Immunisations

I worked in a special school for 25 years and saw what devastating effects meningitis can have!?

They most definitely are a 'cocktail' luckygirl when three are being administered in one dose, then often another two separately given at the same visit.

There ought to be an option for parents, who are willing to pay, to have the MMR (taking that as just one example) to have these administered separately by their own GP practice, rather than having to have them done privately.

When babies first emerge into the world, they meet a cocktail of hundreds of different things to develop their own antibodies to. Their first months are a series of adjustments to it all.

That's not the same as having a cocktail of live vaccines injected directly into your bloodstream though all in one go.

Yes, meeting various pathogens etc., in the environment does allow most babies to adjust to it all over a period of time

I was one of the first polio vaccine kids and knew kids crippled by polio. I wasn't sure when my babies were small whether they should have the various jabs, but overall glad I did (the illnesses were pretty horrible), although DS1 is
autistic spectrum - don't know whether naturally or due to vaccination. But my problem isn't with this question; it's the total lack of immunity to bugs which in my day we just ignored and got on with everyday living. I was brought up that if I was alive, I was fit for school/work.

Immunisations developed over many decades for reasons already stated in the forum. It is a good to investigate & make ones own decisions but do it with all the facts, children who cannot have some immunisations for health reasons are protected by children who have had the immunisations, that is why we need well into the 90% of children to be immunised.
Having been involved with families who lost children from some of these diseases, the heartache is immeasurable
I am a retired health visitor. We are either professional busy bodies, nosey Nora from the Welfare or the best thing since sliced bread!

So your GC was unwell for 3 days and had a hard lump, so what surely that is far better than getting the illness.

Being born in Jersey, my children were not allowed out of hospital as neonates without the BCG as TB was endemic. They were unwell for some time with suppurating sores on their arms but I was glad to have it done.

On the other hand, because of problems with me, it was recommended that DC were not vaccinated for whooping cough. I was dependent on the herd immunity - i was furious to find how many people in the UK at the time [late 70s] were against the vaccination. Mercifully, they didn't catch WC.

I'm a great one for having every vaccination/immunisation going. they are recommended for a reason!!!

People who do not have their children immunised not only risk their child getting a potentially life threatening illness but causing an epidemic - this happened not that long ago with mumps.

It's selfish and dangerous

Yes Elegran as babies move from the near-sterile environment in the uterus they are covered in the bacteria and other micro-organisms that dwell in the mother's lower regions. These include important gut bacteria. There is a concern that babies born by a more sterile route, via caesarian, might be losing out on this important experience. They also pick up lots of important and useful bacteria from the mother's skin during feeding. Not to mention the myriad of bacteria viruses and fungal spores that are around every home. The immune systems of babies need this stimulation of a wide variety of micro organisms in order to develop normally. Immunologists talk about the immune system being "trained". There is also evidence that children who grow up in a more bacteria-rich environment such as a farm are less likely to develop allergies, an over reaction of a part of the immune system. The immune systems of babies are naive but poised and ready to experience and learn about micro-organisms.
This is why I think that the idea that has been proposed that multiple vaccinations are harmful is not based on anything other than the need of anti-vaxxers to come up with alarmist arguments against vaccination.

Two more comments on my earlier contribution : due to the fact that my brother had had a few epileptic type seizures , we were advised not to immunize against whopping cough. My son contracted this at twelve years old and was very nearly hospitalized , it was a very worrying time and took over a year for a complete recovery. Before that we lived in New York for a few years and both my children attended nursery and primary school there. In order to be admitted to any educational establishment one had to present an up to date vaccination certificate.

The scare about autism and MMR has been proved to be based on flawed evidence. My children all had all their jabs. My grandson is being protected in the same way, as are his peers through the herd effect.

If these harmless attenuated vaccines are regarded as a "cocktail", then the unattenuated bugs we are all exposed to every minute of every day would have to be described as a deluge of tsunami proportions! Mostly we fight them off, as that is what our immune systems are designed to do.

Yes the viral load from a mothers kiss is far greater than combined immunisation. The human mouth is usually host to more bacteria than dogs. When I was working in A/E I dealt with many bites both human and canine. It was always the human bites that became awfully nasty and infected.

I don't know whether to politely point out, yet again, that every vaccine carries a risk, that is admitted by the government, and that therefore these are not completely 'harmless' or to just leave the thread to those who refuse to even acknowledged that tiny risk.

I think I'll bow out now as they are not going to listen to that one point, and will continue to see these as completely harmless while I'm willing to concede they are for the greater good.

A couple of posters on GN will know why I try to raise this point whenever it appears on GN ?

They have to learn how to fight each one. The first time they encounter something dangerous, they analyse it and produce antibodies. The next time the meet it, the system is ready to go into mass production of those antibodies at once.

If the first time they meet a disease organism, it is a weakened or dead example, they learn on something harmless. The vaccination/inoculation ensures that. If they have not had this mild introduction, they are faced with a full-strength attack to fend off.

A reaction is by the immune system sending in antibodies, not by the disease itself. It means that the body is aware that it needs to fight this invader, but it had to analyse it and get into production first. When, later, the live disease is met, the antibody factory will swing into action immediately, without any time lag, and hit the disease at once.

Anya

Does anyone think vaccines are totally harmless? I am not sure many people do.

Far more dangerous are those who think all vaccines damage children so put their children at far greater risk of getting and being harmed by the diseases they are not innoculateed against.

