or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Archives › Pregnancy and Birth Archives › Due Date Clubs 2009 - 2012 › April 2009 › 2 month checkup stats anyone?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

2 month checkup stats anyone? - Page 3

post #41 of 77
I hope someone with more time can pop in here and clear up some of the misconceptions in your post EdnaMarie. The most egregious to me is about measles. Infants born to mothers who had the MMR vaccine (which most of us did as children) absolutely do NOT get any immunity to measles from breastmilk. If as mothers we had actually had measles, then we would be passing along some level of immunity, but most of us didn't have natural occurring measles, just the MMR shot. Which is another example of how vaccinating has actually messed with mother nature, because babies under one are the most vulnerable and the least protected now. I'm sorry I don't have links, but the information is in the Aviva Jill Romm book and she used all medical journal articles for research for the book. If someone has more time to look it up, please do!

Also... my newborns don't travel, and even the CDC admits the reason for newborn Hep B is more about public health than true risks to newborns. They also recommend it because some mothers aren't screened for hepatitis B during pregnancy for whatever reason and in order to protect a few babies that might be missed, they're advising it for everyone. Personally, I know for a fact that I don't have hepatitis B and I also trust other people to make decisions for their children. My children don't need a mandatory vaccine to be protected from my ignorance, which is what the newborn hep B implies. The other reasoning is that since hep B is a greater risk for people who make certain risky lifestyle choices that typically don't coiincide with going to get vaxed for hep B, the idea is to get them the vaccine early, before they ever engage in that activity. Which I can see, and almost get behind if the idea was that it were a childhood vaccine, I just don't think we need to pile it onto the other 7 or 8 vaccines they're recommending in a day for 2 month olds.

this is directly from an article on cdc.gov
"In general, there is some truth in the overarching argument that low-risk newborns are being vaccinated because it’s more difficult to vaccinate at-risk adolescents and adults. Parents are not likely to be interested in vaccinating their infant to promote a public health agenda."

At least the cdc is honest. I'm really not interested in giving my one day old baby a shot to "promote a public health agenda".
post #42 of 77
Quote:
Infants born to mothers who had the MMR vaccine (which most of us did as children) absolutely do NOT get any immunity to measles from breastmilk.
News to me- because I was checked for titres to rubella (as most women are in France, I'm not in France but anyway long story moving on) and they were plenty fine. Though, I've had numerous boosters of the MMR (and DTP, and the Heps, etc. etc. and I'm not dead yet...) so maybe the answer is boosters for those TTC.

It doesn't hurt hardly at all and think of what you're doing for herd immunity!

More on the rota stuff later, I must get all resources together (I am on a new computer and my bookmarks are- anyway, another long story, short story is, I don't have my lists of references).
post #43 of 77
Having titers to a disease isn't remotely the same as being able to confer passive immunity via breastmilk.

Herd immunity is a theory at best.

"It doesn't hurt hardly at all" is the tip of the iceburg for vaccines. I don't think anyone who opts not to vaccinate is doing so out of fear of pain of the needles. There are longer term affects of vaccines besides "not being dead yet". Frankly I find that remark offensive especially to families with vaccine injured children. But this is not my DDC, this post was not intended to inspire debate but to share stats on all your sweet babies, so I'm going to step out with the admonition to those reading to do their own research about what is being discussed here because there some of this information is just not at all supported by evidence.
post #44 of 77
Gravity is a theory. Evolution is a theory. Theories are the best we have.

Quote:
There are longer term affects of vaccines besides "not being dead yet".
Absolutely- just as there are for measles, mumps, rubella, polio, and the like. I know I will never convince anyone for whom mommy instincts provide the best autopsy / diagnosis.

But for those of us that are looking for solid scientific evidence to decide which course is most likely to secure our children's health and safety in the long run, studies in which authors retracted their names, falsified evidence, run for-profit schemes, etc. are not convincing. I'm not going to go into all of the supposed damage caused by vaccines, but suffice it to say, just because something occured after vaccines were administered, does not mean vaccines caused them.

