Vaccine Adverse Reactions...Worth the Risk?

[Lynz16]

and in most cases I would rather Thomas was given the opportunity to develop natural immunity to them.

Unfortunately to get natural immunity to a disease or virus you need to get the antigens from that virus/disease into your blood so that your lymphocytes can fight it and produce something called antigen-specific T-Lymphocytes which then 'remember' that they have encountered that antigen in the past to provide your body with a massive (and fast) immune response to that antigen so to get 'natural' immunity you would need to get the disease and of course if your body has a slow response to it or does not fight it fast enough and it's a severe disease such as smallpox then you will die from it, of course not all diseases/viruses are fatal and a mild reaction does not require vaccines and of course for these you can encounter them, not die and form a 'natural' immunity to them which is why you cannot catch the same bug that's going around more than once.

However for the fatal diseases this is where vaccines come into play, they introduce deactivated forms of the specific antigen to the disease into the body causing a mild immune response (which causes fever, headache etc from the immune response but not actually giving you the disease) and provides the body the abillity to create T-cells and have a 'memory' of the disease so that if you encounter to disease for real it can fight it quickly and efficiently stopping you from potentially dying.

Of course if these severe diseases are to make a reappearance due to people not vaccinating against them then the vaccinated people can still die from it, all the vaccines do are give a faster and stronger immune response so at the end of the day not vaccinating does not (as many people seem to think) just affect you and your family but does in fact affect everyone in the population.

I know that I am very pro-vaccination and I know that there are many people who will disagree with what I have just wrote but at the end of the day, I am educated specifically in this field and want to provide facts and not opinions to those who do not know how vaccines work.

At the end of the day what those who are unsure need to think about on a personal level is if your baby was to catch something as common as measles, which FYI has reappeared in the UK in 1992 and has sharply risen (and is believed to be due to the decline in vaccinations!) and you haven't vaccinated and they die from it when it could have been prevented, Or if you don't vaccinate your daughter, she has a fine & healthy life, grows up & becomes pregnant then comes into contact with rubella and loses her child which again could be preventable then how would it affect you?...

 

[Blue_bumpkin]

and in most cases I would rather Thomas was given the opportunity to develop natural immunity to them.

Unfortunately to get natural immunity to a disease or virus you need to get the antigens from that virus/disease into your blood so that your lymphocytes can fight it and produce something called antigen-specific T-Lymphocytes which then 'remember' that they have encountered that antigen in the past to provide your body with a massive (and fast) immune response to that antigen so to get 'natural' immunity you would need to get the disease and of course if your body has a slow response to it or does not fight it fast enough and it's a severe disease such as smallpox then you will die from it, of course not all diseases/viruses are fatal and a mild reaction does not require vaccines and of course for these you can encounter them, not die and form a 'natural' immunity to them which is why you cannot catch the same bug that's going around more than once.

However for the fatal diseases this is where vaccines come into play, they introduce deactivated forms of the specific antigen to the disease into the body causing a mild immune response (which causes fever, headache etc from the immune response but not actually giving you the disease) and provides the body the abillity to create T-cells and have a 'memory' of the disease so that if you encounter to disease for real it can fight it quickly and efficiently stopping you from potentially dying.

Of course if these severe diseases are to make a reappearance due to people not vaccinating against them then the vaccinated people can still die from it, all the vaccines do are give a faster and stronger immune response so at the end of the day not vaccinating does not (as many people seem to think) just affect you and your family but does in fact affect everyone in the population.

I know that I am very pro-vaccination and I know that there are many people who will disagree with what I have just wrote but at the end of the day, I am educated specifically in this field and want to provide facts and not opinions to those who do not know how vaccines work.

At the end of the day what those who are unsure need to think about on a personal level is if your baby was to catch something as common as measles, which FYI has reappeared in the UK in 1992 and has sharply risen (and is believed to be due to the decline in vaccinations!) and you haven't vaccinated and they die from it when it could have been prevented, Or if you don't vaccinate your daughter, she has a fine & healthy life, grows up & becomes pregnant then comes into contact with rubella and loses her child which again could be preventable then how would it affect you?...

i dont really think that was necessary. the worry people have about vaccinations is the actual vaccine itself. You dont quash anxeties like that by putting more onto a person iykwim? They could then say 'Well what if my child dies because of a reaction to the vaccine' and so debates like this end up going round in cirlces.. I am studying immunology and pharmacology just now and the stuff you are referring to earlier in your post is highly important imo as a lot of people do not know how vaccines work so thanks for that. many believe it prevents infection completely when thats not the case.

i am also pro vaccine, but shared similar worries about vaccinations when deciding what was best so i can understand people being wary. its only natural i suppose..

