Rationale for delaying?

[phillychiquita]

If you plan to vaccinate -- either fully or selectively, then what rationale do you have for waiting and not giving the vaxes on time, or according to the "physician's" Schedule?
Not really looking for a debate on what vaxes you give, but your rationale for why you delay rather than have them "on time".
Can anyone point me to research that supports delaying?

[Plummeting]

One big reason to delay is that fewer doses of certain vaccines are required when you delay - specifically Prevnar and Hib. One reason to delay the MMR is to push it off past age 2, since most cases of regressive autism happen before that age. MMR should always be delayed until at least 15 months, as opposed to 12, since the immune response is better at 15 months. The blood-brain barrier becomes less permeable by around 2 years, and better at keeping out toxins and such, so many people wait until that age for all vaccines. Another reason people wait is because the size/amount of a vaccine dose is the same whether you're giving to an 11 pound 2-month-old or a 32 pound 3-year-old, so logically it would be usually easier for the body of a healthy three-year-old to deal with the ingredients than it would for the body of a healthy two-month-old that weighs 2/3 less. Just like how a 225 pound man is barely even affected by the 3 drinks that can totally inebriate a 105 pound woman.

[mamakay]

It's different for different vaccines.
HepB- virtually no chance my kid is going to get it, and noone knows how long vax immunity lasts, so why not do it around the teen years?
HepA- asymptomatic in toddlers...they give kids this vax to protect adults. I disagree with the ethics of that.
Chickenpox- vaxing babies increases shingles in every age group and is epidemiologically shifting the age of infection into an older age group where it's more deadly. Basically, look up the reasons why no other country on earth has incorporated varicella into the universal schedule, and those are my reasons for not liking it, too.

Etc.

[alegna]

When I was originally planning on delaying I was delaying for a couple of reasons.
1. The brain is still developing very quickly through at least the first two years and I wanted it to develop without injected chemicals.

and

2. A reaction is much easier to "prove" in a child who can speak and communicate. Regression is much easier to demonstrate than in an infant.

-Angela

[rredhead]

Why Delay?

The major medical reason that we've chosen to delay vaxes is that the blood/brain barrier is not established in infants. The vax is injected into the blood stream, bypassing many initial immune system defenses. The immune system is not ready to respond to the assault of all of the diseases, plus the ingredients in the vaccines. For more information on this line of thought, read the book What Your Doctor May Not Tell You About Children's Vaccines, by Dr. Stephanie Cave.

This is my favorite vaccine article: A User-Friendly Vaccination Schedule. I would call this research that supports delaying vaxes. http://www.lewrockwell.com/miller/miller15.html

Hep B: Is primarily transmitted through sex and needle-sharing. The only reason infants get it is that they are a captive audience. By vaxing infants, the thinking is, we'll prevent them from getting/spreading the disease later on. However, there are correlations between the Hep B vax and SIDS. Babies don't need it.

The ingredients in the vaccines also give me pause. Many vaxes are made using cells from other animals or from aborted fetal tissue (I'm pro-choice, but I don't think that aborted fetal tissue needs to be injected into otherwise healthy babies). http://www.informedchoice.info/cocktail.html

Finally, the fact that there are 33 doses of vaccines given before age 5. A 2 month old gets 7 vaccines. How can an undeveloped immune system handle Diptheria, pertussis, tetanus, meningitis, polio, pneumonia, and Hep B? PLUS: formaldehyde, aluminum hydroxide, aluminum phosphate, thimerosal, polysorbate 80, ammonium sulfate, formalin, sucrose, neomycin, streptomycin, polymyxin B, 2-phenoxyethenol, monkey-kidney cells, phenol, and probably some other undesirables.

So, that's my rationale.

[free2be]

Originally Posted by rredhead

The major medical reason that we've chosen to delay vaxes is that the blood/brain barrier is not established in infants. The vax is injected into the blood stream, bypassing many initial immune system defenses. The immune system is not ready to respond to the assault of all of the diseases, plus the ingredients in the vaccines. For more information on this line of thought, read the book What Your Doctor May Not Tell You About Children's Vaccines, by Dr. Stephanie Cave.

This is my favorite vaccine article: A User-Friendly Vaccination Schedule. I would call this research that supports delaying vaxes. http://www.lewrockwell.com/miller/miller15.html

Hep B: Is primarily transmitted through sex and needle-sharing. The only reason infants get it is that they are a captive audience. By vaxing infants, the thinking is, we'll prevent them from getting/spreading the disease later on. However, there are correlations between the Hep B vax and SIDS. Babies don't need it.

