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.
Because the shots are traumatic and there may be too much aluminum in the vaccine. Forget Thermisol which is pretty much gone now-a-days. Aluminum is the big culprit you will be hearing more and more off. My baby is not a junky, will not be shooting up....will not be having sex anytime soon......there is almost zero possibility he can contract it. I ask here because Doctors are not God's.....depending on where they went to medical school, who taught them and their own personal experiences, they form their own opinions. I do not trust doctors...many of them make countless mistakes just like any other HUMAN in any other field. When it comes to my baby, I call the shots...nobody else.
OK, I see it's actually yeast, not egg. I was confused because the nurse in the hospital asked me if my dd had an egg allergy prior to giving her the Hep B Vaccine. I thought it was an odd question to ask a mother of a newborn child. I see now that she should have asked if my dd had a yeast allergy which would have been equally as odd of a question to ask a mother of a newborn.
Why can't they defer for a year? They still go to the ped regularly during that time.
See here: yeast allergy relative to the vaccine has not been reported. Severe allergic reactions (anaphylaxis) are rare, with no deaths reported as of the June 2010 date of this article.
Again your source is a blog. It contains so much misleading misinformation I hardly know where to start.
"In England, the incidence of polio had decreased by 82% before the polio vaccine was introduced in 1956."
Here are the actual numbers of polio cases in England from 1912 to 2000: PHI: Incidence Rates of Poliomyelitis in England . Note that there was always a variation in the incidence of polio. Some years were worse than others. There were 1960 total cases in 1954 and 6331 cases in 1955. By my math, that is a 323% increase. I cannot figure out where the "82% decrease" came from by looking at the actual numbers. After the vaccine was introduced, the number of cases steadily decreased. There have been no cases of polio in the UK since 1998. Thanks to the vaccine, polio has almost been eradicated from the entire world, with the possibility that that could happen in the next 2 or 3 years.
What about the risk of the vaccine itself? There are two polio vaccines. One contains inactivated virus, the other live attenuated (weakened) virus. The inactivated vaccine is given by injection; the attenuated is given by mouth. The vaccine used in the US is the inactivated vaccine. There is a risk of getting polio from the live virus vaccine, but not the inactivated one. The current polio vaccine recommendations are here: Polio immunization (vaccine): MedlinePlus Medical Encyclopedia .
In England, diphtheria, pertussis and measles child mortality had declined 90% 'before' mass immunization for these diseases.
First of all, why lump mortalities for 3 diseases? And why ignore morbidity as well as mortality? How many children were hospitalized or had handicaps related to these diseases? How about subacute sclerosing panencephalitis from measles?
It appears that "a vocal minority" of vaccine opponents was able to delay immunization in the UK, with the result that England had higher rates of infection with diphtheria than New York. Once vaccination started, there was a steady decline in cases and deaths.
"The measles vaccine was introduced in the US in 1963 and the UK in 1968. As the proportion of children vaccinated increased, notifications of measles gradually fell in the UK from half a million cases and 100 deaths each year to fewer than 100,000 cases and 13 deaths a year by the mid-1980s."
In the US, tuberculosis mortality declined 96% without the benefit of any vaccine.
TB can be treated with antibiotics, but the function of a vaccine is prevention, not treatment. This statement trivializes the severity of tuberculosis, and multi-drug resistant TB is now a serious problem. There is a vaccine, BCG, but it is most effective in children. New vaccines are in development now, and the potential impact worldwide is enormous.
In 1975, Germany stopped requiring pertussis (whooping cough) vaccination. Today, less than 10% of German children are vaccinated against pertussis. The number of cases of pertussis has steadily decreased even though far fewer children are receiving pertussis vaccine.
And here: Eurosurveillance - View Article
"In July 2009, the German Standing Committee on Vaccination (STIKO) modified its recommendations for varicella and pertussis vaccination, based on newly available data on disease epidemiology, vaccine effectiveness (VE) and safety, and an evaluation of the feasibility of the recommended immunisation strategy. The recommendation for varicella vaccine now includes a routine two-dose schedule with the administration of the first dose at the age of 11 to 14 months and the second dose at the age of 15 to 23 months, with a minimum interval of four weeks between these doses. Furthermore, STIKO recommended adding a one-time pertussis booster to the adult vaccination schedule to expand the cocoon strategy in place since 2004. The recommendation of a booster vaccination with an acellular pertussis vaccine every 10 years for persons employed in the care of pre-school children and for healthcare personnel in paediatric, gynaecologic and obstetric health facilities was extended to persons employed in schools and in other institutions caring for older children, and to all healthcare personnel. These recommendations were based on available epidemiological data showing an increase in incidence from 7-10 cases per 100,000 inhabitants in 2002-2004 to over 30 by 2007. Moreover, the high burden of pertussis in infants at 94 hospitalised cases per 100,000 infants in 2007 suggested that the previous cocoon strategy was insufficient."
So German kids do get vaccinated against pertussis, and there is effort to increase vaccination rates in adults and adolescents.
I have posted before on the reasons for pertussis cases in vaccinated people. I will not repeat it here.
