HIB Does anyone worry about it? - Page 4

[sunnmama]

Originally Posted by LongIsland

This is the last book you should use to get a handle on all the facts. Her book doesn't cover anywhere near what you need to know in order to make an informed decision.

For me, it was my FIRST book. A starting point. It gave me the basic overview so that I could delve into the deeper stuff.

But that one passage really stuck in my mind.....

[mamakay]

And just for the record, the first Hib vaccine, the polysaccharide one, did not reduce carriage of the bacteria, so there's no scientific case to be made for toddlers getting that vaccine in the 80's somehow influencing Hib disease in the babies who are the ones who are an overwhelming majority of the invasive cases.

http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol2no3/barbour.htm

The unconjugated Hib polysaccharide vaccine raises the IgA antibody concentration in nasal secretions and saliva of both adults and children (45). However, it does not affect the oropharyngeal carriage of Hib (31). The same lack of effect on pharyngeal carriage has been seen with other parenterally administered polysaccharide vaccines: meningococcal group A and C and several serotypes in the Streptococcus pneumoniae polysaccharide vaccine (47,48).

[snangel]

NAK Here is a direct qoute from the HIB insert......kinda makes you think twice... "More then 7000 infants and young children(less then 2 yrs of age) have recieved at least one dose of actHIB during US clinical trials of these 1,064 subjects 12-24 mos of age who recieved ActHIB alone did not report serious of lifethreatning adverse reactions"
http://www.vaccineshoppe.com/US_PDF/545_05_4045.pdf
It is on pg 5.
5936 did???????????Wow and people wonder why i don't immunize???????

[junomama]

Originally Posted by sunnmama

For me, it was my FIRST book. A starting point. It gave me the basic overview so that I could delve into the deeper stuff.

Same here. I think I'd be a lot more confused about how to proceed further if not having read this book. (I know this is a tangent. Carry on about Hib, as I am learning things.)

[Plummeting]

Originally Posted by mamakay

But...
I wonder...if Hib became particularly resistant to abx, and kids were, say, put on abx for respiratory infections, or sinus infections, and the abx killed off a lot of the other floral bacteria hanging out, but not the hib, could that have created a perfect environment for the Hib to run wild and become meningitis?

I've thought about that...sort of like some weird secondary effect. Or maybe the possibility that before when kids were put on abx for some other thing (ear infection, strep throat, etc.) the abx also killed Hib, so it prevented the Hib bacteria that wasn't even causing a problem from causing a problem in the future, but once Hib was abx resistant, that didn't happen anymore???? Kind of like abx for other things were a preemptive strike against invasive Hib disease. The thing is, I haven't seen any research on that, so she can't claim it's true. Plus, the way the author is presenting it sounds like she's saying that abx-resistance correlates to virulence, which is something a lot of people seem to believe, but it isn't true. So maybe it's right in a roundabout kinda way, but she's not presenting it that way....oops, saw the reference....

[Trillian]

Originally Posted by snangel

NAK Here is a direct qoute from the HIB insert......kinda makes you think twice... "More then 7000 infants and young children(less then 2 yrs of age) have recieved at least one dose of actHIB during US clinical trials of these 1,064 subjects 12-24 mos of age who recieved ActHIB alone did not report serious of lifethreatning adverse reactions"
http://www.vaccineshoppe.com/US_PDF/545_05_4045.pdf
It is on pg 5.
5936 did???????????Wow and people wonder why i don't immunize???????

I would interpret that to mean that of the total 7000, a subset of 1064 were 12-24 months of age and received ActHIB alone. Within that subset, no serious adverse events were reported. Nothing is implied about the remaining 5936, possibly because if they were given some other vaccine at the same time, it would confuse the results.

[lyttlewon]

Originally Posted by LongIsland

What was it that Insider recently said when someone made a similar comment. It was something like, "do you inject aluminum into your child every time you strap them into their car seat?"

TRANSLATION: Comparing car seats and helmets to vaccinations is not exactly a strong analogy, YKWIM?

Plus driving is a convenience and not a necessity. I wouldn't consider being alive and encountering bacteria anywhere similar to driving a car. Here is another interesting thing, you don't use car seats or seat belts on a bus.

[lyttlewon]

Originally Posted by mamakay

It's also worth noting that it was in the 80's that people figured out that smoking around babies and children isn't a good thing to do. Up until that time lots and lots of children were stuck in unventilated, smoke filled houses every day. (and being around smoke is one of the top risk factors for a serious case of Hib).
Funny how pediatricians never felt it was their "place" to tell parents not to do that.

OMG! My neice has asthema and the pediatrician told my sister's ex-husband if he heard of him smoking in his car around her again he would report him to cps. He lives in Cali BTW where they are passing all kinds of laws around second hand smoke. Could you imagine that happening in the 80's?

[LongIsland]

Originally Posted by lyttlewon

OMG! My neice has asthema and the pediatrician told my sister's ex-husband if he heard of him smoking in his car around her again he would report him to cps. He lives in Cali BTW where they are passing all kinds of laws around second hand smoke. Could you imagine that happening in the 80's?

