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.
"HBV is transmitted through activities that involve percutaneous (i.e., puncture through the skin) or mucosal contact with infectious blood or body fluids (e.g., semen, saliva) ..."
It goes on to say, "HBV is not spread through food or water, sharing eating utensils, breastfeeding, hugging, kissing, hand holding, coughing, or sneezing."
The CDC is not saying that hep B is not in spit. It is saying that kissing does not seem to be a very efficient way to spread it.
Of course, a kiss is not always just a kiss! A dry peck on the cheek is not going to do it.
We cannot ignore the fact that a significant percentage of children who acquire hep B have no identifiable source for it. That means they must pick it up from the environment somehow. And spit is a reasonable way to contaminate the environment. If you get a bunch of small children together, they will share spit. They get it on their hands and everything they touch. Mixing blood with the spit might make it more infectious, but hep B virus can be found in just plain spit.
So the question is still, "If there is no valid medical reason --- concern about safety or efficacy --- to delay starting the hepatitis vaccine at birth, why wait?"
As I see it, the reason for waiting is based on the anti-vax argument that the infant's immune system is too immature. That is hogwash.
What does everyone think of this turn of events?? Seems the doctor conducting the studies skewed all the findings to be in favor of the link. It was a deliberate fraud on his part.
Wow, how horrible to play into the fear that some parents have and not give them a chance to vax their kids. What if someone's kid died from a preventable disease and didn't vax due to this idiots fake study.. How wrong.
Wow, how horrible to play into the fear that some parents have and not give them a chance to vax their kids. What if someone's kid died from a preventable disease and didn't vax due to this idiots fake study.. How wrong.
Where did I say it was potentially better to be dead? I said it was worrying to have to make a decision that is good for your child's health in one way - but, with all of the misinformation floating around at the time - had the potential to have a devastating effect in another way.
I wasn't taking offense at anybody's choices. I was taking offense at the implication that parents who agonized over this decision were stupid - because, according to the people who are poking fun - if people got vaccinated 40 years ago and didn't get autism then, obviously, it has no bearing on the dx now.
But if it's that cut and dried, to the point where parents were being dumb for worrying about it, then why did the AAP and the CDC pressure vaccine manufacturers to stop making vaccines with [Thimerosal in 2001? It wasn't just "gullible" parents that looked into this, it was respected government agencies and medical bodies as well. And if it wasn't "obvious" enough to them that vaccines have no bearing on the autism dx, then it wasn't obvious enough for me to blow it off without a care.
Whether or not Thimerosol causes autism and whether it's a good idea to use it in vaccines if not strictly necessary are two separate issues. There are a number of changes that have been made to vaccines over the years which are not strictly related to the whole autism issue. Further, there's a difference between the CDC saying "let's not use this particular component without further testing" and the "vaccines ate my baby!" hysteria common amongst certain subsets of parent groups.
I've not suggested that parents who truly research their options are foolish. I don't believe that's true at all. I am, however, dismayed by parents who saw Jenny McCarthy on Oprah! or read a magazine article based on an abstract of one questionable and unduplicatable survey and believe they've done "research". And sadly, their name is Legion.
On that same note, why do people feel it's necessary to ridicule or look down upon parents who want to try "alternative treatments"? Those parents also love their children and want what's best for them, just as the parents who are not interested in said "treatment" love their children and want what is best for them. I believe that the vast majority of parents have their children's best interest at heart and the judgement coming from both sides is counterproductive at best.
There are alternative treatments and alternative treatments. In my experience, those who most fervently espouse the least proven and most extreme alternatives are also the ones most likely to use inflammatory statements like "if it were my child, I would do anything". Well...good on ya. But for every month taken up by at-best-benign-timewasters and at-worst-potentially- dangerous-medical-quackery, there are other options not pursued. One would have to have autistic septuplets and unlimited funds to "try everything" that's out there. One makes choices based on what seems most plausible and attainable-- and on what is best for the child, who is, IME, a somewhat different creature than a guinea pig.
You're right, you're reading way too much into my post. On that same note, why do people feel it's necessary to ridicule or look down upon parents who want to try "alternative treatments"? Those parents also love their children and want what's best for them, just as the parents who are not interested in said "treatment" love their children and want what is best for them. I believe that the vast majority of parents have their children's best interest at heart and the judgement coming from both sides is counterproductive at best.
When I read a post like this, I think you've missed the whole point of what those who believe in vaccines and scientific medicine are saying.
There are quacks out there who probably tell people that if they feed their children a diet of unpasteurized goat's milk that they can skip vaccination. This is their "treatment" to prevent measles, mumps, rubella, whooping cough, polio, etc.'
