Booster shots?

[honeybee]

Ds, nearly 5, is due for some boosters. He has had nearly everything except varicella, hep a, flu, and the newer vaxes that weren't on the schedule yet before he was two. Ds2, on the other hand, has not been vaxed at all, so you can see our philosophy has changed. But, I kind of feel like he should either be fully immunized from a particular disease or not given any at all.

He did not really have any notable reactions to the shots as a baby, so my impulse is to think he would be fine. I would want to space the boosters out, however. It looks like DTaP, MMR, and polio would be the boosters he would need.

So, tell me what you know about booster shots, please, including any convincing arguments against any of the boosters...

hmmm, mods, maybe I should've put this in regular vax forum since i'm also interested in hearing cons??

[CookAMH]

This isn't so much about the boosters, but what I have learned about the respective illnesses:

polio - vaccine provides "low levels of protection" locally in the gut only and does not prevent transmission (source); Western Hemisphere has been polio free for how many years? 15 or more? 20? Polio is 95% asymptomatic and "paralytic polio" has been tied to spraying/pesticides (like DDT in Africa) and may not really be polio (I plan to read this sometime soon)

Mumps - once a normal childhood illness, still should be. Sterility is extremely rare, and only occurs if ill in puberty. I'd rather our kids get it and get over it.

Measles - very concerned about this vaccine for its reaction and history of causing chronic, permanent, gut disorders, which have an effect on the neurological system, and the measles type from the vaccine was found in the intestines of many children. I am not at all worried if our kids get measles. Also should be a normal childhood illness, as it once was.
Rubella - undecided on this one, and yes it can cause major problems for a babe in the womb of a mother who gets it her first trimester, but that is quite unlikely to happen.

DTaP - I'll just post what I posted elsewhere on here:
-Tetanus is not a risk. I came to understand how one is infected with tetanus and am not concerned. (this pretty much sums it up)
-Diphtheria is not around in clean conditions and there hasn't been a reported case in 5 years
-Pertussis grants partial protection, is reactive, can cause encephalitis (swelling of the brain) and I am not that concerned about whooping cough. It's an annoying illness, but not as dangerous as people think. If my child has a 50/50 chance of getting it while fully vaccinated, I'd rather not risk the shot and take my chances with the illness.

Hope that helps somewhat. I know it doesn't address your booster question, but maybe you will find that full vaccination for some of these illnesses isn't necessary. My default, after researching this for several months is instead of looking at the shot first, I look at the actual illness first and see if it's even a concern or risk today. I then go from there.

[Ncheathen]

Here is my low down on boosters.

Why do we need them? Well it is simply because the idea of immunizing artificially doesn't work. The immune system is exteremly complex and complicated. The leading immunologist in the world said himself that we basically know NOTHING of a child's immune system, other then they are different then adolescents and adults. Typically and baby's immune system doesn't produce antibody levels that the doctors want, so they KEEP DOING IT until they get the levels they want. It doesn't occur to them that there is a big difference between artificial immunization and getting through the disease naturally. Babies rely on their mothers breast milk for antibodies.

No boosters.

[pumpkinhead]

Originally Posted by Ncheathen

Here is my low down on boosters.

Why do we need them? Well it is simply because the idea of immunizing artificially doesn't work. The immune system is exteremly complex and complicated. The leading immunologist in the world said himself that we basically know NOTHING of a child's immune system, other then they are different then adolescents and adults. Typically and baby's immune system doesn't produce antibody levels that the doctors want, so they KEEP DOING IT until they get the levels they want. It doesn't occur to them that there is a big difference between artificial immunization and getting through the disease naturally. Babies rely on their mothers breast milk for antibodies.

No boosters.

One of the reasons infants require multiple vaccinations to obtain adequate seroconversion to convey immunity is because the placental antibodies persist in their system until around the 12 month mark. When they are immunised against something they already have transient antibodies against, these antibodies attack and destroy the antigen before an adequate immune response can be mounted. So, the smaller the immune response, the fewer antibodies and subsequent memory cells that are produces.

Antibodies obtained from breastmilk convey passive immunity. This means that they can help in an immediate sense but offer no protection after breastfeeding has ceased.

I agree with the OP. If you are going to vaccinate, the boosters are necessary. If you make the descision to put a vaccine into your child's body, you should see it through sort of the way you should finish a course of antibiotics once you begin them.

That said, when you wait longer to start a vaccination series, you should not need as many boosters to obtain adequate seroconversion due to a more mature immune system. Delaying boosters or just delaying the vaccination itself might be a more prudent course of action.

[amnesiac]

Moving to the main forum per the OP's request.

