Vaccine question - does anyone else wonder about this?

[StaceyinLA]

This is not to debate pros or cons of vaccines. There are plenty of those threads. I'm just curious about something that has bugged me for years, and I wonder if I'm the only one who thinks such things.

 

Babies are given an overload of vaccines at 2 months (some probably a little after as everyone isn't always right on time). SIDS is at an all-time high between 2 and 4 months of age.

 

Am I the only person who thinks there could be a correlation? Be it the vaccines themselves, or the fact that they may make babies extra sleepy, or the fact that people are giving Tylenol and Advil which could make them sleep heavier, or the combination of any or all of the above. (These thoughts based on theories that a more sound sleep puts an infant more at risk)

 

I do realize that the, "Back to sleep" campaign has supposedly lowered the incidence of SIDS, but I still wonder if there isn't some connection. Am I the only one?

 

ETA: FWIW, I am not 100% anti-vaccine.

Edited September 15, 2011 by StaceyinLA

[tex-mex]

No.

 

I say this based on my son and I having a rare liver disease that originally before 1990, was thought to been related to SIDS. My niece died of SIDS back in 1991, but now we realize she most likely had the mutation for our rare disease and died at 2 weeks old.

 

I do know that technology and research in genetics is allowing many infants who have our mutated gene live longer lives past infancy. I think eventually what we call SIDS will actually be genetic issues. But newborn screening is ID'ing some at birth.

[IsabelC]

It's very difficult to collect enough evidence for a causal effect, because parenting practices are complicated and nobody would be likely to get a properly controlled test on babies past their ethics committee! But a couple of things spring to mind for me. 2-4 months is when many babies in the US are weaned or partially weaned from the breast, hopefully onto formula but sometimes onto food. And it's also when parents can sometimes begin to feel the pressure to get baby into a routine and/or commence a sleep training program. Lack of breastfeeding and sleeping away from mother are both factors that increase the likelihood of SIDS. But of course there are many other factors. I'm not saying it's impossible that vaccinations might play a part for some babies, but given the level of scrutiny and the energy of the anti vaccine movement, it would be surprising if the link was there and had not yet been discovered.

 

This article takes issue with the popular idea that combined vaccines, or too many close together, put an undue load on the infant immune system.

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/the-infection-schedule-vrs-the-vaccination-schedule/

Basically they contend that all babies are routinely exposed to thousands of antigens in the environment, and 3, 10 or 20 more won't make any appreciable difference.

 

Regarding your point about the use of Tylenol (Panadol down here) etc, I find it quite concerning that so many parents seem to be routinely administering drugs "just in case", or just to "settle" the baby after vaccination or at any other time, or whatever. This seems to be the accepted procedure, whereas I would treat low level discomfort, mild fever or general "unsettledness" just with extra cuddles, nursing and other comfort measures and then only medicate if nothing was helping.

 

 

Ps I am cautiously pro vaccine in principle, and our children have had most of the recommeded vaccinations.

Edited September 15, 2011 by Hotdrink

[sewingmama]

My kids all had their vaccinations on schedule and they had no ill effects besides a tiny red lump. None of them were extra sleepy or out of sorts or anything. It was as if the vaccination never happened.

 

I don't think there is a correlation except maybe in a few babies who were already susceptible anyway. To prove there was a connection the SIDS would have to happen very close to the given vaccination I think.

[asta]

I predict this thread is going to be long, heated, and locked.

 

 

a

[WishboneDawn]

It's very difficult to collect enough evidence for a causal effect, because parenting practices are complicated and nobody would be likely to get a properly controlled test on babies past their ethics committee! But a couple of things spring to mind for me. 2-4 months is when many babies in the US are weaned or partially weaned from the breast, hopefully onto formula but sometimes onto food. And it's also when parents can sometimes begin to feel the pressure to get baby into a routine and/or commence a sleep training program. Lack of breastfeeding and sleeping away from mother are both factors that increase the likelihood of SIDS. But of course there are many other factors. I'm not saying it's impossible that vaccinations might play a part for some babies, but given the level of scrutiny and the energy of the anti vaccine movement, it would be surprising if the link was there and had not yet been discovered.

 

This article takes issue with the popular idea that combined vaccines, or too many close together, put an undue load on the infant immune system.

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/the-infection-schedule-vrs-the-vaccination-schedule/

Basically they contend that all babies are routinely exposed to thousands of antigens in the environment, and 3, 10 or 20 more won't make any appreciable difference.

