Mothering Forums

Mothering Forums (http://www.mothering.com/forum/)
-   HIB and Prevnar (http://www.mothering.com/forum/114-hib-prevnar/)
-   -   Anyone choose to do the Hib? Appt tom. and panicking (http://www.mothering.com/forum/114-hib-prevnar/503552-anyone-choose-do-hib-appt-tom-panicking.html)

~Ryleigh's Mommy~ 08-17-2006 02:14 PM

DD has her 4 month appt tomorrow (even though she is almost 5 mos ) and although I had previously made up my mind that I was going to do NO more vaxes, I'm starting to panick about the Hib.
Here's a little history. My husband has systemic lupus (an autoimmune disorder). We had originally decided to delay vaxing until 2 to give her system time to mature. The d@mn hospital gave her a hepB w/o our consent: And then at her 2 month appt our pedi (who is very supportive of our choice to delay given the medical history) suggested we do the Hib and Prevnar because they can be serious diseases and she said that the conjugate shots didn't show a correspondance with autoimmune diseases. At that point, I hadn't yet found MDC or done any research on it.
I for sure do not want to continue the Prevnar, but I am starting to get scared into maybe getting the Hib. First it was because I read a story in Brainchild magazine about losing a child. The woman's baby had died of meningitis (it didn't give any other details) But then I thought, well, DD is breastfed and doesn't go to daycare, so she doesn't need it. But then last night when I was looking through the archives (unfortunetely, there isn't much regarding the Hib vaccine) I found a few posts that put the fear back into me. I will cut and paste:

"My nephew nearly died of Hib at the age of six weeks, and he was fully breastfed and not in daycare."
"Sounds like you already made your decision, but I thought I'd post for other people who are interested in HiB: My dd had this a few months ago. She is breastfed, in home daycare with one other kid who is fully vaxxed"
"I think the above statement is unfair and incorrect. I watched my dear friend's ds fight meningitis as an infant and he was unvaxxed and bf. He was a week old and he almost died. It was a blessing that he was bf because I have no doubt it saved his life. When he spiked a high fever the spinal tap showed that his little body had already mounted such an immune response (hence the fever - yay bf) So while I'm all for skipping HIB if that's your inclination - I can attest to the fact that not all meningitises are a result of "deviating" from best practices."
Now I just don't know what to do and I'm afraid I might get talked into getting the Hib tomorrow. In fact, I think I might actually feel better about things if she did at least have the Hib.
My dd is exclusively BF, and I plan on delaying solids and extended nursing. She doesn't go to daycare, but we go to playgroup once a week and none of the other kids there are vaxed.
Can getting one vax really be that bad? I haven't really heard much about problems with the Hib vaccine itself......
Somebody help!

~Melissa~

Plaid Leopard 08-17-2006 02:35 PM

NAK and not much time to post now but I would say that if rescheduling the appointment until you have had more time to research is not an option, then you should keep in mind that:

the HIB vax does not protect against all strains of meningitis, thus raising the risk of your child contracting another type.

the HIB vax is fairly new. Our parents didn't get it, we didn't get it, and nobody panicked about meningitis back then.

Goddess3_2005 08-17-2006 02:37 PM

I have 5 unvaxed kiddos, 2 were in daycare for the first 3-4 years of their lives. no problems. They attend public schools, play at the park, etc. And to anser your question, one vaccine can do more damage than you can imagine.

Plummeting 08-17-2006 02:48 PM

Hib is very stronly associated with Type 1 diabetes, which is an autoimmune disease. Since your husband already has an autoimmune disease, I'd be concerned that your daughter might be genetically predisposed to them - meaning the right trigger could set it in motion.

Like the PP's said, none of us had Hib vaccine and we're all still alive. Besides, vaccinating for Hib causes an increase in pneumococcal infection, which is what Prevnar is supposed to prevent. The problem is that there are 20-something S. pneumoniae strains, but only 7 strains in the vaccine. Therefore, vaccinating for Hib makes a child more susceptible to pneumococcal infection, which cannot be prevented with Prevnar because the vast majority of S. pneumoniae strains are not included in the vaccine. Since S. pneumoniae is much more resistant to treatment than Hib, by vaccinating for Hib, you would increase your child's chances of developing a treatment-resistant invasive pneumococcal disease, as well as increase her chance of developing diabetes.

