Benjamin Franklin on Vaccines

[Jasperstone]

I didn't mean to imply that. Like pretty much everything else in life, the pharmaceutical industry is not perfect. You take the bad with the good when the positives outweigh the negatives. Ime, for vaccines, the pluses outweigh the minuses even if the pharmaceutical industry's halo is somewhat tarnished.

 

That attidude all depends on the family you talk to. If it's been *your* family that has been injured by vaccines, then the negatives outweighs the so-called positives.

[TranquilMind]

Actually, every public health decision is balanced between ideal best scenario outcome and realistically expected compliance.

It makes no sense for the big picture outcome to recommend the best course of action if that recommendation leads to very few people adopting the recommendation.

Conversely, it makes no sense to demand compliance by an artificial deadline if that recommendation leads to harm for some. 

[Whereneverever]

Sure. 

 

By that logic, why not just vaccinate a baby with everything at birth in the hospital while that child is still your captive audience (for the hospital birthers, anyway)?

 

I should be quiet, as I am sure that there will be someone who will find this to be a good idea, regardless of safety to the child. 

 

There's really no big issue here.  If you take your child in right at 18 months, fine.  If you take your child at 20 months, or 24 months...fine.  Or 2.5.  It makes very little difference. 

 

 

But, that's not true. Kids who delay their first MMR past 15 months are MORE likely to have a febrile convulsion. 

 

The recommendations do have reasons behind them. 

[swimmermom3]

Similarly, I used to teach in an inner city school, and as a music teacher, got to deal with kindergarten registration. It was extremely common, if a parent showed up without the required green card (the official shot record), for the person doing registration to hand them the personal beliefs excemption form and have the fill it out/sign it. In most cases, the belief wasn't anything clear cut-just "it's too hard to get them to the health department when I don't have a car, have to work, have multiple young children...." and so on. I have little doubt most of those kids were at least partially vaccinated and simply didn't have the piece of paper with them. I also have little doubt that if there had been a health department nurse there to give the shots, the parents would have lined their kids up for the shots whether or not their child really needed them, just to get that piece of paper.

 

I forgot all about standing in line for shots at our public elementary school while growing up. Do they still do that?

 

[EmseB]

Sure.

 

By that logic, why not just vaccinate a baby with everything at birth in the hospital while that child is still your captive audience (for the hospital birthers, anyway)?

 

I should be quiet, as I am sure that there will be someone who will find this to be a good idea, regardless of safety to the child.

 

There's really no big issue here. If you take your child in right at 18 months, fine. If you take your child at 20 months, or 24 months...fine. Or 2.5. It makes very little difference.

That's the whole point of the recommended vaccine schedule...It absolutely does make a difference when kids get their shots. Compliance is only one factor, not the only factor. Safety is another.

[Laura Corin]

I forgot all about standing in line for shots at our public elementary school while growing up. Do they still do that?

 

 

A lot of immunisations are given in schools here.  Parents can opt their children out it they want to.  Is that not the case in the US?  Hobbes just had Dip/Tet/Polio boosters and Meningitis vaccine at school.

 

L

[chiguirre]

Similarly, I used to teach in an inner city school, and as a music teacher, got to deal with kindergarten registration. It was extremely common, if a parent showed up without the required green card (the official shot record), for the person doing registration to hand them the personal beliefs excemption form and have the fill it out/sign it. In most cases, the belief wasn't anything clear cut-just "it's too hard to get them to the health department when I don't have a car, have to work, have multiple young children...." and so on. I have little doubt most of those kids were at least partially vaccinated and simply didn't have the piece of paper with them. I also have little doubt that if there had been a health department nurse there to give the shots, the parents would have lined their kids up for the shots whether or not their child really needed them, just to get that piece of paper.

I file the Reason of Conscience Exemption every year for GW and Geezle. I even have to have it notarized. But, they have had all of their vaccines through age 2 including MMR and DtaP. That's probably not that uncommon among the exempters. If they counted all of these kids as completely unvaccinated, they'd be exaggerating the number by quite a bit.

[TranquilMind]

But, that's not true. Kids who delay their first MMR past 15 months are MORE likely to have a febrile convulsion. 

