Immunisation concern

[squishy]

Am first time mum and having to decide about immunisations - I wasn't given the whooping cough vaccine and had whooping cough, but only recently learned how serious it can be for some children. However, my parents decided not to let me have it as they knew of children who had had the vaccine and had brain damage. OK, this was over 30 years ago (just!) and I know things have progressed, but am finding it very difficult to find impartial advice based on the safety of these vaccines. I know they are much safer and most people have them without a second thought, but my HV's response that "of course parents of children who were healthy and suffered a permanent change after vaccinations want to blame the vaccine, but the truth is we'll never know" actually made me more nervous - I have met adults who had this negative reaction as a direct result of the vaccine...

My DH has no thoughts on this matter - did anyone else have these thoughts when deciding about consenting to vaccines? If so, what alleviated your concerns?

which vaccinations are you considering at present?

The 8 week 5-in-one

which has the whooping cough vaccine in

Message withdrawn

The clinical reason is that your child will be protected from a host of potentially dangerous diseases from an early age.
And the vaccine is safe

My dd had it ( as have millions of others) with no ill effect

There are a lot of scare stories about vaccines squishy, but the vast majority are just that, scare stories.

i think you have to weigh up what the higher risk is i.e. if she doesn't have the injections, she may then contract one of the illnesses concerned and be very seriously affected by that instead. and that's more likely than having a side effect from the injection.

Message withdrawn

It's all about risk: I believe that the risk of my children catching (and being damaged by) certain diseases is higher than the risk of them being damaged by the vaccine, so I had them vaccinated.

I've also met a homeopath (who's also a paediatrician) who had his children vaccinated against whooping cough during the scare in the 70s because he believed the risk of them catching it was high.

Message withdrawn

Have you looked at the JABS website?

Neither ds2 or ds3 have had any jabs yet (we believe ds1 was vaccine damaged). Did hear something interesting when ds3 was in hospital recently- from a consultant "one must remember that the main benefit of the vaccination program is to the herd rather than the individual". Make of that what you will.

The whooping cough vacccination has changed since out day- it's no longer whole cell- so is supposedly safer. It''s still recognised as one of the most dangerous in the combination (and the US vaccine damage administration fund recognised the danger of pertussis vaccination by charging the manufacturers considerably more per DTP shot than per DT shot- they had a system in the States where the manufacturers paid a certain amount per shot into a central fund to be used to cover compensation for vaccine damage- the more dangerous a shot the more they paid in). The problem is you can't get the other baby jabs without it- it's either the 5 or 6 in one or nothing. So if you would like your child to have tetanus protection (as I would) but are not willing to give them 5 or 6 in one go (as I'm not) then you have to wait until they are 12 when they can get a DT jab.

Not an easy decision- good luck with it (for reasons given on the MMR thread this morning I'm not saying any more on this thread - apologies).

I would have thought the "clinical" reason for vaccinating children at 2 months against whooping cough is because babies under 6 months is the age group most at risk.

The other clincial reason is to make sure babies get the jab at all, as parents have the most regular contact with HVS and baby clinics in the early months, so are most likely to actually go along when called for the jabs. AND immunity for these diseases can be conferrred as early as 2 months. Which can usually be transferred with minimal distress in as few pin pricks as possible.

I would have thought those were all "sound" clinical reasons, although understandably people might still feel unhappy about the possible risks.

SQUISHY, I don't know how you could decide whether you had found an "impartial" source for advice. All you can do is ask people what evidence/logic they based their decisions on, and go with what makese most sense to you.

Thanks......it is a tricky one! I would prefer for her not to be exposed so soon and with the responses given, it's clear that there is a huge amount of conflicting information....

I know people who have been affected, not just scare stories, but also know it's changed. And also, the fact that there is no alternative - ie I would have to go "unlicensed" (as told by my HV) for her to have separate ones....seems that it is designed for the "herd".

I may see if it can be delayed - I'm unable to breast feed and going back to work at 3 months, but DH will be a SAHD so this might suit. One concern is that they "grow" the vaccines on a variety of things (including some on animal "parts") and if a child isn't meant to eat "food" until a certain age, it doesn't sit comfortably with me that it is acceptable in another format (a microbiologist put that one in my head!!)

Will read around a bit more....thanks

You can't even go unlicensed (licensing is mostly political tbh) At least I don;t think you can- I haven't found any single ones anywhere- I would if I could get a tetanus. MY GP would have helped me do it as well- I spoke to him about it last week and he was muttering about the stupidity of giving so many at once.

Goood luck!

I am a GP and I have vaccinated all my children- indeed first in the queue for the catch up pneumococcos recently.
it is your choice.
personally i do not believe that vaccination is harmful - small childrens immature immune systems are exposed to literallly millions of new viruses every day and we as a species are designed/adapeted to cope with this.
the consequenses or whooping cough or measles can be devastating , and i would urge you to weigh these against your fears aout vaccination.

yes, vacination induces herd immunity - protecting children who cannot be immunised for medical reasons - but it also offers individual protecion for your child against a variety of potentially fatal illnesses.

The improvements in public health over the last centuary can be largely laid at the door of clean water, sewerage and vaccination,
it makes sense to protect your child against preventable disease

without wanting to start a major debate... would you also recommend the MMR lemonstartree? only, i have this one on the horizon now...

ChristMissybaby

yes I would. I have vaccinated my own children because I truly believe that MMR is safe. Huge studies in Scandanavia have shown conclusively that there is no link between MMR and autism or bowel diseases. Reluctantly I think we have to face thta Andrew Wakefields original articals were funded by drug companies and he had a financial interest in the results he obtained. I feel very much for the parents who believe that their children have been damaged by vaccines, but the medivcal evidence does not support their view.

Measles particlarly is a very very unplesant disease and I am afraid that some children will die as a result of the fear about MMR that has been generated.

bw

lst

Oh FGS.

I can't be bothered to go through everything that is wwrong with that post because a) just can't at the moment, too much pother shit going on and b) only did it last week.

here's last weeks thread . It's probably one of the best threads on MMR that there has been on mumsnet. It;s stuffed full of links and information and has the views of a peadiatric registrar on it. Worth reading if you're interested in the MMR issue.

Message withdrawn

thanks all
i will read up on the other thread for further info.