Anyone planning on NOT vaccinating your baby?

[Piper84]

That link you posted was an article, not a study. Even with the whooping cough numbers he mentioned, he didn't say how many of those cases involved vaccinated people or unvaccinated people.

You seem to have a short memory for facts you don't care for. I'll just copy and past from a previous post on here:

Canada seems to experience quite a few disease outbreaks:
Measles: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/story/2011/10/27/mtl-measlesoutbreak.html
From: https://usatoday30.usatoday.com/new...rgest-US-measles-outbreak-in-years/50852098/1

Another Thursday presentation centered on a large measles outbreak in Quebec, Canada: the largest since 1989, with 757 cases as of October 5.

That outbreak started with 18 people who traveled abroad, most to Europe. Among those infected, 505 had not been vaccinated or their vaccination status was not known, and 70 had received only one doses of the vaccine, according to the report.

 

[misspriss]

That link you posted was an article, not a study. Even with the whooping cough numbers he mentioned, he didn't say how many of those cases involved vaccinated people or unvaccinated people.

You seem to have a short memory for facts you don't care for. I'll just copy and past from a previous post on here:

Canada seems to experience quite a few disease outbreaks:
Measles: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/story/2011/10/27/mtl-measlesoutbreak.html
From: https://usatoday30.usatoday.com/new...rgest-US-measles-outbreak-in-years/50852098/1

Another Thursday presentation centered on a large measles outbreak in Quebec, Canada: the largest since 1989, with 757 cases as of October 5.

That outbreak started with 18 people who traveled abroad, most to Europe. Among those infected, 505 had not been vaccinated or their vaccination status was not known, and 70 had received only one doses of the vaccine, according to the report.

Your first article, Measles: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/story/2011/10/27/mtl-measlesoutbreak.html
Does not state any hard facts about vaccinated or non vaccinated children contracting the virus. It does not state how many people got the virus, what percentage were vaccinated or non-vaccinated, or whether the person who started the outbreak was vaccinated or not vaccinated. Basically the article just takes an outbreak, and tries to blame it on the 1-3% of the population that are non-or-under vaccinated, with no evidence one way or the other. If such a small number are non-or-under vaxx'd, why such a large outbreak anyway?

Health officials have said the re-emergence of measles in Canada has been traced back travelers who brought the disease back after visiting France.

Were the travelers vaccinated? Unvaccinated? "Under Vaccinated"? No word, no facts, the article proves nothing of your point. At all.

The second article does state some instances where non-or-under vaccinated persons got the measles. However, 24% of the infected were fully vaccinated. That's pretty much a quarter. Those 24% were just as likely to spread the disease as the 67% of unvaccinated/unknown or 9% of "under" vaccinated. Which also means, in the case of an outbreak, the vaccine apparently has a 1 in 4 failure rate....

 

[CMarie]

Thanks misspriss for going over those . . you said pretty much everything I wanted to!

For the second article, I wanted to point out this as well:

"That outbreak started with 18 people who traveled abroad, most to Europe. Among those infected, 505 had not been vaccinated or their vaccination status was not known, and 70 had received only one doses of the vaccine, according to the report."

This article only states how the outbreak started . . with 18 people who traveled abroad . . but it never states how many of those 18 people were unvaccinated or if they were all vaccinated. So for all we know they were all vaccinated and they brought back the measles. There's no way to know since this article lacks all the information

 

[Natsku]

"Children with nonmedical exemptions are at increased risk for acquiring and transmitting vaccine-preventable diseases.34,35 In a retrospective cohort study based on nationwide surveillance data from 1985 through 1992, children with exemptions were 35 times as likely to contract measles as nonexempt children (relative risk, 35; 95% confidence interval [CI], 34 to 37)."

"Between January 1, 2008, and April 25, 2008, there were five measles outbreaks and a total of 64 cases reported.45 All but one of the persons with measles were either unvaccinated or did not have evidence of immunization"

"Outbreaks of vaccine-preventable disease often start among persons who refused vaccination, spread rapidly within unvaccinated populations, and also spread to other subpopulations. For example, of the four outbreaks with discrete index cases (one outbreak occurred by means of multiple importations) reported January through April 2008, three out of four index cases occurred in people who had refused vaccination due to personal beliefs; vaccination status could not be verified for the remaining cases"

Source: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa0806477#t=articleTop

 

[Piper84]

"Children with nonmedical exemptions are at increased risk for acquiring and transmitting vaccine-preventable diseases.34,35 In a retrospective cohort study based on nationwide surveillance data from 1985 through 1992, children with exemptions were 35 times as likely to contract measles as nonexempt children (relative risk, 35; 95% confidence interval [CI], 34 to 37)."

