or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › Newborn vaccines? Eye drops, vitamin K, and Hep B??
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Newborn vaccines? Eye drops, vitamin K, and Hep B?? - Page 6

post #101 of 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by nutritionjulia View Post

OK, let's work on the numbers. 1 in a million babies have a severe allergic reaction. There were around 4 million babies born in the USA last year, and assuming all got a full three doses of the vaccine, that would mean 12 million doses, therefore 12 severe allergic reactions.

On the other hand, according to this FOX news article, the number of infants getting a chronic hepatitis B infection halved after routine vaccination, from 260 to 130 (note that not all infants avoid infection because not all are vaccinated, or fully vaccinated, or have an immune reaction). For the infants that were successfully vaccinated, they are protected from hepatitis B for the rest of their lives. http://www.foxnews.com/health/2012/03/28/hepatitis-b-program-helps-cut-infant-infections/

That is the trade-off, 12 severe allergic reactions (which may be life-threatening but won't necessarily cause any permanent damage) for 130 prevented cases of chronic hepatitis contracted in infancy, and many more in adolescents and adults. As the vaccination program continues, the number of cases of liver disease in the population (currently 4,000-5,000 death a year) will steadily decrease.

I would also like to add that the reason why newborn infants are vaccinated is twofold: they are much more susceptible to hepatitis B infections, and hepatitis B screening does not reach all pregnant women. Not all women can afford to pay for screening in pregnancy. There is a lag time for the disease to develop and show up on tests. Women can also be infected between being tested and giving birth. Infants are at a much higher risk of developing the chronic hepatitis that leads to liver disease. Around 90% of infected infants that get hepatitis B get chronic liver disease, compared to only 10% of adults. Around 25% of people with chronic liver disease die of the disease. The CDC has detailed information here: http://www.cdc.gov/MMWr/preview/mmwrhtml/00033405.htm

Your numbers are not real.

We have no idea how many children are injured by vaccines, because most reactions are not even recognized, let alone reported to VAERS. It is estimated that only 1-10% of vaccine reactions ever get reported to VAERS. But "severe allergic reactions" are not the most common severe adverse reaction, so presenting that as the only possible adverse reaction is extremely misleading.

And the estimates of pediatric cases of hepatitis B are just that--ESTIMATES. And they seem to be provided by pharma-funded studies, which were done to justify injecting day-old babies for a disease they are unlikely to be exposed to in their first years of life. If hep B infections were so prevalent amongst newborns and toddlers, there'd be an awful lot of babies and toders kicked out of day cares. And we would all know at least as many families who have been through hep B diagnosis as families with autism diagnoses.
post #102 of 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post


Your numbers are not real.
We have no idea how many children are injured by vaccines, because most reactions are not even recognized, let alone reported to VAERS. It is estimated that only 1-10% of vaccine reactions ever get reported to VAERS. But "severe allergic reactions" are not the most common severe adverse reaction, so presenting that as the only possible adverse reaction is extremely misleading.
And the estimates of pediatric cases of hepatitis B are just that--ESTIMATES. And they seem to be provided by pharma-funded studies, which were done to justify injecting day-old babies for a disease they are unlikely to be exposed to in their first years of life. If hep B infections were so prevalent amongst newborns and toddlers, there'd be an awful lot of babies and toders kicked out of day cares. And we would all know at least as many families who have been through hep B diagnosis as families with autism diagnoses.

agreed. without any adequate long term studies, there is too much risk. we've seen it happen time and time again in medicine. 

 

and FWIW, i worked in a hospital for a long time, and it seemed to be common sentiment among the doctors there that administering HepB to a newborn wasn't crucial. They were fine with moms delaying. In fact, many didn't give it to their own children. Needless to say they shouldn't be the ones to make the decision for you, but that made me think twice, when the people who we're told to believe don't even believe in it!

post #103 of 131

There is some evidence delaying the Hep. B. vax until post 2 months increases its effectiveness:

 

"Delaying the first dose of the HB vaccine until 2 months after birth produces a higher immune response and can provide longer term protection."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2910296/

post #104 of 131

Weak justification? For 12 severe allergic reactions, you prevent at least 30 deaths from liver disease and 100 chronic hepatitis infections in newborns (BTW the study I used looked only at a subset of infants, and does not extrapolate to the whole US population). The protection from hepatits might not be lifelong however the current data shows that it lasts at least through adolescence. The vast majority of infants vaccinated also have no side effects.

