Curious- what's your opinion of this...

[TinselGrrrlWith2Boys]

I met a friend for coffee the other day, whose baby is a few weeks older than mine. She was trying to recall exactly how many weeks her DC was, so i asked if he'd had his 1st jab yet, thinking it would prompt her.

She said she wasn't giving him any vaccinations at all, and that her DD only had the 1st one. Her reason was that she felt her DD had 'changed' after her jab at 8wks, so she refused her any more, and won't give her new baby any either.

I didn't comment, but i was a bit shocked by that. I do feel babies seem to have a jab every month, as there are so many, but the thought of one of them getting sick / deaf or worse is scary.

I am in a similar position to yurt1 to whom I extend sincere sympathy and best wishes.

My first born was routinely vaccinated, had two severe adverse reactions and has been left with an autoimmune condition.

My second child has not and will not be vaccinated.

In my experience people who are actually quite well informed about vaccination are generally cautious about it, and those who know less are all for it. Just my opinion.

Vaccination, immunity and the functioning of the immune system are all hugely complex. To reduce the subject to the simplistic level that most doctors and the NHS present to parents is to not present the reality of the benefit versus risk ratio at all.

Herd immunity although an appealing idea is actually a completely unproven theory. An immune suppressed individual could just as easily catch an illness from a vaccinated child who still gets ill (breakthrough case) or from a vaccinated child who is 'shedding' virus/bacteria.

Actually, I'll stick my neck out and say that I find the concept of putting a child (who cannot give their informed consent)at (unknown) risk in order to protect others to be rather an inhumane one. This very concept goes against both the Nuremberg Code and the Hippocratic Oath.

I think it's a bit odd to call herd immunity an 'unproven theory'. It seems to have been pretty effective in the worldwide eradication of smallpox, and the eradication of polio from most of the developed world.

However, I know that this is one of those topics that always ends up getting polarised. There doesn't seem to be any common ground between the anti-vaccinators and the pro-vaccinators.

great sympathies to both yurt and beachcomber: yurt if i was in your position i doubt i'd have vaccinated my other children either. no medical process is entirely safe and there will always be a number of individuals who are tragically vaccine damaged
but at the risk of offending anyone else, how many of those who dont vaccinate are really in this position? half my old NCT group are talking about not vaccinating as our children come up to MMR age and none of them has any reason like yurt's to avoid it.
and no, elf, i dont hold that view simply because i dont know enough about it - professionally i have had a fair amount to do with the anti-vacc lobby and not convinced. it is all anecdotal and for every anecdote where parents are convinced the vaccine was at fault there's another anecdote the other way. holidaywonk is right - this is one issue on which it's very hard for one camp to see the other's point of view and vice versa.

I bet most give singles though woodstock.... It's actually hard not to vaccinate. I still wake some nights thinking ... omg....

I;d really recommend (again) Halvorsen's book- he says it all really.

Beachcomber- I'm hearing you

But how can vaccination be considered to have eradicated smallpox when the herd immunity threshold for the disease is cited as being 83 to 85 percent? Nothing like this percentage of the population was ever vaccinated.

Also I don't think that people who have had the terrible misfortune to have had one of their children damaged or killed by vaccination are the only ones to have a reason not to vaccinate.

I have also read the book that yurt1 mentions and it is well worth a read to anyone who would actually like to find out more for themselves about this subject as opposed to just unquestioningly accepting what the NHS and GSK, Merck, Wyeth et al present.

I agree that this subject generally gets very polarized and heated. Obviously I feel strongly because my daughter has had her health destroyed and vaccination has had a hugely negative impact on our life. I just feel angry that the risks are played down whilst the benefits are exaggerated. So far no effort is being made to try to find out which children are most likely to be suseptible for vaccine damage so that those children can be excluded from the current 'one size fits all' programme.

Honestly if you were asked if you were willing to sacrifice your child's health for the 'greater good' would you choose to do it? Because the problem with vaccination at the moment is that not only can nobody tell you in advance if your child is going to be one of those who react badly, but no-one is making a serious effort to find out.

I am not 'anti-vaccination', I vaccinated my eldest child. I am pro informed consent, proper informed consent with precise, comprehensive, impartial information.

Given a small number of children may be at risk of adverse reactions from some vaccinations, there's even more of a responsibilty on the rest of us to have our children done. To protect those who cannot be vaccinated. But how on earth can we find out if our children are at risk from the actual vaccination or not?

I agree with Beachcomber - we need a system based on proper informed consent with precise, comprehensive, impartial information. Including information about which children are at risk from vaccination - for instance, looks as if those with a family history of autoimmune conditions may be particularly susceptible to damage from MMR.