"Between January 1, 2008, and April 25, 2008, there were five measles outbreaks and a total of 64 cases reported.45 All but one of the persons with measles were either unvaccinated or did not have evidence of immunization"

"Outbreaks of vaccine-preventable disease often start among persons who refused vaccination, spread rapidly within unvaccinated populations, and also spread to other subpopulations. For example, of the four outbreaks with discrete index cases (one outbreak occurred by means of multiple importations) reported January through April 2008, three out of four index cases occurred in people who had refused vaccination due to personal beliefs; vaccination status could not be verified for the remaining cases"

Source: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa0806477#t=articleTop

Thanks for this.

CMarie and misspriss, I'm not interested in teaching you how to look for and evaluate proper scientific evidence online and I'm not really interested in your amateur interpretation of hard facts. The bottom line is your actions (or lack thereof) affect others.

 

[CMarie]

I know I'll get ragged on for this, but 3 out of the 5 people who did this research work for and were funded by the companies that make vaccines . .

Saad B. Omer, M.B., B.S., Ph.D., M.P.H., Daniel A. Salmon, Ph.D., M.P.H., Walter A. Orenstein, M.D., M. Patricia deHart, Sc.D., and Neal Halsey, M.D.

Dr. Salmon reports serving on the Merck Vaccine Policy Advisory Board; Dr Orenstein, receiving research funds from Novartis, Merck, and Sanofi Pasteur and a training grant from the Merck Foundation and serving on data and safety monitoring boards associated with GlaxoSmithKline and Encorium; and Dr. Halsey, receiving research funds from Wyeth and Berna, lecture fees from Sanofi, and payments for testimony to the Department of Justice regarding several vaccine compensation cases and serving on data and safety monitoring committees associated with Novartis and Merck.

I haven't finished reading through this link yet, but I did want to point that out because I believe it's a serious conflict of interest.

 

[misspriss]

"Children with nonmedical exemptions are at increased risk for acquiring and transmitting vaccine-preventable diseases.34,35 In a retrospective cohort study based on nationwide surveillance data from 1985 through 1992, children with exemptions were 35 times as likely to contract measles as nonexempt children (relative risk, 35; 95% confidence interval [CI], 34 to 37)."

"Between January 1, 2008, and April 25, 2008, there were five measles outbreaks and a total of 64 cases reported.45 All but one of the persons with measles were either unvaccinated or did not have evidence of immunization"

"Outbreaks of vaccine-preventable disease often start among persons who refused vaccination, spread rapidly within unvaccinated populations, and also spread to other subpopulations. For example, of the four outbreaks with discrete index cases (one outbreak occurred by means of multiple importations) reported January through April 2008, three out of four index cases occurred in people who had refused vaccination due to personal beliefs; vaccination status could not be verified for the remaining cases"

Source: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa0806477#t=articleTop

Thanks for this.

CMarie and misspriss, I'm not interested in teaching you how to look for and evaluate proper scientific evidence online and I'm not really interested in your amateur interpretation of hard facts. The bottom line is your actions (or lack thereof) affect others.

My actions could affect others, never said they couldn't. However, I did say, and I will say it again - my #1 priority is the health and safety of my children, the health and safety of others is just not so high of a priority for me. It does matter to me that my actions have the potential to affect others, but not as much as my children's health matters to me. It's an issue of priority. I'm not interested in your ideas about how well I research online. I personally have spent very little time on this thread and only researched the links that others posted. I am not trying to convince anyone that they should not vaccinate, that is a choice for each and every parent to make themselves.

I fully understand that a non-vaccinated child has a higher risk for contracting a disease, did I ever say I didn't? For me, that risk is more acceptable than what is in vaccines.

In Colorado, the county-level incidence of measles and pertussis in vaccinated children from 1987 through 1998 was associated with the frequency of exemptions in that county.35 At least 11% of the nonexempt children who acquired measles were infected through contact with an exempt child.35

(same article) 1. Nonexempt (vaccinated) children acquired measles. 2. Up to 89% of the nonexempt, acquired the measles from OTHER NONEXEMPT.