 

The recommendations do have reasons behind them. 

Source? 

 

I found this:  Immunizations — Fever can occur as a side effect of certain vaccines, particularly after measles mumps rubella (MMR) vaccination. The fever typically occurs 8 to 14 days after the injection [1].

 

Apparently, it is more effective against the disease itself if you do delay over 15 months. 

 

Those who were immunized at 12-13 months of age were found to have a 5-fold greater risk of getting measles than those who got the MMR at 15 months of age or later. One possible explanation for this is the persistence of maternal antibodies against measles. Maternal antibodies can attack the vaccine-strain virus, rendering the vaccine less effective. The lowered efficacy in subjects immunized at 12-14 month old was more noticeable in those children who were born to mothers who had immunity from infection instead of vaccination. From here  (first site I landed on, but study discussed in multiple places)

[Slartibartfast]

But, that's not true. Kids who delay their first MMR past 15 months are MORE likely to have a febrile convulsion. 

 

The recommendations do have reasons behind them. 

 

Pertussis is much more dangerous for younger children.

[SKL]

What are you saying then?

 

That it makes more sense to do early vaxes for the diseases that harm babies most (like whooping cough), and to do later vaxes for the diseases that are relatively mild for young children and more dangerous for older children / adults (like measles and chickenpox).

 

The poster I responded to was suggesting that earlier vaxing is better because diseases harm babies more than adults.  That's only true for some of the diseases we vax for.  For others, the opposite is true.

[Whereneverever]

Source? 

 

I found this:  Immunizations — Fever can occur as a side effect of certain vaccines, particularly after measles mumps rubella (MMR) vaccination. The fever typically occurs 8 to 14 days after the injection [1].

 

Apparently, it is more effective against the disease itself if you do delay over 15 months. 

 

Those who were immunized at 12-13 months of age were found to have a 5-fold greater risk of getting measles than those who got the MMR at 15 months of age or later. One possible explanation for this is the persistence of maternal antibodies against measles. Maternal antibodies can attack the vaccine-strain virus, rendering the vaccine less effective. The lowered efficacy in subjects immunized at 12-14 month old was more noticeable in those children who were born to mothers who had immunity from infection instead of vaccination. From here  (first site I landed on, but study discussed in multiple places)

 

 

http://archpedi.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1750204

 

Source.

[EmseB]

That it makes more sense to do early vaxes for the diseases that harm babies most (like whooping cough), and to do later vaxes for the diseases that are relatively mild for young children and more dangerous for older children / adults (like measles and chickenpox).

 

The poster I responded to was suggesting that earlier vaxing is better because diseases harm babies more than adults.  That's only true for some of the diseases we vax for.  For others, the opposite is true.

 

I was suggesting that was one of the reasons, along with public compliance, to do vaccinations in childhood.  The previous poster suggested it was dangerous to give vaccines to young children solely based on compliance.  I was pointing out compliance is not the only reason they give shots to babies, but it is one of the reasons.

 

There are many vaccinations available that babies in the U.S. do not get because they are unnecessary or unsafe.  There are many vaccinations available around the world that no one in the United States gets unless they travel to countries where those diseases are problematic.  It's not like the CDC just randomly comes up with the vaccine schedule based on giving people the maximum amount of shots they can.  The schedule is actually informed by doctors and scientists who study immunology, pharmacology, epidemiology, public health, and a whole bunch of other stuff.

 

ETA: I'd be interested to hear some examples of diseases where you consider "the opposite is true".  Because I'm blanking on what you're referring to.

[swimmermom3]

A lot of immunisations are given in schools here.  Parents can opt their children out it they want to.  Is that not the case in the US?  Hobbes just had Dip/Tet/Polio boosters and Meningitis vaccine at school.

 

L

 

My older kids were in a private school for elementary school, but Sailor Dude was in a public school for 2-3rd grade and I don't remember anything about shots at school. Of course it didn't come up for the other two in upper grades.

 

While trying to see what our state's stance is, I did find that we recently tightened things up a bit with "informed exemption."  On the other hand, we have a couple of schools where almost 40% of students have exemptions. That's pretty frightening.

