Separating 3month old Vaccine

[BrookeCowan]

Has anyone had their child's vaccines separated recently? They've changed the vaccines now so babies are having 5-in-1 which is too much for their little bodies. After being persuaded, my son had his first vaccine and was hospitalised shortly after. I want the rest of his vaccines to be given separately, however the NHS won't give me any advice on how and where to get them done.

@KochabRising what about the million of scientists who are against the vaccines

There ARENT millions of scientists against vaccines ffs. That’s a myth. There’s no debate in mainstream science AT ALL over whether vaccines are good or bad. 🤦🏻‍♀️

There are a few people who oppose, there are some fringe loonies. And there are people like Andrew Wakefield who conducted painful and illegal experiementa on children to push an antivax agenda for his own financial gain.

@Sidge like I said I'm not against vaccines. I just do not agree with them being given in such large amounts. I have spoken with many wise and qualified people, and even though they are for the vaccines they have told me there is no solid research and it's only being done now. If one of the risks is swelling to the brain from having them all together then why shouldn't we inform ourselves from both sides? And right now the side against having them together has been a higher concern for me from who I've spoken to and what research I've done. If that's misguiding people then surely these qualifies processionals and all those scientists who are against vaccines shouldn't be allowed a voice?

MenB, Pneumococcal, 6 in 1 and and Rota virus all given at 8 weeks. So perfectly possible that '8' vaccines given at one visit.

OP: Mumsnet is not a friendly place for those who question vaccines safety or those who have vaccine injured children. PM me if you want to find other places to talk this through.

@KochabRising you clearly need to do your research.

What millions of scientist that against vaccine? Who are they? Are you going to name names or just make vague insinuations.
Where did you get your information that vaccines were done seperatly before 2017?

they have told me there is no solid research and it's only being done now.

Then they are wrong.

Research has been done for decades - vaccines have been given together for years! There is no evidence that multiple vaccination causes ‘brain swelling’ (what even is that? Do you mean hydrocephalus? Encephalitis?)

There aren’t millions of scientists against vaccines. And PMSL at you telling Kochab to do her research - she’s a research scientist!! I would suggest given the amount of inaccuracies in your posts (eg you don’t even seem to know what vaccines are given and when, and what used to be given) you need to do some research - proper research, not doolally websites that validate your bias.

You may feel that you are only ‘voicing your opinion’ but then you say your opinion is actually based on evidence... well anecdotal evidence is not evidence and a few people’s opinions is not evidence- not when based against overwhelming evidence FOR vaccinations and for our particular vaccination schedule.

Either way, spouting your uninformed decisions just adds to the ridiculous anti vax argument and so your so called ‘evidence’ that you are writing about is not just about your opinion, it will also influence others’ and cause further parents to put their child at risk by going against vaccination schedule.

That’s why people react so badly to these threads.

And just to let you know that I’m a qualified medical doctor, before you bother telling me to go and do my research. I already have.

Who are these wise and qualified people you are speaking to my I ask? I've worked in research in the NHS and been an NHS clinician for nearly 10 years now, I'm now a new mum who has just taken my child for their 4 month vaccinations. These vaccines have absolutely been trialled before release to general public and the research to date does not support them being "too much". Please feel free to cite me a current paper from a peer reviewed journal that says otherwise and I'll happily consider it.

Please don't get me wrong, as a mum of course I understand the emotional side to your reluctance for multiple vaccinations OP but this simply isn't supported by science or research to date. As a previous poster pointed out, the main culprit for spreading this myth in the UK (Andrew Wakefield, who also made shocking false claims about a link between vaccination and autism) is banned from practising in the UK due to his dangerous and false claims. The vaccines are safe OP, relying on anecdotal incidences where people's children have had a reaction afterwards is not proof of anything I'm afraid as unfortunate as those incidences are there's no way of 'proving' that the vaccinations were responsible. It's important not to assume a correlation of causation in these cases.

@KochabRising you clearly need to do your research.

I’m not entirely sure what else I could do other than the four degrees, PHD, postdoc and career in it. I rather thought that'd be sufficient. Silly me. Clearly I should be asking mr mercola

Well if you won’t listen to me.,. Please listen to sidge - an actual front line nurse who has given countless thousands of injection to kids over the course of her career so far and not had any anaphylaxis.

I understand that the world can be a scary place and that things we don’t understand like diesease are hard to deal with. I understand the need to have a single ‘bogeyman’ to fight, because it’s scary to say ‘the cause of autism is complex, it’s probably multiple genes, it’s going to take us decades to figure it out and we can’t protect your kids in the meantime.’ I understand that many people cannot deal with complexity. And that it’s nice to feel like you’re special and the only person who sees the big conspiracy.

But vaccines have saved millions of lives, they’re safe, effective and regulated.

There are plenty of echo chambers on the web you can go and have your ego stroked and be told that you’re a special person who understands that big nasty science is against you. Mumsnet generally has a healthy dose of skepticism and a general disdain for those who endanger their kids lives and that of the whole population.

It just makes sense to phase inoculations of any sort to give the tiny body time to adjust

'Too much for their little bodies'.

You would be surprised with what little bodies could handle. On day two of being alive, my DS handled 9 hours of surgery and all the associated drugs that go with that. He has needed other procedures since with antibiotics, painkillers etc. Often a common cold will see him hospitalised for a week. Guess what - he had all of his injections on time, even the combined ones. We took advice from surgeons and paediatricians as he had been so poorly. I have no idea what 'professionals' you have been speaking to.

I shouldn't have clicked on this thread as I can not stand ignorance like this. Having had a critically ill baby I have no patience at all for people who put their baby's life at risk due to ill informed opinions. And then don't listen to sensible responses. Having a seriously ill baby is awful OP - please do not take chances with your baby like this.