 

[Natsku]

I consider that the health and well-being of people around me is very important and I think it is something that people should consider when making the decision to vaccinate.

 

[Natsku]

I know I'll get ragged on for this, but 3 out of the 5 people who did this research work for and were funded by the companies that make vaccines . .

Saad B. Omer, M.B., B.S., Ph.D., M.P.H., Daniel A. Salmon, Ph.D., M.P.H., Walter A. Orenstein, M.D., M. Patricia deHart, Sc.D., and Neal Halsey, M.D.

Dr. Salmon reports serving on the Merck Vaccine Policy Advisory Board; Dr Orenstein, receiving research funds from Novartis, Merck, and Sanofi Pasteur and a training grant from the Merck Foundation and serving on data and safety monitoring boards associated with GlaxoSmithKline and Encorium; and Dr. Halsey, receiving research funds from Wyeth and Berna, lecture fees from Sanofi, and payments for testimony to the Department of Justice regarding several vaccine compensation cases and serving on data and safety monitoring committees associated with Novartis and Merck.

I haven't finished reading through this link yet, but I did want to point that out because I believe it's a serious conflict of interest.

Although I see your point about the conflict of interest still 2 out of 5 are not funded by them and funding does not detract from the results so long as the study was carried out appropriately.

 

[bump2be]

Personally I chose to have my child vaccinated. We delayed the MMR until just before 2yrs because I've spoke to the dr and learnt tgat the later a child recieves it, the more effective it is likely to be. In this country if you go to a public nursery school then your child needs to be vaccinated for admission. I have no issues with vaccinations as they save lives, however I do have an issue with giving too many vaccines at once. Also have a bit of an issue with money hungry drug companies, but that's another story.

IMHO I think it's a tad selfish not to have your child vaccinated. The diseases the vaccines prevent can be life threatening - not just for the child, but for others around that child who may have compromised immune systems.

Imagine if there were no vaccines, we'd be living in fear of our child contracting a deadly disease! If you don't vaccinate then I think you're just relying on other people to vaccinate their kids.

 

[misspriss]

I know I'll get ragged on for this, but 3 out of the 5 people who did this research work for and were funded by the companies that make vaccines . .

Saad B. Omer, M.B., B.S., Ph.D., M.P.H., Daniel A. Salmon, Ph.D., M.P.H., Walter A. Orenstein, M.D., M. Patricia deHart, Sc.D., and Neal Halsey, M.D.

Dr. Salmon reports serving on the Merck Vaccine Policy Advisory Board; Dr Orenstein, receiving research funds from Novartis, Merck, and Sanofi Pasteur and a training grant from the Merck Foundation and serving on data and safety monitoring boards associated with GlaxoSmithKline and Encorium; and Dr. Halsey, receiving research funds from Wyeth and Berna, lecture fees from Sanofi, and payments for testimony to the Department of Justice regarding several vaccine compensation cases and serving on data and safety monitoring committees associated with Novartis and Merck.

I haven't finished reading through this link yet, but I did want to point that out because I believe it's a serious conflict of interest.

Although I see your point about the conflict of interest still 2 out of 5 are not funded by them and funding does not detract from the results so long as the study was carried out appropriately.

To think that the source of funding has nothing to do with the results is a bit naive.

 

[Natsku]

I know I'll get ragged on for this, but 3 out of the 5 people who did this research work for and were funded by the companies that make vaccines . .

Saad B. Omer, M.B., B.S., Ph.D., M.P.H., Daniel A. Salmon, Ph.D., M.P.H., Walter A. Orenstein, M.D., M. Patricia deHart, Sc.D., and Neal Halsey, M.D.

Dr. Salmon reports serving on the Merck Vaccine Policy Advisory Board; Dr Orenstein, receiving research funds from Novartis, Merck, and Sanofi Pasteur and a training grant from the Merck Foundation and serving on data and safety monitoring boards associated with GlaxoSmithKline and Encorium; and Dr. Halsey, receiving research funds from Wyeth and Berna, lecture fees from Sanofi, and payments for testimony to the Department of Justice regarding several vaccine compensation cases and serving on data and safety monitoring committees associated with Novartis and Merck.

I haven't finished reading through this link yet, but I did want to point that out because I believe it's a serious conflict of interest.