 

[mom2samlibby]

I wasn't really aware that the schedule was slower when we were kids.

 

But your post has me thinking about something ds and I just researched.  We were looking up what defined "infant mortality" and why the U.S. was 27th among wealthy nations. What we found was if you look at the first year of life, at birth, the U.S. survival rate is among the best in the world. We do really well with preemie care and delivering babies. As each month of life goes by, the mortality rate creeps up quickly. The reason for this, we read, was lack of adequate care, which in turn, is tied into economics.

 

If doctors are faced with embarrassing infant mortality rates, wouldn't they do everything they could when they could to try and change those outcomes?

 

Just sort of talking out loud. That infant mortality rates really bothers me. The level of poverty and lack of adequate care that a large number of children are born into in this country really bothers me,

 

Parents who will take their unvaccinated by choice child to the doctors and demand that their children wait with those who are unvaccinated due to age or health issues, completely blow me away.

 

Or it could be from the increasing number of vaccinations given in the first year of the child's life?  In 1950 children received 7 vaccines by the age of 6.  Now, they receive 49 by the age of 6.  That is a lot for a small body to have to handle.  

 

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/05/30/in-memoriam-infant-deaths-and-vaccination.aspx

 

http://www.nvic.org/getdoc/a8091d95-aa9e-41d7-a34c-49079545226d/Infant-Mortality-study.aspx

[Whereneverever]

Or it could be from the increasing number of vaccinations given in the first year of the child's life?  In 1950 children received 7 vaccines by the age of 6.  Now, they receive 49 by the age of 6.  That is a lot for a small body to have to handle.  

 

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/05/30/in-memoriam-infant-deaths-and-vaccination.aspx

 

http://www.nvic.org/getdoc/a8091d95-aa9e-41d7-a34c-49079545226d/Infant-Mortality-study.aspx

 

 

The number of vaccines has gone up, but the antigens have gone down. Here's a neat visual. http://www.voicesforvaccines.org/wpvfv/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/229292c4ddfab96ba8feadda0af2d6f7.jpg

[Slartibartfast]

That it makes more sense to do early vaxes for the diseases that harm babies most (like whooping cough), and to do later vaxes for the diseases that are relatively mild for young children and more dangerous for older children / adults (like measles and chickenpox).

 

The poster I responded to was suggesting that earlier vaxing is better because diseases harm babies more than adults.  That's only true for some of the diseases we vax for.  For others, the opposite is true.

 

That is how the schedule works. DTaP, PCV, and Rv  are among the first vaccines on the schedule. Whooping cough is in the DTaP, that is given at two months. 

 

The chicken pox vaccine is one of the last one kids get.

 

 

[swimmermom3]

Or it could be from the increasing number of vaccinations given in the first year of the child's life?  In 1950 children received 7 vaccines by the age of 6.  Now, they receive 49 by the age of 6.  That is a lot for a small body to have to handle.  

 

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/05/30/in-memoriam-infant-deaths-and-vaccination.aspx

 

http://www.nvic.org/getdoc/a8091d95-aa9e-41d7-a34c-49079545226d/Infant-Mortality-study.aspx

 

I don't think so.

 

According to the CDC, the following are the top five causes of death in the first year of life and the account for 58% of all deaths:

 

 

• Born with a serious birth defect.
• Born too small and too early (i.e., preterm birth; birth before 37 weeks gestation).
• Victims of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS).
• Affected by maternal complications of pregnancy.
• Victims of injuries (e.g., suffocation).

Only SIDS could potentially be tied into immunizations in the first year and I believe that has been disproved.

 

I think another consideration is that many infants in the lower economic brackets do not receive all of their immunizations and yet, they are the ones more like to die than the ones from higher income brackets that usually have received all of their shots.

 

[swimmermom3]

The number of vaccines has gone up, but the antigens have gone down. Here's a neat visual. http://www.voicesforvaccines.org/wpvfv/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/229292c4ddfab96ba8feadda0af2d6f7.jpg

 

That's kind of cool, but a reminder about antigens would help make it more meaningful for some of us.  Thanks.

