90% convinced to not vaccinate

[sonflawah]

I'm 90% convinced to not vaccinate my 4 month old dd. Hepititis B, polio, and chickenpox were easy decisions to make. I am, however, questioning my decision about Hib and DTaP, but leaning towards not giving them. I just don't want to enter into this no vaccination decision lightly. I want to be well informed about each vaccine and look at each one separately.

Specifically, what scares me about Hib is that meningitis can be pretty severe, and that makes me want to consider the vaccine. I am also afraid of pertussis, being since there are several outbreaks in my state. Tetanus also scares me because of the fatality rate if it is caught. Diphtheria, eh, not worried about it.

What reasons should I not consent to the Hib or DTaP vaccines? I keep going back and forth, looking to solidify my decision.

[ma2two]

Breastfeeding decreases the risk of Hib infection. http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/26/2/443.abstract I'm sure there are other studies, but this was the first one I saw when I Googled it.

It's common for fully vaccinated children to get pertussis. The vaccine does not work well. In babies over 6 months old, pertussis is not dangerous. All 10 babies who died a few years ago in the California outbreak were under 3 months old. Conventional medicine does not have a good treatment for pertussis, but natural medicine does--high doses of sodium ascorbate (a type of vitamin C that you can get at a health food store or online).

Tetanus is extremely rare in the U.S.--about 30 cases per year, mostly in people over 40 years and heroin users. It has a 90% survival rate.

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/tetanus.html

[LoveOurBabies]

Your baby is getting close to the age where pertussis is not dangerous - 6 months. Until then, keep your bub out of crowded areas and do not let anyone who is sick near your daughter (as the initial stage looks like a normal cold). Like a PP mentioned, all the babies that died were under 3 months old.

If you look up sodium ascorbate and pertussis, you will find very handy information on how to treat it. Some homeopathic remedies are also successful (alongside the ascorbate). Also ensure your dd has adequate vitamin A natural, not synthetic) as this helps the cilia to regenerate (the destruction of the cilia by bordetella pertussis is what causes the characteristic cough).

[katt]

most of the cases of Pertussis in WA state are people who have been vaccinated.  fyi

That vax is not very effective at all.

[emmy526]

and also those babies that died, i believe some if not all, were not diagnosed in  a timely manner...if they had been, they might have lived.  And who knows what other immune taxing things were done to their bodies while in the hospital, which could have been the culprit as to why they came down with it in the first place, and couldn't fight if off...of course, an accurate diagnosis would have helped. 

[Rrrrrachel]

The pertussis vaccine is 59-85% effective. Studies show vaccinated children are 9-23 times less likely to get pertussis than non vaccinated children.

[Taximom5]

Which studies, and were they funded, designed, interpreted, and marketed by vaccine manufacturers or by groups funded by vaccine manufacturers? Since financial conflict of interest has resulted in unethical decisions (including lies) from the same companies with other products, resulting in deaths and fines, it is a valid concern.

[Rrrrrachel]

Here is one. http://xnet.kp.org/newscenter/pressreleases/nat/2009/052609immunization.html

I'm not here to debate it, I respect that this is the non vaccinating forum, I just wanted to provide some info help answer the mamas question. She can conclude from it what she wants.

[Taximom5]

Thanks for the link, Rrrrrachel. So Kaiser Permanente did that particular study.

[Rrrrrachel]

I don't think so. I think it's just a story about it on their website. It says who paid for it but now I can't remember.

[Rrrrrachel]

N/m, it does call it "a kaiser permanente" study.

Re funding: "Funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, this is the first study to use electronic health records to look for immunization refusal and possible pertussis infections, making it the most definitive on the risk of vaccine refusal to date."

[LoveOurBabies]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

The pertussis vaccine is 59-85% effective. Studies show vaccinated children are 9-23 times less likely to get pertussis than non vaccinated children.

