I should start off by saying that I don't think the issue of vaccinations is a black/white matter. As a matter of fact, I still haven't made up my mind where exactly I stand on the issue and how I want to proceed in this area with my own kids. I feel the more I read the more confused I get as to what's best to do. I see problems either way, and for that reason I think discussion is valuable. In the end though, I think what we are all trying to achieve is to minimize risks of harm to our children. That, I assume, we have all in common. And that is my motivation. If I could only protect my child from any potential harm, I would like to do that. Unfortunately, simply being alive though means we're at risk of dying or being harmed in one way or another. And I dare say that no matter what we do and how hard we try there will always be a risk. The smallest most innocent thing could kill us, or we may walk away from a dangerous situation unharmed. You just never know.
There are two main things that concern me with the whole vaccination thing.
1. The process - with this I mean, how vaccines are given, when they are given, how they are researched, produced, how reactions are measured/reported, how people are informed etc. Basically everything related to vaccinations that doesn't have to do with the actual vaccine and what it does/does not do.
2. The vaccines and the risks that come with vaccinating or not vaccinating.
Let's start with No. 1. I find it hard to assess accurate risks from disease or vaccine if the system isn't working right. One problem we face is information. I know when Sophia got vaccinated, I only wanted Dtap, and Polio...instead I got 3 more and I didn't even know what they were. I was just informed in passing, and bam, she had gotten 4 shots before I could even think twice. I'll never forget how Sophia screamed that day. She's never screamed as much as then in her life. She screamed for hours afterwards, and was still crying in her sleep! I think we put so much trust in doctors and the medical system that a lot of important things get missed. Proper information on what vaccines are available, what is recommended, what is necessary, risk and benefits etc. should be discussed. But nothing gets mentioned. Time is money and doctors don't have enough of either. Parents don't get informed and a 'one size fits all' approach is taken - which I doubt ever represents quality health care. This lack of information and discussion causes other problems. I read a few accounts of parents who noticed mild or severe reactions to vaccines and doctors just dismissed it and wouldn't report those reactions. If reactions don't get reported properly then our numbers of vaccine risks get screwed (I guess the statistical term is skewed...).
Another problem with the 'one size fits all' approach and lack of discussion is that not all children are the same. I read one report from a mom, who had her baby prematurely (3lbs and a couple of ounces). When the baby was 2 months old, the pediatric nurse insisted that he needed his shots. The baby was stilly teeny, but received the shots. 24 hours later he was dead. Maybe he was too little to handle 5-6 vaccines all at once. But because vaccination has become such a routine, we don't pay attention to the little details. How many doctors wait for a child to be healthy to vaccinate, or even take overall health into account? I think the approach is more of a check-list approach (baby is 2 months old so he needs to be vaccinated, no questions asked). How many are open to discussion and information with parents? A lot is done or not done merely out of convenience, or for money's sake. And that to me is always a bad idea. It does nothing to improve my trust in the health care system.
Another thing I read about that concerns me is the research that is done with vaccines. The diptheria vaccine, for example, supposedly has never been tested and researched in accordance with todays standards. It's just been around for so long, we just assume it all good and dandy. No questions asked. It makes me wonder how well most vaccines are truly researched, and then even if they are well researched, how do we test them? By pumping them into little kids and then see what happens? I know there are some people who think all things medical are safe and kosher. But, I don't think that's the case. I think we put a lot of stuff out on the market where we don't even really know what it does. We just hope for the best and enjoy the money (I mean, the pharmaceutical companies enjoy the money). It is scary to me to think that I'm putting all this 'unknown' stuff into my child's body and no one can even say for sure what it does, short term or long term. Ok, those are just some thoughts on general vaccine stuff.
On to No. 2 - Vaccines. My main question with vaccinating vs. not vaccinating is what poses the greater risk. As I mentioned before, I know there are some people who don't question medical things, and may think vaccines are completely safe. But if that was the case, we probably wouldn't have a need for a vaccination injury court. Let's face it, they DO come with risks. The question is what risk is greater - the risks that come with vaccines or the ones that come without vaccines. And, I really don't know. I see pro's and con's both ways. So, let's discuss some of the vaccines. I'm interested in debate on Dtap, Polio and MMR...maybe Hib. Hepatitis B and Chickenpox are a joke to me, so I'm not interested in those, but if someone feels that have something really important to say about those, go ahead. I just feel that the risks of kids getting Hepatitis B seems fairly silly (unless you belong to that promiscous high risk group) and I don't see what the danger of chicken pox is that now we need to be vaccinated against it. I'm also not too interested in flu shots...from what I understand, it's a guess each year which flu strain may be going around. Since it's more or less and educated guess/gamble, I feel the benefits are mediocre at best. (Get the wrong strain and you got hurt with a needle, potentially still sick, and pumped mercury into your body for nothing, get the right strain and you're still not necessarily protected...isn't the efficacy rate somewhere around 50%? - so, it doesn't seem extremely helpful, especially when it's not even that extremely likely that the flu will kill you or cause severe damage). Again, if you have something really important to say in regards to the flu, go ahead, but otherwise, I think it'd be good to focus on Dtap, Polio and MMR...and maybe Hib...Also, I think discussing the harm of the preservatives used to make vaccines is also important. I may add that at the end. How much aluminum, mercury and other crap can our bodies really handle, and especially how well can little babies handle that stuff. Can thimerosol really be blamed for autism (the courts decided no, and I'm not convinced yet either). Let's have those debates at the end maybe.
Here are some things I've found that make me unsure in regards to Dtap:
- Diptheria - supposedly the vaccine never got properly researched, and Diptheria death rates seems to have been on the decline even before the vaccine was introduced (it went from 7.2 deaths per 10,000 in 1911 to .9 deaths per 10,000 in 1935). That makes me wonder how necessary the vaccine is. However, I think this is a vaccine I'd still give to my child, though not at 2 months, since the risks associated with diptheria are pretty severe to me, and since the treatment of diptheria seems pretty severe as well, maybe trying to not get it to being with seems the best choice.
- Tetanus - one study showed that tetanus booster vaccinations cause T-lymphocyte blood count ratios to drop below normal, which can cause immunological disorders. Further findings include earlier problems with asthma and allergy (23% and 30 % respectively for vaccinated children under 10 years vs. no problems with the unvaccinated control group). Some rare side effects that have been reported are GBS, severe, life-threatening allergic responses, death. With all I've read, I'd probably still do a Tetanus shot, since the potential harm of the vaccine doesn't seem as great the potential harm of getting tetanus.
- One vaccine I'm not sure about: Pertussis (Whooping cough). From all I've read, these days the desease, which is still occuring aplenty, is rarel fatal. Those at greastest risk are children under 6 months. Now, while I'm sure this is not a fun disease to get, if there are no serious complications associated with it (other than potential death, which of course is the most serious of all things), and if people 'usually' don't die from it, then I don't see why this is so important for older kids/adults. Now, those at greatest risk from what I read are babies under 6months, and you're at greater risk of you're not well-nourished etc. (like less developed nations). But maybe a little baby is simply at risk because its body can't handle a lot of stuff - period. How likely is it that a baby can handle tons of vaccines (about 15 shots by 6 months) any better than it can whooping cough, which it may not even get, and if it does it may not even be so bad that the child will die. Is a child really better off with the shot (which is also not a guarantee of NOT getting the desease) and all its potential side effects on the young body than taking your risk of getting the disease? I really don't know. And here is some info that makes me wonder even more: there was a pertussis outbreak in Ohio and 82% of young children who got it, had been fully vaccinated. So, was the vaccine really worth it? And what about this finding? It seems that SIDS deaths skyrocket within 3 weeks after children receive a pertussis vaccine (going from .5 percent up to 70 percent at 21 days after the vaccine). Coincidence or correlation? The fact that another study found that breathing patterns changed right after the vaccine. They would monitor apnea and hypoapnea in this study in babies before and after the vaccine. Before there was basically no mentionable apnea and right after the vaccine, apnea and hypoapnea density was in the 1000s (Source, Vaccination: 100 years of orthodox research by Dr. Viera Scheibner, Blackheath Australia, 1993:59-70, 225-235.) Now, SIDS and breathing problems is not something I consider a relatively harmless side-effect...so, Pertussis shot? I'm not sure.
- Let's do MMR next. I've decided to make this shorter, because I'm getting tired of all the typing. If I exhaust myself now I have no strength to debate later. Here's my issue with MMR. First of all -why do we have to give them all at once? Rubella is not even dangerous for boys, or kids and the real risk is only in getting it while pregnant. Since the vaccine wears of after about 20 years, it seems silly to give that one to kids at 1 year of age. Why not at 10 years? I don't get it, and I think I'll do that one until my kids are older. I guess the only reason to give this vaccine to boys would simply be for herd immunity reasons (preventing an outbreak to prevent the chance of a vaccinated pregnant woman getting it...but then again how big is that risk really, and does it really outweigh the potential harm that comes from getting a vaccine????). My issues with mumps are the same as with Rubella, except that its serious complications are usually for teenage boys... So, maybe I'll do mumps, but not together with Measles and Rubella. Those will all have to be separate if at all. On to Measles:
Posts
124 comments:
I'll probably chime in frequently here in order to keep my posts coherent and relatively short (not book length). In this post I will explain the process of producing and licensing a vaccine. Development of a vaccine starts years and years in advance of it ever getting shot into my child. It all begins by doing exactly what I'm doing today in fact - discovering the correlates of protective immunity to any given disease. When these immune correlates have been worked out (this research is almost always worked out primarily by academic laboratories independent of any ties to companies that would produce the vaccine) the vaccine is formulated and used for extensive tests of safety and efficacy in animals. Obviously protection or safety in animals may not correlate 100% with safety and efficacy in humans. The researchers must apply for and be granted access to begin a clinical trial. Clinical trials happen in 3 phases. Phase I is carried out in a cohort of healthy adults who have been made fully aware of any risks associated with the trial and who have signed a consent form. The purpose of phase I is to simply assess safety and whether the vaccine induces the desired immune response - are there any unforeseen nasty side effects? If the trial passes phase I the researchers will be granted permission to continue to phase II. Phase II is when the potential vaccine actually goes into the target population. This is usually children in the case of vaccine studies. Phase II is pretty much the same as phase I only it's in kids instead of adults. Then it's on to phase III. Phase III of a vaccine trial takes years. Thousands to tens of thousands of individuals are recruited to participate in the study which assess whether or not the vaccine protects the individual from the disease of interest. If a vaccine is shown to be safe and efficacious all of the information collected during the clinical trials is submitted to the FDA in order to obtain a license to manufacture the vaccine. The licensing process itself can take 10 years. If the FDA finds the vaccine to be safe and effective a group of scientists and doctors called the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices then advises the CDC on exactly how the vaccine is to be given and to whom it is to be given. The CDC is one of three groups that makes the official recommendation on vaccine use. But it doesn't end there. Once the vaccine is being given the CDC continues to monitor potential side effects. The CDC will have health departments in areas of high disease incidence monitor every individual who receives the vaccine. Also there is the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) which is available to every doctor, nuse, and parent to report serious side effects of vaccination. There is also the vaccine safety datalink which monitors about 6 million people on the west coast and answers safety questions regarding those who do and do not receive the vaccine.
So there's a little primer on how vaccines are produced. It's an incredibly long and ridiculously expensive process during which every viable precaution is taken to ensure that the safest and most effective vaccines are approved for public use.
Troy
I was hoping if I keep my post long enough, everyone will be so tired from reading it that no one will respond, but I guess not.
Anyway, you only described the process of how a vaccine gets approved to be manufactured. What actually happens when they are being manufactured wasn't mentioned. Also,while it's great to know that there are so many steps taken, I still see problems. One of them is that not all scientists and academics are free of bias. Sometimes, unfortunately there is personal interest when scientist endorse something and are also paid by a pharmaceutical company to represent/research/endorse or whatever for them. So, while there's money involved I'm sure there are problems with the process.
Also, while it's great that there are places to report adverse reactions, who really knows about those places? And who informs the average parent about those places? My doctor never mentioned a thing. I don't think I even got an information sheet on what vaccines Sophia had received that day...
I'm sure there is a lot of consideration and precaution put into producing vaccines. But, despite all precaution, there are corrupt people even in the medical field, and there is always human error, and I'm sure that also applies to mass-produced vaccines. :)
Wow, Fran, I'm impressed with how much you've learned about the different vaccines. I have to admit my eyes would sort of glaze over when I first started learning the particulars of each vaccine while pregnant with my daughter.
You bring up a good point about doctors not being terribly explicit about how vaccines work and what the risks are. I think that's more important now than ever before, as anxious parents have a wealth of information available to them on the Internet. The problem is that much of it isn't sound and people are often ill-equipped to tell the difference between pseudoscience and the real thing. I'm one of them. I feel much more comfortable deferring to the experts on some matters. I think that a little knowledge (or a lot, even) in the hands of someone who has only a tenuous grasp on statistics and the scientific method can be a dangerous thing. Would you say that's naive?
Troy, you sound like the real deal. Thank you for the informative post on the production and testing of vaccines. Fran, did what he said ease your mind somewhat? Or do you still have concerns about the extent to which vaccines are tested?
I don't know. Wouldn't it be in the best financial interest of pharmaceutical companies to produce a vaccine that is both reasonably effective and reasonably safe so they can be assured of its continued sale?
Unless a particular scientist is planning on moving to a remote island with their ill-gotten gains shortly after the release of a suspect vaccine, it seems to me that the bias of the pharmaceutical company is beneficial to the consumer.
I don't think Troy actually answered my concern. No. But yes, Troy is the real deal since he's the one getting his PhD in Immunology. So, I know he'll have lots of interesting and good things to say. My issue with research is that some vaccines we use have been in use for DECADES!!! I mean, like 50-60 years. And while I know we have pretty rigorous research standards these days, 'twas not always so. I mean, at least in Psychology you were able to do some studies you wouldn't be allowed to do today or it just wouldn't pass quality control. So, my issues are with using some vaccines that have never been re-tested with today's standards. Another problem we have with today's research is that we still can't assess long-term problems (because it takes a long time, duh).