 

There are over a million people living with chronic hepatitis B, and vaccination is the only way to eradicate the disease. As was done with smallpox and is happening with polio and measles. Vaccines may not be 100% free of side effects, however catching one of the diseases that people vaccinate for has a much higher risk of death or serious adverse effects.


Edited by nutritionjulia - 8/23/12 at 12:12pm
post #105 of 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by nutritionjulia View Post

Vaccines may not be 100% free of side effects, however catching one of the diseases that people vaccinate for has a much higher risk of death or serious adverse effects.

Exactly.

Make your own choices and vax or don't. But don't base your decisions on myths or lies. The fact is vaccines prevent deadly diseases.
post #106 of 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by nutritionjulia View Post

OK, let's work on the numbers. 1 in a million babies have a severe allergic reaction. There were around 4 million babies born in the USA last year, and assuming all got a full three doses of the vaccine, that would mean 12 million doses, therefore 12 severe allergic reactions.

 

On the other hand, according to this FOX news article, the number of infants getting a chronic hepatitis B infection halved after routine vaccination, from 260 to 130 (note that not all infants avoid infection because not all are vaccinated, or fully vaccinated, or have an immune reaction). For the infants that were successfully vaccinated, they are protected from hepatitis B for the rest of their lives. http://www.foxnews.com/health/2012/03/28/hepatitis-b-program-helps-cut-infant-infections/

 

All babies carry a risk of having a severe allergic reaction or other reaction.

 

Not all newborns carry the risk of getting Hep. B  Most don't.  We know who is at risk and who isn't.  If you test negative for hep. b and engage in no risky activities post test, you are not going to have Hep. B when you deliver. Period.  Being lumped in with the general public, some of whom do have Hep B, is hardly a useful analysis for individual parents and babies.   

 

Oh, and it looks like the vaccines only halves the transmission rate?  Most children do complete the Hep. b series ( about 90% according to this CDC graph  http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/stats-surv/nis/tables/1011/tab09_24mo_iap_1011.pdf).  It does not seem like a particularly effective vaccine.  


Edited by kathymuggle - 8/23/12 at 7:56am
post #107 of 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by nutritionjulia View Post

 People like you who avoid vaccination are putting yourself, your children and others at risk of an entirely preventable disease. 

I have flagged this comment.

 

"people like you"…..shake.gif

 

MDC is made up of non-vaxxers, selective and delayed and pro-vaxxers.  If you cannot accept that there are going to be differences of opinion without resorting to disrespectful posting,  then you probably should not be debating on these forums.  There are plenty of mainstream and skeptic sites where you can call non-vaxxers names.  

 

It appears it is also a UAV violation:

 

While no one should be labeled as irresponsible or uninformed for deciding to vaccinate, neither should parents here who have chosen to not vaccinate be accused of irresponsibility, not caring for their child, or presenting a threat to others.


Edited by kathymuggle - 8/23/12 at 7:58am
post #108 of 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

It appears it is also a UAV violation:

While no one should be labeled as irresponsible or uninformed for deciding to vaccinate, neither should parents here who have chosen to not vaccinate be accused of irresponsibility, not caring for their child, or presenting a threat to others.
I have to agree... your comment clearly violates the forum guidelines which kathymuggle quoted. Please edit.
post #109 of 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by nutritionjulia View Post

Weak justification? For 12 severe allergic reactions, you prevent at least 30 deaths from liver disease and 100 chronic hepatitis infections in newborns (BTW the study I used looked only at a subset of infants, and does not extrapolate to the whole US population).

I'll point out again:  your numbers are simply wrong.

 

You are only including severe allergic reactions in your assessment, when in fact, there are many different kinds of severe reactions to vaccines that do not include any allergic response.

 

Perhaps you'd like to do more research on such reactions before dismissing them? The US Department of Health and Human Services has compensated 2000 cases of vaccine-induced brain damage.  Vaccines are known to have caused asthma, eczema, diabetes, thyroid disease, rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, MS and seizure disorders--all without an allergic response. These responses are autoimmune, and many of us have already posted studies showing that vaccine ingredients such as aluminum and thimerosal can cause such autoimmune disorders.

 

Many of us here knew nothing of such reactions--until our own children had them.

 

Since my children were not at any risk whatsoever for hep B, I wouldn't have dreamed of risking ANY kind of reaction, had I only known how much risk that vaccine carried.

post #110 of 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by marsupial-mom View Post

The fact is vaccines prevent deadly diseases.

