Dont want to immunise, but.....(Micheal??)

[Inanna]

I am glad to find this response. I did want to respond when I read Trillians post but saw yours. I just want to reiterate. Whooping cough does not remain latent to be triggered at another time. If you are exposed you will either develop the disease within the incubation period of 14 days or you will not. As Mick has said the condition begins as most childhood illnesses do with a runny nose, cold and flu symptoms. It is from this time that the contagious period begins.

Whooping cough outbreaks occur regularly - and whilst any international event will highlight the disease and increase the incidence of the disease it is not only these events. Whooping cough is nost prevalent in Brisbane in August (show time). Small babies, premature infants and immuno suppressed folk of all ages are most at risk. Open prams are great places to expose babies to these little gribblies. Just because people peer in, bend over and look etc.
Slings are the best way to move your baby around crowded places like shopping centres and shows etc - just keeps them out of the firing line as much as possible.

Small babies should be weighed prior to injection of an immunisation. As with most drugs there is a weight range for doseage. I actually haven't given immunisations for a long time so I am ot sure what they are now - but it was always a weigh in first... So maybe that's changed???

[Schmickers]

Yup, it's changed. At least, it has in regular childhood immunisation, maybe they do weigh premmies.

[Shellbelle]

Just to confirm, premmies are not weighed prior to vaccination - one dose for all. I work in a nicu, and we give birth Hep B, then if bubs are still in hosp when they are due, they have 2mth and 4mth imm including rota. These are on actual ages not corrected. BCG's are given on discharge if baby is indigenous. Just to clarify :-)

[Inanna]

Thnks Shelle

[Janie]

My premmie is almost two, and he wasn't weighed prior to vaccs.

Liz, it's interesting that you were told to vacc at corrected age, it was always reiterated to me that DS MUST be vacced at actual age . Although I chose to do it at corrected age.

[Liz]

Nah Janie - it was solids that we were told was on corrected age. Vax were done on birth age, but as per usual I was late for most of those LOL.

[Janie]

Oh sorry, that's right Liz! Still interesting though, were told solids at birth age too, not corrected Although DS wasn't heaps prem, I went off his corrected age for pretty much everything for the first year. He was just so tiny, and not quite ready for the world, it seemed wrong to rush things.

Sorry to go OT folks, please continue, I'm loving this discussion

[Inanna]

It is actually documented that solids go from birth age. The reason being that they are still digesting food from that birth age, allegedly using iron stores, etc etc etc. The hospital had brochures on this subject that were generic just with the RBWH stamp on the back - so these would be available at other places.

I actually went by my instincts not her age. She was 8 months from birth when I introduced her first solid food. I was like you Janie - she just seemed too wee and not yet ready for the world.

[Liz]

aah well.. still watch for signs of readiness anyway It made sense to me tho if it's a developmental thing that we're waiting for with solids, and developmental things are usually on corrected age. The iron stores thing makes sense tho I guess. To really go off topic I'll mention that I refused the multivitamins & iron supps that they hand out as standard procedure for prems too. I was victorious when her blood tests came back and she had good levels of everything. My DD obviously didn't read the premmy manual LOL. The paed was happy for me to refuse them tho... once he saw her blood tests.. i refused to fill the script until we got the results (hmm.. I'm starting to sound like a prescription phobic LOL) I'd hate to think how her tummy could have been affected by having iron supps tho. She was already struggling with colic & wind.

I must say diverting to this makes me agree with the comments about the one size fits all attitude of the medical profession. I hadn't really considered it in regards to vaxing before.

[Trillian]

just to be picky MIchael

but even if you don't develop symptoms, you still only remain contagious for 2-3 weeks.

That technically makes you a carrier for that period of time.

I too think that BF isn't the be all and end all of immunity status too. It sure does make a difference - I don't doubt that for a second, but some people place too high a value on it kwim? Otherwise like Liz said earlier, FF babies would be dropping like flies with illness all the time. I agree that there is still a lot to learn about the immune system. I have done a lot of my own learning the past 6 mths or so due to my own auto-immune condition and the more I learn about it the more things just make sense to me.

Sunshine, we don't drink 'town water' here either, so no fluride or chlorine for us. We do have frog poo from time to time though and who knows what else is in our tanks that we don't know about LOL. I think that me being a bit sloppy with the disinfectant and letting the kids get into the dirt (and yep, even up at our sheepyards) does help alot to build their immunity. Interestingly last year our 2nd child was sick for several months with mild viruses she coudln't shake, and she is the one who doesn't get out in the dirt as much as the others - too girly LOL.

[amy_o]

I just wanted to stick my head it and let you know that on Channel 7 tonight they are doing a big thing on immnunisation, Now I am not a big fan of Channel 7 journalisum (if you can call it that!!) they can be a bit OTT but it might be worth a look. Even just to see how they stir the pot up. Its on the Sunday Night program, not sure what time.

My mum is a former midwife and NICU nurse and the one thing she kept drumming in to me when I was pregnant was not to become an "antibacterial mum" with the wipes, the spray and all of that. Kids need to be exposed to all that. No they don't need to live in squallar but a bit of dirt and dust here and there is fine

I am enjoying reading this thread...learning too.

