Hypothetically....waiting 2 years to vax at all? - Mothering Forums
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#1 of 42 Old 07-29-2013, 01:08 PM - Thread Starter
 
fayebond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Fringe Central, Oddballstate, USA
Posts: 1,187
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Has anyone waited until 2 years to vaccinate?  

 

DH and I have talked about vaccinations off and on, but mostly, I read the books and I am the one to take our girls to get selected, delayed vaccines. Lately, he's been talking about future children, and how he'd like any more babies to not have to be stuck with needles until they are 2 years old.  He does not see the point in early vaccination, and wants to spare the new baby (whenever we are blessed with him or her) all the painful trips to the ped.

 

I wouldn't mind skipping all those monthly visits to the other side of town, but I am concerned about the risks of waiting until 2 years for vaccines at all.  I see it as a pro that many of the vaccines on the list wouldn't be needed by then, but the con to that is the big window for new baby to catch everything.  

applejuice likes this.
fayebond is offline  
#2 of 42 Old 07-29-2013, 03:38 PM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,672
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 37 Post(s)

Most of the arguments against delaying/selective vaccination rest on the increased risk of VPD caused by the delay. So you should look at rates of all the VPDs in your locality to assess that risk. It's likely to be quite low thanks to the generally good vaccination coverage (although if you like in an area with lower than typical vaccination rates you might want to reassess that), so I suspect delaying to 2 years is not a huge deal. 

 

My personal opinion (which you can feel free to ignore as I'm just some random person on the internet) would be that if it were my child, and I delayed and then they caught a VPD I would feel very bad. So I don't think I'd be comfortable personally delaying significantly beyond the recommended time.

 

 The counter argument which may be put up on this debate forum (big girl pants on) is that they could have a reaction to the vaccination. That would clearly make me sad too - but (1) reactions are really rare (unless you believe they're being covered up by the medical profession), and (2) I don't see that in the same category as the child catching a diseases which I could have prevented. Unfortunately bad stuff which can't be prevented does happen, but let's try to prevent what we can.

 

Best of luck with the decision.


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 online now  
#3 of 42 Old 07-29-2013, 03:54 PM
 
dalia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,982
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
My original plan was to wait until 2 and then we ended up not vaxxing at all. We live in an area where there are lower vaccination rates and I haven't seen any more VADs than anywhere else. There is whooping cough but it seems to be rates are rising all over regardless of high vax rates.

Overall I think that waiting until 2 years old really gives a better chance of avoiding side effects. In my opinion it's a good idea. But that's just my opinion. I'm too preggo to give you any real scientific stuff right now. Feeling yucky today!! :-P
applejuice likes this.

Wife to one amazing husband superhero.gif, SAHM to DS bouncy.gif 10/09, DS babyboy.gif 10/19,  one furbaby dog2.gif, and lots of chicken3.gif!

 
joy.gif

dalia is offline  
#4 of 42 Old 07-29-2013, 04:19 PM
 
rnra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 582
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by fayebond View Post

I see it as a pro that many of the vaccines on the list wouldn't be needed by then,

 

I'm a bit confused by this statement.  What vaccines are only needed for children under age 2?  There very well may be some--I'm just not aware of any.

rnra is offline  
#5 of 42 Old 07-29-2013, 04:58 PM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,819
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 73 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by rnra View Post

 

I'm a bit confused by this statement.  What vaccines are only needed for children under age 2?  There very well may be some--I'm just not aware of any.

Rotavirus is only recommended by the CDC in babies under 9 months or so (cannot remember exact date)

 

With things like DTaP, if you delay you might need less vaccines.

applejuice likes this.

There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
#6 of 42 Old 07-29-2013, 05:08 PM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,819
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 73 Post(s)

I thinking waiting til 2 is a great idea.  I actually prefer 3, for several reason. Well, I prefer never, but to each their own.  Reasons to delay:

 

 

1.  if there is any link between vaccines and autism, waiting til 3 might help avoid vaccines-as-triggers.  It is very rare that kids develop regressive autism after 3.

 

2.  If your child has a reaction, they might be able to communicate to you about it.

 

3.  If your child has any health issues that might affect how/if you decide to immunise, they are much more likely to be present in a 2-3 year old than newborn.  

applejuice likes this.