The ingredients in the vaccines also give me pause. Many vaxes are made using cells from other animals or from aborted fetal tissue (I'm pro-choice, but I don't think that aborted fetal tissue needs to be injected into otherwise healthy babies). http://www.informedchoice.info/cocktail.html

Finally, the fact that there are 33 doses of vaccines given before age 5. A 2 month old gets 7 vaccines. How can an undeveloped immune system handle Diptheria, pertussis, tetanus, meningitis, polio, pneumonia, and Hep B? PLUS: formaldehyde, aluminum hydroxide, aluminum phosphate, thimerosal, polysorbate 80, ammonium sulfate, formalin, sucrose, neomycin, streptomycin, polymyxin B, 2-phenoxyethenol, monkey-kidney cells, phenol, and probably some other undesirables.

So, that's my rationale.

Thanks so much for the links! Those are just what I needed. I gave my daughter the Hep vax when she was just 7 days old and she developed a bad skin rash. The doctor said it was just baby acne and excema, but the excema has still stuck around. Before that time she had perfectly clear skin. I have been hesistant to vaccine ever since.
Thanks again.

[mrskennedy]

I've been looking for reasons why some delay/selectively vax, and this has given me som. Thanks!

[phillychiquita]

Circling back -- After doing the research, discussing all sides of the issue, we ended up delaying everything til 4.5 months and then did prevnar, DTap and HiB and those are likely the only ones we will do at all.

We wont do HepB, MMR, Chicken Pox, etc...

[Proverbs31]

Originally Posted by free2be

Thanks so much for the links! Those are just what I needed. I gave my daughter the Hep vax when she was just 7 days old and she developed a bad skin rash. The doctor said it was just baby acne and excema, but the excema has still stuck around. Before that time she had perfectly clear skin. I have been hesistant to vaccine ever since.
Thanks again.

That same thing happened to my son! The eczema showed up right after his first round of vaxes, would gradually clear and then "mysteriously" flare-up right after each round. After we stopped vaxing at 7/8 months his eczema cleared up and hasn't come back since.

[huggerwocky]

It started with me not wanting to go to the pediatrician with a 2 day old. So there you go, you don't get the newborn heb B, you already delayed the first vax.

[NeivaKai]

Originally Posted by rredhead

The major medical reason that we've chosen to delay vaxes is that the blood/brain barrier is not established in infants. The vax is injected into the blood stream, bypassing many initial immune system defenses. The immune system is not ready to respond to the assault of all of the diseases, plus the ingredients in the vaccines. For more information on this line of thought, read the book What Your Doctor May Not Tell You About Children's Vaccines, by Dr. Stephanie Cave.

This is my favorite vaccine article: A User-Friendly Vaccination Schedule. I would call this research that supports delaying vaxes. http://www.lewrockwell.com/miller/miller15.html

Hep B: Is primarily transmitted through sex and needle-sharing. The only reason infants get it is that they are a captive audience. By vaxing infants, the thinking is, we'll prevent them from getting/spreading the disease later on. However, there are correlations between the Hep B vax and SIDS. Babies don't need it.

The ingredients in the vaccines also give me pause. Many vaxes are made using cells from other animals or from aborted fetal tissue (I'm pro-choice, but I don't think that aborted fetal tissue needs to be injected into otherwise healthy babies). http://www.informedchoice.info/cocktail.html

Finally, the fact that there are 33 doses of vaccines given before age 5. A 2 month old gets 7 vaccines. How can an undeveloped immune system handle Diptheria, pertussis, tetanus, meningitis, polio, pneumonia, and Hep B? PLUS: formaldehyde, aluminum hydroxide, aluminum phosphate, thimerosal, polysorbate 80, ammonium sulfate, formalin, sucrose, neomycin, streptomycin, polymyxin B, 2-phenoxyethenol, monkey-kidney cells, phenol, and probably some other undesirables.

So, that's my rationale.

AWESOME INFO thank you so much.

[hapersmion]

Originally Posted by Proverbs31

That same thing happened to my son! The eczema showed up right after his first round of vaxes, would gradually clear and then "mysteriously" flare-up right after each round. After we stopped vaxing at 7/8 months his eczema cleared up and hasn't come back since.

Same here, exactly.

We're probably not getting any more vaccines until he's 3, at least. Pretty much for the reasons that rredhead listed, and because autism is so scary, and getting so widespread. Like someone posted over on the main vax forum, "Vaccines never cause autism in unvaccinated kids."

hapersmion

[Sanveann]

We are delaying and selectively vaxing because of some autoimmune diseases in my family (my grandmother has lupus and my first cousin has rheumatoid arthritis), and because I have concerns about the effects of so many vaxes on a baby's immune system.

