Why did you choose to vaccinate your child?

I never considered not vaccinating. A combination of reasons, many mentioned above already but also the additional insight provided by my tertiary education (I have a PhD in microbiology) and having a friend die from meningococcal 15 years ago aged just 18. Her parents started an amazing foundation in her memory and what they do for medical research is commendable. I couldn't imagine going through the pain of losing my DD the way they had too, so I did what I could to protect my DD and got her vaccinated.

Initially I didn't choose to vaccinate if that makes sense, I'll explain myself

With DS1 we were in the flush of pregnancy. There was only a few of us at the time having babies. Through the pregnancy all the information sessions was about birth, labour, antenatal and post natal, and the changes that may occur to your relationship with your partner.
When DS1 was born it was about, settling, feeding, SIDS, post natal and again about caring for the relationship with your partner. We were looked after well, given a little yellow health book with lots of different information including an immunisation schedule. I looked at it, put it up on my fridge and followed it religously.
Maternal Health appointments were again about settling and feeding. I was matched up with MG and the first 6 sessions were held with the Maternal Health Nurse at the centre so we could get to know each better on common ground. Each session focussed on certain apsects of parenting, again, settling, feeding and so on. The MG I was matched with were similar to myself. New parents. None of them mentioned about not immunising their child and my circle of friends didn't mention not immunising either. So DS1 is fully immunised. In fact, menigicocal (sp) was arising fast around his time, it was not going to be on the schedule for another 6wks or so after they had released the vaccine. I weighed up the risks and went to the GP, got a script, paid $150 for the vaccine and had him immunised for that as well before it went on the 'free' schedule.

With DS2 it was similar to DS1, no education classes this time as I was a 2nd time Mum. I was handed a Blue health book and off I went and followed the immunisation schedule. Again, I hadn't come across anyone who didn't immunise or when I mentioned I was on my way to an appointment, ask me If I had done my research.

With DD it was a different story. I was more active with BB, I had a wider circle of friends and it was discussed quite a bit. One in particular had a little boy with Autism and had also had a reaction to one of the immunisations. I still remember being given the little blue health book and looking at the immunisation schedule and really looking at it this time. I also remember thinking, thank goodness, there is one now for Rotavirus. I had nursed both my boys with Rotavirus as the same time. It was terrible.
So with DD I made the choice to immunise. She was in the age group recently that needed an extra pneumococal (sp) as the first one was for a differnt strain and this one included another.

None of my kids had any adverse reactions to the immunisations. Now when I think about it, I am glad I followed the schedule. Even if the vaccine is for a certain strain and new strains come along, I am still comfortable with having immunised. I would not have a clear conscience if one of my kids had one of the viruses that can be immunised against and either lost his/her life or even if they survived, the secondary long term complications that can come with some of these of viruses is frightening.

Hope that all makes sense.

:

---

For us it was never an option not too. They have been proven time and time again that they work and I wasnt prepared to risk my childs health over something preventable. Leaving it up to other people to vaccinate their children so that mine doesnt get sick because I chose not too? No thanks, thats too big a gamble for me!

---

Same

Because I believe the benefits outweigh the risks.

The benefits to my children include not being killed or crippled by polio and having a mild case of a childhood illness rather than a severe case.
Also we have traveled to less developed countries than Australia and hope to do so again. I wouldn't want my children to live with the guilt of infecting children who don't have the nutritional benefits to throw off something like measles. Some diseases that are rare in Australia are common in other countries and if we are traveling in areas with a higher incidence of disease I prefer my children to have some measure of protection.
I prefer to provide herd immunity rather than to rely on other people to provide it for me. If everyone relies on other people to provide immunity pretty soon herd immunity will be a thing of the past.
I have never yet met a scientist with a genuine understanding of micro-biology and disease control that has chosen not to vaccinate although I know a few who have followed different schedules that better suited their circumstances.

I do wish that vaccines weren't given in bulk and that each disease had it's own vaccination rather than being combined but I do understand that from an economic perspective that it makes more sense to have the kind of vaccination schedule that we do have.

