Worried about vaccinations - anyone else feel the same?

[ladymac]

DD is 15 weeks today. When we went for 1st jabs a few weeks ago, GP wouldn't give them because she had a cold. Since then I haven't gone back as she'd either been snuffly or we were away (jabs only done on mon afternoons).

We are going to Spain for a week on saturday and today is a jabs opportunity. Trouble is I've got really nervous about her having them. Worried about possible reactions and also if it could make her poorly for our hols.

At the same time I don't want her to get any nasty diseases.

I feel my views are somewhere in the middle of my HV and her evangelical jabs spiel, and the anti jabs brigade on the other side.

Any help/views/reassurance would be great.

I think iiirc taylors paper did divide into AS vs classical autism (although haven't read for ages so may have that wrong), but that's not the 'correct' subgroup divisions anyway, never mind that recording is so sketchy. To do it accurately you'd have to do it accordsing to physiological symptoms but unless the parents pay to get that done they're not recorded.

i too am somewhere in the middle: call me paranoid but i don't trust what i hear from medical professionals (the jabbing brigade) OR hippies (the vehmently anti-jabbers!)
i dont have an ideological standpoint, i just, selfishmother that i am, want the best thing for my son. BUT i do agree that bypassing the natural defense system with several vaccinations at once, is probably problematic. and how do they build up a good immune system for when something new and vile comes along? (as it always does.)

i couldn't decide what to do.i think there are no clear cut answers. PROBABLY and STATISTICALLY nothing bad will happen if you vaccinate. PROBABLY and STATISTICALLY nothing bad will happen if you don't! we decided we didn't have to follow the time schedule of the health professionals, but our own. so we thought the default option is leaving it until it becomes sensible to vaccinate.

my decision has mostly been based my baby is currently 9 mths old and he has had meningitis vaccinations but not the others. we didn't do the 5 in 1 when he was 12 weeks, cos what was the point of giving tetanus to a 3 month old baby? he was hardly likely to cut himself without me noticiing and tetanus can always be given retrospectively. (as i explained to the furious nurse who was doing the meningtitis vaccination!) we are going to give him tetenus NOW cos hes a filthy mobile baby so it makes sense.

MMR i feel ambiguous about anyway, not cos of the autism research, but because of the facts about measles, mumps and rubella. these are diseases which are RARELY dangerous and problematic. i would imagine the stronger your immune system the better equiped your child is to deal with these diseases. so should we stop our babies getting them? i know that with these diseases they CAN have terrible consequences, but this is really unlikely.

basically its a gamble, but its a gamble either way. now the government are suggesting flu jabs for the under 2s, and i just think there are more and more of these decisions to make, and more and more pressure and there is no safe option. but the world isn't safe, and we constantly have to make risky decisions for our loved ones. not that it makes it any easier to decide!

in short, we haven't opted out of vaccinations, we've just not made a decision yet. somehow that sits easier with me, and gets less grief from the medical establishment.

best ofluck whatever you decide.

This is a very interesting thread. Very informative - thank you gess, pagwatch and jimjams

Maebee I think I am in the same place as you re vax

two other thoughts:

what will happen to the next generation if their mothers and fathers are all vaccinated and havent experienced those diseases? cos isn't immunity passed on? when diseases arrive fresh in places (eg when the europeans arrived in america) doesn't it wipe out whole populations (eg most of the american indians?)
so if even breastfeeding mothers aren't passing down those immunities, than whats the future story?
i might well be wrong about this, but if not, then surely the more conscientious thing long term, for herd immunity, is to not vaccinate?

my other thought was about developing countries. no offence, but it riles me when people compare, as if that was an adequate and scientific control sample! cos you have to bear in mind nutrition and sanitation too. you can't compare the health of a poor population with that of an affluent one without bearing all the other factors in mind! so whilst one population is, sadly, dying from certain diseases, it doesn't mean those diseases are going to be as virulent and powerful with a completely different population. when people start using the line about children dying in developing countries so its irresponsible not to vaccinate here, it makes me think the arguements for vaccination are probably weak.
(bit of a tangent, but malaria is one of the biggest global killers. and its tourists using malaria tablets to protect themselves and their children that has strengthened the strain of malaria, thus bypassing the natural immunities of native populations. us protecting ourselves and our children kills off others.medicine has a price)

excellent points raised.