Although I see your point about the conflict of interest still 2 out of 5 are not funded by them and funding does not detract from the results so long as the study was carried out appropriately.

To think that the source of funding has nothing to do with the results is a bit naive.

Thats why I pointed out that as long as the study(well studies) were carried out appropriately (i.e. not faking results or omitting certain results). If you think that the funding creates such a large conflict of interest that it makes the research irrelevant then I hope you don't take any information from anti-vaccination websites that are trying to sell or advertise things like homeopathic vaccines or things that are supposed to boost your immune system so you don't need vaccines.

 

[misspriss]

I know I'll get ragged on for this, but 3 out of the 5 people who did this research work for and were funded by the companies that make vaccines . .

Saad B. Omer, M.B., B.S., Ph.D., M.P.H., Daniel A. Salmon, Ph.D., M.P.H., Walter A. Orenstein, M.D., M. Patricia deHart, Sc.D., and Neal Halsey, M.D.

Dr. Salmon reports serving on the Merck Vaccine Policy Advisory Board; Dr Orenstein, receiving research funds from Novartis, Merck, and Sanofi Pasteur and a training grant from the Merck Foundation and serving on data and safety monitoring boards associated with GlaxoSmithKline and Encorium; and Dr. Halsey, receiving research funds from Wyeth and Berna, lecture fees from Sanofi, and payments for testimony to the Department of Justice regarding several vaccine compensation cases and serving on data and safety monitoring committees associated with Novartis and Merck.

I haven't finished reading through this link yet, but I did want to point that out because I believe it's a serious conflict of interest.

Although I see your point about the conflict of interest still 2 out of 5 are not funded by them and funding does not detract from the results so long as the study was carried out appropriately.

To think that the source of funding has nothing to do with the results is a bit naive.

Thats why I pointed out that as long as the study(well studies) were carried out appropriately (i.e. not faking results or omitting certain results). If you think that the funding creates such a large conflict of interest that it makes the research irrelevant then I hope you don't take any information from anti-vaccination websites that are trying to sell or advertise things like homeopathic vaccines or things that are supposed to boost your immune system so you don't need vaccines.

Actually, I don't take information from anti-vax websites that sell or advertise things. I tend to be skeptical of a lot of things like that, it's just common sense if they are trying to sell you their product their entire site is usually just a huge sales pitch, but that is just me.

 

[Natsku]

I know I'll get ragged on for this, but 3 out of the 5 people who did this research work for and were funded by the companies that make vaccines . .

Saad B. Omer, M.B., B.S., Ph.D., M.P.H., Daniel A. Salmon, Ph.D., M.P.H., Walter A. Orenstein, M.D., M. Patricia deHart, Sc.D., and Neal Halsey, M.D.

Dr. Salmon reports serving on the Merck Vaccine Policy Advisory Board; Dr Orenstein, receiving research funds from Novartis, Merck, and Sanofi Pasteur and a training grant from the Merck Foundation and serving on data and safety monitoring boards associated with GlaxoSmithKline and Encorium; and Dr. Halsey, receiving research funds from Wyeth and Berna, lecture fees from Sanofi, and payments for testimony to the Department of Justice regarding several vaccine compensation cases and serving on data and safety monitoring committees associated with Novartis and Merck.

I haven't finished reading through this link yet, but I did want to point that out because I believe it's a serious conflict of interest.

Although I see your point about the conflict of interest still 2 out of 5 are not funded by them and funding does not detract from the results so long as the study was carried out appropriately.

To think that the source of funding has nothing to do with the results is a bit naive.

Thats why I pointed out that as long as the study(well studies) were carried out appropriately (i.e. not faking results or omitting certain results). If you think that the funding creates such a large conflict of interest that it makes the research irrelevant then I hope you don't take any information from anti-vaccination websites that are trying to sell or advertise things like homeopathic vaccines or things that are supposed to boost your immune system so you don't need vaccines.

Actually, I don't take information from anti-vax websites that sell or advertise things. I tend to be skeptical of a lot of things like that, it's just common sense if they are trying to sell you their product their entire site is usually just a huge sales pitch, but that is just me.

Thats good Just so many anti-vax people seem to do take those sites seriously.

 

[CMarie]

I know I'll get ragged on for this, but 3 out of the 5 people who did this research work for and were funded by the companies that make vaccines . .