 

Regarding your point about the use of Tylenol (Panadol down here) etc, I find it quite concerning that so many parents seem to be routinely administering drugs "just in case", or just to "settle" the baby after vaccination or at any other time, or whatever. This seems to be the accepted procedure, whereas I would treat low level discomfort, mild fever or general "unsettledness" just with extra cuddles, nursing and other comfort measures and then only medicate if nothing was helping.

 

 

Ps I am cautiously pro vaccine in principle, and our children have had most of the recommeded vaccinations.

 

:iagree: Excellent post.

[Deniseibase]

Yes, a lot of people have wondered about this exact thing. That's why there have been several studies to investigate this, and in every study, the same thing was found - vaccinated children were at no more risk than unvaccinated children. In fact, even though more vaccines are given now than previously, the incidence of SIDS is less - because of the Back to Sleep campaign. If vaccines were linked to SIDS, then even with the Back to Sleep campaign, we would see a statistical jump in the number of SIDS deaths when a new vaccine is added to the schedule. But, that doesn't happen. Here's a link to some studies if you are further interested - http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/Concerns/sids_faq.html

 

Remember, correlation is not causation - ice cream sales and shark attacks both go up in the summer, but that doesn't mean the sharks are going after your ice cream ;)

Edited September 15, 2011 by Deniseibase
fixed link

[DianeW88]

No. SIDS is most likely caused by a genetic disorder that our research hasn't been sophisticated enough to discover yet.

 

The human immune system is amazing. Your body and the body of very tiny infants is bombarded by literally millions of different germs, viruses and bacteria each and every day. The dead germs encountered in vaccines are nothing compared to the live ones our bodies deal with continuously. Airborne, on hard surfaces, contaminents we eat...they're everywhere. If we could actually see them all....we'd live in a bubble. :D Which wouldn't do your immune system any good, by the way....we need exposure to build up antibodies. It's a good thing.

[ChristusG]

I wouldn't discount the notion. I really don't think that vaccines effect on the body of a small baby are understood enough to discount anything.

[mommaduck]

This is not to debate pros or cons of vaccines. There are plenty of those threads. I'm just curious about something that has bugged me for years, and I wonder if I'm the only one who thinks such things.

 

Babies are given an overload of vaccines at 2 months (some probably a little after as everyone isn't always right on time). SIDS is at an all-time high between 2 and 4 months of age.

 

Am I the only person who thinks there could be a correlation? Be it the vaccines themselves, or the fact that they may make babies extra sleepy, or the fact that people are giving Tylenol and Advil which could make them sleep heavier, or the combination of any or all of the above. (These thoughts based on theories that a more sound sleep puts an infant more at risk)

 

I do realize that the, "Back to sleep" campaign has supposedly lowered the incidence of SIDS, but I still wonder if there isn't some connection. Am I the only one?

 

ETA: FWIW, I am not 100% anti-vaccine.

 

Yes and no. My dauhter had a reaction that was most likely caused by a vaccine (medically backed up on this one). It caused some kind of apnea where she would stop breathing on a regular basis. I got no sleep for several months, trying to keep her breathing. If she had died, we were informed that it would be written off as SIDS (again, stated by the physician that also declared it a vaccination reaction...and we've had other doctors admit the possibility). But, it can also be something else. You can't always determine whether it's one thing or another at that age. This is why IMO, if you are going to vaccinate, to do so on a delayed and selective schedule. First five years, no one is touching my babies. After that, it depends on the child, the vaccination, and I will not allow combinations. (We've been no vax after my daughter's reaction...however, we are working with our doctors about the possibility of spreading out and selectively vaxing the older children, except the daughter with the reaction. She has extreme plant and metal allergies. The doctors have decided that, yes, she should continue to avoid the vaccinations at the moment.

[Haiku]

 

Am I the only person who thinks there could be a correlation?

 

I don't think there is a correlation. My BIL is a pediatrician, and I have asked him, as well as our pediatrician, about this. (I used to be skeptical of vaccines ... I no longer am). What I have learned from them (and from my own reading) is that SIDS can be caused by environmental and prenatal factors that, honestly, have more to do with parental behavior and living environment than anything else (smoking, etc)., and that the incidence of SIDS among recently vaccinated infants is not higher than those who were not recently (as in within a few days) vaccinated.

 

Tara

[Ria]

SIDS has been around a lot longer than vaccines.

[Haiku]

I really don't think that vaccines effect on the body of a small baby are understood enough to discount anything.

 

 

I'm not quite sure what you mean, but the immune-response mechanism of vaccines is extremely well understood, and as a previous poster pointed out, the vast amount of immune challenges we face every day in our environment dwarfs what babies are exposed to through vaccines. The idea that vaccines are a concentrated assault on the immune system is a huge misunderstanding.

 

Tara

[Lady Florida.]

No, I don't. Correlation does not equal causation.

