Tdap and the Zika virus - Page 3 - Mothering Forums

 213Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#61 of 166 Old 02-05-2016, 03:58 PM
 
EMRguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: FEMA Zone 4
Posts: 1,565
Mentioned: 42 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 603 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dakotacakes View Post
I don't know about a rabbit hole but I am confused as to what your question is that you are multiple explanation point capital lettering about it being the third time here?

No one is saying that zika virus is a massive killer. It actually appears quite the opposite, it isn't a serious disease, unless you are pregnant because pregnant women who contract zika have an increased risk of having a baby with microcephaly.

I am not surprised that the cause of death of the only two fatal victims of zika was guillian barre. Guillan barre frequently follows an infection. If the flu, or staph infection or other infections can trigger guillan barre it is not all that surprising that ZIKA can as well. But this is getting pretty off topic.

I also think TDAP during pregnancy is irrelevant to the fact that Zika infection is causing microcephaly as a birth defect in warm climates as a mosquito born illness.
there is no proof zica causes microcephaly...

Sent from my VS990 using Tapatalk
applejuice and Anne Jividen like this.
EMRguy is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#62 of 166 Old 02-05-2016, 05:21 PM
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 1,389
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 438 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by TCMoulton View Post
Where exactly has it been reported that any infants have died as a result of being infected with Zika.
Again:

http://www.democracynow.org/2016/2/5...lated_syndrome
Anne Jividen is offline  
#63 of 166 Old 02-05-2016, 05:25 PM
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 1,389
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 438 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dakotacakes View Post
I don't know about a rabbit hole but I am confused as to what your question is that you are multiple explanation point capital lettering about it being the third time here?

No one is saying that zika virus is a massive killer. It actually appears quite the opposite, it isn't a serious disease, unless you are pregnant because pregnant women who contract zika have an increased risk of having a baby with microcephaly.

I am not surprised that the cause of death of the only two fatal victims of zika was guillian barre. Guillan barre frequently follows an infection. If the flu, or staph infection or other infections can trigger guillan barre it is not all that surprising that ZIKA can as well. But this is getting pretty off topic.

I also think TDAP during pregnancy is irrelevant to the fact that Zika infection is causing microcephaly as a birth defect in warm climates as a mosquito born illness.
Is GB a mosquito borne illness?
Anne Jividen is offline  
 
#64 of 166 Old 02-05-2016, 05:41 PM
 
Dakotacakes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 339
Mentioned: 33 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 158 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anne Jividen View Post
Is GB a mosquito borne illness?
I am not sure if you actually not understanding or not but I all elaborate based on the assumption you are actually confused and this is a real question.

No one has said that GB is a mosquito borne illness. ZIKA is a mosquito borne illness that has been linked to microcephaly.

GB is an autoimmune syndrome that causes muscle weakness and paralysis that can be deadly. GB frequently follows an infection of some variety. For example, the flu. the Flu is a viral infection that causes respiratory distress. GB is not a viral infection that causes respiratory distress, but it can be triggered by the flu. Staph infection is a bacterial infection. Staph infection can also trigger GB but GB is not a bacterial infection.

Columbia is saying that they have had 3 deaths of people who had ZIKA infection from Guillan barre. I have found no reports that the three deaths were infants, in fact I suspect they were not, because if they were I think that would be prominent in the story.

Zika can cause microcephaly in pregnant women who acquire the virus. ZIka being an infection can also potentially trigger GB in suceptible people (just like influenza can). These two things are not mutually exclusive.

But none of this is related to vaccines. Because not everything that happens is a vaccine reaction. IF TDAP caused microcephaly when given to pregnant women, we would not only see it in areas were the mosquito born zika virus is present.

Like I said I fear that every major health story being tried to be linked to vaccines as the true culprit does the vaccine critical viewpoint a disservice.
Xerxella and Anne Jividen like this.
Dakotacakes is offline  
#65 of 166 Old 02-05-2016, 05:42 PM
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 271
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 294 Post(s)
GB is obviously not mosquito-borne. And where in the article does it say that babies have died from GB?
Anne Jividen likes this.
reader49 is offline  
#66 of 166 Old 02-05-2016, 05:48 PM
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 1,389
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 438 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dakotacakes View Post
I am not sure if you actually not understanding or not but I all elaborate based on the assumption you are actually confused and this is a real question.

No one has said that GB is a mosquito borne illness. ZIKA is a mosquito borne illness that has been linked to microcephaly.