Saad B. Omer, M.B., B.S., Ph.D., M.P.H., Daniel A. Salmon, Ph.D., M.P.H., Walter A. Orenstein, M.D., M. Patricia deHart, Sc.D., and Neal Halsey, M.D.

Dr. Salmon reports serving on the Merck Vaccine Policy Advisory Board; Dr Orenstein, receiving research funds from Novartis, Merck, and Sanofi Pasteur and a training grant from the Merck Foundation and serving on data and safety monitoring boards associated with GlaxoSmithKline and Encorium; and Dr. Halsey, receiving research funds from Wyeth and Berna, lecture fees from Sanofi, and payments for testimony to the Department of Justice regarding several vaccine compensation cases and serving on data and safety monitoring committees associated with Novartis and Merck.

I haven't finished reading through this link yet, but I did want to point that out because I believe it's a serious conflict of interest.

Although I see your point about the conflict of interest still 2 out of 5 are not funded by them and funding does not detract from the results so long as the study was carried out appropriately.

To think that the source of funding has nothing to do with the results is a bit naive.

Thats why I pointed out that as long as the study(well studies) were carried out appropriately (i.e. not faking results or omitting certain results). If you think that the funding creates such a large conflict of interest that it makes the research irrelevant then I hope you don't take any information from anti-vaccination websites that are trying to sell or advertise things like homeopathic vaccines or things that are supposed to boost your immune system so you don't need vaccines.

Actually, I don't take information from anti-vax websites that sell or advertise things. I tend to be skeptical of a lot of things like that, it's just common sense if they are trying to sell you their product their entire site is usually just a huge sales pitch, but that is just me.

I definitely agree with this. I personally can't stand the Dr. Mercola site for this very reason. There are occasions where he posts some good information, but a lot of the time I find he uses his site purely for advertising his products.

 

[Sunshinebubs]

Hi,

Im in the UK.

I researched, weighed the benefits/risks and chose not to vaccinate my daughter. She is now almost 2 1/2 years old and I have absolutely no regrets. I will not be vaccinating this child either. When I first started out on the path of investigation, looking into it all, I was so overwhelmed by the strong feelings on both sides of this debate and unbelievably nervous about what I was going to do. I was a new mum...What was best for this little person I had sole responsibility for? I stepped back from both sides, I searched, I read, I printed out medical journals. I have never spent so much time on anything in my life. I also gathered anacdotal evidence (some might scoff but its real life, there in black and white for you to see with your own eyes) from my friends who had children - both those who vaccinated and those who didn't. I compared everything.
Whether we like it or not, there are risks to vaccinating. These risks are just as real as not vaccinating. It is not a black and white "just go and get it done" type of situation. The fact remains, and I *personally* can't ignore it, that so many kids and adults I know first hand have have had reactions to vaccines, and so many have still contracted diseases they have been vaccinated against. It has shocked me in fact.
My husband and I decided that instead of injecting what is undeniably a load of toxins into our child's body (when they could still in fact catch the said disease anyway) that we would work hard from the other side and strengthen her immune system to cope with whatever comes along. Just what we do for ourselves. And believe me, we do everything and put so much effort into it...and I can see the results for myself.

Vaccinated persons can spread disease to unvaccinated persons, and vice versa. And importantly, vaccinated persons can spread disease to others who are vaccinated, because the effectiveness of vaccines is not 100%.
It is impossible in this world to vaccinate against every single disease and virus out there. Its a part of life and the best thing for *my* family is to stay healthy and prepared for battle.

I should add that Jenny Mc, and whoever else is apparently non-vax in the celebrity world had absolutely NO baring on our decision. No baring whatsoever.

Anyway, I am just answering your question OP. I don't need debate, I am perfectly secure in my decision and I hope you are too, whatever you decide to do. We are all mums who want to do the right thing. I envy no one this decision. Wishing you all the best xx

 

[A1983]

Hello-2 quick questions here if you wouldn't mind reading?

I have already described my dilemma (but to quickly recapture my sister experienced severe convulsions following whooping cough vaccine and is subsequently brain damaged. I therefore never recieved the vaccine and have had no issues). I - by accident really- had the Tdap/pertussis booster 18 months ago-so my first contact with the vaccine at the age of 28, is the fact im an adult a good reason I had no ill effects? Or because it's, I presume, only a small amount of the vaccine?

