- Pregnancy
- Baby & Toddler
- Parents
- Getting Pregnant
- Baby Names
- Product Reviews
-
Registry
- Community
-
More
Want a personalized experience?
Download the free app
Natural Birth
lylipad
member
Flu Shot (cross posted feb 2012)
lylipad
member
I am on the fence. One one hand I don't want my baby to get sick, that's
why I got the Whooping Cough concoction. On the other hand I will be
breast feeding and I have NEVER gotten the flue, which means that I have
antibodies and a good immune system. SO if I will be sharing my
immunity with the baby and I am smart ( don't take the baby to lots of
germ infested places, don't let people touch baby without sanitizing,
etc) is it really necessary? I know that my doc wants me to but
healthcare providers suggest a lot of medical interventions that are not
absolutely necessary. What do you all think?
This discussion has been closed.
Re: Flu Shot (cross posted feb 2012)
Oh, yes.
I used to have an awesome immune system. Back when I was sleeping 8+ hours in a row every night and exercising every day. I'm not going to kid myself that I'm in that fabulous shape at the moment. Everyone in this house gets the flu shot.
Natural Birth Board FAQs
Cloth Diaper Review Sheet
DS2 - Oct 2010 (my VBAC baby!)
It sounds like you don't know what you're talking about and need to do INTELLIGENT research about how dangerous the flu can be for infants. The flu shot was a must for everyone in our house and all family members who come in contact with her.
Check with the CDC, AAP and WHO. They happen to be reliable sources.
I declined the flu shot as I do every year. I have an autoimmue disorder which one would think would mean that I should get the shot, however, the disorder often inhibits me from producing antibodies to vaccines.
I'm a SAHW so I'm not out in public on a regular basis. When I do go out it's to a few places (Bible study, our medevial reenactment meetings) where I know everyone and they all know I'm pg and they stay away if they're sick. I try to do my shopping during non peak hours to further reduce my risk of being around a large group of potentially sick people.
My dr did recommend that my husband get the flu shot because of his job and the fact that he's around a ton of sailors everyday and the boat is a breeding ground of nasty germs. She had him get it to protect me from any germs he may bring home and to protect our LO.
I'm due at the end of Jan. I don't plan on taking LO out in public unless absolutely necessary and I have no problem asking that visitors wash their hands when they enter our house or refrain from visiting if they're sick.
In the end it's up to you. I've decided it's not necessary for me but you need to make decisions based on your lifestyle and what risks you feel comfortable taking.
I did not get the flu shot. I have never had the shot before (and never had the flu) and did not want to risk a reaction while pregnant. My MW agrees with me...she actually is not a big supporter of the flu shot in general, but would have supported me if I chose to get it.
That said, both DH and Lily (and most of our immediate family and friends) have had theirs done and since I will be a SAHM again as of January, I am not really at a high risk for catching it anyway.
I will be getting the pertussis shot after I give birth (our pediatrician said they would do it). I didn't feel comfortable having it done while pregnant.
Seriously? No vaccines? As in, not a single one? That seems like a very responsible well researched decision.
If I had never had a flu shot before I don't think I would have been comfortable getting my first one during pregnancy. This is definitely a reasonable excuse not to get one in my book (not that you were looking for my approval, I'm just agreeing).
If you are so bold as to put it out here that you are happily compromising your health, your childs health, and the health and welfare of others then I think you should be so bold as to explain your "researched" opinion. SMH.
It's so well-researched it's not fit for public viewing and debate.
Dang it! I was hoping that years of REAL research had been debunked and she was holding the golden nugget.
I'd go with what your Doctor recommends. They have you and your baby's best interests in mind.
https://www.babycenter.com/404_is-it-safe-to-get-a-flu-shot-when-im-pregnant_2488.bc
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), the American College of Nurse-Midwives, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and many other organizations all strongly recommend a flu shot for pregnant women.
That's because if you get any type of flu while you're pregnant, you're more likely to have serious complications, such as pneumonia and preterm labor, which could put you and your baby at risk.
What's more, there's evidence that getting a flu shot during pregnancy offers your baby some protection after birth. He may receive some antibodies from you during pregnancy. And if you're immune your newborn is less likely to be exposed to the flu. (For this reason, make sure other family members get vaccinated too.) Protecting your infant is important because young babies who catch the flu are at particular risk for serious illness, but they can't be vaccinated themselves until they're 6 months old.