GB is an autoimmune syndrome that causes muscle weakness and paralysis that can be deadly. GB frequently follows an infection of some variety. For example, the flu. the Flu is a viral infection that causes respiratory distress. GB is not a viral infection that causes respiratory distress, but it can be triggered by the flu. Staph infection is a bacterial infection. Staph infection can also trigger GB but GB is not a bacterial infection.

Columbia is saying that they have had 3 deaths of people who had ZIKA infection from Guillan barre. I have found no reports that the three deaths were infants, in fact I suspect they were not, because if they were I think that would be prominent in the story.

Zika can cause microcephaly in pregnant women who acquire the virus. ZIka being an infection can also potentially trigger GB in suceptible people (just like influenza can). These two things are not mutually exclusive.

But none of this is related to vaccines. Because not everything that happens is a vaccine reaction. IF TDAP caused microcephaly when given to pregnant women, we would not only see it in areas were the mosquito born zika virus is present.

Like I said I fear that every major health story being tried to be linked to vaccines as the true culprit does the vaccine critical viewpoint a disservice.
In this case i strongly believe that at least a little look at the Tdap vaccine given to pregnant women warrants consideration. Not all ailments are the result of vaccination.
Anne Jividen is offline  
#67 of 166 Old 02-05-2016, 05:50 PM
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 1,389
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 438 Post(s)
I am sorry, you guys are right, it says nothing about babies/infants. Three PEOPLE have died of Zika virus induced GB.
Anne Jividen is offline  
#68 of 166 Old 02-05-2016, 05:53 PM
 
EMRguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: FEMA Zone 4
Posts: 1,565
Mentioned: 42 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 603 Post(s)
only 17 (Brazil)cases of microcephaly are accociated with zika, however there is no proof yet that zika causes it.
Brazil is also reporting GBS.

Sent from my VS990 using Tapatalk
Anne Jividen and Nemi27 like this.
EMRguy is offline  
#69 of 166 Old 02-05-2016, 05:54 PM
 
TCMoulton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Chicago Suburbs
Posts: 4,393
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 184 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anne Jividen View Post
Nowhere in that article does it state that infants have died.
Anne Jividen likes this.
TCMoulton is offline  
#70 of 166 Old 02-05-2016, 05:59 PM
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 271
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 294 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anne Jividen View Post
In this case i strongly believe that at least a little look at the Tdap vaccine given to pregnant women warrants consideration. Not all ailments are the result of vaccination.
How do you think a vaccine administered in the third trimester can cause a birth defect that starts in the first trimester?
reader49 is offline  
#71 of 166 Old 02-05-2016, 06:13 PM
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 8,849
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1433 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by reader49 View Post
How do you think a vaccine administered in the third trimester can cause a birth defect that starts in the first trimester?
I know you seem to think it's only given in the 3rd trimester, do a simple google search for the 1st and find many docs are doing in the 1st for their pregnant patients, even in the US. Many stating they got it at their first apt being only a few weeks along.
Anne Jividen likes this.
95191 is offline  
#72 of 166 Old 02-05-2016, 06:45 PM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 8,128
Mentioned: 238 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2327 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by reader49 View Post
How do you think a vaccine administered in the third trimester can cause a birth defect that starts in the first trimester?
Please post a link showing that microcephaly always starts in the first semester.

That is not what I am seeing:

http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-c...s/con-20034823
Anne Jividen 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 2 teens and one young adult.
kathymuggle is offline  
#73 of 166 Old 02-05-2016, 06:58 PM
 
TCMoulton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Chicago Suburbs
Posts: 4,393
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 184 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post
I know you seem to think it's only given in the 3rd trimester, do a simple google search for the 1st and find many docs are doing in the 1st for their pregnant patients, even in the US. Many stating they got it at their first apt being only a few weeks along.
I believe EMRGuy (who is from Brazil) posted earlier that the first TDaP is given at 28 weeks.

"Originally Posted by EMRguy View Post
In Brazil they are giving 3 doses 60 days apart with the last dose before the 36th week of gestation.
So the first does is around the 28th week, if the mother doesnt have any records they start all 3 doses."
TCMoulton is offline  
#74 of 166 Old 02-05-2016, 07:09 PM
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 8,849
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1433 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by TCMoulton View Post
I believe EMRGuy (who is from Brazil) posted earlier that the first TDaP is given at 28 weeks.