This is an oversimplification. Vaccines are intended to prevent illnesses, some of which are deadly to some people some of the time. And vaccines prevent some of those illnesses, some of the time, and cause other illnesses some of the time. I am glad this is such an easy choice for you.
post #111 of 131

I edited my post - sorry if it was encroaching on others' happy space.

post #112 of 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by nutritionjulia View Post

I edited my post - sorry if it was encroaching on others' happy space.

It is nothing to do with posters' 'happy space', it is to do with respect of others with opinions different from yours.

post #113 of 131

This is probably not the spot but wanted to share:  We fully vaccinated our first 2 sons.  Several reactions that I was assured was"normal" but we went to selectively vaccinating and finally stopped vaccinating after our 4th arrived.   My oldest was vaccinated for HepB as a toddler when the vaccine came out.  He is now 21 and in a BS Respiratory Therapy program and must have titers drawn to prove his HepB is still effective  I do believe in HepB for medical professionals and persons at risk but why infants/ children if  when they get to a point in their lives they NEED the protection the vaccine is wearing off?????

post #114 of 131

I guess it is always about the interests of public health vs. individuals. If people are not at risk of a disease, then they have a very small risk of being infected. Perhaps it would not make sense to vaccinate a baby not at risk of hepatitis, because the absolute risk of a adverse event from the vaccination is higher than the risk of catching the disease, (these risks should also take into account the seriousness of the vaccine's adverse events with the seriousness of disease, it is not just absolute risk). However, from a public health perspective, we know that out of all the infants not at risk of a disease, a percentage will in fact succumb. Public health professionals cannot tell who is at risk and who is not. Individuals cannot predict the future. Furthermore, if enough individuals decide not to vaccinate, this will increase the risk of catching the disease and potentially change the basis that the decision on which whether to vaccinate is based.

 

I choose to vaccinate because I would feel bad if I or my child contracted a disease that is preventable. I also feel a certain obligation to prevent the spread of disease to others, and from my background in microbiology, I feel that we should attempt to win the war on microbes. Others would prefer to avoid adverse events arising from vaccination. All I know is that when I see the re-emergence of vaccine-preventable diseases such as whooping cough and measles in the US, I am glad my little girl is protected.

post #115 of 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by nutritionjulia View Post
, and from my background in microbiology, I feel that we should attempt to win the war on microbes.

LOL  Good luck with that.  Most microbes are able to adapt to changing conditions (like mass vaccination efforts) far faster than we puny humans can develope new technology.  Yes, smallpox "lost", and there's a chance a couple of others might "lose" too, but it's highly unrealistic to expect that we will ever win "the war on microbes", at least not without eliminating our own species in the process.

post #116 of 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by nutritionjulia View Post

 All I know is that when I see the re-emergence of vaccine-preventable diseases such as whooping cough and measles in the US, I am glad my little girl is protected.

If your little girl is no longer an infant, she is not at risk for complications from whooping cough.  If she is not vitamin-A deficient, her risk of complications from measles is greatly decreased. Both of those diseases would likely be merely a temporary uncomfortable nuisance, like the common cold.

 

If you are truly worried about preventing the spread of diseases to others, you should avoid touching the grocery cart at the supermarket when you have the sniffles, or when you have just received a live-virus vaccine. Someone with a weaker immune system might be using the cart after you.

 

You should not put your child in the grocery cart, because she might be spreading something like the common cold that could be very serious for someone undergoing chemo, or on high-dose prednisone.

 

You should make sure to keep your child home from school the day BEFORE she comes down with a virus, because that's when she's most contagious, and she might spread that virus to her classmates, who would bring it home to their infant sibling or immune-challenged parent or grandparent.

 

But that's not reasonable, is it?

Neither is forcing people to be injected with something that carries life-threatening risks, in order to protect the minority who can't handle the disease the vaccine protects for, especially now that we are finding out that those vaccines are far less effective AND more dangerous than originally believed.

post #117 of 131

@rachelsmama Microbes can adapt within their own very short generations to antibiotics, however the development of antibiotic resistance in the real world takes decades. For some diseases like influenza, the virus changes, however we are actually capable of producing a vaccine against influenza within a few months. The technology has been steadily improving over the years and there is still potential to improve the speed in developing new or modified vaccines. I also think it is reasonable to attempt to reduce the burden of infectious disease by controlling the spread of vaccine-preventable diseases.

