Does delaying vax make them any less dangerous? - Page 2

[mrs.t]

Maiasaura-That was what I was thinking, somehow vaxing when my DS is ready for school or later doesn't seem as scary as right now, when he is a 13 lb baby. I may change my mind again when he is older, but I'm just not comfortable with it now.

[Deborah]

I did the following very rough calculation once, on the chances of a vaccine reaction.

Let us suppose, conservatively, that the chance of a serious reaction is 1 per 100,000 doses of all vaccines.

If we give 100,000 babies each 1 and only 1 dose of a vaccine, the chances are that 1 of those babies will have a reaction.

If we give those same 100,000 babies a second vaccine, the chance of a reaction doubles to 2 out of the 100,000 babies having a serious reaction.

If we give out 4 doses, we are up to 4 reactions, and so on. At the 30 dose level, we would have 30 serious reactions. Which means that one in every 3,333 babies would be having a reaction.

This is all hypothetical, of course. But it does explain why more people are complaining about vaccine reactions now than 30 years ago.

[Maiasaura]

Originally Posted by alegna

As mentioned- there WERE vax reactions then. I think of it as a matter of numbers- if someone born in 1959 got (making up a number) 5 vaccines total and someone born in 2009 got (again, making up the number) 30 vaccines then that's 6 times as many. Perhaps 6 times as likely to have a reaction?

Originally Posted by Deborah

If we give out 4 doses, we are up to 4 reactions, and so on. At the 30 dose level, we would have 30 serious reactions. Which means that one in every 3,333 babies would be having a reaction.

This is all hypothetical, of course. But it does explain why more people are complaining about vaccine reactions now than 30 years ago.

Hmm. Maybe.

Or maybe one baby would get 30 serious reactions, or one reaction 30x more serious.

It's certainly food for thought.

[serenbat]

My big issues is when you take most meds you take a dose, yes some is age related, some is weight related but vacs it's really all or nothing 13 lbs or 300lbs!

[newmum35]

Originally Posted by Deborah

I did the following very rough calculation once, on the chances of a vaccine reaction.

Let us suppose, conservatively, that the chance of a serious reaction is 1 per 100,000 doses of all vaccines.

If we give 100,000 babies each 1 and only 1 dose of a vaccine, the chances are that 1 of those babies will have a reaction.

If we give those same 100,000 babies a second vaccine, the chance of a reaction doubles to 2 out of the 100,000 babies having a serious reaction.

If we give out 4 doses, we are up to 4 reactions, and so on. At the 30 dose level, we would have 30 serious reactions. Which means that one in every 3,333 babies would be having a reaction.

This is all hypothetical, of course. But it does explain why more people are complaining about vaccine reactions now than 30 years ago.

THis was brilliant, and I think it is so very true. THis has roughly what has happend I think. Except with SOME new vaccines, reactions are MUCH much greater. I remember reading about prevnar for example (or was it HepA..hmm I think it was HepA) and reactions were a shocking 1 percent in this age group for it was recommended!! that is 1 in 100!!! So I decided to wait until the next age group to give it, where the chance of bad reaction went down a lot, and by that time, I had learned enough about it that I was no longer interested!

ETA: I actually read the paper manufacturers insert included with the product. and still have it.

[Mommabean]

Originally Posted by A&A

Yeah, the liver needs until at least 6 mo. of age to process toxins.

Can you point me somewhere that I can read up on this?

[ammiga]

There is a post at the bottom of this page (might get bumped to page 2 by the time you read this) where a poster's dh has a pretty bad reaction to a tetanus vaccine.

Does age make vaxing safer? I don't know. But I certainly wouldn't say it makes it safe.

[13Sandals]

My son regressed at 5 after the second MMR. We were on a delayed schedule and I imagine if I had vaccinated him on schedule he would be in much worse shape...so it was probably safer to delay, but certainly not 'safe'.

Genetics may have played a role - but since no one bothers to test, or check at all if your child might be predisposed to immune problems - why risk it. One size fits all - sick, preemie, diabetic, whatever - they all get shot up.

[Sileree]

Originally Posted by 13Sandals

My son regressed at 5 after the second MMR. We were on a delayed schedule and I imagine if I had vaccinated him on schedule he would be in much worse shape...so it was probably safer to delay, but certainly not 'safe'.

Genetics may have played a role - but since no one bothers to test, or check at all if your child might be predisposed to immune problems - why risk it. One size fits all - sick, preemie, diabetic, whatever - they all get shot up.

My DP also reacted at age 9 to MR (he developed bowel disease).

[terra-pip]

I delayed the MMR with my oldest (7). He received it at 2 and a half and began regressing a few months after. He's diagnosed with autism (PDD) and SPD with OCD symptoms. And he hit all milestones before that. With my second I went with the total delayed schedule that Dr Sears recommends and refused a select few vaccines. (I was going to refuse the pox and rotovirus)He didn't receive the Hep b and he got the DTaP and Prevnar at 4 months rather than 2 months and I refused the polio and the Hib (it was being recalled around this time)... he cried unconsolably for nearly 3 hours after his first round of shots. It was horrible. When I mentioned it to the nurse her response was "sometimes a baby can have a very intense reaction to the DTaP and prevnar being given at the same time...we should separate those shots from now on." I saw red. I remember saying "you know that these can cause this sort of reation and you still do it? Why wait for a negative reaction before separating the shots? The damage is done. It's not normal the amount and intensity he cried." I was done after that. He's nearly 3 and I watch him like a hawk for any kinds of regression or symptoms. And by the way my oldest never cried after his shots but went into a sleepy shock like state. How I wish I had the information when he was an infant that I did later.

