Why not vaccinate?

[Just Me]

I don't know how useful this information is - and probably giving away something very personal about me - my doctor told me that it would only be of very minimal benefit to me to have the HPV vaccine as I have only had one sexual partner and he has only had one as well. The reason that it is not offered to women over the age of 30 is because most have settled on one sexual partner and whatever exposure they are going to have, they have probably already had in most cases.

While I'm not entirely sure the reasoning for not giving it to women as they get older is entirely correct or founded, I thought the point of it was interesting. I would imagine that if safe sex is diligently practiced and precautions taken, wouldn't that decrease the risk factors significantly as well?

The CP vaccine is one that continues to baffle me - I am not entirely sure that it is completely necessary or if it just causes more problems than it is worth. It does bother me somewhat that they warn before giving this vaccination that it can cause CP. I had the CP as a kid and while I was sick, they weren't that bad. The best immunity against CP is actually getting the disease itself. I can understand worrying about it more when kids are older because it is more serious, but I really don't get it.

Anyway, baby is crying. Would post more but have to run

[Cassius2]

Just Me: i *think* the CP (varicella) vaccine is given under the reasoning that because it is not as prevalent as it used to be that people (ie young kids) are not as likely to be exposed and run the risk of contracting it later in life where it can, as you mentioned, be alot more debilitating on the body...that was the gist given to me by my GP anyway...
man, i remember CP always being around at some point or another...back in 1995 i remember the WHOLE australian cricket team having to return home from India cause they all got whacked with it and it presented on the plane...musta been a nice trip NOT LOL!

[Traveller]

Just Me: i *think* the CP (varicella) vaccine is given under the reasoning that because it is not as prevalent as it used to be that people (ie young kids) are not as likely to be exposed and run the risk of contracting it later in life where it can, as you mentioned, be alot more debilitating on the body...that was the gist given to me by my GP anyway...

A cynical person might say that the CP vaccine is recommended due to the cost to employers when their staff have to take sick leave to look after their kids when they catch it.

Not that I am a cynic or anything you understand

[Lolli]

CP, like most childhood diseases, can be extremley nasty if you get a bad dose of it, are immuno-suppressed, or have underlying health problems... I think a lot of the reason behind the vaccine would be to protect the members of our community who are more vunerable and susceptible to it, again by herd immunity (just hypothesising- don't quote me).

I had my first dose of Gardasil, and I was kicking myself for it. I didn't put nearly as much thought or research in as I did with kid's vaccines. I can speak first hand of the side effects- I fainted about 15 minutes after i had my first dose, in the middle of a shopping centre.

[christy]

Sorry just coming in from the CP prospective...

When I was 2, I had CP. The classic case of Chicken Pox. Then at 10, I had a mild case of CP again. At 12, I had another outbreak which was diagnosed as CP. It was only a small patch on my abdomen.... I had a weakened immune system from 10-17 and that was why I contracted it again and again.

I wouldn't give my child the vaccination, because I think that if it weren't to work, well, its a sense of false security isn't it? I wouldn't want that.

[Schmickers]

Sorry, I have been a bit late in weighing into this discussion, this is the first BB time I've had in weeks...

Why do we choose not to vaccinate? We agonised over our decision, I am a children's nurse, so initially I was quite for vaccination, although even I had me reservations about the varicella and rotavirus vaccines. Discussing it with my DW while we were pregnant with DD1 made me change my mind - she had had an anaphylactic reaction to her MMR as a child, and she had concerns over the suspected link between the MMR and autism.

After much discussion, we were referred to see a paediatrician who specialised in treating autistic children. He is quite well known, and we had a long consultation with him about our options. He was quite happy to acknowledge that there was no proven link between the MMR vaccine and Autism, but as he said to us: "where there's smoke, there's fire". In his experience, he had seen too many parents with the same pattern of normal child -> MMR vaccine -> sudden onset of ASD symptoms to discount the link. That was enough to concince me.

DW and I aren't in complete agreement. I would like the older girls to have their DTP, mainly for the tetanus and pertussis (and not because I think pertussis would be dangerous for them, but more because the three-month cough causes a lot of sleep deprivation if they get it and if possible I'd like to avoid that) and she hasn't been happy for them to have anything, so as yet they are completely unvaccinated.

