Is it dangerous to start vaccines and then stop aburptly? i.e. not giving boosters etc

[ewe+lamb]

OK, here's my question, in fact I was in discussion with someone yesterday and although this mother has now decided to stop doing the vaccines, she has let her child be vaccinated for the last two years, now she's taken the decision to stop any other vaccines and asked me this, 'Is it dangerous to start a vaccine, such as the MMR and then not to return for the boosters?' I have absolutely no clue, we were obliged by law here in france to vaccinate our kids with the first three given at 3,4,5 months but other than that haven't considered doing any others, so is it fine to just stop the vaccine process - I would imagine that it wouldn't pose a problem - only to the drs who are pro-vaccines, anyway i would appreciate any clarification from all the wise mamas here. I'll be seeing the mother again in a couple of weeks and would love to have some answers or at least continue on this discussion.

[Plaid Leopard]

Not dangerous. The only thing is that if you need 3 doses of a vaccine to have full immunity, then you may not have full immunity after only one or two. Of course, you may not have full immunity after 10 either... vaccines are tricky that way.

Vaccines are not like antibiotics, for example, where you need to complete the course in order that the bacteria does not become resistant.

If you think about it, adults are supposed to get boosters as well, but most don't, so technically if adults don't get boosters, then they have not - and will never - complete the vaccine process, but that is not a problem, depending on your POV.

[emma1325]

The only dangerous part is the starting, in my opinion. Stopping is better than continuing.

[13Sandals]

no danger at all. the less toxins put in the body, the less you try to 'trick' the immune system into thinking its in danger when its not, the better.

[Turquesa]

I have my children on a delayed schedule. The Centers for Disease Control even has "catch-up" recommendations that involve giving only one vaccination at a later age. I'm thinking that if there's no danger in a partial dose for toddlers, there's no danger in a partial dose for the younger ones.

[ewe+lamb]

Well thank you ladies - just what I was sort of thinking but had a doubt if the actual vaccination process had started, anyway I'll convey your thoughts to the mother next week and thank you all for the replies. I guess I'm feeling a bit stupid really, we had just decided not to vaccinate and that was that so other points of vaccination have just slipped past us!! But just once again thank you for your replies!

[bbrandonsmom]

No. You could hand her some facts about vaccines each having a different % of success rate, and that some they claim must have boosters etc. Which means we need to get them for life. As another poster said-most adults are not utd on vaccines.

[zylph]

Originally Posted by ewe+lamb

OK, here's my question, in fact I was in discussion with someone yesterday and although this mother has now decided to stop doing the vaccines, she has let her child be vaccinated for the last two years, now she's taken the decision to stop any other vaccines and asked me this, 'Is it dangerous to start a vaccine, such as the MMR and then not to return for the boosters?' I have absolutely no clue, we were obliged by law here in france to vaccinate our kids with the first three given at 3,4,5 months but other than that haven't considered doing any others, so is it fine to just stop the vaccine process - I would imagine that it wouldn't pose a problem - only to the drs who are pro-vaccines, anyway i would appreciate any clarification from all the wise mamas here. I'll be seeing the mother again in a couple of weeks and would love to have some answers or at least continue on this discussion.

I am about as pro-vaccine as they come here. And, no, there is no danger in stopping a vaccine. That is, it's not any more dangerous than never starting to vaccinate in the first place.

[MyLilPwny]

I agree that there is no danger at all in stopping vaccines---I think that it poses less danger actually because vaccines are known to cause so many adverse reactions, including very dangerous reactions.

[Gitti]

The sooner she stops the better off her child will be.

http://users.telenet.be/vaccine.dama...frenchhomepage

[stiss]

The only danger is that the vaccine's full immunity hasn't been conferred, and if the mom is comfortable with that decision, there's no other risk to health (as others have posted.)