It really is that straightforward.

(Edited because I accidentally compared strains to serogroups.)

mom0810 08-17-2006 02:48 PM

I think that if those babies had meningitis at that young of an age, it was probably viral. My friend's baby had mn at a week old and almost died, but it was viral and he had caught it while in the nursery at the hospital. Meningitis can be bacterial OR viral. Hib is just ONE organism that can lead to meningitis. Most of us carry Hib in our noses and throats.

Getting Hib and Prevnar is no guarantee that your baby will not get meningitis. There are many other strains of bacteria and viruses out there that can cause this. Even the Prevnar only protects against SEVEN strains of pnuemoccocal, and there are something like 28!

If you are worried, do some more reading on Hib. I have gone back and forth about this one, too, so I understand. My ds is 8 months old, and I have not vaccinated him at all yet, and my doctor told me not to worry about it until I'm done breastfeeding.

Beth

comfybuns 08-17-2006 03:00 PM

I was pressured into getting Hib for my now 3 yo. He had a reaction and started vomiting stomach bile shortly after. We are noe dealing with an almost completely nonverbal child who is somewhere on the spectrum (we believe he has aspergers)
I will tell you that most peds have their favorite vaccine that they like to push... Hib is NOT one i would choose.

cchrissyy 08-17-2006 03:07 PM

we do Hib, but just 1 or 2... being that she had it at 2 months, you could just call it done, or have a 2nd shot if does the road you stop BF or she has more group care time.

LongIsland 08-17-2006 03:11 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Plummeting
Like the PP's said, none of us had Hib vaccine and we're all still alive.

And the way these ped's like to Hib and pneumococcal scaremonger, it's amazing humans have made it this far, hmmm? And parents are falling for the scaremongering hook, line and sinker.

The only reason why you are even thinking about meningitis is very simple ------ a vaccine exists. Otherwise, it wouldn't cross your mind. Just like it didn't cross your mothers mind, your mother's mother's mind . . . .

I also want to point out that there have been many, many reports of Hib vaccine failure (and Prevnar failure). Imagine getting yourself sick over this unnecessary vaccine . . . and then your fully vaccinated kid gets Hib or pneumococcal.

VAERS Reports of Hib Vaccine Failure thread: http://www.mothering.com/discussions...ht=hib+failure

Lynnseedoil 08-17-2006 03:35 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Plummeting
none of us had Hib vaccine and we're all still alive.
You know, this argument never washes with me. According to the CDC, 600 kids/year used to die of Hib related infections. They're not still alive.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Plummeting
vaccinating for Hib makes a child more susceptible to pneumococcal infection
Um, maybe I'm dense but this doesn't make any sense to me. Why would getting vaccinated for Hib make your child more susceptible to infection?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Plummeting
increase her chance of developing diabetes.
Could you direct me to your source for this info? I'm very interested!

LongIsland 08-17-2006 03:44 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lynnseedoil
You know, this argument never washes with me. According to the CDC, 600 kids/year used to die of Hib related infections. They're not still alive.
And 700 kids drown annually.

Then you have deaths from car accidents, bicycle accidents, the ones killed at the hands of their parents or caregivers, accidents in the home, accidental poisonings . . . . . . I could go on and on.

By the way, 600 children did NOT die of Hib just prior to the vaccine being introduced. The CDC "promotes" the Hib vaccine using the highest ESTIMATED number of deaths from any given year and then uses the highest ESTIMATED number. The same way they scaremonger other VPD deaths using mortality rates decades PRIOR to the introduction of the vaccine. The CDC routinely uses mortality and incidence rates for years long before a vaccine was introduced.

And the CDC's 20,000 "estimated" cases of Hib were estimates A DECADE PRIOR to the introduction of the first Hib vaccine . . . and well before the Hib vaccines were routinely used in infants. The first Hib vaccine introduced was not indicated for infants by the way.

LongIsland 08-17-2006 03:53 PM

Here's another example of how the CDC manipulates parents in order to promote it's scaremongering:


The CDC states on it's What Would Happen If We Stopped Vaccinating page and other promotional materials:

Before pertussis immunizations were available, nearly all children developed whooping cough. In the U.S., prior to pertussis immunization, between 150,000 and 260,000 cases of pertussis were reported each year, with up to 9,000 pertussis-related deaths.