The risks- generally, allergic risks and some reactions that would occur if the child got the actual disease, but which occur much more rarely with the vaccines- are far less damaging than the diseases themselves.

Unless you count conspiracy theories which place vaccines at the forefront of the evils of the past couple of centuries, but most people (even on MDC ) do not believe in those.
post #45 of 77
EdnaMarie,

I'm beyond lost. You claim there was no intussusception in the rota vax group. You say your info was from the CDC. Did you read my link at all? It was straight from the CDC and clearly states that the vaccinated kids had THIRTY SEVEN TIMES higher rates of intussusception. 37 times higher is beyond my comprehension. Thats a HUGE number. How are you still staying none of the vaxed kids had intussusception? I really am totally lost here.

You cannot get tetanus from a "poke from a sibling." What are you talking about? You cannot get tetanus from a "poke from a sibling" unless said sibling gave you a deep puncture wound that was not getting oxygen, did not bleed, and was not properly cleaned. If they did, and you went the hospital, you would get the vaccine (not the immunoglobin) and the immunoglobulin is the only thing that would save your life if you did come down with tetanus....which virtually no one does (even though very few of us are up to date on the vaccine and the treatment of giving the vax after a puncture wound will not stop tetanus in the short term). SO, if my children get a nasty puncture wound and it does not bleed, is not cleaned properly, and appears concerning, I will take that child to the hospital and request the immunoglobulin.

Like Amie said, vaccinations confer NO passive immunity through breastmilk. Our babies are totally vulnerable to measles as a result of our vaccination to measles. The immunity from vaccinations is completely different than the immunity given through exposure to the disease. You can only confer passive immunity through breastmilk for diseases you've had. This is a fact. For example, my baby is protected from chickenpox through my breastmilk because I had chicken pox. He is not from measles, because I got the vax, not the disease. This the same reason most vaccinations have booster shots. The immunity is not as strong as with a natural exposure. The reason for this is because injecting an antigen into your bloodstream bypasses some immunoglobulins all together. When you get exposure through the actual disease, it comes in contact first with your mucous membranes, skin, and so on. All of this is part of the developed immune response. When you bypass the immunoglobulins of the mucous membranes, by injecting straight into the blood, you get a weaker result. This is why they are trying to create more vaccines that simulate natural exposure (like the oral rotavirus vax and the flumist and so on). Even still, these will not confer passive immunity through breastmilk, but likely would require less boosters because the body would encounter the antigen through every immunoglobulin in a more natural route increasing the immune response.

The Aviva Romm book has an excellent short chapter explaining how the immune system works in layman's terms and how vaccines work differently than natural immunity. Its the first time I was able to fully understand how that all works, the purpose of the adjuvants and additives, and so forth. I can't recommend it highly enough for this reason. Mine is on loan right now to my neighbor who is expecting this month and planning to selectively delay or not vax as her nephew is autistic after a serious vax reaction.

Titres are a strong indicator that you are protected from getting a disease yourself, but you cannot pass this on via breastmilk. You may also be surprised to know that titres appear to mean you are immune, but there have been cases where someone got tetanus even though they had strong titres for tetanus. Others have shown zero titres, but when exposed to tetanus did not come down with the disease. Romm also explains this in detail. I know a few unvaccinated kids who had their titres drawn and they showed titres for VPDs they never had. At some point they must have been exposed and developed the titres without any sign of disease.

While looking at titres is our best guess about immunity, it does not explain these anomalies. Very little is actually known about what protects from disease and how the immune system works. You'll recall that in recent years, the medical community has finally discovered the importance of the gut's role in the immune system. My own daughter had a series of ear infections (that we treated with antibiotics because we didn't know better). Her gut got totally out of balance. Her stomach was bloated, a stool test came back with elevated yeast levels, and she was sick ALL the time. We couldn't stop the vicious cycle of colds and then ear infections and then antibiotics. When we took her off dairy and killed off the excess yeast in her system from the antibiotics disturbing her gut flora balance(under the direction of a naturopathic doctor), she is now exceedingly healthy. She went from needing tubes in her ears, tonsils removed, sleep apnea, and constant colds to going through the worst winter on record for us (her whole school including both teachers got horrific colds/flu) with not so much as a drip of mucus from her nose. She no longer needs any surgery, snores, and so on. The role of the gut and gut flora was not recognized as a major player in the immune system until recently. Now some doctors revere it as almost complex as our brain in terms of its importance.

