Not wanting to start a long discussion.... but....

DD is due for her 6mo vaccinations. And I just have a bad feeling about it. I've been looking into it quite a bit and am probably going to opt to not vaccinate.

She has had all her other injections, (2mo and 4mo) but has the damage already been done??

I dont see a reason for pumping chemicals into my tiny tiny baby. (she was prem, at 6mos she only 11 pound).

More and more research is pointing towards the fact that they're not doing alot of good.

It shows that 87% of whooping cough 'victims' are fulling vaccinated.

Is there an injection that she 'needs'? What do they vaccinate at 6mos?
I only want to give her what she 100% needs, not just the standard jab?

Please help.
Your advice is very welcomed.

I can't really help, I don't know alot, just wanted to say I knwo how you're feeling. My DS2 was due to have his 4mo injections yesterday, but he's sick, and I breathed a sigh of relief that the nurse didn't jab him. I always get a bit freaked out when we come to vaccinations time. I am just confused as to what to do. DH thinks I'm being silly, but he doesn't understand.

dd2 is 11 weeks and ive avoided it...dh is very pro vac, hence why dd1 is vac'ed...i wonder if i just avoid it then it will be too late to start!! ;) i always have bad feelings before getting them done!

when i went in for the 10 day appointment the nurse told me that she could work out the best date to start...they are ment to have completed the course by a certain date and she said that they can be started later than 2m.

i wouldnt have the fluvax if that was offered. i dont know. i always wanted to know if there were some that were worse than others?

I think that most parents feel as you do.
It is totally a personal choice, many will tell you, you dont "need" any of the vacc.
Others will tell you that the diseases we vacc for have the potential to kill or seriously harm your child if she contracts them.
Personally, i think if you are making your decision to/not to vacc based on this thread, then you haven't done enough research.
It basically boils down to which are you more afraid of, the vacc or the disease?
Not an easy decsion to make.....GL xxx

:

---

I think that most parents feel as you do.
It is totally a personal choice, many will tell you, you dont "need" any of the vacc.
Others will tell you that the diseases we vacc for have the potential to kill or seriously harm your child if she contracts them.
Personally, i think if you are making your decision to/not to vacc based on this thread, then you haven't done enough research.
It basically boils down to which are you more afraid of, the vacc or the disease?
Not an easy decsion to make.....GL xxx

---

^Good advice!

I think that some of the diseases that are vaccinated for are a bit controversial but some would kill if the disease returned and some do (like Whooping cough). I'm not sure about the research showing vaccines not to be effective, all that i've seen show them to be very effective (except for the flu vax which some will point out). The whooping cough 'victims' who are dying I think you will find are being infected by people who aren't protected by the vaccine, usually adults in the same households who haven't had boosters.

You will be able to find out about each disease individually on the net fairly easily to make your mind up if you think its a risk. Good luck!

If it were me, and my gut was telling me no, I'd hold off for a little bit, do a lot of research and then make a decision either way. That way you know it is fully informed kwim? If you just rush into it when you aren't sure you want to continue, you may regret it later and it is already too late but if you take your time and think about it more first, then you wont have that regret. Once it is done it can't be undone.

I felt exactly the same way.

I delayed DS vax until he was 6 mo, he had the first and second lot, then around his first bday when due for his (what would have been 6mo vax) 3rd lot he came down with a bad virus, didnt get done.

After doing a bit of research and discussions with DP we opted to delay any further vaxs until he was over 2.

That being said, we don't socialise much, if anyone of us is sick we don't go out, if any of our extended family, or anyone we know is sick we avoid contact. Harm minimisation?

I do think it is a personal choice, it's only something you and your DH can come to a decision about, but I do applaud he fact that you are researching your options.
Good luck :)

i asked me nurse if i could choose which ones i wanted and get them separate, she bassically told me it was too hard and id have to get the whole lot as they are all mixed together.....so i havnt had them done yet.....

Wow beck, thats really crappy.

Just something to think about; Most of the alleged culprits in the vaccines are the adjuvants, so the more combined vaccines your child gets the less they are exposed to chemicals and metals. Ie you get a set amount per injection instead of per vaccination. Does that make sense?

It's tough because it really is all or nothing with most of them. I don't think there's a big issue with delaying a bit, so why not put it off for a week or so and give yourself time to think about it a bit more?

I know that feeling. I hate every single one. I have read a lot about vaxes over the years, and discussed it with everyone close to me.

