Kids who are reactive...

[heathergirl67]

This is something I've been wondering for awhile now. Do you think that kids who have a severe reaction to vaccinations would also have a severe reaction to the illness? And vice versa, do you think that kids who have a severe reaction to the illness would have a severe reaction to the vaccination?

It seems like it would be a hard one to to test. Unless it was something that is known to not develop a long-lasting immunity whether one is vaxed or gets the wild illness, like pertussis perhaps. What are your thoughts and reasonings on this? Have you found any relevant research?

[Deborah]

One problem is that with the advent of vaccines, studies on how children deal with illness and why some children get sicker than other children have sort of disappeared.

For example, when it comes to polio, the vast majority of the population was able to experience polio with no symptoms or exceedingly mild symptoms. There was a lot of discussion on possible causes for the variation but I think it largely ended once there was a vaccine.

Some of the stuff I've come across: injections caused paralytic polio (search for provocation polio), removal of tonsils made paralytic polio more likely, exposure to certain toxins may have played a role...

People have been researching why some girls react to Gardasil really badly while most do not. However, in this particular situation, cervical cancer is so rare that it would be darned hard to work out if the girls who react to Gardasil are more or less likely to get cervical cancer in 40 years.

Major causes of mortality from childhood illnesses used to be malnutrition and filth and lack of basic nursing care.

For example, my grandchildren have been going through chickenpox. They live in a comfortable house, their parents can supply them with fresh chicken broth, oatmeal baths, clean clothing, private beds, fresh fruit, vitamins and so forth. All of this makes it easier to get through this illness without severe problems. On the other hand, some parents would give fever suppressing drugs (makes it worse), feed the children junk food with sugar (makes it worse)...modern malnutrition isn't a lack of food it is badly chosen food.

Just about the only thing that is really clear is that children who are terribly ill already are especially vulnerable to infectious diseases. Which is nothing new.

[newmum35]

I don't think its true at all, but I'm not a professional so what do I know

Getting an illness doesn't give you a shot of aluminum, and this is highly reactive in some people (which is why its used even with so called "placebo" vaccines right?) ,.. not to mention numerous other ingredients. If vaccines were merely the altered strain and nothing more then perhaps it might be worth considering. But it is impossible to say to which part of the vaccine one reacted to, and even if it were proven to be the actual altered virus for example, how do we know that person wouldn't have been fine if allowed to be introduced to the virus via a more normal method (nasal, gi tract etc) instead of via injection? Just too many variables to be able to answer with any great accuracy, but my guess is no.

[heathergirl67]

Good points. But there are enough children in the US that have been severely harmed by vaxes and the illnesses to know that well-nourished kids in sanitary conditions can also suffer these extreme effects. Something genetic, perhaps?

Newmum- I see what you're saying. You're thinking that when kids are injured by vaxes it's because of some ingredient other than the virus. Is that right? But even if that's the case, then why are those kids more reactive (to whatever the trigger was) than the majority of kids, who don't seem to suffer any ill effects? And why do some seemingly previously healthy kids get extremely sick or die from an illness that the majority of kids can tolerate?

I totally agree that adequate nutrition and a sanitary environment play a role. But I can't believe that those are the only things that would make a child more reactive. It just doesn't add up. Of course, I don't have any brilliant ideas of what else could be involved, so what do I know?

[2boyzmama]

I am one of those children who had a severe reaction to the old DTP vaccine (it is in my medical records that I am medically contraindicated from receiving more doses of it, in fact I learned that it also contraindicates me from receiving the newer Tdap).

The only "vaccine preventable disease" I had as a child was chicken pox, and yes, I did have a severe case (including hospitalization for secondary infections in my sinuses, ears, throat, and urethra/vagina. I had pox in my mucus membranes that caused bleeding and led to me becoming anemic).

So in my case, I had a severe vaccine reaction, and a severe illness reaction. Although, important to note that it was not the same vaccine/illness. Interesting to note that I am also deathly allergic to Penicillin (anaphylactic shock at 18 months old, very very serious)

My fully unvaccinated 3 year old has a primary immune deficiency (t-cell deficit) and had a very severe case of rotavirus just before he was 2. He also had a systemic haemophilus influenzae (non-typeable) infection when he was 15 months. Surprisingly he got through chicken pox just fine (although it did take him a very long time to fully shed the virus--9 weeks of active pox!) I have no doubt that he would be highly reactive to vaccines, but I can't prove it since he doesn't have any. IN his case, there is a known underlying immune dysfunction. Not true in my case, no known immune issues.