I'd also like to point out that some non-vaxxed kids don't contract Pertussis even when directly exposed to it for hours at a time (like my dc). The 9-23 times more likely if you are non vaxxed did not hold up to our experience. On the other hand, the child who had Pertussis was vaccinated. The child was not on antibiotics (or had recently completed the 5-10 day course) when the exposure occured. This was prior to diagnosis and PCR testing.

The fact that my dc did not contract Pertussis is not something to scoff at. After all, they were 9 times (at the bare minimum) more likely to contract it. 9 times! This isn't double the chance or triple the chance, this is 9 times the chance. That's a huge starting point.

Based on our experience, should I now safely state that every non-vaxxed person is very unlikely to contract Pertussis, while being vaccinated against it means you most likely will contract it? No, certainly not. The only statement I will make, is that it was just a random occurence like any other. You're probably wondering what my point is at this stage. Here it is: Just because vaccination is 59-85% effective in it's protection, doesn't mean you will fall into that group during an outbreak. It doesn't mean you will be the one who will be 9-23 times less likely to contract it. I would hate for a parent to rely on this statement and believe that they most likely will be covered. Because they very well may not be. We can tell from my own experience and the bolded portion of your post, most likely and least likely don't mean a damn thing in the end.

Now, please don't get me wrong - I am not intending to be snarky. I believe that each person should have a proper feel for what they could be in for and not just assume they will always be on the safe side of probability if they do x, y and z. This goes for vaxxers and non vaxxers alike. The amount of people I have known that take their newborn or infant out to crowded areas (where Pertussis often lurks) just because their baby has had 1 or 2 dTaP shots, is astounding. They naively believe their child is protected, without being aware that the vaccine doesn't offer full protection and even if it did happen to - You need to have completed the course of three injections to be offered this potential luxury. These people (and their child) would be better off having little faith in said vaccine and keeping their baby at home until the age where Pertussis is not as dangerous (6+ months), passes.

[Taximom5]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

N/m, it does call it "a kaiser permanente" study.
Re funding: "Funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, this is the first study to use electronic health records to look for immunization refusal and possible pertussis infections, making it the most definitive on the risk of vaccine refusal to date."

 So it's funded by NIH, since NIAID is a division of NIH?  Does that mean it's funded by our tax dollars, by pharma grants, or both?

[Rrrrrachel]

Love, you are correct that probabilities tell us what will happen in general, they do not give you any assurances what will happen to a particular child, thanks for pointing that out. If a coin lands heads five times in a row we know we have some tails coming, but the probability on the next flip is still fifty fifty!

Taxi, I think it means tax dollars, you can find out more about niaid funding here.

http://www.niaid.nih.gov/researchfunding/paybud/pages/default.aspx

[purslaine]

DaPT.

Tetanus: tetanus is dangerous, but it is incrediably rare.  Here is a stat from this mainstream site  

http://www.medpagetoday.com/InfectiousDisease/GeneralInfectiousDisease/25657

"Overall, however, incidence of the disease remained low -- at 0.10 per 1 million population overall, and at 0.23 among those ages 65 and up."

I have no doubt in my mind that the likelihood of getting in a car accident on the way to get the shot is higher than getting tetanus.  

Knowing a bit about tetanus may put your mind at ease.

The likelihood of getting tetanus if proper wound management occurs make a very unlikely possibility even lower.    Wounds should be encouraged to bleed, and should be cleaned properly.  A deep puncture wound from the outdoors (soil and fecal matter are a source of tetanus) might necessitate a trip to the ER for wound care and possible immunoglobulin - but that is pretty unlikely. 

Pertussis.  Ah pertussis.  Perhaps the most controversial vaccine.  Pertussis is not fun for anyone and dangerous for infants.  In some ways by the time one gets three vaccines under ones belt (DPT at 2, 4 and 6 months) , one is out of the very dangerous period. I would be very curious to see how much immunity is given after one, two and three shots.  