You'll need a flu shot even if you've had one in previous years because different strains of flu come around every year. The flu shot is made with inactivated (killed) virus. Pregnant women should not receive the nasal-spray flu vaccine, which is made with live attenuated (weakened) virus.
Get the flu shot as soon as it's available regardless of which trimester you're in. If your doctor or midwife doesn't have a supply, call your local health department and find out if it's available elsewhere in your community. Or try the CDC's flu vaccine finder. Since pregnant women are at such high risk for serious flu-related complications, they're given priority to receive the vaccine.
It's best to get the flu shot in September or October so you're protected before the flu season begins. But if you miss getting the shot in the fall, it's still worth getting vaccinated later because the flu season can last into May.
A few precautions:
Some moms-to-be are concerned about the preservative thimerosal, used in some flu shots. The CDC has found no convincing evidence of harm resulting from exposure to this preservative in vaccines, and both the CDC and ACOG say the benefits of the flu shot far outweigh the theoretical risk, if any, from thimerosal.
If you're worried about it, though, ask for a dose of thimerosal-free flu vaccine. It may not be available everywhere, but there's more of it around now than in the past.
Why can't you post any of your "well research" information that lead to your decision? If its creditable then it shouldn't be an issue posting here.
It's like flies to a flame. LOL
How cavalier.
As are all of the posters who consistently ONLY come to this board to tell any of us who deviate (in any way) from the standard vaccine schedule that we are wrong, selfish and uneducated.
I am not tell you not to come and post here BTW...it is a public message board and you are allowed to post anywhere that you choose...just as I am a allowed to laugh at the redundancy of posters who come here only to post about this particular topic.
I am not saying that your opinions are wrong, or insulting any of you, so why insult me? Seems kind of wrong when I haven't done anything to provoke you. I am not saying my opinion is above any of yours, or that you don't have a right to your opinion. This is America and the wonderful about it is that everyone has a right to their opinion! The reason I didn't feel like posting my reasoning on this thread is because I didn't feel like beating dead horses, not because it's not open for debate. If you're dead set on your opinion, that's perfectly fine, and I just didn't feel like turning a perfectly calm thread into some kind of immature flame war. I would have preferred to answer questions from calm people and have a calm, mature discussion rather than an argument. However, since many of seem to want to post my reasoning in this thread, I will do so. However, I am not looking for an argument, because again, my opinion is NOT greater than yours and you are free to do what you feel is best for your child within the law, just as I am. You don't have to believe anything I say (though it's all fact based, so there isn't a reason you shouldn't, but again you have freedom of choice.)
Vaccines contain many extremely questionable and downright dangerous ingredients including: Aluminum, mercury, formaldehyde, and tween-80. Other ingredients include gelatin, chick embryo, vesicle fluid from calf skin, sorbitol, phenol-a, lactose, ammonium sulfate, soy protein, yeast, MSG, aspartame, silicone, etc. Many of these ingredients are known carcinogens, immunotoxins, neurotoxins and allergens. If you are a Christian (I personally am not, but would just like to bring this up,) conventional vaccines do go against the Bible because the Bible specifically says not to mix the blood of animal and man, and many vaccines do this exact thing. A full list of vaccine ingredients from the CDC is available here: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/B/excipient-table-1.pdf
Unvaccinated children do not put other children at risk. Vaccines are not 100% effective, and the vaccines that are based on live virsuses cause a phenomenon known as shedding. The following vaccines contain live viruses: the nasal flu vaccine, the chicken pox vaccine, the MMR vaccine, rotavirus and several others. What happens when you are injected with a live virus is that the body sheds this virus through bodily secretions such as urine, feces, saliva, sweat and mucous. This can actually spread the disease that the vaccine is meant to prevent to both vaccinated and unvaccinated children and this occurs for about a week, sometimes less sometimes more depending on the person. Transmission of disease caused by virus shedding is known as secondary transmission. The injection of live viruses into the bloodstream can also cause the disease itself in the person who was vaccinated. Vaccinated children can also carry and spread disease without displaying symptoms of the disease. It can be carried in their bodies or on their person, and yes this means they can transmit disease to other vaccinated and unvaccinated children without exhibiting symptoms of the disease themselves.