[Deborah]

vaccines are not the same as antibiotics

completing a course of antibiotics is to prevent the bugs from developing antibiotic resistance

bugs don't become resistant to vaccines--the end run around vaccines is different

seems fairly simple to me. if vaccines are not safe or necessary you don't keep doing them, boosters or not boosters. if you think vaccines are safe and necessary, then you do them, boosters or not boosters.

[JBaxter]

The MMR is NOT a booster. It is a second shot. something like 95% of children get immuinitywith 1 shot the 2nd shot is to cover that 5%.


You can ask your ped to order a titer which will check immunity before re injecting your child.

Also check your states school admittence regulations. SOme only require 3 DaPT and will accept a titer.

[pumpkinhead]

Originally Posted by Deborah

vaccines are not the same as antibiotics

completing a course of antibiotics is to prevent the bugs from developing antibiotic resistance

bugs don't become resistant to vaccines--the end run around vaccines is different

seems fairly simple to me. if vaccines are not safe or necessary you don't keep doing them, boosters or not boosters. if you think vaccines are safe and necessary, then you do them, boosters or not boosters.

This is why I said "sort of like" instead of "exactly like".

You don't get maximum benefits from antibiotics if you don't complete the course. You don't get maximum immunity from a series of vaccines if you do not complete the boosters. Seems fairly simple to me.

Like I said in my pp, if you choose to and plan to vaccinate but wait until your child is older, you will not need as many boosters in order to convey immunity.

Re: The bolded, I disagree. If you think vaccines are safe and necessary or the lesser of two evils or whatever, then the boosters are important. Many vaccines given on schedule are useless overtime without the follow up boosters.

[alegna]

Originally Posted by pumpkinhead

Many vaccines given on schedule are useless overtime without the follow up boosters.

hmmm, do you have any info showing that? My understanding is that there isn't even a consistent booster "Schedule" Different places have different requirements for the later doses.

-Angela

[pumpkinhead]

Originally Posted by alegna

hmmm, do you have any info showing that? My understanding is that there isn't even a consistent booster "Schedule" Different places have different requirements for the later doses.

-Angela

Well, in Canada pentacel is given at 2 months, 4 months, 6 months, and 18 months. Some doctors will do it anywhere between 15-18 months, but in general, it's 18 months. It's a pretty consistent booster schedule nation wide. Prevnar is now given at those intervals as well.

Some children may have adequate seroconversion after 2 doses, some after 3but the average 2 month old does not have an immune system mature enough to gain immunity from one dose.

http://www.drugs.com/pentacel.html

http://www.fda.gov/CBER/products/pen...l042508mem.htm

In general, limitations of the neonatal immune response (e.g., weak and short-lived antibody response and inhibitory influence of maternal antibodies) have been significant barriers to effective immunization earlier in life.

[wallacesmum]

I guess one question I would have is: if there are better approaches to disease management, for the individual, than vaccines, then does it matter what the seroconversion rates are after one shot or twelve?

[bri276]

You don't get maximum immunity from a series of vaccines if you do not complete the boosters. Seems fairly simple to me.

For some vaccines that's true, for others, the majority of children will gain complete immunity from just one shot and the rest are unnecessary. Others will not be fully immune no matter how many they get. And every time, you are risking a reaction. For example, we had a post on here about a teenager who developed Steven Johnsons syndrome after a varicella booster. So there is a lot to consider.

[MCatLvrMom2A&X]

DD was fully vaxed until booster time I decided not to get the boosters for a few different reasons the main one being that I already allowed enough mercury and other crap into her system and I am not going to compound my mistake by putting even more in.

[alegna]

Originally Posted by pumpkinhead

Well, in Canada pentacel is given at 2 months, 4 months, 6 months, and 18 months. Some doctors will do it anywhere between 15-18 months, but in general, it's 18 months. It's a pretty consistent booster schedule nation wide. Prevnar is now given at those intervals as well.

Some children may have adequate seroconversion after 2 doses, some after 3but the average 2 month old does not have an immune system mature enough to gain immunity from one dose.

http://www.drugs.com/pentacel.html

http://www.fda.gov/CBER/products/pen...l042508mem.htm

Right, but those are the initial series. The OP's child is 5yrs old and has finished all the initial series.

-Angela

[pumpkinhead]

Originally Posted by bri276

For some vaccines that's true, for others, the majority of children will gain complete immunity from just one shot and the rest are unnecessary. Others will not be fully immune no matter how many they get. And every time, you are risking a reaction. For example, we had a post on here about a teenager who developed Steven Johnsons syndrome after a varicella booster. So there is a lot to consider.

That's a good point. Varicella boosters still aren't given here. If one were offered, I would refuse it (although varicella isn't a vax that my kids will get, so it's a moot point).