"Originally Posted by EMRguy View Post
In Brazil they are giving 3 doses 60 days apart with the last dose before the 36th week of gestation.
So the first does is around the 28th week, if the mother doesnt have any records they start all 3 doses."
Perhaps you should see what I replied to, I was not replying to @EMRguy
It is given in the 1st even here. Not all clearly are getting it ONLY at the 28th or later date.

I haven't seen the medical health histories of those whose children were born in Brazil with the defect, have you?

I don't know who got what and when. There have been reports that in rural areas vaccines are given earlier (as I mentioned).
Anne Jividen likes this.
95191 is offline  
#75 of 166 Old 02-05-2016, 07:23 PM - Thread Starter
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 4,863
Mentioned: 531 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3492 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
Please post a link showing that microcephaly always starts in the first semester.

That is not what I am seeing:

http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-c...s/con-20034823
There is a difference between Microcephaly and acquired microcephaly. This link discusses the issue.

Acquired microcephaly can occur during the first couple years of life and can be caused by things like lack of oxygen. This has nothing to do with microcephaly present at birth. The babies in countries like Brazil have microcephaly, not acquired microcephaly.

The earth is not flat | Vaccines work | Chemtrails aren't a thing | Climate change is real #standupforscience
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Last edited by teacozy; 02-05-2016 at 07:26 PM.
teacozy is offline  
#76 of 166 Old 02-05-2016, 10:05 PM
 
TCMoulton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Chicago Suburbs
Posts: 4,393
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 184 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post
Perhaps you should see what I replied to, I was not replying to @EMRguy
It is given in the 1st even here. Not all clearly are getting it ONLY at the 28th or later date.

I haven't seen the medical health histories of those whose children were born in Brazil with the defect, have you?

I don't know who got what and when. There have been reports that in rural areas vaccines are given earlier (as I mentioned).
I'm quite aware who you were replying to since I read your post. Since EMRguy is local to where this is happening and recently had a wife who recently gave birth I feel he may have more accurate information than a random Google search. Just because some supposedly receive DTaP in the 1st trimester here doesn't mean that happens in Brazil. CLEARLY we have no way of knowing when the average pregnant woman receives it in Brazil since we don't have access to medical records.
TCMoulton is offline  
#77 of 166 Old 02-05-2016, 10:20 PM
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 1,389
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 438 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by TCMoulton View Post
Nowhere in that article does it state that infants have died.
Again, you're right my bad! Apologies!
Anne Jividen is offline  
#78 of 166 Old 02-05-2016, 10:23 PM
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 1,389
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 438 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by reader49 View Post
How do you think a vaccine administered in the third trimester can cause a birth defect that starts in the first trimester?
I was just going to ask if microcephaly always starts in the first trimester but @kathymuggle beat me to it.

What are your thoughts on the people infected with Zika dying of GB? Not being snarky, would just like to know. And thx
Anne Jividen is offline  
#79 of 166 Old 02-05-2016, 10:29 PM
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 1,389
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 438 Post(s)
Well, maybe a more generalized statement about the exploitation of pregnant women in regions of the world where mosquito borne illnesses are a risk would be fair? Proof, or proof the vax to the max camp would accept, don't have it. Intuition, I've got it in spades!
Anne Jividen is offline  
#80 of 166 Old 02-05-2016, 11:25 PM
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 1,389
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 438 Post(s)
Ok, there are far too many brilliant folk on this thread for me to go it alone, and my (not nearly as brilliant) brain is exploding so is there anyone (pro and pro-careful alike) who would care to indulge me in a little pathenogenesis? If not ok.

So what are the knowns? Here's what i think i (irrefutably-but please correct if can) knowns : (sorry it's late and cracking a joke is my comfort zone)
-babies are being born with microcephaly
-people are infected with the Zika virus
-pregnant women are being given the Tdap vaccine
-three people infected with Zika virus have died of GB

Here's what i think the unknowns are (again please correct - and thx!):
-Tdap vaccine given to pregnant women is linked to microcephaly
-Zika virus is linked to microcephaly
-Tdap + Zika virus infection is linked to microcephaly
-Tdap is linked to GB
-Zika virus is linked to GB

Again thx!