If your child is sick, whether they are vaccinated or not, they should obviously be kept at home until they are no longer ill.
There also have been studies that have exhibited a link between vaccines and autism. Yes, the study by Andrew Wakefield was debunked but other studies since then have come to similar conclusions, including this one conducted at the Wake Forest University School of Medicine in North Carolina: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-388051/Scientists-fear-MMR-link-autism.html#ixzz1XMZ0uxwA
If you are interested in this possible link, you may want to look up the case of Hannah Poling.
It is also interesting to note that the U.S. mandates the most number of vaccines in the world and that we also have the highest incidence of diagnosed autism in the world, as well as the 34th mortality rate for children under 5 years of age. Though this does not indicate a direct connection, it is still of interest in my opinion: https://www.rescuepost.com/?files/?gr-autism_and_vaccines_world_sp?ecial_report1.pdf
I would recommend that those of you who are interested in the topic of vaccines visit the National Vaccine Information Center at nvic.org They maintain a neutral viewpoint and provide up to date information on both sides of the issue. I would also recommend that you visit the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System database here: vaers.hhs.gov/ It provides a huge list of reported adverse events of various vaccines as reported by parents, physicians, nurses, etc. I also suggest watching the documentary called The Greater Good. It is very interesting and informative to both sides of the issue.
If you are still interested in vaccinating, you can always look into a delayed vaccination schedule so that your child's immune system is not being overloaded when they are vaccinated. But again, make the decision you as a mother feel most comfortable with!
There are also homeopathic vaccines which have been used for a very long time. They are called nosodes, though I don't know too much about them. I am currently researching them and considering using them. Can't hurt to research it.
Like I said before, I do not feel that my opinion is above yours, or that your decisions for your child are wrong. I just believe in informed decision making. If you feel the benefits outweigh the risks, good do what you think is best, it's your right! But I will also do what I feel is best. No point in arguing because I don't believe anyone is wrong when it comes to this particular issue.
Justsomechick - Well I stand corrected. It seems as though you have done some research. I still think that it is a little crazy to avoid ALL vaccines. I can understand being selective about which to give and I can also understand the delayed schedule. I still think that there are some vaccines that even if those risks you talk about are true that the benefit of the vaccine out weighs the risk. There are some very scary diseases out there and I suggest that (if you haven't) you also research the diseases themselves and not just the vaccines. I think a lot of people that are anti-vax fail to do that, they just research the vaccine and think "that is scary" but don't understand that the disease the vax prevents is WAY scarier.
Also as a mother to a child on the autism spectrum I find it infuriating when people use that as a reason not to vaccinate. Just sayin.
Oh and if you are trying to support your decision that is supposedly supported in facts then you probably shouldn't use the word "opinion" so much.
I wasn't going to get it, but then I read that H1N1 is around again this year. I did a lot of research into the different brands/ingredients and called around until I found the one I wanted. I felt like roadkill for a day and a half after, but no other ill effects (a big improvement from the rash, fever, and other issues the last time I got it). This was for me, not for baby, but the idea is the same. To me, it came down to risk.
If I were you I'd ask yourself how often you and the people you and baby come into contact with the most have a chance to pick up the flu. Do they shake a lot of hands, use public transit, work in healthcare or childcare, or generally see a lot of people in a day? Have any people in your area had H1N1?
If H1N1 is not around next year, I will be skipping flu shot for both myself and baby. But, to me, that strain is more dangerous and worth the risk of reaction. Since my husband uses public transit, any virulent strain being around is a big deal to me. Otherwise, though, my family history of allergies to components of most of the shots means I'd skip it. You just have to decide what risk levels exist on each side and decide what's right for your family, I think.
I'm just a lurker, but I can't in good conscience let your "research" stand uncontested.
Hannah Poling had a mitochondrial disorder. Additionally she was injected with vaccines containing thimerosal, which is no longer used.
The Greater Good is a horrifying film spotlighting adverse reactions using phony science, which in no way addresses "both sides" of the issue. Example: The question asked: "Are vaccines harming our children?". Speculative assignation of blame is asinine and certainly not neutral. It's like asking, "Are black crossing guards harming our children?" presumably not, but now I've put it in your head, haven't I? It's a subtle marketing trick used by all sorts of companies.