[AllieFaye]

After much consideration, I believe that older, breastfed children have the best ability to receive their maximum benefit from vaccines. Next after that is younger, breastfed babies, then older, weaned children and finally formula-fed infants. Considering the vast majority of American babies is in the category to have the worst response, I can't imagine how the CDC can develop appropriate protocols. We wouldn't want all those mothers feeling guilty, now would we? Since the odds of an American child still nursing at even two years of age are miniscule, I can see why the recommendations simply discount that anyone would be in the best response category. The rationale is no small feat ; we've fundamentally reconsidered our entire parenting experience. We (dh and I) now see it as breastimmunizing first, and breastfeeding second.

[alegna]

Originally Posted by AllieFaye

We (dh and I) now see it as breastimmunizing first, and breastfeeding second.

That's a sweet thought, but unless you are unvaccinated and have natural immunity to many diseases it's simply not true. This is a problem with mass vaccination. Breastfeeding moms do NOT pass on immunity usually if all they have is vaccine immunity (instead of natural immunity)

-Angela

[mamakay]

Originally Posted by alegna

That's a sweet thought, but unless you are unvaccinated and have natural immunity to many diseases it's simply not true. This is a problem with mass vaccination. Breastfeeding moms do NOT pass on immunity usually if all they have is vaccine immunity (instead of natural immunity)

-Angela

Well, they do for some of them. The "bacterial meningitis" bugs, pertussis sometimes, rotavirus, and maybe a few others are ones where breastfeeding will have a protective effect.
Breastmilk also has some "nonspecific" immunity stuff about it, too, although I'm unclear on exactly how that works.

[alegna]

Originally Posted by mamakay

Well, they do for some of them. The "bacterial meningitis" bugs, pertussis sometimes, rotavirus, and maybe a few others are ones where breastfeeding will have a protective effect.
Breastmilk also has some "nonspecific" immunity stuff about it, too, although I'm unclear on exactly how that works.

Oh, absolutely breastmilk has a protective effect. I thought the poster thought that she would pass specific immunities though. Perhaps I misunderstood.

-Angela

[suzywan]

Great info all around - thanks! We're definitely doing delayed (until after 2) and selective vax. Just one question to relieve me deepest fear surrounding this:

Barring any unforseen fortune that befalls our family, our baby will have to go to daycare at 12 weeks. Not my first choice, or really my choice at all, but it is what it is : I am not worried about most childhood diseases Baby could get except pertussis. It scares the krap out of me. Will Baby be unduly harmed by not receiving the pertussis vax before 2 years of age seeing as she will be in a daycare environment? I will exclusively breastfeed/pump. I am lucky that VT has a philosophical exemption, but I don't want Baby hurt :

[rredhead]

Attitude

We wouldn't want all those mothers feeling guilty, now would we?

I understand that this is an AP board, but do we really need the attitude? Not all mothers can breastfeed. I, for example, adopted, and as there's an adoption forum on MDC there are probably other adoptive moms reading too. It is sometimes possible to nurse an adopted baby, but not in all situations.
I have no problem with being pro-breastfeeding. My problem comes in the assumption that all mothers who don't breastfeed are somehow lesser creatures.

[hapersmion]

Originally Posted by suzywan

Great info all around - thanks! We're definitely doing delayed (until after 2) and selective vax. Just one question to relieve me deepest fear surrounding this:

Barring any unforseen fortune that befalls our family, our baby will have to go to daycare at 12 weeks. Not my first choice, or really my choice at all, but it is what it is : I am not worried about most childhood diseases Baby could get except pertussis. It scares the krap out of me. Will Baby be unduly harmed by not receiving the pertussis vax before 2 years of age seeing as she will be in a daycare environment? I will exclusively breastfeed/pump. I am lucky that VT has a philosophical exemption, but I don't want Baby hurt :

I don't have a real answer for you, but make sure you check up on how ineffective the pertussis vaccine is before you decide. You could easily get her the shot and then still have her come down with whooping cough. It's just something to keep in mind - you have to weigh the potential risks of the vaccine against the potential benefit.

If you're looking for BTDT stories, I recall there being someone with a 7-week-old who came down with pertussis (wouldn't have had the vax yet anyway) on the Health and Healing boards not too long ago. It sounded a bit scary, but the baby seemed to be getting better by the end of the thread - and the stories of side effects from the DTaP are scary too.

hapersmion