Newborn vaccines? Eye drops, vitamin K, and Hep B?? - Page 5 - Mothering Forums
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#121 of 131 Old 08-28-2012, 01:56 PM
 
Bokonon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: San Diego
Posts: 2,975
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marnica View Post

 

My money is on Mother Nature. Humans are so arrogant to believe that they can win the war on microbes. There may be battles won here and there, but the war we humans will loose imo. Mother Nauture is wayyyyyyy smarter than we are.

 

I completely agree.  Just look at MRSA.

 

I always think about that scene in "Jurassic Park" when it is discovered that the same-sex dinosaurs were reproducing, and Jeff Goldblum's character says "Life will find a way."  Fiction, yes, but it's not a stretch.  In the 14 months since the Japan earthquake and Fukushima nuclear power plant catastrophe, butterflies have already mutated.
 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/aug/16/fukushima-radiation-butterflies

 

It's not hard to see how life adapts and finds a way.

rachelsmama, Marnica and BeckyBird like this.

A, jammin.gif mama to a boy (2005) and a girl (2009)
Bokonon is offline  
#122 of 131 Old 08-30-2012, 07:00 AM
 
nutritionjulia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 19
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

@taximom5 if so many people are being affected, why isn't it being reported properly? One answer could be that it is not being picked up by doctors. The other could be that there is in fact no link between the vaccination and the problems that people are reporting. Have you heard of the nocebo effect? This is when people expect an adverse reaction to a treatment. Here is an analysis of adverse events in the placebo group in clinical trials for headaches that might provide you with some background: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21216874. I am not saying that vaccines are all completely without risk or that problems cannot arise in future. However, reported adverse events are not necessarily related to vaccination. Case reports do not prove causality.

 

The specialists who HAVE been finding a causal link should publish in a peer reviewed journal so that it can add to the safety data on vaccines.

 

The reference I sent you actually showed that vitamin A decreased INFECTION rate but not the rate of COMPLICATIONS from measles, so I was going by published research.

 

The Measles Initiative, as I said before, has resulted in a 70% drop in measles deaths in developing countries over the past decade. Therefore, even without access to sanitation, clean water, nutritious food and reliable medical care, the vaccine can reduce deaths. Vaccines do make a difference.

 

The companies that make vaccines do in fact report adverse events from vaccines when they publish their research. For example, here is one from Merck about hepatitis B in newborns http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22227229 and about the IPV (polio) vaccine, supported by Sanofi-Aventis http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17429085. Vaccine manufacturers have to show that their products are safe and effective, and there are very strict regulations about how much research is required and how the trials are conducted. Sure, sometimes things go wrong however you are taking a couple of examples out of the thousands of drugs and vaccines that are on the market. They willingly allow access to evidence that their products are not completely without risk, because that is what is required by regulatory bodies and the scientific process. One can check for results on www.pubmed.com or upcoming trials on www.clinicaltrials.gov

nutritionjulia is offline  
#123 of 131 Old 08-30-2012, 07:04 AM
 
HouseofPeace's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,435
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bokonon View Post

 

I completely agree.  Just look at MRSA.

 

I always think about that scene in "Jurassic Park" when it is discovered that the same-sex dinosaurs were reproducing, and Jeff Goldblum's character says "Life will find a way."  Fiction, yes, but it's not a stretch.  In the 14 months since the Japan earthquake and Fukushima nuclear power plant catastrophe, butterflies have already mutated.
 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/aug/16/fukushima-radiation-butterflies

 

It's not hard to see how life adapts and finds a way.

LOL!!!  i totally agree with this!  it reminds me of studying latin/mythology and the constant theme being HUBRIS.  man thinking that by brains and human ingenuity and limited knowledge, he will become a perfect god.  we will not conquer nature, and certainly not a subset of nature that is actually a HUGE part of our body naturally.  http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080603085914.htm

 

so if we aren't at war with disease and germs, what are we actually doing?  i think that's the question between vaxxing and non-vaxxing at a real level. 

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15638050 "One would have to consider that there is causal relationship between HBV and seriousautoimmune disorders among certain susceptible vaccine recipients in a defined temporal period following immunization. In immunizing adults, the patient, with the help of their physician, should make an informed consent decision as to whether to be immunized or not, weighing the small risks of the adverse effects of HBV with the risk of exposure to deadly hepatitis B virus."

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12397738?dopt=Abstract  "Further analysis is needed to determine the mechanisms by which hepatitis B vaccine is associated with gastrointestinal reactions."