The other problem I mentioned is the one of conflict of interest. That has less to do with vaccines themselves and more with people not doing what they should be doing (a scientist maybe endorsing something despite some serious side effects because he's also working for some pharmaceutical company that pays him lots of money - that kind of stuff). Even the FDA in all its glory isn't free of error, and with all the things they have to look into, they are bound to mess up at some point, and who's to say that won't be some vaccine?
My eyes to glaze over a little bit as I read and study. And i'm not even done with my post. I still have stuff up my sleeve regarding Measles and Polio. I think you're right that we need to be careful with what we read and find out, but I don't think that I need to put all my trust in 'experts'. Experts don't know everything either, especially in the medical field. One example of that would be when I asked my brother, a doctor and surgeon, who's worked in the ER and everything, to check Sophia's ears for an ear infection, just to have him admit that he is really bad at this and misses a lot of them...so much for expert. We're all just human.
What people need to be careful about is to assess what is legitimate research and valuable scientific information and what's just hype and crap from people who think they know what they are talking about. Of course, that can be hard at times. But, I think I personally have learned enough stuff to at least know what has no value at all, and what may have some value (ie. if someone doesn't even have a degree in something he writes about I'm usually extremely wary, and if there isn't plenty of good citation from renowned journals, I'm usually also hesitant as to the value of the information...). I think that helps, but I too would be more inclined when I feel unsure to defer to someone with more expertise than trust my own 'knowledge'.
Yes, it would be, but sometimes they are eager to just get something out that seems pretty good, even though it hasn't passed all the tests yet, and they hope to get away with it. With vaccines it's especially tricky, since the companies are not being held responsible. You can only appeal the vaccine injury court and that only within 3 years of the vaccine. So, I'm sure this area is not completely kosher.
Chickenpox isn't a joke, by the way. It seems like it is because we all had it when we were kids, but it can lead to very serious complications, especially in adults. If you don't vaccinate your child against chicken pox, you're basically hoping that they'll catch it from their friends. Catching it the traditional way is becoming less likely though, now that the vaccine is available, so by rejecting the chickenpox vaccine, you're leaving the door open for very serious illness when your child reaches adulthood.
Yup, that's why they are having chicken pox parties, which is what I'd do as well. Find a kid who has it, and let my kid get sick.
By the way Julie, you just made a great point why vaccines maybe aren't all that great. See, chicken pox in kids is usually completely harmless. Sure, there is ALWAYS a chance for serious complications but you have that with anything in life, even skipping innocently through grass (and then getting necrotic fasciitis and dying). But overall it's harmless for kids. So, we would all get sick, and then have life-long immunity. It worked just fine. Then came the vaccine. Why did it come to begin with??? Now everyone is doing it, with who knows what side-effects and long term effects, and now making the risk greater for getting sick as an adult if you don't watch your vaccines (since it's less likely as you pointed out to get it the natural way as a kid). Maybe, just maybe we're playing God just a little too much here. Maybe things worked just fine, and now we're messing them up to our disadvantage. I don't think the chicken pox vaccine was necessary at all. And, I don't plan on vaccinating my kids for chicken pox. I'm planning on finding kids who have it, and make sure my kids get life-long immunity by having the disease. And the beauty of natural immunity is that this actually gets passed on when you breast-feed. The vaccine immunity does not, and now puts infants at greater risk to contract dangerous diseases than it did before. Anyway, I was going to address all those things. I just haven't gotten to finishing my post yet.
Interesting. My guess is they started vaccinating children for it because chickenpox causes 10,000 hospitalizations and 100 deaths per year in the United States. Sometimes the complications are minor, like shingles, which is incredibly painful but won't kill you. But sometimes the complications are more serious, like Strep B infection of the skin lesions, which can kill a child in a matter of days, sometimes hours. Also encephalitis. I understand that vaccination carries risks, but the incidence of mortality and morbidity is far, far greater when you catch the disease than when you are vaccinated for it. Naturally-occurring lifelong immunity sounds like a nice idea, but statistically it's a much riskier option.
By the way, I was breastfed but got chickenpox anyway, so I think that is a myth.
It's lonely here on your blog, Fran. Where are all the people? Maybe I should just call you and we can duke it out over the phone. :)
Yeah, were ARE all the people? I think they haven't gotten around to it yet, or my excessively long post scared them away. I haven't really looked into chicken pox, so I can't say much in regards to the statistics. I could only speak of personal experience where I'd have to say that I don't know a single person who ever died of chickenpox nor had any other serious complications. I also think to argue that because you got chickenpox despite your mom breast feeding you is a weak argument unless you got chicken pox before 6 months of age (natural immunity is supposed to be passed on and last for about 6 months - with vaccines nothing gets passed on and you're susceptible from day one). It would also be weak, because then I could say - well, I got vaccinated against X and still got the disease so I think it's a myth that vaccines are effective. Is that what you were trying to say? :)
If you'd like to discuss this on the phone that'd be cool, too. But then everyone else is missing out on our wisdom. Maybe we should do a web conference or something.
Just a quick research seems to suggest that those most likely to die or experience serious harm from chicken pox are adults (most of those 100 deaths per year are adults) and newborns. And I already made my case why we then wouldn't need a vaccine to protect those groups. Natural immunity passed on through breast milk could protect newborns (about as effectively probably as vaccines) and adults probably would be protected because most of them would have had the disease as a kid, and if they didn't...then you could still do the vaccine.
I also find it unnecessary to do a vaccine for only 100 deaths a year when a vaccine isn't 100 percent safe. If you find that 100 deaths are enough to make changes...well, I could tell you tons of things that kill more people each year (like co-sleeping with a baby...kills over a 100 babies a year :). Should we do something about that?
My mistake. I thought you were implying that a woman who had natural immunity to chickenpox could pass on lifelong immunity to her child through breastmilk. I thought that was a bit of a stretch. :)
I fully concede that vaccines aren't completely effective. That's why anti-vaxers make me nervous in the first place.
While I'm at it, pertussis is not a disease you can just tough out at home. Before the vaccine was developed, the US averaged about 200,000 cases a year and almost 10,000 deaths. That is an enormous mortality rate. Treatment of pertussis has improved since then, but babies still die. In fact, they're dying in steadily increasing numbers as the rate of vaccination goes down. A few years ago, 12 babies died of pertussis in Texas. 0 babies died as a result of being vaccinated.
Also, although flu is a common occurrence, 36,000 Americans die of it every year. That is huge. I mean, if you knew that 36,000 people died each year in elevator-related accidents, wouldn't you take the stairs? To my knowledge, not one person has died as a result of vaccination (if anyone has different stats, chime in please!). The yearly flu shot is a crap shoot, yes, but I'd rather play those odds than die from something that could've been prevented.
I was teasing about the phone, although a video chat would be nice. It's been a long time since we've seen you.
As always, Fran, please let me know if I'm ever out of line during this discussion.
I'm watching American Idol and haven't read all of these comments yet but I need to clear up one flaw in your understanding Fran. Long-lasting immunity does not get transmitted through breast milk. The antibodies (termed passively acquired antibodies) that are gained through milk have a half-life of about 4 weeks. Natural immunity through infection or vaccination is much longer lasting. It's the whole principle of give a guy a fish he'll eat for a day but teach a guy to fish he'll eat for a lifetime. Through breast milk you're getting the antibody and that's good and helpful while an infant's immune system is still maturing but only through actually seeing the pathogen (or the immunostimulatory parts of it through vaccination) do you stimulate your own B cells to make that antibody and then keep making them each time you are infected.
Should we do something about co-sleeping? Absolutely. If you can find a way to get your baby to sleep for more than five minutes at a stretch without having her attached by the mouth to your person, then I truly believe there are better, safer options. Alas, I never did figure out how to do that with mine. I don't think anyone could have.
I'm going out on a limb here, but caring for an infant when you haven't slept in thirteen months seems a lot more risky than co-sleeping with a few safety measures.
My comments may seem scattered but I want to touch on a particular point. Influenza. Personally my favorite virus and the one that I hope to study as my career moves forward. The flu shot is not a crap shoot. To me that term implies a 50:50 shot that the scientists will get it right. Not the case. There is a global network (94 countries) collecting flu isolates during each flu season. All of this information is reported to the WHO which makes its recommendation (based on the best epidemiology available, hardly a crap shoot) as to what strains should be included in next year's vaccine. How often have you heard of an abnormal flu season where hospitalization rates or morality are abnormally high? Most years there is a good strain match and effectiveness of the vaccine (defined as preventing hospitalization) is 70-90% in healthy adults. 2004 actually was a year when the shot wasn't a good strain match. My sister-in-law caught the flu that year and required i.v. fluid at home. Even in those bad years protection can hit about 50% because of cross-reactive antibodies. I don't believe my sister-in-law was vaccinated that year.
So Fran, I won't think you're crazy if you don't get the flu shot because, as a healthy adult, the virus will simply make you feel like complete crap for several days and nothing more. However, you do want to consider being a source of infection for Sophia.
Now, just to be sure that we're discussing the same disease. Lots of illnesses are called "flu" by people. Flu is an illness caused by the influenza virus. That stomach ache you get sometimes that might make you throw up or have nasty diarrhea is not the flu. Real flu is much, much worse than that even when it doesn't require hospitalization. When real flu hits you you'll know it. You will wake up at night sweating like crazy yet as soon as you take the covers off you'll be shivering with cold. Real flu makes your muscles ache like the dickens. Real flu knocks you out with fever and headache. Rarely does it cause vomiting. Just so we're all on the same page.
Troy, I apologize for calling the vaccination for your favorite virus a crap shoot. That was clearly inappropriate. :)
Besides getting immunized so we can protect our children, what about all the old or sick people we might unwittingly infect and kill off? I would feel really bad about that.
Maybe I'll chime in here later on some of the infant vaccinations, but I just wanted to throw out my own personal reasons for getting a flu shot each and every single year, even knowing that it might only be a "chance" that it will be for the right strain. When I was pregnant with Alia, Todd and I both got the flu and it was absolutely one of the worst experiences I have ever had being sick. We were flat on our backs in bed for days and days, every single muscle in my entire body ached along with a host of other things that made me just want to cease to exist for a while. Was there a risk of me dying from it? No. Would I ever want to experience it again? No. There is no way I would be able to take care of my children with the way I felt. So just out of a personal desire to have a chance of avoiding that inconvenience and misery, I get the shot. In my personal opinion, a tiny, temporary prick from a shot are much better than the alternative of what I suffered from having the flu. Plus, part of my reasons for getting the shot are to help prevent the flu from being passed from myself to old people and babies who CAN die from it - like tons do each year. I feel it's a small price to pay, even if it's a guess and might not be the right strain.
I too have thought the chickenpox vaccine was silly, that it didn't hurt me as a kid. That would be because I got it when I was 18. One month before graduation, during all the awards ceremonies and what not. I was covered in clear calomine lotion and nasty scabs. It was horrible. All my cousins got it when we were young, kids at school got it but not me. And good luck finding a kid who can pass it on to Sophia. With schools now requiring it (Seth's does anyway) she'll be hard pressed to find a kid to contract it from. Also, the diptheria booster is currently undergoing a clinical trial that began in April (http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00870350). That's all I have to say- for now :)
Sarah
I don't think I'll ever get to finish my actual post...
Ok, first thing - I don't really care about co-sleeping. My point was merely that there are tons of things that can and do kill tons of people each year, and still we freely and willfully participate in all of them, figuring that the risk isn't as bad as we think or that this is the best choice considering all potential risks.
As for the babies and old people. Well, of course I don't want them to die necessarily, but again my point is that death for the most vulnerable (which is the wee little ones and the old/sick) is always lurking around the corner. If it's not the flu it'll be something else, and my point is that the risks from a disease are NOT always greater than the risks from a vaccine. The flu vaccine still uses mercury, a known neurotoxin.
I also think it's easy to bask in the safety of a vaccine if you're not part of the small group of vaccinated people who get hurt by them. And somehow I feel there is some denial here that vaccines CAN kill you or seriously hurt you. I'm not saying you'll necessarily will get the disease, but just complications. And since there seems to be a feeling that vaccines are always safe (or extremely safe) once they're on the market, maybe we should talk about Gardasil (the vaccine against HPV), which hasn't been out that long and has already killed a bunch of people and supposedly has had over 8000 reports (on VAERS) for serious adverse reactions. And, have we taken it off the market yet? Not that I know of. Are people being told to be really careful with this one? Not that I know of.
So, what is it that we're not being told about other vaccines? I do believe in general effectiveness of most vaccines. I'm not convinced though of general harmlessness as much. I mentioned the problem of reactions not being reported or reactions not being connected to vaccines. Of course the numbers will look awesome for vaccines if nothing bad gets reported - and doctors along with parents probably suck at reporting stuff.
Julie, you said no one has died of Pertussis whose been vaccinated. But there have been very strong and high correlations of SIDS occuring right after Pertussis vaccinations. What if the vaccine makes you more likely to die of SIDS? Then doctors will say you died of SIDS, report nothing, and the vaccine is not questioned, even though it MAY have been the trigger and cause.
I have to admit that full-on faith in doctors and other health care professionals and their choices makes ME very uneasy. And at the end of the day, I have to say I'm just not a big fan and believer of putting every imaginable available drug or cure in my body. there isn't much logical base to this, only that I feel that we overdo it at times, and don't question enough and create problems that we may not know of immediately, but that will haunt us down the road.
Ok, I'm tired. I think I need to rest from this debate...I find all you guys have to say interesting and persuasive. The nice thing about this debate is that there is at least one person that potentially can be convinced to change her mind - ME! I've been reading tons, and as I said, I'm not sure how I feel. I have concerns, and I see risks, but I'm not convinced that the risks I fear from vaccines are greater than the ones I see NOT vaccinated. And, that is why Sophia had vaccines so far.