FWIW, it's not just the autism link that concerns me. I think there are much deeper issues at play in vaccination research that are only just coming to the surface. The recent controversy over the first-generation rotavirus vaccine (which was released rapidly onto the market, ostensibly to treat rotavirus in under-six-month-old babies) and, on widespread use, was found to have a major and life-threatening side effect (intussusception of the bowel) that was not detected in clinical trials (and should have been). And then there is the Gardasil debacle that is still continuing, where once more, data collection from widespread use is showing a much higher rate of serious adverse effects than was reported during clinical trials. This is indicative of one of two things: very poorly designed clinical trials, or under-reporting of adverse events data during clincal trials. Both are serious problems in the whole drug approval process that put lives at risk.

I think this reflects a fundamental change in the nature of "peer-reviewed" research that has happened in the past three decades. A generation ago, peer-reviewed research owed nothing to big business. It was conducted by scientists, funded from impartial sources. Journals were underwritten by the universities they operated from. The situation we have now is one where journals depend on advertising dollars to stay afloat, and big research depends on big dollars from big business. I just don't think it is possible to avoid bias, no matter wether intentional or not, in such an environment. And the mismatch between clinical trial data, and real-world use, of the two vaccinations mentioned above are cases in point.

I'd like to address some of the previous posters:

I feel like if my kids give hers something I'm evil or something. She's really scared.

This is the tough part of choosing not to immunise. It is a risk. Every parents that makes the choice has to weigh the risk of catching the disease, with the risk of the immunisation. As long as you are being sensible, you shouldn't feel guilty if they get sick. As a non-vaccinating parent, you accept the risk that your child is more susceptible to catching the disease, and you take sensible steps to minimise that risk.

I have chosen to immunise both my children for a very good reason. When my youngest sister was 6 weeks old, she came in contact with a child with Whooping cough who was NOT immunised My sister nearly died.
Reason enough for me.

As has been mentioned (and not to invalidate what is a sad, sad situation) it is very likely that the person your sister caught her pertussis from was an adult family member. Pertussis requires a consistent and prolonged exposure (3-4 hours of close play or contact) with someone who is already symptomatic, with cold or flu-like symptoms. People with young babies should be aware of this, and act to prevent people or other children with cold or flu-like symptoms from having prolonged close contact with their babies.

After having Lucy, before leaving the hospital they gave me the whooping cough vax. Is that everybodies experience?

Yes, the pertussis vaccine is being pushed for new parents at the moment because the most common source of infection is parents and grandparents whose immunity has waned.

I should not, too, that being opposed to the current childhood vaccination schedule does not mean I am opposed to adult immunisations. I am fully immunised. I would be happy for my children to be immunised against certain disease when they reach young adulthood.

You're right Inanna - the channel is irrelevant. The fact that all of 'current affairs & community interest' programs have a vested interest in producing alarming & sensationalist tripe is relevant. They are journalists collecting information to use on a pariticular angle that will gain them ratings.

Channel Seven's coverage of the vaccination debate was unashamedly pro-vaccination.

A couple of things dad told me, that I didn't know:

To practice medicine, nursing, in fact any health professions in Australia, you must be fully vaccinated.

This is, in fact, untrue. There are certain areas where having certain vaccinations is mandated, but not in most clinical areas, and currently only for nurses and doctors.

It is interesting that we are the only country in the world that discriminates against employees on the basis of their choices regarding immunisation.

In my personal experience, we have had three nurses on our ward recently who have been off work with suspected pertussis. All three were fully immunised.

The Hep B vax was introduced from birth because the govt is trying to reduce Hep B, which has steadily risen since the most recent wave of migration. It is alarmingly apparent in many parts of our community, especially hospitals. I know...babies aren't a risk group (unless they're drug addicts or into sex lol), but they are members of our community who may need to use hospital etc. we can't live in a bubble.

Ummm ... hospitals are a "risk group" for all sorts of diseases, that's why people go to hospital, because they have a disease. Hepatitis B vaccination was introduced as an option for people from high-risk backgrounds - at the time of its introduction, it was mainly aimed at people from an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander background. The problem was that because it was "optional" it was often missed or forgotten. In an attempt to increase immunsation rates in these populations, it was added to the immunisation schedule so that it could be just given to all babies at birth regardless of their background, and was therefore more likely to be remembered for at-risk groups.

Hepatitis B is spread through direct contact with infected body fluids. Believe me. It Is possible to prevent this kind of exposure in childhood without using a vaccine.

As a society, I think we need to make a decision, because while ever there are people in both camps, we actually pose a risk to each other.

I am not offering my child as a matyr to the cause, but surely vaccination is a community issue as well as a personal one?

So, do the needs of the "society" outweigh the needs of the individual child? When do the rights of the "society" become more important than the right of the parents to choose on behalf of their child?

