A compelling question.. Vaccinations

dmogmo

IrishBrideND:

babies die from chicken pox. And rotavirus.

 

I don't get why so many on these boards think those vax are optional.

Seriously.  Thank you Jenny McCarthy and Dr. Google.

talltalltrees

dixielane:

talltalltrees:

dixielane:

teamsweet:

I believe in vaccines.  Is there the tiniest risk of a side-effect? Yes.  And could that side-effect be bad? Yes.  But the risk is much smaller than the risk of contracting the disease.  It freaks me out the posts about pertussis - I'm so glad we don't on the west coast.  Remember, part of the argument for vaccinations is herd-immunity.  Sure, vaccines won't protect your kid until they've had x boosters.  But if all of the kids/people your kid comes into contact are up-to-date on their vaccines, your kid won't be exposed to said disease in the first place.  That's one huge reason to vaccinate but a hard one to swallow.

I hope the people where I live - friends, neighbors, strangers all choose to vaccinate their children, so that when a kid with disease x comes around - no one is spreading it, making it that less likely that my baby (who is too young to be vaccinated yet) will come into contact with it.  You have to think altruistically, and we don't live in a society that necessarily values that.

 

Do any of you have any hard numbers on the actual risk of disease? Or the % that gets the disease anyway after vaccination? I don't think  a vaccine is a magic shot, children still get diseases even vaccinated and their amount of protection changes per vaccine.. all vaccines are not equal, some have lesser protection. For example, on the sounds of pertussis website, it specifically states the rates of effectiveness for pertussis vaccine being lower than that of tetanus.

 

But the vaccines aren't just about preventing the disease entirely. You kind of dismiss making the disease milder like it's no big deal, but it IS a big deal. Even if you can't stop your baby from contracting pertussis, don't you still want her to get a milder case instead of a case that could kill her? 

It's kind of like saying antibiotics are useless because they can't totally stop you from ever getting an infection in the first place. 

I get what you're saying. Does a baby benefit from the 1st vax in that sense?

Yes, a baby does benefit from the 1st vaccination - the trouble is that it isn't terribly strong and doesn't really last very long, which is why they need a series of shots - their immunity accumulates after each booster until it builds up to its maximum level. But it does provide some protection and what's more, it's necessary as part of the whole series to provide protection as soon as possible.

epphd

dixielane:

epphd:

Please, please, please consider talking to a medical professional (in person) before making this decision.  There is a LOT of misinformation on the internet and in books.  Unless you are capable of reading primary medical literature (as in you have an M.D. or Ph.D.) you should not be doing all of this research without a qualified person to interpret the data.

How did I decide?  I have a Ph.D. in cell biology and my husband is a professor of immunolgy (Ph.D. as well).  We did the research and talked to doctors.  There is no data to suggest that vaccinating is more dangerous than the potential to acquire the life threatening diseases that vaccines prevent. 

Pertussis is a fantastic example.  First off, the vast majority of vaccinated kids develop immunity to pertussis.  Second, pertussis is the leading cause of vaccine preventable death in infants.  Third, there is currently the largest outbreak of pertussis in California in 50 years and many babies have already died.  From what I recall. 50% of babies with pertussis will end up in the hospital. This is due to a drop in vaccination rates. Babies can get pertussis from other babies, but they primarily get it from their parents who are not current on boosters.  This is an immediate and real public health problem.

The risk of vaccine reactions is infinitesimally small compared to the risk of acquiring a vaccine preventable disease.  

And for what it is worth, MRC-5 is a cell line that yes, was derived from a 14 week fetus that was presumably the product of an abortion (but may not have been). The cell line was originally made in 1966. It is once cell line and not a continuously renewing product made from a fresh supply of fetuses. 

And yes, bovine serum is used in cell culture.  Cell culture is something that is employed for the research and development of any biologic medication/drug - from insulin, to viagra, to chemotherapies, to pain relievers, to antibiotics, to blood thinners, and on, and on, and on.  If you are opposed to bovine serum being used in the production or research of drugs, you shouldn't take any drug, for any reason, ever.  The same is true for the other "chemicals" that you are concerned about.  If you consume a medication of any variety you can bet that there are "chemicals" involved.

I am certain that you are asking these questions because you are deeply concerned about the health of your child.  The reality is the biggest threat to your child's health - that you have the power to do something about - is the set of diseases that you are considering not vaccinating against.  I cannot stress enough how reckless the decision not to vaccinate is. 

I will spare you my feelings on huge public health ramifications that lack of vaccinating can have and how I feel about people who opt out of vaccinating for arbitrary or "philosophical" reasons.  Let's just say that few things make me angrier.

 

Thank you... I am scouring resources, but no I am not a doctor which is why this IS scary for me. I want to do whats best for my child, which is why I'm researching. I'm not saying no to vaccines at all, I just want to know that if I do do them, I can feel confident/comfortable in that decision.

I have read many opposing arguements, pro-vaxers say the diseases have taken a steady decline since vaccinating began, but when you look at Pertussis for example, the disease has made a comeback. So what happened, isn't  the vax supposed to keep the rates down? Pertussis vaccine does not STOP the baby from getting it, it simply slows the transmission. A vaccinated person can get pertussis still, but the vaccine can make the illness more mild, and take out the "whoop" factor.. so the question I am asking myself, is it worth loading my child up with chemicals, just to be given a 50/50 chance anyways? Plus, when you remove the normal symptoms of whooping cough, you could risk misreading the illness and not treating appropriately, and/or spreading the illness around. (FWIW, I did get the adult pertussis vaccine when my DD was born, before I began researching anything)

 Also -- the dtap vaccine is not magically effective on its first dose for babies at 2mos. It requires boosters, so by the time the vaccine is at its peak effectiveness, the child is already 6mo, and at an age where pertussis is not as dangerous.  So why is the dtap vax being pushed for babies, when a vaccinated 2mo is just as suseptible as a non- vaccinaed 2mo? The only difference is the unvaxed 2mo is spared of having an overload of chemicals at a young age.

 I am not on either side -- I am just stating all the info I have gathered that makes me question vaccinating, and why I got started on this. I am VERY scared either way -  I feel like I am potentially harming my child by vaccinating, but also if I don't vax because I have not found enough research on that end of the spectrum that says its totally safe, either.  I would be very very interested in more info you might could give -- do you have any resources you can share? What about the reactions of vaccines, are there any worthy resources documenting this? Thanks for your time!

Sadly, it sounds to me like you are on a side and we are all wasting our breath, which is a shame not only for your child but for other kids as well.

Yes, there have been lawsuits filed by parents due to vax injuries and rare, rare cases have been won, largely due to underlying medical issues of the recipient -- not the vaccine itself. TALK TO A DOCTOR.  Or, read actual medical literature, not websites that come at it from a bias.

As other people have pointed out, the pertussis outbreak in CA is BECAUSE people are NOT vaccinating.  That itself is proof that vaccinating is crucial!  This 50% number is totally arbitrary - if you would like I could track down the actual data as to the number or recipients who mount an immune response as a result of vaccination.  I am not yet at work but there I have access to the primary literature and would be happy to send it to you.  