That's true. But what the CDC conveniently fails to mention -- these incidence and death rates ocurred thirty years prior to the introduction of the vaccine. Right before the introduction of the DTP vaccine in the late 40's, there were about 1,000 annual deaths and approx. 70,000 annual cases reported.

~Ryleigh's Mommy~ 08-17-2006 03:56 PM

Thank you everyone for all your replies so far! I am just so frustrated with myself. I have done so much researching about it and I just feel even more lost.

Quote:
none of us had Hib vaccine and we're all still alive.
This doesn't really make me feel any better either. Before the Hib vaccine, thousands of kids died every year from Hib. Now it is only about 35 a year. Usually I agree with the statement that vaccines don't work (measles, mumps, chpx etc) but to me, there is no arguing that the Hib vaccine has lowered the number from the thousands to less than 50 :

Quote:
vaccinating for Hib makes a child more susceptible to pneumococcal infection
I have read many, many papers about the serotype replacement for the meningitis vaxes, and they have only showed that this occurs with the prevnar vax, but not with the Hib. It's why I've chosen not to do the prevnar, but as far as I understand, the serotype replacement is not an issue with just the Hib.

Quote:
increase her chance of developing diabetes.
I would also love more info on this! It would really make a difference if I knew that it is actually linked with an AI disorder

Quote:
we do Hib, but just 1 or 2... being that she had it at 2 months, you could just call it done, or have a 2nd shot if does the road you stop BF or she has more group care time.
So are you saying that the Hib shot she got at 2 months will already somewhat protect her? They say the age group mainly affected by Hib is 6-18 months. And I know that if you wait until 12 months, you only need one shot. Maybe we will hope that her 2 month might carry her over till she's 12 months, and get just the one shot then????
Quote:
I was pressured into getting Hib for my now 3 yo. He had a reaction and started vomiting stomach bile shortly after. We are noe dealing with an almost completely nonverbal child who is somewhere on the spectrum
Thank you so much for sharing that!

~Ryleigh's Mommy~ 08-17-2006 04:01 PM

Hey Long Island, we were posting at the same time.
Thanks for putting that into perspective for me!

LongIsland 08-17-2006 04:02 PM

Hib wasn't put into widespread use until about 1991/92 and because it began it's widespread use (and school mandates), then HI was made nationally notifiable.

In 1991, the CDC reported 2,764 cases of HI with 17 deaths. Comparitively, in 2003, the CDC reported 2,013 cases of HI with 5 deaths. Prior to 1991, Hib was not notifiable.

alegna 08-17-2006 04:07 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by ~Ryleigh's Mommy~

This doesn't really make me feel any better either. Before the Hib vaccine, thousands of kids died every year from Hib. Now it is only about 35 a year. Usually I agree with the statement that vaccines don't work (measles, mumps, chpx etc) but to me, there is no arguing that the Hib vaccine has lowered the number from the thousands to less than 50 :
Show me where you get your numbers. I don't think that Hib was reportable before they had a vax, therefore they're pulling numbers out of thin air.


I never considered Hib. It is very VERY rare for it to be a serious disease. Basically unheard of in a baby who is breastfed. It's like vaccinating for a lightening strike. The possible benefit is just far too low to justify ANY risk IMO and there is a risk. Do you know the ingredients? Have you read the VAERS reports?

-Angela

heidi_m 08-17-2006 04:07 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lynnseedoil
Um, maybe I'm dense but this doesn't make any sense to me. Why would getting vaccinated for Hib make your child more susceptible to infection?
It's actually quite simple, kind of like cutting off the head of the monster only to have another spring up in its place! As one of the pp said, the bacteria in the Hib vax typically - and harmlessly - reside in the noses and throats of most of us. Giving the vaccine can rid the body of what it has been able to live symbiotically with and leave the door open for new bacteria, to which the immune system is not accustomed, to move in and cause infection.

In fact, this concern is not unknown to the medical community and in her book Just a Little Prick, Hilary Butler cites four separate journal articles from European medical texts such as the British Lancet that talk about this very thing. Finland, Belgium, and Sweden all documented that after the use of the Hib vax, hemophilus declined and the rate of infection by invasive pneumococci increased (Butler, H. JALP, 2006, p. 147).

