Immunisations

Off topic, but I lived for a short time in a Steiner community in the 1970s. By coincidence, my niece was born while I was there. She had Down's syndrome. All I know is that I met with nothing but kindness and true joy from the community there. No one said what a shame, or failed to meet my eyes as others outside did. They seemed to believe that as a family we were blessed, that those with learning disabilities had much to teach the rest of us, and that my niece was a perfect human being.

Off the subject I know, but that reaction has stayed with me over the years and I bless them for it. It was not a perfect community by any means, but they were good people.

Steiner had some very whacky ideas. As did other contemporaries who made up religions/belief systems. Mary Baker Eddy, who invented Christian Science gave spawn to the "positive thinking cures all ill" style of thinking.
Steiner schools have been criticised for not making it clear to parents that they are actually promoting a belief system.
I used to go the the (very nice) cafe in a Camphill community, which provided employment for many residents with learning difficulties. There was also a succession of young helpers from somewhere in EU (Netherlands?) I was amazed and slightly horrified to discover that Steiner believed that if you are born with learning difficulties it is due to "karma" - something you need to learn in this life that you didn't get right in the previous one. (if I understand correctly...)

Officially the Steiner educational movement is not anti-immunisation now. However, Rudolf Steiner's teaching is very clearly anti. Childhood illnesses are regarded as good things. Try this Steiner quote for size: "Steiner wrote that vaccination was an interference in ‘karmic activity”, That is, by interfering with karmic processes, delays in spiritual progression may occur. He said, “If we destroy the susceptibility to smallpox [by vaccination], we are concentrating only on the external side of karmic activity”. Corresponding spiritual lessons may not be learned."

Hmm - parents who have looked into anthroposophy (the theory behind Steiner education) will be anti-vaccine; and whilst schools strenuously deny that it is school policy, there are many parents who do not believe in it. Interesting article here: www.quackometer.net/blog/2013/04/steiner-schools-vaccination-and-measles-outbreaks.html

I am not anti-Steiner (two of my children spent short periods in a Steiner school) and I do think that some of the education that arises from the wacky "theories" suits some children very well; but there is no doubt that there is a preponderance of anti-medical progress ideas and a sort of one-upmanship in being as Steiner right-on as possible among parents.

is, not are!

Interesting posts.

I understand that undergoing a vaccine programme are a requisite of school attendance in Australia, including the chickenpox vaccine.
However, I did not realise that Steiner schools do not insist on this which may be the reason they are quite popular there; one of DD's friends sends her little boy to a Steiner school. She was explaining its ethos to us but did not tell us about the non-vaccination - however, she is very much into nutrition and diet for health, although did not refuse antibiotics when her son was ill recently.

I had some involvement with a Steiner school many years ago, and the parents prided themselves on not having immunisations nor accepting antibiotics - it used to make my blood boil and I am afraid I sometimes spoke my mind. I watched a very sick little boy with a rampant ear infection banging his head on the floor and moaning in agony - parents had refused antibiotics. He did recover but is significantly deaf. The parents were proud that they had not "resorted" to antibiotics. Heaven help us! Overuse of antibiotics is to be deprecated, but in instances like this where their use is indicated and therapeutic, then it is wrong to say no.

I have some contact with the new generation of parents at that school and they are a prime focus for outbreaks of many illnesses as they still favour no immunisation.....even though one of the children died of meningitis several years ago. It is not overt school policy, but the parent body egg each other on into greater and greater depths of ignorance and folly.

The pseudo-science and mumbo-jumbo that accompany these decisions are enough to make you despair.

Clearly there are instances when, for medical reasons, immunisation cannot be given; but the sort of determined and willful ignorance that some of these parents pursue is beyond belief.

No, it was just the normal MMR when he was little. He had the meningitis W jab in the last year at school. I'm not sure whether it was the whole authority or just the school, which is an academy. I don't know what the 'get out' clauses are.

I developed viral meningitis as a child after catching mumps. Apparently, it's not that dangerous, but I remember it wasn't very pleasant. My father also caught mumps from me and had more serious after-effects My children always had all immunisations offered.

That's interesting daphnedil, I'm just wondering if your son had to have an MMR booster recently or whether proof of normal childhood vaccines was sufficient? My son caught mumps at uni despite having had the MMR, and in fact there was a mini epidemic. He was told the mumps part of the MMR was not very effective. Whereas catching mumps as a child usually provides lifelong immunity. It's sometimes not as straightforward as it seems.

That is great.
I wish schools in the UK were obliged to do likewise. This happens in some countries e.g. Australia. However there is a danger of unintended consequences if there are any get-out clauses. The worst unintended consequence is that "anti-vaccers" will be attracted to schools which are outside the system (i.e. schools that are covered by the legislation) and form little clusters of non-vaccinated kids. Which can then be a nucleus of no herd immunity - perfect for an outbreak to start. This happens in some countries. So if you are going to make it the law, you have to have no get out clause on grounds of "belief" etc
The anti-vaccers in Australia tend to be people who are interested in "all things natural" I was interested when visiting the States to discover that there, they often tend to be far-right "survivalists" who think the state should give them complete freedom in all matters. Picture the cabin in the woods stocked with food and weapons...

My son is off to uni this weekend and is going into a halls of residence. He had to produce evidence that he had had MMR immunisation and also the new meningitis jab (which I think is strain W).

Welcome HelenCH - we like a bit of scientific precision and clarity on GN

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

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.

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 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.

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.

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!!

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

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.

Anya

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.

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 ?

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.

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.

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.