 

dixielane

epphd:

dixielane:

epphd:

Please, please, please consider talking to a medical professional (in person) before making this decision.  There is a LOT of misinformation on the internet and in books.  Unless you are capable of reading primary medical literature (as in you have an M.D. or Ph.D.) you should not be doing all of this research without a qualified person to interpret the data.

How did I decide?  I have a Ph.D. in cell biology and my husband is a professor of immunolgy (Ph.D. as well).  We did the research and talked to doctors.  There is no data to suggest that vaccinating is more dangerous than the potential to acquire the life threatening diseases that vaccines prevent. 

Pertussis is a fantastic example.  First off, the vast majority of vaccinated kids develop immunity to pertussis.  Second, pertussis is the leading cause of vaccine preventable death in infants.  Third, there is currently the largest outbreak of pertussis in California in 50 years and many babies have already died.  From what I recall. 50% of babies with pertussis will end up in the hospital. This is due to a drop in vaccination rates. Babies can get pertussis from other babies, but they primarily get it from their parents who are not current on boosters.  This is an immediate and real public health problem.

The risk of vaccine reactions is infinitesimally small compared to the risk of acquiring a vaccine preventable disease.  

And for what it is worth, MRC-5 is a cell line that yes, was derived from a 14 week fetus that was presumably the product of an abortion (but may not have been). The cell line was originally made in 1966. It is once cell line and not a continuously renewing product made from a fresh supply of fetuses. 

And yes, bovine serum is used in cell culture.  Cell culture is something that is employed for the research and development of any biologic medication/drug - from insulin, to viagra, to chemotherapies, to pain relievers, to antibiotics, to blood thinners, and on, and on, and on.  If you are opposed to bovine serum being used in the production or research of drugs, you shouldn't take any drug, for any reason, ever.  The same is true for the other "chemicals" that you are concerned about.  If you consume a medication of any variety you can bet that there are "chemicals" involved.

I am certain that you are asking these questions because you are deeply concerned about the health of your child.  The reality is the biggest threat to your child's health - that you have the power to do something about - is the set of diseases that you are considering not vaccinating against.  I cannot stress enough how reckless the decision not to vaccinate is. 

I will spare you my feelings on huge public health ramifications that lack of vaccinating can have and how I feel about people who opt out of vaccinating for arbitrary or "philosophical" reasons.  Let's just say that few things make me angrier.

 

Thank you... I am scouring resources, but no I am not a doctor which is why this IS scary for me. I want to do whats best for my child, which is why I'm researching. I'm not saying no to vaccines at all, I just want to know that if I do do them, I can feel confident/comfortable in that decision.

I have read many opposing arguements, pro-vaxers say the diseases have taken a steady decline since vaccinating began, but when you look at Pertussis for example, the disease has made a comeback. So what happened, isn't  the vax supposed to keep the rates down? Pertussis vaccine does not STOP the baby from getting it, it simply slows the transmission. A vaccinated person can get pertussis still, but the vaccine can make the illness more mild, and take out the "whoop" factor.. so the question I am asking myself, is it worth loading my child up with chemicals, just to be given a 50/50 chance anyways? Plus, when you remove the normal symptoms of whooping cough, you could risk misreading the illness and not treating appropriately, and/or spreading the illness around. (FWIW, I did get the adult pertussis vaccine when my DD was born, before I began researching anything)

 Also -- the dtap vaccine is not magically effective on its first dose for babies at 2mos. It requires boosters, so by the time the vaccine is at its peak effectiveness, the child is already 6mo, and at an age where pertussis is not as dangerous.  So why is the dtap vax being pushed for babies, when a vaccinated 2mo is just as suseptible as a non- vaccinaed 2mo? The only difference is the unvaxed 2mo is spared of having an overload of chemicals at a young age.

 I am not on either side -- I am just stating all the info I have gathered that makes me question vaccinating, and why I got started on this. I am VERY scared either way -  I feel like I am potentially harming my child by vaccinating, but also if I don't vax because I have not found enough research on that end of the spectrum that says its totally safe, either.  I would be very very interested in more info you might could give -- do you have any resources you can share? What about the reactions of vaccines, are there any worthy resources documenting this? Thanks for your time!

Sadly, it sounds to me like you are on a side and we are all wasting our breath, which is a shame not only for your child but for other kids as well.

Yes, there have been lawsuits filed by parents due to vax injuries and rare, rare cases have been won, largely due to underlying medical issues of the recipient -- not the vaccine itself. TALK TO A DOCTOR.  Or, read actual medical literature, not websites that come at it from a bias.

As other people have pointed out, the pertussis outbreak in CA is BECAUSE people are NOT vaccinating.  That itself is proof that vaccinating is crucial!  This 50% number is totally arbitrary - if you would like I could track down the actual data as to the number or recipients who mount an immune response as a result of vaccination.  I am not yet at work but there I have access to the primary literature and would be happy to send it to you.  

 

I would be more than interested in any info you might feel is worthy.  And no I am not on one side more than the other, I am only bringing up the risks of vaccines because that is whats newest to me, so I am putting it under scrutiney (sp?) I always thought of vaxes as a fix-all, but the stories and supposed facts I am reading on vaccines causing bad reactions and longterm health issues is scary to me, as equally as any disease it protects against. When you have resources saying places like CHOP (childrens hosp of philly) are a conflict of interest (Dr. Offit) it makes you question where this vaccine info on its safety is coming from, and is it biased because someone is making $?

It just makes me wonder who is a trust worthy resource. I am switching pedi's also, because mine was very disappointing. He had no info about vaccines, actual statistics or valuable resources.

talltalltrees

dixielane:

Either way, I mentioned this because along with the neurotoxins like formaldehyde, aborted fetal tissue is just an "ick" factor for me.

 I just want to point out that there is also formaldehyde in a lot of foods that you may eat too. And what's more, your body actually produces small amounts of formaldehyde naturally.

https://www.eco-usa.net/toxics/chemicals/formaldehyde.shtml

Formaldehyde is naturally produced in very small amounts in our bodies as a part of our normal, everyday metabolism and causes us no harm. It can also be found in the air that we breathe at home and at work, in the food we eat, and in some products that we put on our skin. A major source of formaldehyde that we breathe everyday is found in smog in the lower atmosphere. Automobile exhaust from cars without catalytic converters or those using oxygenated gasoline also contain formaldehyde. At home, formaldehyde is produced by cigarettes and other tobacco products, gas cookers, and open fireplaces. It is also used as a preservative in some foods, such as some types of Italian cheeses, dried foods, and fish. Formaldehyde is found in many products used every day around the house, such as antiseptics, medicines, cosmetics, dish-washing liquids, fabric softeners, shoe-care agents, carpet cleaners, glues and adhesives, lacquers, paper, plastics, and some types of wood products. Some people are exposed to higher levels of formaldehyde if they live in a new mobile home, as formaldehyde is given off as a gas from the manufactured wood products used in these homes.

dixielane

talltalltrees:

dixielane:

Either way, I mentioned this because along with the neurotoxins like formaldehyde, aborted fetal tissue is just an "ick" factor for me.