[MyLilPwny]

Originally Posted by stiss

The only danger is that the vaccine's full immunity hasn't been conferred

That would only be a "danger" if you actually believe that vaccines confer immunity. Many people such as myself do not believe that vaccines confer immunity. They can raise antibodies, which is one little part of immunity, but it doesn't mean it is conferring immunity. There are books and articles that you can find online (Dr. Tenpenny has some in her book and web site) that describe studies where adequate titer levels do not confer immunity, and where no titer levels at all are showing the person to be immune. Therefore, I see no danger in what you are describing.

[stiss]

Originally Posted by ThereseReich

Originally Posted by stiss View Post
The only danger is that the vaccine's full immunity hasn't been conferred

That would only be a "danger" if you actually believe that vaccines confer immunity.

Umm....clearly.

[emma1325]

Originally Posted by stiss

Umm....clearly.

It's irritating to be in the minority on an issue like this, isn't it? Now you know how we non-vaxers feel in nearly every other avenue of life.

[stiss]

Originally Posted by emma1325

It's irritating to be in the minority on an issue like this, isn't it? Now you know how we non-vaxers feel in nearly every other avenue of life.

You know, once again I typed out this big long answer, but I don't see the point. The short version is that I have always been forthcoming in having open, respectful discussions about perspectives on immunization. I know that my views are "in the minority" in this forum, but only sharing knowledge from one perspective serves nobody, in the end.

I answered the OP, and for the record, my view didn't differ from that of ThereseReich (who already answered before me) or any other poster, for that matter. There was nothing to clarify - clearly my answer presupposes a belief in vaccine efficacy, which is quite possibly a concern for the mother (otherwise, what danger of NOT vaccinating would one be concerned about, exactly?) I thought the caveat was superfluous and unnecessarily adversarial, so I rolled my eyes. I think I may have found a use for the ignore button!

Trust me, if I found it irritating to be "in the minority", I wouldn't bother. Glad you found it entertaining, though.

[Gitti]

Originally Posted by stiss

The only danger is that the vaccine's full immunity hasn't been conferred,

Immunity is quite an individual thing. Most kids are immune after one shot. From what I remember about 80%.

But rather than check every vaccinated child's immunity, they simply give a booster to all kids to catch the other 10-15%.

Most kids have all the immunity they will ever get from the first shot.


ETA-

...but only sharing knowledge from one perspective serves nobody, in the end.

That is a very good point. But look around you, who gives more than one perspective of the vaccine issue? Everywhere I look, other than a few little forums, claims how great vaccines are and how they have saved humanity from total demise.

But then who does all the educating and informing? The manufacturer of course. And what else would he say?

Fact is that social progress and human well being is always second to monetary gains. And certainly there is little to extract from a healthy human body.

[stiss]

Originally Posted by Gitti

Immunity is quite an individual thing. Most kids are immune after one shot. From what I remember about 80%.

But rather than check every vaccinated child's immunity, they simply give a booster to all kids to catch the other 10-15%.

Most kids have all the immunity they will ever get from the first shot.

Yes, you're quite right. I meant the statement as really a potential issue, that may be a concern*.

*and that concern only exists if the person in question actually believes in the efficacy of vaccines. Just in case it wasn't clear.

[MyBoysBlue]

And even after the all the boosters are done some kids will still not be immune. I was fully vaccinated and still had the mumps at around 10 years old. There are plenty of stories like mine where fully vaxed kids have still gotten what they were fully vaxed against.

[stiss]

Originally Posted by MyBoysBlue

And even after the all the boosters are done some kids will still not be immune. I was fully vaccinated and still had the mumps at around 10 years old. There are plenty of stories like mine where fully vaxed kids have still gotten what they were fully vaxed against.

Yep, also true - you're never going to have 100% efficacy in a population, though immunity is generally not a dichotomous phenomenon, either*. I found out that I wasn't immune to Rubella when I was pregnant, which was a little scary for me*. Boo to you getting the mumps!

*maybe I'll put the disclaimer in my sig so I don't need to write it out each time, heh heh.

[Gitti]

Originally Posted by MyBoysBlue

And even after the all the boosters are done some kids will still not be immune.

Right!

And that is why "herd immunity" is a theory and will always remain that way.