 

@Taximom5 I consider the risks of adverse reactions to a vaccine to be low and the risk of complications from a vaccine-preventable disease to be higher. When no one was vaccinated, it was not just the immune-compromised who got sick and died from disease. In developing countries, diseases like measles still kill thousands of people every year - around 140,000 according to the measles initiative (http://www.measlesinitiative.org). Vitamin A is not nearly as effective as the measles vaccine at reducing infection by measles. Using data from this study, http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=8286412 measles was halved in infants receiving a single dose of vitamin A. Since the Measles Initiative was introduced, the number of global deaths due to measles has decreased 70%, although the vaccine has not been distributed into all measles-endemic areas.

 

Once again, I think it all comes down to perception of the likelihood and severity of risk. My estimates are higher for infectious disease than for vaccines.

 

I would be very interested to see some peer-reviewed population-level data showing that vaccines are dangerous. The sources up until on this topic now have not been very convincing.

post #118 of 131

@nutritionjulia, you consider risks of vaccination to be low because the official stats indicate that those risks are low.  But those official stats are terribly flawed, because there is no mandatory reporting system, and because doctors are not trained to recognize vaccine reactions (and can't report them if they don't know that that's what they're seeing).  In fact, all medical personnel are taught that vaccine reactions are vanishingly rare, and that the only likely reactions are redness, soreness, a little fever, and the occasional allergic reaction.

 

The fact that thousands of adults have been reporting different kinds of vaccine reactions--seizures, autoimmune problems, joint pain, neurological problems, intestinal problems, etc--and ALSO reporting that their doctors blew them off tells us that we need to start looking more closely at these reactions.

 

The fact that the specialists who HAVE been looking more closely, HAVE found a causal link, tells us that something is really, really wrong with the current setup, and needs to be changed as soon as possible.

 

Please read my previous post more carefully.  I didn't say vitamin A prevented measles INFECTION, I said it prevents COMPLICATIONS from measles.  Measles without complications is annoying, but not a dangerous disease.

 

As for developing countries, children are at major risk for dying from all sorts of otherwise benign infections if they don't have adequate nutrition, clean water, and adequate hygeine.  Vaccines aren't going to change that for them, and vaccinating every child in the developed country isn't going to help the children in the UNdeveloped country.  But it will increase the number of severe reactions in the developed country.

 

I'd be interested in peer-reviewed studies, too.  But since most studies are pharma-funded, it's not likely that they'll fund a study that is likely to point the finger at any of their products. And they are well-known for burying any data that shows any problems. Look at Lipitor, Vioxx, and most recently, the whistleblower lawsuit launched against Merck by their own virologists, because of Merck's lying about the efficacy of the mumps portion of the MMR.

 

Also look at the recent fines imposed on various pharmaceutical companies, for lying, for bribery, etc. You really think they would willingly allow anyone access to evidence that their products are not perfectly safe?

post #119 of 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post
Also look at the recent fines imposed on various pharmaceutical companies, for lying, for bribery, etc. You really think they would willingly allow anyone access to evidence that their products are not perfectly safe?

not to mention that most drug firms have immunity (can't be sued) for any side effects that may result from receiving one of their vaccines (scary when a vaccine like the swine flu is created and then administered to hundreds of thousands of people all within a few months time).. things that make you go hmmmm... headscratch.gif

post #120 of 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by nutritionjulia View Post

I guess it is always about the interests of public health vs. individuals. If people are not at risk of a disease, then they have a very small risk of being infected. Perhaps it would not make sense to vaccinate a baby not at risk of hepatitis, because the absolute risk of a adverse event from the vaccination is higher than the risk of catching the disease, (these risks should also take into account the seriousness of the vaccine's adverse events with the seriousness of disease, it is not just absolute risk). However, from a public health perspective, we know that out of all the infants not at risk of a disease, a percentage will in fact succumb. Public health professionals cannot tell who is at risk and who is not. Individuals cannot predict the future. Furthermore, if enough individuals decide not to vaccinate, this will increase the risk of catching the disease and potentially change the basis that the decision on which whether to vaccinate is based.

 

I choose to vaccinate because I would feel bad if I or my child contracted a disease that is preventable. I also feel a certain obligation to prevent the spread of disease to others, and from my background in microbiology, I feel that we should attempt to win the war on microbes. Others would prefer to avoid adverse events arising from vaccination. All I know is that when I see the re-emergence of vaccine-preventable diseases such as whooping cough and measles in the US, I am glad my little girl is protected.

 

My money is on Mother Nature. Humans are so arrogant to believe that they can win the war on microbes. There may be battles won here and there, but the war we humans will loose imo. Mother Nauture is wayyyyyyy smarter than we are.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations Debate
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › Newborn vaccines? Eye drops, vitamin K, and Hep B??