It just makes sense to phase inoculations of any sort to give the tiny body time to adjust

No that’s something that kinda feels like it should be so but actually isn’t. The body copes fine and it’s actually better to have some together than closely spaced apart. We are exposed to stuff daily. It really is OK to give multivalent jabs. 👍

The timing of jabs is not accidental. It’s based on evidence - you can’t leave things too long in populations where these diseases circulate.

So for example in some countries where compliance is higher than the uk, MMR is given at 18m but in the UK it’s at 12. You actually get a stronger response at 18m on average.... BUT... in the UK the chances of being exposed before 18m are really high so on balance, children are better protected by a first jab at 12m.

It just makes sense to phase inoculations of any sort to give the tiny body time to adjust
Adjust to what exactly?

Op I’m a bit confused about what your child actually received. Assuming this was recently, their first vaccine set according to the schedule would be three injections for the 6-in-1, PCV, and MenB jags, plus maybe oral rotavirus. How many injections did your baby receive? I agree with others that you should proceed with caution in case your baby has a particular sensitivity.

I think people talk at cross purposes a lot when discussing separating out vaccines, with some talking about splitting the components of multivalent vaccines and others (most I think) talking about doing the injections one at a time. Considering a single multivalent jag like the 6-in-1 I have no issues with multiple antigens (the bits of individual organisms), as these are not likely to overstimulate the immune system. I wish they could put all the antigens for all the diseases in the schedule in one jag to get it over with, provided that was still one dose of adjuvant. The adjuvant is the ingredient that stimulates the immune system, usually aluminium, and each jag has it in because it wouldn’t work otherwise. This is why spreading out the injections generally leads to less severe side effects. There are maximum advisable limits for aluminium set out by the FDA, as this is a toxin, and you’ll see from another thread on spreading out vaccines that the current U.K. schedule actually exceeds these levels. In that sense, the multiple injections could be viewed as too much for their bodies, but this is an argument for spacing injections (and thus adjuvant doses) rather than avoiding multivalent vaccines. Note, I am definitely not advocating avoiding vaccines altogether as the reduction in severe disease is universally accepted by the scientific community.

The 5 in 1 and the 6 in 1 have been around for quite some time, so it’s difficult to say that the current cohort were a test population. The only jag in the first set that could fit this description is the MenB, as this is new and under active surveillance, and it’s safety and effectiveness are being actively studied (clinical trials are usually relatively small in scope and so post marketing surveillance is critical to get a full picture). This data was recently pulled together for Lancet Infectious Diseases (link below) and showed a serious adverse reaction rate of 5.4/1000 (almost 5 times higher than other vaccines in the schedule) and good immunity (defined as >75%) to only 2/4 antigens 6 months after the booster dose (so poor effectiveness compared to other vaccines).

www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/laninf/PIIS1473-3099(18)30048-3.pdf

There are maximum advisable limits for aluminium set out by the FDA,

The maxium advisable levels set by the FDA are for intravenous drips , not vaccines, this is because it is likely to be long term exposure not the odd exposure every few months.

bruffin as you’ll see from the link below, the levels I’m talking about are for vaccines. These are set at 850 micro grams up to 1250 micro grams in exceptional circumstances. The U.K. schedule at 8 and 16 weeks contains over 1400 micro grams of aluminium from adjuvants. I believe the maximum level set by the FDA for intravenous administration is considerably lower than this, reflecting the different methods of administration.

www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRSearch.cfm?fr=610.15

But the problems with aluminim tends to be over long term exposure building up in the kidneys, and limits tend to be weekly rather than daily.

oxford vaccine project alluminium

Jesus, not another fact free anti-vax idiot thread. I don’t know why all of you are bothering rebutting OP’s incoherent confused ramblings about the evils of vaccination.

No amount of peer-reviewed evidence you post is going to change her mind. Or any other fool who decides to expose their child to measles or pertussis, for that matter.

bruffin I can’t see the full methodologies of the linked papers just now as they’re behind pay walls, but it looks as though they are basing the assumption that the current schedule is fine on modelling done in 2011. In 2011 at 8 weeks only 0.625 mg of aluminium was given (5 in 1 and PCV), compared with 1.447 mg now. Even looking at the modelling paper graph thumbnails (all I can see!) it appears that the predicted aluminium level spiked above the defined ‘safe’ line around the time of vaccination for the youngest babies. Without seeing the full paper it’s hard to understand the reasoning, but surely some more up to date modelling is required before rolling these things out into the schedule. I don’t remember this ever being discussed in the JCVI minutes though, so I have an awful suspicion that no one considered this in detail (would love to be corrected if someone can provide modelling/data showing that almost 1.5 mg of aluminium is safe to give to all infants at 8 weeks).

I think with the numbers of people refusing to vaccinate kids increasing, there should be the, paid for, option of having them singularly / in smaller combinations. That way more people would agree to kids being vaccinated and herd immunity would stay higher for those that really cannot safely vaccinate / have lowered immunity. It's all very well there being endless arguments about safety or otherwise of multi vaccines, but some people will never agree, and at least that way more people will do it and herd immunity be less compromised

@Jeanvaljean27 idiots? So being concerned about what your allowing people to put in your child leads people to be idiots. Oh please, Your input is pointless.

Youcannotbeserious
everything i have ever read on the subject basically said that aluminium was long term exposure for especially people with kidney damage or industrial exposure in large amounts.

adara

There are several reasons to not do this:

1. When you increase the number of jabs you drastically decrease compliance, so kids aren’t covered. People just don’t do the whole course
2. It’s expensive
3. It means multiple clinic visits and multiple jabs for babies who can get fearful of needles.
4. It’s very expensive - all those extra jabs and visits cost time and money