Vaccine Adverse Reactions...Worth the Risk?

[Blue_bumpkin]

I know there are a few other threads on this topic but it seems to me a new fresh thread needs to be made in order for us to comment on this subject at this time. I would love for this thread to be informative for people who have not yet made a decision on whether to vaccinate.

To me the adverse reactions of vaccines are NOT worth the risk.

I strongly believe in vaccine education. Parents are not told the risks of vaccinations by doctors. Parents need to know. Informed consent is called for in every aspect of medical care besides this.

www.nvic.org is the National Vaccine Information Center and shows my stance on vaccination. It has links to many credible studies. It calls for the informed consent of parents in regards to vaccination. I believe this site is something all parents should read through before making the decision on whether to vaccinate their children.

I would like a place for people on both sides of the fence to comment, share their stories and their research. I would love for everyone to provide links to more information of their stance.

My heart goes out to the family and friends of all the children harmed by adverse vaccine reactions.

I don't think that link if very reliable to honest and seems extremely bias. Where are the two sides of the fence in that?

We need informative resources, unbiased and reliable.

 

[Blue_bumpkin]

Does anyone have any information on SIDS statistics with regards to vaccines? I read in another thread somewhere they a test was done in Japan i think and that they recommend doing vaccines after the gae of 2 years old because before that there is an incresed risk of SIDS.

Our LO has had his first lot of joabs at 2 months, plus the hep b at birth, but im not sure i want to continue the vaccine course due to the SIDS thing, even if it IS a low number, surely, anything that helps prevents SIDS is worth doing, so if waiting till my LO is 2 for his jabs is surely better then doing them now or not doing them at all?

Im really confused and upset about this. I want whats best for my baby, but i honestly dont have a clue what that is anymore. I feel so miserable about it.

The risk of SIDS is actually reduced by vaccinating. Vaccination induces a positive reaction in our immune system that has been shown to be effective in reducing the incidence of SIDS

 

[Blue_bumpkin]

If you are a perfectly healthy person having a perfectly healthy pregancy it's terifying to go get a flu jab, likewise if you have a perfectly healthy baby it's against all your natural instincts to go and take them to be vaccinated. I think it's that fear that leads people fall in to the anti-vaccination group.

The world is healier due to vaccines, I don't think you can really argue with that on the whole, but individual issues with different vaccines do exist and the anti-vaccine side of the argument will always focus on these and the pro-vaccine side will always play them down.

I think that's all there is to it really, we all want the best for ourselves and our children and do what we feel is right. I like the fact the anti-vaccine side look for problems with the vaccine programmes - we do need that in society, we need people to question everything so we can get to the truth.

Personally I am pretty pro-vaccine but I think these debates about vaccines can get a bit too heated sometimes, when every poster on here just wants the best for themselves and their families.

I agree. I am pro vaccine. I have done my research but can understand peoples anxieties about vaccines. The risks may be low but the fact that there are risks, makes people wary. And rightly so.

The only problem I have with anti vacciners, if you like, is that they often quote unreliable sources in a bid to support their decision. The fact is that there doesn't seem to be any solid supportive evidence that suggests not vaccinating is more beneficial than vaccinating - and thats what I would need to convince me otherwise. I also dislike the pulling apart of science in a bid to find holes that support their views aswell. Proof can be sought in every corner of the internet but it will never be found. not 100% anyway so if thats what your looking for, your wasting your time. A decision like this has to be made based on risk assessment, which is why researching your decision is so important and knowing the risks on both sides.

On the other hand though I would never judge someone for not vaccinating. It is a personal choice. Who am I to tell someone they should be vaccinating their child? If some kind of reaction did strike their child then what? I can live with my decision for my son. I am his mother and it is my job to protect him - how ever I feel is best to do this.

Your damned if you do and damned if you don't with this one. I could sit and say to non vaccinators - what happens if your child gets ill, but I could similarly sit and say to someone who has chosen vaccination - what happens if your child suffers a severe reaction.

I agree there can be scaremongering on both sides though and neither is acceptable.

When someone asks for my advice I say the same thing time and time again - make an informed choice. Weigh up the risks of each and then decide. Make sure you are confident with your decision.

ETA: a brilliant source of information is PubMed. You will find a library of useful, unbias information to aid you in your decision

 

[Justagirlxx]

I know there are a few other threads on this topic but it seems to me a new fresh thread needs to be made in order for us to comment on this subject at this time. I would love for this thread to be informative for people who have not yet made a decision on whether to vaccinate.

To me the adverse reactions of vaccines are NOT worth the risk.

I strongly believe in vaccine education. Parents are not told the risks of vaccinations by doctors. Parents need to know. Informed consent is called for in every aspect of medical care besides this.

www.nvic.org is the National Vaccine Information Center and shows my stance on vaccination. It has links to many credible studies. It calls for the informed consent of parents in regards to vaccination. I believe this site is something all parents should read through before making the decision on whether to vaccinate their children.

I would like a place for people on both sides of the fence to comment, share their stories and their research. I would love for everyone to provide links to more information of their stance.

My heart goes out to the family and friends of all the children harmed by adverse vaccine reactions.