There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
#7 of 42 Old 07-29-2013, 05:57 PM
 
IdentityCrisisMama's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 10,580
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 77 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post

Rotavirus is only recommended by the CDC in babies under 9 months or so (cannot remember exact date)

 

With things like DTaP, if you delay you might need less vaccines.

Yes, Hib as well and probably others. OP, I suggest you do a search for the WHO delayed schedule as well as a list of required vaccines by schools, which is a list I found interesting.  


Mama to DD September 2001 and DD April 2011 *Winner for most typos* eat.gif
IdentityCrisisMama is offline  
#8 of 42 Old 07-29-2013, 05:58 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 156
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Your choice. But no advantage has been found in delayed schedules (since no risk has been found in taking vaccines early). More importantly, kids are at greatest danger from infectious diseases in their first years of life especially their first year.

 

My suggestion: ask your pediatrician for more information :)

bakunin is offline  
#9 of 42 Old 07-29-2013, 07:52 PM
 
ma2two's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,464
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)

There are definitely benefits to delaying.

 

A study showed that delaying the first diphtheria/tetanus/pertussis vaccine from 2 months to later than 4 months significantly decreased the risk of asthma.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18207561

 

A study showed that delaying the first MMR from 12 months to 18 months or later significantly increased the protection against measles.

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/3864478?uid=3739560&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21102503070941

 

Which diseases are you worried about? For me, the diseases for which there are vaccines come in 3 categories:

1) I want my kids to get them so they're immune for life, OR I don't mind if my kids get them, because they are very mild in childhood, or I know how to treat them.

Includes measles, mumps, rubella, chickenpox, hepatitis A, pertussis, rotavirus.

 

2) I don't want my kids to get the disease, but they won't, because they are so rare.

Includes tetanus, diphtheria, polio

 

3) I don't want my kids to get the disease, and there is a small chance of the disease, but the risks of the vaccine are greater.

Includes Hib and hepatitis B (if they engage in very risky sex as teenagers). They can decide as adults regarding hepatitis B if they enter the medical profession.

fayebond likes this.
ma2two is offline  
#10 of 42 Old 07-29-2013, 08:28 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 156
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ma2two View Post

There are definitely benefits to delaying.

 

A study showed that delaying the first diphtheria/tetanus/pertussis vaccine from 2 months to later than 4 months significantly decreased the risk of asthma.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18207561

 

A study showed that delaying the first MMR from 12 months to 18 months or later significantly increased the protection against measles.

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/3864478?uid=3739560&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21102503070941

 

Which diseases are you worried about? For me, the diseases for which there are vaccines come in 3 categories:

1) I want my kids to get them so they're immune for life, OR I don't mind if my kids get them, because they are very mild in childhood, or I know how to treat them.

Includes measles, mumps, rubella, chickenpox, hepatitis A, pertussis, rotavirus.

 

2) I don't want my kids to get the disease, but they won't, because they are so rare.

Includes tetanus, diphtheria, polio

 

3) I don't want my kids to get the disease, and there is a small chance of the disease, but the risks of the vaccine are greater.

Includes Hib and hepatitis B (if they engage in very risky sex as teenagers). They can decide as adults regarding hepatitis B if they enter the medical profession.

I find the first paper interesting and worth taking a closer look. The second one, the interpretation is misleading as it relates to an outbreak situation.

Returning to the first one, it would certainly be worthwhile to look into this further, but currently there is no consensus on this (studies have found a relationship others have not). Also, just because there is statistical association, there's not necessarily a cause effect. Here's a link with more info: http://www.medscape.org/viewarticle/572891

 

Finally, there's a big difference between postponing 6 months to a whole year a vaccine. You might want to keep that in mind fayebond :)

fayebond likes this.
bakunin is offline  
#11 of 42 Old 07-29-2013, 08:45 PM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,819
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 73 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ma2two View Post

There are definitely benefits to delaying.

 

A study showed that delaying the first diphtheria/tetanus/pertussis vaccine from 2 months to later than 4 months significantly decreased the risk of asthma.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18207561

 

A study showed that delaying the first MMR from 12 months to 18 months or later significantly increased the protection against measles.

