or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › if reactions to vaxes means a healthy immune system...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

if reactions to vaxes means a healthy immune system...

post #1 of 30
Thread Starter 
I can't find it, but someone here stated (suggested?) that a child who reacts to a vaccination (fever, symptoms, etc) actually has a healthy immune system - in that the immune system is reacting to the foreign crap that has been injected.

What does it mean, then, if a child is vaxed but has no reactions? No fever, no other obvious symptoms (delayed or otherwise)...
post #2 of 30
Hmmm... that's a very good question. I would agree that a reaction (fever, etc.) to a vaccine would indicate the body was responding to the matter in the shot and creating antibodies to it. I guess it may be sort of like pregnancy - having early, heavy preggo symptoms usually indicates a good outcome because it shows high hCG levels, but not all healthy pregnancies are very symptomatic. I would assume that some healthy babies create more hCG than other healthy babies as I would guess that some effectively vaxed children may create more antibodies than other effectively vaxed children. Clear as mud? Or maybe, some bodies just react in a more sensitive manner while creating their antibodies.
post #3 of 30
Oh yes! That's a great one. One mother I know sent me a letter from the Center for Adverse Reactions monitorring, which stated that though her child's reaction had been severe (encephalopathy, seizures, uriticaria, eyes crossing and resultant allergies) that in their opinion it meant that the immune system had reacted appropriately.

You can imagine what the mother said back to them s.

What kind of ridiculous warped logic is that?

Perhaps they should tell the world that vaccines only work well if you have serious life threatening reactions with on going sequelae.
post #4 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by Momtezuma Tuatara

What kind of ridiculous warped logic is that?

.

I was obviously NOT talking about life-threating reactions like anaphylaxis in my answer. What kind of logic is it that says that a slight reaction would indicate that the body is creating a defense to what has been presented to it? The kind of logic coming from someone who knows the physiology of the body. If you actually know how the body works, it's not so ridiculous.
post #5 of 30
I don't buy that reasoning. Death is a potential vaccine reaction - how does being dead make your immune system healthier? A reaction shows only that a person has been affected by a vaccine, it does not follow that the particular reaction is therefore beneficial to the recipient. IMO.
post #6 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by insider
I don't buy that reasoning. Death is a potential vaccine reaction - how does being dead make your immune system healthier? A reaction shows only that a person has been affected by a vaccine, it does not follow that the particular reaction is therefore beneficial to the recipient. IMO.
Well, dead people don't get sick. Ever. I'd say death prevents disease quite well, actually.
post #7 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by craftykitty
I was obviously NOT talking about life-threating reactions like anaphylaxis in my answer.
The life-threatening example is just the easiest way to point out the absurdity of the argument. Reactions that cause permanent neurological damage (but are not life-threatening) would be another counter example. You'll have to ammend your statement again to exclude all reactions that cause permanent sequelae.
post #8 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by mamakay
Well, dead people don't get sick. Ever. I'd say death prevents disease quite well, actually.
I was going to sarcastically mention that but I'm too much of a smartass as it is.
post #9 of 30
post #10 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by craftykitty
Hmmm... that's a very good question. I would agree that a reaction (fever, etc.) to a vaccine would indicate the body was responding to the matter in the shot
Yes, I would think something in the body is reaction. Violently. Trying to rid itself of whatever invaded it. Trying to get back to a balanced self.


Quote:
and creating antibodies to it.
NO. It does not mean that at all.

It means the immune system is under attack.

Does it create antibodies? Maybe? Maybe to the half dead virus in case the child ever comes in contact with them again.

There is a good chance of that when the child gets the booster shots.

But it can not create antibodies to the natural pathogen.

Look how they say the flu virus mutates from year to year. And they know the flu shot does not protect in the next season. Yet a vaccine with a mangled existence it is supposed to protect against a natural germ?





(I personally doubt that there is any such thing as a virus that it makes us sick.)
post #11 of 30
IMO, there's a huge difference between a child reacting to a vaccine with a mild fever and general malaise for a day or so, vs a child developing brain damage in reaction to a vaccine.