EdnaMarie is right about pertussis being a risk to everyone. Anyone can (and often does have pertussis). It is still quite prevalent. But its only possibly deadly to a child under the age of 6 months. It is definetly possible that you can get some protection from one shot. However, my point is that after five shots of DTaP, there is 66% efficacy AT BEST according to the CDC. Thats pretty crummy odds IMO. If it was more effective and less reactive, I'd consider getting it. But as it stands, I feel its akin to throwing a thimble of water on a fire. Getting pertussis truly sucks, no doubt. Anyone with kids who've had it will tell you its miserable. But its also one that is notorious for vaccine reactions. Unfortunately, the chances for a reaction increase with each dose. I remember when I vaccinated Milena at 2 months with one DTaP I felt relieved that she didn't *appear* to have a serious reaction. In my mind, I felt like I knew she was now in the clear for future DTaPs. I was horrified to read that with each dose, the chance of the reaction is actually greater The stats are pretty bad for that as well. The insert will say the chance of a serious reaction to the DTaP is something like 1 in 1,750. However, this is PER SHOT. So if you get 5 doses, the odds change dramatically. More like 1 in 350 (because I could care less about a per shot statistic but rather what my kid's chances of a reaction are in total from doing the series). Further, there is strong evidence to show that it may not be very effective at all. The problem is that anyone who is unvaccinated and has a cough is checked for pertussis. If you've had the vaccination, they won't even check you for pertussis because they assume you are immune. Herein lies the biggest problem with vaccine research. Its IMPOSSIBLE to sort this type of thing out. No one has ever done a study with vaccinated vs. unvaccinated kids (and if they did, it would be inherently unfair). Those who are unvaxed would either be 1. from neglected environments with crappy healthcare, nutrition, etc. and unvaxed because the parents were irresponsible or 2. from enriched homes with organic food, health care, and have parents who are consciously avoiding vax. There's very little way to control for all the variables of socioeconomic status, nutrition, and so forth. In addition, the diagnosis of certain diseases is skewed by what a doctor chooses to test for (based on vaccination status). Exposure to certain diseases of course varies as well. Its just very difficult to parse it all out and control for variables. It is very clear though that diseases have a sort of "life cycle" and become more virulent and then die down. While vaccines have been credited for eradicating certain diseases, it should be noted that just as many other diseases went away with no vaccine. Scarlet fever is one example. Its also impossible to account for the improvements in sanitation, wound care, health care, and nutrition.

Herd immunity is definetly a theory at best. Typically what happens if they will say "if we get X percentage of the community vaccinated we will achieve herd immunity." Then they have that percentage, there is an outbreak, and they either revise it and say instead of 80%, we need 85% arbitrarily, or they have some excuse like the cold chain was broken (i.e. vaccines were not kept cold and were not as effective) or another booster is needed or some other reason. This is troubling to me, because any time another booster is added to the schedule it inherently means a vulnerability was discovered. The chicken pox vaccine (as one example) now needs a booster. They've discovered at some point, the immunity wears off. When that happens for each person, no one really knows. So your child could be totally vulnerable to CP when they are an adolescent or adult (when chickenpox is VERY dangerous). That sucks. With each booster, you are increasing your chances to exarcerbate allergies, asthma, and so forth. I suppose all of this is good for big pharma as they have you as a customer from cradle to grave. Get your booster and refill your prescription for Claritin while you're at it.