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/3864478?uid=3739560&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21102503070941

 

Which diseases are you worried about? For me, the diseases for which there are vaccines come in 3 categories:

1) I want my kids to get them so they're immune for life, OR I don't mind if my kids get them, because they are very mild in childhood, or I know how to treat them.

Includes measles, mumps, rubella, chickenpox, hepatitis A, pertussis, rotavirus.

 

2) I don't want my kids to get the disease, but they won't, because they are so rare.

Includes tetanus, diphtheria, polio

 

3) I don't want my kids to get the disease, and there is a small chance of the disease, but the risks of the vaccine are greater.

Includes Hib and hepatitis B (if they engage in very risky sex as teenagers). They can decide as adults regarding hepatitis B if they enter the medical profession.

Pretty much ditto - except I would move pertussis into the the 3rd category when they are infants.

 

If I were pregnant it is the disease and vaccine I would *most* research.   At this point in time, I would be inclined to not vaccinate and be hyper vigilant about keeping baby away from public spaces or anyone with a cough.  Yeah, I would be a hermit, lol. but they are only highly susceptible to the dangers of pertussis for a short time.  To each their own, though.  


There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
#12 of 42 Old 07-29-2013, 08:53 PM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,819
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 73 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by bakunin View Post

I find the first paper interesting and worth taking a closer look. The second one, the interpretation is misleading as it relates to an outbreak situation.

 

 

Why does that make it misleading?  Rates of measles were higher among those who were vaccinated early as opposed to later.  Measles is sufficiently rare these days that most of the stats we are going to have are from outbreaks.  

 

The link ma2two posted was from 1995, but here is a separate piece from 2011.  

 

http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/09/09/measles-study-raises-questions-about-timing-of-vaccination/

 

I think the case for delaying MMR on effectiveness grounds is fairly strong.


There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
#13 of 42 Old 07-29-2013, 11:48 PM
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,954
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Op, we wait until two. I wouldn't have chosen rota anyways. We do one at a time and you need less doses. Eg only one hib. One prevnar if you do that one.
WE start with acthib, then daptacel (3), then mmr (I wanted measles only during our Europe trip but measles was going around this year so we had to go for it ugh), later we'll do ipol (3) and in the teenage years offer hepb.
We'll run mmr titers in September (vax was in May) and dtp titers in December after the third one (we did one, then wait a couple of months, then another and then 6 months space). Many of my friends' European pediatricians recommend only 3 dtap if you va after 2 years. But I know, according to Americans these Europeans are quacks. Haha. If you search PubMed there are studies that show good titers after 3 doses, many eu countries do 3 and a booster at around 6. Personally I'm worried about tetanus titers mostly. And we'll finish polio before traveling to Shanghai (they use opv).
nia82 is offline  
#14 of 42 Old 07-30-2013, 03:57 AM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,672
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 37 Post(s)

Kathymuggle - thanks for the update links. That's very interesting, and I will follow with interest if the study is repeated and if recommended schedules change as a result. It makes me wonder what the impact of extending breastfeeding could be on the efficacy of the vaccine.

 

By the way though, this is one of those cases when talking about "6 times more likely to catch measles" makes it sounds like a bigger effect that it really is. An except from the article you link:

 

 

 

Quote:
(It should be noted it is rare that twice-vaccinated children develop measles, regardless of when they got their first shot. De Serres’ study suggested the vaccine was 94 per cent effective in preventing measles in children who got two doses starting at 12 months, and over 97 per cent effective in children who got two doses starting at 15 months.)

 

So it's a tiny improvement in already very good efficacy for any given child - just that once you consider the whole population in this study resulted in 6 times less measles cases in later vaccinated children than in earlier vaccinated. Just goes to show how tiny changes can sound big in the reporting of these results.  


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 online now  
#15 of 42 Old 08-02-2013, 01:10 PM
 
ss834's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 303
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I haven't read all of the comments here but I figured I'd go ahead and add my personal experience and avoid going over some of the general discussion that others might have already mentioned.

 

I was very anti-vax when my son was born in '08. I refused all vaccines and pretty much avoided my son's pediatrician who was argumentative with me about it (his concern was mostly that if I changed my mind, an older kid would suffer more trying to "catch up" on the shots.)