However, I have not heard a single argument yet why they all have to be in one big shot on the same day, rain or shine, sick child or healthy etc. I think we could do much much better in informing parents, and adjusting the vaccination schedule to what the child truly needs...I mean, do you really, really, really have to have the Rubella shot the same time as Measles and Mumps??? I got my Dtap and Polio at 6 months and MMR at 2 years. Why does everything have to be so crammed now? Convince me, because I'm not seeing it, and I think it will be overwhelming on a baby's body, which we have already all mentioned is extremely vulnerable. And then, how much aluminum can a body really stomach without long-term consequences?
And lastly, I know everyone is so pro vaccines. But, I find it hard to just be plain excited. We have family friends who's child died from a vaccine related complication. He got brain-damaged and was a veggie for 5 years, and then died. He was such a beautiful and fun boy and it's pretty haunting to think that this happened to him. I think to a family like that to just tout how awesome and safe vaccines are is insulting.
I do not believe vaccines are completely safe. I know that adverse reactions do occur and sometimes the consequences are tragic. I feel terrible for the family of that little boy; they must feel so betrayed.
You know, I think about the risks every time I take my daughter to the doctor. I'm afraid that she might end up one of those sad stories you read about. It really freaks me out, actually, and it must be even more difficult when you know someone who's suffered because of vaccination. I really can't imagine it. But the plural of anecdote is not data, and the statistical data say that vaccination is the less risky route, so that's the one I take. It may be that that choice will come back to haunt me later, that my daughter's number will come up, but I will have done the best I can with what I know.
I don't blame you for hesitating about vaccinations, Fran. I think it's commendable that you take your children's health so seriously.
I know how you feel. I feel haunted right now either way. I read all kinds of stuff, and then lean one way and feel a bit ok. Then I read something else again that goes the other way and I panic. I think the moment our little ones get hurt, we will question everything we did and wonder if we could have somehow prevented this. I feel nervous and unsure and overwhelmed with trying to figure out what's right. I agree with you that anecdotes are not the way to make a good decision, and that's not what I'm going for. Actually, I think I'd like to just be ignorant, but seem unable to do that. My mind wanders and questions simply keep popping up even when I try to surpress them (like, even if vaccines are pretty safe, what does it do to our immunity long term. I read about the idea that with all the immunizations our bodies are not developing a mature enough immune system because our bodies have never fought of serious diseases...and then in a few decades we may be faced with changes in diseases our bodies cannot handle and we're all swept off...may sound crazy, but I'm always wary when humans interfere a lot with nature. I always wonder if that's how God wanted it to be and if we're just creating a new future problem?)
Right now I'm thinking to go back to what I did when I deliberated on Sophia's first couple of vaccines. I'll think real hard, make a decision, and then take it to the Lord. And whatever I feel is the right thing to do I'll do. In the end I think Heavenly Father knows best. He may know if Sophia has some weakness somewhere in her system that will make her respond negatively to a vaccine. Likewise he'd know if she would be fine and safe. With his knowledge and guidance I feel best able to make a good choice. Otherwise I usually end up feeling confused. Also, I get so fearful (either way) and realize that any decision made out of fear is also usually not so good. I don't want to be afraid. I want to feel confident...so I want to keep learning. It's a little hard to read and hear so many different views, but a mom's gotta do what a mom's gotta do. ;)
Alright, so I'm the non-vaxing friend that got Fran started on all of this. First off, let me say that I'm mostly in the same boat as Fran. Not thrilled about not vaccinating and not thrilled about vaccinating and still searching for real answers. I began my first daughter on the recommended schedule, but, like Fran, I am not one to do things just because someone tells me to and began researching and came upon many of the concerns that Fran has mentioned which I have still not been able to resolve to my satisfaction.
So, Troy--Fran had mentioned you to me before so I am interested in your perspectives and understanding of the science involved here. In your first comment you mentioned the process of producing and licensing a vaccine. It sounds very thorough and careful and such and you seemed to be convinced that it is. However, as Fran mentioned, the Gardasil vaccine which has been promoted recently appears to have terrible side affects and outcomes. If that particular vaccine went through the process that you describe and still can be as dangerous as it apparently is then something went wrong. Either 1)the process you describe is simply not enough or 2) someone along the way discovered some of these side effects but for some reason or other wanted to cover them up.
What is your specific reaction and understanding of the development and marketing of that particular vaccine and its many serious negative reactions? (as well as the fact that it only is supposed to protect against a small % of HPV anyway)
Okay, another one for you Troy. In your 3rd comment you describe what "real" flu is like. I'm surprised that a scientist would make such an across the board claim as to how symptoms will manifest themselves. Do you really and truly believe that everyone that contracts the flu virus comes down with the serious symptoms you suggest? I will concede that many people call illnesses that aren't flu, flu. However, each individual's immune response is different and that it is possible for a person to come into contact with the flu virus and for it not to take hold at all or for a person to come down with very mild symptoms because they have a stronger immune system. Is this not correct?
Okay-Chicken pox. I'm with Fran on this one and could go out to my neighborhood right now and find several families that I know personally that came down with chickenpox when some of the children had been fully vaccinated and others had not been yet. They ALL contracted the illness and the vaccinated children came down with the worst cases. True, these are merely anecdotes but there are many of them and among people I know personally. And these lead me to believe that the vaccine is not that effective anyway so why take the additional potential risk of the vaccine.
Heb B--you pro vax people--do you really think that all day old newborns should be given a shot that was originally designed for prostitutes and druggies? And if you can see at least a little bit of concern in that recommendation does it not make you wonder even just a little about the reasoning behind all of the other recommendations?
So, I of course have more to say but need to go to bed. I think at the very least that the recommended vaccine schedule should be reduced and that the shots should be given over a much longer period of time. Safer preservatives should be discovered so that mercury needn't be the issue that it is. And doctors should give more information and respect the right of parents to inform themselves and make decisions. I remember being at the doctor's office with one of my older kids getting some shots. They were giving several, one that I wasn't expecting and hadn't researched yet. I said as much and that I would like to wait on that particular shot until I could look into it some more. Instead of being commended for my cautiousness and given some suggested readings to calm my fears I was seriously guilt-tripped and pressured and I hadn't even said I was opposed to the shot, just that I wanted to learn more about it.
Whoa, I missed the entire debate! Sorry, must be the time difference...?
Anyway, I didn't have time to thoroughly read all of your arguments, although I did try to read as much as I could with a demanding child trying (rightfully) to get me off the computer.
I have the feeling the debate is over, so I'm not going to make any new points. I will just say what has been said before, confirming the opinions of other readers:
1. You are right. There could be more education on vaccines for parents. It's a good thing you know that because that means you'll be educated when you go into the nurse's office and you can ask her beforehand what shots exactly will be administered to your child. So, on a personal level, this isn't as much of a problem for you anymore. Although some improvement needs to happen on a general level.
2. As others have affirmed earlier, I, too, think that, in most cases, the risks associated with getting vaccinated are lower than the risks associated with getting the disease. In some cases, children have died a given vaccination. But more children have died and would die from the actual disease.
3. Some vaccines have poisons in them (e.g. mercury), but at extremely low levels. I personally think it's more harmful to let your child eat junk food than to inject them with a vaccine.
4. The flu. It's not a crap shot. I have really bad asthma and I can actually die from getting a bad flu. So I get flu shots every year because any risk associated with that shot is lower than with my catching a bad flu. It isn't 100% effective, but I take it. Sure, there are risks lurking everywhere for sick people like me, or children, or the elderly. But why increase the amount of risk unnecessarily? I think the wish to protect oneself from harm is only human, and if I may say so, prudent.
5. I have to admit I don't know much about the process of vaccination and standards of safety etc. I think there needs to be more research to see what factors in a vaccine, combined with what factors in a person receiving the vaccine, cause problems. I don't think a vaccine can cause asthma in a completely healthy child. I think there are other risk factors present (such as genetic disposition to get asthma, smoking environment, allergies, etc).
Once we know what the risk factors are, we can customize vaccinations more to a patient's need. So this is definitively something I think should happen in the future and the good thing that will come out of this debate on the international level.
So, these are my two cents. I probably haven't added anything new to the debate, but I wanted to speak my mind anyway. As always. :)
On Hep B: In Finland they recommend it only for babies whose mother comes from an at-risk country. Most third- and second-world countries belong in the at-risk category, and so do the United States. Fé didn't get the shot, but I'm not sure what my opinion on this would have been had I given birth in the US. A third of the world population is infected with it and it is transmitted via bodily fluids (hence the promiscuity association), but it is also transmitted via blood (e.g. unclean transfusions, unsterilized needles, etc). They might not be as big of a risk in the US, but still, the fact that there are people there who are infected with it would make cautious.
I wouldn't say the debate is over...I'd say it finally begun. I was also wondering more about the 'safe' process of vaccines. I read in passing about a Rotavirus vaccine they had out a few years ago that, I assume wasn't any good, and so it got pulled of the market fairly quickly. Then there is Gardasil. I'd be curious as well to hear how such successes come into being after the careful process Troy described. I also was thinking, even if a vaccines is tested on thousands of people, thousands are still not a huge percentage when the end target population is in the millions. ;)
Isa, you say the poisons like mercury aren't high, but they used to be 50% of the preservatives. Now they changed it, so I feel a little more at ease, but still, I'm not happy to think that with each shot I'm pumping some aluminum into my child's body.
Also, hepatitis B is VERY common in Eastern Europe, so in that sense, I wouldn't feel to safe over there. I think the risk, of course, is there - but I don't think my newborn baby is at risk, if it's healthy, and not in an environment that could contain at-risk children/people (day care, school, questionable friends, etc.). I really don't feel that Sophia needed that vaccine, the second the came out of my womb, and I don't feel she needs it now. Maybe later on we may look into it, but I really don't see why newborns need it.
Of course, maybe Sophia could get hurt in some way, need a transfusion and get Hepatitis B from that, but if we want to start worrying about all the crap we could get through blood transfusions and blood donations that weren't properly screened, I'll never sleep at night again.
Wow, a guy goes to sleep and when wakes up there have been 10-12 more comments on this topic! How to talk about everything. First, Fran it sounds like alot to say that thimerosol (the mercury-containing preservative) accounted for 50% of the preservative in some shots but as things stand right now by six months of age a baby is only taking in .000001 grams of thimerosol. It remains in the flu shot (though it is being phased out) and has been, or is being, phased out of the other shots as well. The reason it is being phased out is that most vaccines are now being packaged as single doses to prevent contamination from continuing to open the same vial of vaccine. As such, preservation is not as important because it isn't being stored long-term in the doc's refrigerator anymore. As a side note, studies have been and the rate of autism diagnosis in infants in California since thimerosol was removed from the MMR shot has not decreased.
I will now try to see eye to eye with some of Fran's and Serenity's
comments. I would have reservations about Gardasil myself but it's probably based on its newness and not the actual numbers. First though I should say that while Gardasil only protects against 4 strains of HPV it covers that strains that account for 70% of cervical cancers and 90% of genital warts so it actually has the potential to cut down on morbidity. The CDC reports that 23 million doses of Gardasil and 11,916 adverse effects have been reported to VAERS. That is an adverse effect in .05% of shots, half the normal rate. Of those adverse effects only 6%, or 715, were classified as severe. That means severe effects occurred .003%of the time. Some concern has been expressed about the VAERS numbers being skewed. While this may be the case for minor side effects I would venture to guess that the severe reaction numbers are more accurate. 20 women who received the vaccine died. Now I don't want to sound coarse because if you knew one of those 20 women it wouldn't matter what the odds were and if my wife received the shot and died I would go nuts, but your chance of dying in a car accident
is 1000 times higher. But with that being said I can't blame people for being cautious about Gardasil just because it is so new.
Well I've got work to do here so maybe I'll check in later and touch on some other things.
I'm glad you bring up the Rotavirus shot. That's something neither J nor I had ever heard of, so when we went for a regular check-up when Fé was 3 months, and they asked us if we wanted it, we assumed that it would be safe to get.
Well, I don't know if there is correlation, but Fé has ad trouble doing her business ever since she got that shot. I think it hurt her to do it that one time when the live bacteria came out of her, so she got some sort of trauma from it or something. I thought I shouldn't have gotten that shot, but then a friend's 8 months old got the virus and had to be hospitalized for a week and was on a drip so she wouldn't get dehydrated. Not fun.
I think the story goes to show that one should always evaluate risks versus benefits. My friend said to me after the whole ordeal was over she would have much rather taken some poop issues than the worry she had for her young daughter while she was in the hospital (and other things such as having to stop breastfeeding etc).
I, on the other hand, keep thinking I should NOT have let them give my daughter the shot, if that would mean she would start having normal bowel movements. I would have gladly taken four days of hospitalization if that had meant avoiding lifelong problems, even if minor.
Fine, I don't know if her bowel problems have anything to do with the vaccine. Very likely not. BUT what I'm trying to say is, again, we need to weigh benefits and risks. Risks are involved on both sides, where is the greater benefit?
In all the traditional vaccinations, I would have to say, again, that the benefits greatly outweigh any risks. With more recent vaccinations, Hep B, chickenpox, Rotavirus, flu, everybody should decide for themselves.
I probably agree with your Heb B argument. After all, I never got one for Fé. And I would only give it to her if we traveled to regions with super risk.
I think the entire vaccination / no vaccination has a point, namely that there is danger of over-medicalization of our daily life. Some diseases are fine for humans. We don't have to immunized artificially against all disease. Or do we? Maybe we do, let's talk about that. The second point I get out of the debate is that there should be more research into risk factors, such as why a certain person reacts and another doesn't, as well as long-term consequences.
The truth is we don't know that much about the risks and long-term consequences of any given disease, either. They just found out a while ago that HPV can cervical cause cancer. Who knows what pertussis can do to us in the long run, even if we overcome the symptoms of the disease after a few weeks. research seems to indicate that viruses stay with us for life, and have the potential to wreck a lot of havoc inside our bodies, even if only 30/40 years from now. The problem, again, is that we know too little about long-term consequences of disease. So, until we know, I'd definitely go with the vaccinations.
