does it ever work if one partner is pro vaccination and the othervis anti vaccination?

[superstarheartbreaker]

Just wondering if this issue is a bone of contention or has split anyone up? Ive met a lovely man who wants kids and so do I but for some reason we got talking about vaccinations. He Iis very anti vaccination and hasnt got his kids done whereas im very pro vaccination. For some reason I know this is a big issue for me. Am I being daft? I guesd I just get people who fall for conspiracy theoriescand scaremongering. There are many other qualities about him I do get and admire though. Very early stages so do I carry on?

When a child goes deaf overnight, obviously something happens to cause that.

And if we didn't have vaccinations, then the answer would quite commonly be measles.

ok NoLikey, if you're so sure it's 'utter tosh' I'm sure you have a link to evidence that shows it is in a baby's best interests from a health point of view to have their DTP at 2 months old rather than at 12 months as it was when I was a baby? I ask because I have never been able to find it personally. Which was why I asked my GP.

Many 'vaccinators' (GPS, practice nurses) can tell a story of an infant who came in for vaccination and had a seizure just before the vaccine was given - the seizure turned out to be the explosive onset of brain-damaging epilepsy, for which the vaccine would undoubtedly have been blamed if the seizure had started a few hours later. Apologies if anyone reading this has suffered this scenario, but it just demonstrates how easy it is to blame vaccination for events. 'Association is not necessarily causation'.

Lottie I'm honestly not trying to be rude here, but do you really, truly and genuinely find it impossible to fathom why they don't want to leave babies of less than one year old unprotected against diptheria, whooping cough and tetanus, when there is a simple and (in almost all cases) extremely safe alternative?

They are so concerned about newborns being unprotected in the face of a whooping cough epidemic right now that they are advising women to get a vaccine when heavily pregnant, as that will lend some immunity to those newborns too. You really think the NHS is forking out all that money just to offer some protection to 0-8 weekers, from birth, for no reason whatsoever? Dead babies not a good enough motive, then? As for diptheria... it was a huge killer. The common nickname for it was "strangling angel" because once the membrane filled the child's throat it cut off the air supply and they suffocated. What they didn't know is that it also produced a toxin that caused organ failure. It killed 1 in 5 of the under-fives - still does, in the developing world. Yet you can't see why the under ones should be protected, at all? Ever had whooping cough? I have. I was ill for weeks on end. It was like real, proper influenza had somehow been genetically mutated into a monster. I wasn't able to get out of bed for a couple of weeks and my chest was affected for a good couple of months. And tetanus? Really?

Again, you think the under-ones are somehow less vulnerable to disease than the rest of us?

PS I should clarify - in the cases above, the vaccine was not given!

When my older children were babies mercury was still used in the DTP and I was concerned about the possible effect of this at such a young age.

this study suggested that the developing brain is 'uniquely susceptible to neurotoxic hazard'

AFAIK mercury was removed shortly afterwards, but we were told vaccines for children were fine with mercury in, nevertheless. This kind of thing made me question how policies are made about vaccines. Even my mum who is pro-vaccination completely said that she no longer felt able to trust a government who had said up until then that the vaccines with mercury in were fine, but they were going to stop using them anyway.

They stopped using them because the hysteria about MERCURY IN BABIES! Meant vaccination rates fell. If there was an alternative that didn't cause people to freak out, it was worth adopting on that basis. Unfortunately that rather depended on the assumption that people are logical. I've lost count of the number of times people insist we have mercury in the MMR in this country - we don't, and we never have had.

It's also worth pointing out that if your kids eat tuna, marlin or even salmon, they are ingesting a far more dangerous form of mercury than that used in vaccines.

Lottie
when they bought in whooping vaccinations it was 2 months and i very much doubt they ever left it to a year. In the US the death toll in the first year of life went from over 7000 deaths in 2 years to less than a hundred in the whole of the 90s, that includes deaths of those too young to be vaccinated.see graph page 8
The only reason mmr is left to 13 months is because of inherited immunity interfering with the vaccine.

Because tiny babies are incredibly vulnerable if they get these diseases. Whooping cough in an under one is something you do not want to see.

Of course there was no mercury in the MMR - that is a live vaccine.

'If there was an alternative that didn't cause people to freak out, it was worth adopting on that basis.'

If the above statement is true then why has the government stopped parents using single vaccines for MMR??

The World Health Org had advised not to use mercury in vaccines for babies long before the UK (finally) decided to stop using it.

Two month old babies don't eat tuna do they? The younger a child is the more susceptible to neurological damage. I'm going to hide this thread now as I have given my perspective. I would like nothing more than for this to be a clear cut issue but I don't believe it is.