 

[redpoppy]

I would like to thank everyone for posting on this thread as its been VERY informative for me. I'm a bit concerned and relieved that there haven't been very strong arguments from the anti vaccine side but perhaps that will come.

I do however think that a single parent's experiences are important for me. I think I would KNOW if a vaccine had affected my baby. So I do feel influenced when I hear of parents who feel the same about their kids. Although it is a minority and the pro does outweigh the negatives plus there is an element of social responsibility. Of course ultimately you never want to be the one to sacrifice your own child's health for the majority you can't say that it would not be highly problematic if all parents stopped immunisations. The reason people are SAFE to CHOOSE not to immunise is in my opinion because the majority still do.

Here's my main question: What are the pros and cons of a delayed vaccination programme?

 

[PeanutBean]

Hm. Well pros would be more recovery time between vaccinations, though even the early one's have quite a gap really anyway. The baby would have a more mature immune system that then might cope better. Peace of mind for you perhaps. Cons would be increased risk of exposure to illness because of a longer period of time before vaccination. Some of the boosters must have a need to be a certain distance apart from each other to be effective so it would be important to consult with a medic on that.

Byron had his mmr quite a bit late. He was priority for the swine flu jab because of chest problems and the nurse told us a month between them. The flu became the priority at that time. At the moment we have measles near us so mmr would be priority now if there were the choice now.

 

[Lynz16]

and in most cases I would rather Thomas was given the opportunity to develop natural immunity to them.

Unfortunately to get natural immunity to a disease or virus you need to get the antigens from that virus/disease into your blood so that your lymphocytes can fight it and produce something called antigen-specific T-Lymphocytes which then 'remember' that they have encountered that antigen in the past to provide your body with a massive (and fast) immune response to that antigen so to get 'natural' immunity you would need to get the disease and of course if your body has a slow response to it or does not fight it fast enough and it's a severe disease such as smallpox then you will die from it, of course not all diseases/viruses are fatal and a mild reaction does not require vaccines and of course for these you can encounter them, not die and form a 'natural' immunity to them which is why you cannot catch the same bug that's going around more than once.

However for the fatal diseases this is where vaccines come into play, they introduce deactivated forms of the specific antigen to the disease into the body causing a mild immune response (which causes fever, headache etc from the immune response but not actually giving you the disease) and provides the body the abillity to create T-cells and have a 'memory' of the disease so that if you encounter to disease for real it can fight it quickly and efficiently stopping you from potentially dying.

Of course if these severe diseases are to make a reappearance due to people not vaccinating against them then the vaccinated people can still die from it, all the vaccines do are give a faster and stronger immune response so at the end of the day not vaccinating does not (as many people seem to think) just affect you and your family but does in fact affect everyone in the population.

I know that I am very pro-vaccination and I know that there are many people who will disagree with what I have just wrote but at the end of the day, I am educated specifically in this field and want to provide facts and not opinions to those who do not know how vaccines work.

At the end of the day what those who are unsure need to think about on a personal level is if your baby was to catch something as common as measles, which FYI has reappeared in the UK in 1992 and has sharply risen (and is believed to be due to the decline in vaccinations!) and you haven't vaccinated and they die from it when it could have been prevented, Or if you don't vaccinate your daughter, she has a fine & healthy life, grows up & becomes pregnant then comes into contact with rubella and loses her child which again could be preventable then how would it affect you?...

i dont really think that was necessary. the worry people have about vaccinations is the actual vaccine itself. You dont quash anxeties like that by putting more onto a person iykwim? They could then say 'Well what if my child dies because of a reaction to the vaccine' and so debates like this end up going round in cirlces.. I am studying immunology and pharmacology just now and the stuff you are referring to earlier in your post is highly important imo as a lot of people do not know how vaccines work so thanks for that. many believe it prevents infection completely when thats not the case.

i am also pro vaccine, but shared similar worries about vaccinations when deciding what was best so i can understand people being wary. its only natural i suppose..

I do apologise for that bit, I didn't mean to worry people any more I was just on a bit of a rampage that day about vaccines and I guess that I've seen on a personal level the outcomes from not vaccinating so it just really annoys me that so many people choose to put not just their own children but also others at risk from things that are so preventable. I do wonder if someone could create a natural based alternative to the current vaccines if more people would take them up? as it seems to be a 'fear' of the chemicals/reactions to the additives that people are worried about, might make a good study lol.