[Arcadia]

Just a quick point about baby's immune systems. Until 8 months babies still have antibodies from the placenta. After that period they rely on their own antibodies and any still received from breastmilk...this is why the vaccine schedule starts at 2 months..to help build up bub's immunity before the placental antibodies recede (this is what my dad, a GP explained to me anyway).

Also...a question. Why do people still link the MMR vaccine with autism? I thought that link had been disproved when the authors of the study claiming to link the two withdrew their findings (10 of the 13 authors withdrew their support).

Just wondering...

[~Saram~]

Anna - from my research and my point of view the studies conducted on the MMR are still fairly inconclusive. There still remains an element that cannot be explained. In addition just before my DD was 12mth I was sent a story about an american woman who won a lawsuit after her 4 yr old developed a catatonic autistic state after recieiving her MMR. Her dramatic shift into an autistic state was proved to be a direct result of the MMR vaccine.

In addition I asked my dr if there were any studies conducted that looked at family history ie where one child had diagnoised autism and the other showed no signs and the effect on immunising. His response was no and that he would not risk it given our family history. They do not know what triggers autism or causes it. In my son ... he was different from birth - I do not blame immunisations. However after his 4yo shots his behaviour dramatically worsened over the course of 4mths. result of immunications? Hormones? development? We will never know but the thought of watching my daughter who looks at me and smiles, who communicates and expresses herself, who plays and dances and laughs, the thought of immunisating her and then watching her fade away into autism is too much for me to bear.

Many people ask me wouldn't it be worse to watch her die from whooping cough of measles and the simple answer is no. For me I would rather her fight a communicable disease that humans have been fighting off for centuries with the help of modern medicine than loose that amazing vibrant light to autism which has no cure, no modern medicine only a life time of therapies and social condemnation. JMO, not a personal attack

[Pretty Butterfly]

Also...a question. Why do people still link the MMR vaccine with autism? I thought that link had been disproved when the authors of the study claiming to link the two withdrew their findings (10 of the 13 authors withdrew their support).

Just wondering...

In a reputable study, no child that was NOT vac has Autism, unless they also had an underlying health issue from birth. That may not prove there is a link, but so far it is pretty certain that your child wont get it if unvac'd.
BUT, I have only found the one study, so this is also highly controversal as well..... But I personaly have never heard someone put their hand up and say that there child just snapped into Autism one day without being Vac'd.

I think the medical society saying that there is NO link is just wrong. It has NOT been disproven, they just dont know. Very misleading, and basically a lie.

[Lulu]

I might be wrong, but I think they did prove a link - had something to do with predisposition and mitochondrial DNA.

I certainly think dp is on the spectrum somewhere, and it looks like a family history is becoming apparent on his side - I really can't risk it. Even though he is 4 now, there is reported cases of older boys regressing after the pertussis vac.

[Schmickers]

I might be wrong, but I think they did prove a link - had something to do with predisposition and mitochondrial DNA.

This is a long-running bone of contention in the vac - anti-vac debate.

As yet, no studies have managed to find a link between autism and the MMR vaccine. And there have been some pretty large-scale studies done into the matter. However, there are a lot of factors at play in determining this kind of link. For one, how do you really determine whether the MMR was linked to the onset of autism? How do you define it? If you got your autism the day after, do you consider that linked? What about a week after, or a month after? Depending on how you define these things, the results of research can change considerably.

There remains no doubt that there is a large body of anecdotal evidence - from parents - that they had very normal children until they gave the MMR vaccine and then, suddenly, their child developed autism. As our paediatrician (whom we trust implicitly) said to us when we discussed it - "where there's smoke, there's fire". To give an example - a generation ago, a fringe group of doctors and surgeons were beginning to speak out against tobacco smoking and suggest a link with lung cancer. For a decade, they were dismissed, and large, 'reputable' studies - funded in large by tobacco companies - failed to prove a link.

Now, of course, many years on, we know without a doubt that the link between tobacco smoking and lung cancer does exist.

The link with between the MMR vaccine, autism, and mitochondrial DNA was suggested by an anti-vaccination campaigner and researcher as an alternative theory to the theory that autism was caused by the mercury or thiomersal used in the MMR vaccine, as that additive was withdrawn from use in 2000, but there are still reports of autism relating to the vaccine.

The court case in the US was that of a mother who sued her state for mandating the MMR vaccine and the resultant development of that the court termed an "autism-like brain disorder". The court initally found in favour of the mother, but that decision was later overturned. It should be stressed that a court case such as this is not trying to determine the medical validity of the claim, but the legal validity of it. In this case, the court case didn't really prove there was a link, it proved that there was enough likelihood of a link that the state was negligent in mandating the use of the vaccine. But as I said, it was later overturned on appeal.

There is no hard-and-fast evidence on the MMR vaccine. It should be - needs to be - every parent's decision, and the unfortunate thing is that parents are forced to make that decision without all of the facts because of the government's blinkered one-size-fits-all vaccination campaign.

[Janie]

Michael, your post has me with tears in my eyes! I couldn't agree more with your paed saying "where there's smoke, there's fire", that's exactly how I feel. And I feel so sad for kiddies who are put at risk, mostly for, lets face it, the profit of the pharmaceutical companies.

I'm not saying I'm totally anti-vacc, I'm another fence sitter but I feel that this is an issue that needs a tremendous amount of research. Unbiased, impartial research.

[Arcadia]

Thanks everyone for the replies...another reason to worry about vaxing!