[Jyniffrec]

My fourth child has a rare genetic disease that we found on newborn screening. We were lucky in that our daughter survived her first week before we found out. Some babies with this disease who are breastfed die their first week because the mother's milk doesn't come in right away. This easily could have been us but she made it through. I believe it would have been marked as a SIDS death. This disease was unknown until a few years ago. I know many families with kids with genetic diseases that have similar effects and there is no name for them.

[RainbowSprinkles]

I wouldn't discount the notion. I really don't think that vaccines effect on the body of a small baby are understood enough to discount anything.

 

 

:iagree:

[ChocolateReignRemix]

:iagree:

 

So, even though it has been studied, and no relationship has been found, it should not be discounted?

[justamouse]

It would be hard to prove, and I don't think it would be the ONLY cause, but it may have something to do with it.

 

Take that with a grain of salt, I have no trust of the FDA and vaccines, having worked with FDA liaisons/labs for years. I pretty much hate the FDA.

[TranquilMind]

It's very difficult to collect enough evidence for a causal effect, because parenting practices are complicated and nobody would be likely to get a properly controlled test on babies past their ethics committee! But a couple of things spring to mind for me. 2-4 months is when many babies in the US are weaned or partially weaned from the breast, hopefully onto formula but sometimes onto food. And it's also when parents can sometimes begin to feel the pressure to get baby into a routine and/or commence a sleep training program. Lack of breastfeeding and sleeping away from mother are both factors that increase the likelihood of SIDS. But of course there are many other factors. I'm not saying it's impossible that vaccinations might play a part for some babies, but given the level of scrutiny and the energy of the anti vaccine movement, it would be surprising if the link was there and had not yet been discovered.

 

This article takes issue with the popular idea that combined vaccines, or too many close together, put an undue load on the infant immune system.

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/the-infection-schedule-vrs-the-vaccination-schedule/

Basically they contend that all babies are routinely exposed to thousands of antigens in the environment, and 3, 10 or 20 more won't make any appreciable difference.

 

 

The problem with the "Science" based medicine propanganda is that it is untrue. Thimerosol has NOT been removed from all vaccines since 2001, as they claim. It has been removed in some and "reduced" in others. There is still no way to tell what it is doing to infant undeveloped immune systems. Here, you can see how little has been done to actually remove thimerosol from vaccines. The vaccines are listed, one by one. The heavily-pushed yearly flu vaccines are still full mercury-laden vaccines and it is now recommended for babies of 6 mos and up.

 

Yes, babies are routinely exposed to life and its myriad of germs, and that is a good thing, otherwise no immunity would develop at all. This development begins with nursing and continues throughout life. However, this sort of natural exposure is qualitatively different than injection directly into the bloodstream, bypassing all other sorts of attenuating organs, such as the skin, liver and the intestinal system, etc. and accompanied by dangerous preservatives and toxins.

 

I am not anti-vaccine in all cases. If it makes sense for a certain specific reason like travel or protection in certain scenarios, then do it, but I would contend that beginning AT BIRTH and loading up tiny babies with dozens of vaccines in the first years of life is at least counterproductive, and likely causing many negative health effects over the years which are vehemently denied by Dr. Paul Offit, "Mr. Vaccine", and his ilk.

 

BTW, Dr. Offit has major financial ties to the vaccine industry, so I am not surprised that he is a vehemently rabid supporter of "more vaccines, the earlier, the better".

 

Follow the money. Dr. Offit made 29 million dollars personally for his role in the sale of rights of Rotateq vaccine in 2008. Rotashield was already pulled off the market in 1999 after causing damage to the bowels of babies. But hey...there is MONEY to be made so let's do it again!

 

I realize this is a joke, but if they only felt some responsibility to be HONEST in the risks parents are taking, and leave it up to the parent, I'd have more respect for this industry. But no, it is all about getting as many vaccines as possible out there in record time, forcing them on parents, with the "mandatory" schtick via the school systems, and selling as many as possible and the side effects be d@mned.

[Haiku]

Paul Offit is my brother-in-law's boss. His book Vaccinated is very interesting and addresses many of the issues TranquilMind brought up.

 

Tara

[celticmom]

Paul Offit is my brother-in-law's boss. His book Vaccinated is very interesting and addresses many of the issues TranquilMind brought up.

 

Tara

 

That sounds like a book that I would like to read.

[IsabelC]

True, Offit has some interest in vaccination. However, being a conentious (whether deservedly or not) topic, 99% of writers will have some vested interest, albeit not always declared. Many anti vax people are in the business of selling CAM treatments such as homeopathic immunisations for example as well as profiting from their books. (Although not all. Eg the authors of Just A Little Prick will send the book to you free of charge and only request a donation if you can afford it. I read it and sent it back to be redistributed.)