And I totally agree it is a scary thing to take your tiny baby to get these injections especially as all you ever hear is the bad points of vaccinating nowadays and never any good points, it is natural to worry, of course it is. Same as when we had to make the decision to vaccinate ourselves but I guess that for me it's just something that has to be done and in my head there was never really a thought put to not getting them done both for myself and for my LO

 

[Justagirlxx]

I do apologise for that bit, I didn't mean to worry people any more I was just on a bit of a rampage that day about vaccines and I guess that I've seen on a personal level the outcomes from not vaccinating so it just really annoys me that so many people choose to put not just their own children but also others at risk from things that are so preventable. I do wonder if someone could create a natural based alternative to the current vaccines if more people would take them up? as it seems to be a 'fear' of the chemicals/reactions to the additives that people are worried about, might make a good study lol.

I've seen on a personal level the outcomes of vaccinating and to me that is a risk that is preventable. If someone created a natural based vaccine with no adverse effects than I would absolutely vaccinate myself and my son. My reasons for not vaccinating are directly related to the toxins and chemicals in vaccines that are proven to cause adverse side effects including GBS (paralysis), seizures, and even death.

 

[bubbles123]

People can choose not to vaccinate only if the majority still choose to do so. Once herd immunity is lost, then it is entirely possible diseases will return, especially given the amount of global travel etc that's now common place. Medical science is good but it still can't cure polio. I saw Bill Gates on the TV the other day saying they have managed to contain polio now in all but 4 countries through vaccination - what an amazing achievement. It would be so sad to see such a horrid disease return in the west.

 

[PeanutBean]

I went to school with a girl who'd had polio. It was surprising to me even that long ago. She had various deformities and was a little simple. It was pretty sad.

 

[Justagirlxx]

People can choose not to vaccinate only if the majority still choose to do so. Once herd immunity is lost, then it is entirely possible diseases will return, especially given the amount of global travel etc that's now common place. Medical science is good but it still can't cure polio. I saw Bill Gates on the TV the other day saying they have managed to contain polio now in all but 4 countries through vaccination - what an amazing achievement. It would be so sad to see such a horrid disease return in the west.

But what is the cost? Thousands of babies and young children harmed by vaccine reactions... to me the cost is too high.

 

[Sarahkka]

People can choose not to vaccinate only if the majority still choose to do so. Once herd immunity is lost, then it is entirely possible diseases will return, especially given the amount of global travel etc that's now common place. Medical science is good but it still can't cure polio. I saw Bill Gates on the TV the other day saying they have managed to contain polio now in all but 4 countries through vaccination - what an amazing achievement. It would be so sad to see such a horrid disease return in the west.

But what is the cost? Thousands of babies and young children harmed by vaccine reactions... to me the cost is too high.

And millions and millions more who aren't and who benefit.
"Thousands" seems like a pretty high number to me, anyway, unless you are talking globally. Not sure what you mean by "harmed", either? If you are talking about typical reactions, I strongly disagree. Rashes and fevers are not harming anyone. They aren't pleasant, but I would hardly count them as harm. Particularly if you see what the actual disease can do (and that's long-term harm) to a child's body.

 

[PeanutBean]

Yes I'd like to see the evidence for these thousands of children harmed in a way more debilitating than catching the disease.

Off topic but Sarah yours boys are gorgeous!

 

[Sarahkka]

Sometimes I feel like this is really a debate of the privileged. Travel to a place where health care (never mind basic necessities of food, water, and shelter) is very uncertain. Preventable diseases kill a lot of small children in many parts of the world. I wonder what those mothers would think about debating a vaccine that would have saved their child's life?
I think it's good to question and research, but maybe I have a more global perspective from having traveled a lot. It makes me a bit impatient with the anti-vax movement. When I think of the state of so many kids in this world, I just don't understand how people can get so wound up about this issue.

 

[Sarahkka]

I have another question that maybe PeanutBean and Lynz could comment on, due to their backgrounds?
Regarding current vaccination schedules and the number of vaccines administered at each appointment:
My understanding is that kids under the age of two have immune systems that are developing extremely quickly. They are exposed to upwards of 200 new microbes every day and are in a constant state of immune response. If that is true, why would adding five or six more from a vaccine really matter? What is the point of "spreading them out" or administering them one at a time?

 

[PeanutBean]

I tried the third world angle in the last giant and extremely heated vaccine thread but no eyelid was batted. I think the anti-vaxers think it is all a terrible experiment on the world's most vulnerable. There was an article very recently about western vaccine nonsense travelling over to these countries and putting vaccination programmes at risk. I may have bookmarked it and will check after I post this and share the link if I have it. There was another recently about a disease in cattle bring declared wiped out after a vaccination and culling programme. According to the article this is the second disease to have been eradicated, the first of course being smallpox.

In answer to your question Sarah I don't actually know! I'm sure it's true babes are exposed to squillions of new microbes but then I suppose they will also very much vary in their potential toxicity. If one thinks of the billions of types of microbes and those few that are ever really much dangerous I suppose most pose little to no pressure to the new immune system. Perhaps the concentration or type of agent makes vaccines more stressful, after there must be a reason for high temps in general vaccinations. But I really don't know. Maybe Lynz can help?