Two more things I wanted to mention. First, Fran, I can understand how you might feel overwhelmed with how quickly the nurses pop those shots into your kid with little explanation of what is being done. However, doctors are required to give you paperwork describing each vaccine and the risks associated with the shot. Also, Sarah has always had to initial her consent. If your doctor's office isn't doing those things I would find a different office. Might I recommend Flowers Family Practic in Grove City? That's where our boys and Sarah go and we love it.
Serenity. I should have been more clear. Of course flu infections can be mild (runny nose, headache, slight fever, cough). I was trying to distinguish infections with actual influenza virus from the vomiting and diarrhea illness that we all get. In so doing I neglected to mention that flu can be mild.
Great points everyone, especially Isa, I think you summed up pretty well what I'm feeling.
Troy, I like your percentages you bring up with Gardasil. Don't things look so different when they are put like that? Because chickenpox deaths then would be at 0.00025 percent (not that big of a deal, right?).
But, still what about that Rotavirus shot they pulled off the markets a few years ago? Also what if something happens during mass productions of the vaccines ( I actually have no clue how they are really being produced at the companies - I just keep thinking anything made in the millions is bound to have a few faulty lots).
Lastly, while I'm happy to hear about VAERS, my point is that doctors don't always have the time, as well as the knowledge to assess real reactions and then report them on top of it. Let's take Isa's example. After the shot her daughter developed a bowl problem. Could be the shot, could be something else. But no one tries to find out, and so we'll never know that maybe indeed it was the shot.
I think there may be a lot of side-effects that don't get acknowledged as such and thus never get reported. So, it's great to have VAERS, but with everything I've learned about the medical field, I'm about 99.9% sure that their numbers are very conservative and that there are probably far more adverse reactions than we get through the statistics.
Does that mean we should panic and all vaccines are unsafe? Probably not. But, I think consideration and caution and most of all INFORMATION is crucial and important. And, I think if doctors wouldn't always be so pushy and eager with the shots, I'd feel more relaxed. I don't like how the pressure is put on and I'm pushed into choices by making me afraid.
I have switched pediatricians since, by the way.
P.S. Troy, those who don't vaccinate against chicken pox and want their kids to have it host chicken pox parties. You find people online who have it, and then they allow anyone to come and try to catch the disease from their kid. ;) Google it.
P.P.S. sorry for the traumatic graduation chicken pox surprise. I'd say you've recovered pretty well from the scabs over the years, and you even got Sarah to marry you. Clearly, chicken pox can't be that bad then! :)
Troy, can you tell me more about PCV, Hib and MCV4? Which one is the rotavirus vaccine? I still don't even know. What are they good for? I heard not so good stuff about Prevnar as well...
Actually Sarah was the one who wrote about chickenpox. I actually got chickenpox in 3rd grade over Christmas break.
But I'll comment on the chickenpox parties. It seems rather sadistic to me to take my kid to somebody's house for the purpose of contracting an illness no matter how innocuous the illness may be. To top it off you're finding a perfect stranger online? Even if you're accompanying your child to this "party" it's all a little bit weird don't you think?
Troy
I agree with Troy on the chickenpox parties... they really freak me out.
If Fé hasn't gotten chickenpox by the time she is 5 (by herself, not from a party) , I'll get her the vaccination, non?
I don't know that it's weirder than fighting a disease that may not need to be fought. If it wasn't for everyone getting vaccinated you'd probably be able to still get it the 'normal' way.
I don't know how weird it is...when my siblings all had chicken pox and didn't, I remember hugging them all, hoping I'd get it, too. I did. Then I regretted getting it - it was so itchy. I don't know what I'd do with Sophia. Right now I'm thinking to just wait and see. But, I think I'd also not keep her away from someone if I heard they had chicken pox.
Sorry Sarah for the chicken pox trauma then! You recovered even better than Troy. :)
Another issue I just wanted to bring up again, and hear more discussion is the 'need' for having the MMR shots all at once at one year of age. Why? From everything I've read Rubella is totally harmless, unless you're pregnant. So, why not vaccinate later (like 5 years, or 10 years of age?). Same with mumps?
Fran, actually none of the vaccines you asked about are the rotavirus vaccine. Hib is Haemophilus influenzae type B. I wasn't familiar with the acronymns PCV and MCV but after looking them up I see that PCV is pneumoccocal conjugate vaccine and MCV is meningococcal vaccine. These are all bacterial diseases. Hib was relatively common in infants and toddlers prior to vaccination and causes acute bacterial meningitis and pneumonia. There's an interesting interaction between respiratory infections such as flu and RSV and Hib. It has been well demonstrated that these viral infections set up the body for a secondary bacterial infection after the virus is cleared out. RSV is the number one cause of this. So there's another reason to get your kids their flu shot and also a reason to get the Hib shot since there is no way of preventing RSV (no vaccine) and every kid gets it by the time they're two years old.
PCV protects against Strep. pneumoniae which causes infections of the ears and nasal cavity, brain, and lining of the heart among others. MCV protects against meningococcal meningitis.
Their are two rotavirus vaccines - RotaTeq and Rotarix. There was once a rotavirus vaccine called rotashield which was pulled because 1 in 12000 kids who got the shot were experiencing bowel obstruction. Isa, when did your daughter get that shot? If it was prior to 1999 that may have been the cause. Rotashield was pulled in 1999. RotaTeq and Rotarix have not been associated with the same side effects.
There was an intense debate about the need for a rotavirus vaccine in the developed world. Seth caught rotavirus when he was 2 and it just made his poop really weird colors (pastel orange) for a few days. In the US we have adequate healthcare which can keep kids like that well hydrated. In the developing world where water is not clean and where medical technology is not as advanced diarrheal diseases such as rotavirus are still a major cause of death. In those places a vaccine would be considered essential. Here, probably not so much.
Rubella should be near and dear to your heart Fran. It is, after all, also known as German measles. Rubella is really only serious if a fetus contracts it from pregnant mom. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't vaccinate. If all women are vaccinated then we decrease the chance of a pregnant woman contracting rubella and if all males are vaccinated then we decrease the risk of a guy passing it along to his partner. And the complications (stillbirths, congenital rubella syndrome) are serious enough to warrant, I believe, a vaccination program.
By the way, I don't come up with all of this off the top of my head. I'm not smart enough for that. Six years ago at BYU I could have because I had just taken my medical microbiology class. Graduate school has forced me to focus strictly on immunity to respiratory viruses. So I'm actually having to remind myself of alot of this bacterial vaccination stuff by checking out the CDC website.
I was kind of bewildered by the Hep B vaccine for newborns, too, but can't the disease also be spread through saliva? You don't have to be a prostitute or a druggie to catch a disease that way, especially if you're a squishy newborn that no one can resist kissing. Being vaccinated can protect against liver cancer, from what I understand. Also, if a baby is born to a woman with Hep B, administering the vaccine within the first 24 hours can save its life.
I opted for the Hep B vaccine, although I do NOT have Hep B, but I can see why others might not.
Just to be clear, I did not allow strangers, prostitutes or drug addicts kiss my newborn. :)
troy, the question is not that of NOT vaccinating. The question is the timing. If pregnant women are at risk, why do we vaccinate babies, and not older kids? Why don't we do measles first, then mumps a year later for example, then rubella a year later? Why is it all at once, why everything by the time they are a year old?
As for Hep. B I thought it was transmitted only through blood. I may be wrong of course. If saliva is a transmittent then there is a bigger risk. But again, if I don't hang out with druggies and prostitutes and other high-risk groups...what are truly the odds for my newborn kid to get it? Even with saliva, unless you have people kiss your baby on the mouth or private parts transmission seems very, very unlikely that way...and who kisses a baby the way i just mentioned?
My baby kisses people with an open mouth all the time! Usually it's just my husband and me that she's kissing, but she'll kiss her little friends that way, too. Dogs, as well (although I'm pretty sure you can't catch Hep B from dogs. I hope not anyway). It may be time to have a little talk about boundaries with her.
Plus, babies will put anything in their mouths, no matter how disgusting it is. I saw a 12-month-old shove about three tablespoons of dirt into his mouth without blinking the other day. Although they try, parents can't always stop it in time.
I don't know the particulars of how Rubella is transmitted exactly and who is at risk for it. I can mention that the recommendations for using combination vaccines is based primarily on the fact that it's 1)easier, 2)just as effective, 3)just as safe, 4)saves on visits to the doctor's office, and 5)saves money. Should money be factored in here? Not if it increases risk of side effects but as combination vaccines have been shown to be as safe as giving the shots one at a time, why not save on dollars? Also, it allows your baby to not get as many shots. It isn't easy to watch the look of painful surprise come over your baby's face when they haven't any idea what's going on. If I can have that happen 3 times less often by combining measles, mumps, and rubella, I'm all for it.
And as far as vaccination weakening the immune system - I've never seen any valid results showing such a thing. Exposure to viruses and bacteria (live or dead) boost immunity. Remember that every single second from the moment a baby takes his first breath he is taking bacteria, viruses, other environmental contaminants into this body through every possible route. Bacteria are just a part of being human. And an essential part at that, we couldn't exist without them colonizing us. So our body is constantly dealing with foreign stuff. The few vaccines that we get are a vanishingly small amount of what's confronting our immune systems.
did anyone talk about weakened immunity? just wondering where that came from.
Actually, I think it's interesting what you mentioned about the Rotavirus vaccine. When Sophia got her first round of shots with the Rota virus, she'd been pooping 1-2 time EACH day. From the day she got the shots, she didn't poop for almost a week. Coincidence? everyone told me so, since breastfed babies sometimes go that long without pooping. But, I did think it odd that my everpooping baby was suddenly not pooping for a week, right after she got shots...
And, here's my case again - she may have had a reaction to the vaccine, but we'll never know because nothing was done, and it never got reported. I will hang on to my claim that adverse reactions, even severe ones are under-reported.
Somebody mentioned a decline in T cells following a certain vaccine. I'm not about to go back through all 43 comments to pick it out though.
Oh come on now Troy! i mentioned it with regards to tetanus. Anything you want to say on it?
I think Troy was addressing what you said here, Fran:
"My mind wanders and questions simply keep popping up even when I try to supress them (like, even if vaccines are pretty safe, what does it do to our immunity long term. I read about the idea that with all the immunizations our bodies are not developing a mature enough immune system because our bodies have never fought of serious diseases...and then in a few decades we may be faced with changes in diseases our bodies cannot handle and we're all swept off...may sound crazy, but I'm always wary when humans interfere a lot with nature."
Also, I've been reading up on the Hep B vaccine, since that was one I was a little unsure about, too. CDC says that before Hep B vaccination became routine, 33,000 children not born to Hep B positive mothers were infected. How they were infected, I don't know, but I doubt that they were all prostitutes and druggies. 25% of children infected die prematurely from liver-related disease. So, knowing that, it seems worthwhile to me to give the Hep B vaccine to babies.
To clarify:
33,000 children born to mothers who were NOT Hep B positive were infected each year.
That was a bit confusing.
Interesting. However, I also just read on the CDC site that the disease is only transmitted through birth, sex or blood sharing (you know, syringes, razor blades, drug needles, open sores/wounds - that kind of stuff). So, no saliva. Now I still wonder how much my child is really at risk. Really, how and where would she get it? Especially when she is one day old?
Oh, and CDC gives you a list of who's at risk. They don't mention young children in any way. The only thing that remotely may fit me is living with a person who has chronic Hep. B. So,...urm...I still don't see the risk for me and my family, though I won't deny that there may be a risk. But as I said before, there's a risk for anything. And this one just seems extremely small to me.
Mayo clinic says this:
For you to become infected with HBV, infected blood, semen, vaginal secretions or saliva must enter your body.
Hepatitis B: CausesI guess they lump saliva into body fluids in the information on CDC.
Can you provide the link to that, Fran?
Here's the link:
http://www.cdc.gov/hepatitis/B/bFAQ.htm#bFAQ10
It does say that children under the age of 1 who get hep.B are 90percent likely to get chronic hep. B. So, that's worrisome, but once you're over 5 years the chance of chronic hep. B is pretty small again.
Also, you mentioned that 33,000 kids get hep. B each year, and they can't all be from druggies and prostitutes. While I'm sure that not ALL of them are from druggies and prostitutes, I actually wouldn't be surprise and feel pretty sure that most of them are from high-risk groups though. Druggies, prostitutes and promiscuous people are the most likely to get sick, but also the most likely to have a bunch of kids as they are the least likely to protect themselves against unwanted pregnancies, and they are also not the likely candidates to take precautions to protect their kids or other kids. When you consider how many people live below the poverty line (and I'd think most high-risk people live below the poverty line) then 33,000 really isn't that much. So, while I can't prove that those 33,000 kids are mostly from high-risk group, I'd feel pretty confident that they are and that only very few of those kids who got Hep. B are children from families like ours.
oh, also a lot of the kids could be kids of recent immigrants, who come from high-risk nations...so, you have druggies, prostitutes, crappy poor parents and immigrants from risk nations and you can quickly get 33,000.
Wow! That has to be one of the most interesting things I have read in a while. I do not have any technical comments, just thoughts.
I think that it is important to have a doctor who takes your concerns into account. I have been very impressed with the time that our pediatrician spends going over the vaccinations, side effects, etc. It has come in handy many times- like when Olivia had a reaction to the MMR vaccination. Also I have to sign for every vaccination that my kids receive.
Hey Camey, nice of you to stop by! :)
Isn't it an interesting topic. I think communication and information from/between doctors and patients is so, so, so important. I'm glad I switched my pediatrician now. I really wasn't happy with things - particularly them making me feel kind of stupid each time I called with a concern about Sophia.
Anyway, here's another interesting tidbit on the issue of reporting adverse reactions. According to the National Vaccine Information Center a few years ago, only 18% of Doctors would report SERIOUS adverse reactions! This is only to underline my concern with a lot of problems going unnoticed and unmentioned and thus making vaccine safety stats look a lot better than they probably should be looking.