 

 

 

Censored in the interest of keeping the thread nice.

Edited September 15, 2011 by Hotdrink

[Ginevra]

I did think this many moons ago.

 

Yes, a lot of people have wondered about this exact thing. That's why there have been several studies to investigate this, and in every study, the same thing was found - vaccinated children were at no more risk than unvaccinated children. In fact, even though more vaccines are given now than previously, the incidence of SIDS is less - because of the Back to Sleep campaign. If vaccines were linked to SIDS, then even with the Back to Sleep campaign, we would see a statistical jump in the number of SIDS deaths when a new vaccine is added to the schedule. But, that doesn't happen. Here's a link to some studies if you are further interested - http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/Concerns/sids_faq.html

 

Remember, correlation is not causation - ice cream sales and shark attacks both go up in the summer, but that doesn't mean the sharks are going after your ice cream ;)

 

This is the way I think now.

[Jryanbass]

I think there is some correlation.

[mommaduck]

BTW, thanks so much, I am relieved that I now have my eyes opened to The Truth about shark attacks. I will never again allow my kids to have ice cream within 5 miles of a beach. In fact, since there really hasn't been enough research into the link between icecream consumption and shark attacks, I think it would be safer to avoid icecream altogether. Don't tell me that it's been proven safe in moderation, I know it's just a huge plot between Big Ice and weak Governments that don't care if my kids are eaten by sharks. Don't argue with me because that would be Disrespectful, and anyway I am very educated about this because I read several internet sites.

 

ETA - Clearly you are all on the wrong track. SIDS is also caused by a conspiracy involving Big Ice.

 

:glare: Wow, nice amount of respect you have there for those of us that have already been there and done that with vaccination reactions, having physicians back us up, and having had to do tons of research (not scare sites) due to what has happened to our own children.

[IsabelC]

I have no intention of mocking anyone here. Or implying that you, or any other particular person, hasn't done their research properly. You must admit that some people are like that though, and I've been around the crunchy tracks long enough to encounter plenty of them. However, seeing as you seem to feel personally insulted, I'm happy to take down that comment. Respectful enough?

[mommaduck]

I understand that there are people ON BOTH SIDES of the issue that don't do their research, but rather just do what their doctor (there are drs on both sides of this issue as well), neighbour, mother, friend, or such and such a website says they do. I'm not anti-vax. I am pro delayed/selective vax and extremely pro INFORMED consent. Too many are not fully informed of both sides of the issue (and like most issues, there are pros and cons).

 

Unfortunately, too many people get lumped into the "oh, you don't vax? You must be reading wacko sites and not know anything" group. It's just as bad as lumping everyone into the "oh, you're just like a blind lamb to the slaughter...following all those other dumb animals" group. It's not nice either way. If you've seen enough of the threads on this board, you will find that there are many here who are informed on both sides as well as many that take an informed middle ground. Being informed and then making a decision is important and is what should be promoted. Some of us have experience on top of being informed. But sarcastic broadbrushing or namecalling (which has happened on this board before) is not really helpful to the conversation. It actually shuts conversation down and causes people to tune out the other side.

[Jryanbass]

MammaDuck, I think I love you! :D

[IsabelC]

Unfortunately, too many people get lumped into the "oh, you don't vax? You must be reading wacko sites and not know anything" group. It's just as bad as lumping everyone into the "oh, you're just like a blind lamb to the slaughter...following all those other dumb animals" group. It's not nice either way.

I agree with you there. I guess many people just feel more sensitive to whatever they have more personal experience of. Since most people I know are, shall we say, alternative in outlook, I'm more familiar with the "you sometimes do something mainstream, therefore you are a narrow minded sheep" line of argument. But I have had the "you think you can make up your own mind, therefore you must be a crazed conspiracy theorist" line as well... have given up getting too het up about it though, it's usually not worth it.

[GoVanGogh]

Our son was born premature and hooked up to tons of wires and tubes for nearly the first month of his life.

As a new mother, and thrown into the world of premature babies, I was terrified of SIDS.

Our son's NICU doctor said not to worry, as there have never been any documented cases of a premature baby dying of SIDS. She said her belief is that babies that die of SIDS have underlying medical conditions that are not detected because seemingly healthy babies are born and released from hospital so quickly. In contrast, premature babies are hooked up to so many machines and have so many tests run on them that anything abnormal would be detected and treated.

I have never researched the doctor's information, so don't know if it is accurate.