Drug and Therapeutics Bulletin and the Cochrane Collaboration - two groups of independent, rigorous expert reviewers - concluded MMR was safe as far as we can tell for almost all children BUT that the studies on safety weren't comprehensive enough or of a good enough quality. We need studies that answer those questions.

Sadly the government keeps referring to epidemiological studies of mass populations which by their very nature can only show MMR is safe for almost all children - they are not designed to pick up reactions amongst very small groups who may be particularly vulnerable.

I chose singles for ds for first MMR schedule as a result of this. Although that's not evidence based either - as far as I can tell, there's no guarantee singles will be better for a child in that very small vulnerable group. Felt like the best compromise between risk to ds of vaccine reaction, risk of the illnesses vaccinated against and risk to other people e.g. pregnant women.

Felt much more relaxed about giving him MMR booster age four as it was clear he was generally OK. Sort of comforted that he hadn't shown any signs of vulnerability.

"what if your unvaccinated child is the one who gets measles, recovers fine but starts the measles epidemic in which my child (who's too young for MMR and therefore unprotected) dies?

"in an ideal world your friend's gp should notice the baby hasn't had its jabs, ask her why, and allay her fears by explaining that 8weekold babies change quite a lot and that crying more is not a side effect of vaccination."

Just wanted to add something as I have been thinking about what woodstock says above.

Firstly a well nourished normal child is extremely unlikely to die of measles and it is scaremongering to suggest otherwise. Also vaccinated children also catch these dieases so your unvaccinated child could catch mealses from a vaccinated child. There is an actual term for this, it is called a 'breakthrough case' and is actually relatively common. Also vaccinated children 'shed' virus. This means that for a certain period after vaccinatation with a live virus the person can infect others. Live polio virus is no longer used in the west for this very reason. My daughter caught rubella from a recently vaccinated child at her childminder's (they both developed symtoms and the doctor agreed that this was what had happened). I was pregnant at the time and could easily have been annoyed to have been exposed to rubella in this fashion but luckily am immune.

Secondly increased crying is an extremely common symptom of a child reacting badly to a vaccine and should be taken very seriously.

Oh, should have said, OPs friend sounds a bit daft though - you shouldn't make this sort of decision based on a whim.

DS1 caught rubella from a vaccinated child.

ONe of my biggest problems with vaccinating babies against usually mild diseases (and I wouldn't necessarily include measles in that- but definitely mumps) is that unless a teen booster is given (and it isn't in the UK, is in the States) then the vaccine protection wears off during adulthood - and mumps is an adult is not necessarily a mild disease. The mumps vaccine doesn't work well enough for eradication to be realistic, so there's quite possibly going to be an increase in adult mumps cases. I'd have more confidence in the vaccination programme if it actually made sense. I really don't understand why we're vaccinating against mumps in the first place tbh.

I agree with a lot of what edam says.

However you say a 'small number of children may be at risk' but the fact is nobody really knows what percentage of children are at risk. The list of possible adverse reactions and conditions linked to vaccination is very long and reactions can develop over a period of time.

Very true yurt1. This is exactly what is happening currently in the US with chicken pox vaccination. They are seeing increased cases of CP in adults and increased numbers of shingles cases. Vaccination can shift the nautural age distribution for diseases to an age group which is actually more at risk.

There is a serious problem with rubella in regards to this.

I agree with you that the programme doesn't make sense. Why are we vaccinating young boys against rubella and young girls against mumps?

I live in France where Hep B vaccination is routine at 2,4 and 6 months. Hep B is contracted through sexual relations or sharing of needles, it is NOT a disease that babies are routinely exposed to. Also the vaccination is well know to be high risk and to have links with MS. I have a friend who as a nurse has had three Hep B vaccinations related to her job, she has developed MS and is currently applying for compensation .

'Why are we vaccinating young boys against rubella and young girls against mumps?'... because it gives 'herd immunity'. In other words if the majority of children are vaccinated then the disease will not spread in a community, thus protecting those who - for one reason or another - are unable to be vaccinated. This all falls apart when high percentages of parents of normal, healthy children choose not to have their children vaccinated.

Fortyplus can you explain clearly how exactly herd immunity works and how it is possible considering that the threshold figures are very high and in reality unobtainable and that vaccines do not have a 100% efficacy rate?

Also as I have previously said I believe the concept of 'the greater good' to be unethical and contrary to both the Nuremberg Code and the Hippocratic Oath.

All vaccination carries some risk, rubella vaccine has proven links to arthritis for example. Why should people accept to take unquantified risk with their children's health for an unquantified benefit in the name of a concept that is unproven and is on dubious ethical ground?

Also can you tell me how the herd immunity concept relates to tetanus vaccination? Tetanus is not contaigious but is contracted by coming into contact with bacterial spores.