 I just want to point out that there is also formaldehyde in a lot of foods that you may eat too. And what's more, your body actually produces small amounts of formaldehyde naturally.

https://www.eco-usa.net/toxics/chemicals/formaldehyde.shtml

Formaldehyde is naturally produced in very small amounts in our bodies as a part of our normal, everyday metabolism and causes us no harm. It can also be found in the air that we breathe at home and at work, in the food we eat, and in some products that we put on our skin. A major source of formaldehyde that we breathe everyday is found in smog in the lower atmosphere. Automobile exhaust from cars without catalytic converters or those using oxygenated gasoline also contain formaldehyde. At home, formaldehyde is produced by cigarettes and other tobacco products, gas cookers, and open fireplaces. It is also used as a preservative in some foods, such as some types of Italian cheeses, dried foods, and fish. Formaldehyde is found in many products used every day around the house, such as antiseptics, medicines, cosmetics, dish-washing liquids, fabric softeners, shoe-care agents, carpet cleaners, glues and adhesives, lacquers, paper, plastics, and some types of wood products. Some people are exposed to higher levels of formaldehyde if they live in a new mobile home, as formaldehyde is given off as a gas from the manufactured wood products used in these homes.

Scary I dont necessarily want to add MORE then.  But Id be curious to know how much formaldehyde is in a vaccine, versus, say what you might make in your own body.

dixielane

Sadly, it sounds to me like you are on a side and we are all wasting our breath, which is a shame not only for your child but for other kids as well.

Yes, there have been lawsuits filed by parents due to vax injuries and rare, rare cases have been won, largely due to underlying medical issues of the recipient -- not the vaccine itself. TALK TO A DOCTOR.  Or, read actual medical literature, not websites that come at it from a bias.

As other people have pointed out, the pertussis outbreak in CA is BECAUSE people are NOT vaccinating.  That itself is proof that vaccinating is crucial!  This 50% number is totally arbitrary - if you would like I could track down the actual data as to the number or recipients who mount an immune response as a result of vaccination.  I am not yet at work but there I have access to the primary literature and would be happy to send it to you.  

 

Also, this is another thing that worries me... yes its those with underlying medical conditions who might have reactions, but how would you ever know? You dont know your child will have a reaction till the deed is done, and you cant undo it..

talltalltrees

dixielane:

talltalltrees:

dixielane:

Either way, I mentioned this because along with the neurotoxins like formaldehyde, aborted fetal tissue is just an "ick" factor for me.

 I just want to point out that there is also formaldehyde in a lot of foods that you may eat too. And what's more, your body actually produces small amounts of formaldehyde naturally.

https://www.eco-usa.net/toxics/chemicals/formaldehyde.shtml

Formaldehyde is naturally produced in very small amounts in our bodies as a part of our normal, everyday metabolism and causes us no harm. It can also be found in the air that we breathe at home and at work, in the food we eat, and in some products that we put on our skin. A major source of formaldehyde that we breathe everyday is found in smog in the lower atmosphere. Automobile exhaust from cars without catalytic converters or those using oxygenated gasoline also contain formaldehyde. At home, formaldehyde is produced by cigarettes and other tobacco products, gas cookers, and open fireplaces. It is also used as a preservative in some foods, such as some types of Italian cheeses, dried foods, and fish. Formaldehyde is found in many products used every day around the house, such as antiseptics, medicines, cosmetics, dish-washing liquids, fabric softeners, shoe-care agents, carpet cleaners, glues and adhesives, lacquers, paper, plastics, and some types of wood products. Some people are exposed to higher levels of formaldehyde if they live in a new mobile home, as formaldehyde is given off as a gas from the manufactured wood products used in these homes.

Scary I dont necessarily want to add MORE then.  But Id be curious to know how much formaldehyde is in a vaccine, versus, say what you might make in your own body.

I don't have the exact amounts, but I know that the amount in the vaccine is actually less than what is already present in a baby's bloodstream. 

More info:

https://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/SafetyAvailability/VaccineSafety/ucm187810.htm

Although high concentrations of formaldehyde can damage DNA (the building block of genes) and cause cancerous changes in cells in the laboratory, formaldehyde is an essential component in human metabolism and is required for the synthesis of DNA and amino acids (the building blocks of protein).  Therefore, all humans have detectable quantities of natural formaldehyde in their circulation. In addition, quantities of formaldehyde at least 600-fold greater than that contained in vaccines have been found to be safe in animals.

 

ETA: more info: 

The actual amount in vaccines is minuscule, even when considering an infant that receives the full CDC schedule. If you look at this table, it contains a list of vaccines and their final formaldehyde content. Not included in this table is Pentacel which contains 0.005mg of formaldehyde. If all vaccines are given as per the CDC recommendation and separately, the most a 2 month old infant would receive is 0.1204 mg of formaldehyde or 120.4 mcg. Going back to what normal formaldehyde levels for a 5kg, 2-month old infant are 1.1-1.2 mg or 0.22-0.24mg/kg so the total formaldehyde exposure from vaccines would raise that to 1.22-1.32 mg or raises the baseline level by less than 1 grain of sand/35 Hummers. Put another way, the amount contained within a vaccine is more than 50
times less than what is in a pear.

soko987

Okay, I really not trying to be rude here, but I have to correct something you said, because it is one of my biggest pet peeves of all time.

Hep B is not only a sexually transmitted disease. It is a blood borne pathogen. If you are using the rationale of "My baby isn't sexually active, therefore the vax is pointless", then you are terribly, terribly misinformed about how and where Hep B can be contracted.

Now, I know you didn't come right out and say that, but it was implied. People on the tri boards used to say that ALL THE FRICKIN TIME, and by God, I can't believe it didn't make my head explode.

ToledoDeux

dixielane:

 No, I have not made my mind up... infact, I was going to vax with no question, until 2-3 weeks ago when I came onto some anti-vax info that got me thinking, and now I am just kind of scared of both sides. It seems both sides have horror stories, and I am in the middle trying to weigh it all. It doesnt help that many resources are cloudy and its soo hard to decide who is reputable :

It's actually not that difficult:

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/

dixielane

soko987:

Okay, I really not trying to be rude here, but I have to correct something you said, because it is one of my biggest pet peeves of all time.

Hep B is not only a sexually transmitted disease. It is a blood borne pathogen. If you are using the rationale of "My baby isn't sexually active, therefore the vax is pointless", then you are terribly, terribly misinformed about how and where Hep B can be contracted.

Now, I know you didn't come right out and say that, but it was implied. People on the tri boards used to say that ALL THE FRICKIN TIME, and by God, I can't believe it didn't make my head explode.

But its still not absolutely necessary at infancy unless the  child has a hep b + caregiver.

dixielane

soko987:

Okay, I really not trying to be rude here, but I have to correct something you said, because it is one of my biggest pet peeves of all time.

Hep B is not only a sexually transmitted disease. It is a blood borne pathogen. If you are using the rationale of "My baby isn't sexually active, therefore the vax is pointless", then you are terribly, terribly misinformed about how and where Hep B can be contracted.

Now, I know you didn't come right out and say that, but it was implied. People on the tri boards used to say that ALL THE FRICKIN TIME, and by God, I can't believe it didn't make my head explode.