I think its a common misnomer that people who choose not to vaccinate are benefitting from others putting their child at risk. Nothing is further from the truth in my case. I am disturbed that my child does not have the benefit of getting some of these VPDs in childhood as was intended by nature. This way she will have lifelong immunity and then will be able to pass on that immunity to her children through her breastmilk. Instead, we will be forced to make hard decisions as she gets older if she does not show titres for certain VPDs. For example, rubella (while a mild self limiting childhood illness that you often don't even know you had) can cause serious effects to a fetus...which is why pregnant women are checked for rubella titres. If we hadn't screwed with nature the way we have, my DD would have the benefit of a mild self limiting exposure to rubella in childhood and be safe the rest of her life. When she gets closer to childbearing age (say adolescence), I'll have her titres drawn to see what (if any) she has. If she doesn't have rubella titres, we'll be forced to make some hard decisions. At this point in time, I think we would get the rubella portion ONLY and simply because I don't want her to have that risk during pregnancy.

I also find the comment about vaccines "barely hurting" to be disturbing, esp. to parents of children with vaccine injury. With all due respect, I also find the statement that parents make that their child has had no reactions to be naive. It used to be that pregnant women were X-rayed to see the fetus. Those babies were all "fine" when they were born...until years later when it was discovered they had a much higher increase in cancer. There is no way of knowing the effects of heavy metals being injected in the bloodstream. Arthritis, Guillain Barre syndrome, seizures, allergies, asthma, and so forth are all possible results from vaccination. Its right there in the vaccine insert.

I certainly don't think parents who vaccinate their children are crazy or ignorant, but I do think its important not to do things based on fear but facts. I believe some vaccinations have decreased incidence of disease (but at a cost such as leaving babies vulnerable and older populations). I believe others are simply a money grab (HPV, Chicken Pox). I believe others are not very effective. Others are given to protect the "public health" (like giving Hep B to newborns). Lastly, aside from tetanus and pertussis, I am not concerned about my child catching any of the diseases. So the risk/benefit for me is to not vaccinate. For others, those variables will be different. But it is very important that the facts are clear.

XOXO
B
post #46 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by EdnaMarie View Post

The risks- generally, allergic risks and some reactions that would occur if the child got the actual disease, but which occur much more rarely with the vaccines- are far less damaging than the diseases themselves.
This is a famous pro-vaccine arguement and a very bad one IMO. You cannot compare the risks of the vaccine to the risks of the disease. You must compare the risks of the vaccines to the risks of your child actually catching the disease and having complications. Two very different things. To compare the vaccine to the disease is to assume your child will definetly get the disease.

For example, the tetanus vaccine is surely safer than tetanus itself. No doubt. If I had to choose between tetanus or the shot, I'd do the shot. Duh. But as a parent, my job is to look at what the real risk of my child contracting tetanus is and balance that with the risks of the shot. For the reasons stated before, I'm not losing sleep over tetanus. If a risky puncture wound happens, I have a plan of action thats just as effective as the vaccination (getting the immunoglobulin shot at the hospital).

Comparing the shot to the disease is not a legitimate argument.
XOXO
B
post #47 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by wobblykate View Post
does your sis wear sunglasses a lot? i heard that our main absorption sites are eyes and forearms....
YES! Always. (so do I) Even when it is cloudy because then there is a glare. We both have really sensitive eyes. She is a huge suncreen wearer too, I'm not...
post #48 of 77
Quote:
You claim there was no intussusception in the rota vax group.
No I didn't. My post was substantially shorter than the CDC page- did you read my post?

Quote:
You cannot compare the risks of the vaccine to the risks of the disease. You must compare the risks of the vaccines to the risks of your child actually catching the disease and having complications. Two very different things. To compare the vaccine to the disease is to assume your child will definetly get the disease.
Well, you can compare them. I just did! I see what you mean- that once you decide, you have a 100% chance of getting vaccinated, but only a small chance of getting a disease.

However, the chances involved in getting a disease depend on how many other people get vaccinated. What if we DON'T get the OPV before our next trip to India, and then I put my kids in daycare the day after we arrive? What are your chances to get polio THEN? I say this as someone who makes bi-annual trips to Asia and who has kids going to public care and activities three or four times a week, so this is not a hypothetical here. I have been to Peshawar by road and come back to the US (via three flights and five countries) in 24 hours.