Last edited by Anne Jividen; 02-05-2016 at 11:35 PM.
Anne Jividen is offline  
#81 of 166 Old 02-06-2016, 05:27 AM
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 8,849
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1433 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by TCMoulton View Post
I'm quite aware who you were replying to since I read your post. Since EMRguy is local to where this is happening and recently had a wife who recently gave birth I feel he may have more accurate information than a random Google search. Just because some supposedly receive DTaP in the 1st trimester here doesn't mean that happens in Brazil. CLEARLY we have no way of knowing when the average pregnant woman receives it in Brazil since we don't have access to medical records.
What are you saying it makes no sense???
I was not replying to it JUST being in Brazil! What the other poster stated is not 100% accurate. I simply pointed that out, it had zero to do with @EMRguy
-thus why I did not quote EMRguy thought it was quite simple to understand ! The statement made by reader49 did not say Brazil & even if it did, frankly there is no way to know ALL had their required Tdaps in the 3rd.

Facts seem irrelevant that's quite clear!

IT's given prior to the 3rd trimester here, it's crazy to assume it's ALWAYS given in the 3rd everyplace else! It's crazy to just assume all in Brazil were given only in the 3rd.
Anne Jividen likes this.
95191 is offline  
#82 of 166 Old 02-06-2016, 06:11 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 8,128
Mentioned: 238 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2327 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
There is a difference between Microcephaly and acquired microcephaly. This link discusses the issue.

Acquired microcephaly can occur during the first couple years of life and can be caused by things like lack of oxygen. This has nothing to do with microcephaly present at birth. The babies in countries like Brazil have microcephaly, not acquired microcephaly.
Thanks for the link. While it highlights the difference between microcephaly and acquired microcephaly, it does not say that microcephaly develops in utero in the first trimester only. This is important, because, as others have noted upthread, if microcephaly is a first trimester birth defect, then that largely puts the TDAP hypothesis to bed. I have looked at two mainstream websites now - the one you posted and the one I did, and neither mentioned that microcephaly only occurs in the first trimester.

This link from the CDC says that women in Brazil whose babies had microcephaly whom also had Zika while pregnant, had Zika in the first or second trimester.

"Although 37 infants with microcephaly were evaluated, only 35 cases are included in this report. Two infants with microcephaly were excluded from the original cohort of 37 babies: one had autosomal recessive microcephaly with sibship recurrence, and one had cytomegalovirus infection. Overall, 26 (74%) mothers of infants with microcephaly reported a rash during the first (n = 21) or second (5) trimester (Table). "

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/65/wr/mm6503e2.htm

I am not arguing pertussis vaccine in pregnancy causes Zika. I think it is quite unlikely. I am saying you cannot exclude the possibility by saying "microcephaly develops in the first trimester" without backingup the claim. Indeed, in the 35 Zika associated microcephaly cases in Brazil, 5 women had Zika in the second trimester.

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 2 teens and one young adult.

Last edited by kathymuggle; 02-06-2016 at 07:46 AM.
kathymuggle is offline  
#83 of 166 Old 02-06-2016, 06:14 AM
 
EMRguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: FEMA Zone 4
Posts: 1,565
Mentioned: 42 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 603 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by TCMoulton View Post
I'm quite aware who you were replying to since I read your post. Since EMRguy is local to where this is happening and recently had a wife who recently gave birth I feel he may have more accurate information than a random Google search. Just because some supposedly receive DTaP in the 1st trimester here doesn't mean that happens in Brazil. CLEARLY we have no way of knowing when the average pregnant woman receives it in Brazil since we don't have access to medical records.
just to clear things up. i don't live there and my wife didn't give birth there.
i am not saying the dtap for sure couses microcephaly, however zika is not known to couse it. there are only 17 cases off mictocephaly were they found zika virus.

Sent from my VS990 using Tapatalk
EMRguy is offline  
#84 of 166 Old 02-06-2016, 09:46 AM - Thread Starter
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 4,863
Mentioned: 531 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3492 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
Thanks for the link. While it highlights the difference between microcephaly and acquired microcephaly, it does not say that microcephaly develops in utero in the first trimester only. This is important, because, as others have noted upthread, if microcephaly is a first trimester birth defect, then that largely puts the TDAP hypothesis to bed. I have looked at two mainstream websites now - the one you posted and the one I did, and neither mentioned that microcephaly only occurs in the first trimester.

This link from the CDC says that women in Brazil whose babies had microcephaly whom also had Zika while pregnant, had Zika in the first or second trimester.