 

[Jasperstone]

http://m.naturalnews.com/news/048483_vaccine_research_scientific_fraud_Merck.html

 

 

I* know* some of you here don't like this website, but the information there is very interesting, and it's documented.

[Tanaqui]

Jasperstone, before replying, I want to ask what you found interesting about that link. Not in a snarky "that's so boring!" way, but in a "what point are you making" way.

 

[Jasperstone]

That a vaccine scientist was threatened with jail time for trying to expose falsifying data.

 

Don't you think this is relevant to this thread?

 

ETA: That you can't totally trust their so called science when they clearly manipulate the statistics etc...

[Tanaqui]

 

That a vaccine scientist was threatened with jail time for trying to expose falsifying data.

Don't you think this is relevant to this thread?

ETA: That you can't totally trust their so called science when they clearly manipulate the statistics etc...

 

You do realize that the case hasn't been proven yet, right? Or, at least, articles from September of last year are the most recent I can find, and they don't state that the case is settled yet.

 

http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/merck-mumps-motions-whistleblowers-the-actual-story/

 

I'm going to wait for more information to come in before I talk about what "clearly" is going on.

[Jasperstone]

"There is no question but that perfect sanitation has almost obliterated this disease (smallpox) and sooner or later will dispose of it entirely. Of course when that time comes, in all probability the credit will be given to vaccination."

 

 

John Tilden MD (1851-1940) 

 

 

 

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

"The 'victory over epidemics' was not won by medical science or by doctors – and certainly not by vaccines... The decline has been the result of technical, social and hygienic improvement."

 

Gerhard Buchwald MD, Internal Medicine Specialist,Germany

 

 

 

 

http://www.vaccinesuncensored.org/history.php

 

 

While you wait you might want to check out these claims? ;-)

 

 

You have to wonder what benefit does the anti vaccination crowd get by exposing these findings? And what benefits do the vaccine companies get by manipulating their statistics?

[Haiku]

Now, they receive 49 by the age of 6. That is a lot for a small body to have to handle.

 

Given the uncountable number of pathogens and immune challenges that a person encounters every day, how are vaccines somehow overwhelming to the body?

[flyingiguana]

http://m.naturalnews.com/news/048483_vaccine_research_scientific_fraud_Merck.html

 

 

I* know* some of you here don't like this website, but the information there is very interesting, and it's documented.

 

This looks like a much better explanation of this case: http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/merck-mumps-motions-whistleblowers-the-actual-story/

It has a lot of info on what the various claims and counterclaims might be if/when the case goes to trial.

 

I'm not finding any support for the claim that they were threatened with jail time other than on anti-vax sites.

 

In any case, I fail to see how this supports the claim that one shouldn't vaccinate.  Other than a generalized fear of "big pharma".  While I understand the distrust of large companies, this doesn't mean us (and our govt) shouldn't use what they can give us, just so long as their greed can be kept in line. 

 

This case is an example of govt, courts, whistleblowers etc doing that.  The system appears to be working here, so it's not support for not vaccinating.

 

btw -- it's not a case not "liking" a website.  It's just that websites of that ilk have published so much unsupported garbage over the years that those are not the places anyone who has a science background who wants the truth would go to.  They're just a waste of time. 

[flyingiguana]

This site also has a long article on how to spot pseudo science: http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/pseudoscience-fool/

 

It's long and a lot harder to read than most websites that are promoting pseudo science.  (And I'm not even sure it covers all the angles.)  The difficulty of understanding it does somewhat explain why the pseudo science websites tend to get a lot more readers.

 

This video covers similar territory: http://herebedragonsmovie.com/

Although the guy tends to be a bit snarky and has mistakes of his own.  Still, you can just sit back and watch rather than wade through a lot of text.

[rebot]

The number of vaccines has gone up, but the antigens have gone down. Here's a neat visual. http://www.voicesforvaccines.org/wpvfv/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/229292c4ddfab96ba8feadda0af2d6f7.jpg

[flyingiguana]

And, to be honest, if the Jeryl Lynn strain of mumps vaccine isn't providing good effectiveness, that is likely because not as much pathogen is getting injected.  Anyone who wanted a kinder, gentler vaccine would surely want that one, if they're concerned about the immune system getting overloaded by a vaccine.