But its still not absolutely necessary at infancy unless the  child has a hep b + caregiver.

dixielane

And regarding vax safety, whats the scoop on vaccines NEVER being safety tested against placebos? Only against other vax?

talltalltrees

dixielane:

soko987:

Okay, I really not trying to be rude here, but I have to correct something you said, because it is one of my biggest pet peeves of all time.

Hep B is not only a sexually transmitted disease. It is a blood borne pathogen. If you are using the rationale of "My baby isn't sexually active, therefore the vax is pointless", then you are terribly, terribly misinformed about how and where Hep B can be contracted.

Now, I know you didn't come right out and say that, but it was implied. People on the tri boards used to say that ALL THE FRICKIN TIME, and by God, I can't believe it didn't make my head explode.

But its still not absolutely necessary at infancy unless the  child has a hep b + caregiver.

Part of the reason it's given at infancy is because among infants, the immunity rate is close to 100%, but among adults, it's only 80%. 

So think of it this way - you don't give your baby the Hep B vaccine. She grows up to be a doctor or nurse and decides to work abroad, say, in a poor community in China where Hep B is widespread and she could very well be exposed to the disease from one of her patients. She goes to get the vaccine as an adult, but now it doesn't work and she has no immunity. Because the disease is so easily transmitted, it only takes one cut on her hand or arm coming into contact with an infected patient's blood and now she's got a lethal liver disease.

soko987

dixielane:

soko987:

Okay, I really not trying to be rude here, but I have to correct something you said, because it is one of my biggest pet peeves of all time.

Hep B is not only a sexually transmitted disease. It is a blood borne pathogen. If you are using the rationale of "My baby isn't sexually active, therefore the vax is pointless", then you are terribly, terribly misinformed about how and where Hep B can be contracted.

Now, I know you didn't come right out and say that, but it was implied. People on the tri boards used to say that ALL THE FRICKIN TIME, and by God, I can't believe it didn't make my head explode.

But its still not absolutely necessary at infancy unless the  child has a hep b + caregiver.

True, it would be rare for an infant to contract Hep B, but that doesn't mean it's impossible. If you plan on putting your child in daycare, for instance, how do you know if those children have Hep B? Or the caregivers themselves ( Hep B vaccines are not always a requirement)?

If someone were to put a gun to my head and say "Choose one vaccine to skip", yeah, I would probably say Hep B.  But luckily, firearms are not part of our pediatrician's practice.

talltalltrees

soko987:

True, it would be rare for an infant to contract Hep B, but that doesn't mean it's impossible. If you plan on putting your child in daycare, for instance, how do you know if those children have Hep B? Or the caregivers themselves ( Hep B vaccines are not always a requirement)?

If someone were to put a gun to my head and say "Choose one vaccine to skip", yeah, I would probably say Hep B.  But luckily, firearms are not part of our pediatrician's practice.

I agree. Not vaccinating for Hep B doesn't make me upset like not vaccinating for polio or HiB or pertussis does. I don't see it as a 100% essential vaccine for infants. But it's available, it protects your child against a very serious disease (and can you really say that your child will definitely never, ever have sex or never, ever use needles? even if god forbid they do, you still don't want them dying of liver disease, do you?), the risks are extremely tiny. Why would you NOT want to give your child this protection?

BarefootContess

talltalltrees:

soko987:

True, it would be rare for an infant to contract Hep B, but that doesn't mean it's impossible. If you plan on putting your child in daycare, for instance, how do you know if those children have Hep B? Or the caregivers themselves ( Hep B vaccines are not always a requirement)?

If someone were to put a gun to my head and say "Choose one vaccine to skip", yeah, I would probably say Hep B.  But luckily, firearms are not part of our pediatrician's practice.

I agree. Not vaccinating for Hep B doesn't make me upset like not vaccinating for polio or HiB or pertussis does. I don't see it as a 100% essential vaccine for infants. But it's available, it protects your child against a very serious disease (and can you really say that your child will definitely never, ever have sex or never, ever use needles? even if god forbid they do, you still don't want them dying of liver disease, do you?), the risks are extremely tiny. Why would you NOT want to give your child this protection?

Because the risks are less once the brain has fully developed.  

dixielane

soko987:

dixielane:

soko987:

Okay, I really not trying to be rude here, but I have to correct something you said, because it is one of my biggest pet peeves of all time.

Hep B is not only a sexually transmitted disease. It is a blood borne pathogen. If you are using the rationale of "My baby isn't sexually active, therefore the vax is pointless", then you are terribly, terribly misinformed about how and where Hep B can be contracted.

Now, I know you didn't come right out and say that, but it was implied. People on the tri boards used to say that ALL THE FRICKIN TIME, and by God, I can't believe it didn't make my head explode.

But its still not absolutely necessary at infancy unless the  child has a hep b + caregiver.

True, it would be rare for an infant to contract Hep B, but that doesn't mean it's impossible. If you plan on putting your child in daycare, for instance, how do you know if those children have Hep B? Or the caregivers themselves ( Hep B vaccines are not always a requirement)?

If someone were to put a gun to my head and say "Choose one vaccine to skip", yeah, I would probably say Hep B.  But luckily, firearms are not part of our pediatrician's practice.

Thats another thing in my consideration -- my child is strictly at home with me, so like in this example, hep b is probably more of a risk for a child that is around different caregivers.

To the info about hep b having less effectiveness as an adult, do you have resources on that? ive never heard that but it would be a big factor. FTR, my DD got a hep b at birth, but mainly bc I assumed it was totally normal and didnt think twice at the time.

soko987

BarefootContess:

talltalltrees:

soko987:

True, it would be rare for an infant to contract Hep B, but that doesn't mean it's impossible. If you plan on putting your child in daycare, for instance, how do you know if those children have Hep B? Or the caregivers themselves ( Hep B vaccines are not always a requirement)?

If someone were to put a gun to my head and say "Choose one vaccine to skip", yeah, I would probably say Hep B.  But luckily, firearms are not part of our pediatrician's practice.

I agree. Not vaccinating for Hep B doesn't make me upset like not vaccinating for polio or HiB or pertussis does. I don't see it as a 100% essential vaccine for infants. But it's available, it protects your child against a very serious disease (and can you really say that your child will definitely never, ever have sex or never, ever use needles? even if god forbid they do, you still don't want them dying of liver disease, do you?), the risks are extremely tiny. Why would you NOT want to give your child this protection?

Because the risks are less once the brain has fully developed.  

Which orifice did you pull this thought out of?

talltalltrees

BarefootContess:

talltalltrees:

soko987:

True, it would be rare for an infant to contract Hep B, but that doesn't mean it's impossible. If you plan on putting your child in daycare, for instance, how do you know if those children have Hep B? Or the caregivers themselves ( Hep B vaccines are not always a requirement)?

If someone were to put a gun to my head and say "Choose one vaccine to skip", yeah, I would probably say Hep B.  But luckily, firearms are not part of our pediatrician's practice.

I agree. Not vaccinating for Hep B doesn't make me upset like not vaccinating for polio or HiB or pertussis does. I don't see it as a 100% essential vaccine for infants. But it's available, it protects your child against a very serious disease (and can you really say that your child will definitely never, ever have sex or never, ever use needles? even if god forbid they do, you still don't want them dying of liver disease, do you?), the risks are extremely tiny. Why would you NOT want to give your child this protection?