"Although 37 infants with microcephaly were evaluated, only 35 cases are included in this report. Two infants with microcephaly were excluded from the original cohort of 37 babies: one had autosomal recessive microcephaly with sibship recurrence, and one had cytomegalovirus infection. Overall, 26 (74%) mothers of infants with microcephaly reported a rash during the first (n = 21) or second (5) trimester (Table). "

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/65/wr/mm6503e2.htm

I am not arguing pertussis vaccine in pregnancy causes Zika. I think it is quite unlikely. I am saying you cannot exclude the possibility by saying "microcephaly develops in the first trimester" without backingup the claim. Indeed, in the 35 Zika associated microcephaly cases in Brazil, 5 women had Zika in the second trimester.
I've tried to be careful and make sure to say that the shot was administered well after the brain is developed. Links about microcephaly note that it occurs during fetal development. A fetus is fully developed by the beginning of the second trimester (although obviously not mature enough to survive yet). This is why contracting rubella after that point is very unlikely to cause harm. The brain mostly develops in the first trimester but is not finished developing until the early second trimester (13-16 weeks of pregnancy). Indeed, my quote from the OP says that it points to infection in the first trimester or early second. It's likely going to be much like other viruses that are caught during pregnancy that can cause problems for the fetus (rubella, chickenpox) - the risk of complication will be highest in the first trimester, much lower in the second, and virtually nil if contracted in the third. The vaccine is not given until 27 or 28 weeks at the earliest.

The earth is not flat | Vaccines work | Chemtrails aren't a thing | Climate change is real #standupforscience
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
teacozy is offline  
#85 of 166 Old 02-06-2016, 11:42 AM
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 337
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 82 Post(s)
My questions for the Zika and Tdap theories would be:
1. Why the sudden spike? Are there actual more Zika infections? (Are the hospital records stating this? Are there hospital records?)
2. Why are most of the cases in one region? Does this region naturally have more Zika infections? Does it have more mosquitos? Are other regions affected by Zika also seeing a spike in microcephaly?
3. Why is Zika being blamed when there have only been 17 confirmed cases? That seems a bit rash and unscientific particularly when this spike in cases of microcephaly suddenly occurred.
4. What other factors increase rates of microcephaly? Have there been studies on pregnant women and infant outcomes with pesticide use? I know that many countries do not have the semi- stringent laws that the US has about spraying, amount, type,.. (DDT still used in India for example). This is of course speculative, but blaming it entirely on Zika seems a bit like when you go to the Dr. and you have a small sore throat or ear ache and the culture shows a bacteria that naturally occurs, but CAN cause more extreme negative outcomes and so you are prescribed an antibiotic and told you have Strep.
5. What are rates of microcephaly in countries that use Dtap in pregnancy? Can this information be found? Have any other countries, regions, etc. seen an increase since the use of Tdap in pregnancy?
6. What is the connection of poverty and this adverse effect? Are people more infected because of the region, the poverty, some other environmental factor, etc? Are more affluent women also affected? Are there the same rates of Zika infection? Or mosquitos?
7. The most difficult question, what is the effect of poverty, pesticides, a virus, a vaccine, and pregnancy? I don't know if only one of these can take the blame with the current information,...

This reminds me of Polio (slightly). How a seemingly common virus suddenly become much more dangerous particularly to specific people - boys and rural areas. But here it would be poor pregnant women from a specific region.

Last edited by Nemi27; 02-06-2016 at 02:27 PM. Reason: grammar, clarified a question
Nemi27 is offline  
#86 of 166 Old 02-06-2016, 11:55 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 8,128
Mentioned: 238 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2327 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
I've tried to be careful and make sure to say that the shot was administered well after the brain is developed. Links about microcephaly note that it occurs during fetal development. A fetus is fully developed by the beginning of the second trimester (although obviously not mature enough to survive yet). This is why contracting rubella after that point is very unlikely to cause harm. The brain mostly develops in the first trimester but is not finished developing until the early second trimester (13-16 weeks of pregnancy). Indeed, my quote from the OP says that it points to infection in the first trimester or early second. It's likely going to be much like other viruses that are caught during pregnancy that can cause problems for the fetus (rubella, chickenpox) - the risk of complication will be highest in the first trimester, much lower in the second, and virtually nil if contracted in the third. The vaccine is not given until 27 or 28 weeks at the earliest.
Tea, I don't think we are in disagreement.