Your statistics on mortality and autism are the worst sort of fearmongering. You may want to read up on correlation vs. causation.
And your insinuations about vaccination shedding and secondary transmission are grossly exaggerated. A child who has received a live vaccine and sheds exhibits a 0.6 to 2.4% transmission rate, whereas an unvaccinated child with the measles has a 90% transmission rate. Which one do you want in school with your kid?
Updated September 2012.
When I say opinion, I mean your opinion of whether or not vaccines are worth the risk based on the facts available.
I see your point about researching the disease, which I have. I have considered the polio and tetanus vaccines on a delayed schedule, which I am still considering, but at this particular moment, I have not decided to do any vaccinations. My mother developed chicken pox, measles, mumps, rubella AND scarlet fever as a child and she is fine today. I think major factors in disease severity is good nutrition, clean water, clean shelter, and keeping the immune system healthy (proper sunlight, supplements, exercise, etc.) Like I said, I am also considering nosodes, which were found to be effective in a study done during a meningitis epidemic in Brazil in 1974. 18,640 unvaccinated children were given nosodes, only 4 developed meningitis (0.02%.) They compared this with totally unvaccinated children (no nosodes,) who developed meningitis at a rate of 32 per 6,340 (0.5%.) But like I said, I'm still researching that and I don't really know much about them.
My sister has an ASD, which my family and I truly believe was associated with vaccinations. Her development was perfectly normal until a round of vaccination she received around 1 year of age. After that, her development just came to a standstill and she needed speech therapy and didn't speak at all until she was about 5 years old. Before that, her speech was developing at a normal pace, then it turned into simply grunts and various screams and noises depending on what she wanted. She is now 16 and has been able to catch up, and to anyone who doesn't know about her situation, she is normal. But to those of us who do and have lived with her, we still see the issues she struggles with.
This! I try to explain this to people all the time and they insist that I am wrong, that live viruses are no longer used, and all kinds of things rather than admit that their vaccinated child can, indeed, infect a preemie/person with cancer/one of the other risk groups frequently brought up as extremes in these arguments. Indeed, even though I was vaccinated for pertussis, I caught it, and I probably got it from a child I was babysitting who had recently been vaccinated for TDP. Because I was not informed, I thought I could not get pertussis and didn't stay home like I should have--I thought, the first day, it was just allergies. I got some other people very, very sick before I realized I was seriously ill because I was spoon-fed, and accepted, a lot of false pro-vax information. I feel horrible about it now; at least one baby was hospitalized because of me. To this day people still insist that I could not have had pertussis since I was vaccinated--despite it being serologically confirmed!
While I disagree with you on some points (I am only skipping two or three of the CDC schedule shots for my child), I appreciate that there are some people on the "other side" who can explain things in a calm, reasonable fashion. Thank you. : )
A voice of reason! THIS is a huge issue with me. Don't wrap your belief system around the guise of it being natural. I bust my hump to keep my family healthy without as much intervention as possible and with the support of a very supportive NP...but to toss out "opinions" and hocus pocus theories on evil vaccines makes my blood boil.
LHC, if I could internet hump your leg right now I would.
Hannah Poling did have a disorder, and many children have underlying issues which are not necessarily known. I suggested researching her case, I didn't say it was proof of anything, but something some may want to research. The Greater Good does interview pro vaccination doctors such as Dr. Robert Sears.I already explained that my mortality and autism statistics do not imply direct causation, but it is interesting to note, especially since there have been studies conducted since Andrew Wakefield's study that suggest links between vaccines and autism.
The transmission rates may be different, but if you are a responsible parent, you keep any sick child at home, vaccinated or not, in order to prevent transmission. Also, vaccinated children shedding from vaccines may only trasmit disease at that percentage, but this doesn't stop them from spreading virsuses they come in contact with after the shedding period. You can spread disease and not have symptoms.
Like I said, you're entitled to your opinion and are free to make whatever decision regarding your child that you feel is best. I stand by mine.