Because the risks are less once the brain has fully developed.  

Do you have a source for this statement? 

talltalltrees

dixielane:

To the info about hep b having less effectiveness as an adult, do you have resources on that? ive never heard that but it would be a big factor. FTR, my DD got a hep b at birth, but mainly bc I assumed it was totally normal and didnt think twice at the time.

Here you go: 

https://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs204/en/

 

All infants should receive the hepatitis B vaccine: this is the mainstay of hepatitis B prevention.

The vaccine can be given as either three or four separate doses, as part of existing routine immunization schedules. In areas where mother-to-infant spread of HBV is common, the first dose of vaccine should be given as soon as possible after birth (i.e. within 24 hours).

The complete vaccine series induces protective antibody levels in more than 95% of infants, children and young adults. After age 40, protection following the primary vaccination series drops below 90%. At 60 years old, protective antibody levels are achieved in only 65 to 75% of those vaccinated. Protection lasts at least 20 years and should be lifelong.

BarefootContess

soko987:

BarefootContess:

talltalltrees:

soko987:

True, it would be rare for an infant to contract Hep B, but that doesn't mean it's impossible. If you plan on putting your child in daycare, for instance, how do you know if those children have Hep B? Or the caregivers themselves ( Hep B vaccines are not always a requirement)?

If someone were to put a gun to my head and say "Choose one vaccine to skip", yeah, I would probably say Hep B.  But luckily, firearms are not part of our pediatrician's practice.

I agree. Not vaccinating for Hep B doesn't make me upset like not vaccinating for polio or HiB or pertussis does. I don't see it as a 100% essential vaccine for infants. But it's available, it protects your child against a very serious disease (and can you really say that your child will definitely never, ever have sex or never, ever use needles? even if god forbid they do, you still don't want them dying of liver disease, do you?), the risks are extremely tiny. Why would you NOT want to give your child this protection?

Because the risks are less once the brain has fully developed.  

Which orifice did you pull this thought out of?

Wow, you sure are friendly and clearly open to alternative opinions.  

Try Russell Blaylock, MD.  A board certified neurosurgeon.

 

talltalltrees

BarefootContess:

soko987:

BarefootContess:

talltalltrees:

soko987:

True, it would be rare for an infant to contract Hep B, but that doesn't mean it's impossible. If you plan on putting your child in daycare, for instance, how do you know if those children have Hep B? Or the caregivers themselves ( Hep B vaccines are not always a requirement)?

If someone were to put a gun to my head and say "Choose one vaccine to skip", yeah, I would probably say Hep B.  But luckily, firearms are not part of our pediatrician's practice.

I agree. Not vaccinating for Hep B doesn't make me upset like not vaccinating for polio or HiB or pertussis does. I don't see it as a 100% essential vaccine for infants. But it's available, it protects your child against a very serious disease (and can you really say that your child will definitely never, ever have sex or never, ever use needles? even if god forbid they do, you still don't want them dying of liver disease, do you?), the risks are extremely tiny. Why would you NOT want to give your child this protection?

Because the risks are less once the brain has fully developed.  

Which orifice did you pull this thought out of?

Wow, you sure are friendly and clearly open to alternative opinions.  

Try Russell Blaylock, MD.  A board certified neurosurgeon.

One doctor's opinion is not evidence, it is not a clinical study, it is not scientific or medical consensus. 

In fact, many of Dr Blaylock's claims have been out and out discredited or shown to be factually false (like his claim that the swine flu vaccine was dangerous because of the squalene content when it actually never contained squalene in the first place). Frankly, he's a quack.

soko987

BarefootContess:

soko987:

BarefootContess:

talltalltrees:

soko987:

True, it would be rare for an infant to contract Hep B, but that doesn't mean it's impossible. If you plan on putting your child in daycare, for instance, how do you know if those children have Hep B? Or the caregivers themselves ( Hep B vaccines are not always a requirement)?

If someone were to put a gun to my head and say "Choose one vaccine to skip", yeah, I would probably say Hep B.  But luckily, firearms are not part of our pediatrician's practice.

I agree. Not vaccinating for Hep B doesn't make me upset like not vaccinating for polio or HiB or pertussis does. I don't see it as a 100% essential vaccine for infants. But it's available, it protects your child against a very serious disease (and can you really say that your child will definitely never, ever have sex or never, ever use needles? even if god forbid they do, you still don't want them dying of liver disease, do you?), the risks are extremely tiny. Why would you NOT want to give your child this protection?

Because the risks are less once the brain has fully developed.  

Which orifice did you pull this thought out of?

Wow, you sure are friendly and clearly open to alternative opinions.  

Try Russell Blaylock, MD.  A board certified neurosurgeon.

 

Actually, I am a friendly person who is open to alternative opinions on a multitude of issues. When it comes to vaccines, however, I'm a pitbull, and I make no apologies about that.

Telling me to research a doctor who authored an article titled "What They Don't Tell You About Vaccination Dangers that Can Kill You Or Ruin Your Life"  isn't going to change my mind. I don't care how many board certifications he holds. 

MrsAJL

dixielane:

That does just give me a sinking feeling in my stomach. And I think some of the anti-vax movement is because we just never see diseases anymore like this. Polio is gone, I've never met a person with measles or mumps, and  none of us experienced the rubella surge and lost pregnancies over it.. so it doesn't hit home as much. But also, to those who thoroughly look at both sides, an infant seizing after a vaccine, getting SIDs when they were otherwise healthy, or becoming delayed oddly after the vaccine.. is all really bad too. As a parent, you just have to try to be well informed to both sides, and pick the lesser of two evils I guess.

I've been very impressed with how gentle and kind everyone has been to you on this post. It speaks to their character.  

But let's get down to brass tacks:

1) The reason we don't see theses diseases much any more is because of aggressive public health campaigns about the importance of vaccines and the encouragement of parents to vaccinate their children and themselves.  Anti-vaxxers will definitely see these diseases if they keep encouraging parents NOT to vaccinate.  We see it with pertussis and measles and we'll see it with other diseases.

2) Polio is NOT gone. Polio is not endemic to the United States. It is endemic to many parts of the world. People who have polio virus travel to this country and can expose others. We have historically been proactive in preventing polio through vaccine programs. To keep polio at bay, a high percentage of people must be vaccinated.

3)  "I've never met a person with measles or mumps, and  none of us experienced the rubella surge and lost pregnancies over it.."   My response to this is: not yet.

I understand that you're trying to make the best decision for your child. I understand that you are overwhelmed and confused by all the information available to you on the Internet and elsewhere. 

But this is the bottom line:  Vaccines save lives. The benefits of vaccination outweigh the risk of vaccines hugely.  Not vaccinating your child and yourself puts those around you at risk for disease.

If you've made up your mind not to vaccinate without proven compelling reasons (i.e. your child has a history of severe reaction to vaccines) then you are making the wrong choice.

epphd

The reason vaccines are not tested against placebo is the same reason chemotherapy isn't tested against placebo.  Because which kids do you willingly subject to disease? Which kids do you say: let's see if this brain tumor shrinks on its own compared to this new drug.