Reader said microcephaly was formed in the first trimester. It can be, but it can also be formed in the second trimester. She was wrong...and getting the details right in something like this is crucial to sorting out the matter as best possible.

I have tried to sort out when the dtaps are given in Brazil, and I have seen two reports, one was 22 weeks an onwards, another (more mainstream one) citing 27 weeks and onwards. I absolutely do think vaccines in pregnancy could harm fetal brain development in some way, but (assuming the vaccine is given post 27 weeks) I think it is unlikely a vaccine would shrink a previously grown brain..ie cause microcephaly
Deborah, Xerxella and Anne Jividen 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 2 teens and one young adult.
kathymuggle is offline  
#87 of 166 Old 02-07-2016, 08:36 AM
 
Deborah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: the Seacoast of Bohemia
Posts: 15,577
Mentioned: 338 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2784 Post(s)
What is beginning to bother me is the rush to conclusions on all sides.

For those who like vaccines, even a very small slice of data seems to be enough to show that Zika is linked to microcephaly and that a vaccine needs to be developed ASAP. Look at this in terms of the overwhelming degree of evidence which is demanded from the same group of people if you want to demonstrate an INJURY from a vaccine or even from a drug or a chemical. All we've got so far on Zika is a few case studies. Have they even been published? Yet that is enough evidence to have major international agencies demanding immediate action. Meanwhile, millions of kids a year have brain damage from exposure to chemicals or from chronic malnutrition and there is scarcely a blip.

For those who dislike and distrust vaccines (and pesticides), even very small slices of data seem to add up to a whole range of possible causes for the microcephaly cluster.

I'm for more studies. More complete data collection. Keeping open minds for a variety of possible causes.

vaccine injury is preventable
prevent it
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
(if the government still allows you to say no...) #teamvaxchoice
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Last edited by Deborah; 02-07-2016 at 08:40 AM.
Deborah is online now  
#88 of 166 Old 02-07-2016, 01:14 PM
 
Tweety_Bird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,015
Mentioned: 20 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 328 Post(s)
The following doesn't seem to be calculated correctly:
Quote:
In Brazil they are giving 3 doses 60 days apart with the last dose before the 36th week of gestation.
So the first does is around the 28th week, if the mother doesnt have any records they start all 3 doses."
I.e. if the doses are 60 days, i.e. two months, apart then the dose at 28 weeks is probably the middle dose, not
the first dose. Having the three doses 60 days apart means that the first dose would be at about 19 weeks.

It is definitely feasible that vaccinating all those pregnant mothers in Brazil could be causing problems. Seems too convenient to pin the blame on a virus.

Someone mentioned that the unborn baby is fully developed at eight weeks. What this actually means is that all the organs are in place, i.e. from the eighth week no new organs develop. However, all the organs have a significant amount of further development required to be ready for birth.

An unborn baby affected by a vaccine in about the middle of the second trimester could definitely have an affect on the brain. There is surely a significant difference between the size of the brain of an eighteen week unborn baby and full-term baby. So if the vaccine interrupts the unborn baby's brain development, then a full-term baby could be born with a brain about the size of a mid-term baby.

Last edited by Tweety_Bird; 02-07-2016 at 01:18 PM.
Tweety_Bird is offline  
#89 of 166 Old 02-07-2016, 01:19 PM
 
samaxtics's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,096
Mentioned: 88 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1419 Post(s)
Not sure if you are just speaking of the participants in this thread in particular or people in general @Deborah , but I don't think anyone here has stated it IS this or that; I think posters have only speculated on different causes.
Deborah and Anne Jividen like this.
samaxtics is online now  
#90 of 166 Old 02-07-2016, 03:03 PM
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 1,389
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 438 Post(s)
What exactly is the incidence of Zika virus induced microcephaly vrs vaccine induced microcephaly? honest inquiry and thank you!!!!
applejuice and Nemi27 like this.
Anne Jividen is offline  
Reply


User Tag List

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



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

Online Users: 14,890

28 members and 14,862 guests
blessedwithboys , Deborah , Erica Sandwall , IsaFrench , JElaineB , jennykess , lhargrave89 , lisak1234 , MamaNika , manyhatsmom , Michele123 , Mirzam , moominmamma , MountainMamaGC , NumberDigit1 , PortlandRose , redsally , RollerCoasterMama , rubelin , samaxtics , Skippy918 , sren , transylvania_mom , zebra15
Most users ever online was 449,755, 06-25-2014 at 12:21 PM.