Maebee, I'd have thought the conscientious thing would be to keep vaccinating.

Maebee- I've mentioned this on another thread but in 2002 my friend rang a radio 4 phone in and talked to a dept of health bod, and said basically 'but if you vaccinate against childhood illnesses then surely you'll have to intriduce lifelong boosters' and the dept of health bod agreed.

Must admit that infants being born without passive measles protection is something I find faintly terrifying. And I do think the absolute numbers of young babies catching measles needs to be kepot a very very close eye on. It is impossible to google meaningfully as studies quite %'s (% of infants is catching measles is much higher now), when in fact its absolute numbers that's important, not %'s. I do think there should be an MMR booster for teens. There is in the US.

Your views and way of thinking are very similar to mine btw, we just happen to know that ds2 and ds3 are more at risk than Joe public so it changes decisions a little iyswim.

gess - sorry if you've been through this and i havent noticed it when skim reading all the posts. what have you decided to do re: vaccinations with your ds2 and 3?

i think the most important thing we can do, whether we get our babies vaccinated or not, is to try and help their immune systems as much as possible anyway. this is no guarantee of anything of course.
but i guess ways to do that are:
dont keep too clean a house! (i like this one!)
dont keep too clean a baby.
breastfeed for a year if possible.
let your kid play with other kids with colds etc.
give them nutritious, pref organic (if thats not going to open another can of worms) food.
let them play in different environments, not just sterile ones.

What are you saying;let all the little ones get measles so their offspring can benefit from passive immunity for the first few months of life, and then get it later? With a death rate even in developed countries of 1 in 1000 cases, never mind other lasting complications, this blows MMR complication rates out of the water.
Measles included, the only way to eliminate these diseases is through widespread vaccination. Hopefully through research and experience all vaccines will become safer and safer (and cheaper), so that everyone's kids can benefit.

spockster - obviously this is a very emotive subject for you. im just questioning, im not saying people shouldn't get their kids vaccinated. so, a question for you, with passive immunity, would you advise getting babies vaccinated after breastfeeding is finished? or sticking to the schedule provided?

oh, and i read, but im totally up for being told im wrong if i am, that a 14yr old boy died of measles recently: the first death in many years in the UK. and he had a compromised immune system anyway. your statistics seem to be very different?

Not really, I am just struggling to understand the logic. It takes a while for immunity to develop, and in some cases it doesn't develop adequately, hence the need for a second MMR pre-school. So there really is no argument for delaying any immunisation beyond the time that of usual schedules.
I am all for allowing kids to play with dirt, but it isn't going to give them protection against measles, mumps, rubella, diptheria, hepatitis, etc etc as these are mostly caught by being near an infected person.
I am passionate about immunisation, to be sure, and it is upsetting to hear these devastating diseases being trivialised as even in our privileged society more children are harmed by infectious dseses than by any vaccine. I would hate to think that anyone might be put off vaccination by some of the misinformation that is circulated (I am not referring to Mumsnetters here!)and end up with children at risk, and herd immunity being compromised, because of it. It is so easy to "opt out" or delay thinking you may be doing he right thing for your kids, but IMO it very rarely is!
I have said enough now (probably did about 3 metres ago!) and I must do some work now before I get the sack! Cheers to everyone, immune or not, for a lively discussion!

Spockster - my post was probably a bit misleading the only reason DS is having MMR at 20 months is that we weren't in the country when he was due and its taken some time to get him into the system (first HV visit at 18 months!). I have some time off in August so I can take him myself.

I had assumed that having the MMR later would mean no booster required pre shcool (wrongly it seems) but the timing was necessity/practicality and wouldn't have changed in any event.

