I just wanted to add to my previous post cause I thought of something else when I read another post. The reason that I looked into delaying and eventually stopping vaxing was when the chicken pox vaccine came out. We went to the health dept to get shots because we don't have insurance so I was talking to the nurse there and she was going on about how they had to have it because apparently chicken pox is now life threatening. I told her that when I was younger everyone had chicken pox and that was the way it was and people didn't die then so what's the big deal. She said the reason they implemented the chicken pox vaccine as mandatory was because of low income people getting it and letting it get so bad and not seeking medical treatment and it was just easier to give a shot now instead of waiting and then having to treat in the hospital. Now, I'm sorry if this comes off mean or offends anyone, but I'm not going to put my kids at risk because of ignorant people who don't know enough to know when their kid is sick and to take them to the dr. This is along the same lines as the people that starved their baby, if you don't know any better then you shouldn't be breeding. And no that was not a bash at poor people, it was putting down stupid people.
The chicken pox vaccine is kind of a funny story - at least the reason why it was added to the childhood schedule... The vaccine was originally made to be used in settings with immuno-compromised kids - I believe it was leukemia patients if I remember correctly. Anyways, the manufacturer basically told the powers that be that it wasn't possible for them to recover their costs with such a small demand for the vaccine, and that if they wanted to continue to have the vaccine available, it would have to have an increased demand. Enter stage left the ACIP adding the c-pox vaccine to the routine childhood schedule.
On an additional note - the clinical trials regarding efficacy and long term immunogenity won't be completed until the year 2010. Which explains why all the sudden a booster dose has been added to the schedule - it's still a new vaccine, they've realized that kids are getting the pox despite being vaccinated, so now you have to have a booster.
A few people have mentioned that in the past people got these diseases and it wasn't that big of a deal for most people, and now they're fine. That's true obviously, but isn't using that argument to say vaccines aren't necessary kind of the same as saying that seatbelts and car seats aren't necessary because in the past people didn't use them and for most of them it was no big deal and they survived? To me, the situation seems pretty much the same, in both cases, most people didn't die from the risk they endured in the past, but some people did, they're just not around to tell you about it. I'd like to hear what people think of that.
Well, this one is a pretty easy one actually.
Back in the 50's car travel wasn't what it is today - people didn't travel as often and as great of a distance. Cars are better now and so people drive faster. Also not as many people owned cars back then. In addition, we have a much better road infrastructure now, so with the increased number of drivers/passengers, increased distance and higher speeds, there is a difference in passenger safety between then and now. And truth be told, I'm sure dying in a car accident prior to seatbelts and things was just seen as unavoidable. People would've been seriously injured and died, but what could you do about it?
Vaccine preventable diseases on the other hand are now less life threatening in the sense that medical technology has improved and more people have ready access to medical treatment. The diseases themselves haven't changed for the most part. But medicine has changed - so in the event that you got measles for example, and happened to have a complication, you'd be less likely to suffer permanent consequences.
Also, about the HepB vaccine, I agree that most kids don't need it so young, but I understand the reason they do it like that. Many women may not know they have HepB or may not test positive yet, and they could transmit it to their baby without knowing they have it.
Hep B is part of the routine prenatal testing. Just for the sake of what-if mom didn't get prenatal testing and is in a high risk group, Hep B is rarely a fatal disease. Most people who get hep B clear it from their systems and develop immunity to it. Hep B is also a vaccine known to have safety issues. The vaccine itself can cause liver failure. I know a mom on another board who had her newborn daughter die 24hrs after coming home from the hospital due to liver failure. The VICP has ruled in her favor that the vaccine caused her death, so this isn't a coincidental occurence. It's not easy to get the panel to admit that a vaccine was the direct cause of someone's death. Hep B vaccination in young people has been linked to numerous autoimmune disorders. There's currently a case where a nurse developed MS as a result of the Hep B vax she received. Not sure what kind of settlement she received as I don't remember if it was settled or still in the settlement process when I read the story..
Also, in many cases, infancy and toddlerhood is when children have the best access to medical care. If they are not given the vaccine then, they may not ever get it in the future. I think most parents who take the time to research the risks/benefits of vaccines would make sure their children have healthcare later in life, but it is for those who don't that they put the shots on the schedule early. A big reason why the CDC puts so many shots on their schedule is not if they're not on the schedule, insurance won't pay for them, and kids who need them may not be able to get them.
This is true that babies and young children have the best access to medical care. And if not given it then, they may not get it in the future. So they vaccinate babies because they're a captive audience. And there's always the question about babies not being able to talk and say something hurts.. and parents are bound to notice more of a reaction in an older child who they've gotten to know better.