I'm pregnant and this time I am not vaccinating at all.

[luminesce]

Originally Posted by Deborah

I did the following very rough calculation once, on the chances of a vaccine reaction.

Let us suppose, conservatively, that the chance of a serious reaction is 1 per 100,000 doses of all vaccines.

If we give 100,000 babies each 1 and only 1 dose of a vaccine, the chances are that 1 of those babies will have a reaction.

If we give those same 100,000 babies a second vaccine, the chance of a reaction doubles to 2 out of the 100,000 babies having a serious reaction.

If we give out 4 doses, we are up to 4 reactions, and so on. At the 30 dose level, we would have 30 serious reactions. Which means that one in every 3,333 babies would be having a reaction.

This is all hypothetical, of course. But it does explain why more people are complaining about vaccine reactions now than 30 years ago.

Haven't frequented the forums much in a long while; still delaying here. At first glance this analysis seems plausible but I don't think the math is correct.

The clearest way I can think of to explain why is this... If you have a coin and you flip it 8 times in a row, each time you flip it you have the same chance (1:2) of it landing on heads. Essentially, each event is unique. Each time you get a vaccine you have the same chance of a reaction. You are taking the risk multiple times but each time your risk is unique and specific to that vaccine. Your overall risk does not increase with each shot.

Now... you could make the argument that if vaccines cause damage, then you may be more likely to experience a reaction with each subsequent shot -- or if you have a reaction to a particular shot, you're more likely to have another reaction to a booster -- or if you get tetanus shots too closes together, you're more likely to have an arthus reaction... etc. etc.

If you want to go that route, a much more complex analysis would be required. Bayes' Theorem is used for calculating conditional probabilities. This would be very hard to do given we don't really have any clue what the risk factors are for vaccines. Poor nutritional status? Recent illness? Genetic components? Good gosh, there could be a lot. I do believe that some data mining has taken place with VAERS using Bayes' Theorem to detect problems with specific vaccines (like the rotavirus-intussusception link.) Of course we all know the problem with that - the mining is only as good as the data. And with VAERS, the data is atrocious.

/sigh - now I remember why I took a break from the forums. It just all makes me sad and frustrated. This is exactly what scientists should be doing - collecting good data and doing research which includes such statistical analysis. If we knew why some kids have reactions, we'd have a better idea of how to manage the risks. Sticking our heads in the sand simply for the supposed good of the greater number is certainly not the way to go.

Edit: I forgot to add my comment on the original question. "Less dangerous" leaves a lot to be interpreted. If you delay vaccinating until after critical development phases, I think the risk is most likely lower for certain kinds of reactions and damage simply due to better physical, neurological, & immunological maturity. Overall though, given we really don't have a complete scientific understanding about how vaccinations work (researchers are only now beginning to understand why we need adjuvants and why they even work!) it is hard to say what dangers any vaccine poses to long-term health.

[Deborah]

luminesce,
Thanks for the feedback on my very rough analysis. I didn't claim to really know how that works I was just trying to show that more vaccines would likely mean more reactions.

When it comes to the individual, my take is that for each vaccine the chance of a reaction is either zero or one hundred percent. This is true for drugs in general.

For example, if you get the package insert of a particular drug and it says that 80% of the people who took the drug had no reaction and 20% had various reactions, for any particular individual this doesn't actually mean that they have a 20% chance of a reaction. In real life, you either fall into one group or the other and you never know in advance. Unless the risk factors have actually been identified. As in, people with brown eyes always had reactions...

I agree with you. It would be lovely to have real research on vaccine reactions. I'm not holding my breath.

[newmum35]

Originally Posted by 13Sandals

My son regressed at 5 after the second MMR. We were on a delayed schedule and I imagine if I had vaccinated him on schedule he would be in much worse shape...so it was probably safer to delay, but certainly not 'safe'.

Genetics may have played a role - but since no one bothers to test, or check at all if your child might be predisposed to immune problems - why risk it. One size fits all - sick, preemie, diabetic, whatever - they all get shot up.

Was he on antibiotics or had a recent round prior to mmr? (basically Im wondering bowel health at time of mmr, was it perfect; how many times were antibiotics used in the past and for how long was he breastfed) .. I had read quite a bit about this (in the past, my memory is fuzzy now) where the live virus takes a hold in the gut and cause problems and wondered if this might have happened or if something totally different. How old is he now? Did he catch up or is he still delayed? Scary for sure but I do think with the brain, immune system, etc still growly and maturing so rapidly in those early months and years that it has to be better to wait longer.

[newmum35]

Originally Posted by Sileree

My DP also reacted at age 9 to MR (he developed bowel disease).

Same question as I just wrote to the other user. Just wondering in this instance too, especially since you mention bowel health, and at age 9 yet!