 

(Sorry about some of the typos -- my computer is really slow right now and can't keep up with my typing speed.  It shows me text that really isn't there because of this.)

 

[flyingiguana]

A quote from this article is also pertinent: http://www.slate.com/articles/life/family/2014/01/growing_up_unvaccinated_a_healthy_lifestyle_couldn_t_prevent_many_childhood.html

"If you think your child’s immune system is strong enough to fight off vaccine-preventable diseases, then it’s strong enough to fight off the tiny amounts of dead or weakened pathogens present in any of the vaccines."

 

And the article itself counters the argument: If you think your child's immune system is too weak to handle the vaccine then you shouldn't get vaccines. 

 

Unless, of course, it actually is too weak due to immunosuppression etc.  But that wouldn't be the sort of thing you'd want diagnosed just by reading a website that puts out unsubstantiated pseudo science.

[rebot]

I can't figure out how to quote and post and a reply but I was trying to quote Whereneverever's post.

 

I am curious if the preservatives, stabilizers, and adjuvants were also reduced with the reduction of antigens?

 

If anyone knows I would appreciate it if they could provide a source showing this.

[J-rap]

I forgot all about standing in line for shots at our public elementary school while growing up. Do they still do that?

 

 

I remember that too!  Our schools still do this for the more urgent epidemics.  For example, when the Swine Flu vaccine came out, all the students were taken out of class to line up in the hall and walk past a medical team to get the vaccine.  (They were told a few days in advance, and parents could opt out.)

 

[flyingiguana]

I'd also like a source that shows that all the preservatives, stabilizers etc in vaccines are way more than what we get through our food.

 

I'm guessing not, given that we eat every day.

 

Even our drinking water has a lot more junk in it than a vaccine probably does.  Junk that you can't avoid by eating organic.  It's everywhere.  (Just look at arsenic levels in organic rice)

 

The truth is we're bathed in pathogens and toxic chemicals every day.  We eat them every day.  They enter our skin through punctures.  And I'm still waiting for any sort of proof that what gets injected with a vaccine is a larger amount or a chemical we aren't exposed to daily (think tuna fish, if you're worried about mercury). 

 

In fact, getting titers taken may introduce a fair amount of chemicals.  I doubt those needles are produced without chemicals. 

[rebot]

You're waiting for any sort of proof that what gets injected with a vaccine is a larger amount or chemical we aren't exposed to.  I'm waiting for proof that injecting is equal exposure as oral, inhalation, or dermal exposure.  

 

That's just it, you can't find proof that injecting is worse and I can't find proof that it's not.  It's as if there hasn't been enough studies done to determine either way.

[ktgrok]

 

I can't figure out how to quote and post and a reply but I was trying to quote Whereneverever's post.

 

I am curious if the preservatives, stabilizers, and adjuvants were also reduced with the reduction of antigens?

 

If anyone knows I would appreciate it if they could provide a source showing this.

 

 

this is an important question, that is overlooked by the whole "there is less antigen" argument. We use adjuvant free vaccines for cats where possible, because it's the adjuvant causing most of the reactions, not the actual antigen. 

[SKL]

That is how the schedule works. DTaP, PCV, and Rv  are among the first vaccines on the schedule. Whooping cough is in the DTaP, that is given at two months. 

 

The chicken pox vaccine is one of the last one kids get.

 

They are still doing some of the "later" ones too early.  And some of the early ones are for dangers that don't exist at that age.

 

My point is that parents' involvement in these decisions should be welcome.  If the parents prefer to just go with the standard schedule, then fine.

[EmseB]

They are still doing some of the "later" ones too early.  And some of the early ones are for dangers that don't exist at that age.

 

My point is that parents' involvement in these decisions should be welcome.  If the parents prefer to just go with the standard schedule, then fine.

 

Too early according to whom?

 

If what you're saying is correct then it's absolutely not fine to go with the standard schedule. 