For us the benefits outweigh the risks. Although vaccinating doesnt guarantee my child won't ever get the illness, the severity would be decreased. I could never forgive myself if my child died from a preventable disease or gave an illness to a baby too young or unable to be immunised.

My mother was a nurse and very pro-vaccination and she told terrible stories of nursing dying children with tetanus etc. She did tell me that she felt babies were being given too many vaccines at a younger and younger age though.

I think this point of view greatly shaped my opinion as I felt vaccines were effective and important, but I tried to do a lot of research to determine how to vaccinate my first son. Based on that we did vaccinate him, but we delayed the vaccines one needle at a time and skipped some we didn't feel he needed (such as rotavirus and chicken pox). So I'd say we were pro-vaccine but not pro-vaccine schedule.

We have a history of autism in the family so we delayed the MMR vaccine till 2 years old and I tried to read a lot about the autism-MMR link. I found the Wakefield study to be an incredibly poor piece of research so based on that we dismissed the link as a problem.

Now that our eldest son is autistic I have done more reading and we have decided to stop vaccinating our children. I know this question is not about why you don't vaccinate but I feel the evolution of our decision is important in understanding why we did vaccinate.

We only found out our first son was autistic just before our second son was due to have his first vaccinations and we were travelling overseas. Based upon what we had already researched, and my concern about travelling through international airports with an unvaccinated baby we decided to vaccinate him and those are the only vaccinations he has had.

To be perfectly honest, with the first four there as no higher well informed decision making going on. It is just what people did.

I started delay vaxing following my nieces passing using less than 24 hours after her 2mo needles. She was the first of the kids in my family to get the new infanrix hexa that they started using in NSW and I simply could not bring myself to let them stick it in the arms of my 2mo baby. They couldn't find proof that it contributed, but they couldn't find proof of anything, so that is not proof that it didn't contribute, iykwim.

Anyway, I didn't even look into vaccines until after that happened. I was just being a good lemming. And on that part, you can quote me, lol.

Sorry to be brief..

I think we are incredibly privileged and lucky to live in a time and place where we don't have to expect to loose one or more of our children to illness, My Great-grandmother lost 3 of her 8 children to disease that is now preventable, My mothers eldest brother also died of the side effects of an illness we now vaccinate for.

Herd Immunity works, i want to do my part in a society trying to minimise disease.
No amount of reading has found facts that convince me the potential risks outweigh the potential benifits.

a) Benefits far outweigh the risks IMHO

b) I did enough research of my own to be comfortable with my decision before going ahead

c) Spending a lot of time with sick kids in Africa does kinda sway you into the very very very PRO camp... :lol:

I will say though that I have delayed certain ones; and I don't necessarily go along with the 'oh he's 18 months, so he needs blah blah blah' stuff the MCHN/Doctors might say. I tend to look at a wide range of things before deciding what's a good time for him to get his next vaccination.

I chose to vaccinate.

The dangers of my son contracting a vaccinatable illness were greater than giving him a vaccine. Although I did delay a few vaccines and he hasn't had all the Aussie standard ones, he is vaccinated for the really nasty ones.

I am aware that he can be vaccinated and still contract the illness - this is unusual and he will have some level of protection with the vaccine he would not have had without it.

Plus, the worst thing that vaccinating apparantly does is "give you autism". I refuse to see autism as worse than dying from a preventable disease. We need heavy metals in our system, OK so in vaccines there are quite a few but that doesn't mean that's a bad thing. Heavy metals are in vitamin tablets and they're deemed OK/good. Bacterial cultures are eaten/drunk as they're "really good for you" - um, no, not really. But hey, what do I know? I'm just a scientist who vaccinates her child.

I chose to vaccinate my DD. I didnt really do any thorough research into it either way, I just believed that the benefits would outweigh the risks otherwise it wouldnt be so highly recommended and pushed in the medical world. Maybe this is a naive of me though? Anyway, I am comfortable with my decision and DD hasnt had any adverse reactions to any of her immunisations. Same can't be said for mummy though, I remember tears falling down my face at those 8 week needles!