Also, no one has really said anything on the issue of problems being associated with vaccines but not being recognized as such (like breathing cessations dramatically increasing right after a pertussis vaccine, but potential death from this probably being labeled SIDS instead of a potential reaction to a vaccine...). Comments?
Camey, what kind of reaction did Olivia have to the MMR, if I may ask?
Fran, CDC said that 33,000 children born to mothers who were not infected with Hep B (so not prostitutes or druggies) got the virus anyway. That's on top of the 12,000 children who were infected by Hep B at birth. Can someone explain to me how 33,000 children not belonging to the high-risk group would get infected with Hep B? Something beyond speculation?
You are right, though, Fran, that a child that is never vaccinated for Hep B is unlikely these days to get the virus if she isn't part of a high-risk group. The reason for that is that most people have in the United States been vaccinated for Hep B, so she is very unlikely to ever come across the virus. She is, in other words, protected by herd immunity. As long as 83-94% of the population is vaccinated (it depends on the disease the vaccine is supposed to prevent), a virus won't have a viable terrain. But as the anti-vax movement becomes more popular, herd immunity is compromised (and indeed, it is already falling apart in some places where vaccine rejection is fashionable, as we've seen with recent measles outbreaks), outbreaks of vaccine-preventable disease will occur.
Basically, while herd immunity holds, children of anti-vaxers are getting a free ride on the immunity bus. Frankly, I resent that. I'm already taking a risk by vaccinating my child, so that I can protect my child and the greater community. And while an unvaccinated child is 22% more likely to contract measles than my daughter is in the case of an outbreak, my daughter is still at risk. This is why, to address Serenity Rachel's argument against the chickenpox vaccine, the vaccinated children got chickenpox along with the unvaccinated ones. To wit, my effort to protect my daughter is diminished by others' refusal to vaccinate, those people who are hoping to sneak by without taking any risks at all. There is room on the immunity bus for free-riders, but that space should be reserved for the immuno-compromised or children who are too young to have finished their vaccination schedules, not people who have "philosophical objections."
If ethical behavior means the world would be a better place if everyone did what you do, then vaccine rejection is the opposite of that. Most anti-vaxers, in my opinion, are unintentionally unethical: they are either unaware that the best statistical data we have (admittedly imperfect, but it's the best we have) show that vaccinating is the less risky option, or they have a difficult time understanding statistical data in the first place.
My objection to the anti-vax movement, in a nutshell.
juliestblog, you just summed up very nicely why i said in an earlier post that people who don't vaccinate their children for major diseases such as measles are mad. You found much nicer words, so thank you! :)
You are very kind, Isa.
While we are sharing chickenpox anecdotes, here's one of mine. My mom didn't think that the chickenpox vaccine was worthwhile, either. All of us got it the traditional way. Three of us came through it just fine, but my little sister didn't get it until she was eleven, because cases were becoming less common. She became terribly, terribly sick, first with chickenpox, then with a secondary infection. She never had to be hospitalized, but it was serious enough that our doctor kept calling and checking on her (the guy had such a large practice that you had to wait to get an appointment for anything). Luckily, she responded well to the antibiotics and never had to be hospitalized. But I don't think it would be too far out to suggest that for the 10,000 hospitalizations for chickenpox, there are tens, possibly hundreds, of thousands of people that suffer with chickenpox complications at home. Chickenpox is not a joke.
When someone can show me hard evidence that more than 10,000 people are hospitalized every year for complications arising from the chickenpox vaccine, I will reconsider vaccinating my children for chickenpox. Right now, it is clear to me that vaccinating is less risky than letting my children catch the virus, and I encourage everyone else to do the same.
Juliestblog - Can I call you Julie, I'm assuming that's your name and it's weird calling someone juliestblog?
Your last post was a great summary of exactly how I feel. Overall immunization rates in the US are good but there are pockets of the country that do better than others. This poses a risk. It would a shame if, as a society, we backslide on decades of sound science because there is a miniscule risk of severe side effects with immunization. The best we can do is controlled, randomized, scientific studies on these things. It's not perfect but it's as near perfect as we're ever going to get. The Vaccine Safety Datalink project is the best thing going right now because its numbers won't be skewed, the reason being it's controlling for unreported adverse reactions by also monitoring people who don't get the shots. And, conspiracy theories aside, there's no reason why those things will be reported any more often for unvaccinated people than for vaccinated people.In this way a baseline level of these adverse effects in the population is being calculated. Then we can compare the incidence of these effects between the two groups.
Outbreaks of disease always seem to hit harder in areas with lower vaccination rates which makes sense of course. One of my theories is that because we've been successfully immunizing in this country for so long now our generation and even those 10-15 years older haven't ever seen somebody suffer from diseases like measles, or diptheria, or polio, or mumps. Those illnesses don't often enter into our thinking so we forget that they are real and they are a threat. Maybe somehow certain people get the notion that the organisms that cause those diseases don't exist within our somehow hallowed borders when in fact we're no different than any other place on earth. The measles virus doesn't come to a screeching halt when it sees a Welcome to the USA sign. They're all here we just seem to have lost sight of what a miracle vaccinations are because we don't know what it was like in the first half of the 20th century. But people coming of age in the 50's and 60's sure as heck know that the after picture looks a whole lot better than the before picture.
Thank you, Troy. That means a lot coming from an immunologist.
And please feel free to call me Julie. I am not actually a blog.
Ooh, correction: an unvaccinated child is 22 times more likely to contract measles in the case of an outbreak, not 22% more likely.
Ehem...now we have only one problem: LOGIC! See, it's so easy to make assumptions, even among the smart and educated and then still be wrong.
Julie, you said that 33,000 children (according to CDC, which I'll use as well for my argument) contracted Hep B, but not through birth. Therefore, you concluded that 33,000 children contracted Hep. B even though they didn't belong to the risk group. Ahhh, but that is faulty logic. You cannot conclude that when CDC has mentioned 5-6 ways how you can contract Hep. B. All you did was show that maybe the one way you can get it (birth) is not the most likely, or at least not how those 33,000 kids got it. However, that says NOTHING, absolutely nothing at all, about whether these children were in high-risk groups or not. They very likely were still in high-risk groups and contracted Hep. B through one of the other ways. Of course, I can't prove this, and all it is an assumption, but I don't think it's an unreasonable one.
So, to assert that most don't get it because of vaccination or that risk for most is low because of vaccination, is a quick and easy assumption in favor of your personal views, at least in our discussion in Hep. B. That's all.
Now as for the unethical free-riders who don't want to take any risks. I think that is pretty harsh, and I don't agree. Someone who chooses to not vaccinate, IS taking a risk - potentially a great risk than those who vaccinate. But, it's the risk they want to deal with. Who's to say what's least risky for whom. It may seem unfair and unethical when it could affect so many, and when it seems like it doesn't need to be that way, but part of freedom is that other people will make choices you don't agree with and that seem to be to your disadvantage.
But, arguments of that nature can be made in many ways for many things, and I think, even for things that are far more dramatic and far more serious than diseases. While I think measles, and other diseases are serious, and have caused many deaths and problems that shouldn't be forgotten, and that can befall us again, doesn't mean that it still will have the same impact.
I think there are many medical issues/things that killed or hurt people badly 100 years ago, that will not have the same impact anymore today with improved medicine, living conditions and nutrition. At the same time, we also cannot see into the future and assess what problems will arise due to vaccines or lack thereof. So, I think the real risks, and the real benefits, will remain nebulous. For now, vaccines may be the safer road, but I don't blame those who waver, and those who don't have the guts to go through with it.
I really don't think things are that simple and that black and white. I'd like you to tell a mother to her face, who has lost her child to brain damage or death by vaccination, and now is afraid to vaccinate her other children, that she's a free-rider who's putting your child at risk of maybe getting X disease, and then, maybemaybe getting a serious complication...This scenario is not so different from the one you paint in regards to your sister and chickenpox. You say chickenpox isn't a joke, because you've seen your sister being seriously ill. Many have not and feel it's a joke. You haven't had your child be hurt or die from vaccine injuries, so it's easy to be upset with those who get scared to do it.
I think it's easy, period, to get upset with other peoples choices that seems to put my child at risk of undesirable things. I wouldn't want anything bad to happen to Sophia ever, but I also don't want to be deprived of my right as a mother to find out what is best for her, and science or no science, I will assert that together with quality information from experts, my own thinking and lastly but most importantly the Spirit, the only one who can make the right decisions for my child, are Henry and I. And I personally would resent any notion or movement that would take this from me. The world may say one thing, but my own guidance and intuition as a mother may say something very different.
Ok, I think after the last few posts, it's a good idea to end this 'discussion' as I think we're now walking close to the line of upsetness and finger pointing etc., which I'd rather avoid.
If anyone has last questions, or final statements, make them quick. Otherwise, I'll declare this post 'closed'. Take the info on here, think it through, and make your own decisions, I guess.
"Now as for the unethical free-riders who don't want to take any risks. I think that is pretty harsh, and I don't agree. Someone who chooses to not vaccinate, IS taking a risk - potentially a great risk than those who vaccinate. But, it's the risk they want to deal with. Who's to say what's least risky for whom."
Actually, there are professional mathematicians and scientists who specialize in figuring out what is least risky for whom. They gather data and perform statistical analysis of said data. The data that we have say that vaccination is the least risky option for people who are not immunocompromised (siblings of someone who has been injured by a vaccine count as immunocompromised, by the way). This does not mean that healthy people do not suffer adverse reactions as a result of vaccination, it just means they are taking the smaller risk by vaccinating. Because we cannot see the future, we usually take the route that is statistically proven to be less risky. There is nothing nebulous about that.
Herd immunity is a proven, scientific fact. It is not my opinion. I did not make that up to be harsh. People who have no medical reasons for not vaccinating really are free-riders: as long as herd immunity holds, they reap the benefits of not falling ill from vaccine preventable diseases, while not taking the on the risks of vaccination. When herd immunity breaks down because the anti-vax movement has become more accepted, they will take the greater hit in morbidity and mortality, but they will also be responsible for the morbidity and mortality among the vaccinated population. I am not saying that to be cruel to people who are afraid to vaccinate. That is just the way it is.
As far as chickenpox, if someone could show me hard evidence that the vaccine had a higher morbidity and mortality rate than catching the virus the traditional way, I would be all about chickenpox parties, regardless of my sister's experience. So far, no one has been able to do that.
I am in no way in favor of forcing people to vaccinate their children. I fully respect the right of parents to decide what is best with their child, even if I believe that decision is irrational. I have several close friends who choose not to vaccinate. I do not lecture them. If my child falls ill of a vaccine-preventable disease, I will feel angry and betrayed, but you're right: that's the price we pay for living in a free society.
And I concede that the Spirit sometimes tells us to do things that fly in the face of reason. Following the promptings of the Holy Ghost is always the less risky route.
Again, I'd have to agree with Julie. As to a parent's right to choose: yes, we all have a right to choose and it's a good thing. But this discussion touches on the age-old question of when free choice should end, for example, as some might argue,when it inhibits the free choice of another person.
I think people can choose whether or not to vaccinate their children. I think the fact that we have that right actually has opened up the discussion on a national and international level.. and if nothing else, good things have come out of it, for example, better controls, safety measure, etc.
As to the risk of any given vaccination, I'd just like to say that as long as we don't know what factor combined with what factor causes a reaction or potentially harm in a patient, parents should go with their own intuition.
But this is a temporary choice, I believe. Further research should and has to be done into the causes for side effects. I personally believe it's not the vaccination itself that is dangerous per se, just as medication isn't. Medication becomes dangerous when it is combined with certain other factors, such as alcohol, allergy, genetic disorders, overdose, etc. I'm assuming much the same goes for vaccines.
I also believe that the damage (for example, potential lung damage in the case of pertussis) that can come out of a serious and hard disease such as pertussis, or measles, is much more serious than the damage that potentially comes from a vaccine (again, there are individual exceptions, and again, research is needed in this field). Even if a disease such as chickenpox is overcome, we don't actually know what the long-term effects of that disease are on our bodies (potentially cancer along the road, etc).
For all of those reasons I choose to vaccinate my child. But because the system isn't perfect, I can try to understand people who choose not to (although it's hard for me). But if nothing else, the non-vax movement has brought up important issues that has led medicine to delve deeper into an important subject. That I'm grateful for.
Congratulations on 66 comments, by the way! you should get an award! ;)
Well, again, I think we should bring this discussion to an end...(even though I think I just continued it on your blog. Maybe you should delete my comment). But, I still find your assertion problematic as you in essence suggest that vaccines WILL 100% prevent a disease outbreak. You said that those who don't vaccinate are responsible for morbidity and mortality in those vaccinated, and that they are free-riders because herd-immunity protects them. But, with that you discount that a vaccinated person can still get ill despite of herd-immunity and vaccination trends. Vaccines are NOT 100 percent effective. So, can you really assign responsibility that easily?
My point is that I will NOT put my trust in the arm of flesh, and not even science who I tend to trust far more than every day people chatter. In the end I realize that science, as with all things man-made is fallible, and the lonesome voice out there may be the one holding the truth. And because I realize that either way I may get screwed, I don't even want to figure out who's to blame for what. The 'ultimate' truth of all things, I doubt will ever be known to us, and there is no way to know what things will really do what - until all things are made known to us.
So, with that I mind, hard science may suggest certain things, but hard science also changes and hard science frequently proves itself to have been wrong. What really is irrational? Full trust in science? Full trust in anything? I don't know. I don't assume to know, and I support room for doubts, and chance for not having correct answers. So, I opt for listening to the Holy Ghost, and put my trust in that.
I agree, Isa (and Fran, and everyone else that has expressed concerns about vaccine safety): the more we know about vaccines, the better off everyone will be. I hope they keep vamping up the research on it.
