What is the Vax Status of Your Children? - Page 2 - Mothering Forums

View Poll Results: What is the vax status of your children?
Vaccinated Fully and On Schedule 6 9.84%
Vaccinated with 1-2 Deviations from the Schedule (e.g. don't do flu shots, no Hep B at birth) 12 19.67%
Vaccinated on a Delayed and/or Selective Schedule 12 19.67%
Not Vaccinated At All 31 50.82%
Voters: 61. You may not vote on this poll

Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
Old 02-10-2013, 12:18 PM - Thread Starter
 
Turquesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,068
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 54 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

I don't think anyone here takes the schedule as gospel. That's a straw man that seems to keep popping up.

Maybe we have a different view on what constitutes a vaccine schedule "gospel." But if you do a search on "delayed immunization dangerous" you'll see a lot of rigidity.

In God we trust; all others must show data. selectivevax.gifsurf.gifteapot2.GIFintactivist.gif
Turquesa is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 02-10-2013, 01:17 PM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
I'm sure it exists, but you seem to be implying there's some hypocrisy going on for actual posters here.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
Old 02-10-2013, 01:18 PM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
I'm sure it exists, I'm talking about amongst routine posters here.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
Old 02-10-2013, 02:14 PM - Thread Starter
 
Turquesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,068
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 54 Post(s)
The "gospel" purveyors are the AAP, CDC, and other vax apologists. I see inconsistencies but I don't think anyone here is being hypocritical.

In God we trust; all others must show data. selectivevax.gifsurf.gifteapot2.GIFintactivist.gif
Turquesa is offline  
Old 02-10-2013, 02:58 PM
 
rachelsmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia
Posts: 1,560
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 16 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turquesa View Post


Bless me, doctor, for I have sinned. It has been 5 years since I last vaccinated one of my children for hep b without any genuine informed consent... Sheepish.gif

ROTFLMAO.gifI LOVE this!

rachelsmama is offline  
Old 02-10-2013, 03:43 PM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
I think you see inconsistencies because you're assigning people positions and opinions they don't actually hold.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
Old 02-10-2013, 06:56 PM
 
emma1325's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,222
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

My 2 youngest are vaccine free.  My oldest did receive hep b at birth and the first two sets of infant shots.


Loving mother, Devoted Wife
emma1325 is offline  
Old 02-10-2013, 08:02 PM - Thread Starter
 
Turquesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,068
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 54 Post(s)
Rrrrrachel, it's inconsistent to say you vax on schedule and then not vax on schedule. I'm not taking any guesses on what positions people hold.

I agree with PSM; the US schedule cannot possibly be infallible if other countries are doing things differently.

Emma1325, I think a lot of parents share your experience. We did the birth Heb B, then read the VIS about it, then thought WTH, then quit vaxxing altogether for awhile to learn more. (I realize that for some parents the revelation is more severe, ie a vaccine reaction). If the 1970s-1980s schedule had still been in place, I think I would have just vaxxed without any doubts or questions. When I became a first-time mom, the new vax schedule kind of blind-sided me. One interesting positive correlation in the US has been the rate of exemptions filed with the addition of new vaccine mandates.

In God we trust; all others must show data. selectivevax.gifsurf.gifteapot2.GIFintactivist.gif
Turquesa is offline  
Old 02-11-2013, 03:52 AM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,828
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 144 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turquesa View Post


I agree with PSM; the US schedule cannot possibly be infallible if other countries are doing things differently.

 

I guess one clarification - I meant that their is no "best" schedule for everyone the world over, but I do think that averaged over the whole population health groups in different countries work hard to come up with the best schedule for their country. I can't imagine you'd find anyone who would say the schedule is infallible, but I would give the benefit of the doubt and suggest it's the best choice based on the available evidence. What more can they do? 

 

 So the biggest difference between the US (which recommends HepB at birth) and UK/Canada which do this only for babies with HepB+ mothers is the availability of free health care for all. I could theorize that the babies in the US most likely to be at risk from HepB are exactly those who are least likely to have good health care access. So perhaps HepB at birth is recommended for all in order to catch those babies who are least likely to be brought back in for well baby checks...


Mother of two living in UK. Daughter (2007) born in USA, son (2010) born here. I'm pro natural birth, midwife care, breastfeeding, co-sleeping, baby wearing and a keen advocate of cloth diapering. I'm a full time working research scientist (physical sciences) and I'm pro-vaccine.

prosciencemum is offline  
Old 02-11-2013, 04:13 AM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turquesa View Post

Rrrrrachel, it's inconsistent to say you vax on schedule and then not vax on schedule. I'm not taking any guesses on what positions people hold.

I agree with PSM; the US schedule cannot possibly be infallible if other countries are doing things differently.