I don't think that link if very reliable to honest and seems extremely bias. Where are the two sides of the fence in that?

We need informative resources, unbiased and reliable.

Yeah it is a non-vax site because I am non-vax. I didn't say I was going to provide the links for pro-vax too, but if you want to that'd be cool. xx

 

[SKATERBUN]

If you are a perfectly healthy person having a perfectly healthy pregancy it's terifying to go get a flu jab, likewise if you have a perfectly healthy baby it's against all your natural instincts to go and take them to be vaccinated. I think it's that fear that leads people fall in to the anti-vaccination group.

The world is healier due to vaccines, I don't think you can really argue with that on the whole, but individual issues with different vaccines do exist and the anti-vaccine side of the argument will always focus on these and the pro-vaccine side will always play them down.

I think that's all there is to it really, we all want the best for ourselves and our children and do what we feel is right. I like the fact the anti-vaccine side look for problems with the vaccine programmes - we do need that in society, we need people to question everything so we can get to the truth.

Personally I am pretty pro-vaccine but I think these debates about vaccines can get a bit too heated sometimes, when every poster on here just wants the best for themselves and their families.

Exactly, as a pregnant mum you are told to not eat too much tuna if at all as it could contain trace amounts of mercury, yet the Swine Flu vacine which I was invited to have whilst pregnant contained small amounts of mercury Needless to say I didnt have it because of this fear, there was a separate debate on that vacine a few days ago by Blutea.

Yes a lot of it is scaremongering and like I said on an earlier post I'm prepared to listen to both sides. I do my own research and decide whats best for me and my LO. I seem to be swaying from one camp to the other at the mo so still kinda on the fence. It is a big decision to make and I admire mums who can just go with the flow. I guess I get a little neurotic when it comes to such things, but sometimes you have to keep questioning these things you don't understand until you are truly satisfied with the answer

 

[Blue_bumpkin]

If you are a perfectly healthy person having a perfectly healthy pregancy it's terifying to go get a flu jab, likewise if you have a perfectly healthy baby it's against all your natural instincts to go and take them to be vaccinated. I think it's that fear that leads people fall in to the anti-vaccination group.

The world is healier due to vaccines, I don't think you can really argue with that on the whole, but individual issues with different vaccines do exist and the anti-vaccine side of the argument will always focus on these and the pro-vaccine side will always play them down.

I think that's all there is to it really, we all want the best for ourselves and our children and do what we feel is right. I like the fact the anti-vaccine side look for problems with the vaccine programmes - we do need that in society, we need people to question everything so we can get to the truth.

Personally I am pretty pro-vaccine but I think these debates about vaccines can get a bit too heated sometimes, when every poster on here just wants the best for themselves and their families.

Exactly, as a pregnant mum you are told to not eat too much tuna if at all as it could contain trace amounts of mercury, yet the Swine Flu vacine which I was invited to have whilst pregnant contained small amounts of mercury Needless to say I didnt have it because of this fear, there was a separate debate on that vacine a few days ago by Blutea.

Yes a lot of it is scaremongering and like I said on an earlier post I'm prepared to listen to both sides. I do my own research and decide whats best for me and my LO. I seem to be swaying from one camp to the other at the mo so still kinda on the fence. It is a big decision to make and I admire mums who can just go with the flow. I guess I get a little neurotic when it comes to such things, but sometimes you have to keep questioning these things you don't understand until you are truly satisfied with the answer

Absolutely. You have to be confident with whatever you choose and noone should be judgemental of one another. Its a tough enough decision.

I have severe anxiety and PND so it took A LOT of research and information gathering (and many a sleepless/teary night too might I add) before I felt confident with my decision to vaccinate

Im at peace with my decision but fully understand people's anxieties about the vaccines. The clincher for me was the vast research I found about vaccines reducing SIDS. SIDS doesn't have a vaccine to prevent it, it is so random and unexplained that anything I could do to reduce the risk of that happening I would have done - but thats just me xx

 

[marley2580]

Have a look here at some of the stats, they're quite interesting

https://web.mac.com/richardhalvorsen1/vaccines_index.html

 

[PeanutBean]

And who is dr Richard Halvorsen? The Biography section of his page says absolutely nothing. I did find he thinks Wakefield was struck off for showing dissent against the medical community so presumably he thinks the fact he fabricated his data and subjected the children to unnecessary and seriously invasive procedures is entirely ethical.

Whoever he is he must be quite clever. The way he intersperses his opinion with well referenced (but fairly mundane) facts gives a strong impression that it is his opinions that are bring referenced. Gee, people really need a science degree to get through his masquerade.

 

[marley2580]

He was a GP that wrote a book about vaccines. It's quite an interesting book that is not anti-vaccination as such but does look at alternative schedules and selectively vaccinating. Do you disagree with the idea that many disease rates were going down anyway, before vaccines were introduced?

 

[PeanutBean]

There only seemed to be graphs about smallpox and scarlet fever and they didn't seem to be referenced. The conclusions drawn from the smallpox one seemed to be a leap of logic.