OK, Anya Replace harmless with weakened. Nothing in this world is 100% without risk. There are also individuals who react to a carrier ingredient in the vaccine. Not mercury - that is not in any vaccines routinely used in the UK.

Other ingredients - Vaccine ingredients

My GS aged 5 contracted meningitis in August.
He was very very sick but, thankfully, seems fine now. Thank you to QE hospital. He just has to go back for another hearing test. He does seem to bit a bit deaf now and then but we think he is just practising the selective hearing ability of most men!
My point being that no one we know has contracted the infection so where did it come from?
He was, and is again, a very healthy child, eats good food, lots of exercise and lives in a fairly small town in rural Norfolk.
If he can get it any child can!!

I don't think anyone has said that there isn't a risk associated with vaccinations Anya, and clearly you have a very sad association with the subject. What we are all clearly saying - well the vast majority of us - is that looking at the likely outcome of having a vaccination, the probability is hugely for a minor reaction to the vaccine and then protection from some terrible diseases. And this seems a risk worth taking, even though we all would rather not cause our children pain.

I was very surprised when I learnt that children at a local secondary school are only offered the BCG vaccine if they have a parent or grandparent who was born in an affected country (I believe regardless of whether they still live there). With cases of TB on the rise, is this a purely financial decision? Is the BCG vaccine available privately and is this something those gransnetters who know about such things, would recommend for DGCs of a suitable age.

The BCG vaccination is not thought to be very effective and this is part of the reason why it is not given routinely any more. The TB bacterium is a tricky beast - which is why there is not an effective vaccine against bovine TB. In general it is easier to develop a highly effective vaccine for a virus as they are much smaller, simpler entities. Like a wheel compared to a whole double decker packed with passengers.
When there was a case of TB in the school where I was governor there was a very low key response in which only the children who were with the affected pupil for several hours per day were thought to be at risk. It's deemed to be quite hard to catch.
In my mother's generation TB was declining (due to much better overall health, hygiene and living conditions than in Victorian times). However many people used to get a minor infection with it which enabled them to build immunity. When she as a child, my mother was taken to visit an aunt who was dying of TB My grandmother was not very germ conscious!!

I think MOnica is right on all counts.
Risk cannot ever be eliminated entirely, and of course this aspect is always a worry for parents.But the risks of not vaccinating can be just as great.
Some children who were not vaccinated against measles died of the disease in our area of the country when there was a recent, severe outbreak.Others were disabled. A community was devastated. My own eyesight was affected by the same disease as a young child, and I have relations who were crippled by polio when such vaccinations were not available.
Like many others who have posted, I think we are so lucky in the UK to have these vaccination programmes. To have the benefits you also have to accept there is an element of risk involved. There was no Internet when my children were young to help people to become more informed - but I myself always consulted a range of well qualified and experienced health professionals I knew and trusted - and made sure my own babies and small children were as fit and healthy as possible - before vaccination. My daughter has done the same.

I don’t usually contribute to GN discussions but I wanted to add my pennyworth here as this is such an important issue.
While it is important to ask questions, it’s also important to consult reputable sources of information about immunisation. This involves asking questions about the accuracy of the content of books and medical papers. Not all ‘medical journals’ are equally reputable.
Speldnan commented: “( until recent years Mercury was added to the vaccine but was proved to be dangerous and removed)”. Yes it is true that a mercury containing preservative Thiomersal (Thimerosal in the USA) was included in some vaccines. It was there to prevent bacterial contamination in the vaccine – to keep the vaccine sterile and safe. An important point is that this was never a constituent of MMR vaccine as it would kill the viruses. Thiomersal is no longer included in any of the UK routine vaccines and hasn’t been for some years now but not because it was “proved to be dangerous”, it was because it was because it was no longer necessary and it was removed as a precautionary measure. In any event the type of mercury used is ethylmercury, this is different from methylmercury which is known to be toxic in large amounts. Ethylmercury on the other hand, breaks down rapidly and is excreted from the body and does not build up. The issue about constituents is that they all have a role to keep vaccines as safe and effective as possible.
Quote from one review paper - Orenstein, W.A., Paulson, J.A., Brady, M.T., Cooper, L.Z. and Seib, K., 2013. Global vaccination recommendations and thimerosal. Pediatrics,131(1), pp.149-151.
“Overwhelmingly, the evidence collected over the past 15 years has failed to yield any evidence of significant harm, including serious neurodevelopmental disorders, from use of thimerosal in vaccines. Dozens of studies from countries around the world have supported the safety of thimerosal-containing vaccines. Specifically, the Institute of Medicine, and others have concluded that the evidence favors rejection of a link between thimerosal and autism.Careful studies of the risk of other serious neurodevelopmental disorders have failed to support a causal link with thimerosal.”

And statements from two Global Advisory bodies:
www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/thimerosal/
www.who.int/biologicals/areas/vaccines/thiomersal/en/

But the real issue is not that vaccines contain various additives, but the quantity of them. These additives are found in miniscule amounts. Anything in excess can be dangerous, even H2O. Some interesting reading here: www.senseaboutscience.org/pages/making-sense-of-chemical-stories.html

I am sorry that your grand daughter was unwell for a couple of days after MenB vaccine. It is well recognised that this vaccine when given with others can give rise to low grade fevers and in view of this, it is recommended that infant paracetamol is given as soon as possible after the vaccine. What you describe: irritability, hard lump etc are all recognised side effects of vaccines but clear up in a few days:
www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/448789/8584-what-to-expect-after-vaccination-2015-2P-A5-02-web.pdf