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16206512  "Despite the negative findings of the present study regarding the rare serious adverse effects of HBVs, it is clear that HBV does, indeed, offer significant benefits, but it is also clear that chances of exposure to hepatitis B virus in adults is largely life-style dependent. Adults should make an informed consent decision, weighing the risks and benefits of HBV, as to whether or not to be immunized."

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22235045  "In addition, risk factors such as history of autoimmune diseases and the appearance of adverse event(s) during immunization may serve to predict the risk of post-immunization diseases. The ASIA criteria were found to be very useful among adults with post-vaccination events. The application of the ASIA criteria to pediatric populations requires further study."


joy.gifSAHM and Holistic Health Counselor with  angel.gif 1/05, DS1 blahblah.gif 3/06, angel1.gif 5/07, DD1 dust.gif 3/08, DD2 thumbsuck.gif 11/09, DD3 energy.gif 4/11, and DS2 babyf.gif 2/13.  expecting a surprise stork-suprise.gif 8/14!
HouseofPeace is offline  
#124 of 131 Old 08-30-2012, 10:12 AM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,099
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 23 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by nutritionjulia View Post

@taximom5 if so many people are being affected, why isn't it being reported properly? One answer could be that it is not being picked up by doctors. The other could be that there is in fact no link between the vaccination and the problems that people are reporting. Have you heard of the nocebo effect? This is when people expect an adverse reaction to a treatment. Here is an analysis of adverse events in the placebo group in clinical trials for headaches that might provide you with some background: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21216874. I am not saying that vaccines are all completely without risk or that problems cannot arise in future. However, reported adverse events are not necessarily related to vaccination. Case reports do not prove causality.

 

The specialists who HAVE been finding a causal link should publish in a peer reviewed journal so that it can add to the safety data on vaccines.

 

The reference I sent you actually showed that vitamin A decreased INFECTION rate but not the rate of COMPLICATIONS from measles, so I was going by published research.

 

The Measles Initiative, as I said before, has resulted in a 70% drop in measles deaths in developing countries over the past decade. Therefore, even without access to sanitation, clean water, nutritious food and reliable medical care, the vaccine can reduce deaths. Vaccines do make a difference.

 

The companies that make vaccines do in fact report adverse events from vaccines when they publish their research. For example, here is one from Merck about hepatitis B in newborns http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22227229 and about the IPV (polio) vaccine, supported by Sanofi-Aventis http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17429085. Vaccine manufacturers have to show that their products are safe and effective, and there are very strict regulations about how much research is required and how the trials are conducted. Sure, sometimes things go wrong however you are taking a couple of examples out of the thousands of drugs and vaccines that are on the market. They willingly allow access to evidence that their products are not completely without risk, because that is what is required by regulatory bodies and the scientific process. One can check for results on www.pubmed.com or upcoming trials on www.clinicaltrials.gov

It's not being reported properly because

 

1) there is no mandatory reporting system in place

 

2) doctors have been trained for the last few decades that any kind of reaction other than redness, soreness, mild fever, and fussiness is simply not possible.  Our pediatrician told us that he had been taught that more severe reactions only happened in third-world countries, where nutrition and sanitation were poor.

 

3) parents receive an information form that says, "reactions may include redness and soreness at injection site, mild fever, and fussiness."  NOWHERE does the form state that reactions may include seizures up to 3 weeks following the injection. NOWHERE does is state that reactions may include arthritis, arthralgia, lupus, asthma, MS, lupus, seizures, or any other known vaccine-induced autoimmune disorder.

 

So the parents don't know to report it, either.

 

I find your "nocebo effect" to be ridiculous at best, and extremely insulting.  "Nocebo effect" cannot explain autoimmune disorders and severe reactions in infants and toddlers, who are far too young to expect a reaction, let alone verbalize.


But guess what?  There are more and more mainstream, peer-reviewed studies that DO explain how vaccine ingredients cause these reactions. They have been posted on this forum many times. 

 

"The companies that make vaccines do in fact report adverse events when they publish their research."  You must not be aware of the number of times they have been caught lying, changing the numbers, and generally doing everything they can to HIDE the adverse events.  It's been posted here many times, so I invite you to read up on it.  Let us know if you need us to post the  proof yet again.

Taximom5 is online now  
#125 of 131 Old 08-30-2012, 11:12 AM
 
MamaMunchkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 355
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)

@nutritionjulia,

 

I believe the study of side effects of vaxes is an evolving one.

 

For example, for autoimmune disorders and vaxes link - some mainstream scientists rule it out, some advise more caution and suggest further studies.  Large scale epidemiological studies are often suggested, which are currently lacking.

 

I've found similar problems while trying to figure out other possible side effects with vaxes as well.  It's not the problem that the scientists have the wrong picture of what's going on, but rather that they may not have the complete picture - yet.  Only time will tell.