Having started this thread I've been fascinated to read all the thought provoking and intelligent comments that have been posted.

MaeBee, a 2 yr old boy at dd1's nursery died from measles complications in 1986 (pre MMR). He was completely healthy before and it was a very middle class montesorri nursery. Dd1 contracted measles when she was 3. It was the most ill she has ever been, with an extremely high temp for days.

Dd3 will definitely be immunised against measles at recommended time. I did think of waiting to give rubella jab but then we're back to herd immunity again - during pregnancy with dd2 I was found to be no longer immune to rubella so if I'd come into contact with a child with German measles.......

Gess - or anyone. If the problem if felt to be with the measles jab specifically (generic anti-vaccination arguments aside) why are people happily giving single jabs including measles?

"more children are harmed by infectious dseses than by any vaccine"

Spockster - where is your evidence to support that claim?

Adverse reactions to vaccines are under reported, due to how difficult it is to be taken seriously if your child has one. Furthermore, it is very difficult to get compensated in this country if your child suffers vaccine damage.

most of africa, india, south america and pre 1960' northern europe

Sorry, but I don't understand the herd immunity argument wrt rubella. I had rubella as a baby and tested positive for immunity when pregnant. My sisters all had jabs and none had the immunity.

Surely the number of immune women would be much higher if no vaccination was given during childhood (so children have more of a chance to catch the diseased and get lifelong immunity) and having vaccinations at puberty (when preg becomes a possibility). Possibly even test a few years later to ensure immunity has been acquired?

Why doesn't this make sense? (genuine question)

Gess, would you mind telling me a bit more about the process you went through to asess your dss' vulnerability? I am very concerned about ds as he has had big probs with his gut (is dairy intolerant and I've been told by the ped gastroenterologist to stay off gluten for a while).

Also do you know if there are any known effects from the baby vaccinations (am planning to give dt and IPV but leave out pertussis) - any research you could point me to would be great.

Thank you all for an intelligent and non-militant discussion, I have often felt very alone in being neither for nor against vaccinations, it's nice to know that there are others who, while accepting that immunisation as a concept can be beneficial don't necessarily want to buy into a program designed mainly for ease of administration.

-[=][- (that's ds saying thanks too)

Ib, I agree with you about the non militant discussion. Especially after checking out the drinking whilst pregnant thread, which is quite scary!

I also had German measles during chilhood, then had the jab at school in my teens, which was how it was done in then (am now 43). Quite how I lost my immunity I'm not sure. You'd have thought after my rubella double bubble I would have been super immune.

You may have read one of my early posts in this thread about dd2 with whooping cough (we didn't jab). It was truly horrible. On the other hand, a GP friend of mine didn't give dd the 3rd jab in the series after bad reactions to the first 2. Although this was in the eighties when there was a lot of concern re the pertussis jab.

What I want to know is would like to know is how compromised dd3's immunity to these diseases would be if we were to miss, for example, the 3rd jab in the series. I assume resistance builds up with each jab. But why 3 lots? Can anyone explain it to me?

Ladymac, my understanding is that a certain % of children react to the first dose, some more to the second etc. The number of doses recommended is the one where the required % is expected to be achieved. I don't think it's incremental for one individual (please someone correct me if wrong)

Did you have your rubella result double checked? I ask because I first got a negative and when I told my mw that I'd had the disease she made me redo it in a different lab and I got +ve. Apparently they grt false negs quite often.

I mean get. Sorry about typos, typing with one finger as ds sleeping on me.

I've seen several cases of whooping cough, as there were regular epidemics where I was brought up (despite everyone being vaxed by law). I agree it's nasty, but given that ds is already past the really high risk age plus other risk factors we've decided on balance to avoid that one.

i too think its good to see a healthy discussion that hasnt resorted to mudslinging!

my partners mother has crohns disease, which, i think, increases my baby's chances of getting it to about 1 in 50. so im worried about the suggested, but not proved or disproved, link between MMR and crohns disease (its a bowel disease, and pretty horrible)