 

He got his first DTaP when he was about 27 mos when I became more worried about tetanus than vaccine reactions (we live on a farm). Then I waited an entire year before finishing the DTaP series, and getting his other shots.

 

At this point, I don't see any benefit to waiting. My son didn't catch any of the diseases, and hasn't had bad side effects from the vaccines (mostly, besides a high fever after MMRV). I think the nearly 2.5 years of stress that I induced in myself from waiting but still worrying about him being near any potentially infectious people wasn't worth it. If I have more kids, I will probably vaccinate according to the normal schedule. I am a little bit worried about side effects, but the way I see it now, the worry after each vaccine might last 1-2 weeks looking for possible bad reactions. I worried the entire 2.5 years before he was vaxed about him getting the diseases. For me, that's not worth it.

 

If you feel like your babies should be vaxed and 2 years is too long to wait, then I don't recommend waiting. You will be putting yourself through a lot of grief and doubt, even if you never encounter one of these diseases. The science leans heavily toward the safety of the current vaccine schedule. Without any truly convincing reasons for you to hold off on vaccinating a particular child, there's no real benefit to waiting if you plan to do it eventually.

 

*Edited to add that one thing I was happy about was the reduction in the number of shots he needed since we started later. Of course, selective vaxing is an easy solution if there's a particular vaccine you don't want.

erigeron and prosciencemum like this.
ss834 is offline  
#16 of 42 Old 08-02-2013, 02:27 PM
 
ma2two's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,464
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Quote:

Originally Posted by ss834 View Post

 

I am a little bit worried about side effects, but the way I see it now, the worry after each vaccine might last 1-2 weeks looking for possible bad reactions. I worried the entire 2.5 years before he was vaxed about him getting the diseases. For me, that's not worth it.

 

 

You would have to worry longer than 2 weeks after each vaccine. Just from the very limited Vaccine Injury Table, I see brachial neuritis can start 28 days later, and thrombocytopenic purpura can start 30 days later. http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/vaccinetable.html  With a schedule of vaccines every 2-3 months the first year, that's a lot of time spent worrying.

 

I'm sorry you worried so much about not vaccinating. I don't worry at all. I've researched the diseases, and know how to treat the diseases my kids have any chance of getting, even though for most of the diseases, those chances are extremely small.

Marnica likes this.
ma2two is offline  
#17 of 42 Old 08-05-2013, 08:59 AM
 
Marnica's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 5,585
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ma2two View Post

 

You would have to worry longer than 2 weeks after each vaccine. Just from the very limited Vaccine Injury Table, I see brachial neuritis can start 28 days later, and thrombocytopenic purpura can start 30 days later. http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/vaccinetable.html  With a schedule of vaccines every 2-3 months the first year, that's a lot of time spent worrying.

 

I'm sorry you worried so much about not vaccinating. I don't worry at all. I've researched the diseases, and know how to treat the diseases my kids have any chance of getting, even though for most of the diseases, those chances are extremely small.

This - and I will add I worry far more about the long term effects on the immune system(which there is NO studies on) than I do about any immediate reactions.  


If the people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." Thomas Jefferson.

Marnica is offline  
#18 of 42 Old 08-05-2013, 09:13 AM
 
dinahx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: earth
Posts: 2,144
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Dr. Sears schedule is based on Aluminum exposure, so they can cry 'no benefits' all day long, until there is absolute proof of Aluminum's safety by injection, they won't convince everyone!

In any case, I wanted to clear up a misconception: you DO still 'have to' do well child visits even if you don't choose to Vax. Many mamas don't, but they are doing something that could bite them in the keister. Not doing vaxes falls under 'informed consent' unless school or daycare is involved (then an exemption is needed), but not doing well child visits can technically be construed as 'medical neglect'. So there are IMO very good reasons to skip/delay, but getting out of office visits/driving time is not one of them.
fayebond likes this.
dinahx is offline  
#19 of 42 Old 08-05-2013, 09:30 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,819
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 73 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by dinahx View Post



In any case, I wanted to clear up a misconception: you DO still 'have to' do well child visits even if you don't choose to Vax. Many mamas don't, but they are doing something that could bite them in the keister. Not doing vaxes falls under 'informed consent' unless school or daycare is involved (then an exemption is needed), but not doing well child visits can technically be construed as 'medical neglect'. So there are IMO very good reasons to skip/delay, but getting out of office visits/driving time is not one of them.