 

For better or worse, it seems that things are more complex than it first appears.   


Pro rights (vaxes).
MamaMunchkin is offline  
#126 of 131 Old 08-30-2012, 02:15 PM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,099
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 23 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by MamaMunchkin View Post

@nutritionjulia,

 

I believe the study of side effects of vaxes is an evolving one.

 

For example, for autoimmune disorders and vaxes link - some mainstream scientists rule it out, some advise more caution and suggest further studies.  Large scale epidemiological studies are often suggested, which are currently lacking.

 

I've found similar problems while trying to figure out other possible side effects with vaxes as well.  It's not the problem that the scientists have the wrong picture of what's going on, but rather that they may not have the complete picture - yet.  Only time will tell.

 

For better or worse, it seems that things are more complex than it first appears.   

The problem with large-scale epidemiological studies is that they don't identify at-risk subgroups.

 

Obviously, there is a subgroup who is having severe reactions to vaccines, with neurological, developmental, autoimmune, and digestive disorders.

 

And the pharma-funded folks directing every study on autism are directing the focus AWAY from these subgroups.

 

"Let's look at older fathers!"  (Hello, those are the fathers who are likely to have education, jobs, and they are the ones most likely to be making sure their babies are going to all the well-child vaccination appointments.)

 

"Let's look at mothers with celiac disease!"  (Hello, that's a pretty logical high-risk group, since autistic children tend to have celiac disease.)  "Oops, too close to the truth, let's look at something else!"
 

"Let's admit that mitochondrial disorder predisposed a child to a vaccine reaction resulting in autism!  Oops, too close to the fact that vaccines can actually CAUSE mito disorders.  And no, we won't prescreen children for mito disorders before vaccinations!  Let's look at something else!"

 

"Let's look at proximity to highways!" (Yep, suburban parents are the ones more likely to be highly educated, and the ones who are more likely to take their children to all the well-child vaccine visits.)

 

"Let's look at genetics! Wow, 52% of the autistic kids we tested shared the same genetic sequence! We've found a genetic link to autism!"  (Umm, you forgot to point out that 54% of the NON-autistic kids shared the same genetic sequence. What kind of link is that?)

 

"Let's announce in the press that science has spoken, and the vaccine/autism link has been proven wrong!" (Actually, science never announced anything.  The media did.  And the conclusion was incorrect, because it ignored the studies that DO show a link, and ignored the glaring flaws of the studies that don't.

Marnica and Bokonon like this.
Taximom5 is online now  
#127 of 131 Old 08-30-2012, 06:22 PM
 
MamaMunchkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 355
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post

"Let's announce in the press that science has spoken, and the vaccine/autism link has been proven wrong!" (Actually, science never announced anything.  The media did.  And the conclusion was incorrect, because it ignored the studies that DO show a link, and ignored the glaring flaws of the studies that don't.

 

nod.gif and another nod.gif for the comment on large scale studies.

 

This has been my impression as well.  There also seems to be a problem with how the issue has been framed so far.  Not only has it been oversimplified, but it's also rife with divisive emotional tones at times.
 
It seems that the heated rhetoric of parents-vs-parents has become a distraction away from the essence of the problem - the safety, efficacy, and necessities of vaxes.  Instead of parents collectively demanding more and better studies, it seems that we're arguing with each other instead.
 
Utterly frustrating is an understatement.

kathymuggle likes this.

Pro rights (vaxes).
MamaMunchkin is offline  
#128 of 131 Old 08-31-2012, 09:21 AM
 
nutritionjulia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 19
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

@houseofpeace

 

Thanks for the links - finally something to consider. The human microbiome is an area of research that is currently receiving attention, however there is a difference between targeting a few microbes that are known to cause disease and the millions of other microbes that colonize the body and are largely benign.
 

The first reference you sent (Geier and Geier, 2004) is a description of case reports and a basic VAERS analysis. In fact, I tried to replicate the search using the CDC Wonder site and I got very different numbers, e.g. the paper quotes 415 cases of arthritis, however using CDC Wonder, I only find 83, selecting all cases. Also repeating the search for rheumatoid arthritis I found 53 instead of the 166 quoted. This might be because I searched for a reported symptom, and they may have done a full-text search that brought up adverse events in people with pre-existing conditions. Even if I can't replicate the basic results (which is crucial for the scientific method), using Microsoft Access for the "examination" is amateurish at best. There are plenty of validated statistical analysis packages available and I wonder why they couldn't use one of these programs. These case reports also only show a temporal association and not causation.