Fran, you've been a very gracious hostess, and I agree, you should get an award. Multiple ones. I hope I didn't hurt anyone's feelings. I certainly didn't mean to, and I sincerely apologize if that is the case.
And I most certainly will not delete your comment on my blog! Anyone who wants to keep discussing this is welcome to head over there.
Thanks Isa. I actually feel similarly as you do. Maybe I'm not expressing myself well...I was thinking to try and get this post to 100 comments, but I'm worried that it may get too personally and potentially hurtful (since I start feeling a bit like an idiot).
While stats may suggest one thing today, they continually change, and we gain new insights all the time. So, I don't see why I should simply trust in the experts and not be careful. Years ago they used whole-cells for the Dtap vaccines, now they use acellular ones because they have to be proven to be much better. If we don't question things, and if we're not careful, things that may need to be changed will never be noticed.
I like your points Isa in regards to the long-term consequences of having had a disease. But I also think there may be yet unknown factors that come from using vaccines. Who knows? All I'm defending at this point is caution, scrutiny, and vigilance - and not blind trust in experts.
I mean, if we wanted to keep the debate alive: Julie is so insistent on the stats being in favor of vaccines and their safety. But can anyone of you prove to me that the numbers we get for serious reactions are close to the true numbers? Can anyone really prove to me that the odds are as great as they are made out to be? I doubt anyone can. But at least I made a point that the numbers for vaccine injuries are probably severely under-reported (according to one study from the National Vaccine Information Center that showed that only 18 % of doctors report serious adverse reactions).
So there...here we go again?
"But, I still find your assertion problematic as you in essence suggest that vaccines WILL 100% prevent a disease outbreak. You said that those who don't vaccinate are responsible for morbidity and mortality in those vaccinated, and that they are free-riders because herd-immunity protects them. But, with that you discount that a vaccinated person can still get ill despite of herd-immunity and vaccination trends. Vaccines are NOT 100 percent effective. So, can you really assign responsibility that easily?"
No, there are exceptional cases when herd immunity doesn't work correctly, such as bioterrorism or merely the introduction of a vaccine-preventable disease by an immigrant. (In that case, the unvaccinated would take the greater hit in morbidity and mortality, but both the unvaccinated and the vaccinated would get sick.) If we could get the whole world vaccinated, we could indeed prevent some illnesses altogether, as in the case of smallpox.
You are not an idiot, Fran! You are merely a conscientious mother who is continuing to exercise her mind in the interest of her child. Nothing idiotic about that.
Ok, since we're at 71 comments now, everyone can keep commenting until we hit 100. Whoever happens to write the 100th comment will get a handmade hair bow from me. ;)
So, are you asserting then Julie that there is NO chance to get a disease if everyone was fully and properly vaccinated against that disease? Wouldn't that mean that vaccines are in essence 100% effective, and the only problem of people still getting sick is that not every person on the planet is vaccinated?
Yes, that is what I'm saying. It seems a little radical, but I think it's been proven by the eradication of smallpox.
P.S. I'll excuse myself from the discussion till later. Sophia woke up from her nap almost an hour ago, and I think I'm neglecting my daughters current needs just to debate potential future issues/needs. I think I better tend to my baby. ;) Talk amongst yourselves.
hmmm, I don't know about that. Troy seemed to suggest that vaccines are not 100 percent effective. And I don't know that vaccination is the determined eradicator of small pox. Do you have anything information that supports this notion?
I am going to chime in here even though I don't know anyone in the discussion besides Julie. I am also going to avoid looking up statistics since hours of that has already been done and after grad school I doubt the effective generation of most statistics and therefore don't believe they mean anything unless you can prove they are actually backed by the sound data extraction and proper experimentation you assume they are. (This is not the case with most statistics listed anywhere).
I will however share my opinion on the matter. I have a cousin who turned me off to immunizations after she had a little girl and did a lot of research on the matter. She did vaccinate her girl with a few of the most popular vaccinations. This, however, was before I got pregnant with my first son. I am super natural (that is, I prefer natural things like natural childbirth, granola and breastfeeding, I am not supernatural) and after having him, I have changed my position on vaccinations. We all know in the past that widespread diseases affected many children, which is horrible. I cannot imagine living in unsanitary conditions with children who have the whooping cough in the early 1900s. I do not want that to happen to my boy this century either. People spent their lives in search of cures for these diseases. It is amazing to me that people discount their work and say "my child doesn't need this because not many children get this disease and the side effects of the vaccination could be bad" Not many children get diseases we immunize against because most children are now immunized, and they have no real measure of the harmful effects of the disease to compare to the possible side-effects of getting the vaccinations. After realizing the list of basic, recommended immunizations, I got full explanations from the state about the effects of the diseases, how the disease is transmitted, how the immunization was made, and the possible side effects of the vaccinations. I too initially questioned why they had chicken pox on the vaccination list but then I remembered having chicken pox when I was 5 or 6 and it was so horrible! I have a scar in the middle of my forehead that I have gotten used to. I would rather give my son the vaccination than have to deal with that much itching and crying and frustration for weeks, even if the vaccination brings his fever up for a few hours. What a comparison! That said, I do believe in common sense when it comes to doing anything medical with children. I don't know of any baby that weighed 3 lbs at birth that didn't stay in a NICU for less than 6 weeks. Why would that boy's parents take him to the clinic at 2 months? He probably weighed about 4.5 lbs and should not have left home- if he was home by then.
I have lost faith in the mainstream medical system in the US (which is why I went to a midwife for my pregnancy) and totally believe people should be more skeptical and seek out more discussion and explanation behind things when they receive services from medical personnel. People think because they are not as educated as the doctor they shouldn't ask questions. They are carted around like cattle. Whose body is under examination? Who should have the information? I should think parents would be even more conscious of what is happening with their children's bodies than their own, but sadly most of the time people don't speak out when their or or even their children's bodies are being treated.
If I'm the 100th commentor can I get something besides a hair-bow seeing as how I have three boys.
The eradication of smallpox is a triumph of science and of immunization specfically. The last reported case of naturally contracted smallpox was in the late 70s or early 80s. The fact that man has been given the knowledge and understanding to systematically eradicate a microbial organism despite all of its complexity is awesome to me. By the way smallpox belongs to the most complex family of viruses. They're huge as far as viruses are concerned. Nearly as large as some bacteria.
Anyway, without the incredible immunization effort of many nations smallpox would still plague us today. The eradication of smallpox I think the most remarkable moment in the history of medical science.
However, vaccination is not 100%. Certainly it's effective, I don't want to be interpreted as saying vaccination isn't effective. It's the most effective way of preventing disease that man has every achieved and I believe God has blessed humankind with the knowledge to create these vaccines even though they aren't perfect. They are highly effective and your risk of contracting a disease while vaccinated is far, far less than contracting the same disease unvaccinated. Just because smallpox was eradicated doesn't mean the vaccine is 100% effective however. It just means that we caught up to the virus and got to a point where there were no sick people left to spread the virus. One interesting note about smallpox is the fact that it is one of only a few infectious diseases that is even possible to eradicate. The main reason being that the virus only infects humans, there are no animal reservoirs. Imagine that a certain species of bird could also harbor smallpox. It would have been utterly impossible to vaccinate every bird of the species and kill the infected birds. Polio has nearly been eradicated. It is hanging on in south-Asia and sub-Saharan Africa but the rest of the world is long rid of Polio.
Science is awesome, no? I love what I do.
The truth, Fran, is that we can't prove to you that the numbers we get for serious reactions are close to the true numbers. How could we, there is not enough research on the matter.
And you might be right, serious adverse reactions are probably under-reported. That is sad, and something should be done about it, yes.
BUT that still is not reason enough (for me) to not vaccinate my child, sorry. I hope that there will be further clarification in the future, but for now, vaccines are our best option.
I find it really interesting that non-vaxers (and I'm not including you in that category, you seem to be undecided) seem to be so utterly concerned about adverse effects of vaccines, but not of the disease it is meant to prevent, or more importantly, the medications and treatments that will have to be used in order to treat a seriously ill child.
I mean we could talk hours about the side effects and potential harm of antibiotics on a newborn... which are much better researched (and much more factual) than any side effects of a vaccine, but anti-vaxers seem to want to take that risk.
I just honestly don't get it. And I don't mean it in a finger-pointing kind of way, I just honestly have trouble understanding the willingness to let your child suffer the side effects of the treatment of a serious disease, as opposed to taking the risk of potential harm from a vaccination. Either way involves risk, so why not take the less risky route? (And I'm sorry, but vaccination simply IS the less risky route at a general level, in my opinion).
(And please, let's not pull the Holy Ghost card, of course nobody can and wants to argue with that). But the point is that we want to find out what is best on a general level, and the Holy Ghost only gives revelation on an individual basis. So, I'm not going to argue with you if you feel inspired to not have Sophia vaccinated by a higher source. But I AM going to let you in on my opinion when you aren't sure yet and you don't know what's best.
I also feel we are stalling in the herd immunity argument. You say you don't trust hard numbers, yet you want Julie to prove her point using them. neither one of us has the numbers, and I don't think its' the point in this discussion, either.
As to long-term consequences of vaccinations: No, not enough research has been made here. We are only beginning to get a grasp of the complexities involved in disease and health and nutrition etc. Who knows, maybe all kinds of new diseases have sprouted up because we are immune to the old diseases. It's even scientific fact, I believe, that a body who needs to constantly fight minor disease is stronger than one that has been perpetually shielded from disease.
So who knows. We are in the 21st century, and this century bring with it new challenges to our health, such as swine flu and AIDS and what-not, but I honestly think it shouldn't include diseases that belong in the past such as measles and mumps. We needn't worry, there'll be enough disease to contend with for our children in their lifetime, in case we are worried about their immune system being weakened by vaccination.
Again, let's get out of this debate what needs to be gotten out of it: patients whoa re informed and educated, who will question, and a medical field that will need to answer to their "customers," thus increasing the amount and quality level of vaccination research.
I think we can all agree that improvements in the system need to happen, as Amanda has pointed out as well, but I do believe, quite fervently, that it is happening already, the medical field IS reacting, and vaccination will get safer.
continued....
Again, I think vaccinations are already so much safer than most foods we shove into our children... (there is more aluminum in formula than in a dose of vaccination, and there are more poisons in processed foods, just saying).
So, I'll say it again: I will vaccinate my children and I honestly think it is what's best for them., although i do hope for improvements in the future, just as I hope that heart surgery will get safer, or flying.
and Fran, i will help you hit the 100 mark! ;)
Thanks for that, Troy. I was hoping I could punt that one to you.
So, in a perfect world, if a virus couldn't find any hospitable hosts, it would cease to exist? Or are there viruses that can exist for long periods outside of a host?
Thanks Troy for that!
"it just means that we caught up to the virus and got to a point where there were no sick people left to spread the virus. "
~exactly... !!!
alright, it's getting late in the country of Santa Claus... Good night everybody! And I want to see the magic 100 when I come back to check in the morning!
haha...well, actually I could have provided the info Troy provided, as I looked into one of his Virus/immunology books that he lent me a while ago, that actually said the very thing he mentioned on small pox.
Amanda, thanks for the courage to say something. Welcome to the debate. I really liked what you said. It sounded pretty much like a lot of what I've been thinking. I start to think that I'm not doing a good job expressing myself. but, I'll just blame it on starting the debate before I was done figuring things out for myself.
Isa - I do not expect hard data. My point was rather that just as I can't explain everything that concerns me with solid numbers, others can't disprove my concerns with the solid data they rely on. ;) With that said, I also didn't mean to suggest that the holy Ghost (who ideally should probably be left out of this discussion, but I brought him in, though in writing only) can inspire us as to what's good/right for others. My point was rather exactly what you mentioned - that he can inspire me to do/not do something in regards to my child.
I also agree with you on the need to assess what may befall my child if they get sick instead of being vaccinated and not getting sick (or having minor side effects). I have taken that into consideration, which is why Sophia has received vaccines so far.
Maybe I need to take a more clear stance now on how I see things right now: Even when I started the post, my leaning was towards vaccinating, but I had/have reservations. I think having talked about things so much has cleared things up for me more what I am actually thinking. It was still a bit hazy before hand. So, my big concerns were first of all the amount of vaccines (do I really need a Hep. B shot, a rota virus vaccine, etc.?). There are vaccines out there I had never even heard of before (or gotten myself) and I don't like being over-run with something, when I don't even know what it is or why it's necessary (or if it's TRULY necessary for my child - since, as we all acknowledged there are risks with vaccines, even if small). The other factor that made me uneasy is the timing. Do all vaccines need to be given at the time they are given? Is there flexibility? Could my child benefit from having some later instead of earlier? Does it even matter? Then add to that concerns about poor information, reading about worrisome and serious potential side-effects, scary correlations, and knowing that the true numbers of serious adverse reactions are unknown, did nothing to BOOST my confidence...
But, I think Amanda Nay summed it up best for me. I think what she said is closest to how I feel. I'm cautious with medical things. I think I need to be. I like to be informed. I think there are loopholes and problems with the medical system and even vaccines and how they are administered. I'm a little scared, but I still feel (probably more so after all this debating) that most vaccines are necessary and important for my child. I plan on continuing the vaccinations, but I'm still not sure that all of the vaccines out there are necessary at the time outlined.
I don't know that I'd do Rotavirus again. I still don't think I'd do Hep. B, or HPV. I don't know about chickenpox. I was planning on Dtap, Polio, and MMR from the beginning. Hib, and PCV came as a complete surprise to me. As for the flu. I'd probably consider it this year for all of us, since I think we can guess pretty well what flu is coming around, right? And I don't want anything to do with the swine flu (unless it comes in the form of Julie).
So there...I've been a good girl so far, and plan on continuing to keep the world safe.
Troy,...hmm, maybe you'll get some chocolate if you're the 100th post. How about that?
Fran, thank you for doing your part to keep the world safe :).
