Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

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

Plan for new vaccine for babies ...

132 replies

MrsBigD · 05/01/2005 21:37

Aren't our poor little mites 'stabbed' enough?! DS wasn't impressed with the new 5-in-1 in one leg and the MengC in the other as it was. So now they want to add something else into the 5-i-1 coctail?!

I'm all for keeping our lo's happy and healthy, but ...

"... She said: "We always take parents' fears and worries into account, but whatever decision is made will be based on protecting children as best as we possibly can."

Yeah right!

Gotta love this excerpt...

"I really do worry that if we can't introduce these sort of vaccines we are going to see a return to diseases that we thought we had broadly seen the last of in this country."

Well in the case of MMR... imho if they'd make the single vaccines more readily available (be it for a cost or not) then that wouldn't be a problem would it now!

I am lucky enough to have a clinic nearby that does singles for the MMR and I don't mind paying the £80-90 per shot either. DD did react badly to her first imms (2nd lot at 3 months) so they actually didn't give her the 3rd whooping cough injection for fear she might react again.

Hmmm, re-reading the above ya might get the impression I'm a bit biased against this subject couldn't you

OP posts:
Tinker · 05/01/2005 21:38

Saw this at work today and can't believe it's taken this long for there to be thread about it

zebra · 05/01/2005 21:39

I'm very pro-choice on how/whether people vacc their kids, but personally....
I'd have the new jab today, if I could. My dad (& his twin) nearly died from meningitis, is deaf in one ear from it.

Original poster
MrsBigD · 05/01/2005 21:39

ooops forgot the link!

new vacinne for babies

OP posts:
zebra · 05/01/2005 21:39

Probably is one, somewhere, Tinker, we're just stoking up the fires again!

Original poster
MrsBigD · 05/01/2005 21:40

zebra - I see your point, but couldn't they wait till the little mites are a wee bid older?!

OP posts:
Original poster
MrsBigD · 05/01/2005 21:43

had a look and did a quick search on 'new vaccine' but couldn't find a thread hence started one not that I want to stoke the fire too much to borrow zebra's words

OP posts:
zebra · 05/01/2005 21:44

Yeah, maybe. This kicks off the whole debate... I think meningitis is mostly an ickle baby (under 6 months) disease.
Supposedly, the immune system is best primed to make a lot of antibodies to many different disease when we're so very young, think of all the bacteria the new baby encounters, colds to catch, etc. That's why very young is supposed to be better than older, in fact, for getting jabs.
"Supposed to be...", I'd better duck out before this does get heated!

Original poster
MrsBigD · 05/01/2005 21:50

don't worry zebra no need to duck. I bark but accept other people's barking too

well one doesn't really now anything ever for sure...

scientific discoveries change constantly... ages ago the world was flat... recently they discovered that what we learned about dinosaures 20-30 years ago is all wrong... eggs used to be bad for cholesterol but now they're not supposed to be...

OP posts:
Uwila · 05/01/2005 22:10

This article appears to be written just to get a rise out of me.

"We now know that was a nonsense story. Not only is MMR an effective and safe vaccine, but the controversy around it was fabricated on the basis of not just wrong science, but bad science."

What? Does he really think I have no basis on which to opt for single jabs. Does anyone else find this statement a tad bit insulting?

If they add all of these things into the new 5 in 1 jab, I think they will:
1- find a lot fewer babies getting this jab.
and
2- create a sure of demand for single jabs in private clinics (beyond the mmr ones)

I am now 19 weeks pregnant. When the baby is born, I think I will go ahead with the 5-in-1, though I may delay it a bit (a month or two). But, if they add all of these to the same jab, I think it would be too much and they'd find I'm not showing up for it at all. I doubt that I am alone in this thinking.