Totally agree with holidaywonk's post yesterday at 14.17

But fortyplus- it doesn't work for mumps becuase the protection offered by mumps vaccine isn't good enough for herd immunity. It also doesn't work because teen/adult boosters aren't given so the number who become susceptible as adults is increasing all the time.

I still do not understand why we are vaccinating against mumps (I understand the argument for rubella and for measles). Mumps is not a serious illness in a child. For those with compromised immune systems there are many other illnesses that are just as dangerous as mumps. Or more so. Chickenpox for example. I don't even understand the rationale for mumps vaccination. Especially if it just ends up increasing the average age of catching it. You run the risk of turning a mild illness into a serious one.

I remeber thinking Ds1 changed after his, too. I hated it. But I think babies do change.
Hard to make the first little footprint on their unhurt, indamaged little sense of trust, but I would be afraid not to vaccinate.

Life sucks sometimes..

Am I the only one here old enough to remember a time when everybody had the normal childhood diseases (measles, mumps, chicken pox) and it was not a biggie? In fact, we were taken to the house of the kid who had any of the above so we would catch it when young and be done with it.

Slightly at the amount of scaremongering surrounding MMR a la how we all have to vaccinate our children lest they go blind/deaf or die

There has only been 1 (ONE) measles death in the UK in twenty years, and he had an underlying lung condition and was with a travelling family.

coted'azure I remember when I was off school with measles (quarantined) once over the worst (and I did feel rotton for a few days) I was sent to play with my friend with whooping cough. I remember her mum taking us into the nearest town and her mum telling me off for putting my hands on the food counter "oh for goodness sake yurt1 you've got measles stop touching the food". There'd be a mass stampede these days. It just wouldn't happen would it?

Of course they can be nasty- as already mentioned my Mum is deaf in one ear from measles but measles did her less damage than whatever got ds1. Never as black and white or clear cut as the leaflets would have us believe.

Also find it odd that scarlet fever which was once a serious disease is never presented as the danger that measles and so on are. Could that be because there is no vaccine for it?

Scarlet fever cases and deaths in particular have declined at a similar rate to measles, whooping cough and so on without there being a vaccination programme for it and therefore none of this much talked about herd immunity.

No doubt chicken pox will soon be presented in the mainstream media as a 'killer disease' now that Merck wants us to buy their MMRV.

I am pretty sure that they already vaccinate against chicken pox in the states.

There is no easy option. A friend just said that she would not vacinate as she had the measles and it did not kill her. What can I say one of DD friends at nursery died earlier this year from measles. I can't begin to understand how tough it is either for that little girl's Mum or for you, Yurt.

That's very sad, Saritasmum. Poor family.

Beachcomber - I'm not medically qualified (and I suspect you aren't either), so naturally I won't attempt a detailed explanation of herd immunity.

I find the argument about human rights/Nuremburg Convention spurious, frankly, as we live in a society where we are not forced to have our children vaccinated - we can merely rely on the best medical advice available at the time. Unfortunately, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, so well-intentioned but - in my opinion - misguided parents are denying their children the benefits of immunisation.

As for Tetanus - any reasonably-informed person will understand that it isn't a contagious disease. However, I can vouch for the fact that it is life threatening as my M-I-L contracted it 20 years ago. She lay in a drug-induced coma for weeks and was in hospital for 3 months. She still suffers the after effects to this day, but considers herself lucky not to have died. Fortunately today it is rare for an individual not to have been vaccinated against this disease, which - unlike Measles and the other 'childhood' illnesses can kill many of those who contract it. Tetanus is an anaerobic bacteria, so will thrive in a tiny puncture wound. M-I-L caught it from a prick by a raspberry thorn whilst wearing sandals.

well the tetanus thing pisses me off. I would love for ds2 and ds3 to have a tetanus jab. I am not willing to give them 5 other injections at the same time. So they can't have it. Until they are 10. whooping cough vaccination is supposedly contra-indicated for children with seizures (or at least it always used to be) so god know how they get given tetanus jabs. Even my old GP had a rant about that when I went to ask him if there was any way it could be administered (I miss my old GP).

The problem with the herd immunity stuff is that when vaccinations are introduced there has been a tendency recently to over-estimate their effectiveness. This is partly because they are not followed for long enough before introudction. (Weirdly - when these 'killer' diseases were rife- the introduction of new vaccinations was generally far more cautious- especially after the Diprtheria/polio fiasco.) The problem with over-estimating effectiveness can be seen in something like mumps. It was presumably introduced in an attempt to eradicate mumps (which really really really is not a killer disease of children, not under any definition) - however it just does not work well enough to do that. So now you find the situation where effectiveness wears off, adults don't have immunity, there isn't enough protections for herd immunity and so you get adult outbreaks. I really rather hope my children get mumps. They may already have had it (although I doubt it as I don't know of any exposure). I don't want them getting it as adults.