My partially vaccinated 5 year old is a big strong healthy kid. He has had rotavirus and chicken pox, and neither were a big deal for him. He's had two flu-like illnesses that knocked him on his butt pretty good (both tested negative for influenza) but otherwise he has gotten through many illnesses with no issues.

SO...there's some anecdotal information for you!

Oh...I have a brother who had a severe reaction to DTP just like I did. He also had chicken pox, but it was not severe for him. He did have recurrent respiratory illnesses as a young child, including one hospitalization for pneumonia at age 5, but otherwise has been a healthy child. He does have Aspergers, but showed symptoms of it from young infancy, definitely not a case of vaccine-acquired. So he is a child who had a severe vaccine reaction, but not real notable illness reactions.

[Marnica]

Originally Posted by heathergirl67

Good points. But there are enough children in the US that have been severely harmed by vaxes and the illnesses to know that well-nourished kids in sanitary conditions can also suffer these extreme effects. Something genetic, perhaps?

Newmum- I see what you're saying. You're thinking that when kids are injured by vaxes it's because of some ingredient other than the virus. Is that right? But even if that's the case, then why are those kids more reactive (to whatever the trigger was) than the majority of kids, who don't seem to suffer any ill effects? And why do some seemingly previously healthy kids get extremely sick or die from an illness that the majority of kids can tolerate?

I totally agree that adequate nutrition and a sanitary environment play a role. But I can't believe that those are the only things that would make a child more reactive. It just doesn't add up. Of course, I don't have any brilliant ideas of what else could be involved, so what do I know?

I think this is genetic....I have started reading about myelination and the many potential genetic mutations that can occur that effect these pathways. The introduction of certain environmental elements (including certain vaccine ingredients) seriously messes with these pathways, resulting in a variety of problems. As for seemingly healthy children that die of infectous disease. I do wonder how this same issue may come into play. I also am of the opinion that at least in some cases, HOW the disease was handled and treated may actually result in death. JMHO

[Deborah]

Seemingly healthy and healthy are not equivalent.

For example, there is a lot of loose ground between leukemia and perfect health. But in one study in the U.K. of children who had a hard time with measles, the only children who were put into the "less than perfectly healthy" category were the kids with some sort of active disease condition. The investigators didn't check for Vitamin A levels, they didn't look to see if the children had any other health problems, they just defined healthy as not seriously ill at the time.

I think the proper research hasn't been done.

Unfortunately, I no longer have the journal, but there was an interesting article by a doctor who had been working in an African hospital during a measles epidemic. The doctor in charge was treating the children with anti-pyretics (fever reducers). The children would be feeling not too bad, sitting up in bed playing and then some of them would become terribly ill and die. The doctor writing the article was put in charge of the measles ward half way through the epidemic (half of the cases came in before he took over). He ordered that the children be left to endure the misery of their fevers and other symptoms. The death rate dropped way down. The only two children who died after this both had major medical problems: malaria and...can't remember, sorry!

I just don't think anyone is going to do a proper study of this question because to do so would be to admit that many, many children can survive these childhood illnesses in good order.

[chaoticzenmom]

Some people can smoke and not get lung cancer. Does that mean that there's something wrong with the people who do get lung cancer? Do the cigarettes cause lung cancer or is there a genetic issue with that person to begin with? It's the same thing as vaccines in my eyes. Vaccines cause damage. I don't think that vaccine reactions can be blamed on the person's body any more than lung cancer can. Vaccine manufacturers always want to blame the victim when a reaction occurs. There was already something wrong with them, they were susceptible, etc. That really bothers me.

[Emmeline II]

Originally Posted by heathergirl67

Good points. But there are enough children in the US that have been severely harmed by vaxes and the illnesses to know that well-nourished kids in sanitary conditions can also suffer these extreme effects. Something genetic, perhaps?

I don't know how you can compare. Most vaccines are injected (avoiding the body's natural defenses in addition to using modified a virus/bacteria and additional ingredients), and the one or two that are not still have animal products and additional ingredients used in the manufacture and present in the final product.

What ever the vaccine, the patient is not being exposed to a "natural" product in the "natural" way.

[heathergirl67]

Chaoticzenmom- That's a good comparison. I wonder what it is about their bodies that would make it so that they get the lung cancer when others don't. I see what you mean about blaming people. I hate that too. I don't really see it as a blame thing, because nobody purposefully gives themself some pre-existing condition.