We choose to vax, we just roll with the risk. I don't not drive my car somewhere just because there's a risk of crashing and harming me or my child. I take the risk, and I drive. We kind of take the same approach with vaxes. We know about the risks, we are fully informed, but we do believe in the greater good, and the responsibility of herd immunity (meaning it's not really just a personal choice - your decision to vax or not affects more than just you)

Heavy metals are in a lot of things. We don't stop buying battery operated toys, or walking on main roads, or using mobile phones - yet all of these things have the potential to expose our children to heavy metals, whether it's now or in the future.

So yeah, we do it, pretty much as per schedule. But I still hate it. It's a hard informed choice to make.

I agree with Audax.

There's a lot of chemicals & heavy metals in our immediate environment (carpets & couches are full of horrendous chemicals!) . Worse still are the chemicals in the toys, clothes & blankets our babies are given & are expected to suck & chew on. At least vaccines assist in preventing diseases so they are serving a much better purpose.

Vaccines are like an insurance. I have insurance not because I EXPECT my house to burn down, or my car to crash, or even that I expect to get sick, but I like to know it's there for IF it happens. In Australia, we're lucky that disease outbreaks (of things like WC, measles, polio) are infrequent at worst, and extremely rare at best. But I know that I would be livid if my son suffered needless complications.

I've researched teh pros & cons of vaccinating & of not vaccinating. I've looked at those diseases on the internet, and have seen them in real life over seas. Our choice is was simple, and hard at the same time. & I hate having him cry at the vaccinations, and I hate the couple of days afterwards when he's a bit poorly & a bit grumpy. But I know that it's the better insurance for us.

I understand how you feel.
With both my tiny prems I was the same in the end I delayed vaxed...I waited till there corrected age or even after in many cases.
It is hard when they are so small (DS is 6.8kg (14lb) at 17mths) and they are getting the same dose as a bigger baby.
I am not comfortable with them not getting it at all so delay vaxing was my compromise...my GP wasn't necessarily happy about it but he has accepted it.

:

---

Just something to think about; Most of the alleged culprits in the vaccines are the adjuvants, so the more combined vaccines your child gets the less they are exposed to chemicals and metals. Ie you get a set amount per injection instead of per vaccination. Does that make sense?

---

interesting, never thought of it like that.

I mostly agree with Audax and entreat about heavy metals being all around us. The difference with vaccines is that they go directly into the body, bypassing the first lines of defence provided by our skin and stomach.

It's a matter of weighing up the risks & benefits and deciding what you are comfortable with for your child. A book I found useful is "The Vaccine Book" by Dr Robert Sears. He tells you about both the disease and the vaccine and lists the ingredients of each vaccine. I've been using it to determine our own vaccine schedule.

Interesting thread. We've vaxed DS - he's getting his 6 months next week. Our thoughts are the same as Audax's. I worry about it, but do it anyway because I think it is right for us (weighing up the risks etc) and right for society.

I've posted this elsewhere but received no response, can someone tell me the rational behind delaying the 1 year vax until 2 years of age. I understand that people do this, but I cannot find out why - or to put it more precisely, I can't find anything to read that tells me why.

:

---

I've posted this elsewhere but received no response, can someone tell me the rational behind delaying the 1 year vax until 2 years of age. I understand that people do this, but I cannot find out why - or to put it more precisely, I can't find anything to read that tells me why.

---

I'm not entirely sure, but I read somewhere that the blood-brain barrier isn't fully developed until 2 years.

ETA - Scrap that. Just found this on wikipedia Blood-brain barrier

:

---

Originally, experiments in the 1920s showed that the blood–brain barrier (BBB) was still immature in newborns. The reason for this fallacy was a mistake in methodology (the osmotic pressure was too high and the delicate embryonal capillary vessels were partially damaged). It was later shown in experiments with a reduced volume of the injected liquids that the markers under investigation could not pass the BBB. It was reported that those natural substances such as albumin, α-1-fetoprotein or transferrin with elevated plasma concentration in the newborn could not be detected extracellular in the brain. The efflux-transporter P-glycoprotein exists already in the embryonal endothelium.

The measurement of brain uptake of acetamide, antipyrine, benzyl alcohol, butanol, caffeine, cytosine, diphenyl hydantoin, ethanol, ethylene glycol, heroin, mannitol, methanol, phenobarbital, propylene glycol, thiourea, and urea in ether-anesthetized newborn vs. adult rabbits shows that newborn rabbit and adult rat brain endothelia are functionally similar with respect to lipid-mediated permeability. These data confirmed no differences in permeability could be detected between newborn and adult BBB capillaries. No difference in brain uptake of glucose, amino acids, organic acids, purines, nucleosides, or choline was observed between adult and newborn rabbits. These experiments indicate that the newborn BBB has restrictive properties similar to the adult. In contrast to suggestions of an immature barrier in young animals, these studies indicate that a sophisticated, selective BBB is operative at birth.

