or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › "The increasing evidence that aluminum/adjuvants cause . . . "
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

"The increasing evidence that aluminum/adjuvants cause . . . " - Page 4

post #61 of 149
Thread Starter 
Hep b is not just an std. A significant number children get infected each year, and they are at far greater risk for chronic illness if they do get infected.
post #62 of 149

None-the-less, and according to WHO, " The majority of infections in developed countries are transmitted during young adulthood by sexual activity and injecting drug use. Hepatitis B is a major infectious occupational hazard of health workers."

 

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs204/en/


Edited by kathymuggle - 11/23/12 at 5:53pm
post #63 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post

It's the older generation--the people over, say 45 or so--who really have no clue

 

Yeah, those of us in our forties have absolutely no clue.

post #64 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by chickabiddy View Post

 

Yeah, those of us in our forties have absolutely no clue.

I agree with Taxi.  Many people that do not have young children do not know how many vaccines young children face.  

 

I don't think it is a slight against people in their forties (says this forty year old)

post #65 of 149
Thread Starter 
I think it's fairly irrelevant if the majority of cases are in older people if children are significantly at risk.


From CHOP
Quote:
Before the hepatitis B vaccine, every year in the United States about 18,000 children were infected with hepatitis B virus by the time they were 10 years old. This statistic is especially important because people are much more likely to develop liver cancer or cirrhosis if they are infected early in life, rather than later in life (most people are infected with hepatitis B virus when they are adolescents and young adults).
post #66 of 149

CDC:

 

"Among children and adolescents aged <19 years in 1990, incidence per 100,000 population was highest among Asian/Pacific Islanders (A/PIs) (6.74) and blacks (4.29); whites had the lowest race-specific incidence (1.39)... From 1990 to 2002, rates declined 92% among A/PIs, 88% among whites, 88% among blacks, and 84% among American Indians/Alaskan Natives (AI/ANs) (Figure 2). In 2002, the highest incidence per 100,000 population was among A/PIs (0.55), followed by blacks (0.51), AI/ANs (0.43), and whites (0.16)

 

I am white.  If we are looking at pre-vaccine rates, my children would have had a 1.39/100 000 chance of having Hep B under age 19 (and significantly less as an infant).  Currently the rate for white is 0.16/100 000.

 

I don't think most kids are at significant risk of getting Hep B.  It is pretty rare in some demographics- both pre and post Hep B. vaccination era.  

post #67 of 149
Thread Starter 
Again, comparing the relative risk among various groups isn't really that relevant. You are obviously entitled to make the decision for your own kid. However, the constant "why are we vaccinating infants for an std" line is misleading and inaccurate.
post #68 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

Again, comparing the relative risk among various groups isn't really that relevant. You are obviously entitled to make the decision for your own kid. However, the constant "why are we vaccinating infants for an std" line is misleading and inaccurate.

Isn't this one of the central issues of the vaccine debate, though? We are not "obviously" entitled to make our children's vaccine decisions. Despite the existence of reasonable arguments against an individual's vaccination with a given vaccine, parents who wish to decline face enormous pressure to go against their better judgment and vaccinate regardless.
post #69 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jennyanydots View Post


 Despite the existence of reasonable arguments against an individual's vaccination with a given vaccine, parents who wish to decline face enormous pressure to go against their better judgment and vaccinate regardless.

That's putting it awfully mildly. Usually,parents are told they have no choice.  In some cases, including my second child, the hep B vaccine is given in the hospital without the mother's consent. In a case just this year, a mother had her newborn daughter forcibly taken from her for refusing to immediately approve the hepatitis B vaccine.

http://www.minotdailynews.com/page/blogs.detail/display/783/Pennsylvania-social-worker-and-hospital-face-HSLDA-lawsuit-after-seizing-custody-of-newborn.html

 

Interestingly, the hospital's website implies that newborns of mothers not positive for hep B need not receive the hep B vaccine immediately after birth.

http://pennstatehershey.adam.com/content.aspx?productId=117&pid=1&gid=002022

 

  • The first shot is given to infants before leaving the hospital. If the baby's mother carries the hepatitis B virus, the baby receives the first vaccine shortly after birth.
  • The second shot is given between 1 and 2 months of age.
  • The third shot is given at 6 months of age.

Infants who do not get the first shot until 4 to 8 weeks will get the second shot at 4 months and the third shot at 6 to 16 months. Either way, the second and third shots are given along with other routine childhood immunizations.

post #70 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

Again, comparing the relative risk among various groups isn't really that relevant. You are obviously entitled to make the decision for your own kid. However, the constant "why are we vaccinating infants for an std" line is misleading and inaccurate.

No, it isn't.  Hep B is primarily an std. 

 

"You can get hepatitis B through the blood and other body fluids from an infected person. It's primarily a sexually transmitted disease, but you can also pick it up through used needles, and through body/ear piercing or tattooing with dirty equipment."

 
post #71 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jennyanydots View Post


Isn't this one of the central issues of the vaccine debate, though? We are not "obviously" entitled to make our children's vaccine decisions. Despite the existence of reasonable arguments against an individual's vaccination with a given vaccine, parents who wish to decline face enormous pressure to go against their better judgment and vaccinate regardless.

I also think people are under-informed.

 

Here is the Vaccine Information Sheet for Hep B:

 

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/vis/downloads/vis-hep-b.pdf

 

Does it mention that Hep B is primarily a STD?  

Does it let parents know the prevalence of Hep B among infants (which is who is receiving it?)