Here are some studies:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11694665

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10937466

(actually just use pubmed to search for studies and every last one will verify that the pertussis vaccine is safe and effective)

Regarding Offit - he is a world expert in vaccines and infectious diseases.  Of course he is going to consult on the development of vaccines. it's not a conflict of interest just because he is a consultant.  That would be like saying that Michael Phelps can't be trusted to teach your kid swimming lessons because he has a vested interest in promoting swimming.  Sure he might make some money off of endorsements, but at the end of the day he has a unique skill set that can keep kids from drowing. 

Seriously, I am very worried at how much you seem to take at face value from the internet and not from primary sources.  It betrays a willingness to hear what you want to hear and a total lack of skepticism.  For your child's sake you should talk with experts. Get a new pedi and talk with him or her AND other pedis in the practice. Get the opinion of many experts. I guarantee that you would be hard pressed to find pedis who do not recommend vaccination.

Oh, and redarding delayed schedules - this may be of interest:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20597453

Among parents who intentionally delayed, 44.8% did so because of concerns about vaccine safety or efficacy and 36.1% delayed because of an ill child. Children whose parents intentionally delayed were significantly less likely to receive all vaccines by 19 months of age than children whose parents did not delay (35.4% vs. 60.1%, p < 0.05). Parents who intentionally delayed were significantly more likely to have heard or read unfavorable information about vaccines than parents who did not intentionally delay (87.6% vs. 71.9%, p < 0.05). Compared with parents who intentionally delayed only because their child was ill, parents who intentionally delayed only because of vaccine safety or efficacy concerns were significantly more likely to seek additional information about their decision from the Internet (11.4% vs. 1.1%, p < 0.05), and significantly less likely to seek information from a doctor (73.9% vs. 93.9%, p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Intentionally delayed vaccine doses are not uncommon. Children whose parents delay vaccinations may be at increased risk of not receiving all recommended vaccine doses by 19 months of age and are more vulnerable to vaccine-preventable diseases.

This really sums it up for me - most people choose to delay because of fears and the internet, and not because they spoke with medical professionals.  Don't throw your lot in with this crowd.

 

talltalltrees

Wouldn't doctors and hospitals make a TON more money if there were, in fact, a pandemic of polio or pertussis? Isn't it actually against their best financial interests to prevent these diseases?

So maybe they have a different motivation -- like saving children's lives. Doctors are people too, and many of them have children of their own. Do you really think they would put their own children at risk just to fool other people and hopefully make more money?

augs06

IrishBrideND:

babies die from chicken pox. And rotavirus.

 

I don't get why so many on these boards think those vax are optional.

yes, this.

A boy in DD1's old daycare contracted rotavirus at 10mo because his parents didn't vaccinate him for it.  10 days hospitalized on breathing machines.  I couldn't imagine wearing that guilt as a parent choosing not to help my child to begin with.

ETA: I didn't read through all posts through second page (yet).

dixielane

epphd:

The reason vaccines are not tested against placebo is the same reason chemotherapy isn't tested against placebo.  Because which kids do you willingly subject to disease? Which kids do you say: let's see if this brain tumor shrinks on its own compared to this new drug.

Here are some studies:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11694665

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10937466

(actually just use pubmed to search for studies and every last one will verify that the pertussis vaccine is safe and effective)

Regarding Offit - he is a world expert in vaccines and infectious diseases.  Of course he is going to consult on the development of vaccines. it's not a conflict of interest just because he is a consultant.  That would be like saying that Michael Phelps can't be trusted to teach your kid swimming lessons because he has a vested interest in promoting swimming.  Sure he might make some money off of endorsements, but at the end of the day he has a unique skill set that can keep kids from drowing. 

Seriously, I am very worried at how much you seem to take at face value from the internet and not from primary sources.  It betrays a willingness to hear what you want to hear and a total lack of skepticism.  For your child's sake you should talk with experts. Get a new pedi and talk with him or her AND other pedis in the practice. Get the opinion of many experts. I guarantee that you would be hard pressed to find pedis who do not recommend vaccination.

Oh, and redarding delayed schedules - this may be of interest:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20597453

Among parents who intentionally delayed, 44.8% did so because of concerns about vaccine safety or efficacy and 36.1% delayed because of an ill child. Children whose parents intentionally delayed were significantly less likely to receive all vaccines by 19 months of age than children whose parents did not delay (35.4% vs. 60.1%, p < 0.05). Parents who intentionally delayed were significantly more likely to have heard or read unfavorable information about vaccines than parents who did not intentionally delay (87.6% vs. 71.9%, p < 0.05). Compared with parents who intentionally delayed only because their child was ill, parents who intentionally delayed only because of vaccine safety or efficacy concerns were significantly more likely to seek additional information about their decision from the Internet (11.4% vs. 1.1%, p < 0.05), and significantly less likely to seek information from a doctor (73.9% vs. 93.9%, p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Intentionally delayed vaccine doses are not uncommon. Children whose parents delay vaccinations may be at increased risk of not receiving all recommended vaccine doses by 19 months of age and are more vulnerable to vaccine-preventable diseases.

This really sums it up for me - most people choose to delay because of fears and the internet, and not because they spoke with medical professionals.  Don't throw your lot in with this crowd.

 

Hi, thank you for your blunt responses.  How do I go about finding a pedi to talk to? I live in a small town and have to drive a ways to see any of them, and I want time to actually converse, not just run in, give the shots, and run out. I'd like them to see her as a new patient and also talk to me indepth a bout the vaccines, but how do I know ahead of time which pedi's will be the most willing to talk about my concerns? You always get just the receptionist on the phone.

dixielane

swimbikepuke:

dixielane:

And regarding vax safety, whats the scoop on vaccines NEVER being safety tested against placebos? Only against other vax?

You can't test against placebos because it's considered "unethical".  It's unethical to tell someone they've been vaccinated when they haven't when the risk from the diseases is so great.  Therefore, they study data between different vaccinations.  

You are also questioning why you should bother vaccinating because the effectiveness isn't guaranteed.  One of the biggest reasons TO vaccinate is because about 5% of people will not respond to the vaccinations, they will not actually be immunized.  We know because of outbreaks in places like Wisconsin and California, that for Measles, about 95% of the populations has to be vaccinated to keep the disease at bay.  So when people who *can* be vaccinated opt out, they are piling on to the percentage of people who can't be vaccinated or for whom vaccination does not work, bringing that percentage well below 95% and actually encouraging an outbreak.  

Interestingly, the believed level of "herd immunity" for diphtheria is 75% so when you opt out of DTaP, you are again, risking that awful awful disease coming back.  Chances are, your child is perfectly capable of receiving the vaccination.  If she's otherwise healthy the chances of having a complication from a vaccination are just infinitesimally small.  However, these diseases are making a come back because people are willing to engage in the incredibly risky behavior of NOT vaccinating in order to avoid a ridiculously small risk associated with the vaccine. I mean, the most common "complication" of vaccines, is redness around the needle site. The number most common complication of diphtheria, is death.  

If you're smart enough to want to educate yourself, you should be smart enough to understand that that kind of risk taking is dangerous.  You would never drive your child around without putting him in a car seat because you're afraid of the small risk that in an accident the seat could get pushed against the back seat and cause suffocation.  Would you? No.  Because your child is safer in a car seat than not in one even though there is a different (but much much smaller) risk with the car seat.