---

Thanks!

I've never heard of the blood brain barrier thing, is that a common health myth that's going around?

Its not a myth, its on Wikipedia!!! :ROFL:

and according to the wise wikipedia man (or woman), it does sound like a theory that has been debunked

:

---

Its not a myth, its on Wikipedia!!! :ROFL:

---

Just to clarify; TC's Wikipedia quote says the early research was wrong and that babies are born with a fully functional blood brain barrier...

Wikipedia is pretty cool charlotte, my uni course is full of pretty technical medical stuff, I use Wiki a lot (at lot a lot!) and I get really good marks when I put my mind to it. I've never come across a dodgy entry and I prefer to use it over the thousands of dollars of medical textbooks in the house. Though I wouldn't admit any of this to my lecturers...
I used to be very cautious about using it but I've owned textbooks that are not as concise or accurate.

Audax has summed up my views really well.

And DS comes with us to loads of things, and meets loads of people - play dates, play group, church, family, friends, singstar parties, restaurants ... so he is exposed to lots of different people, who may or may not have been immunised themselves, and so who may or may not be carrying something ...

So we go with our gut - which in our situation is to immunise.

But absolutely do your own research, review your own situation, and make the decision you think is right for your daughter :)

Best advice I was ever given was to assess our risks as a family against each disease. We are at low risk of each of them and our youngest daughter hasn't had a single vaccination to date ( she's 21 months old) we'll start her hep b before she starts school and is out of my care, prett sure she won't be sharing needles or having sex while she's hone with me all day every day ;) and also her mmr will be done before school. She'll be getting her tetanus done soon as she's just started walking. Other that those vaccinations, she won't be getting any others

Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk

:

---

Wikipedia is pretty cool charlotte, my uni course is full of pretty technical medical stuff, I use Wiki a lot (at lot a lot!) and I get really good marks when I put my mind to it. I've never come across a dodgy entry and I prefer to use it over the thousands of dollars of medical textbooks in the house. Though I wouldn't admit any of this to my lecturers...
.

---

There is a very good reason for that. Wiki is not, in the slightest, considered a peer-reviewed document. In recent years, it has apparently cleaned up its reputation. However, one should use it with absolute skepticism because of the origins of almost every article - where anyone could write whatever they wanted, and often contrary to anything resembling the truth.

:

---

There is a very good reason for that. Wiki is not, in the slightest, considered a peer-reviewed document. In recent years, it has apparently cleaned up its reputation. However, one should use it with absolute skepticism because of the origins of almost every article - where anyone could write whatever they wanted, and often contrary to anything resembling the truth.

---

Any one person could write whatever they wanted so long as they were the only person involved in the entry. Wiki is peer-edited and heavily referenced, if you have a look you might be surprised!

err - I have. That's why I stand by what I wrote. And that's why you wouldn't ever EVER reference it in your course work. You would be laughed at. Hard.

:

---

err - I have. That's why I stand by what I wrote. And that's why you wouldn't ever EVER reference it in your course work. You would be laughed at. Hard.

---

Ouch! Thats harsh. I know it's a terrible hubris but I'll keep using it, even at the risk of being laughed at!

Sorry - that was a bit, wasn't it. It just yanks my chain that people take it as gospel. I went to uni with a bunch of clowns that still wouldn't know a peer review journal/article if it was stapled to their degrees. Of course, unless you're an academic... it's all a bit academic. ;)

DH just finished a DipEd (methods are senior physics and maths) and tells me he referenced Wikipedia in his assignments. No laughter ensued. ;)

Entreat, I suspect it depends on what you are researching/writing about.

:

---

Sorry - that was a bit, wasn't it. It just yanks my chain that people take it as gospel. I went to uni with a bunch of clowns that still wouldn't know a peer review journal/article if it was stapled to their degrees. Of course, unless you're an academic... it's all a bit academic. ;)

---

I know what you mean, you have to know that I am very savvy about my research and am very very fastidious about any information that's at all controversial. I have even recently started using journal impact factors to help me make decisions about papers...

I have also referenced Wikipedia in assignments and it was appropriate (I wasn't even laughed at).

Moderator Message »
Closing this thread as it has clearly gone off-topic...