I just read (was it CA?) about banning smoking in cars when children are present.

Originally Posted by mamakay

being around smoke is one of the top risk factors for a serious case of Hib.

Along with not being breastfed.

It's in all the "official" literature folks.

[lyttlewon]

Originally Posted by laohaire

Actually, I thought Trillian's comment was rather constructive.

To say that billions of people survived without the Hib vaccine is probably the weakest anti-vax argument I've ever heard in my life.

This is not to say that there are not strong anti-vax arguments. Personally, I'm convinced - my kid isn't getting the Hib vaccine.

But that decision was not made because of a silly little "argument" - if you could even call it that - that "X" many people survived without it.

Let's review:
- "X" many kids survived without car seats. I personally was out of a car seat by the time I was about 18 or 24 months. I lived. Should we skip car seats?
- "X" many people survived without wearing bike helmets. Should our kids not wear protective gear?
- "X" many people survived without wearing seat belts. Should we not use seat belts?
- Heck "X" many people survived the Hib vaccine... as well as all the other vaccines. Sure, some people died. That's life, huh?

If the position is, oh well, some people will die, why not get the vaccine? Oh, it's because you're trying to PROTECT your kids? Well, then, make up your mind. Is life precious or not? Are we trying to avoid death and serious illness, or not? Of course, you guys are trying to protect your kids, by not vaxing, from the same stuff (death, serious illness) that you give a blase "oh well" reaction when it suits you. Your real argument is that it's safer not to get the vaccine - so don't muck it up with a silly little "billions of people survived without it."

We put our kids in car seats cause it's safer than not putting them in car seats. Many of you guys don't vax because you believe it's safer than vaxing. That makes sense.

What would you say to a mama who didn't use car seats and said "Billions of people survived without them" and "oh well, death is part of life?"

What Melaya was talking about though is evolution which vaccines are trying to thwart. Just because evolution exists doesn't mean a person cannot take steps to make their child one of the stronger to survive. Vaccination does not do this it does not make a child stronger; it in fact weakens them. The millions of people survived argument makes tons of sense because we understand why those people were able to survive and not succumb to natural selection. Car seats were invented to keep people from being killed by something else they invented. Car seats have nothing to do with evolution.

[mamakay]

Originally Posted by LongIsland

*The first Hib vaccine (polysaccharide) was licensed in 1985 and it was NOT indicated for infants, but toddlers. It was not widely used - at all.

*They stopped using the polysaccharide in 1988.

*The first Hib *conjugate* vaccine was licensed in 12/87 and introduced in 1988 and was NOT used in infants either. That vax is also no longer used.

*It was in 1991 that the Hib vaccine was indicated for use in infants and universally recommended for infants.

*Invasive H. Influenzae was first made a nationally notifiable disease in 1991. Before then, surveillance was conducted in some cities in order to get estimates of invasive HI and the disease was NOT reported according to serotype.

*In 1992, Hib vaccine compliance was as 28.2 percent according to the CDC.

Keep in mind that the CDC states in the Pink Book that there was a "dramatic decline" in cases at the same time the polysaccaride was licensed in 1985, but they never give us the numbers, YET they use the 20,000 figure as the "prevax" figure. As we know and as is clearly implied in the Pink Book, this "dramatic decline" had absolutely nothing to do with the polysaccharide vaccine because it wasn't even introduced yet.

This is how the CDC needs to "market" HIb: Before Hib vaccine, about 20,000 children in the United States under 5 years old got severe Hib disease each year and nearly 1,000 people died.

No mention of the true estimated incidence figure after the "dramatic" decline and notice how they use "people" when describing deaths instead of children? That's because a boatload of those deaths were in the elderly.

H. Influenzae (all types, including unknown types)

1991 (2,764)
1992 (1,412)
1993 (1,419)
1994 (1,174)
1995 (1,180)
1996 (1,170)
1997 (1,162)
1998 (1,194)
1999 (1,309)
2000 (1,398)
2001 (1,597)
2002 (1,743)
2003 (2,013)

And last, but certainly not least:

1992
Hib vaccine compliance: 28.2%
1,412 cases (all serotypes)

2003
Hib vaccine compliance: 93.9%
2,013 cases (all serotypes)


.

It's also important to note that for Hib, things like pneumonia qualify as "invasive"...which is different from how it's classified for s.pneumo, where "invasive" for that bacteria only means bacteremia and bacterial meningitis.

Now look at this chart and watch the death rate over the years...
http://www.cdc.gov/nip/publications/...ses&deaths.pdf

It hangs out around 5-10.

And that's ALL hi types...not just serotype B...

[sunnmama]

Originally Posted by sunnmama

She cites Kathleen Stratton, et al. Adverse Events Associated with Childhood Vaccines: Evidence Bearing on Causality(1994) pg 148

I posted the wrong citation. I'm going to use postpartum exhaustion-induced delirium as my excuse

The correct reference is Barbara Loe Fischer THe Consumer's Guide to Childhood Vaccines 1997, pg 21.

So sorry!