 

On a related note: Our son had such severe reflux that the specialists told us to put him to sleep on his tummy instead of back, as he had a higher risk of choking to death on his spit-up if on his back. It totally drove my MIL nuts that we put DS to sleep on his tummy. :tongue_smilie: Course, we also co-slept which is another big no-no.

[mommaduck]

I agree with you there. I guess many people just feel more sensitive to whatever they have more personal experience of. Since most people I know are, shall we say, alternative in outlook, I'm more familiar with the "you sometimes do something mainstream, therefore you are a narrow minded sheep" line of argument. But I have had the "you think you can make up your own mind, therefore you must be a crazed conspiracy theorist" line as well... have given up getting too het up about it though, it's usually not worth it.

I'm in the, "have you read up on the subject? I'm sure you'll make the best decision for your family then" group ;) I think I've spent so much time judging and being judged in the past, that I'm over much of it...too tiring. But yes, I'm a bit sensitive as I have to actively advocate for my children more than someone that has never experienced a vax reaction in their children. I have physicians that back us up, but occasionally we've been tossed in with someone that doesn't bother to look at the individuals medical history and just wants everyone streamlined. One guy was such a jerk about it that I had to have a note put in our file about him.

[elfgivas]

it isn't really a matter of what i think or wonder, because it isn't about feelings or opinions.

 

its about whether there is linkage, and that is something that can be determined. so if i'm curious, i would go and read and read and question and read.

 

what i might think isn't relevant unless i can substantiate why i think that....

 

so the reading i've done so far today on this topic leads me to think that no linkage has been established, and that reliable folks have looked at it and published their results. ie. right now, it appears to fall more into the shark/ice cream category. but that's only one day's worth of reading, and i haven't crunched any raw data myself....

 

fwiw,

ann

[StaceyinLA]

the live Pertussis could indeed cause sudden death. It happened on enough occasions within 24 hours of the vaccine that it was very suspect. I realize that vaccine has since been improved.

 

I didn't vaccinate my own kids (many of the vaccines available now weren't an issue then), but I am trying to help my dd make an educated decision. Making the choice now, I think there are some things I would vaccinate for, albeit maybe a bit later than recommended.

 

I guess there are just still those lingering doubts that we are ever REALLY being told the truth about things. We definitely hear what the government wants us to hear, unless we seek the truth out for ourselves. What events will have to transpire for the realities to be admitted to the public? Clearly there are reactions. The vaccine injury program wasn't developed because vaccines are never risky. If they are admitting things NOW that weren't being admitted 20 years ago, where will that put us in 20 more years, especially with the sheer numbers of vaccines being used and developed?

 

Sure, the whole correlation between the 2 is speculative, but I don't know if I can ever discount it completely.

[elfgivas]

hi stacy -

 

where did you read about the live vaccine? i found one paper from ireland about it being developed in 2010, and being used in very limited and specific cases in ireland....

 

that was the only one i found. the vaccines elsewhere are inactivated, not live.

 

curious minds want to know :001_smile:

ann

[sewingmama]

She said her belief is that babies that die of SIDS have underlying medical conditions that are not detected because seemingly healthy babies are born and released from hospital so quickly.

 

Just curious -but if these baby had underlying medical conditions wouldn't at least some of these be found during the autopsy?

 

On the SIDS websites that I've been too they all say SIDS is not actually a "condition that causes death" it is what they label the death as when no other cause is found - basically the autopsy reveals no obvious cause of death so the cause of death is labelled as SIDS - as in "we just don't know why this baby died -he/she looks perfectly normal".

 

If an underlying medical condition was found then the death would not be listed as a SIDS death.

[StaceyinLA]

was a live vaccine. "Shot in the Dark" was the name of the book I read 20ish years ago about that vaccine and infant death. I certainly believe there was credible linkage because it spawned a killed form of the vaccine.

 

I think a lot of my skepticism comes from there. What happens if ten years down the road side effects are "discovered" that aren't presently being disclosed?

[Medstudent]

A few (civil, non-contentious) thoughts.

 

The most recent stuff I've read about SIDS theorizes that it's a neurological issue in which babies do not respond properly to a lowered oxygen content, their vasculature doesn't have the right reflexes to respond to changes in respiration, etc. In essence, their central breathing system is messed up. This wouldn't really be something you can test for in an autopsy. However, making sure your baby sleeps on its back, with no stuff around it and no smoke in the house is the best way to try to avoid it for now. This we know. The rest is just theories.

 

As someone else pointed out, SIDS rates have been dropping, thankfully, but vaccination rates have remained quite strong or have increased. If we are indeed just talking of correlations, this particular correlation should be taken into account as well.