Pertussis is a lousy vaccine, IMHO.   It is no where near as effective as other vaccines, the disease might be mutating, it takes numerous shots and boosters  to achieve its lousy effectiveness rate. .

Would I give a pertussis vaccine to an infant?  Maybe - but only if there was huge outbreak going on while my child was an infant.  I am more likely to cocoon my family in the event of an outbreak - I would try and make sure the immediate caregivers of an infant were protected against pertussis.  The infant would not being going out to the mall and on public transportation.  Yes, this is a PITA, but infants are not infants forever.  I would also get a DPT shot for myself to make sure the person the baby sees most does not make her ill.  I think it is less risky for me to get a shot than an infant.  I do not think cocooning works on the wide scale, but in a epidemic if you have an infant it may be wise.

Sorry, no info on Hib, I know very little about it.  I do know there are several ways to get menningits and HIb only protects from one or some of the ways.  

[LoveOurBabies]

Originally Posted by kathymuggle 

I am more likely to cocoon my family in the event of an outbreak - I would try and make sure the immediate caregivers of an infant were protected against pertussis.  The infant would not being going out to the mall and on public transportation.  Yes, this is a PITA, but infants are not infants forever.  I would also get a DPT shot for myself to make sure the person the baby sees most does not make her ill.  I think it is less risky for me to get a shot than an infant.  I do not think cocooning works on the wide scale, but in a epidemic if you have an infant it may be wise.

Thank you. I am glad someone else said this!

I am currently cocooning - 9 weeks and counting. Major pain in the behind and I'm going a little stir crazy, but I would rather this than the possibility of a far more depressing reality.

My personal belief is that every parent should aim to cocoon, vaxxing or not.

[sonflawah]

Thanks for all the information. I am breastfeeding and she doesn't go to daycare, so I think that reduces some of the risks of exposure and ups her immune system.

Because of pertussis, I am cocooning right now. Never heard of that term before, but it describes what I'm doing. I sometimes worry about my husband coming home from work with pertussis since he works at a warehouse store where a lot of people shop. I also worry about coming home from the grocery store myself with it, which is the only place we go. We aren't vaccinated against it. I didn't know that the major risk of death ended at 6 months. We are almost there, and if the vaccine is ineffective anyway, even if I decided to vax with the DTaP, she wouldn't receive all 3 doses by then... so I can see it is rather pointless. Any statistics on the risks of pertussis after 6 months?

I have pretty much decided to not vaccinate now, well, 97% sure. :)

I wonder if things will change when I have more LOs and possibly one in school and a newborn at home.

[Monkeygrrl]

My 9yo contracted pertussis at 6mo. We were grilled on where we had been, etc, which was only to the grocery stores then home again. *shrug*

My son also has epilepsy. One of the risks of DTaP is seizures. I do not want to imagine how much worse his epilepsy would be if I had chosen to vaccinate him. 

I choose not to be afraid of any of the illness/diseases that vaccines are supposed to protect against. I would rather something happen and know they lived a full life up to that point, then to vaccinate and risk them losing their life potential at that moment. It's just not worth it to me. I have to be able to look myself in the mirror every day - not vaccinating is one way I make sure I can do that. 

[rik8144]

I thought this site was very interesting when it came to looking at how many cases of diseases were reported. As we all know there are probably hundreds NOT reported, but still a handy little tool none the less. 

http://apps.who.int/immunization_monitoring/en/globalsummary/timeseries/TSincidenceByCountry.cfm?C=USA

[Taximom5]

Originally Posted by sonflawah 

Because of pertussis, I am cocooning right now. Never heard of that term before, but it describes what I'm doing.

My understanding is that the term "cocooning," in the context of disease outbreaks, is used to describe vaccinating all people who might be in contact with an infant who is too young to be vaccinated.

I'm not saying I agree with it (I certainly don't for pertussis, because the vaccine does NOT prevent vaccinated people from carrying and spreading the disease anyway), I'm just providing the context and usage of the term.