Emmeline- I see what you're saying, that vaccines aren't natural so that there is no way to have a natural response to them. But the fact is that most kids who get the vaccine experience mild effects, if at all. Just like most kids who get the illnesses handle it adeptly with no real emergencies. But some don't. I guess that's my question. What, besides being immunocompromised, would cause that reaction? In either case?

Marnica- I've heard a lot about mylenation, too. Unfortunately I've been too lazy to actually study it. But I may have to look into it now. It sounds like there could be some real potential there for answers...

[heathergirl67]

Deborah- I am not disagreeing that nutrition is important. I believe it plays a huge factor in every area of health. Sometimes people have super specific recipes for ideal nutrition. *This* much Vitamin A and *that* much Vitamin D and *this* much potassium, etc. I don't doubt that these things are important and powerful. But I do wonder if that isn't just a way for people to feel some control. Like, if I do this and this then I won't ever get sick. That's a lot more comforting than "I'll do my best, but I still might get sick because it just happens." Like I said, I really do think those things are important. But I doubt that they can prevent you from getting sick. With the exception of scurvy, maybe.

[Marnica]

Originally Posted by heathergirl67

Deborah- I am not disagreeing that nutrition is important. I believe it plays a huge factor in every area of health. Sometimes people have super specific recipes for ideal nutrition. *This* much Vitamin A and *that* much Vitamin D and *this* much potassium, etc. I don't doubt that these things are important and powerful. But I do wonder if that isn't just a way for people to feel some control. Like, if I do this and this then I won't ever get sick. That's a lot more comforting than "I'll do my best, but I still might get sick because it just happens." Like I said, I really do think those things are important. But I doubt that they can prevent you from getting sick. With the exception of scurvy, maybe.

That's unfortunate. I would urge you to look into the re-emerging filed of nutritional immunology. http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/content/...22/3_Suppl/591

http://www.hnrc.tufts.edu/1192109687...109688495.html

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18253705

[Ruthla]

I would think that being "highly reactive" to the vaccines means that you've got a strong immune system; one that's more likely to fight off the illness without developing complications. Kids who don't react to the shots might be the kids who don't have strong enough immune system to notice and react to the "threat".

[heathergirl67]

Originally Posted by Marnica

That's unfortunate. I would urge you to look into the re-emerging filed of nutritional immunology. http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/content/...22/3_Suppl/591

http://www.hnrc.tufts.edu/1192109687...109688495.html

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18253705

None of those links talked about ideal nutrition being able to prevent someone from getting sick. They talked about nutritions significant impact on the immune system, but the farthest they would go is to say that it could help control disease. Not prevent it.

[Deborah]

heathergirl, I wasn't just talking about nutrition magically preventing serious illness. I was specifically addressing the claim that children who get terribly ill from measles or influenza were "perfectly healthy" before they got sick. There isn't any evidence that this is true because there is no definition of "healthy" and there is no attempt to ascertain that the children in question actually were healthy. So we don't know if really healthy children can get disastrous cases of childhood illnesses and die. The question hasn't been studied.

There is good evidence that proper management of childhood illnesses can reduce the likelihood of serious problems. I don't know of anything a parent can do that guarantees perfect outcomes in any childraising situation. It is sort of like putting a bike helmet on your kid. It reduces the likelihood of brain injury or death, but it isn't 100% guaranteed. Overall, the more good parenting decision you make, the better the odds for your children. So a healthy diet, enough sleep, clean surroundings (but not too clean), loving parents, and so forth and so on can help. Better than feeding your kids crap, putting them to bed really late, living in filth, shoving them away when they need attention...parents do their best and hope it all works out.

On the other hand, there is also evidence that certain situations increase the likelihood of vaccine reactions: antibiotic use, recent illness, multiple vaccines given at one time.

[amnesiac]

I think it depends on what you mean by "reaction." I do know of a child who died as a complication of receiving her first measles vaccine. It turned out that she had an immune system disorder which would have increased the likelihood of a poor outcome from either measles or attenuated vaccine.

[Marnica]

Originally Posted by heathergirl67

None of those links talked about ideal nutrition being able to prevent someone from getting sick. They talked about nutritions significant impact on the immune system, but the farthest they would go is to say that it could help control disease. Not prevent it.

Ideal nutrition preventing illness......nutritions impact on the immune system. IMO these are one and the same. It really is a fascinating field as is nutrigenomics (nutritions ability to alter gene expression). Google both and there is tons of info. You could read for a year.