Emma1325, I think a lot of parents share your experience. We did the birth Heb B, then read the VIS about it, then thought WTH, then quit vaxxing altogether for awhile to learn more. (I realize that for some parents the revelation is more severe, ie a vaccine reaction). If the 1970s-1980s schedule had still been in place, I think I would have just vaxxed without any doubts or questions. When I became a first-time mom, the new vax schedule kind of blind-sided me. One interesting positive correlation in the US has been the rate of exemptions filed with the addition of new vaccine mandates.

Because you're taking a very dogmatic and strict approach to interpreting on schedule. I consider my daughter to be vaccinated on schedule even though we delayed the first doses of both hep b and hep a. We even occasionally don't make it in for a well baby visit until a month or two after we should've! Shocking!
Rrrrrachel is offline  
Old 02-11-2013, 10:30 AM - Thread Starter
 
Turquesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,068
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 54 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

Because you're taking a very dogmatic and strict approach to interpreting on schedule. I consider my daughter to be vaccinated on schedule even though we delayed the first doses of both hep b and hep a. We even occasionally don't make it in for a well baby visit until a month or two after we should've! Shocking!

No. You're misrepresenting me. I am not taking that approach. The AAP is. I'm not the one who wrote the rigid schedule or insisted on parents adhering to it. Quite the contrary. winky.gif

In God we trust; all others must show data. selectivevax.gifsurf.gifteapot2.GIFintactivist.gif
Turquesa is offline  
Old 02-11-2013, 10:33 AM
 
emma1325's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,222
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post


Because you're taking a very dogmatic and strict approach to interpreting on schedule. I consider my daughter to be vaccinated on schedule even though we delayed the first doses of both hep b and hep a. We even occasionally don't make it in for a well baby visit until a month or two after we should've! Shocking!

 

But if a shot is delayed, then even if you consider yourself to be on schedule, you're not according to those who make and endorse the schedule.

 

 I can easily say my daughters are "up to date" on vaccines, because according to my schedule, which includes no shots, they're perfect. 

 

Is that what you mean?  You're basing it on your own interpretation?  Because I'm pretty sure that's not how this poll was supposed to be taken.


Loving mother, Devoted Wife
emma1325 is offline  
Old 02-11-2013, 10:37 AM - Thread Starter
 
Turquesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,068
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 54 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

I guess one clarification - I meant that their is no "best" schedule for everyone the world over, but I do think that averaged over the whole population health groups in different countries work hard to come up with the best schedule for their country. I can't imagine you'd find anyone who would say the schedule is infallible, but I would give the benefit of the doubt and suggest it's the best choice based on the available evidence. What more can they do? 

 So the biggest difference between the US (which recommends HepB at birth) and UK/Canada which do this only for babies with HepB+ mothers is the availability of free health care for all. I could theorize that the babies in the US most likely to be at risk from HepB are exactly those who are least likely to have good health care access. So perhaps HepB at birth is recommended for all in order to catch those babies who are least likely to be brought back in for well baby checks...

Lol, it's a lovely thought, PSM, and I only wish it were true. I don't have time to dig up the link and manually 2-thumb it into this post, but that was assuredly NOT the CDC's rationale for imposing routine, neonatal Hep B.

In my infinite spare time eyesroll.gif I'll start a thread on global variance in vaccine schedules. Looking at the US schedule compared to that of other countries, you'd think I lived in some 3rd World cesspool...

In God we trust; all others must show data. selectivevax.gifsurf.gifteapot2.GIFintactivist.gif
Turquesa is offline  
Old 02-11-2013, 10:48 AM
 
emma1325's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,222
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post

 

I guess one clarification - I meant that their is no "best" schedule for everyone the world over, but I do think that averaged over the whole population health groups in different countries work hard to come up with the best schedule for their country. I can't imagine you'd find anyone who would say the schedule is infallible, but I would give the benefit of the doubt and suggest it's the best choice based on the available evidence. What more can they do? 

 

 So the biggest difference between the US (which recommends HepB at birth) and UK/Canada which do this only for babies with HepB+ mothers is the availability of free health care for all. I could theorize that the babies in the US most likely to be at risk from HepB are exactly those who are least likely to have good health care access. So perhaps HepB at birth is recommended for all in order to catch those babies who are least likely to be brought back in for well baby checks...

 

Yes, that is the reason given by the authorities who dictated the hep b vaccine on all newborns regardless of risk (they claim it is a matter of convenience as well as a method of "catching" high risk baby as you stated).  I take issue with this reasoning and find it incredibly dishonest, because most health care providers promote the shot as being appropriate and necessary for all babies accross the board, and they leave out the little tidbit about it being a completely unnecessary risk for most babies.

