What is the Vax Status of Your Children? - Page 3

[Turquesa]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

Because you're taking a very dogmatic and strict approach to interpreting on schedule. I consider my daughter to be vaccinated on schedule even though we delayed the first doses of both hep b and hep a. We even occasionally don't make it in for a well baby visit until a month or two after we should've! Shocking!

No. You're misrepresenting me. I am not taking that approach. The AAP is. I'm not the one who wrote the rigid schedule or insisted on parents adhering to it. Quite the contrary.

[emma1325]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 


Because you're taking a very dogmatic and strict approach to interpreting on schedule. I consider my daughter to be vaccinated on schedule even though we delayed the first doses of both hep b and hep a. We even occasionally don't make it in for a well baby visit until a month or two after we should've! Shocking!

But if a shot is delayed, then even if you consider yourself to be on schedule, you're not according to those who make and endorse the schedule.

 I can easily say my daughters are "up to date" on vaccines, because according to my schedule, which includes no shots, they're perfect. 

Is that what you mean?  You're basing it on your own interpretation?  Because I'm pretty sure that's not how this poll was supposed to be taken.

[Turquesa]

Originally Posted by prosciencemum 

I guess one clarification - I meant that their is no "best" schedule for everyone the world over, but I do think that averaged over the whole population health groups in different countries work hard to come up with the best schedule for their country. I can't imagine you'd find anyone who would say the schedule is infallible, but I would give the benefit of the doubt and suggest it's the best choice based on the available evidence. What more can they do? 

 So the biggest difference between the US (which recommends HepB at birth) and UK/Canada which do this only for babies with HepB+ mothers is the availability of free health care for all. I could theorize that the babies in the US most likely to be at risk from HepB are exactly those who are least likely to have good health care access. So perhaps HepB at birth is recommended for all in order to catch those babies who are least likely to be brought back in for well baby checks...

Lol, it's a lovely thought, PSM, and I only wish it were true. I don't have time to dig up the link and manually 2-thumb it into this post, but that was assuredly NOT the CDC's rationale for imposing routine, neonatal Hep B.

In my infinite spare time I'll start a thread on global variance in vaccine schedules. Looking at the US schedule compared to that of other countries, you'd think I lived in some 3rd World cesspool...

[emma1325]

Originally Posted by prosciencemum 

I guess one clarification - I meant that their is no "best" schedule for everyone the world over, but I do think that averaged over the whole population health groups in different countries work hard to come up with the best schedule for their country. I can't imagine you'd find anyone who would say the schedule is infallible, but I would give the benefit of the doubt and suggest it's the best choice based on the available evidence. What more can they do? 

 So the biggest difference between the US (which recommends HepB at birth) and UK/Canada which do this only for babies with HepB+ mothers is the availability of free health care for all. I could theorize that the babies in the US most likely to be at risk from HepB are exactly those who are least likely to have good health care access. So perhaps HepB at birth is recommended for all in order to catch those babies who are least likely to be brought back in for well baby checks...

Yes, that is the reason given by the authorities who dictated the hep b vaccine on all newborns regardless of risk (they claim it is a matter of convenience as well as a method of "catching" high risk baby as you stated).  I take issue with this reasoning and find it incredibly dishonest, because most health care providers promote the shot as being appropriate and necessary for all babies accross the board, and they leave out the little tidbit about it being a completely unnecessary risk for most babies.

I trusted my doctor when I allowed it given to my oldest.  I assumed the doctor knew best, and that my child needed that shot.  She didn't, and had I been informed of the fact that my child was very low risk for the disease, I would have declined the shot. I was not given the opportunity to make an informed choice in the matter and as a result my baby was needlessly injected with a risky concoction of chemicals.

This is how the medical community operates regularly...in a misleading, dishonest manner.

It is not my responsibility to put my baby at risk in order to allow the system to "catch" high risk babies.  I'm sorry, but it's not.  And I should have been given complete, accurate information when it came to making medical decisions for my child.

[emma1325]

Originally Posted by Turquesa 


Lol, it's a lovely thought, PSM, and I only wish it were true. I don't have time to dig up the link and manually 2-thumb it into this post, but that was assuredly NOT the CDC's rationale for imposing routine, neonatal Hep B.

In my infinite spare time I'll start a thread on global variance in vaccine schedules. Looking at the US schedule compared to that of other countries, you'd think I lived in some 3rd World cesspool...

I thought I remembered reading that the hep b was claimed by health authorities to be required as a matter of convenience and to ensure high-risk babies were covered.  I could be mistaken though.

[emma1325]

Actually, you know where I read that?  Dr. Sear's Vaccine Book I believe.  Call me on it if it's not right though.

[MichelleZB]

It's not an exact science. My son got his 12 month shots at 13 months because that was the time we could fit in the appointment. He's been vaccinated on schedule. Vaccines don't have to be given on exactly the hour they turn the age recommended, just sometime around then.

There's a difference between vaccinating on schedule, with some give here and there for scheduling reasons, and a "selective" approach to vaccinating. People who answered that they vaccinated on schedule but waited a month or two for a vaccine here and there aren't being dishonest.

[Rrrrrachel]

Originally Posted by emma1325 

I thought I remembered reading that the hep b was claimed by health authorities to be required as a matter of convenience and to ensure high-risk babies were covered.  I could be mistaken though.

That's part of it. Because people who were infected as children make up such a disproportionate number of chronically infected people, and chronically infected people aare responsible for such a large portion of disease spread, vaccinating children is partially a public health concern. Children are at real risk of hep b infection, though, so that's not ALL it is.

[emma1325]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

That's part of it. Because people who were infected as children make up such a disproportionate number of chronically infected people, and chronically infected people aare responsible for such a large portion of disease spread, vaccinating children is partially a public health concern. Children are at real risk of hep b infection, though, so that's not ALL it is.

What is the actual risk percentage for infants, if you happen to know?

[Rrrrrachel]

I'm not sure what you mean for risk percentage. If you mean something like what percent of infants get hep b, I imagine the percentage is quite low, as it is for most vpds.

[frioct3]

My son is being vaccinated as per the Canadian schedule with one exception, we started hep b at three months instead of at 13 (not sure on the exact age but its something like that). We have a close family member with it who ds spends lots of time with so we thought it important to protect him early.

We also didn't do flu shot this year but may do it in future years.

[emma1325]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

I'm not sure what you mean for risk percentage. If you mean something like what percent of infants get hep b, I imagine the percentage is quite low, as it is for most vpds.

Well compared to the other vaccine diseases, and compared to the other age groups for hep b.

I've heard some info on the actual percentage of babies who contracted hep b (before mass use of the vaccine) and it was quite low.  I thought you may have access to it.  I'll see if I can dig it up.  :)

[Rrrrrachel]

The estimate of children (1-5) infected with hep b each year I've seen is 18k (Pre vaccines). The vaccine book cites 30k. Even if those are all in infants that's at most .45-.75%. Obviously if its spreads evenly its more like .1-.15%.

[Jennyfur]

Fully and on schedule, but my kids are older.  If I had a newborn now, I'd probably do delayed vaccination, but I'd definitely have all the recommended series administered.