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
) do not believe in those.
: Shouldn't that be taken to another forum?
:
We have our app't tomorrow and I'm excited. I think she's probably 12.5 lbs.
Follow Mothering