[Whereneverever]

http://www.redwineandapplesauce.com/

 

The left side has a lot of tags with pertinent info on vaccines and additives. The writer is a well known science writer and sources it all well. 

[Wind-in-my-hair]

I am curious why the extreme dichotomy of completely no vaxing and complete vaxing. We delayed vaxinations, giving my son two every six months starting when he was five (he had a very short stint in preschool of less than two months). It was not the onslaught of insanity (nine were strongly suggested within a day of Ds' birth, all to be given at once). The delayed vaxing meant he got all the big ones, opted out of over seven due to aging out of the "worry zone," and had a much lesser chance of complications.

 

Why so all or nothing?

 

I am not meaning you guys are all or nothing, but more are curious if anyone knows.

 

Did your doctor work with you closely to create that kind of schedule? I would like to know more about how I might follow a reasonable program that minimizes worry but gets the job done. Can you recommend any books or sources that helped you create a custom vax schedule?

[swimmermom3]

this is an important question, that is overlooked by the whole "there is less antigen" argument. We use adjuvant free vaccines for cats where possible, because it's the adjuvant causing most of the reactions, not the actual antigen. 

 

I am now glad that the our young male cat needs to go get his shots. Our young vet (now that the Rockstar has retired) is a fountain of information and she's great about sharing research links and other information. This should be a good conversation. Thanks for the info, Katie.

[JumpyTheFrog]

People think that they should have all the answers and the vaccines should work consistently for everyone but people don't have consistent reactions to the virus either. My dad got CP twice, the actual virus twice. His Dr was astounded.

I had chicken pos when I was two or three and then again when I was seven. My mom said it was much milder the second time. Two or three people on my mom's side of the family have also had it multiple times.

[Slartibartfast]

"There is no question but that perfect sanitation has almost obliterated this disease (smallpox) and sooner or later will dispose of it entirely. Of course when that time comes, in all probability the credit will be given to vaccination."

 

 

John Tilden MD (1851-1940) 

 

 

 

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

"The 'victory over epidemics' was not won by medical science or by doctors – and certainly not by vaccines... The decline has been the result of technical, social and hygienic improvement."

 

Gerhard Buchwald MD, Internal Medicine Specialist,Germany

 

 

 

 

http://www.vaccinesuncensored.org/history.php

 

 

While you wait you might want to check out these claims? ;-)

 

 

You have to wonder what benefit does the anti vaccination crowd get by exposing these findings? And what benefits do the vaccine companies get by manipulating their statistics?

 

Dr Tilden would be seen as an alternative practitioner today and Gerhard Buchwald was an anti vaccine physician. Sure some diseases are reduced by hygiene, better infrastructure such as modern sewers, and antibiotics (which Tilden only saw for part of his career) but some are reduced by vaccines, one cannot deny that *fact*

 

I did see them both of those quotes happily touted on whale.to. If you look at that website you will see it also engaged in Holocaust denial. What benefits do they gain from denying the Holocaust? I don't feel compelled to explain the motives of crazy people. 

 

 Mercola sells products, he isn't running a charitable institution. Many of them sell products.

 

I don't believe people who question vaccines are crazy but not all of the organizations who do so are actually good places for information or have good motives for doing so. 

[Slartibartfast]

They are still doing some of the "later" ones too early.  And some of the early ones are for dangers that don't exist at that age.

 

My point is that parents' involvement in these decisions should be welcome.  If the parents prefer to just go with the standard schedule, then fine.

 

Do you mean Hep B? We delayed Hep B. 

[Whereneverever]

Interesting article on VAERS and vaccine injuries, and how many are reported that are either very mild or not related.

 

http://www.voicesforvaccines.org/vaccine-injury-stories-the-sacred-cows-of-the-internet/

[EndOfOrdinary]

Did your doctor work with you closely to create that kind of schedule? I would like to know more about how I might follow a reasonable program that minimizes worry but gets the job done. Can you recommend any books or sources that helped you create a custom vax schedule?

If you look up the schedules for the 1950's they are a pretty good indicator of the shots which would be the biggies to hit. They no longer do smallpox, but the others are the major ones if you are curious about those. Ds acquired chicken pox the old fashioned way.