My DS has had mild fevers and general malaise for a day or two after receiving vaccines (as a preschooler, none were administered when he was a baby.)
post #12 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gitti



(I personally doubt that there is any such thing as a virus that it makes us sick.)
What is it then?
post #13 of 30
That is the question.

Fact: they have an electronic picture of some very low particles. They named it Virus.

Conjesture: that is what makes us sick.

The question still remains.

They do not understand the pathogenic meachanisms that causes disease. They do not know exactly how, why or what makes us sick.

There are many theories. But just because we have a picture of some particle, does not conclusively mean it makes us sick.


Look at this: http://freespace.virgin.net/ahcare.q...e/viruses.html


Quote:
Swine flu (viral infection) arose as a normal, non-lethal flu in the spring of 1918, but somehow, over the following months, it mutated into something more severe.

[b]In an attempt to devise a vaccine, medical authorities conducted experiments on volunteers at a military prison on Deer Island in Boston Harbour. The prisoners were promised pardon if they survived a battery of tests. These tests were rigorous to say the least.

First, the subjects were injected with infected lung tissue taken from the dead and then sprayed in the eyes, nose and mouth with infectious aerosols.

If they still failed to succumb, they had their throats swabbed with discharges taken from the sick and dying.

If all else failed, they were required to sit open-mouthed while a gravely ill victim was sat up slightly and made to cough into their faces.

The doctors chose sixty-two of the volunteers for the tests. None contracted the flu, not one.
post #14 of 30
Who are "they", what are "low particles" & where is this "picture"?
post #15 of 30
Thread Starter 

found the original statement...

"Infections and inflamation are not signs of weaknesses but rather of a sign of a precise functioning immune system. " posted by Gitti in http://www.mothering.com/discussions...d.php?t=377324 ("He's 9 mos old and I'm still undecided")

So let me modify my question.

Consider identical twins in the same household. One child battles infections (sinus congestion, earaches, flu, infected cuts, insert communicable disease name here) constantly while the other might get a runny nose once a year. Which child has the better functioning immune system? Since genetics and environment should be (largely) the same, what could be the cause if such a (unlikely?) scenario did occur?
post #16 of 30
Well I have twins but they're fraternal. One is rarely sick but runs high fevers when he is, he's the one who had Tetramune reaction & he has no allergy problems now (did as a baby). His twin had no vax reactions, is sick a little more frequently and doesn't run much fever and still has some allergy issues. I can't really say how much of it is something they were born with or even how much each of those is related because of the NICU interventions they underwent & the fact that I treated the first one with some "complementary" medicine as a baby & not the other.
post #17 of 30
Oh, and that quote makes no kind of sense. Take chicken pox for example. Kid A is exposed, infected, immune system clears infection & develops immunity without Kid A ever having any symptoms. I say that's some great immune functioning. Kid B on the other hand is also exposed & infected but he ends up covered in pox, high fever & encephalitis. Not such great immune functioning. If you're seeing the signs of infection & inflammation then function could be better.
post #18 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluets
What does it mean, then, if a child is vaxed but has no reactions? No fever, no other obvious symptoms (delayed or otherwise)...
That means his system is not fighting off the injection.
post #19 of 30
The kid that's sick all the time has something wrong with his immune system.
Yes...stuff like inflamation means you're body is fighting the good fight. If you're immune system never responded to anything you'd die. (Unless you were put in a bubble or something...but anyway...)
But an overwhelming majority of stuff our immune system deals with happens invisibly. A kid who's literally sick all the time has an immune system that is spending too much time in overdrive. All those germs make it too far too often. Things that are dealt with invisibly in a healthier child are visible infections in the sickly one.
Inflammation and fever are the proverbial "big guns".

At least, I think that's how it works.
post #20 of 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gitti
That means his system is not fighting off the injection.
Or maybe it's able to do it invisibly.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › if reactions to vaxes means a healthy immune system...