Socci · 05/01/2005 22:27

Message withdrawn

jollymum · 05/01/2005 22:31

OK-I had my first 2 jabbed. My little girl {no 3} wasn't getting anything contreversial, being my little girly and people were quiblling about jabs. My fourth, (little boy) had nothing because I had friend who were doctors and told me they were having single vaccines for their twins. I asked how morally they could "advise" parents' to have the normal jabs and guess what? They said that the practice had to "do" so many jabs otherwise the govt, would stop their funding etc etc..they are good people and in their opinion, single jabs were better so they "left" a leaflet at Reception for the questioning patients. They have now worried themselves sick about all the trouble caused by the "Midlands" single vaccine. I'm not having my 6 year old have his pre-school booster, I don't know why, maybe it's because I work with SN kids and have at least two contacts who had NT kids before jab. This is my opinion, and believe me, I have agonised abut measles, blindness etc..but it's my opinion. Everyone is welcome to their own opinion and if anyone is put off by me, forget it. Read all the facts and make yur own decision. I may be totally wrong and I pray to God, I'm not. Whatever hppened to all those chickenpox/measles parties{smile]

bottle · 05/01/2005 22:38

it is such a minefield, i dithered with ds sometimes i was pro jab and sometimes against but in the end i went for the mmr again as with you jollymum it was doctor friends who tipped me over - they went for jabs with their children and said that all the doctors they knew had gone for jabs with their kids.... but maybe they don't know many doctors - if they had been into sitting under pyramids would prob have done that as tbh did not have the time to read all the research papers etc.. and just did my best, in the event ds has been fine

Gwenick · 05/01/2005 22:46

Both my kids have had all their jabs - actually DS2 13 months, had his MMR this morning. I read everything I could about it, and have seen the effects for myself of NOT having injections available to all and their no way I'd put them at risk. I didn't feel comfortable with single injections, even if they had been available.

If this vaccine is introduced in the future, I don't care what age they decide to give it to babies, if i have another child I'd let them have it. I think some people just don't realise how lucky we are to have vaccines for so many horrible diseases

MistressMary · 05/01/2005 22:47

This is getting ridiculous.
Babies are dartboards these days then?
But do they get bullseye or are they actually way off target?

Answers in a few generations time, maybe?
all a bit too dangerous to be playing with very young bodies surely?

Gwenick · 05/01/2005 22:49

mistressmary - I'd rather have all these vaccinations avaialbe than have a high infant mortality rate as we used to with children dying of childhood diseases

MistressMary · 05/01/2005 22:53

Fair play to you.
Just get a tad concerned with the fallout in years to come and also
new strains and different mutations of these diseases to contend with?
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Original poster
MrsBigD · 05/01/2005 22:54

my worry is that how do we know that a vaccine is safe without long term studies. O.k. so they might test it on chimps or the like, and I know they're close relatives genetically speaking but there is still a difference iykwim.

DS hat his BCG at birth and the location on his arm still has a sore on it that keeps filling with puss. I was told by the HV that it can take a while to go down ... ds is 4 months old! DD had the BCG as well a couple of weeks after birth 3 years ago and she had nothing like that. Lone behold... I was told that it's a new variant of the vaccine!

I'd definitely rather go for single vaccinations and prooven 'ingredients' but it's up to everybody to decide for themselve

OP posts:
Gwenick · 05/01/2005 23:02

Surely therefore we should already be seeing the 'fallout' after all the first vaccines were used before most of us were born! Infact the likes of Diptheria, BCG, and Tetanus were before even our own parents were born, and in some cases before our grandparents were born (mid 1920's).

Socci · 05/01/2005 23:22

Message withdrawn

Gwenick · 05/01/2005 23:34

True there weren't so many before school age - but more children were sick, or even died of illnesses that we now have vaccines for!!

I've met people who'd give their right arm (literally) to be able to have the vaccines to protect their children like we do. There's ALWAYS been people up in arms about vaccines (Whooping cough for example) but they're usually over a media hype!

lockets · 05/01/2005 23:38

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

Gwenick · 05/01/2005 23:40

but Lockets - it's all very well giving people 'choice' - but if enough people 'choose' not to vaccinate you just have outbreaks of the very disease you're trying to prevent - just look at mumps recently - a huge vaccination programme took place in Cambridge as at least 40 students got infected with it!

Even if I only had girls there's no way I'd think 'oh well mumps only affects boys so I don't need to vaccinate my daughter' - what if she caught it and gave it to a male and he became sterile because of HER!

Socci · 05/01/2005 23:42

Message withdrawn

lockets · 05/01/2005 23:43

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

Gwenick · 05/01/2005 23:46

But Socci - can you HONESTLY say that if you'd seen or heard nothing in the media you would still have the same level of mistrust??? I certainly couldn't say that the medai has 'no' influence on my thoughts and decisions through life, as even if I agree with what they're saying the message is still being played into my head,