I never considered not to. It may be naive of me also but i put my trust in the medical world. You would like to think our children would not be endangered knowingly. As a PP said we have now been able to immunise against diseases that in the earlier years where wiping out familes. I'm greatful of that for sure.

I fully intended not to immunise my DS. I was not immunised as a child for anything, and made it through ok (although I did contract german measles as a child but don't remember it being that bad). For my career I've had to get rabies and tetanus shots, and I also chose to get a chicken pox shot after I was exposed to a child in the infectious stage. I have never given any time to the notion of vaccines causing autism, it is completely unrelated, but have been brought up to believe that it is better for the body to contract and fight disease than it is to vaccinate. I have a science degree so started to research my decision so that I could defend it with DH (who is pro-vax).

I could not find a single valid reason NOT to vaccinate. I really tried to find some but couldn't find one reputable paper. I now sadly realise the disservice my mother did by not vaccinating me, and also I feel terrible for anyone who contracted german measles from me. My mother still sends me 'pseudo-scientific' articles about why I shouldn't be vaccninating and it just perplexes me why a woman who grew up and saw the devastation of disaeses like polio (and their subsequent -almost- eradication) finds vaccinations dangerous.

My son is fully vaxxed, on schedule, never a single reaction, and he is healthy and full of joy :)

All my 3 are fully vac. I believe in the greater good. If we can wipe out diseases through vacinations its good. Living in a 3rd world country for a few years where they have diseases we don't- I can really see the benefits

Mine is fully vax too and never a reaction. I trusted the drs like a pp said

There are lots of things that have impacted my decision - some of them directly and some indirectly.

Indirectly, my degree is in Molecular Biology and I have worked in the pharmaceutical industry (only in IT) - these I suppose influence the way I see things rather than have had a direct influence on decision to vaccinate.

Directly

- the concept of risk - I read all sorts of information but couldn't find anything that would suggest that for my children the risk of vaccinating was greater than the risk of not vaccinating. This wasn't really about the risk of catching anything - as that I feel I really have little control over but the risk of significant (life altering) problems associated with contracting anything when not vaccinated is far greater than the risk of problems if catch something when vaccinated, and than side effects from vaccination.

- the logical conclusion of not vaccinating - I felt if I didn't vaccinate I would have to be prepared for everyone else to not vaccinate too - and wanted to look at what that would mean. Looking at some of the information about outbreaks of measles in particular in the past 10 years in the developed world, as well as disease rates prior to introduction of the various vaccinations was enough to convince me that a situation of no one vaccinating wasn't something I wanted to return to - and seeing as my children and family have shown no issues which might indicate any problems with vaccination then I felt is something should do.

- the motivations of key players - much of the information about not vaccinating all paints a not great picture of pharma companies and governments. There was too much of this and not enough science. I believe the motivations of pharma companies and governments are quite transparent really - and easier to get to the bottom of than individuals (e.g. the whole Wakefield saga), and I have to say I trust them more. I found many of the things said about pharma companies and government motivation not to make logical sense. Pharma companies would love to make combined and single vaccines (they spend all their time trying to come up with as many formulations of one drug as possible - that's the way they make money) - the motivation behind combining is more to do with compliance with a schedule being easier than anything. Vaccines are also not that profitable - they can't charge whatever they want and don't have a wide array of customers - there are not that many players left in pharma industry who still make vaccines because they just are not that profitable in terms of other things could spend their money on. The government well I just don't understand what their motivation might be to spend a fortune on vaccination if not necessary. So the overall conspiracy theory air around vaccination I just can't buy into at all.

:

---

Good evening, everyone.

It has been brought to the attention of the moderating team that one of the articles on the main site is very anti-vaccination. While some people have no issue with this, there are others that object because they see it as innappropriate.