 

Incidentally, a lot of things happen during those first few weeks/months of life- a lot of developmental things. Why should they be any less correlated with SIDS than vaccinations? They happen at roughly the same time, and as someone pointed out, babies have been dying for much longer than we've been giving combined vaccines...

 

As for long term data about stuff- I hear you. There is no way for a doctor to tell you that there's 0% chance your child will have a bad reaction to a vaccine. Studies in children are limited or non-existent because it's simply against medical ethics (and human decency, really) to test unknown substances in children and see what happens. We try things on adults, on animals, we extrapolate. That's the best we can do. I'd argue though that if you will only accept extensive data and total lack of adverse events in the right age group, you'll probably be left with very few medicines. Antibiotics can cause bad reactions. Aspirin can kill children. Iron supplements can kill children. We have a vaccine adverse event reporting system not because we expect vaccines to be unsafe- but because people are different, people's immune systems are different, people's allergic hypersensitivities are different, and we can't possibly control for all of those factors. We can't test every drug on every child before putting it on the market.

 

I think the problem with vaccines is that the diseases are so far removed that you don't "see" the utility of them. You trust your doctor when he gives you a prescription for amoxicillin because your baby has an ear infection, even though you can go online and read about all kinds of terrible side effects of amox, especially anaphylaxis, which can definitely kill your baby. But for whatever reason, at that point the benefits outweigh the risks because your baby is sick and you just want it to get better- EVEN THOUGH most kids can probably get through an ear infections relatively unscathed and without antibiotics. I had a woman who came in with her unvaccinated daughter and who wanted steroids for her daughter's bug bites "so she wouldnt scar"...that just makes no sense to me. Why one thing and not another? Why vaccines and not antibiotics that can make you break out in hives or bleed from your rectum or give you a deadly allergic reaction? Why vaccines and not the various anti-fever meds that can make you get a bleeding ulcer?

 

The reason that doctors and lawmakers can get frustrated is that you see your child alone- and that's what you're supposed to do. You see a healthy little baby and this syringe filled with viruses and bacteria. When you give your child antibiotics, you see someone who's sick and needs help- when you give your child a vaccine, you're seeing a healthy child who is just trucking along. Doctors see the charts that show that every time a new anti-vaccine wave starts, deaths from dormant diseases spike. That's a scary chart- I just saw it last week. If only 1% of kids who get the chicken pox die from it, and we go from 100 kids with the chicken pox to 1000 because people aren't vaccinating, that's 9 more dead kids. And doctors feel guilty- what could we have done to communicate better with the parents? How did we as a community fail to explain to people why it makes sense to give those shots? I hope to God I'll never have to see a child die of a disease that we know how to avoid.

 

Anyways, a long-winded response but I hope it offended no one.

[WishboneDawn]

Just curious -but if these baby had underlying medical conditions wouldn't at least some of these be found during the autopsy?

 

On the SIDS websites that I've been too they all say SIDS is not actually a "condition that causes death" it is what they label the death as when no other cause is found - basically the autopsy reveals no obvious cause of death so the cause of death is labelled as SIDS - as in "we just don't know why this baby died -he/she looks perfectly normal".

 

If an underlying medical condition was found then the death would not be listed as a SIDS death.

 

I imagine some are and the babies' deaths are subsequently not labeled as SIDS deaths.

 

But autopsy can't discover everything and it's entirely possible that the cause or causes for SIDS lay a little outside of the realm of what an autopsy can discover.

[WishboneDawn]

A few (civil, non-contentious) thoughts.

 

The most recent stuff I've read about SIDS theorizes that it's a neurological issue in which babies do not respond properly to a lowered oxygen content, their vasculature doesn't have the right reflexes to respond to changes in respiration, etc. In essence, their central breathing system is messed up. This wouldn't really be something you can test for in an autopsy. However, making sure your baby sleeps on its back, with no stuff around it and no smoke in the house is the best way to try to avoid it for now. This we know. The rest is just theories.

 

As someone else pointed out, SIDS rates have been dropping, thankfully, but vaccination rates have remained quite strong or have increased. If we are indeed just talking of correlations, this particular correlation should be taken into account as well.

 

Incidentally, a lot of things happen during those first few weeks/months of life- a lot of developmental things. Why should they be any less correlated with SIDS than vaccinations? They happen at roughly the same time, and as someone pointed out, babies have been dying for much longer than we've been giving combined vaccines...