Does it mention that some groups are at  significantly higher risk of Hep B than others - and what the breakdown is (say…Pacific Islanders versus Caucasians in the USA?)

Does it mention this study, which as far as I know has not been debunked, that shows male neonates are up to 3 times as likely to develop autism if they are vaccinated at birth with Hep B versus one month later or not at all?  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21058170/

 

I completely agree that parents should get to decide…but they have to be given all the pertinent information or it is not informed consent.

post #72 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post

In a case just this year, a mother had her newborn daughter forcibly taken from her for refusing to immediately approve the hepatitis B vaccine.

http://www.minotdailynews.com/page/blogs.detail/display/783/Pennsylvania-social-worker-and-hospital-face-HSLDA-lawsuit-after-seizing-custody-of-newborn.html

 

From that article:
 

 

Quote:
When Jodi Farris asked if the situation could wait until her husband returned to the hospital, the social worker left the room and called the police.

 

Unfortunately, I think if you are going to reject pharmaceuticals (even if you have the perfect right to go AMA, "Against Medical Advice"), it is very helpful to have your husband with you.

 

The times I've had the "no we don't/won't vaccinate" conversations with doctors, my dh was with me. They would glance at him while I was talking as if to gauge his level of commitment to what I was saying (which sadly for them is rock-solid, lol).  

post #73 of 149
Thread Starter 
Kathy, a large number of children get hep b every year either from their mothers or child to child transmission. It's NOT just an std. It makes no difference if its PRIMARILY an std if children are still significantly at risk, which they are.

I've already been down the forced vaccination rabbit hole and I'm not doing it anymore. We will have to agree to disagree. Parents do have a choice.
post #74 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

Kathy, a large number of children get hep b every year either from their mothers or child to child transmission. It's NOT just an std. It makes no difference if its PRIMARILY an std if children are still significantly at risk, which they are.
 

Define large number.  I posted numbers earlier that showed all caucasian children less than 19 years old pre Hep B vaccine era had a 1.39/100 000 of having Hep.  B.  Less than 19 includes infants.  It is fair to assume a good number of those 1.39 per 100 000  got it after infancy (probably late teen, when unprotected sex and needle sharing is an issue…) So the true number of infants with Hep B was probably well under 1.39/100 000 in the pre-vaccine era.

 

Yes, infants who get Hep B are at risk from it, however the risk of an infant getting  Hep B. is extremely low in many populations.

 

I agree parents should  decide for themselves whether to vaccinate.  I disagree on it being a choice (given school regulations) but we can agree to disagree. At least delaying is a choice.  I would like parents to have all pertinent info to make a decision on Hep B including prevalence, risk factors for acquiring it, etc, as outlined in a post above. I do not think they do  -which is a big part of the reason many of us post here - to point out and discuss information that is not the watered down or overly brief information that is presented to parents. 


Edited by kathymuggle - 11/24/12 at 7:29am
post #75 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

Define large number.  I posted numbers earlier that showed all caucasian children less than 19 years old pre-vaccine had a 1.39/100 000 of having Hep.  B.  Less than 19 includes infants.  It is fair to assume a good number of those 1.39 per 100 000  got it after infancy (probably late teen, when unprotected sex and needle sharing is an issue…) so the true number of infants with hep b is probably well under 1.39/100 000 in the pre-vaccine era.

The numbers look pretty clear to me.

 

1 in 100,000 have a chance of developing hep B before the age of 19 without a hep B shot.

 

Infant boys have 3 times the likelihood of developing autism if given the hep B shot within the first month of life.


Edited by Taximom5 - 11/24/12 at 7:40am
post #76 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

Kathy, a large number of children get hep b every year either from their mothers or child to child transmission.

 

Expectant mothers are tested for hep B as part of prenatal care. If they test negative, then their newborns are at zero risk.

 

I have never seen numbers on child-to-child hepatitis B transmission.

post #77 of 149
Thread Starter 
Kathy I already defined large number and posted the stat for you. You feel the risk for your child is low enough. That's cool. Children are at risk from hep b from non sexual contact, though.

I actually declined and will always decline the hep b shot at birth, because I think it can interfere with breastfeeding. I did and will always get it at two months, though, barring any unforeseen special circumstances, because I think the risk, like that for ther vpd, is real.

Everyone has to weigh the risks and benefits and decide for their own child. I am bothered by the constant dismissal of the risks of hep b, though, because its "just an std."
post #78 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

Kathy, a large number of children get hep b every year either from their mothers or child to child transmission. 

http://www.uptodate.com/contents/overview-of-hepatitis-b-virus-infection-in-children

 

Most cases of acute hepatitis B infection in the United States, and in several other non-endemic countries, develop in patients from high-risk groups such as intravenous drug users, homosexual men, in those living in communities with a large proportion of immigrants from regions where HBV is endemic, and in certain groups where HBV is endemic, such as Native Americans in Alaska [5]. The majority of children with chronic HBV infections are immigrants, have immigrant parents, or became exposed through other household contacts [6].

 

So where is data on child-to-child transmission of hepatitis B?

post #79 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post

Infant boys have 3 times the likelihood of developing autism if given the hep B shot within the first month of life.

Any evidence to back up this statement?
post #80 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by TCMoulton View Post


Any evidence to back up this statement?

Kathymuggle already posted it upthread, just 9 posts ago: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21058170/

"Boys vaccinated as neonates had threefold greater odds for autism diagnosis compared to boys never vaccinated or vaccinated after the first month of life."

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations Debate
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › "The increasing evidence that aluminum/adjuvants cause . . . "