Hundreds if not thousands of people (not even counting people of Pakistani and Indian descent!!!) do it every day. Most of them have had the OPV.

Now you would recommend not to bother.

So then what would your chances of getting polio in daycare be?

So if you make calculations based on the existing vaccination rates, and so does everyone, the pendulum may swing the other way.

Oh, and vaccinating my two-year-old on schedule means that now, she cannot pass on many of the diseases to my newborn (no rota, measles, mumps, rubella, chicken pox, polio...) which is great news for us. Even pertussis would be much milder and more manageable which would reduce the chances of transmission.

And going back to rota:

Here is the thing with the trial.

The number of cases will fluctuate over time in any given population.

Hence, we use randomized and controlled trials.

In the controlled trial of the first rota vaccine, more people in the control group suffered from intussusception than people getting the rota vaccine.

However, because of the amount of people who did get intussusception, although it could not in any way be linked to the vaccine (since, again, more people who DIDN'T get vaccinated got sick than those who did), they went to look for a new formula that could not at all be associated with the "scare".

Which is GREAT because the NEW vaccine has not been associated in any way with intussusception despite years of use!

SO we don't even have to worry about a vaccine that was pulled from the market after the slightest of concerns- another sign that yes, companies are willing to put public health worries (not to mention actual health issues) before profit. They spent a lot of money developing that vaccine to fight one of the most severe stomach viruses that exists, and then just pulled it because of concerns by parents regardless of the scientific evidence, because they did not want to worry people or force people to get it.



For the same reason, they have now licensed separate M, M, and R vaccines which will be more widely available in the near future, despite the fact that there is no scientific evidence that getting the MMR is not effective. On the contrary, there is some evidence that getting it with the chicken pox vaccine is MORE effective.

Oh, and they have a shingles vaccine that is pretty cheap (compared to treatment for shingles, anyway) that is going on in trials with people under sixty and which is available for people over 60 or so.

I'm not trying to convince you, a hard-core anti-vaccine activist. No. What I want people on here to know is that not only are there people who come here, who baby-wear and co-sleep and make bread and eat (and grow!) organic, and so on and so on with our fairly crunchy lives, who also have read the entire CDC pamphlet on vaccines as well as at least 30 articles in full (and many more abstracts) on vaccines who have come to the conclusion that vaccines are not only very safe for nearly everyone, but that they are also effective and worth getting.

There is a middle ground where we can be both suspicious of excessive industrialization of our lives, but appreciate what modern science has to offer.
post #49 of 77
EdnaMarie,

Seriously, no disrespect intended but you are claiming to have read all this research and be so informed yet you've stated in this thread you would give passive immunity through breastmilk because you were vaccinated...which is a gigantic error. This kind of misinformation makes a huge difference in people's decision making process. Not a small mistake.

Further, I'm not sure if you are aware that the data suggests the eradication of polio was due to statistics. Polio and aseptic meningitis are two diseases that can look very similar. At the same time they introduced the vaccine for polio, they changed the criteria for what qualified as polio. Overnight, there was less polio and more aseptic meningitis but the overall number of cases stayed the same. Also, remember that 90% of polio is so benign you don't even know you've had it. Further, the vaccine is notorious after the SV40 contamination that is causing cancer even today. SV40 is a monkey virus that was in millions of doses of polio vax in the 1950s and 1960s. SV40 causes cancer in humans. It also becomes a part of your genetic material and you pass this on to your children and so on. So if someone in your family got an SV40 contaminated vaccine, there is now an increased risk of cancer in that family in general. It passes down. Today a large number of cancers show the presence of SV40. SV40 also inteferes with successful chemo and so forth. The loveliest part of the story is that even after SV40 was discovered in polio vax in 1961, they continued giving the vaccines until 1963 knowing they were contaminated. It is speculated that even as late as the 1990s, some batches of OPV had SV40.
http://www.sv40foundation.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SV40

What continues to blow me away is how parents feel placated by "well there's less thimerosal anymore so they are safe now" or "well now there is now no SV40 so its OK." What happens when the next monkey virus is discovered? Or when we realize aluminum is just as dangerous as thimerosal? And when these discoveries are made, will they tell us? Or will they continue injecting a known contaminated vaccine for another 2 years into our children that we've trusted them with?