I was at a playgroup meeting recently and a mum told me how her little one had rubella recently - he was unvaxed. She was saying it was mild etc. BUT all I could think about was the pregnant women she might have been in contact with before it was diagnosed...9 in 10 babies exposed to the virus in the first 10 weeks have severe congenital abnormalities.

So if Rubella is a mild disease during childhood, then why do we immunise against it during childhood? Why not immunise ahainst it during the tween years, just before puberty? And why immunise boys against it, for that matter? And why weren't those pregnant women immunised against it themselves?

I think you actually need to think of the communitys right to health by quarantining. We rely far too much on the supposed effectiveness of vaccines and unless every child was tested we would never know exactly which child had had a positive reaction to the vaccines (keep in mind vaccines are one average only effective for 60% of the people innoculated).

Hear hear. I completely agree.

Formaldehyde's Chemical Formula: HCHO (and CH3OH in water) - same formula whether it's in a banana, in a vaccine, in car exhaust, in an open fire (yes - 'tis formed by combustion), or in furniture.

I don't want to belabour the argument, but the point is a valid one - our bodies have evolved in an environment where we are in homeostasis with the amount of formaldehyde we are exposed to in organic fruits, vegetables, and other environmental exposure. We know it is toxic in high concentrations, so why expose ourselves to more of it?

Water is a natural chemical. We depend on it to survive. Try drinking twenty litres of it on one day. It will kill you (water intoxication) just as surely as any other toxin.

I can't really reconcile how someone can be anti-vaccinations in this country, but support mass vaccinations in third world countries. Apparently - given that there appears to be an anecdotal link - giving autism to kids in the third world is just fine as long as it's not in our back yard. Never mind that in those countries, they wouldn't have even a sniff of the resources to cope with & manage autism like this country does. Goose Vs Gander?

I'm not saying that I support third world vaccination programs either, but once more it comes down to a risk versus benefits analysis. In third world countries, standards or hygeine and nutrition are very poor. Children who become sick are already malnourished and dehydrated, and as a result, deteriorate much faster and become much more sick. Given this scenario, is the risk of immunisation worth the benefits of reducing the death toll from vaccine preventable diseases? The WHO think that it is.

In first world countries, children are well-hydrated, and well-nourished. They have access to preventative and supportive care. Given that very different scenario, is the risk of immunisation worth the benefits of reducing the death toll from vaccine preventable diseases? The WHO still thinks so, but many parents disagree.

In terms of that death toll, Marie Schriever, while her views are controversial, does make a very good point that death rates from the vaccine preventable diseases were already in a very steady decline before the introduction of vaccines for those diseases, likely as a resuly of improving living standards, access to health care, hydration and nutrition.

The ultimate aim of vaccinations is to elimate a disease from a population like polio & smallpox have been in Australia.

How realistic an aim is that? To eradicate a disease completely, you need to have a 100% effective vaccine and 100% coverage of that vaccine. The problem beihat some vaccines are not near 100% effective, even if they are given to 100% of the population. The best trials of the pertussis vaccine, for example, yield a 90% efficacy - that is, 90% of people become immune to pertussis. That means, even if you give 100% of the population the vaccination, 10% - that's one child out of every 10 - will not become immune. In a 30-child preschool class, that is three children who are still susceptible to pertussis. This disease will never be eradicated. The polio and smallpox vaccines were stunningly effective, which is why they were succesful. The other vaccinations in use today, less so.

The diseases can be much more severe when caught in adulthood. Mumps can cause infertility, chicken pox laid my husband sick & off work for 5 weeks, rubella can cause birth defects when non-immune pregnant women are exposed to it.

So once more, immunise against these diseases in young-adulthood, instead of during infancy.

Cassius2, I don't think we should be taking herd immunity for granted here in Australia. In the Northern Rivers region of NSW vaccination rates are down to around 80%.

Although, interstingly, this figure is the highest rates in the area for some time - and yet we still had an outbreak. Why did we not have this outbreak five years ago, when rates were even lower?

In any case, in terms of the pertussis vaccine, an 80% vaccination rate means that 28% of the population is susceptible, as opposed to 19% in areas where immunisation rates are closer to 90%. It is still a decent-sized pool of people who are susceptible. Herd immunity is simply not a realistic aim for pertussis.

Yes, I am fully aware that vaccines aren't 100% effective, I thought it was more like 95-99% not 60%. In any case, even if it's the upper range of effectivness, if there is a disease outbreak I am fully aware that my children may have no other protection other than herd immunity. And that is why I keep banging on about it. If vaccination rates drop below a certain level, herd immunity won't work. Those in our community that can't be safely vaccinated (unborn and newborn children and the immuno-compromised) AND anyone who has been vaccinated but for whom it hasn't worked, rely on herd immunity as their only means of protection.