I'm on the fence about the HPV vaccine, too, and I was not thrilled when the governor of my state made it mandatory. I mean, unless I'm mistaken, it's not like my daughter can get HPV just by going to school with people who have the virus. There are other effective ways to protect oneself (although I'm sure there are plenty of people who disagree). Does anybody here want to talk me into it?
I won't talk you into it. But, I was just talking to Henry in the car anyway. I have to admit that I ended up feeling a bit like an idiot. I think I'm pretty much done with the discussion. I think I invited it on before I had fully informed myself. I've read a lot about the disconcerting stuff (and that freaked me out and made me not vaccinate any more), but I only got partially to the other stuff that probably would have made me stick to my initial feelings (to do the classic ones, and wait with the others). But, I brought on the discussion and only had so much to back up my concerns. :) I really think I got sucked into some biased and not fully researched info...So, now I feel stupid.
However, I don't think my concerns are completely invalid or unreasonable. I will hold to these things and concerns:
- severe reactions are probably very under-reported and more needs to be done to create clarity what the 'true' risks/benefits are (I say true, because if the numbers we have aren't accurate, they're not really true, right?)
- far more information and flexibility needs to be created with vaccines to help parents make informed decisions and to provide for individual needs - one size does NOT fit all.
- there are risks associated with vaccines, and there may be serious side-effects we are not really associating yet with the vaccine or that we haven't fully discovered or understood yet. Continuous research and vigilance in this area seems critical to me. I think we need to stay humble and not be too sure of ourselves and what we have created (vaccines) but be open to potential problems/pitfalls...
-an effort for objectivity. You'd hope that everything in the health care field is ONLY to the benefit of patients. But that's not so...and I think a lot of people (me included) are wary and turned off because a lot of medical stuff is pushed on you that you don't really need or it's pushed on you without making clear why that would be so important. A lot is done to prevent law suits, or to cash in on the money. I'm not sure how much this applies to vaccines, but I know there is a lot of pushing there as well. It doesn't help. So, information, discussion, and choice are crucial to help people not feel overwhelmed and bossed around.
There. I think I'm done. I think I said everything I need to say.
If someone wants to sum up what we've learned/concluded at the end of our discussion, I'll get you a prize (a bar of German chocolate or hair accessories for your baby girl - your choice).
I don't think I could sum up everything we discussed, but I just wanted to say that I agree with every one of the points you just brought up and what you just said was beautifully put.
And I must add that there's absolutely no need to feel stupid or like an idiot. Everybody here knows you're incandescently brilliant and I think we all learned something new by participating in the discussion.
Even in a nonperfect world if there are no remaining hosts for a virus the virus would cease to exist. But virus's are smart little buggers, they've covered their bases well. Many of these things have been evolving right alongside mankind for thousands of years. But no, a virus cannot exist for more than a few hours outside of a host. They're just protein and DNA (or RNA) with a little bit of lipid mixed in for certain ones. They don't hold up in the environment.
Okay, I wish I had the time to take to write up my thoughts more coherently. This pathetic little snippet that I manage to type up between caring for my 5 mostly unvaccinated children will have to do.
First off, the anti-vax movement does not consist solely of a bunch of crunchy ignorant unscientific paranoid moms. There are many, many, many board certified physicians that have many of these same concerns.
While I am not a physician, I'm certainly smart enough to be one (excuse my arrogance) and can understand any scientific theory you throw at me and understand all of this herd immunity, etc, etc, and I think the goal is a good one,...BUT
Many of you have mentioned that immunizations strengthen the immune system. That is the goal, that the antibodies introduced to the body will stimulate the immune system and ideally create immunity.
There is also something that happens when the immune system is overstimulated and begins to attack its own tissue or responds negatively to harmless substances which is called an autoimmune disease (examples such as asthma, eczema, allergies, Guillain-Barre syndrome, endometriosis, MS, celiac disease, type 1 diabetes, and many more. Also, austism is linked to many autoimmune disorders and some think it may be one) We all know statistics lie but a quick look on the web says that 1 out of every 31 people in the US has or will have an autoimmune disorder and these rates are increasing and have increased exponentially over the last several decades.
Could vaccines be causing autoimmune disorders? All viral vaccines are cultured in some kind of medium--monkey kidneys and chick embryos are two I'm specifically aware of (have you ever seen the warnings about egg allergies and the flu vaccine? Its because there could possibly be some egg protein remaining in the vaccine) There is something called "jumping genes" that explains how a virus cultured in chick embryo can incorporate genetic material from said embryo (which contains all the precursors of all organ systems of the chick) We inject this into our children, they build an immunity to it, but part of that virus now looks an awful lot like part of our kids healthy body (depending on which part the virus incorporated) so now the body starts attacking itself.
"The second theoretical reason is that the MMR vaccine is injected by needle directly into the system. This differs, from the natural infections which are "cushioned" or buffered by the mucosal immune system (Secretary IgA) of the respiratory tract. By passing this mucosal immune system, the injection may carry greater potency for harmful autoantibody formation."
here's my source (although I've read about it other places as well)
http://www.jabs.org.uk/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1582
And these would not be reported as adverse vaccine reactions because they take years to develop. And guess what? You typically have to live with them for the rest of your life.
1/31 is much greater than any of the numbers that have been spouted here regarding either the illnesses themselves or adverse reactions typically reported.
There really is a lot involved here and a lot of research that needs to be done. There is so much we do not know about how these factors and foreign substances affect our bodies. Similar to the GMO crops issue (banned in Germany by the way)and involving the same company, Merck (coincidentally?)Since we don't know, I tend to think its smarter and safer to stick to dealing with things in as natural a way as possible, letting our bodies deal with what germs come in their path, hopefully kept strong by feeding it well and exercising.
Anyway, just no one stop thinking about this and think that the issue is resolved and decided. The issues are constantly changing.
Well, I think I'm done. My kids are starving and I've been neglecting them. I am curious to hear particularly Troy's perspective on the idea of jumping genes but otherwise I probably won't have anymore to say for the time being.
I, too, am looking forward to what Troy has to say about that.
Also, I want to let the record show that I never, at any time, called anyone crunchy, ignorant, unscientific or paranoid. Name-calling has absolutely no place in a discussion like this, and I have never engaged in it.
While I can see why you are concerned about vaccine safety (and I am, myself) I disagree that letting our bodies deal with the germs that come its way is taking a neutral, safer stance while we wait for better and more thorough research on vaccines (which, as I have mentioned, I am all for). Being well-fed and maintaining exercise hygiene will not protect you against polio, for example.
I'm going to give it a rest now.
Alright, time to function as a moderator maybe. First of all - no one is crunchy or paranoid (except maybe for me). No one tried to suggest that, and I hope no one will in the remaining comments. I guess it may be easy to get that feeling though since the discussion was a little one-sided, and there was some mention of it being irrational to not vaccinate or paranoid literature in regards to not vaccinating...so, anyway. No one meant anything bad, and we're all great.
First of all, thanks Reni for your input. Now I feel less like an idiot again. Well, actually I still feel like an idiot because I really think that either way I have only done half research and so had nothing particularly impressive to say either way. But anyway...good input. I think you bring up good points, and I'd like to see someone take it on.
Julie has a good point bringing up that even though a healthy body may be more likely to fight off a disease it will not protect you from getting the disease, and (now I'm just assuming since she didn't mention this) thus, the disease can then still freely spread and cause all the havoc it's capable of. I would even throw in the thought (no proof or anything) that nutrition and exercise may have been better 60 years ago than today (food was more natural, and moving around was still more common) and yet, lots of people suffered from the diseases we now vaccinate against. So, healthy living may not do the trick.
But, I think the real issue Reni brings up is if we're short-changing the potential risks from polio/measles etc. for far more common risks (by her numbers) of often serious, life-long autoimmune diseases (that's if vaccines cause those autoimmune diseases, which is guess is also up for question). So, what's the better way to go?
I don't know...someone say something.
P.S. Yeah, I knew about Germany not allowing GMO stuff. You gotta admit, Germany is pretty cool ;)
Ehm, I'll retract my comments about feeling less like an idiot. I think I'm the sole idiot on here. Sorry guys, I'm feeling really dumb. I'll be quiet until the discussion is over. Just be nice everyone, and keep up the good thinking and arguments.
Fran, knock it off! You are not an idiot!
Thanks for playing the moderator a bit, by the way. I just don't want anyone to think I'm dismissive of or mocking people who worry about vaccine safety. Like I've said before, I worry about it myself, and I think that many reforms can be made in this field of medicine.
Just for the record, if I didn't feel that the comments and ideas were articulate and intelligent (at least for the most part :-) I wouldn't bother commenting at all. And I AM crunchy! (I'll pass on the other adjectives though:-)
Interestingly, the pertussis vaccine is still banned in Sweden and is not given until the age of 2 in Japan--both countries that have some of the lowest infant mortality rates in the world.
"Are we short-changing the potential risks from polio/measles etc. for far more common risks (by her numbers) of often serious, life-long autoimmune diseases?"
- Well, I have never heard of any serious research that would suggest such a thing. Of course the problem is, again, that research hasn't been extensive and thorough enough.
- I personally think it's not the vaccine in itself that would cause auto-immune disease (if this were actually the case). Autoimmune disease is always a result of hundreds of factors working together. For example, I got asthma at the age of 3 for a number of reasons:
- genetic predispositin
- excema
- severe allergies coupled with wrong nutrition
- passive smoking
etc.
- Let's throw in my vaccinations just for argument's sake.
Did the vaccination cause asthma? No. It was one factor in a big equation. It's one risk factor we might have to evaluate, sure. But vaccinations are not in and of themselves the culprit, much more than life-long use of e.g. cortisol steroids are. In my case, the risks associated with these steroids greatly outweigh the benefits.
So here we go again: Vaccinations are risky to an extent. And they might be more risky for some then for others (and until risk factors are researched, we just don't know).
But for the meantime, it's the less risky route to take. But of course, individual vigilance and choice in the matter can only be prudent.
Julie, I didn't say that I AM an idiot. Only that I feel like one. ;) (but I think that'd be another discussion, and I appreciate your desire to defend my intellect).
Reni, thanks for your contribution though. I wanted more of that because otherwise we don't have much of a controversy, and we wouldn't be learning as much. And, that IS really interesting to me that Sweden has banned the pertussis vaccine. It's one of the vaccines from the classics that I feel most unsure about.
Troy, I think we're all waiting on your expertise!
Who will be the 100th post? We're close.
gettin closer
gettin closer
closer still
TA-DA! 100! Now do I get my bow? ;) (Just kidding, sorry, I obviously have nothing left to say on this topic...) Good points everybody, thanks for an informative Christ's Ascension- / German Father's- / Thurs-day.
Ooh, I don't want to beat a dead horse, but is it too late to say something?
Echoing what Isa and Fran just said, we all know that correlation does not imply causation: vaccination is only one of many factors that contribute to a national infant mortality statistic. Furthermore, while I think it's great that Sweden and Japan have been able to get along so well without the pertussis vaccine, what works for them won't necessarily work for us. The United States is very different in terms of population, immigration patterns, racial composition and income distribution. We don't know that pulling the pertussis vaccine will improve infant mortality, just like we don't know that vaccines cause autoimmune disease: the link has never been proven.
What we do know is that before routine vaccination for pertussis in the US, 150,000 to 260,000 pertussis cases were reported each year, with a 20% mortality rate and infants under six months old making up the greater part of the dead. That is an outrageously high mortality rate.
Managing risk is all about doing the best we can with what we know and waiting for better and more complete data to come in. I feel that is the appropriate course to take when it comes to vaccination.
No, not too late. I also just noticed I DID say I'm an idiot. I shouldn't write comments at 2.30 am.
Well, I'm cool with keeping the debate up as long as we like. I think it'll die on its own.
Also, I think Reni wasn't saying that vaccine for sure cause those things, but overstimulation will cause those things, and vaccines may be one factor causing this. This is actually one reason why I wonder and feel strongly about not doing all vaccines at once or so early if not necessary.
So, Isa kinda cheated her way into the 100th post. Would you like a hair clip or bow? You can pick one from my website if you do. Julie if you want some you can have one as well. I've got too many of those anyway.
Oh, and while correlation is not causation, I do find it very concerning when you read lots of studies that show all kinds of correlations between auto immune diseases and other things and vaccines (I have seen correlational studies for diabetes 1, allergies, asthma, Crohn's disease, SIDS, etc.). There is actually quite a bit done, but I think right now we still have a lot of people in the medical field who don't want to dig deeper or take that information too serious BECAUSE vaccines seem to work so well. It's always hard/uncomfortable to dig deeper into something that appears to work so perfectly for pretty much the whole world?
So, I definitely think we need the push for more vigilance and research, and I'm glad that Isa pointed out that the anti-vax movement, if nothing else, may at least achieve that, if nothing else.
oh, AND, while Sweden's demographics certainly vary quite a bit from the US, they are very similar to their neighboring countries, who apparently do the pertussis vaccine. So, I'd be very interested to hear since when and why Sweden is banning it. If you have info on that Reni, I'm interested in reading it.
"Because of early concerns regarding canine vaccines, the Haywood Foundation funded several studies, which were published by Purdue University in 1999. The studies found that vaccinated dogs developed autoantibodies to many of their own proteins, including fibronectin, laminin, DNA, albumin, collagen, cytochrome C, and cardiolipin. These antibodies were not found in non-vaccinated dogs."
Read more: http://autoimmunedisease.suite101.com/article.cfm/vaccinations_and_autoimmune_disease#ixzz0GEyaGWUs&B
True its about dog vaccines but there is much more evidence than you think. One of the controveries over the swine flu vaccine from the 70s was that it caused Guillain-Barre syndrome in many people (and the flu epidemic never materialized then either)
SO we do know that vaccines CAN cause or increase the risk of acquiring some kind of auto-immune disease.
And, as I mentioned diet and lifestyle choices--I am under no false impression that this will somehow give my family immunity, just that it will greatly reduce the possibility of serious complications should they contract any of the illnesses.
And back to pertussis--as someone will point out if they look into it,Sweden and Japan both experienced increases in pertussis following changes in policy and reduced vaccination.