So in regards to polio, I see ZERO reason to do this vaccine. My pediatrician even said as much. He basically told me its been eradicated for over 10 years, and my children "will not get it." He said it that definitively. If I was taking my kids to developing countries for long periods of time where it was rampant, I would certainly research more. But again, 90% of the cases are benign and you often don't know you've had it. The footage of leg braces and so forth was a VERY small minority. I would have to feel my child was seriously threatened before I would consider injecting monkey parts into my child that could not only permanently affect their genetics but the future of our family tree. That is a serious risk IMO. Nothing to take lightly.

Ednamarie says I'm making my recommendations based on current vaccination rates. But like I've already explained I do not believe in herd immunity. Its not at all solid evidence. I personally think from the epidemiological data I've looked at for each disease that the vaccine has been responsible for decreasing measles, mumps and rubella. But given the choice, I would prefer my child to experience all these diseases and get the benefit of natural immunity. I do believe the measles portion of the vaccine can be dangerous to certain vulnerable populations, as it is the vaccine strain of the measles that is being found in the spinal fluid of children with autism. I do not believe the tetanus vaccine is effective (simply incredibly rare due to our better wound management). I do not believe the pertussis vaccine is effective. My strategy with that one is to keep my kids out of daycare and have a caregiver in my home during the first 6 months of life at least and hope for the best. I don't really believe the polio vax is responsible for eradicating polio since the numbers of aseptic meningitis went up in proportion to the numbers of polio going down. The criteria for what qualified as polio just became way more strict excluding just about all previous cases and renaming them aseptic meningitis. The HiB and PCV may do something, but they leave the body vulnerable to other strains. Serotype replacement is new and experimental and I'm not comfortable with the possible long term ramifications.

You can keep your shingles vaccine. I'd rather just get my kid chicken pox and give her the real immunity than sign up for a lifetime of booster shots and shingles vaccines. Are you not at all concerned about the aluminum and other heavy metals in shots? Or do you think we can just get tons of these every day and its totally benign? Some people do think this. Logic tells me that I should be conservative about injecting heavy metals into the bloodstream. To me, this is why selectively and delaying vaccination makes sense to me for parents who feel certain diseases are risky enough to warrant the metal injection. But the industry wants to make vaccinations for EVERYTHING (even mild illnesses) which seems very ill advised given each shot requires introducing more metals into the bloodstream.

I don't even know what to say about the rotavirus stuff at this point. Twice I've called your attention to the CDC comprehensive report about the gigantic increase of intussusception in vaccinated children, but you are mentioning some random study and still not mentioning this at all or addressing it. I have read everything you have written, but the fact of the matter is the vaccine DID cause intussusception in quite large numbers and the CDC confirmed this beyond a shadow of a doubt with two HUGE studies with large numbers of subjects. I'm not sure you have to be a conspiracy theorist to understand this. I also think logic dictates that your explanation of big pharma voluntarily pulling a totally safe product that costs them tons of money to bring to market and will result in tons of money in lost sales was done out of some misplaced gesture of good will regarding people's misperceptions makes no sense. If they believe they have a product that benefits children and is in no way harmful, there is NO way they would pull it. We all know this. Besides, its not a matter of wondering. The CDC data is right there.