Sorry if my citation skills are bit rusty... I dug out my copy of the book and took a gander at it since I couldn't remember the details well enough.

Lynnseedoil 08-17-2006 04:08 PM

oops, catching up on other posts.... hold on...

LongIsland 08-17-2006 04:09 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by ~Ryleigh's Mommy~
Before the Hib vaccine, thousands of kids died every year from Hib.
Thousands of children did not die of Hib - the CDC doesn't even know the exact number. Also, you have to look at exactly what the CDC says on the Hib VIS. They say about 1,000 people died each year. Children are not the only ones who get Hib, the elderly get it too . . . but the CDC uses "1,000 people" and parents don't read between the lines and assume it's children.

Regardless, these are ESTIMATES and it is a misleading estimate b/c these not the estimates just prior to the introduction of the first Hib vaccine, which by the way was not indicated for infants and was not in widespread use. It only became used widespread when the Hib vax indicated for infants was licensed. Then it became a notifiable disease and daycares/preschools began mandating it.

LongIsland 08-17-2006 04:11 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lynnseedoil
Don't you think that telling a mama that her kid will get diabetes if she vaccinates for Hib is also a form of scaremongering? (which is also backed up by estimates, not hard numbers)
But you're not getting my point --- the CDC is using mortality rates no where near the time of the introduction of the vaccine. It IS scaremongering and blatantly misleading. The same way they say "1,000 people" died of Hib on the Hib VIS, when that estimate includes ALL age groups.

It's like the 9,000 mortality rate they use for pertussis . . . 9,000 is a lot scarier than about 1,000 that died just prior to the licensure of a vaccine isn't it?

600 is alot scarier than a few dozen isn't it? The CDC knows exactly what they're doing and exactly how to scaremonger parents into believing Hib was prevalent. Back then, they didn't even report by serotype - even when it became notifable, the CDC's historical data do not break HI down by serotype - that came later.

The numbers that count are the incidence and mortality rates just prior to the introduction of any vaccine, not Hib estimates a decade prior to the introduction of the first Hib vaccine.

Bottom line: The incidence of Hib dramatically declined prior to the introduction and widespread use of the first vaccine . . . and would have continued on it's decline without the vaccine.

starhalo 08-17-2006 04:13 PM

I had meningitis when I was a newborn. I got it because I was born prematurely and I was in the hospital nursery for the first few days of my life. It was viral so the biggest worry was to bring down my fever. I'm, what I like to believe, 100% healthy now. As a result, I've chosen the all natural route with my baby realizing that the body works best when it's left to do what it needs to do. It's just like several other mother's mentioned...meningitis is something that has been around for a long time and we managed to be okay with that. Now that we have a vaccine, we are running around scared that are children will catch it. I don't get it, but being afraid of catching a disease is not a good reason to have your child vaccinated.

heidi_m 08-17-2006 04:15 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Plummeting
Hib is very stronly associated with Type 1 diabetes, which is an autoimmune disease.
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/art...?artid=1116914

BMJ. 1999 October 23; 319(7217): 1133.
Copyright © 1999, British Medical Journal

"Association between type 1 diabetes and Hib vaccine
Causal relation is likely"

heidi_m 08-17-2006 04:19 PM

And that aint estimates, gals, that's hard numbers. They even address the fact that their findings do NOT support a prior conclusion by other researchers that there is no causal relationship:

"Karvonen et al's analysis is not rational, and their conclusion is not supported by our data.1 Their calculations of relative risk are also misleadingly low, and we urge readers to check them. Most researchers would compare the group who received four doses with the group that was not vaccinated or the two vaccinated groups with the group that was not vaccinated. The results of both comparisons reach significance. The cumulative difference in cases of type 1 diabetes per100 000 between those receiving four doses and those who were not vaccinated is 54 cases (P=0.013) at 7 years and 58 cases at 10 years (P=0.029; single tail Fisher test). The relative risk is 1.26 at 7 years. The cumulative difference between those receiving four doses or one dose of the vaccine and those who were not vaccinated is 42 cases (P=0.016) at 7 years and 47 cases at 10 years (P=0.028)."