 One final point:  anyone who is even thinking about opting out of vaccinations should have to listen to this, repeatedly.  This is a 3 year old girl with whooping cough.  The attacks happen 10-12 a day, last for 2-6 minutes and usually end with vomiting.  Children die of this disease.  It is not a joke. It is not a decision to be based on arm chair pediatrics.  This sound should terrify you.  It should terrify you significantly more than the bullshit you're reading on the internet about how vaccines have *gasp* formaldehyde in them.  Listen to the whole thing.  It's only 30 seconds long.

https://www.dshs.state.tx.us/immunize/sound/pertussis3.wav

 

 

 

Yikes, that is HORRIBLE sounding. Thanks  (sort of, its not a nice thing to hear) for posting that, I also shared it with my husband.

dixielane

I believe I am leaning towards vaccinating her. I looked at what my pedi wrote as his recommended schedule, he would give Pentacel which I guess is Dtap/HIB/IPV- is that just one poke? If I wanted to select which variations of the vaccines used, could he break up that and do Dtap, and HIB on that visit? I havent decided on Polio, but I don't think I'd do it at her first appt. He also would do Rotateq (oral), and Prevnar.

HIB is meningitis right?

BelleIsa

dixielane:

I believe I am leaning towards vaccinating her. I looked at what my pedi wrote as his recommended schedule, he would give Pentacel which I guess is Dtap/HIB/IPV- is that just one poke? If I wanted to select which variations of the vaccines used, could he break up that and do Dtap, and HIB on that visit? I havent decided on Polio, but I don't think I'd do it at her first appt. He also would do Rotateq (oral), and Prevnar.

HIB is meningitis right?

Out of curiousity, why would you not vaccinate against Polio? (My uncle had Polio as a child and he's been crippled his whole life - why would you not vaccinate against that if you have the option to?)

Since I live in Beijing, we're vaccinating DD against everything. But we would do that even if we were back in Canada.  At 7 weeks, we got her the 6-in-one shot (hepatitis, influenza, polio, diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis), and the rotavirus (which is given orally, so like a syrup that LO eats) and the pneumoccocal.  One jab in each thigh and the oral vaccine.  Two weeks before that we got her vaccinated against tuberculosis (which is still a serious problem in Asia). 

She didn't even get a fever.

dixielane

BelleIsa:

dixielane:

I believe I am leaning towards vaccinating her. I looked at what my pedi wrote as his recommended schedule, he would give Pentacel which I guess is Dtap/HIB/IPV- is that just one poke? If I wanted to select which variations of the vaccines used, could he break up that and do Dtap, and HIB on that visit? I havent decided on Polio, but I don't think I'd do it at her first appt. He also would do Rotateq (oral), and Prevnar.

HIB is meningitis right?

Out of curiousity, why would you not vaccinate against Polio? (My uncle had Polio as a child and he's been crippled his whole life - why would you not vaccinate against that if you have the option to?)

Since I live in Beijing, we're vaccinating DD against everything. But we would do that even if we were back in Canada.  At 7 weeks, we got her the 6-in-one shot (hepatitis, influenza, polio, diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis), and the rotavirus (which is given orally, so like a syrup that LO eats) and the pneumoccocal.  One jab in each thigh and the oral vaccine.  Two weeks before that we got her vaccinated against tuberculosis (which is still a serious problem in Asia). 

She didn't even get a fever.

I guess I won't say that I'm 100% not going to get it, maybe I can find a good pedi who will talk to me indepth.

While considering what vax to give, I am taking into thought, my location, current issues here (like, is there a outbreak?), our actual risk vs. benefit. And so on.

 I'm glad to know your DD did fine. I think I am going to go talk to a pediatrician as soon as I can. Maybe my old one just got me off on vaccinations wrong, he was just plain clueless. And I'm sorry but if someones going to care for my DDs health, don't point to a MAGAZINE reference when asked a simple question. :

 

BelleIsa

dixielane:

BelleIsa:

dixielane:

I believe I am leaning towards vaccinating her. I looked at what my pedi wrote as his recommended schedule, he would give Pentacel which I guess is Dtap/HIB/IPV- is that just one poke? If I wanted to select which variations of the vaccines used, could he break up that and do Dtap, and HIB on that visit? I havent decided on Polio, but I don't think I'd do it at her first appt. He also would do Rotateq (oral), and Prevnar.

HIB is meningitis right?

Out of curiousity, why would you not vaccinate against Polio? (My uncle had Polio as a child and he's been crippled his whole life - why would you not vaccinate against that if you have the option to?)

Since I live in Beijing, we're vaccinating DD against everything. But we would do that even if we were back in Canada.  At 7 weeks, we got her the 6-in-one shot (hepatitis, influenza, polio, diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis), and the rotavirus (which is given orally, so like a syrup that LO eats) and the pneumoccocal.  One jab in each thigh and the oral vaccine.  Two weeks before that we got her vaccinated against tuberculosis (which is still a serious problem in Asia). 

She didn't even get a fever.

I guess I won't say that I'm 100% not going to get it, maybe I can find a good pedi who will talk to me indepth.

While considering what vax to give, I am taking into thought, my location, current issues here (like, is there a outbreak?), our actual risk vs. benefit. And so on.

 I'm glad to know your DD did fine. I think I am going to go talk to a pediatrician as soon as I can. Maybe my old one just got me off on vaccinations wrong, he was just plain clueless. And I'm sorry but if someones going to care for my DDs health, don't point to a MAGAZINE reference when asked a simple question. :

 

Definitely talk to another pedi about vaccinations.  Polio is still a problem in the 3rd world (think, most of Asia) and you can't say for sure that your DD will never visit these places in her life esp. now that they are popular tourist destinations (Thailand, for example). 

Also, the reason why there previously have been so little outbreaks is because people vaccinate.  The reason why there are currently outbreaks is because people are NOT vaccinating...

BarefootContess

swimbikepuke:

soko987:

BarefootContess:

soko987:

BarefootContess:

talltalltrees:

soko987:

True, it would be rare for an infant to contract Hep B, but that doesn't mean it's impossible. If you plan on putting your child in daycare, for instance, how do you know if those children have Hep B? Or the caregivers themselves ( Hep B vaccines are not always a requirement)?

If someone were to put a gun to my head and say "Choose one vaccine to skip", yeah, I would probably say Hep B.  But luckily, firearms are not part of our pediatrician's practice.

I agree. Not vaccinating for Hep B doesn't make me upset like not vaccinating for polio or HiB or pertussis does. I don't see it as a 100% essential vaccine for infants. But it's available, it protects your child against a very serious disease (and can you really say that your child will definitely never, ever have sex or never, ever use needles? even if god forbid they do, you still don't want them dying of liver disease, do you?), the risks are extremely tiny. Why would you NOT want to give your child this protection?

Because the risks are less once the brain has fully developed.  

Which orifice did you pull this thought out of?

Wow, you sure are friendly and clearly open to alternative opinions.  

Try Russell Blaylock, MD.  A board certified neurosurgeon.

 

Actually, I am a friendly person who is open to alternative opinions on a multitude of issues. When it comes to vaccines, however, I'm a pitbull, and I make no apologies about that.