Lastly, contrary to what you might think I'm not a "hardcore anti-vaccine activist." My best friend selectively and delayed vaccinates her kids. I don't think she's ill informed or dumb for making the choices she's making. I feel this is a highly personal and individualized choice that parents need to make armed with knowledge. A lot of people know about my background and vaccine knowledge and come to me asking advice. I share what I know, but I NEVER tell people not to vaccinate or to make decisions without reading for themselves. I have an extensive library of books that I am willing to lend, but I would be very uncomfortable with people making decisions based on word of mouth from me. This is the same reason, I don't advocate picking up a random delayed vaccination schedule from the internet or a book (Dr. Sears included). I've yet to see one that has a decent justification for WHY certain shots are at a certain time. Everyone has their own ideas and many books will talk about "getting a shot before school starts" for Hep B. Exemptions are easy to get in almost every state. Not a good reason to get the shot. Unless you feel you child is at risk for Hep B.

Please remember that I work with special needs kids all day every day. If I had a dime for every parent who has told me that their child had a significant reaction to a shot but they were told they had to finish the series so their child could enter school only to later have a more serious reaction, I'd be rich. Its a crime that parents are not given informed consent. Its pitiful that a simple form (exemption) could have possibly saved their child, but no one told them. One of my best friends (who's in her mid 30s) has chronic allergies and health issues. After her first DTP, she ran a high fever, screamed for hours and scared the crap out of her mother. Her mom told her that she knew the shot gave her the reaction but thought she had "no choice" but to continue the series. As we all know, many children in the same boat as her had additional shots of DTP and are now completely damaged, paralyzed and mentally retarded. She's fortunate to only have constant allergies, tonsillitis and sinus infections I guess

Vaccinations are the only area of medicine in which informed consent is not given except upon request. One must ask for the vaccine insert which lists side effects. Otherwise, parents are given an "information sheet" which is a simplified page that basically states "some bad stuff might happen but its very rare and this is the best thing you can do for your child." This is not informed consent. I work in a school where I hear the registrar tell parents every day that the child MUST have the shots to enter school. No one EVER mentions an exemption.

Parents have a right to make informed decisions about their child based on the unique circumstances of their family. I promise you I am a hardcore informed consent activist. That is for sure.

XOXO
B
post #50 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by EdnaMarie View Post
For the same reason, they have now licensed separate M, M, and R vaccines which will be more widely available in the near future, despite the fact that there is no scientific evidence that getting the MMR is not effective. On the contrary, there is some evidence that getting it with the chicken pox vaccine is MORE effective.

I swore I would step out of here, but honestly, I just have to ask where you're getting information at this point because a lot of it is just completely opposite to everything I've ever heard. Merck actually stopped production on the separate components of the MMR and has them listed as "unavailable to order" on their website (and it was notoriously difficult for parents to find a doctor willing to separate them even when it was "available"). It was only two weeks ago that Merck announced they would resume production of the separate components but they are still supposedly not going to be available until 2011. I guess if your definition of "more widely available in the near future" means "it used to be completely unavailable and now maybe some people will have access to it in 2 years" well then...maybe?

And this is besides the fact that most parents never cited "increased effectiveness" as a reason for separating the components of the MMR vaccine which again, just makes me wonder where you are doing your research.
post #51 of 77
How sad and annoying that I came on here to see how everyone's little ones are doing at their two month check-ups and I've walked into a vaccine debate. : Shouldn't that be taken to another forum?

Ray's stats from his appointment were posted on the first page but here they are again since I'm sure everyone has forgotten by now what this thread was about...

Birth- 6# 7.1 oz (5th percentile), went down to 5# 15 oz at his lowest
One month- 7# 8oz (5th percentile)
Two months- 10# 15 oz (33rd percentile), 24" (77th percentile)

I'm just happy that the booby juice is finally getting him onto the growth chart! :
post #52 of 77
"How sad and annoying that I came on here to see how everyone's little ones are doing at their two week check-ups and I've walked into a vaccine debate. Shouldn't that be taken to another forum? " quasar

I hear you Quasar, and I love seeing how everyone's babies are doing, but I do think it is kind of refreshing to see some debate actually allowed in here, esp. since all of us are at the point where vaxes are just starting in our babies lives. Its nice too b/c we know each other in here.