 

I trusted my doctor when I allowed it given to my oldest.  I assumed the doctor knew best, and that my child needed that shot.  She didn't, and had I been informed of the fact that my child was very low risk for the disease, I would have declined the shot. I was not given the opportunity to make an informed choice in the matter and as a result my baby was needlessly injected with a risky concoction of chemicals.

 

This is how the medical community operates regularly...in a misleading, dishonest manner.

 

It is not my responsibility to put my baby at risk in order to allow the system to "catch" high risk babies.  I'm sorry, but it's not.  And I should have been given complete, accurate information when it came to making medical decisions for my child.


Loving mother, Devoted Wife
emma1325 is offline  
Old 02-11-2013, 10:50 AM
 
emma1325's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,222
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turquesa View Post


Lol, it's a lovely thought, PSM, and I only wish it were true. I don't have time to dig up the link and manually 2-thumb it into this post, but that was assuredly NOT the CDC's rationale for imposing routine, neonatal Hep B.

In my infinite spare time eyesroll.gif I'll start a thread on global variance in vaccine schedules. Looking at the US schedule compared to that of other countries, you'd think I lived in some 3rd World cesspool...

 

I thought I remembered reading that the hep b was claimed by health authorities to be required as a matter of convenience and to ensure high-risk babies were covered.  I could be mistaken though.


Loving mother, Devoted Wife
emma1325 is offline  
Old 02-11-2013, 10:55 AM
 
emma1325's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,222
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Actually, you know where I read that?  Dr. Sear's Vaccine Book I believe.  Call me on it if it's not right though.


Loving mother, Devoted Wife
emma1325 is offline  
Old 02-11-2013, 12:23 PM
 
MichelleZB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,018
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 25 Post(s)
It's not an exact science. My son got his 12 month shots at 13 months because that was the time we could fit in the appointment. He's been vaccinated on schedule. Vaccines don't have to be given on exactly the hour they turn the age recommended, just sometime around then.

There's a difference between vaccinating on schedule, with some give here and there for scheduling reasons, and a "selective" approach to vaccinating. People who answered that they vaccinated on schedule but waited a month or two for a vaccine here and there aren't being dishonest.
MichelleZB is offline  
Old 02-11-2013, 12:44 PM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by emma1325 View Post

I thought I remembered reading that the hep b was claimed by health authorities to be required as a matter of convenience and to ensure high-risk babies were covered.  I could be mistaken though.

That's part of it. Because people who were infected as children make up such a disproportionate number of chronically infected people, and chronically infected people aare responsible for such a large portion of disease spread, vaccinating children is partially a public health concern. Children are at real risk of hep b infection, though, so that's not ALL it is.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
Old 02-11-2013, 01:50 PM
 
emma1325's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,222
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

That's part of it. Because people who were infected as children make up such a disproportionate number of chronically infected people, and chronically infected people aare responsible for such a large portion of disease spread, vaccinating children is partially a public health concern. Children are at real risk of hep b infection, though, so that's not ALL it is.

What is the actual risk percentage for infants, if you happen to know?

Loving mother, Devoted Wife
emma1325 is offline  
Old 02-11-2013, 02:45 PM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
I'm not sure what you mean for risk percentage. If you mean something like what percent of infants get hep b, I imagine the percentage is quite low, as it is for most vpds.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
Old 02-11-2013, 03:11 PM
 
Frioct3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 134
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
My son is being vaccinated as per the Canadian schedule with one exception, we started hep b at three months instead of at 13 (not sure on the exact age but its something like that). We have a close family member with it who ds spends lots of time with so we thought it important to protect him early.

We also didn't do flu shot this year but may do it in future years.
Frioct3 is offline  
Old 02-11-2013, 04:03 PM
 
emma1325's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,222
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel View Post

I'm not sure what you mean for risk percentage. If you mean something like what percent of infants get hep b, I imagine the percentage is quite low, as it is for most vpds.

 

Well compared to the other vaccine diseases, and compared to the other age groups for hep b.

 

I've heard some info on the actual percentage of babies who contracted hep b (before mass use of the vaccine) and it was quite low.  I thought you may have access to it.  I'll see if I can dig it up.  :)


Loving mother, Devoted Wife
emma1325 is offline  
Old 02-11-2013, 06:33 PM
 
Rrrrrachel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
The estimate of children (1-5) infected with hep b each year I've seen is 18k (Pre vaccines). The vaccine book cites 30k. Even if those are all in infants that's at most .45-.75%. Obviously if its spreads evenly its more like .1-.15%.
Rrrrrachel is offline  
Old 02-15-2013, 03:47 AM
 
Jennyfur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Maryland
Posts: 128
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Fully and on schedule, but my kids are older.  If I had a newborn now, I'd probably do delayed vaccination, but I'd definitely have all the recommended series administered.

Jennyfur is offline  
 
User Tag List

Thread Tools


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not 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