For many of the reasons outlined above, herd immunity is a concept that is fundamentally flawed. It also relies on the assumption that the rights of the community are more important than the rights of the individual child or parent. I don't believe that is an ethically correct position to take.

And this thing about dragging sick kids around all over the place, I have never, ever heard of people who vaccinate thinking that that's OK... because they've been vaccinated?

Oh God, I have. Some parents are insane.

The whooping cough epidemic has been the worst in the Northern Rivers region of NSW which has a vaccination rate of about 80%. Perhaps this rate is too low to be providing herd immunity? I don't know Dana McCaffery (a four week old baby, too young to be vaccinated) that died of Whooping Cough was from there.

I believe Dana McCafferty caught pertussis from a grandparent. And once more, I believe that adult immunisation is a sensible preventative health measure. I even beliebe there is some place for childhood immunisations. I just think that the Australian immunisation schedule is flawed.

Been lurking mostly in this thread - but have a question.
Do vaccination rates include booster shots? (If it's been asked - I apologise, I must have missed it.)
I know they keep track of childhood immunisations but if the rates for zones are based on that alone - then with something like pertussis would be inaccurate. Most people I know are unaware that the pertussis vaccination requires a booster shot - and even I only found out recently.

Rates include all vaccinations included in the immunisation schedule. Some adult boosters (like the pertussis booster) are recommended, but aren't on the schedule. So these would not be included in the statistics.

As for the pertussis outbreak - is it a different strain to the pertussis vaccinated against???

Nope. Bordetella pertussis doesn't mutate.

Is it only the combined MMR that poses the risk to Autisum? and is it true that the "autisum" has always been there from the start and it just needed something to trigger it? ( i know that i may have worded that wrong and i really hope that it doesnt offend anyone it was no my intention)

The MMR is vaccination most commonly implicated in sudden onset of autism, yes, although some parents have suggested that they blame other vaccines.

also for the people that have chosen not to use the MMR do you worry about your little girls when they start to have babies? well not so much your children but your grandchildren? Is there a way around that risk?

Yes, there is. There is a stand-alone rubella vaccine that can be given to children just before puberty that will protect them from rubella later in life.

Do you worry about your little booys getting mumps? i think that is the one that can cause them to be come sterile? Is ther a way around that??

Once more, yes, there is. You could give your boy the MMR just before puberty in order to protect them from mumps.




Whoa! I think that will do me for the night!

[~MummaBear~]

Woah!!! nice post Schmickers ROFL
thanks everyone for the info
i do have one more question!!
the risk of autisum is only if they are immunised at a young age?? is that right? so in that sence a delayed schedule would stop the risk of vacinations causeing Autisum?
Wow i really have alot to learn before i have another baby/...

Is there anyone out there that has vaccinates their older children and then not the younger ones? Do you feel guilty that you made a more informed decision in regards to one or the other??

[Kamarine]

Rates include all vaccinations included in the immunisation schedule. Some adult boosters (like the pertussis booster) are recommended, but aren't on the schedule. So these would not be included in the statistics.

Thank you Schmickers. Nice post.

[Arcadia]

Thanks for the post schmickers:

So, do the needs of the "society" outweigh the needs of the individual child? When do the rights of the "society" become more important than the right of the parents to choose on behalf of their child?

Interesting question. Most of us that are pro-vax though see vaccination as both benefitial to society and to our child, not that one outweighs the other. So, in a way, this is only a question that suits anti-vaxers. It seems that many choose to ignore the herd immunity argument in favour of an individuated approach, which means, perhaps they do see the needs of their child outweighing society's needs. This is fine...I am not advocating compulsory vaccination, just putting the reasons out there why I vaccinate.

As for rubella and delayed vax until later (say 16 or so). The idea is to minimise childhood illness. Yes the little boy's case was mild, but 1 in 6,000 children develop swelling of the brain. It would also benefit all pregnant women if rubella was a disease largely reduced in our society through vaccination. Not all pregnant women in Australia received the vax (think of migrants) and pregnant women and children are often socialising together.

If you're pro-vax, then I cannot see the logic in delaying. I understand the argument about chemicals 'assualting' a newborn, about the 'onslaught' to a tiny body. As far as I can see, the whole world is an onslaught to a newborn, and as a pro-vax I choose to think I am protecting my baby in the best way I can (feel free to disagree )

I think, we can argue until we are blue in the face. Perhaps the government should put together a more coherent fact based website so parents can actually make an informed choice. One where the research is done by people who understand the literature, and to prevent the whole debate decaying into anecdote and hearsay.