or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › The case for vaccination
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The case for vaccination - Page 13  

post #241 of 713

Someone a while ago posted a statistic about the fraction of flu vaccines containing thimerosol still. This came up in another thread on these boards a few weeks ago. I tried to track down the 90% number which many anti-vaccination sites quote, but can only find it on anti-vaccination sites (as I explain below). 

 

This is the full thread: 

http://www.mothering.com/community/t/1350106/misleading-reports-about-autism-data

 

 

I'll copy one of my posts from there: 

 

 

Quote (myself!):

 It could be seen as misleading to cite these new autism numbers as "proving" and increase in autism is continuing despite the removal of thimerosol in vaccines. The dates do seem a bit tight, and unless I'm missing something I do think reporting the results in this way is doing a disservice to our intelligence. However, my facts (with references) do differ somewhat from the ones previously posted: 

 

Since 2001 no new vaccine licensed by FDA for use in children has contained thimerosol, and all vaccines routinely recommended by CDC for children younger than 6 years of age have been thimerosal–free, or contain only trace amounts of thimerosal, except for multi–dose formulations of influenza vaccine.(http://www.cdc.gov/flu/protect/vaccine/thimerosal.htm). The original suggestions to start removing/reducing thimerosol seems to have come in 1999 (http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/SafetyAvailability/VaccineSafety/UCM096228#act)

 

In 2011-2012, out of 13 flu vaccination formulations, 4 contain thimerosol (which is 30% of them; and is only those sold in multi-dose vials where risk of infection is high and therefore the antibacterial properties of thimerosol are needed). http://www.cdc.gov/flu/protect/vaccine/vaccines.htm

I have yet to find information on the usage rates of the different vaccination formulations, but I cannot find any suggestion that 90% contain thimerosol. What I did find was a press release from "Put Children First" from 2006 which claimed the 90% figure, but gave no data, and NVIC also claim 80-90% on their "Mercury in Vaccines" page, but again no data. 

 

Recent media news about autism rates were based on data collected on 8 year olds in 2008 - and therefore they were indeed born in 2000, receiving most childhood vaccines presumably in 2000 or 2001 just around the time thimerosal was being removed from all childhood vaccines. http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/data.html

Interestingly the rates in boys and girls were drastically different (as they have been in all previous reports). Autism rates are 5 times higher in boys than girls, while vaccination rates I assume are similar (for that I have found no data I admit!). 

 

If the autism study dates follow the pattern in the table here http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/data.html the next report will be published in 2014 based on data collected in 2010, before any change to the ASD diagnosis information, and based on children born in 2002, after thimerosol was removed from all childhood vaccines. It will be interesting to see the outcome of that. A study based on new guidelines if they are implemented this year would not be published until 2016 (if it continues to be 4 years between data collection and study publication. 

 

Independent studies show no link between thimerosol containing vaccines and autism, for example: 

" In our study of MCO (managed care organization) members, prenatal and early-life exposure to ethylmercury from thimerosal-containing vaccines and immunoglobulin preparations was not related to increased risk of ASDs (autism spectrum disorders)."

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2010/09/13/peds.2010-0309

 

I also should reference the wikipedia page on Thimerosol: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiomersal. If you think they have their facts wrong you can try to edit it following their rules for properly referencing the source of your facts. 

post #242 of 713

Hello luvmyangels , a warm welcome from me as well ! I am also an attachment Mother ( as much as possible ) and I VACCINATE !!!

Yes , I BELIEVE in the power of vaccines and I BELIEVE in the protection of herd immunity , so you are not alone !!! grouphug.gif  winky.gif

post #243 of 713
Thread Starter 
Thanks for the fact check!
post #244 of 713
Quote:
Originally Posted by SweetSilver View Post

Thanks for clarifying what you mean by "harm" because many non-/anti-vaxxers also make their decisions based on love for their children and the desire to keep them from harm.

 

Also, it is not my personal impression that AP="anti-vax".  While I do find this in spades, for sure, there is another camp that prefers it to be a *choice*.  The first camp will argue the benefits of immunity (or "immunity" in case someone cares to argue) from vaccines, and the benefits or lack of benefits from herd immunity.  The second camp will (also?) point to the known risks of vaccination, the shortcomings and shortsightedness, conflicts of interests and will remain skeptical of these issues in general and specifically for their children.

Thank you .  Well said.

post #245 of 713
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

Someone a while ago posted a statistic about the fraction of flu vaccines containing thimerosol still. This came up in another thread on these boards a few weeks ago. I tried to track down the 90% number which many anti-vaccination sites quote, but can only find it on anti-vaccination sites (as I explain below). 

 

This is the full thread: 

http://www.mothering.com/community/t/1350106/misleading-reports-about-autism-data

 

 

I'll copy one of my posts from there: 

 

 

 

Ok.  So you do not like the 90% figure as it came from a non-vax site (the 90% was for all populations, though, not just pregnant women and children).

 

 Do you have a figure you prefer from a mainstream site on how many pregnant women and children get the flu vaccine with thimerosal in it? 


