Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's my guess, based on general history of the vaccines, that giving a child -just- the DPT shot all at once..which is a multiple-virus vaccine..is not going to make or break a healthy child's immune system. If he's healthy and hardy, with no particular allergies, the only trauma to him should be at the injection site itself (soreness, redness, etc).
Actually, all the vaccines in the DPT are for bacterial illnesses, not viral. Allergies would not be relevant unless they were to a component of the vaccine.
I agree though - giving multiple vaccines above the usual DPT doesn't need to be done all at once, and it definitely makes sense to break them up.
See my answer above. There is no reason to split the vaccines up.That has no basis in physiology.
I only got the DPTs and the boosters, no one got "flu shots" when we were kids.
The flu vaccine has been available since WWII. I don't know when it became generally offered, but it was around.
We got the flu. And I mean we ALL got the flu. It was pretty funny to think that half the school was out with the flu for two days - then they got better, we were all in school on Wednsday, and by thursday, the other half of us were sick as dogs. I don't recall ever hearing that any of us were hospitalized for it, and I know none of us died from it. But that was a whole other era, when the flu was just something kids got and it was treated with baby aspirin, chicken broth, saltines, bedrest, a puke bucket, alcohol rubs, and gingerale. Not necessarily in that order.
This was probably "stomach flu": viral gastroenteritis, not "influenza", which does not usually cause nausea, vomiting or diarrhea.
I think part of the reason why we have so many vaccinations, is because parents have rejected the idea that kids SHOULD be exposed to "dirt" so they CAN build up their own immune systems. And now, they rely on more and more of these shots to keep themselves from getting seriously sick, because their bodies have no idea how to cope with natural illness.
Personally I blame it on anti-bacterial soaps and gels. I'm totally convinced that they CAUSE more problems than they fix. The body NEEDS bacteria. Antibacterial agents don't know the difference between helpful bacteria and harmful bacteria, and kills it all, leaving the body defenseless against the bad stuff, and reliant on antibacterial agents. Gee, ain't that a shocker.
I agree that we go overboard with attempts to sterilize our environment, but the infections that we use vaccines for are not something that playing in the dirt can protect us from. These diseases are targeted because of the high risk of serious complications or death. It is not that the body has "no idea how to cope with natural illness." The difference is that the natural illness makes you sick, and the vaccine prevents the sickness.
^^To add to the great post above, the CDC has been revising its recommendations for flu shots over time, based on, (drum roll) research!
First it was high risk groups and elderly, then people over 50, then kids with high risk factors, then all kids, and now this year, everybody. It was found that kids are a significant source in the transmission of flu to other people.
My point, was not that the flu shot wasn't available..it was that it wasn't needed, back then. I don't know of anyone who actually got vaccinated against influenza. I ALSO don't know of anyone who actually got sick from influenza. We got "the flu." We got the flu that they advertise on Nyquil commercials. Flu season was not "influenza season." It was the season where every child, and eventually most parents, caught "the flu." And spent a few days heaving over a bucket and eating saltines and being achy, feverish, nauseated, and generally miserable.
That was the only "flu" anyone got when I was a kid. And none of us were vaccinated against influenza. Did influenza simply not exist then? No. It was there. It's just that kids didn't get it. It was an UNCOMMON phenomenon for anyone to actually get sick with the virus that not only existed, but a vaccination had been invented to combat, and no one got vaccinated.
And now, not only is it "not uncommon," the country is in a near panic every year about getting shots for something that people just plain didn't get sick from enough to panic about it, only 20 years ago.
My point, was not that the flu shot wasn't available..it was that it wasn't needed, back then. I don't know of anyone who actually got vaccinated against influenza. I ALSO don't know of anyone who actually got sick from influenza. We got "the flu." We got the flu that they advertise on Nyquil commercials. Flu season was not "influenza season." It was the season where every child, and eventually most parents, caught "the flu." And spent a few days heaving over a bucket and eating saltines and being achy, feverish, nauseated, and generally miserable.
That was the only "flu" anyone got when I was a kid. And none of us were vaccinated against influenza. Did influenza simply not exist then? No. It was there. It's just that kids didn't get it. It was an UNCOMMON phenomenon for anyone to actually get sick with the virus that not only existed, but a vaccination had been invented to combat, and no one got vaccinated.
And now, not only is it "not uncommon," the country is in a near panic every year about getting shots for something that people just plain didn't get sick from enough to panic about it, only 20 years ago.
The disease you got was not "the flu", it was gastroenteritis. Just how this condition got linked in people's minds to influenza I really don't know, but it's a persistent myth that has to be dispelled over and over again.
You are incorrect to say that "kids just didn't get it". My own daughters got influenza as children, one was very sick and said anything (meaning a flu shot) would be better than getting the flu ever again. She was 9 years old at the time.
Children and Flu Young children under age 2 -- even healthy children -- are more likely than older children to be hospitalized from the complications of flu.
Tuberculosis is not the epidemic in California, pertussis is, and most Mexican immigrants are immunized against it. I previously posted some links, look through this thread.
I should have been more clear, because that's the point I meant to make. These infants might have been (probably were) infected by older children who did not receive the vaccine. Even if the babies had received their first dose, they were still vulnerable. It's really important for everybody to be vaccinated against this easily prevented disease.
you are only assuming that these babies caught this from unvaccinated children, you could be completely WRONG, vaccinated children still get pertussis, in fact , epidemics in fully vaccinated populations are a rule rather than an exception.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