My point is that you aren't entitled to call something a "treatment" until it has been scientifically established and validated as such. We have processes established in this country for testing and approving drugs to treat different diseases. Unless, the drug passes those tests and is formally approved its not a treatment for a disease. In fact, I would go further. I would say that anyone who calls something a "treatment" for a disease that has not been approved as such is committing misrepresentation and fraud. In some situations, this is a crime that can land you in jail.
I can love my two kids until I'm blue in the face. If I don't prevent certain diseases or get them treated for disease after they are sick its very possible they may die.
Someday, please tell us just exactly what you have against a medical system that time and time again has come up with safe and effective treatments for literally hundreds of diseases.
There are alternative treatments and alternative treatments. In my experience, those who most fervently espouse the least proven and most extreme alternatives are also the ones most likely to use inflammatory statements like "if it were my child, I would do anything". Well...good on ya. But for every month taken up by at-best-benign-timewasters and at-worst-potentially- dangerous-medical-quackery, there are other options not pursued. One would have to have autistic septuplets and unlimited funds to "try everything" that's out there. One makes choices based on what seems most plausible and attainable-- and on what is best for the child, who is, IME, a somewhat different creature than a guinea pig.
Whether or not Thimerosol causes autism and whether it's a good idea to use it in vaccines if not strictly necessary are two separate issues. There are a number of changes that have been made to vaccines over the years which are not strictly related to the whole autism issue. Further, there's a difference between the CDC saying "let's not use this particular component without further testing" and the "vaccines ate my baby!" hysteria common amongst certain subsets of parent groups.
I've not suggested that parents who truly research their options are foolish. I don't believe that's true at all. I am, however, dismayed by parents who saw Jenny McCarthy on Oprah! or read a magazine article based on an abstract of one questionable and unduplicatable survey and believe they've done "research". And sadly, their name is Legion.
Actually, that's exactly why they took out Thimerosal: AAP
Quote:
Some parents have expressed concerns about a potential link between health problems, particularly autism, and vaccines containing thimerosal.
In 1999, the Public Health Service agencies and the AAP recommended that thimerosal be taken out of vaccines as a precautionary measure.
I would quote the whole thing but we're not allowed to post more than a snippet. In no way are they saying there's a link to autism - but they had the manufacturers take out the Thimerosal in response to parents fears about it causing autism. They do in fact refute that vaccines are the cause. However, they did take action in order to alleviate parents fears, which I believe may have actually done the opposite and given some sense of validity to the issue.
I appreciate that you are not ridiculing parents that did research on the matter. My first post that you quoted was responding to those that do, especially regarding the "duh" comment.
When I read a post like this, I think you've missed the whole point of what those who believe in vaccines and scientific medicine are saying.
There are quacks out there who probably tell people that if they feed their children a diet of unpasteurized goat's milk that they can skip vaccination. This is their "treatment" to prevent measles, mumps, rubella, whooping cough, polio, etc.'
My point is that you aren't entitled to call something a "treatment" until it has been scientifically established and validated as such. We have processes established in this country for testing and approving drugs to treat different diseases. Unless, the drug passes those tests and is formally approved its not a treatment for a disease. In fact, I would go further. I would say that anyone who calls something a "treatment" for a disease that has not been approved as such is committing misrepresentation and fraud. In some situations, this is a crime that can land you in jail.
I can love my two kids until I'm blue in the face. If I don't prevent certain diseases or get them treated for disease after they are sick its very possible they may die.
Someday, please tell us just exactly what you have against a medical system that time and time again has come up with safe and effective treatments for literally hundreds of diseases.
And you are completely missing my point. I put the word "treatment" in quotations for a reason. I'm referring to people who decide to try things like gluten free/casein free diets for their children who have already been diagnosed with autism. Some people have had success with said diets and some have not. There's no harm in trying it if someone wants to and they shouldn't' be judged so harshly for trying something to see if it helps just because others think it's hogwash. I am not talking about people drinking raw goat's milk or eating GF/CS as a means to prevent getting a VPD. That's not at all what I was talking about. Also, I'd appreciate it if you didn't make assumptions about me and my view on the medical systems. Just because I defend parents choice to try alternative "treatments" such as GF/CS free diet for their autistic children does not mean that I'm anti medical system or even anti-vaccine.
Wow, how horrible to play into the fear that some parents have and not give them a chance to vax their kids. What if someone's kid died from a preventable disease and didn't vax due to this idiots fake study.. How wrong.
Dr. Andrew wakefield has been vindicated, his studies and papers were found to all be true!!! He is now asking for an apology from the Lancet....and he absolutely deserves it. You do realize that many children still get the very deseases they were vaccinated for??,
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.
A dry peck on the cheek is not going to do it.