test' to measure immunity, does wear off.

Scarlet fever was a huge killer of Victorian children in the uk, it's not now, and I don't think there's ever been a vaccine for it. Diseases do have cycles. No, I don't know which ones that's the case for, but it might mean it's not as simple as saying, 'it used to be prevalent, now it's not, must therefore be because of vaccination'

Generally accepted by whom? None of the guys I know with phd's in virology (and I know quite a few, its an occupational hazard of being married to one)mentioned that one when they found out I had mumps. Mostly they laughed or got really excited at the prospect of seeing a real live case since its pretty rare now, except in areas where immunisation levels are low.

It's possible to have a sub-clinical dose of a disease e.g. rubella, and still be immune 30 years later.

My DD is 7 months, and I live in Japan, and have been agonising over her vaccinations.
Firstly, they`re different here, in a different order, and different priorities.
I understand that its probably because its a different country, but I wonder how much it could be to do with different drugs companies having different powers here.
BCG at 6 months (had that)
DPT (Diptheris, Pertissus, Thyphoid) 1 (had)
DPT 2 (had)
DPT 3
Boosters
Polio before 18 months
Measles/Rubella
Japanese Encephilitis

I think by reading this thread, Ive been convinced to go for all the vaccines, but make sure that I leave a good gap (of about a year or so) between the measles one and other ones. Also, to make sure that DD doesnt have a cold when I take her.
I didnt know that a child could catch a disease from another child who has been immunised, because the disease is in the saliva or elsewhere. Considering this, there is quite a risk of my DD catching the diseases, really, if shes not immunised.
But could you tell me at what age the kids have the vaccine in the UK? Because it sounds like the later you leave it, the less the risk of "vaccine damage" but then, the baby could actually catch the disease itself if not immunised

Your baby is probably fine at the moment, they retain the maternal antibodies for some time after birth. The issue of the disease in the saliva is only relevant if the child has been given a live vaccine e.g. polio rather than a dead one e.g. measles, mumps rubella, and even then only for about a week or two after immunisation.

Sakura - in the UK the baby jabs are now given at 2,3 and 4 months. 20 years ago it was much later. I've said this before but I could not find a clinical reason for why babies are now given the injections so young, except that because women often go back to work after having a baby there is a supposed to need to vaccinate before the mother goes back to work.

MMR is given at 13 months but a lot of people I know have waited.

Then there are pre-school boosters at 4ish.

Slug, I meant after vaccination, and although that's what I'd heard I'm not an expert. Do they stay at the same levels after vaccs or contracting the disease in just the same way? And does antibody production necessarily = immunity? I don't think I'd vacc my autistic son but I have been looking into it again for my other dcs now they're older, and I'm as daunted as ever by all the conflicting info out there

In answer to the OP, the reason I am not vaccinating my second child is because my eldest is vaccine damaged.

Vaccine damage is not limited to autism, and research suggests that vaccines can affect the immune system and health in a myriad of ways, most of which are completely unresearched and we (and the NHS and WHO and the vaccine manufacturers) know nothing about yet. There are studies that are looking at a link between vaccination and the huge increase in the incidence of autoimmune disease in the west (asthma, excema, multiple allergies, MS, CFS, ME to mention just a few).

I think the issue of the long term effects of vaccination on a population is so complex and as yet so little researched that it is impossible to calculate the risk V benefit.

For this and other (financial, conflict of interest) reasons I think one should be cautious with the social responsibility argument when children are at risk even if you do believe in the concept of herd immunity.

well in the states they certainly think that MMR wears off as they give a teenage booster. Naturally aquired immunity tends to be longer lasting, but it isn't impossible for it to wear off (hence children do get chickenpox twice for example). This is the first time that people won;t have been repeatedly exposed to things like mumps/measles, there won;t be many out there with naturally aquired immunity so it reamains to be seen how often in practice it isn't lifelong without repeated exposures to those incubating the disease.

Beachcomber- agree entirely. If you CAT me I can send you an interesting article- from Gut journal. It's not about vaccination but it talks about things like MS and type 1 diabetes- (both in dh's family); they're not daft enough to mention autism, and gives a model that is pretty much identical to the one we came up with for ds1.

Thank you gess, I will do that. I have developed an interest in all things related to vaccination. Have to go now to attend to daughter who has just woken up but will CAT you later.

"If you're well nourished with a decent immune system, these diseases pose a really tiny risk of serious complications. "

just don't think there is any evidence for this

and even if there is-so WHAT? lots and lots of kids AREN'T in this sitaution

I do think there are kids who shouldn't have the vaccine, incl those with siblings who have ha serious reactions (I don't mean a mild fever, thats normal, thats the body reacting to the vaccine and building up antibodies). It is for the sake of those kids that its SO important that the rest of us vaccinate our kids.

The "booster immunity" thing. Tbh-I would love to see someone actually link to a paper on this

GESS-thanks, that was a very clear explaination. I do think thats a valid point, and i have heard of an autism / leaky gut connection in the past.

Wakefield's data WAS flawed (can't remember how-wasn't there serious experimenter bias?) ALSO he did have a patent on one of the single jabs, hence vested interest. How does that work (genuine q)

DINOSAUR-reading scientific papers is mainly common sense IMO. Yes there are things you won't understand if its not your field, but personally, I like to get my info as first hand as possible. There are so many different interests, many financial, at play here.

Fillyjonk - there are boosters for most things. You are supposed to have tetanus every 10 years, for example. It's just for some reasons the boosters aren't offered at a time when they are really needed.