Secondly, IF I receive the booster again during this pregnancy, which travels to the baby to protect them for a few weeks post birth-is this basically the same as vaccinating my baby as if it were to have the jab itself? Does that make sense? What im wondering is IF it isn't safe for my baby to have the whooping cough vaccine once born, then does that mean likewise he shouldn't have it whilst in utero? (I will be speaking to my obstetrician about vaccinating my baby with W.C. but so far am too scared to give it to my baby because of my sister's reaction)

Thank you

Hi,

Im in the UK.

I researched, weighed the benefits/risks and chose not to vaccinate my daughter. She is now almost 2 1/2 years old and I have absolutely no regrets. I will not be vaccinating this child either. When I first started out on the path of investigation, looking into it all, I was so overwhelmed by the strong feelings on both sides of this debate and unbelievably nervous about what I was going to do. I was a new mum...What was best for this little person I had sole responsibility for? I stepped back from both sides, I searched, I read, I printed out medical journals. I have never spent so much time on anything in my life. I also gathered anacdotal evidence (some might scoff but its real life, there in black and white for you to see with your own eyes) from my friends who had children - both those who vaccinated and those who didn't. I compared everything.
Whether we like it or not, there are risks to vaccinating. These risks are just as real as not vaccinating. It is not a black and white "just go and get it done" type of situation. The fact remains, and I *personally* can't ignore it, that so many kids and adults I know first hand have have had reactions to vaccines, and so many have still contracted diseases they have been vaccinated against. It has shocked me in fact.
My husband and I decided that instead of injecting what is undeniably a load of toxins into our child's body (when they could still in fact catch the said disease anyway) that we would work hard from the other side and strengthen her immune system to cope with whatever comes along. Just what we do for ourselves. And believe me, we do everything and put so much effort into it...and I can see the results for myself.

Vaccinated persons can spread disease to unvaccinated persons, and vice versa. And importantly, vaccinated persons can spread disease to others who are vaccinated, because the effectiveness of vaccines is not 100%.
It is impossible in this world to vaccinate against every single disease and virus out there. Its a part of life and the best thing for *my* family is to stay healthy and prepared for battle.

I should add that Jenny Mc, and whoever else is apparently non-vax in the celebrity world had absolutely NO baring on our decision. No baring whatsoever.

Anyway, I am just answering your question OP. I don't need debate, I am perfectly secure in my decision and I hope you are too, whatever you decide to do. We are all mums who want to do the right thing. I envy no one this decision. Wishing you all the best xx

Might be a silly question Sunshinebubs, but do you do anything in particular to keep your child's immunity levels tip top aside to healthy eating? Only im almost positive I'll not be happy to vaccinate my baby/child with the Whooping Cough jab due to the potential genetic risk, and so want to do the very best for my child in protecting them in every other way I can.

Thank you x

 

[CMarie]

Hello-2 quick questions here if you wouldn't mind reading?

I have already described my dilemma (but to quickly recapture my sister experienced severe convulsions following whooping cough vaccine and is subsequently brain damaged. I therefore never recieved the vaccine and have had no issues). I - by accident really- had the Tdap/pertussis booster 18 months ago-so my first contact with the vaccine at the age of 28, is the fact im an adult a good reason I had no ill effects? Or because it's, I presume, only a small amount of the vaccine?

Secondly, IF I receive the booster again during this pregnancy, which travels to the baby to protect them for a few weeks post birth-is this basically the same as vaccinating my baby as if it were to have the jab itself? Does that make sense? What im wondering is IF it isn't safe for my baby to have the whooping cough vaccine once born, then does that mean likewise he shouldn't have it whilst in utero? (I will be speaking to my obstetrician about vaccinating my baby with W.C. but so far am too scared to give it to my baby because of my sister's reaction)

Thank you

Hi,

Im in the UK.