I am not sure I even consulted DP about the vaccinations TBQH. I just went ahead and got DCs vaccinated.

Oh, and I forgot: subsequent research didn't replicate the study you cite. And numerous other studies not only found no relationship between thimerosol exposure and ASDs, they actually in two studies found an inverse relationship - that is, children with no exposure were likelier to be on the spectrum. Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean vaccines protect against ASD; it could well be that parents with one child on the spectrum were, especially when those studies were made, likelier than most to refuse vaccinations for subsequent kids, and as ASD have a genetic component much of the time it was therefore likelier that a sibling would be affected. However it does provide strong evidence that those fears are misplaced.

article about the ingredients in vaccines

"I'm going to hide this thread now as I have given my perspective"

Wow. That's a mature approach to debate.......

Diptheria was a killer. My maternal grandmother was one of 7 children. 2 of her siblings died from diptheria.

As I pointed out upthread, the V major strain of smallpox had a mortality rate of 1 in 3.

I agree with WellWobbly that it's the height of first world affectation not to vaccinate unless specifically, medically contraindicated.

If the above statement is true then why has the government stopped parents using single vaccines for MMR??

Why should the state fund and support vaccines that are more expensive and less effective? Again, how does that simple statement confuse you? Babyjabs offers singles for those who want them, so they can pay to get a more expensive and less effective version if they so wish. Why should the taxpayer pay extra to fund people who refuse to accept the gold standard level of care for their children?

Babies eat solids from 6 months - are you fine with vaccines from then, then? Why? And why are you cherrypicking the single study to support your position, when it was on mice, has not been replicated on other studies on mice, and in all human epidemiological cohort studies the opposite has been found?

I don't mean to be rude, but this conversation is a waste of both of our times. You ignore all the substantive points and just seize on tiny (and in the case of tuna, I'm sorry, but risible) details.

Bluntly, you are singlehandedly proving Cogito's point for her. Though that may of course be helpful to the OP, in the circumstances.

A viable alternative would be a modified programme for some children.

And which children?

Children with obvious health problems are already delayed.

In future, with tailored medicine based on genetics, it's possible that we may be able to predict which children may need to have vaccines later rather than early.

At the moment we can't and we can't risk not vaccinating most of the population.

ok NoLikey, if you're so sure it's 'utter tosh' I'm sure you have a link to evidence that shows it is in a baby's best interests from a health point of view to have their DTP at 2 months old rather than at 12 months as it was when I was a baby? I ask because I have never been able to find it personally. Which was why I asked my GP.

I'm genuinely stunned by your ignorance. Have you been vaccinated against common sense perhaps?! Why is it in the best interests from a health point of view for the very smallest and most vulnerable members of society to be protected against serious and deadly diseases? That's honestly what you're asking me?

Babies maiy not eat tuna but they still get mercury through breastmilk. Which as said above is in a more dangerous form than in vaccines.

Personally my DC will get all the jabs offered to them, when they're offered. I don't believe there is a risk in vaccinating, but even if there was it would be a lot less than the disease they're protecting against.

In a relationship I'd need to know DP wouldn't stop me immunising despite his views, it'd be a deal breaker if he did. It literally is life and death after all!

Can't believe this thread.

The question the OP asked wasn't whether Mumsnet was pro- or anti-vaccinations but whether you would progress a relationship with someone who was opposed whilst you were in favour in the eventuality that you may have children together.

If you want a vaccination thread - start your own!!

I personally couldn't have a serious relationship with someone who had views so diametrically opposed to me be it on vaccinations, politics, religion etc.

Hope that helps OP.

A small (very, very small) number of children die from freak reactions to vaccines.

The number of children who used to die before vaccines is humongous.

You really can't make a reasonable comparison. It's a no brainer.

It is quite common for threads to take on a life of its own beyond the question asked in the op.

Hopefully the thread will have provided food for thought for her to bear in mind if and when debating the issue with her boyfriend.

A relative of mine dealt with a tragic case where a baby had a terrible reaction to one vaccination (whooping cough I think, but could be wrong), lapsed into a coma and died several months later.

I still got my children vaccinated (even though the MMR - autism scare had not been discredited) as I think the benefits outweigh the minute risks. Also, the above happened forty years ago and I think the vaccines are far safer now than they used to be.

With regards to the OP for me it would be non-negotiable - my children would be vaccinated as recommended for this country and for any travels abroad. You might also want to consider if his issue is just with vaccinations? How does he feel about medicines? Would he, for example, want a child to have chemotherapy or would he want to seek alternative treatments? Would he be happy for his child to have a blood transfusion?