See this concerns me. You say that you have done all this research, and you have been able to regurgitate some facts, but you are also making some comments that make me question whether you understand the research you have done. For example, you commented that your mom had scarlet fever. That has nothing to do with vaccines because that is not a vaccine preventable disease. If you were as knowledgeable about vaccines as you claim then you should know that.
I am not going to debate the autism subject with you because I don't want to get mean.
I know scarlet fever is not vaccine preventable, I was just mentioning that she happened to have that disease on top of the vaccine preventable diseases.
I just don't buy that.
Your first two bolded statements are, again, just fearmongering. It's the medical equivalent of saying, "I'm not saying anything, but -- did y'all hear that noise?". It's medically and scientifically unsound to say, "Well, kids die in this country, and also, a lot of those kids who died were vaccinated. ISN'T THAT INTERESTING?" and then leave it at that with no proof of anything, just satisfied that you've unnecessarily scared a bunch of people for no good reason.
Beyond being a blatant attempt at scaring people, it's just plain irresponsible. You sit here and tell people to have their own opinions, do their own research -- and then post deliberately inflammatory marketing gibberish designed to make people feel afraid to trust their doctors, trust their own research, trust medical fact. It's unconscionable.
As for the last bolded statement, that just sort of made me laugh. Are you a working parent? Because generally speaking, unless kids have a fever and/or are puking, most times, they go to school, sniffly nose or not.
Updated September 2012.
That's okay. I've seen her childhood records that my grandmother left behind when she passed. You don't have to believe anything I've said at all.
I am not saying that I don't buy that she had scarlet fever. My older daughter had it several times before having her tonsils removed that is how I know that it is not a vaccine preventable disease. Scarlet fever is a reaction to the Strep virus which there is no vaccine for. I was saying that I didn't buy it that you knew that scarlet fever wasn't vaccine preventable. Why would you group with a bunch of vaccine preventable diseases in a vaccine debate if you did? It just makes you sound uneducated. And again this is why I question your understanding of the research you have done because obviously there is a reading comprehension issue here.
My intention wasn't to fear monger, but rather to post the things which I have considered in my decision. You have a right to disregard whatever you'd like.
I will be a SAHM, but if your child is sick, take them to a doctor. If it's just a cold or something, send them to school, whatever lol. But if it's something serious or the doctor thinks it could develop into something serious, keep them at home or find a babysitter who is aware of the situation.
If you're allowing yourself to be swayed by someone else telling you things like that, then I submit this is not "research" at all, but an emotional response conceived of a marketing scheme. It's irresponsible to call it research, when it's nothing more than your own gut reaction to a carefully-crafted message propounded by someone else.
Updated September 2012.
That's your opinion. You're focusing on small issues, and still ignoring the issue of questionable ingredients and studies that HAVE suggested a link between autism.
I'm done arguing with people. This is not what this thread was about, and it was not my intention to hijack it. Do what you think is best for your children, and I'll do what I think is best for my child. There is nothing wrong with that as long as what we are doing is within our legal rights. I said what I've had to say, and provided information. It is up to what you choose to do with that information, and it is silly for any of us to continue to beat a dead horse.
This (mostly).
I have no need to add fuel to the fire, but I do want to put a plug in for the risk/reward profile of vaccines. I have a graduate degree in infectious diseases, so hopefully I'm not blowing too much hot air :-)
We now live in a world in which vaccinations are universally regarded as the single most important public health intervention *ever* (and this includes things like sanitation and antibiotics). The average lifespan has nearly doubled in the past hundred years, due in no small part to vaccines. It is easy to live in our world today, where infectious diseases are not an everyday cause of death and think that vaccines are unnecessary, or at least not worth the risks (whether imaginary or real - I believe there are both). I think that most people on this board have no idea what life would be like for us if vaccinations didn't exist.
That said, like anything, I think moderation is key. The flu vaccine definitely falls closer to the gray area for me, but during pregnancy, when there is a real risk of preterm labor, etc, the risk of not getting the vaccine versus getting it seems pretty clear. But again, one can certainly consider personal circumstances and whether they would have much chance of being exposed. All it takes is one sneeze at the grocery store, though, so I would say unless you're a hermit, you could be exposed pretty easily....
All in all, this is a very personal decision, so for me, to each his/her own. However, spreading info on either side based upon biased evidence or just plain scare tactics does everybody a great disservice.