I check back to this thread to see what the new points are in the discussion & to see how our babes are doing.

Quasar, my oldest was in the 5th percentile and never left,( he's big now), your little guy is doing great!
post #53 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by quasar View Post
How sad and annoying that I came on here to see how everyone's little ones are doing at their two week check-ups and I've walked into a vaccine debate. : Shouldn't that be taken to another forum?

Ray's stats from his appointment were posted on the first page but here they are again since I'm sure everyone has forgotten by now what this thread was about...

Birth- 6# 7.1 oz (5th percentile), went down to 5# 15 oz at his lowest
One month- 7# 8oz (5th percentile)
Two months- 10# 15 oz (33rd percentile), 24" (77th percentile)

I'm just happy that the booby juice is finally getting him onto the growth chart! :
great comeback on the weight, ray! nice work, quasar
post #54 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by liseux View Post

I hear you Quasar, and I love seeing how everyone's babies are doing, but I do think it is kind of refreshing to see some debate actually allowed in here, esp. since all of us are at the point where vaxes are just starting in our babies lives. Its nice too b/c we know each other in here.

I check back to this thread to see what the new points are in the discussion & to see how our babes are doing.
!
I agree, but maybe it should have been two different posts, though I'm sure it would have been moved if it was labled vaccines or shots.

I'm really learning from all the vac talk and love how we are all in the decision factor at the same time. I don't have 2 mo stats as we aren't going back till 3/4 mo. Hopefully we can have a 3 or 4 mo stats thread on facebook.
post #55 of 77
Vincent had his 2 month check up today. He was officially two months yesterday on the 13th.

Weight: 14 lbs 2. oz. (95th %ile)
Height: 23 3/4 inches (75th %ile)
Head Circumference: 16 1/2 inches (90th %ile)

Pediatrician is pleased with how he looks. Head control is good and all that. He's a strong little guy for sure.

XOXO
B
post #56 of 77
Quote:
me wonder where you are doing your research.
I don't qualify reading an article or two a month as "research".

2011 available is soon as far as I mean. True, my little one will not get it but scientifically speaking, that's not like the AIDS vaccine or anything, you know? They have it, they just have to tweak it.

And I know that many HERE do not look at effectiveness when they look at vaccines... but to me that is part of the problem.

And sorry for the debate but I hate this kind of fly-by smear campaign off the vaccine boards, I really do. I don't go there because there's no point- but lots of people here are on the fence (well, one assumes so, since most of us thought long and hard about it before vaccinating our firsts) and I don't think it's fair to let them hang in doubt as to whether NOBODY is vaccinating.

At least I'm in this DDC! We have our app't tomorrow and I'm excited. I think she's probably 12.5 lbs.
post #57 of 77
Eden had her 2 month appt. today. She's growing like a weed!

13 lbs (90th %)
23 in (75th %)
15 1/4 in head (50th %)

she got some shots .

she's feeling a little icky, but the dr. said she looks fantastic otherwise.
post #58 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by EdnaMarie View Post
And sorry for the debate but I hate this kind of fly-by smear campaign off the vaccine boards, I really do.
lol that's funny and ironic.
post #59 of 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by IncaMama View Post
lol that's funny and ironic.
Hey, I'm not "flying by" expecting to make these offhand comments without debate, whereas it is common on here.

We had our checkup yesterday, she's 90th% for weight and 95th% for height, doing well except she looks to one side all the time so I have to switch the carseats so she looks out the other window when I ferry around my 2.5 year old.

No thrush, so my new nipple soreness is just her terrible latch because she always wants to suck and I have a really hard time telling when she wants to comfort suck and when she wants to nurse so I end up nursing a not-hungry baby. Doc gave me some pacifier tips, and hopefully that will help. My instinct is just to stick her on the boob but that is not helping her tummy!
post #60 of 77
we have some big babies in this DDC!

XOXO
B
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: April 2009
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Archives › Pregnancy and Birth Archives › Due Date Clubs 2009 - 2012 › April 2009 › 2 month checkup stats anyone?