Vaccines do not cause SIDS. SIDS can be largely prevented by placing infants on their backs to sleep.
And vaccines have saved millions of lives, possibly even purehuman's --- whether s/he has been personally vaccinated or not.
Pregnant women are tested for Hep B through routine prenatal care. I know that I am Hep B negative, therefore I see no reason to vaccinate within those 12 hours after birth. It's not my concern that the hospital might not know my status due to miscommunication with my doctor or midwife or poor record keeping. I know my status and that's what matters.
The CDC says that immunity lasts for at least 20 years in healthy individuals. It also sounds like more studies need are being done because they don't really know how long immunity lasts.
If the vaccine is good for 20 years (or even 23) then a person's immunity might wane just when they need it the most.
The waning immunity issue is something we don't have the answer to b/c this is a relatively new vaccine (1982). We know that immunity to many vaccines wanes over time, that is why boosters are needed. We simply don't have the information about Hep B to say "lifetime immunity". I do contend a booster, given at a routine physical, is easier to "sell" to an adolescent/young adult than a series of 3 shots.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dorthy
I would at least wait until their immune system was more fully developed. I see no reason to give the shot within 12 hours of birth unless the mother is Hep B positive.
One of the arguments for giving the first does in the hospital is because if people don't do it then, they never will. What 20 year old is going to go to their doctor and ask for a Hep B booster?
It seems you're "talking both sides" here. I think a 20 year old (for example) would be much more likely to get a booster than to start the series, which is a bigger committment in terms of shots. Most young women see the doctor yearly for paps/birth control. Most YAs need physicals for jobs, college, etc, offering some opportunity to give one shot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dorthy
It's well known that a baby's immune system doesn't fully kick in until they are at least 6 months old. I see nothing wrong with waiting at least until they are 6 months old.
"Well known" to who? The reason a child isn't fully immunized to Hep B until age 6 months is because it takes three doses of vaccine to get full immunity; generally these doses are given at age 0,2 and 6 months. The same three doses are needed if the child starts the series at an older age. The same is true if the child starts at an older age.
Quote:
Personally for my children I would say just prior to puberty.
You don't really know when "just prior to puberty" is until it happens. It's a restrospective thing. I remember taking my daughter in for her 12 year physical. I asked the do when she thought DD would start her periods; the doc said at least a year, maybe two. She started 6 months later.
Quote:
Parents who have made a conscious decision to wait until their child is older to get the vaccine.
Just yesterday, I was working a flu clinic at my church. One mom said her daughter refused and she can't make her do things any more. I asked how old the daughter is, mom said 10. It's much harder at that age.
Quote:
There is no evidence that it doesn't wear off. It is thought to last 20-23 years in healthy individuals.
There's no evidence that it does wear off, either. As I stated earlier, a booster is way easier to deal with than starting the series in adolescence/young adulthood. Most cases of Hep B are contracted by adolescents/young adults.
Babies are not at risk from contracting Hep B unless their mother has it or another close family member who has regular contact with the baby has it. I can see how children could be at risk for contracting it (very low risk) by stepping on a needle or broken glass on a playground or rough play that leads to blood with another child or adult that has Hep B or through sexual abuse from a perpetrator who is Hep B positive. I do think that it's extreme to say that the only way to protect against hep B is to vaccinate within 12 hours of birth.
Maybe not witin 12 hours of birth, but there is no reason to delay it, either. Some of the hospitals in our area don't give it at birth, then we start the series in our office at one month. They get it at 1m, 2m and then at the 9 month visit, so they are protected before one year of age.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dorthy
How is an infant (under the age of 6 months) at risk of contracting Hep B if their mother doesn't have it and no one close to the baby has it?
Plenty of people come into contact with an infant, especially if the infant is in day care.
The waning immunity issue is something we don't have the answer to b/c this is a relatively new vaccine (1982). We know that immunity to many vaccines wanes over time, that is why boosters are needed. We simply don't have the information about Hep B to say "lifetime immunity". I do contend a booster, given at a routine physical, is easier to "sell" to an adolescent/young adult than a series of 3 shots.
Right and boosters are only recommended for a very small segment of the population.
Quote:
It seems you're "talking both sides" here. I think a 20 year old (for example) would be much more likely to get a booster than to start the series, which is a bigger committment in terms of shots. Most young women see the doctor yearly for paps/birth control. Most YAs need physicals for jobs, college, etc, offering some opportunity to give one shot.
I didn't know there were only two sides to this issue. Most 20 year olds I know don't go to the doctor regularly and certainly aren't going to think to ask for a Hep B booster, especially considering that boosters are only recommended for a small segment of the population.
Quote:
"Well known" to who?
Ummmm, the scientific community. It's a fact, not an opinion.
Quote:
The reason a child isn't fully immunized to Hep B until age 6 months is because it takes three doses of vaccine to get full immunity; generally these doses are given at age 0,2 and 6 months. The same three doses are needed if the child starts the series at an older age. The same is true if the child starts at an older age.
Right so why not start them at age one? I don't see the harm in it.