 

I am not sure.

 

I looked up medical neglect once in a discussion, and IIRC the technical definition involves not getting appropriate medical care for a sick individual.  It does not include medical care for a healthy individual.  It has been a while, though, so I could be off.  This could make a good discussion topic on INV. 

 

I do think if you are under CPS's microscope for anther reason, the lack of well child visits will fall into question.

 

My own 2 cents on this are thus:

 

I personally see the value if well child visit for babies under 6 months.  It is nice to have other things checked over.

 

If someone does not see the value in WBV, and is a non-vax, then I think they need to take a hard look at their lives.  Are  they likely to be reported to CPS?  Sadly, I do think single parents and lower socio-economic parents are more likely to be reported and more likely to be hassled. If you think you  might be reported, you might want to attend WBV, even if you think they are useless, as a lack of WBV if you are under CPS microscope will be a strike against you.

 

Now, if you are fairly certain you will not be reported to CPS, and see little value in WBV, then I think skipping them is fine. I do think sitting in a doctors office with a newborn can and should fall under risk assessment.  Those places are full of sick people!   It is kind of funny that people bring their babies to WBV and sit in offices full of sick people to get them vaccines for diseases almost no one gets.  Oh and before anyone says "don't offices have separate sick and well people room?" - mine doesn't.  I have never seen one.  I am in Canada, though, so maybe it is the norm in the USA (or not) but it isn't everywhere.

applejuice, rachelsmama and Songy like this.

There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
#20 of 42 Old 08-05-2013, 09:39 AM
 
dinahx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: earth
Posts: 2,144
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
In the US, anyone can be reported to CPS for anything by nearly anyone. So there is IMO no such thing as a family more or less likely to be reported. It can almost happen @ random. Especially if you have anything approaching an alternative lifestyle and/or any disgruntled person in your life, even on the outskirts.

In almost any investigation they will ask for a Primary, so even if missing a single WBV is NBD, the overall skipping of them can be, especially with an under 2.
dinahx is offline  
#21 of 42 Old 08-05-2013, 09:48 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,819
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 73 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by dinahx View Post

In the US, anyone can be reported to CPS for anything by nearly anyone. So there is IMO no such thing as a family more or less likely to be reported. It can almost happen @ random. Especially if you have anything approaching an alternative lifestyle and/or any disgruntled person in your life, even on the outskirts.

In almost any investigation they will ask for a Primary, so even if missing a single WBV is NBD, the overall skipping of them can be, especially with an under 2.

I am going to post a separate thread over in INV on this in a few hours where we can discuss this (if you want to play) as I think it deserves its own thread.  

dinahx and fayebond like this.

There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
#22 of 42 Old 08-08-2013, 12:29 PM
 
ss834's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 303
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ma2two View Post
...I'm sorry you worried so much about not vaccinating. I don't worry at all. I've researched the diseases, and know how to treat the diseases my kids have any chance of getting, even though for most of the diseases, those chances are extremely small.

 

I understand your point. My response was to the OP who stated that she would not feel comfortable delaying and wondered what other people experienced by delaying vaccines.

 

If I had chosen not to vaccinate and not to revisit the issue, then perhaps I would have felt as confident as you did. That was not my choice, and in retrospect I admit that the decision to delay is something that I would not choose again because it made me anxious. I didn't mean to open up a discussion over which vax side effects vs. disease ill effects are more worrisome.

ss834 is offline  
#23 of 42 Old 08-08-2013, 03:50 PM - Thread Starter
 
fayebond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Fringe Central, Oddballstate, USA
Posts: 1,187
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

:) thanks mamas for all your input.  I figured some kind of fuss would probably come up but just to be clear, I was wondering if anyone has waited until 2 (or, I guess 3) to vaccinate, and why.  And if it went well or not.  I am still undecided but thanks for all the advice so far.  Leaning on the side of waiting for more of the vaccines (the pedi talked me into mmr and dtap, I'm leaning away from the first.  I really like the tetnus vaccine as a matter of principle with rust EVERYWHERE in our lives right now).  

fayebond is offline  
#24 of 42 Old 08-09-2013, 08:38 AM
 
Marnica's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 5,585
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by fayebond View Post

:) thanks mamas for all your input.  I figured some kind of fuss would probably come up but just to be clear, I was wondering if anyone has waited until 2 (or, I guess 3) to vaccinate, and why.  And if it went well or not.  I am still undecided but thanks for all the advice so far.  Leaning on the side of waiting for more of the vaccines (the pedi talked me into mmr and dtap, I'm leaning away from the first.  I really like the tetnus vaccine as a matter of principle with rust EVERYWHERE in our lives right now). 