and they also said,
"The rise in diabetes, just one potential adverse effect, exceeds the benefit of the vaccine, which has been estimated to prevent seven deaths and 7-26 cases of severe disability per 100 000 children immunised.2 Even the difference in cases of diabetes between the groups receiving four doses and one dose exceeds the mean expected benefit. Temporal changes in the incidence of diabetes do not explain the differences since there were an extra 31 cases of type 1 diabetes per 100 000 children aged 5-10, and the incidence of diabetes in this group had been stable for about 10 years before this.3 Furthermore, sharp rises in diabetes have been recorded in the United States4 and the United Kingdom5 after the introduction of the haemophilus vaccine."

again from http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/art...?artid=1116914

LongIsland 08-17-2006 04:24 PM

CDC Pink Book chapter on HIb: http://www.cdc.gov/nip/publications/pink/hib.pdf

~Ryleigh's Mommy~ 08-17-2006 04:24 PM

Quote:
Show me where you get your numbers. I don't think that Hib was reportable before they had a vax, therefore they're pulling numbers out of thin air.
This is from the National Vaccine Information Center:
Historically, Hib disease has been rare in newborns and adults, although the incidence of Hib disease increased fourfold between the years 1946 and 1986 and more adults have became vulnerable. The reason for the sudden increase in the incidence and severity of Hib disease in this century is unknown. However, some scientists believe that excessive use of antibiotics may have caused the organism to change and become more virulent. Common antibiotics, such as ampicillin, which once were used to help people recover from the disease, are no longer effective treatments for Hib disease because the bacteria have become resistant to it.
Hib was the most common cause of bacterial meningitis affecting children between 6 months and 4 years of age prior to the use of the vaccine. It is not known how long the incubation period lasts.
More serious signs are mental confusion, convulsions, shock and coma. In some extremely severe cases of Hib disease, a child can die within a few hours
Without immediate and adequate medical treatment, Hib disease has a significant death rate (5 to 10 percent) and a high rate of seizures and other neurological complications (30 percent). Other complications include pneumonia and heart involvement with long term damage including hearing loss and neurological dysfunction. Antibiotic therapy using powerful antibiotics is only one part of the treatment, which may include respiratory and oxygen therapy, blood transfusions, fluid replacement, tracheostomy, and anticonvulsant therapy.
In 1984, there were 20,000 cases of Hib disease estimated to have occurred in the U.S. that year, the highest number that are thought to have occurred in one year. In 1994, there were 1,174 cases of Hib disease reported, with 329 cases occurring in children under five years of age and 463 occurring in adults over 60 years old. Today Hib has become a rare cause of invasive disease, including meningitis, in children under age five in the U.S. In 2002 there were only 34 confirmed cases of Hib disease in children under age 5. In 1992, 16 deaths were reported to be due to complications from Hib infection and in 2000 only 6 deaths were reported.
The conjugate Hib vaccines now being used are thought to be more quickly effective, leaving children less vulnerable to Hib disease shortly after vaccination.
http://www.nvic.org/Diseases/HIB.htm

Lynnseedoil 08-17-2006 04:28 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by LongIsland
And 700 kids drown annually.

Then you have deaths from car accidents, bicycle accidents, the ones killed at the hands of their parents or caregivers, accidents in the home, accidental poisonings . . . . . . I could go on and on.
And I try to protect my daughter from those things too.

~Ryleigh's Mommy~ 08-17-2006 04:33 PM

And that's coming from an anti-vax website
I get a lot of my info from NVIC.
They also don't really have much bad things to say about the Hib vax.
Can you see why I'm at a loss about this decison?

BTW thank you so much for that diabetes article!

~member~ 08-17-2006 04:33 PM

http://www.vaccineshoppe.com/US_PDF/545_05_4045.pdf
Quote:
More than 7,000 infants and young children (≤ 2 years of age) have received at least one dose of ActHIB® during US clinical trials. Of
these, 1,064 subjects 12 to 24 months of age who received ActHIB® alone reported no serious or life threatening adverse reactions.
That leaves us with 5,936 who either reported adverse reactions or their reports were never filed. :

Lynnseedoil 08-17-2006 04:34 PM

thanks for the links, heidi!

gnu 08-17-2006 04:36 PM

These things, posted months ago by Long Island, helped put things into perspective for me:

The first Hib vaccine was licensed in 1985. Hib was put on the childhood recommended schedule of immunizations in 1993. Prior to 1991, Hib was not a notifiable disease.