We have to look at the overall picture and not just one element.
Isa-you mentioned excema and allergies as predisposing you to asthma but those are both auto-immune disorders as well and could be caused by the same thing...here's a quote
"Vaccination Doubles Asthma Incidence
One Click Note: The World Health Organisation states that for every 1000 children vaccinated with the pneumococcal vaccine, 1.3 children will develop asthma on account of the vaccine. At the same time only 3.6 cases of pneumonia are prevented by vaccinating 1000 children. Pneumonia is a easily treated condition. Asthma on the other hand may be a lifelong disability.
Publication: Bulletin of the World Health Organization;
Type: Letters
Article DOI: 10.2471/BLT.08.054692"
OK, I must admit that these are some compelling facts, Rachel. I'll have to look into this and will get back to this discussion, once I'm more informed.
They banned it back in the 70's after some negative reactions and as far as I can tell (and I've been specifically looking--too bad I can't read Swedish) never reinstated it. True, it was a different formulation than we use now (live virus as opposed to acellular I think) Their was some increase in diagnosis in the years following and then it seems to have plateaued.
OK, wait, they did reintroduce it in 1996 in the acellular form and infection rates dropped quickly in following years--so there is some more support for you vaxers.
Here's the article about the reinstatement:
http://www.eurosurveillance.org/ViewArticle.aspx?ArticleId=84
I agree that the correlation should send up red flags. I hope that the increasingly visible public concern over vaccines and the potential threat to public health which that concern poses will encourage the medical field to overcome any barriers to better vaccine research.
My sister was telling me the other day that the AMA is attempting to reform the relationship between doctors and pharmaceutical companies (you know, like free lunches and other perks), precisely because things like that freak people out and drive them to vaccine rejection. I am all for the reforms. The less chummy my doctors are with pharmaceutical companies, the better.
You can call me Reni, as Fran and most of my friends do (rhymes with penny) seRENIty--though I've always liked my full name.
It's my understanding that the measles and mumps components of the MMR shot are produced in cells derived from a chicken egg not in the actual egg as is the case for the flu shot. My guess is that Merck uses fibroblasts because if you chop up an embryo and put all of the cellular material onto a culture dish fibroblasts will grow like there's no tomorrow and everything else will sink into oblivion. So I would disagree that the culture system used to make that vaccine contains "precursors of all the organ systems of the chick." We're not dealing with stem cells hear. And since fibroblasts don't express myelin basic protein I don't see how that can be an issue.
As for jumping genes it's been a long time since my last genetics class so I'm not up on the particulars of these except to say that they are DNA and hence not an option for the viruses that cause measles, mumps, rubella, flu, polio, etc. These are all RNA viruses and cannot support the expression of genes from DNA. I question the credibility of an article posted on a website with an agenda (JABS). Viruses can pick up genes from their hosts but RNA viruses don't have the genetic flexibility to do so. They're too small and only package about the essential genes. Too much playing around with their genetic material makes a virus that just won't work. And since transposons are large chunks of DNA, even if an RNA virus could take on DNA and express it (which it can't) the added genetic material would likely render the virus replication incompetent.
"Delay in Vaccine & Reduced Risk of Asthma
“Early childhood immunizations have been viewed as promoters of asthma development by stimulating a TH2-type immune response or decreasing microbial pressure, which shifts the balance between TH1 and TH2 immunity.
Results: Among 11, 531 children who received at least 4 doses of DPT, the risk of asthma was reduced to ½ in children whose first dose of DPT was delayed by more than 2 months. The likelihood of asthma in children with delays in all 3 doses was 0.39 (95% CI, 0.18-0.86).
Conclusion: We found a negative association between delay in administration of the first dose of whole-cell DPT immunization in childhood and the development of asthma; the association was greater with delays in all of the first 3 doses.”
http://www.emaxhealth.com/108/22820.html
Anyone know how to add links to a comment?
You're right Serentity about the 1976 swine flu shot and GBS. We don't know why that happened. However, since studies have been done on flu shots since 1976 and only one study reported a correlation, and the correlation was 1 in a million. GBS is going to hit 1 in 100,000 people anyway each year so it seems that you aren't increasing your risk by getting the shot, in fact you may be lowering it.
GBS is a complication of bacterial infection following a respiratory viral infection. This is why even without the shot you're at risk for GBS because who doesn't get respiratory infections every year?
Regardless, even the most severe cases of GBS are almost always recovered from according to the Mayo Clinic.
I would find the conclusions of a properly-powered, well-controlled study of dogs to be compelling evidence about dogs. If a new vaccine were on the market that had only been tested on dogs, I would not allow it to be administered to my children and I don't think you would, either.
I've been poking around and found a summary of two large and well-controlled studies that conclude there is no increased risk of autoimmune disease with vaccination. You can read it here.
Nutrition, exercise and scrupulous sanitation will not protect you from all of the complications of vaccine-preventable disease. I know of many well-fed, middle-to-upper class people who were paralyzed following a bout of polio.
It's interesting what you bring up about the Swine Flu Affair of 1976. The public hysteria surrounding that incident is actually one of the historical roots of the current anti-vax movement. It is unfortunate that some people got GBS as a result of vaccination, but the effects were temporary for most, and there were only slightly more than 1,000 cases. Those numbers are meager compared to the 36,000 Americans that die of flu each year.
Serenity, the information you provided in support of delaying that particular vaccination is very credible. I didn't read the article, just the abstract and part of their discussion. They do cite a similar study that did not show the same correlation so more research is required. However, I'm far, far, more open to the idea of delaying certain vaccinations by a month or two than I am to the idea of skipping vaccinations. Heck, I can't count the number of times we've taken our boys in for their shots and the doctor's office doesn't have them in stock. We bring them back in a few months later for their next check-up and we get the shots then. No big deal.
Julie actually the link you provide talks about the link (or lack there of) between asthma and vaccines not autoimmunity and vaccines. We're going back and forth between the two so often I can see why it would be easy to type the wrong word.
Yeah, me too, Troy. I think that delaying vaccinations a bit might be the middle ground that many concerned parents are looking for. Better than throwing the baby out with the bath water, for sure.
Still (and I'm probably going to catch a lot of flak for this), I feel nervous taking things into my own hands too much. I'm not an immunologist (I have an MA in French Lit, for goodness' sake! There goes my street cred.) and I simply don't have the resources, intellectual or financial, to do my own research. And looking around on the Internet or in books is not what I mean by research. I'm talking about the large, well-controlled studies of vaccine safety and efficacy that we all wish we could see more of.
All I can do is apply what I know about the scientific method and statistics to the evaluation of others' research. And so far, nothing I've seen has led me to conclude that not vaccinating is safer than vaccinating. So I follow my doc's recommendations and we've been following the CDC schedule. Does that make me a "sheeple" (blind follower)? Does anyone here have the same anxiety I do?
"Julie actually the link you provide talks about the link (or lack there of) between asthma and vaccines not autoimmunity and vaccines. We're going back and forth between the two so often I can see why it would be easy to type the wrong word."
Oops! I thought asthma was an autoimmune disease. Well, maybe it is, but I should probably be more specific.
First of all Julie. Though I don't fret when a vaccine isn't in the doc's fridge and it has to be delayed a month or two I am trying to keep on track with the CDC's recommendations. I'm with you - their info is the best we have available.
There's one other thing I've gotta get off my chest. Serenity, you mentioned some of the culture media that are used to grow vaccine strains of virus. One that you specifically mentioned is monkey kidney. I mean no personal offense to you. I'm sure you're taking what you believe to be the best information you can find and using it to make what you believe to be the best decisions for your children. For me to think otherwise of you would be insulting since I have never met you and probably never will. However, I'm making an assumption here, but you probably found that information on a website that said some vaccines are made using monkey kidney without any explanation as to what that means. There are websites out there that are meant to provoke paranoia and telling an uneducated (I'm not refering to you Serenity, I'm sure you are quite well educated) person (with reservations about vaccination to begin with) that his/her daughter's vaccine was made using monkey kidney is not exactly being up front.
Vaccine strains of virus have to be grown in some sort of cell culture system. It's a virus for heaven's sake, it won't grow outside of a cell. And part of the reason that vaccines don't make us contract disease that's normally associated with that virus is that they're attenuated. That means that aren't as potent as the real thing. Why aren't they as potent as the real thing? Because they're grown at non-optimal temperatures or they're grown in a nonhuman cell. That way when they meet a human cell they don't replicate as well while still stimulating a protective immune response. Sorry if everybody already knows all of this and you feel like your intelligence has just been insulted. But one cell type that the National Institutes of Health approves for vaccine production is a cell line called Vero cells. They are epithelial cells of African green monkey origin. And the reason they are used is because many viruses can be grown in them to levels high enough to be conducive to formulating vaccines. That's because Vero cells lack the interferon genes. Interferons are our body's first line of defense against virus infection.
So it's not like your kid is getting pumped full of chunky kidney tissue like some of those websites make it sound. If any of those Vero cells (or components thereof) even make it into the virus preparation they will be gulped up by your body's macrophages just like every other environmental contaminant that we encounter each day.
Website like the one I'm referring to (don't remember what it was) completely lose credibility with me. But your average Joe out there won't understand what they mean by "monkey kidney" or "chicken embryo" so they'll get terrified. It's unethical I believe, what those websites are doing because there are risks to vaccination so people shouldn't have to waste their time worrying about juvenile crap like that when they could be reading well carried-out studies.
Sorry but I've seen really stupid websites and it makes my blood boil. I'll go calm down now.
Thanks Troy. If Reni already knew that, I didn't. So, to me it was interesting and informative.
I'd still like to know if anyone knows of specific reasons why delayed vaccination may not be a good idea. I mean, I know I got the MMR for example when I was 2 years old. Camey told me she got it when she was 5 years. but now it's 1 year. Why? I know one reason I've heard (and very much believe to be true) is to simply make sure all kids are fully vaccinated, and it's simply convenient to do them all early on and all at once. Not all parents are as conscientuous as others, and forget to finish vaccinations etc. if they are too spread out, so they just try to keep them all as close together as they can. Fine. Ok. I don't care. I'd just like to hear if there is an actual health risk/problem if I don't do it that way. Is there a reason other than convenience that Sophia should have the MMR at 12 months? Is there a reason to not opt for doing Measles at (for example) 24 months, and then Mumps and Rubella together when she's 10 years? Or 5 years? Or is part of the deal also to just vaccinate everyone asap for herd immunity sake?
I would agree with you Fran. My first guess would be that vaccinations are done the way they are because that's the best way to keep immunization rates high. After all, most people take their kids to the doctor more often before they're a year than after one year. I think if vaccination schedule recommendations were changed too much (not saying there isn't some wiggle room) we would see a sharp decrease in overall vaccination rates. Plus, you obviously want to limit the amount of time that you're leaving your kid vulnerable.
Is it possible to separate the MMR into three different shots? I've never heard that such a thing was available, but I'd be interested to know if it was.
Troy, thanks for the science clarifications--yes, I was aware that "it's not like your kid is getting pumped full of chunky kidney tissue like some of those websites make it sound." :-) and I have no problem using animal tissue as culture medium so I wasn't trying to use any kind of gross out factor as part of my debate. You did discuss some details I didn't know so it was still interesting for me to read.
And I'll be researching more. I do try to be careful about my sources but everyone has a bias, even the CDC (but yes, there are definitely some really bad websites out there)But I feel there is also some really bad government propaganda that doesn't accurately explain known risks that gets me pretty upset as well.
The information I quoted I have read about in several places so I'll try and find some that you would consider more reputable.
Fran, I am attending a health convention next month in Salt Lake by a pediatric care center that specializes in treating immuno-compromised children/behavior disorders and such called Healthy Child Intensive: 10 Steps to Heal and Prevent Childhood Illnesses. One of the things they will go over is how to individualize the immunization schedule. I'll let you know what they recommend.
yeah, let me know Reni. I'm interested.
Julie, I've read of people getting the MMR in 3 different shots, but ya know...I've never tried or asked so, I don't know anything specific than hearsay. Ask your pediatrician, I guess.
I also had another thought that I think I'll pursue and look into. I know that certain nutritional measures are taken as treatments ie. lots of Vitamin A (I think) for measles cases. I wonder if I try to particularly boost my child before a vaccine (like vitamin A before the MMR) if that can help minimize potential negative side effects...
Just a thought.
I'm just leaving a comment to say that I tried to read these...I think I got half way through.
Thoughts:
1. An ER doctor not finding an ear infection is not surprising. That's not his specialty. (ER doctors couldn't see a bean in Colden's nose...the pediatrician spotted it immediately a few days later.) A pediatrician not finding an ear infection would be rare.
2. I do agree that I think babies get too many vaccinations.
3. However, it's really convenient to get them when they're supposed to have well visits anyway at 1 mo, 2 mo, 3 mo, 6 mo, 9 mo, etc. Think of having to go back time after time when the kid is 3-5...every 3 months. (And a young child--think Dylan--would be more likely to be resistant of a shot with the memory of the last vaccination).
4. Troy, I have really enjoyed your comments. I feel very educated, and my confidence is boosted in the vaccination process. I'm also comforted to know that the mercury levels are so low, and I do know that they've been phasing it out on vaccinations.
5. Speaking of, there are certain vaccinations that you can request that are mercury free. I can't remember which ones they are, but your doctor should know about it. If he doesn't have it, he should be able to refer you to someone who does.
6. Each time my children have had vaccinations, I have had to sign/initial a paper to show that I approve before the shots are given. My pediatricians have also given me those CDC approved info sheets about the vaccinations.
7. I personally think that autism is a disability that is being understood more and more. Therefore, I think children are being diagnosed (if that's the appropriate word) earlier than in the past. I knew a girl who was "diagnosed" with it at 16. Her mom just thought she was different and a little bit odd.
8. I probably won't be back to read more of this, but I did just want to share my thoughts.
Thanks for the information, everyone!!
Post a Comment