 

As for long term data about stuff- I hear you. There is no way for a doctor to tell you that there's 0% chance your child will have a bad reaction to a vaccine. Studies in children are limited or non-existent because it's simply against medical ethics (and human decency, really) to test unknown substances in children and see what happens. We try things on adults, on animals, we extrapolate. That's the best we can do. I'd argue though that if you will only accept extensive data and total lack of adverse events in the right age group, you'll probably be left with very few medicines. Antibiotics can cause bad reactions. Aspirin can kill children. Iron supplements can kill children. We have a vaccine adverse event reporting system not because we expect vaccines to be unsafe- but because people are different, people's immune systems are different, people's allergic hypersensitivities are different, and we can't possibly control for all of those factors. We can't test every drug on every child before putting it on the market.

 

I think the problem with vaccines is that the diseases are so far removed that you don't "see" the utility of them. You trust your doctor when he gives you a prescription for amoxicillin because your baby has an ear infection, even though you can go online and read about all kinds of terrible side effects of amox, especially anaphylaxis, which can definitely kill your baby. But for whatever reason, at that point the benefits outweigh the risks because your baby is sick and you just want it to get better- EVEN THOUGH most kids can probably get through an ear infections relatively unscathed and without antibiotics. I had a woman who came in with her unvaccinated daughter and who wanted steroids for her daughter's bug bites "so she wouldnt scar"...that just makes no sense to me. Why one thing and not another? Why vaccines and not antibiotics that can make you break out in hives or bleed from your rectum or give you a deadly allergic reaction? Why vaccines and not the various anti-fever meds that can make you get a bleeding ulcer?

 

The reason that doctors and lawmakers can get frustrated is that you see your child alone- and that's what you're supposed to do. You see a healthy little baby and this syringe filled with viruses and bacteria. When you give your child antibiotics, you see someone who's sick and needs help- when you give your child a vaccine, you're seeing a healthy child who is just trucking along. Doctors see the charts that show that every time a new anti-vaccine wave starts, deaths from dormant diseases spike. That's a scary chart- I just saw it last week. If only 1% of kids who get the chicken pox die from it, and we go from 100 kids with the chicken pox to 1000 because people aren't vaccinating, that's 9 more dead kids. And doctors feel guilty- what could we have done to communicate better with the parents? How did we as a community fail to explain to people why it makes sense to give those shots? I hope to God I'll never have to see a child die of a disease that we know how to avoid.

 

Anyways, a long-winded response but I hope it offended no one.

 

It was an excellent and thoughtful post. Thank you.

[Haiku]

Medstudent, fabulous post.

 

Excellent point about the relative risks of vaccines compared with other forms of medical care.

 

Tara

[Alice]

was a live vaccine. "Shot in the Dark" was the name of the book I read 20ish years ago about that vaccine and infant death. I certainly believe there was credible linkage because it spawned a killed form of the vaccine.

 

I think a lot of my skepticism comes from there. What happens if ten years down the road side effects are "discovered" that aren't presently being disclosed?

 

It wasn't live. The difference between the two is that DTP was a whole cell vaccine, meaning that basically the whole pertussis bacteria was used in the vaccine. This provided many more antigens for the immune system to react to (easier to get a good immune response but also thought to be the reason for the higher number of reactions). DTaP is "acellular" pertussis meaning that it has been more purified and there are less antigens in the vaccine.

[Alice]

As for long term data about stuff- I hear you. There is no way for a doctor to tell you that there's 0% chance your child will have a bad reaction to a vaccine. Studies in children are limited or non-existent because it's simply against medical ethics (and human decency, really) to test unknown substances in children and see what happens. We try things on adults, on animals, we extrapolate. That's the best we can do. I'd argue though that if you will only accept extensive data and total lack of adverse events in the right age group, you'll probably be left with very few medicines. Antibiotics can cause bad reactions. Aspirin can kill children. Iron supplements can kill children. We have a vaccine adverse event reporting system not because we expect vaccines to be unsafe- but because people are different, people's immune systems are different, people's allergic hypersensitivities are different, and we can't possibly control for all of those factors. We can't test every drug on every child before putting it on the market.

 

I think the problem with vaccines is that the diseases are so far removed that you don't "see" the utility of them. You trust your doctor when he gives you a prescription for amoxicillin because your baby has an ear infection, even though you can go online and read about all kinds of terrible side effects of amox, especially anaphylaxis, which can definitely kill your baby. But for whatever reason, at that point the benefits outweigh the risks because your baby is sick and you just want it to get better- EVEN THOUGH most kids can probably get through an ear infections relatively unscathed and without antibiotics. I had a woman who came in with her unvaccinated daughter and who wanted steroids for her daughter's bug bites "so she wouldnt scar"...that just makes no sense to me. Why one thing and not another? Why vaccines and not antibiotics that can make you break out in hives or bleed from your rectum or give you a deadly allergic reaction? Why vaccines and not the various anti-fever meds that can make you get a bleeding ulcer?