 

My son exhibited allergies to a filler they put in over the counter kids meds. This is becoming more common and the allergy clinic knew what I was talking about right away. The allergist is the one who suggested the timeline. His comment was that by five the average child has reached a large enough body mass to handle the shots. The every six months was the idea of not inundating Ds and allowing a really long calm down time in between the vaxinations. This way any inflammatory response could completely minimize and the body could hopefully learn to not freak out. Though my son had no immunization reactions, it was a worry. He has grown out of most of the OTC reactions as well, though only gets OTC meds on the extreme rarity. We are still 99 percent herbal. Grammie and Grampie were the last to give him children's Motrin when Ds began to get sick one time at their house. They thought I was just a worry wart. Hives and projectile vomiting in less than five minutes told them otherwise. The family stopped questioning at that point and are now all on board. Ds can have about four meds now without issue thankfully.

 

My son spent almost no time in preschool. Almost no time in a large church setting or some fitness club childcare. He was lucky enough to be watched by family. One of the first things the allergist asked was how much time my son was going to be "in general population." That would have increased his recommendation on which shots were important. He would have more than likely also shortened the time in between to four months so that Ds got through them faster.

 

The allergist basicly said for many young kids they are just too small and asked to take on too many invasive bacteria at a time. Vaccinations are deliberately injecting invasive bacteria. It is a good thing, but too much of anything can cause imbalance. Secondly, he commented that there was absolutely no reason Ds could not get vaccinations for various diseases as he got older. A two year old is not sexually active and hopefully not exposed to intravenous drugs. A fifteen year old very well could be. He advised Hep A and B shots at 13. That made a lot of sense.

[Haiku]

Do you mean Hep B? We delayed Hep B. 

 

What's done is done in your case, but for the sake of others reading, I would like to remind people that there are kids with Hep B out there, it is 100x more infectious than HIV, and it is NOT only spread through sexual contact and IV drug use. Most families probably won't tell you that their child has Hep B, and if you don't vaccinate your child for it, you are putting them at risk.

[Leav97]

What's done is done in your case, but for the sake of others reading, I would like to remind people that there are kids with Hep B out there, it is 100x more infectious than HIV, and it is NOT only spread through sexual contact and IV drug use. Most families probably won't tell you that their child has Hep B, and if you don't vaccinate your child for it, you are putting them at risk.

 

If I remember correctly, the odds of lifelong complications from HepB increase the younger you are.  It's one of the first shots because preventing chronic infections resulting in liver failure is important.

[flyingiguana]

EndofOrdinary -- have you ever tried a compounding pharmacy?  I know a lot of people with allergies use those to get the drugs they need without allergens.

[flyingiguana]

You're waiting for any sort of proof that what gets injected with a vaccine is a larger amount or chemical we aren't exposed to.  I'm waiting for proof that injecting is equal exposure as oral, inhalation, or dermal exposure.  

 

That's just it, you can't find proof that injecting is worse and I can't find proof that it's not.  It's as if there hasn't been enough studies done to determine either way.

 

Actually, my guess is that some of the studies have probably been done.  I just don't know the literature well enough to find it.  A lot of this stuff is pretty buried unless you're actually working in the field and know where to access it. 

 

I was hoping someone here had run into it and could point us in the right direction.

[flyingiguana]

http://www.historyofvaccines.org/content/articles/top-20-questions-about-vaccination#1

 

This is another site that answers a lot of the questions that have been brought up here.

 

It's a bit short on citations (for people like me who want to read the original study), but at least it doesn't overwhelm with a lot of citations that aren't pertinent to the question (this is a problem with a lot of the anti-vax sites -- and I lose patience trying to wade through them all trying to see if there are any that actually apply to the claims being made).

[Word Nerd]

 

It seems that in the case of people who are strongly anti-vaccination, providing more information is actually counterproductive. I'm not entirely sure why, but I'm guessing that the thinking may run along the lines of "Oh look how they are trying to brainwash me into compliance. All this vaccine promotion is further proof of the conspiracy. If vaccines were good, they wouldn't need to be promoting them all the time."

 

I think it's a good example of the Backfire Effect.