 

The second one (Geier and Geier, 2002) I do not have full access to so I can't judge it properly. Based on the results in the abstract "our analysis shows that the 40-year-old female population between four to eight days after hepatitis B vaccination was at increased risk for developing gastrointestinal reactions" it looks like the authors have done a great number of sub-group analyses in the attempt to find an association. They don't state the statistical method in the methodology section, and the wording of the conclusion "Hepatitis B vaccination was statistically associated by chi 2 analysis with gastrointestinal reactions including: hepatitis, gastrointestinal disease and liver function test abnormalities in comparison to our vaccine control groups" specifically the words "statistically associated" indicate to me that the association was not statistically significant. If the authors were vaguely competent statistically they would have used the words "chi-square" (as in this abstract http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22934164)- the current wording in Geier and Geier is perhaps used because they did another type of analysis and are alluding to the chi-square test? This paper looks spurious.

 

Another related paper to the one above (also Geier and Geier, 2002, the one year follow-up paper) is also rather strange, although I don't have access to the full text to comment. The group associated with arthritis risk are 45-year old women getting rubella and hepatitis B shots. It is not clear how chronic arthritis can develop so quickly - do they mean that it was pre-existing and flared up, or do they really expect a chronic inflammatory disease to develop in less than two weeks? Why were the 45-year old women being vaccinated for rubella? The target group for rubella is children and women of childbearing age. Once again, the statistics were not reported correctly in the abstract.

 

The Geier and Geier 2005 article attempts to do a case-control study within the VAERS. This study is performed better than the previous ones - they must have taken a course in statistics in teh meantime. The methodological weakness with this study is the low number of total events reported for the "control" vaccine, tetanus. I would be interested to see if the results change for another vaccine type that has more adverse event reports in the VAERS because I am concerned that the tetanus vaccine was chosen for spurious reasons. The authors do not stratify the data for any potential confounders, no do they provide information in the results about the age breakdown or other demographic data within the groups tested. Once again, a randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial is needed to show causation, and this is epidemiological evidence.

 

The last one (Zafir et al.) just describes symptoms in people who had auto-immune complaints after hepatitis B vaccination. I have the impression that their point is that people who have pre-existing auto-immune conditions may experience these symptoms after vaccination. This doesn't show causation.

 

Furthermore, there is plenty of other published evidence that was not included in your list that shows no link between auto-immune disease and hepatitis vaccination. You will notice that the authors are different for each article, and that the statistics are reported adequately in the abstract.

 

Nat Med. 1999 Sep;5(9):964-5.
No increase in demyelinating diseases after hepatitis B vaccination.
Zipp F, Weil JG, Einhäupl KM.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10470051
Our controlled study shows no evidence of demyelination induced by hepatitis B immunization, a finding that also leaves the idea of a general risk of developing vaccination-induced central nervous system demyelinating episodes open to critical revision.

J Viral Hepat. 2003 Sep;10(5):343-4.
Hepatitis B vaccination and multiple sclerosis: evidence from a systematic review.
Demicheli V, Rivetti A, Di Pietrantonj C, Clements CJ, Jefferson T.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12969184
This review found a considerable body of research showing consistent and reasonably reliable results that failed to find conclusive evidence of the association between administration of HBV and MS or DD.

Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2007 Dec;161(12):1176-82.
Hepatitis B vaccination and the risk of childhood-onset multiple sclerosis.
Mikaeloff Y, Caridade G, Rossier M, Suissa S, Tardieu M.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18056563
Vaccination against HB within the 3-year study period was not associated with an increased rate of a first episode of MS (adjusted odds ratio, 1.03; 95% confidence interval, 0.62-1.69). The rate was also not increased for HB vaccination within 6 months of the index date or at any time since birth or as a function of the number of injections or the brand of HB vaccine.
CONCLUSION: Vaccination against HB does not seem to increase the risk of a first episode of MS in childhood.

Neurol Sci. 2000;21(4 Suppl 2):S853-6.
Prognostic factors in multiple sclerosis: role of intercurrent infections and vaccinations against influenza and hepatitis B.
Merelli E, Casoni F.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11205362
Epidemiological studies in large populations have recently been performed to investigate a possible link between HB vaccination and MS: all results argue against a causal relation between HB vaccine and MS or other demyelinating diseases.

Vaccine. 2011 Sep 2;29(38):6592-7. Epub 2011 Jul 16.
Risk of rheumatoid arthritis following vaccination with tetanus, influenza and hepatitis B vaccines among persons 15-59 years of age.
Ray P, Black S, Shinefield H, Dillon A, Carpenter D, Lewis E, Ross P, Chen RT, Klein NP, Baxter R; Vaccine Safety Datalink Team.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21763385
In this large retrospective study we found no statistically significant association between exposure to hepatitis B vaccine and onset of RA. A possible association between RA and influenza vaccination in the cohort study was not borne out in the larger case-control analysis.