 

[marley2580]

If you look at this one https://web.mac.com/richardhalvorsen1/decline_of_infectiious_diseases.html
it looks at deaths from measles, whooping cough, diphtheria and scarlet fever (for which there is no vaccine) and shows their decline before and after the introduction of the vaccines

 

[PeanutBean]

But the graph doesn't tell us anything. It neither proves that vaccination was responsible for any decline nor disproves it. Epidemiological study shows that diseases wax and wane in proportion with novelty of the illness, population size and density, and survival rate (hence population immunity). As more people survive a disease over time the basic population immunity is increased which reduces the chances of transmission around the population. Naturally diseases will change in this way however what then tends to happen is a mutation occurs that renders the illness sufficiently different that the population immunity is effectively wiped out. Immunisation prevents this occurring by bringing about mass immunity with essentially immediate effect. Or at least it works that way until some rogue scientist manufactures his results in order to promote his own company's product by filling people with fear leading to them not taking up the vaccination - as is happening with measles now.

The data says very little at all. It only talks about death and not incidence. It shows charts relating to a handful of specific diseases (with no reference - they could be entirely fabricated for all we know) then goes on to say how in the mid 19th century, when doctors didn't even wash their hands and the majority of the urban population lived in crowded slums, infectious diseases were the biggest killer. Well duh! And now through medicine, microbiology knowledge AND immunisation we all live long enough to pop off by cancer instead.

 

[aob1013]

Vaccinations are there for a reason. Only a tiny tiny tiny tiny tiny tiny tiny percentage of people have a reaction. Having your child vaccinated not only protects you but protects the community.

Because less and less parents are choosing not to vaccinate their children, these potentially fatal diseases are coming back. Very scary.

Leni will be vaccinated and i look forward to protecting him and our community.

 

[Rach27]

It's interesting that this debate relates to a reaction to the vaccine as much as whether having the vaccine is worth it (due to its effectiveness).

Thomas was vaccinnated but only because I wasn't well read enough on the subject by the time they came around. I agree that the decline in deaths from these illnesses has dropped in relation to other factors such as hygiene and in most cases I would rather Thomas was given the opportunity to develop natural immunity to them. I was also scared it might limit his schooling options.

 

[xbabybumpx]

If you look at this one https://web.mac.com/richardhalvorsen1/decline_of_infectiious_diseases.html
it looks at deaths from measles, whooping cough, diphtheria and scarlet fever (for which there is no vaccine) and shows their decline before and after the introduction of the vaccines

the vaccines do cover diptheria.....

 

[UkCath]

I don't want to get too drawn in to this again, it all gets a bit heated for me, but in the spirit of sharing links from both sides here is a story about what is happening in California and is blamed on a drop in vaccine uptake.

https://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39220447

Also if you google Measles Outbreak or Mumps Outbreak and MMR there are lots of news stories about Measles or Mumps outbreaks in areas where vaccine uptake declined after the MMR scare.

 

[SKATERBUN]

I don't want to get too drawn in to this again, it all gets a bit heated for me, but in the spirit of sharing links from both sides here is a story about what is happening in California and is blamed on a drop in vaccine uptake.

https://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39220447

Also if you google Measles Outbreak or Mumps Outbreak and MMR there are lots of news stories about Measles or Mumps outbreaks in areas where vaccine uptake declined after the MMR scare.

Me neither

However just to put it into perspective, theres 33 million people living in the state of california, not disputing your link by the way, but 4k cases is a small drop in the ocean isnt it? like they said whooping cough outbreaks waxes and wanes normally every 5 years - now it would be a scary figure if this were to be london or manchester for instance.

 

[marley2580]

If you look at this one https://web.mac.com/richardhalvorsen1/decline_of_infectiious_diseases.html
it looks at deaths from measles, whooping cough, diphtheria and scarlet fever (for which there is no vaccine) and shows their decline before and after the introduction of the vaccines

the vaccines do cover diptheria.....

But not scarlet fever

 

[marley2580]

I don't want to get too drawn in to this again, it all gets a bit heated for me, but in the spirit of sharing links from both sides here is a story about what is happening in California and is blamed on a drop in vaccine uptake.

https://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39220447

Also if you google Measles Outbreak or Mumps Outbreak and MMR there are lots of news stories about Measles or Mumps outbreaks in areas where vaccine uptake declined after the MMR scare.

Me neither

However just to put it into perspective, theres 33 million people living in the state of california, not disputing your link by the way, but 4k cases is a small drop in the ocean isnt it? like they said whooping cough outbreaks waxes and wanes normally every 5 years - now it would be a scary figure if this were to be london or manchester for instance.

Also, (and this is not to minimise their deaths in any way) only 9 babies have died, meaning a death rate of 0.22%. We don't know if the babies were particularly vulnerable and had underlying health issues, but even if they were really healthy it's still a very low death rate for the disease - the flu claims more lives

 

[PeanutBean]

I've just looked up scarlet fever. Apparently there was a vaccine in 1924 but it was quickly made redundant due to the very effective treatment by penicillin. Clearly a vaccine is unnecessary and the decline in incidence on the disease can most likely be put down to antibiotics.