Here are the number of reported Hib cases:

1991 (2,764)
1992 (1,412)
1993 (1,419) Hib placed on childhood schedule, resulting in universal immunization and state-by-state mandates for entry to daycare/school

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)

Speaks volumes doesn't it?


Historical reporting data from the CDC:
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00035381.htm
----------


You asked what we learn from this. I just learned something new today actually. I learned that the number of reported adverse events associated with Hib vaccine outnumber the actual reported cases of the illness (even before it was universally recommended):

VAERS Data (go to page 16):
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/PDF/ss/ss5201.pdf

-------------

And these posts:

http://www.mothering.com/discussions...88&postcount=8

(!) http://www.mothering.com/discussions...0&postcount=27

-------------

And finally, this site (one of the few "vaccination sites" I like, as it goes straight to the articles and abstracts for its conclusions)

http://www.vaccinationnews.com/Daily...astfeeding.htm


I truly hope this helps! Good luck.

Plummeting 08-17-2006 04:36 PM

As far as vaccinating for Hib increasing the risk of pneumococcal infection, it's common sense, IMO. Hib is a normal part of the flora of the upper respiratory tract. It always has been. The majority of cells in your body are NOT YOUR OWN. They belong to bacteria, fungi and other little creatures that BELONG THERE. We live in symbiosis with the things in our bodies. We are our own little ecosystem. Before the vaccine, most children had been infected with Hib a few times by the age of 5 or 6, with no ill effects. Along comes the Hib vaccine, and suddenly the bacteria is no longer occupying space in the upper respiratory tract, leaving room for OTHER bacteria to multiply out of control. Prior to the vaccine, Hib and S. pneumoniae would sort of "balance" each other out. Remove Hib from the equation, and suddenly the whole system of checks and balances is destroyed. It's like removing an animal that competes for a food source in an ecosystem. If you remove all of animal A that eats grass, suddenly there's lots more grass for animal B to eat, meaning there are suddenly lots more of animal B.

The fact that the number pneumococcal infections increased after Hib vaccination became common is proof right in front of your eyes. So then there were 7 strains of S. pneumoniae causing something like 70% of all invasive pneumococcal disease, so they put those 7 in Prevnar and thought the problem was solved. Except that there has been NO decrease in the number of cases of invasive pneumococcal disease. Now all the other strains are just filling the void left by the first 7.

Quote:
I have read many, many papers about the serotype replacement for the meningitis vaxes, and they have only showed that this occurs with the prevnar vax, but not with the Hib. It's why I've chosen not to do the prevnar, but as far as I understand, the serotype replacement is not an issue with just the Hib.
Ryleigh's Mommy, you're misunderstanding something here. It wouldn't be serotype replacement for S. pneumoniae to take the place of Hib, because they aren't even the same type of bacteria. Serotype replacement would be Haemophilus Influenzae type A becoming more prevalent after introduction of he Hib vaccine. So yes, you would read that Hib vaccine had not resulted in serotype replacement, but it has nothing to do with what I said. It's not serotype replacement when S. pneumoniae replaces Hib, because they're totally different bacteria, not just different serotypes. It's common knowledge that invasive pneumococcal disease increased after the introduction of the Hib vaccine.

I can't find the whole study online, but here's a blurb about this one:
Quote:
Then a Finnish study reported in the Lancet, 11 March, 1995, Volume 345, p.661 titled "Increase in Bacteraemic Pneumococcal Infections in Children" reported that "following the disappearance of invasive Hib disease in children bacteraemic pneumococcal infections have increased. A similar, although less striking increase has been reported in Philadelphia." They also speculated that while Hib vaccinations have reduced the carriage of the Hib organism, that "pneumococci may have found a new niche in colonizing children."
Unfortunately, the quote from an anti-vax site, and I try not to use those, but it's irrelevant, because the study wasn't conducted by the people who run this site. The conclusions were drawn by scientists who almost assuredly have no desire to end the practice of vaccination.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:56 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Resources saved on this page: MySQL 7.14%
vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.