Edited by purslaine - 6/4/12 at 2:33pm
post #246 of 713
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post


On the us schedule except for some boosters at 4-6 and flu hits you're pretty much done at 2.

 

Even way back when I was a kid (in Canada), there was another booster at 15-16, and tetanus boosters every 10 years, and now there's the HPV vaccine, etc..., etc..... which isn't to say that vaccinations are all bad, but it's definitely not something that's pretty much done at 2 if you have any intention of maintaining immunity.

post #247 of 713
Thread Starter 
I guess I call having had 90% of the shots pretty much done. Particularly with the childhood shots.
post #248 of 713
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

I guess I call having had 90% of the shots pretty much done. Particularly with the childhood shots.


LOL  I guess I plan to live a lot longer than you, because if I planned to keep up with my boosters, the childhood shots wouldn't even come close to 90% by the time I kick it. 

post #249 of 713
Thread Starter 
Well, point being, I guess I see where the op was coming from.
post #250 of 713
I want to say that I am part of an AP community where I live. There is a loose knit group of about 15 of us. 3 (including myself) do not vax (but are not anti vax), 2 fully vax on schedule, and the remainder either do delayed or selective or a mix of both.

I do not think that AP=anti vax at all. At least from my own life experience and reading.

All our kids play together by the way. I am glad that the viciousness on this board regarding vax doesn't exist in my physical life.
post #251 of 713
Thread Starter 
Mine either, Nuku. I'm also grateful for that.
post #252 of 713

When I see people use the term fully vaccinated, I assume they mean up to date and on schedule not that a child will never need another vaccine.
 

post #253 of 713
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post


On the us schedule except for some boosters at 4-6 and flu hits you're pretty much done at 2.

Here is the US schedule for older kids, ages 7-18:

 

 

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/who/teens/downloads/parent-version-schedule-7-18yrs.pdf

 

They call for TDaP at age 11/12, 3 doses of Gardasil or Cervarix, also at 11/12 (for girls AND boys), MCV4 with a booster at age 16, and yearly flu shots.

That's 17 vaccines, plus 5 flu shots between age 2 and age 7.

 

post #254 of 713
Thread Starter 
Jeepers, done for awhile, then. Is this really that important?
post #255 of 713
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

Jeepers, done for awhile, then. Is this really that important?

Yes Rachel. It is a matter of life and death. Obviously. :-/
post #256 of 713
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post


On the us schedule except for some boosters at 4-6 and flu hits you're pretty much done at 2.

Here is the US schedule for older kids, ages 7-18:

 

 

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/who/teens/downloads/parent-version-schedule-7-18yrs.pdf

 

They call for TDaP at age 11/12, 3 doses of Gardasil or Cervarix, also at 11/12 (for girls AND boys), MCV4 with a booster at age 16, and yearly flu shots.

That's 17 vaccines, plus 5 flu shots between age 2 and age 7.

 

I read this the exact way- not even close to fully done. also CP is given again (booster) after age 2

post #257 of 713
Quote:
Originally Posted by AbbyGrant View Post

When I see people use the term fully vaccinated, I assume they mean up to date and on schedule not that a child will never need another vaccine.
 


Thanks Abby, this is how I perceive the term "fully vaccinated" and why I said it...as in "received all vaccines on schedule"...is that better??

post #258 of 713
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

Jeepers, done for awhile, then. Is this really that important?

Yes, it's important.

 

"Done" means something entirely different from "done for one year, with 22 more shots to go before college."  Your statement implied that those 22 shots don't exist.

post #259 of 713
Thread Starter 
Great, well glad we cleared that up then.
post #260 of 713


Let's stop this semantics argument about what "done" means and get back to what I was really wondering about.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Louisw View Post

When "vaccinated" your body also TRIES to get the foreign matter out. A baby will cry to alert his mother that something is wrong. How many more years are we going to ignore this call of distress? If your babies immune system is over taxed by the "vaccination" your baby will often use every means at its disposal to TRY and eliminate the toxin; projectile vomiting; explosive defecation, fever and anything else to GET IT OUT.

Do you really think that the cry is because the baby is alerting the mother to the toxin that it must then try to dispel, or because it was, you know, poked by a foreign object which, in this instance, broke the skin.  I mean, if I poke the baby with any needle, it's going to cry, even if I don't inject anything.  Do you then disagree in, for example, blood draws for diagnostic testing?  Crying for injections of non-vaccinations, say if the child required antibiotics for an infection?  (I'm aware it's risky to go there, as I don't know your stance on infections, but let's just assume it was an entirely natural, wild-caught case of something requiring either IM or IV antibiotics.)

 

I just find this entire argument rather silly.  Since my babies didn't do any of the other things you listed to expel the toxin, should I assume they weren't trying to alert me of their distress and that their body was just fine with it?  In which case, only the cry which alerted me to their initial pain was the problem, so...then what's the problem with things like FluMist?

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations
This thread is locked  
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › The case for vaccination