 

Ann Rheum Dis. 2002 Jul;61(7):623-5.
Safety and efficacy of vaccination against hepatitis B in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.
Elkayam O, Yaron M, Caspi D.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12079904
Hepatitis B vaccination was not associated with an appreciable deterioration in any clinical or laboratory measure of disease.
 

nutritionjulia is offline  
#129 of 131 Old 08-31-2012, 10:11 AM
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,099
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 23 Post(s)

@ nutritionjulia, I am trying to find out who funded, designed, directed, and interpreted these studies, as that has a great deal of bearing on the outcome of said studies.

 

So far,I have only looked up the 2011 study, as that was the most recent one.

 

It appears that the Vaccine Safety Datalink Team was in charge of that one.  They are basically an arm of the CDC.  The CDC's previous director, Julie Geberding, is now president of Merck's Vaccine Division. So, basically, what you have here as a government-funded study, from an arm of the program that is already in charge of the vaccination program.  The job of the VSDT is to show how safe vaccines are, not to show any problems.

 

And the study simply compares 15 to 59-year-olds with RA who got 1 or more of 3 vaccines, vs people from the same age group who did not get those vaccines.

 

They did not look at who got more vaccines over their lifetime (the group they called "unvaccinated" simply did not receive any of the 3 vaccines during the period of study, and may have received many more vaccines before or after that time period), who got several vaccines at once vs who got no vaccines, or how old the patient was at time of onset of RA. 

 

IIn addition, although this study is dated 2011, the data was actually from 1997-1999, 13-15 years ago, before records were computerized; flu shots were a rarity, and not part of a recommended schedule at that time, and were not necessarily recorded in a patient's records.  This was also a time when joint pain/rheumatoid arthritis was taken less seriously than now, and took much longer to diagnose.

Taximom5 is online now  
#130 of 131 Old 09-01-2012, 10:09 AM
 
nutritionjulia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 19
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

@taximom5 the main concern with industry scientists publishing research is not what they have published, but what they have not published. Scientists working for industry tend to publish more articles about studies that show positive, and refrain from publishing studies with null or negative results. This is why mandatory clinical trial registration was introduced back around 2007, to publicly acknowledge that a clinical trial was being performed so that there is a means to follow up on unpublished results if the study has not been published due to null or negative results. The positive results can skew the total evidence base. A single "positive" article from an industry group should be judged on its own merits because it, given the regulatory demands on clinical trials, presents real results.

 

I wanted to concentrate on the contents of the articles rather than the peripheral information because you may know that there are also conflict of interest issues with the Geier and Geier publications that HouseofPeace quoted, and I felt it was a cheap shot to mention it. But you brought it up...

 

For the 2011 study, you talk about Julie Geberding leading the CDC then later becoming head Merck's Vaccine division. First of all, Dr Geberding left the CDC in January 2009, the publication was submitted almost two years later, and she is not even mentioned as an author of the paper. I doubt that she had any bearing on the results. I find the link you are drawing rather tenuous indeed.

 

I also felt it was necessary to mention that the Vaccine Safety Datalink Team does publish research showing that there are problems with vaccines. I have an example below that shows MMR is linked to thrombocytopenia purpura, an auto-immune disease. Results like these are used to reevaluate the safety of vaccines and to guide the development of better vaccines.

 

Pediatrics. 2008 Mar;121(3):e687-92.
Risk of immune thrombocytopenic purpura after measles-mumps-rubella immunization in children.
France EK, Glanz J, Xu S, Hambidge S, Yamasaki K, Black SB, Marcy M, Mullooly JP, Jackson LA, Nordin J, Belongia EA, Hohman K, Chen RT, Davis R; Vaccine Safety Datalink Team.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18310189

Seventy-six percent of immune thrombocytopenia purpura cases in children aged 12 to 23 months were attributable to measles-mumps-rubella vaccination. This vaccine causes 1 case of immune thrombocytopenia purpura per every 40,000 doses.
CONCLUSION: Measles-mumps-rubella vaccine that is given in the second year of life is associated with an increased risk of immune thrombocytopenia purpura.

nutritionjulia is offline  
#131 of 131 Old 10-02-2013, 09:31 AM
 
TakeItSnape's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 60
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I got my chicken pox shots as a child..I still contracted it...twice.

TakeItSnape is offline  
Reply

Tags
Birth , Birth Preparation , Vaccines , Birth Information , Vaccinations

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off