Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

General health

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

Flip

1 2 3 4

Original poster

For those who didn't vaccinate their DC

96 replies

Schnullerbacke · 01/02/2009 17:07

I don't really want to discuss what is right or wrong - I just wanted to hear from Mums that chose not to vaccinate their children and whether you have regretted your decision or not. Or perhaps you have only given some of the vaccines - which one's and why?

OP posts:

shithappens · 04/02/2009 10:44

Can I ask a stupid question.
There is the big debate about whether the MMR vaccine cases autism or whether it is coincidental. Why don't they change the age that they give the jab, to a time when kids aren't likely to start displaying symptoms? Is it really that crucial to give the jab when they do?

Original poster

Schnullerbacke · 04/02/2009 11:05

Hi Shithappens - don't know the answer to your question but perhaps they shouldn't just give everyone MMR for example unless they have done a survey on the family history to assess parents / infants health, see if there are any underlying gut problems (since measles seem to be linked to it) and generally test the infant's immune system. But I guess that would be too much hassle.

And this lack of information is precisely what so pisses me off. After much debating I felt I could live with all the other disease risks and perhaps just give my DD the Hib / Men C booster vaccine. Yeah, Health Visitor was all happy about it, no problems at all, blah blah blah until I just did some research myself. The manufacturer itself says on their website that they have no data on how the vaccine works on over 2 year olds (did the HV mention this, erm, NO) and therefore don't recommend using it; and they also have no reliable statistics on how efficient the vaccine is if no previous Hib / meninigitis vaccine has been given. And that makes me so furious. Why then do I bother giving it to her if there may be no benefit at all?

OP posts:

MrsGrahamBell · 04/02/2009 11:21

SH - the reason they give it then is because the HVs are still in touch with the parents who are cowed into doing whatever the HV tells them. Thye don't trust parents to bring children in for multiple vaccinations, easier to treat them like sheep.

shithappens · 04/02/2009 12:03

LOL MrsGB

pagwatch · 04/02/2009 12:09

shithappens
the NHs would say that the vaccine is given at the optimum time to protect all children.

But tbh there may be a discussion debate in the mainstream community about whether the MMR is co-incidental to onset of ASD symptoms but there is reamrkably little in the ASD community.

Most parents are really clear about whether they either a) saw symptoms before this jab b) noticed a failure to develop past normal milestones or c) saw a perfectly NT child regress and loos skills post MMR or other jab.
A few are unclear but most know which group their child fits into and is perfectly comfortable with that.
Only the mainstream press and some numpties believe the 'parents want something to blame' view or the 'parents just didn't notice their child had multiple symptoms' one.

showmeyourpuku · 04/02/2009 12:21

We haven't vaccinated either of our two, and have no intention of doing it. DH's uncle died at 18mo from his vaccinations - they were told it was "a bad batch", this was 50+ years ago, so who knows - they didn't tell us they were doing cervical smears on our newborn babies, why would they tell the truth about that! That's just a little too close for comfort for me.

Also I have an immumity to mumps - which I've never contracted, nor been vaccinated for, and an immunity to Hep B which I had 2 of the 3 jabs for but 4 years apart instead of 3 months so I'm thinking I was immune already.

I know personally 3 people who lost rubella immunity after every baby that they had - they kept redoing the vaccination. Two of them had 5 babies and this was a recurring thing - weird.

showmeyourpuku · 04/02/2009 12:24

Our menz B only has an 80% seroconversion rate, and they just increased from 3 jabs to 4 as they decided it wasn't enough. What parent would disregard meningitis-like symptoms as menigitis with this info. So if everyones actions would be exactly the same (ie lumbar puncture etc) what's the point in the first place?

WhatFreshHellIsThis · 04/02/2009 15:01

"they didn't tell us they were doing cervical smears on our newborn babies, why would they tell the truth about that!" - sorry, what's that about? did I miss something in the thread, or is this a completely different story?

Am intrigued.

showmeyourpuku · 04/02/2009 15:28

Sorry, a really old bit of controversy here in NZ - never proved except by parents as far as I know.

Kind of worse was the whole "you had a positive smear, but we didn't tell you and waited to see what happened" debarcle. Women died and there was a big investigation and it was pretty hideous. Only 20 years ago too... so much for trusting what the doctor tells you

warthog · 04/02/2009 16:56

possibly, stuffitllama.

WhatFreshHellIsThis · 04/02/2009 18:37

Wow, that sounds rather disturbing, showme!

CoteDAzur · 04/02/2009 20:09

"cervical smears on newborn babies"

And how were they supposed to have done this without piercing the said newborn girls' hymens?

lisalisa · 04/02/2009 20:53

That was my reaction cote. That surely would ahve been assault? Iknow what I would have done had I found out after leaving hopstial that someone had pushed a speculum up my baby daughter's vagina and it would not be to ask fo rthe results.

WhatFreshHellIsThis · 04/02/2009 20:58

oh I assumed it was smears on the newborn as in testing the mother's cervix using the mucus on the baby, no? surely not actually trying to do cervical smears on newborn girls?

WhatFreshHellIsThis · 04/02/2009 20:59

found some info on it here

cartwright inquiry

believer07 · 04/02/2009 21:05

That is SICK

lenny101 · 04/02/2009 21:18

Jeepers, I'd like ten minutes with your Prof Green to tell him precisely what I think!

CoteDAzur · 04/02/2009 21:20

I don't believe for a second that cervical smears were done on newborn baby girls. You would have to break the hymen and that would definitely be noticed during one of the thousands of nappy changes.

CoteDAzur · 04/02/2009 21:22

Besides, I thought the whole theory of HPV causing cervical cancer was thought up because someone noticed that nuns in convents had zero cervical cancer rate. Meaning, no sexual activity = no cervical cancer.

WhatFreshHellIsThis · 05/02/2009 20:52

no, I think the HPV thing is genuine, Cote. I had HPV and also had a dodgy smear a few years later (not that one anecdote proves a theory) but everything I've read about it seems fairly certain that HPV is implicated in certain forms of cervical cancer.

The Cartwright thing is completely sick though. Makes me turn pale just thinking about it.

showmeyourpuku · 06/02/2009 23:14

Some good stuff came from the Cartwright enquiry, thankfully. We are now really big on informed choice and consent. But you're right, the whole thing is sick.

Flip

1 2 3 4