Telling me to research a doctor who authored an article titled "What They Don't Tell You About Vaccination Dangers that Can Kill You Or Ruin Your Life"  isn't going to change my mind. I don't care how many board certifications he holds. 

The important part about that to me, would be that he's a neurosurgeon - meaning he hasn't administered a vaccination or seen a kid since residency.  Would you have a cardiologist deliver your baby?  Then why are you taking pediatric advice from a neurosurgeon? 

Because the unknown risk of vaccines is the long-term effect on the developing brain.  Did you ever seen footage of children who have been compensated from the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Fund?  (this is when the government pays out because there is evidence of vaccine injury).  In these cases the effect on the brain is sadly very clear.  

I have three children and I do vaccine -- but for diseases which after research and consultation with our MD are serious.  So they get DTP, HIB, and Pc on a delayed schedule and one at a time as infants.  I do not give my children rotavirus because I SAH and therefore their exposure is minimal at most.  My children will also continue to get vaccines beyond age two at a regular basis to "catch-up" with the recommended.  I feel much more comfortable with them getting a vaccine when they are older and thus their brain is more developed.  I also get vaccines myself -- I recently got adult pertussis, although not when I am pregnant, so I am not opposed to vaccines in general.  But I think you need to consider that there are many unknowns when it comes to long-term effects on the brain and make careful judgments based on your individual family situation.     

 

 

IrishBrideND

BarefootContess:

Because the unknown risk of vaccines is the long-term effect on the developing brain.  Did you ever seen footage of children who have been compensated from the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Fund?  (this is when the government pays out because there is evidence of vaccine injury).  In these cases the effect on the brain is sadly very clear.  

I have three children and I do vaccine -- but for diseases which after research and consultation with our MD are serious.  So they get DTP, HIB, and Pc on a delayed schedule and one at a time as infants.  I do not give my children rotavirus because I SAH and therefore their exposure is minimal at most.  My children will also continue to get vaccines beyond age two at a regular basis to "catch-up" with the recommended.  I feel much more comfortable with them getting a vaccine when they are older and thus their brain is more developed.  I also get vaccines myself -- I recently got adult pertussis, although not when I am pregnant, so I am not opposed to vaccines in general.  But I think you need to consider that there are many unknowns when it comes to long-term effects on the brain and make careful judgments based on your individual family situation.     

 

 

I still think its ridiculous to base a medical decision off of a few personal stories instead of science and research.

 

JMO. I think its slightly paranoid and irrational.

dixielane

swimbikepuke:

BarefootContess:

Because the unknown risk of vaccines is the long-term effect on the developing brain.  Did you ever seen footage of children who have been compensated from the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Fund?  (this is when the government pays out because there is evidence of vaccine injury).  In these cases the effect on the brain is sadly very clear.  

I have three children and I do vaccine -- but for diseases which after research and consultation with our MD are serious.  So they get DTP, HIB, and Pc on a delayed schedule and one at a time as infants.  I do not give my children rotavirus because I SAH and therefore their exposure is minimal at most.  My children will also continue to get vaccines beyond age two at a regular basis to "catch-up" with the recommended.  I feel much more comfortable with them getting a vaccine when they are older and thus their brain is more developed.  I also get vaccines myself -- I recently got adult pertussis, although not when I am pregnant, so I am not opposed to vaccines in general.  But I think you need to consider that there are many unknowns when it comes to long-term effects on the brain and make careful judgments based on your individual family situation.     

 

 

I neurosurgeon is not qualified to opine on either the (1) pathophysiology of brain injury - they are surgeons; you need a neurologist to comment on that topic; (2) the pathophysiology of pediatric brain injury - unless they have done a fellowship in pediatric neurology, which this asshat hasn't.

I actually know a fair bit about the Vaccine Compensation Fund.  The first thing I know is that the claims are "tried" through the Federal Court of Claims which means that the determinations of law and findings of fact in that court are not "binding" on any other court.  It's not like when the US Supreme Court comes out with an opinion and every other court in the country has to get in line.  The Fd. Ct. of Claims is not precedent.  I also know that the burden of proof for the Vaccine Compensation Fund is not the same standard of proof used in even civil courts (i.e. preponderance of the evidence or "more probably true than not true.")  In most civil claims, attorneys will talk about a 51% probability.  Is it more likely than not that X happened and that person A was at fault.  That's actually a pretty low standard.  But the burden of proof for the VCF is "possible".  Is there a possible "relationship" between the vaccine and the injury.   As a result, even an examination of all the payouts from that fund does not establish that vaccines cause ANY injury, much less a brain injury.  It certainly doesn't establish that they are unsafe in an otherwise healthy individual.  

I would also say that we have more than enough evidence that the unknown effect of vaccines on the developing brain is, in the absence of a pre-existing condition, nothing.  In fact, we have two generations of people who have been vaccinated with the only clearly established consequence being a disappearance of deadly childhood diseases from our country.  That is, until uninformed hysterics like Jenny McCarthy came out and decided that vaccines caused her child's autism, notwithstanding the fact that I would wager the chemicals in McCarthy's body (most notably silicone) are probably substantially more dangerous than anything in a vaccine.  

Vaccines should not be optional.  It sounds like your kids have an actual medical reason why vaccines are contraindicated which makes your tolerance of people who don't vaccinate perplexing.  Your children's lives depend on the end to this misinformation being spread by the uninformed hysterics: like, for example, the incorrect view that vaccines are potentially dangerous to the developing brain.  Let me be clear: they're not. 

What made you so confident? Honest, totally not snarky question. I want to feel confident, too. I have a "sense" that I SHOULD vax and I think I am going to, but I am still uncomfortable. I think because I am the type that likes to see the cold hard facts about the things I use/put in my body (or my childs). I have a call in to a recommended pedi, so maybe they can help me out too.

epphd

Couple of things - your daughter doesn't have to travel to a place where polio is endemic to be exposed to polio. All it takes is a few sick people getting on a plane and coming to YOUR home town to expose her. It happens all the time.  There was a measles outbreak in San Diego a few years back because one unvaccinated child traveled to Switzerland and came back with it.  He exposed almost 800 people to measles.  So don't think that your insulated bubble will stay that way for long - we live in a global society - people from the US travel and immigrants from places where vaccine preventable diseases are common move to the US.

Confidence comes from trusting your sources. You cannot trust any moron who buys a URL and posts drivel on a website.  You CAN trust someone who has dedicated his or her education and profession to the business of health care.  It sounds like you are trying to reach out to new doctors - just make appointments and go, or ask to have a short telephone conference before you commit to an appointment.  If possible, see about seeing a doctor at a university nearby - one who is up to date on the current state of vaccine and infectious disease research. 

One last thing - it might be interesting for you to know that fully 20-25% of cancers world wide are the result of infectious diseases.  Hepatitis B is a good one - Taiwan used to have a frightningly high rate of pediatric liver cancer. Once they implemented wide spread vaccination against Hep B, liver cancer was nearly eradicated.  HPV is another virus that can cause cancer and that a vaccine can cure. 

We don't yet know all the links to various infectious diseases and the cancers they may underlie, but if you can both prevent the infectious disease AND possibly mitigate a longer term risk of that illness, why wouldn't you?