And respectfully in my interpretation of the articles they do address disease prevention. Here is an example

Optimum but balanced food intake maintains healthy growth and disease-free lifespan. However, imbalanced and over-nutrition promotes obesity, diabetes, malignancy, osteoporosis, infectious diseases

ie prevents illness.

IMO nutrition is the key to health. You are of course free to disagree

[newmum35]

Originally Posted by heathergirl67

Newmum- I see what you're saying. You're thinking that when kids are injured by vaxes it's because of some ingredient other than the virus. Is that right?

This is right, exactly what I meant. This is well known and is one reason why a true placebo is rarely if ever used when studying side effects from a new vaccine. Instead they use another vaccine, or a shot of aluminum. People can and do react to these "other ingredients" present in vaccines.

But even if that's the case, then why are those kids more reactive (to whatever the trigger was) than the majority of kids, who don't seem to suffer any ill effects?

Perhaps the better question is not why some kids suffer from vaccine reactions, but why some kids (most in your opinion) do not ? Exactly what is protecting some people from NOT suffering vaccine reactions? Just like the poster who mentioned lung cancer and cigarettes. We should not be asking ourselves "what is wrong with those who smoke and then get lung cancer?" but what we should be studying instead is "what is protecting those who abuse their lungs with cigarettes and then live to be 100 while never getting cancer?"

I don't believe people who smoke and then get lung cancer have a genetic flaw. I don't believe that people who experience vaccine reactions have a genetic flaw. I believe that all the others are very lucky for dodging the same fate and it would benefit us all to find out how they did it. We already know that levels of vitamin C play a significant role. The aborigines of australia, up to half of all babies getting vaccines were dying (From the reactions). Until it was discovered they were deficient in vitamin C. Fix that, and voila, suddenly the death rate or severe vaccine reactions drops. So having an adequate level of this vitamin prevented half the babies from sharing the same fate.

And why do some seemingly previously healthy kids get extremely sick or die from an illness that the majority of kids can tolerate?

"Seemingly" is the key word here. In the majority of cases I do believe they are not as healthy as claimed. And in the rest, it could have simply been the treatment that did them in, with trying to suppress a fever being a big no-no as one example.

[chaoticzenmom]

I kind of see the point in trying to figure out who's more at risk and who's not. But, it seems to me like it will provide a false security. I live in a safe neighborhood. When I see bad things on the news, I can usually comfort myself that I live in a good neighborhood, so the risks of this happening to me are small. It doesn't mean I'm going to leave my doors unlocked, you know? It doesn't mean that there's not a sex offender visiting next door that I don't know about (which would be an unknown risk).

People like to comfort themselves and reassure themselves that bad things happen to "other" people.

So, when I think of the diseases and my children, I tell myself that they are healthy and I feed them well, so they'll be fine. Hopefully that's true, but there are always those unknown risks. Vaccinating parents tell themselves the same things about vaccinating..."my child is healthy, so he'll be fine having the shots." We can't find ALL the risks. Even if we find what protects some and makes others vulnerable, there will still be a false sense of security.

The only purpose I can think of for these types of discussions is to add that false security. What's a study on the effects of aluminum on certain children with certain disorders going to do for the rest of the children with unknown risks? It may help those children but hurt the rest. It's still letting the offender loose, but telling the only the known potential victims what to watch out for.

Ok, too many analogies....sorry.

[poppan]

More anecdotes and samples of 1...

My DD had a reaction to her first DTaP shot at age 2.5 months, which was actually 1 month old adjusted age as they were born early at 34.5 weeks. (Her twin--DS, so not genetically identical--had the same shot on the same day and did not have a reaction.) And she just had pertussis at age 3. Well, her pedi thought she had pertussis but then it was over so fast that now I'm scratching my head and going, maybe it was something else. But up until the point of recovery it had gone like a completely classic case of pertussis complete with the whoop and throwing up afterwards, so it probably was.

Anyway. I guess I have no way of knowing which ingredient(s) DD reacted to. She was super hot all over, the injection site in her thigh was swelled up enormously, she had the encepheletic cry for hours and then afterwards acted like she'd had a stroke with eyes glazed over. So whatever it was, I think it was attacking her brain. Maybe that's simply the difference between having something injected into your bloodstream (esp. when young when the blood-brain barrier is not well established) vs acquiring the pertussis bacteria in the wild and having a good immune system process the bacteria in your throat the regular way.