Quote:
You don't really know when "just prior to puberty" is until it happens. It's a restrospective thing. I remember taking my daughter in for her 12 year physical. I asked the do when she thought DD would start her periods; the doc said at least a year, maybe two. She started 6 months later.
I would think the age of 10 would be a safe bet. That way they would most likely be protected at least up untilt he age of 30. I don't know of many 10 year olds who are sexually active.
Quote:
Just yesterday, I was working a flu clinic at my church. One mom said her daughter refused and she can't make her do things any more. I asked how old the daughter is, mom said 10. It's much harder at that age.
Much harder for some, not for all.
Quote:
There's no evidence that it does wear off, either. As I stated earlier, a booster is way easier to deal with than starting the series in adolescence/young adulthood. Most cases of Hep B are contracted by adolescents/young adults.
All of the evidence so far says 20-23 years. If most cases are contracted in teenagers and young adults, the young adults may not be protected if they get the shot as infants. Boosters are not recommended for healthy individuals.
Quote:
Maybe not witin 12 hours of birth, but there is no reason to delay it, either. Some of the hospitals in our area don't give it at birth, then we start the series in our office at one month. They get it at 1m, 2m and then at the 9 month visit, so they are protected before one year of age.
I see no reason to rush it. I would prefer to wait. That is my choice as a mother. Common sense is my friend.
Quote:
Plenty of people come into contact with an infant, especially if the infant is in day care.
Again, that's where common sense and knowing ones circumstances comes into play. My dd won't be in daycare and I don't let everyone who asks hold my baby. I'm not a fan of playing pass the baby around the room either. My baby's contact will be limited to close friends and close family only.
The difficulty is that your child may come into contact with another child who is hepatitis B positive. Hepatitis B is spread through the fecal oral route, and small children do not have perfect hygiene. They also often get minor injuries like skinned knees which can bleed. School, day care, church nursery, the playground --- any contact with other children is a potential source of infection, and the source is frequently never identified for many cases in children.
Hep B is not transmitted via fecal matter. It's transmitted through blood, semen, vaginal fluids and urine. If my child gets a skinned knee a Hep B positive child would have to bleed on my child's skinned knee in order to pass on their infection. What is the likelihood?
Honestly, what is the likelihood of someone bleeding on your baby? I've never had that happen.
Never heard of one child biting another? Two kids running into one another playing and bumping heads? How about kids at a swimming pool sharing towels? Are you going to forbid contact sports until whatever age you decide is best to give the vaccine?
And if you are only going to wait until 6 months, there is really no physiologic reason to do so.
Right and boosters are only recommended for a very small segment of the population.
I didn't know there were only two sides to this issue. Most 20 year olds I know don't go to the doctor regularly and certainly aren't going to think to ask for a Hep B booster, especially considering that boosters are only recommended for a small segment of the population.
Ummmm, the scientific community. It's a fact, not an opinion.
Right so why not start them at age one? I don't see the harm in it.
I would think the age of 10 would be a safe bet. That way they would most likely be protected at least up untilt he age of 30. I don't know of many 10 year olds who are sexually active.
Much harder for some, not for all.
All of the evidence so far says 20-23 years. If most cases are contracted in teenagers and young adults, the young adults may not be protected if they get the shot as infants. Boosters are not recommended for healthy individuals.
I see no reason to rush it. I would prefer to wait. That is my choice as a mother. Common sense is my friend.
Again, that's where common sense and knowing ones circumstances comes into play. My dd won't be in daycare and I don't let everyone who asks hold my baby. I'm not a fan of playing pass the baby around the room either. My baby's contact will be limited to close friends and close family only.
1. The silly icons do not enhance credibility.
2. Please provide some documentation for your statement about the immune system not being fully developed until age 6 months. http://www.newscientist.com/article/...ne-system.html FLU shots are usually considered safe for pregnant women. Now it seems that their unborn babies can respond to the vaccine too.
Our immune system protects us from infection by launching specific reactions against foreign substances. While this "adaptive" immune response was thought to develop only after birth, evidence is now emerging that a baby's immune system may not be as immature as was thought (New Scientist, 29 April 2006, p 12).
3. The reason boosters are not now recommended is that there is no need for them at present (in people with normal immune systems). You are wrong to say that someone immunized as an infant won't be immune 20 years later. I have explained this several times, and yet you keep repeating this untruth.
4. IF boosters are recommended at some point in time, primary care docs will know to recommend them. Most females do see the dr. once a year for a pap and birth control. People need physicals for jobs, college, the military, etc. The primary care docs will recommend boosters when they are themselves recommended.
5. There is no such thing as common sense. This is something I have learned in 40 years of adulthood/nursing. Everyone thinks their beliefs are based on common sense. This includes a lot of "old wives tales" and just plain nonsense, as well as some dangerous practices.
6. How do you know that all your child's close contacts are HBV negative? Are you going to require them to show you copies of their labwork? This isn't always something people are comfortable disclosing.
Last edited by Katarina Witt; 10-18-2010 at 03:36 PM..
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.