Rust in and of itself has very little to do with tetanus. The whole rusty nails cause tetanus is misleading and somewhat of an urban myth. Rusty nails are more likely to be found in soil and Clostridium tetani is commonly found in soil, feces or saliva.


If the people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." Thomas Jefferson.

Marnica is offline  
#25 of 42 Old 08-09-2013, 08:38 AM
 
Marnica's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 5,585
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by fayebond View Post

:) thanks mamas for all your input.  I figured some kind of fuss would probably come up but just to be clear, I was wondering if anyone has waited until 2 (or, I guess 3) to vaccinate, and why.  And if it went well or not.  I am still undecided but thanks for all the advice so far.  Leaning on the side of waiting for more of the vaccines (the pedi talked me into mmr and dtap, I'm leaning away from the first.  I really like the tetnus vaccine as a matter of principle with rust EVERYWHERE in our lives right now). 

Rust in and of itself has very little to do with tetanus. The whole rusty nails cause tetanus is misleading and somewhat of an urban myth. Rusty nails are more likely to be found in soil and Clostridium tetani is commonly found in soil, feces or saliva.

applejuice likes this.

If the people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." Thomas Jefferson.

Marnica is offline  
#26 of 42 Old 08-11-2013, 05:57 AM
 
Yarra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Anderson IN
Posts: 18
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

My 25 month old son has not had any vaccines. Except a vitamin K shot when he was born. He has never been seriously sick. A couple colds and tummy bugs is it. Some of his good heath I attribute to my still breastfeeding him. I hope this helps you!

Yarra is offline  
#27 of 42 Old 08-12-2013, 01:02 PM - Thread Starter
 
fayebond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Fringe Central, Oddballstate, USA
Posts: 1,187
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marnica View Post

Rust in and of itself has very little to do with tetanus. The whole rusty nails cause tetanus is misleading and somewhat of an urban myth. Rusty nails are more likely to be found in soil and Clostridium tetani is commonly found in soil, feces or saliva.

so, if rust is not really the problem, then where does tetanus come from?  I am confused even though I did read it twice :)

fayebond is offline  
#28 of 42 Old 08-12-2013, 01:18 PM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,819
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 73 Post(s)

Tetanus is found in fecal matters.

 

Rusty nails have a bad rap for 3 reasons:

 

1.  they are often found outdoor where fecal matter is more likely to be

 

2.  rust can make a surface groovy.  As such it is easier for spores and dirt to cling to it

 

3.  nails often result in a puncture wound.  People worry about puncture wounds as bacteria can be introduced deep into the body.

 

So - it is not the rust itself that is the issue  If rust grows on something and there is no tetanus bacteria/spores present - you will not get tetanus.

 

Tetanus is extremely rare, period. There are only an average of 30 cases per year in the USA.  It is more common in the elderly, drug users and intra venous drug users.  http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/tetanus.pdf


There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
#29 of 42 Old 08-12-2013, 01:24 PM
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Outside the hive mind
Posts: 7,296
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by fayebond View Post

 

so, if rust is not really the problem, then where does tetanus come from?  I am confused even though I did read it twice :)

 

Just about everything you need to know about tetanus is here:

 

http://www.beyondconformity.co.nz/resources/tetanus


Rainbow.giftstillheart.gifsmile.gif

 

"If you find from your own experience that something is a fact and it contradicts what some authority has written down, then you must abandon the authority and base your reasoning on your own findings"~ Leonardo da Vinci

Mirzam is online now  
#30 of 42 Old 08-12-2013, 02:10 PM
 
prosciencemum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,672
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 37 Post(s)
It's rare, but there no treatment for it if you get it.

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 online now  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
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