 

 

Good response. It amazed me that right after 9/11 we had many families demanding the smallpox vaccine and the anthrax vaccine. A fairly high number of those families didn't vaccinate or refused at least some of the standard vaccines. Yet, because of the perceived threat of bio terrorism they were looking for vaccines that have been associated with very high rates of reaction and side effects.

 

It's not completely true that we don't test things in children. They certainly do test vaccines in kids and they test other drugs too. I think it's more that there is no way to guarantee 0% side effects because there nothing is without some degree of risk. Heck, too much oxygen can cause blindness in babies. Everything is without risk. It's about weighing the risk vs. the benefit and I think the issue with most who vaccinate vs. don't vaccinate is they weigh those risks and benefits very differently.

[Lovedtodeath]

My kid reacted very badly, stopped breathing, the whole bit. Nurses dx him with anaphylactic reaction. We tried pinpointing an allergy, but every vaccine did it. It was NEVER REPORTED!

[Haiku]

It was NEVER REPORTED!

 

You can report to VAERS. The information is on the back of every vaccine information sheet.

 

Tara

[Lovedtodeath]

You can report to VAERS. The information is on the back of every vaccine information sheet.

 

Tara

Yes, well, at the time what they reported was their best guess... yeast allergy. Well, the other vax did it too, so that wasn't the problem. By the time we figured this out I just didn't take him back, and wasn't sure if there were some type of time limit...

 

The fact is that he is now 4 years old and no reaction was reported. I think it probably happens that way fairly often.

[mommaduck]

My kid reacted very badly, stopped breathing, the whole bit. Nurses dx him with anaphylactic reaction. We tried pinpointing an allergy, but every vaccine did it. It was NEVER REPORTED!

Neither was ours! In fact, the original physician insisted everything be "off the record" as she would be fired from the practice if she did attempt to report it and would get in trouble for talking with us about it.

[mommaduck]

You can report to VAERS. The information is on the back of every vaccine information sheet.

 

Tara

Not every place gives you an information sheet. I certainly was never presented with one. At the time, we were getting shots at the health department office.

[justamouse]

A few (civil, non-contentious) thoughts.

 

The most recent stuff I've read about SIDS theorizes that it's a neurological issue in which babies do not respond properly to a lowered oxygen content, their vasculature doesn't have the right reflexes to respond to changes in respiration, etc. In essence, their central breathing system is messed up. This wouldn't really be something you can test for in an autopsy. However, making sure your baby sleeps on its back, with no stuff around it and no smoke in the house is the best way to try to avoid it for now. This we know. The rest is just theories.

 

 

I was reading a parenting book, Parenting With Grace (Catholic) that advocated co sleeping and wearing your babies to help them regulate their breathing, until they are old enough that it stabilizes, and they felt that SIDS was because of the immature -what's the part of the brain that regulates breathing? That constantly being in contact with mom's breathing/body 'taught' the baby's system until it matured.

 

My only point was that we do not know fully what effect vaccines have on every person, and we may never know, but until we know more, we can't fully say.

 

I'm not against vaccines, I'm against early vaccines and clustered vaccines. (I'm friends with a NICU nurse who has seen babies die because Drsw ordered clusters of vacs before leaving the hosp, and the nurses were too young to refuse orders. She's complained of it many times. There's book knowledge, an there's practical application.)

[mommaduck]

I was reading a parenting book, Parenting With Grace (Catholic) that advocated co sleeping and wearing your babies to help them regulate their breathing, until they are old enough that it stabilizes, and they felt that SIDS was because of the immature -what's the part of the brain that regulates breathing? That constantly being in contact with mom's breathing/body 'taught' the baby's system until it matured.

 

My only point was that we do not know fully what effect vaccines have on every person, and we may never know, but until we know more, we can't fully say.

 

I'm not against vaccines, I'm against early vaccines and clustered vaccines. (I'm friends with a NICU nurse who has seen babies die because Drsw ordered clusters of vacs before leaving the hosp, and the nurses were too young to refuse orders. She's complained of it many times. There's book knowledge, an there's practical application.)

This also! Except it didn't work with my daughter, but that's because it wasn't her system, it was what was done to her system.

 

The last part makes a person want to take away some licenses and prosecute for out and out STUPIDITY.

[justamouse]

This also! Except it didn't work with my daughter, but that's because it wasn't her system, it was what was done to her system.

 

The last part makes a person want to take away some licenses and prosecute for out and out STUPIDITY.

 

Exactly my point about the vaccines.

 

I can't tell you the story she just old me the other day. She's been a NICU nurse for 28 years, and she was *crying* and spitting mad. Yelling in my kitchen and furious at the Dr and fresh out of school nurse who listened to him.