I would like to write an article that attempts to contrast both sides of the vaccination debate fairly. It is really hard to find unbiased information out there, and if possible, I'd like to try and create a resource that could really help new parents to make one of the hardest decisions in their young child's life.

In this thread, I am looking for comments from parents who chose to vaccinate their children, with regards to why they made that choice. Please note that any comments you make here will probably be used in the article, but if you desire, I will make you anonymous.

This thread will be moderated and any flaming will be removed. This is not a discussion thread. Do not debate the choices others have made.

Thank you.

---

Did this article ever happen?

I don't object to the anti-vaccination information, but the way some of it is presented does make me uncomfortable - I would like to see when links are posted on FB such as the one today about using Vitamin C to treat Whooping cough - that they should provide information about the source or the article - and the philosophies of that group - as the names of the groups are often misleading. Often this could be copied and pasted from the About page of the website in question for example.

That article has full references down the bottom. The one I posted yesterday, the graph of outbreaks, was directly from the SA govt website. Its government data.

It is very hard to find fully referenced AND accurate data. I have even spoken to magazine publishers about it - everyone has trouble sourcing balanced info.

The Sears Vaccine Book is what I have heard to be very balanced and unbiased, but the vaccines are US based, so not all may apply to Australia.

I understand that the article has references down the bottom - but the post doesn't give any indication who the International Medical Council on Vaccination are - and who is publishing the information does have a bearing on how people interpret it - it is important to understand any bias so then you can make your own informed decision. I don't believe you can just take the presence of references as credibility I like to know who is publishing the info too.

For example if I see a link to a study on use of paracetamol in young children - if it is published on the paracetamol manufacturers website then I know the bias present and can make my own judgement call on it. Or people might see a link to something on BellyBelly and because they know what BellyBelly is about and its ethos they interpret the article in a certain way. Linking to articles that are published by bodies that are largely unknown to the audience without any explanation I don't think helps either way.

Of course people can dig around and find what the International Medical Council on Vaccination are all about, where they are based etc themselves but many people will share that link and never delve into that.

(The disclaimers on The Conversation site are a great example of how it can be done).

Is like the linking of articles from The Daily Mail in the UK, that paper and website is a terrible example of journalism (is like a cross between Chat Magazine and the Herald Sun), and being from the UK I know to be wary of anything I read in there, but here in Australia people would not necessarily know that.

If you don't trust the source to use credible sources, you are probably not going to trust the source to give a description of who their source is. One person's description of the AVN is going to be quite different to another person's. If you don't know who the Medical Council on Vaccination (as an example) is there is always google.

If you click 'About Us' which is up the top left of their website, you will see the medically trained doctors who make for the international medical council on vaccination.

The author of that particular article:

"I am conventionally educated, and allopathically trained. Prior to medical school, I earned a bachelor’s degree in physics from Rutgers University. After working for two years as the head technician in a research biochemistry lab, I went to Temple University School of Medicine, and graduated in 1993. I then explored the area of social medicine in the Bronx, NY and completed a 3-year medical residency. At this juncture, the failures of primary care medicine were obvious to me. “Prevention” really just meant prescribing drugs and hunting down disease as early as possible. Despite this approach, people often just get sicker, and require more drugs and ultimately develop degenerative diseases."

Yes I have read the 'About us' - and the whole article. How many people do dig around for this - what harm can be done by pasting their 'About us' into the BB link or as first comment. I call that helpful. I agree about how hard it is to find good sources if is a good source then I think the 'about us' gives it more credibility than a Google search on the organization - so why not?


I didn't say I didn't trust the source, I just think it is responsible and useful to provide the information to the reader and the sites own description of themselves is fine.

Absolutely I could see how that could improve credibility of whats being posted for sure. Its harder on FB than a forum where you can combine it in one post - and often I dont add extras in as I get so very time poor. But also people share loads of information across the web, all of the time - its not the norm adding in history of where the article came from unless a site has specifically published that article.

I also think we all need to take just a liitle bit of personal responsibility too :) Especially when researching something as serious as whooping cough. I am am 'about us' reader :)