I researched, weighed the benefits/risks and chose not to vaccinate my daughter. She is now almost 2 1/2 years old and I have absolutely no regrets. I will not be vaccinating this child either. When I first started out on the path of investigation, looking into it all, I was so overwhelmed by the strong feelings on both sides of this debate and unbelievably nervous about what I was going to do. I was a new mum...What was best for this little person I had sole responsibility for? I stepped back from both sides, I searched, I read, I printed out medical journals. I have never spent so much time on anything in my life. I also gathered anacdotal evidence (some might scoff but its real life, there in black and white for you to see with your own eyes) from my friends who had children - both those who vaccinated and those who didn't. I compared everything.
Whether we like it or not, there are risks to vaccinating. These risks are just as real as not vaccinating. It is not a black and white "just go and get it done" type of situation. The fact remains, and I *personally* can't ignore it, that so many kids and adults I know first hand have have had reactions to vaccines, and so many have still contracted diseases they have been vaccinated against. It has shocked me in fact.
My husband and I decided that instead of injecting what is undeniably a load of toxins into our child's body (when they could still in fact catch the said disease anyway) that we would work hard from the other side and strengthen her immune system to cope with whatever comes along. Just what we do for ourselves. And believe me, we do everything and put so much effort into it...and I can see the results for myself.

Vaccinated persons can spread disease to unvaccinated persons, and vice versa. And importantly, vaccinated persons can spread disease to others who are vaccinated, because the effectiveness of vaccines is not 100%.
It is impossible in this world to vaccinate against every single disease and virus out there. Its a part of life and the best thing for *my* family is to stay healthy and prepared for battle.

I should add that Jenny Mc, and whoever else is apparently non-vax in the celebrity world had absolutely NO baring on our decision. No baring whatsoever.

Anyway, I am just answering your question OP. I don't need debate, I am perfectly secure in my decision and I hope you are too, whatever you decide to do. We are all mums who want to do the right thing. I envy no one this decision. Wishing you all the best xx

Might be a silly question Sunshinebubs, but do you do anything in particular to keep your child's immunity levels tip top aside to healthy eating? Only im almost positive I'll not be happy to vaccinate my baby/child with the Whooping Cough jab due to the potential genetic risk, and so want to do the very best for my child in protecting them in every other way I can.

Thank you x

I personally wouldn't get any vaccine during pregnancy . . most of them have never even been tested for safety on pregnant women obviously due to ethical reasons. If you just had a shot 18 months ago I don't even know if a doctor would give you another one so soon, but I may be wrong. Do you know what brand of the vaccine you'd be getting? If so, you could Google that brand and find the vaccine package insert and read up what it says on the use on pregnant women. Also, I think it would be wise to decline this vaccine just because of how your sister reacted. If adverse reactions to a certain vaccine run in the family it's a pretty good reason to avoid that vaccine IMO.

I found 2 vaccine inserts for 2 different types of Tdap shots and this is what they say:

1) Boostrix: https://us.gsk.com/products/assets/us_boostrix.pdf

Safety and effectiveness of BOOSTRIX have not been established in pregnant women. (8.1)

2) Adacel: https://www.vaccineshoppe.com/image.cfm?doc_id=10438&image_type=product_pdf

Safety and effectiveness of Adacel vaccine have not been
established in pregnant women

As for boosting LO's immune system, breastfeeding is an awesome start Like Sunshine said, the best thing is a healthy diet, but breastfeeding really helps in those early years. I would also say a good Vitamin D and C supplement as well. We give LO both of those as they are known for boosting the immune system and fighting off infections

 

[A1983]

Thank you CMarie ill ask for the insert before any further thoughts on having it but yes I agree with you-too risky with my family history, albeit 50 years ago. It just seems the one flippin vaccine I can't have/give is the one everyone is pushing for highlighting the increasing dangers and prevalence

 

[kit10grl]

I'm having a hard time with this issue just now.

I am most definityl all for it being the parentsd decision and while i am for vaccinations i absolutly respect non vaxers as a lot of the reasons i have heard stated are well thought out and the parent believes they are for the best and that in itself is a valid enough reason however once again DD has to be the different one.

DS and DD are both vaxed. DD however has as part of her syndrome an immunology issue that means her vaccines arent working. So now I have a vaxed child who is immunocompromised who is essentially unprotected.

So like i said i respect the decision not to vaccinate but personally so concerned with the possibilty that non vaxing might become common place and put my LO at high risk of catching and potentially dying from these diseases. This is terrifying for me and makes me wish i could find a way to make vaccines acceptable to every person on the planet to protect my baby girl. She is currently in a respiratory bay in the hospital. The same place they would put a chiuld with whooping cough. I am really quite scared of a child with whopping cough (vaxed or unvaxed) being near my child as a bad outbreak for her could literally mean death.

this issue didnt used to be such a big deal for me as i knew my kids were vaxed and it wasnt up to me wether others were or not, but the fear in me maqkes me worry about it now