 

[Blue_bumpkin]

I have another question that maybe PeanutBean and Lynz could comment on, due to their backgrounds?
Regarding current vaccination schedules and the number of vaccines administered at each appointment:
My understanding is that kids under the age of two have immune systems that are developing extremely quickly. They are exposed to upwards of 200 new microbes every day and are in a constant state of immune response. If that is true, why would adding five or six more from a vaccine really matter? What is the point of "spreading them out" or administering them one at a time?

I think the issue isn't with the disease part of the vaccines and their effect on the immune system but with the additives in the vaccine - for example the preservatives or adjuvants. Well from my understanding that is where a lot of the concern lies. These things have never before been tested in babies so makes parents cautious.

Its very different from gaining natural immunity, without the use of a vaccine as natural aquiration of immunity would not require the use of such additives.

With regards to giving multiple jabs in one, I think one of the benefits of spreading them out would be that the body has to only deal with one new microbe at a time - not every microbe we come into contact with will require such a strong immune response as those for which we have vaccinations - hence why we have vaccinations for these diseases I suppose. This may also make the response to that microbe slightly stronger than say the body having to battle 5 or 6. That said however, multiple individual shots would mean that each time the child is receiving the individual vaccine it is also receiving the additives over and over and I think thats why they like to combine them to eliminate this - that and the fact that its important to vaccinate children as earlier as possible, if there is to be a need at all.

Not sure thats what you even asked and im not expert but thats just my thoughts

 

[PeanutBean]

There does seem to be a lot of concern over the additives but I've often heard people talking about 'natural' immune responses as if it is somehow not the sane immune system having a response regardless of how the invasion occurs. Also there is a misconception that vaccines are intravascular and people seem to feel this is a very direct way for the additives to enter the body. I have pointed out the lungs and gut both allow for transfer of toxins directly into the blood stream and that vaccination is intramuscular but haven't yet been told whether this made any difference to their opinions.

 

[marley2580]

With regards to the 3rd world argument. For me, if I lived in a country where the risk of catching diseases such as polio were high, then I would probably vaccinate because the benefits would outweigh the risks. But I don't. I live in a country with high levels of sanitation and excellent healthcare, therefore, for me, the risks outweigh the benefits.

With regards to the 'natural' immune reaction, the fact is that you have a much higher immunity if you catch a disease naturally rather than through vaccines - vaccines such as the MMR, in many cases, only last a finite amount of time and therefore need boosters.

I am not against vaccinations per say. I have given both my kids the 5:1, allbeit on a delayed schedule. I have weighed up the benefits and the risks for MY family and decided to not give most vaccines. If feel that this is the right decision for MY family.

And I do appreciate that herd immunity protects my kids, and I am grateful for it.

 

[midori1999]

With regards to the 3rd world argument. For me, if I lived in a country where the risk of catching diseases such as polio were high, then I would probably vaccinate because the benefits would outweigh the risks. But I don't. I live in a country with high levels of sanitation and excellent healthcare, therefore, for me, the risks outweigh the benefits.

With regards to the 'natural' immune reaction, the fact is that you have a much higher immunity if you catch a disease naturally rather than through vaccines - vaccines such as the MMR, in many cases, only last a finite amount of time and therefore need boosters.

I am not against vaccinations per say. I have given both my kids the 5:1, allbeit on a delayed schedule. I have weighed up the benefits and the risks for MY family and decided to not give most vaccines. If feel that this is the right decision for MY family.

And I do appreciate that herd immunity protects my kids, and I am grateful for it.

That's all very well, but as more and more parents do not uptake the MMR vacine for their children, herd immunity will diminish. That's already happening, hence the increase in measles outbreaks. So, eventually, your children won't be protected by herd immunity.

What about children who cannot have the vaccines for medical or health reasons? What do they do when herd immunity diminishes? Get sick? Or is that OK, because you've made the right decision for YOUR family?

 

[marley2580]

My emphasis on MY family was to suggest that while it's right for us it may not be right for others. Yes it is selfish on many levels, but I actually don't care because my children are my priority, not the children of people that I don't know.

 

[Blue_bumpkin]

My emphasis on MY family was to suggest that while it's right for us it may not be right for others. Yes it is selfish on many levels, but I actually don't care because my children are my priority, not the children of people that I don't know.

Thats why - for me - herd immunity never factored into my decision.

Whereas I decided to vaccinate, I also only did so for my child's sake, not the rest of the community iykwim.

I dont think looking out for your childs best interest is selfish at all. Its what we as parents are programmed to do