The ACIP is the board the makes recommendations for what vaccines should be on the childhood schedule. It's individual states themselves which have to mandate a vaccine in order for the vaccines for children fund to cover them. Private insurance typically covers a vaccine whether it's on the mandatory schedule or not.
Also, I really hate the argument that IV drug users, prostitutes, etc are the main risk for things like HepB and HPV. Yes, they do have higher risk, but the risk is still there for people who don't do these things. It only takes one time!
Well, you're right. It only takes one time. However - HPV and Hep B are in and of themselves not life threatening illnesses in the majority of people. And HPV infection has absolutely nothing to do with lifestyle or risk status. If you've been sexually intimate with someone, you may have it. The fact is, that most people who get HPV clear it from their system without any problems. Cervical cancer has decreased exponentially since the 70's mainly because of routine pap smears. The majority of women who die from cervical cancer have not had routine pap smears so that their cancer was not caught at a stage when it was early enough to treat.
Also, does anyone have a reliable source that shows where doctors get kickbacks for giving immunizations? From my understanding, vaxes are pretty low on the profit scale, and compaines aren't that fond of making them. That is why the gov't offers them the VAERS system instead of letting individual compaines get sued. I know the pharm companies give lots of stuff to drs, but direct kickbacks for vaxes, I am not aware of.
Some dr.'s groups and insurance companies give dr.'s bonuses based on if a certain percentage of their patients are up to date on their vaccines. As for the profit factor - the HPV vaccine is worth millions of dollars in revenue to Merck annually. Honestly, as altruistic as the vaccine manufacturers try to sound, if they didn't make money doing it, they wouldn't. And vaccine research is really a very large field with even a number of smaller labs working on developing new vaccines.
I'm curious, what are the benefits/reasons for delaying vaccinations until after the first 2 yrs?
Our youngest had a rather severe reaction to his last set of shots (NON stop screaming, fever of 105, febrile seizure) and is due to receive his 12mos vaccinations next month. I'm VERY nervoius about bringing him in and am not sure which route to take at this point b/c of the wealth of information supporting BOTH sides of the arguement, it gets to be a bit much to take in
I'm leaning much more to the non vaxing side but would love to have more info to back up my questions and wonderings... This is a topic i began to reaseach after my 4yr old was born in 2003 but gave in to pressure from multiple MD's
Is there a single Rubella vaccination that is available? There ARE a couple of vaccines that i see as beneficial but am not sure as to how to go about researching which ones to get and/or avoid...
can anyone provide more information or resources? I would appreciate it greatly!
I have come across this site but am curious as to which ones you have seen
http://thinktwice.com/
Thank you so much!
The main reason for waiting until at least 2yrs old is because the blood/brain barrier is less permeable as a child gets older. 2 yrs old was thought to be when it closed at one time, now they're not sure if it's more like 5 or 6 or if it ever totally closes. However, a 2yr old's body is better able to process toxins and is able to communicate side effects to a certain extent.
Yes, there is a single rubella vaccination available. Maybe someone else can find the link? There are also single measles and single mumps vaccines available - although many dr.'s will tell you there aren't. If you wanted to go that route, you'd likely have to order the dose and bring it in to the office yourself.
As for your ds's reaction, I can only beg you to not give him another DTaP at the very least. The non-stop screaming is because of brain inflammation. Typically each reaction to a DTaP vaccine is worse the more doses given. This is the vaccine my daugter reacted strongly too, and what caused us to change from delaying/selectively vaxing to not vaccinating at all. Your ds's reaction to that shot is a contraindication to receiving anymore of that series and he should be able to get a medical exemption.
Did his dr. report his reaction the VAERS? If not, and if the dr. office isn't willing to report it, then you can report it yourself. Just get the lot # and where it was administered from the dr. and you can file it yourself. Dr.'s are legally required to report even suspected reactions, however it's more common for dr.'s to not report.
~~~~~~
Gotta run and pay attention to my kiddos. This is the kind of topic I get easily sucked into because I've been on both sides of the fence and because I've been through a severe reaction with my dd.
The biggest piece of advice I have for everyone reading this thread, is to follow your mommy or daddy instincts. If a voice inside your head is telling you not to vaccinate, listen and research and don't vaccinate until that little voice tells you it's ok.
I've come to the decision that if I had to choose, I'd rather my kids die from a vaccine preventable disease than die or be permanently disabled from a vaccine that I chose to put in their bodies. I'd feel guilty with either outcome, but I'd feel less guilty knowing that I didn't consent to what caused their death. :twocents:
