Mothering Forums - Reply to Topic

Thread: Change in living situation? Reply to Thread
Title:
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Trackback:
Send Trackbacks to (Separate multiple URLs with spaces) :
Post Icons
You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:
 

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.



  Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

  Topic Review (Newest First)
06-13-2014 04:15 PM
samaxtics I just posted this in another thread:

Quote:
Moreover, an ongoing CDC investigation suggests that, like the childhood vaccine, the adult Tdap booster lasts only a few years at most. Yet with the exception of childbearing women, who are advised to get the booster during every pregnancy, Tdap is licensed only for one-time use in adults.
http://static.squarespace.com/static...0313spread.pdf
If you read the package inserts for both manufacturers of the TdaP, they say that :
Quote:
Adacel vaccine should be given to a pregnant woman only if clearly needed.
and

Quote:
There are no adequate and well-controlled studies in pregnant women. Because animal reproduction studies are not always predictive of human response, BOOSTRIX should be given to a pregnant woman only if clearly needed.
How can it be licensed for only a one time use in adults but be ok for each pregnancy? And how can they make the recommendation to vaccinate all pregnant women when the package inserts say ONLY IF CLEARLY NEEDED?
06-13-2014 10:06 AM
Deborah
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
We have virtually no data showing immunisation in pregnancy of mothers against pertussis prevent infants from gettin pertussis. It is all theoretical at the this point.
another opportunity for babies in the womb to be guinea pigs for the benefit of? If it doesn't damage the baby and it does prevent pertussis, great! But we sure don't know how this is all going to work out in the long run and I don't trust the current people in charge to look hard for any problems.
06-13-2014 09:49 AM
kathymuggle
Quote:
Originally Posted by tadamsmar View Post
Newborns are not too young to be immunized, unless the child's mom is a vaccine refuser:

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/...gnancy-hcp.htm
We have virtually no data showing immunisation in pregnancy of mothers against pertussis prevent infants from getting pertussis. It is all theoretical at this point.
06-13-2014 09:08 AM
samaxtics
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post
Isn't there another option (trigger warning).

3. Get such a bed case of whooping cough as a small child or infant you cough yourself to death. Benefit: you don't spread pertussis.
Another option would be to get the vaccine at two months of age (or earlier as Tadamsmar recommends) and increase your risk of developing asthma. Benefit: if you don't die of an asthmatic episode you will develop quite the inhaler collection. Although being an asthmatic then makes you more vulnerable to pertussis. All aboard the merry-go-round.

http://www.aafa.org/display.cfm?id=9&sub=42

Quote:
The death rate for children under 19 years old has increased by nearly 80% percent since 1980.
Quote:
Among children ages 5 to 17, asthma is the leading cause of school absences from a chronic illness. It accounts for an annual loss of more than 14 million school days per year (approximately 8 days for each student with asthma) and more hospitalizations than any other childhood disease. It is estimated that children with asthma spend an nearly 8 million days per year restricted to bed.
06-13-2014 08:42 AM
samaxtics
Quote:
Originally Posted by tadamsmar View Post
Newborns are not too young to be immunized, unless the child's mom is a vaccine refuser:

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/...gnancy-hcp.htm
From your link tadamsmar:
Quote:
There are currently no pertussis vaccines licensed or recommended for newborns at birth.
06-13-2014 06:15 AM
Deborah In the US the first doses of the vaccine are given at age two months. In some other countries the first dose comes at three months.

The current strategy is to vaccinate women during pregnancy in an attempt to imitate the immunity that most mothers used to have naturally. Since it is well known that whatever immune response they can provoke with the vaccine doesn't last, the recommendation is to give the vaccine during EVERY pregnancy.

Scary, since studies of outcomes are few and far between and also short-term.

Just to clarify the reasons behind the pregnancy recommendations.
06-13-2014 05:36 AM
tadamsmar
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
yes, except that almost exclusively happens in those too young to be vaccinated.

The question is who gives it them more (and on a per capita basis) - the vaccinated or non-vaccinated? What is the best way to protect babies?
Newborns are not too young to be immunized, unless the child's mom is a vaccine refuser:

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/...gnancy-hcp.htm
06-13-2014 04:24 AM
kathymuggle
Quote:
Originally Posted by prosciencemum View Post
Isn't there another option (trigger warning).

3. Get such a bed case of whooping cough as a small child or infant you cough yourself to death. Benefit: you don't spread pertussis.
yes, except that almost exclusively happens in those too young to be vaccinated.

The question is who gives it to them more (and on a per capita basis) - the vaccinated or non-vaccinated? What is the best way to protect babies?
06-12-2014 10:48 PM
prosciencemum Isn't there another option (trigger warning).

3. Get such a bed case of whooping cough as a small child or infant you cough yourself to death. Benefit: you don't spread pertussis.
06-12-2014 07:55 PM
Deborah To return to the pertussis vaccine--due to original antigenic sin there are two main options in play.

1) Get the vaccine. Go through pertussis over and over or get vaccinated really often and still carry and transmit pertussis. Advantage is that your pertussis may not have obvious symptoms and you may not be diagnosed as having pertussis. Disadvantage is that you may share pertussis far and wide because people assume that the vaccinated won't catch pertussis, won't carry pertussis and won't share pertussis.

2) Do not get the vaccine. If you get vaccinated BEFORE you are exposed to pertussis, original antigenic sin comes into play and any sort of long term immunity (the kind that prevents carriage and transmission) is down the drain. Go through pertussis in childhood, develop long-term immunity, enjoy boosts to your immunity every time you run into a vaxed person who is spreading pertussis, and you probably won't have to worry again until you are in your 70s.

There are risks in both situations. Oddly, with choice number one, the opposite of the usual pro-vaccine argument comes into play, with the vaccinated spreading pertussis over and over while the unvaccinated get it once and then are resistant to carrying or transmitting the illness for the long-term.
06-12-2014 06:35 PM
tadamsmar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turquesa View Post
You must have misunderstood my question. What is the science-based reason for different Hep B schedules in the U.S. and Canada?
I did not misunderstand. You changed the question and then claimed I misunderstood.
06-12-2014 06:12 PM
MamaMunchkin
Quote:
Originally Posted by tadamsmar View Post
Other countries have different standards due to the fact that they have different prevalence levels of the diseases for which humans can be immunized. They use different vaccines. A vaccine that is the best of those available for one country is not always the best for another country.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
I can go stand on the Quebec/Ontario border - on one side, hep b is given in grade 7, on the other it is given at 2, 4, 18 months and grade 4. I sincerely doubt there are huge differences in hep B prevalence from Quebec to Ontario

Actually, there are a lot of difference in when vaccines are given in different provinces. It makes the whole "thou must vaccinate according to schedule thing" seem a little arbitrary.

http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/im/ptimpr...able-1-eng.php
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turquesa View Post
Can you provide evidence that the aforementioned discrepencies in vaccine schedules, such as the different ages for the Hep B vaccine, are based on science relevant to the country's population? What is the difference between the children on either side of the St. Lawrence River where one set would need Hep B at birth and the other at adolescence?
Quote:
Originally Posted by tadamsmar View Post
For instance, other countries use a different stronger polio vaccine because polio virus is still present in sewage, or because of they have have more cases recently relative to the US.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turquesa View Post
You must have misunderstood my question. What is the science-based reason for different Hep B schedules in the U.S. and Canada?
@tadamsmar
So, what's the answer to Turquesa's question?

A question about Hep B vax - cannot - be answered with something about polio vax.
06-12-2014 05:29 PM
tadamsmar "As the incidence of wild polio diminishes, nations transition from use of the oral vaccine back to the injected vaccine because the direct risk of iatrogenic polio (VAPP) due to OPV outweighs the indirect benefit of immunization via subclinical transmission of OPV."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polio_vaccine

The benefit is that unvaccinated people are immunized by these subclinical cases.

Subclinical transmission of OPV occurs mainly in areas with poor sanitation. There was an outbreak of subclinincal transmission in the US among Amish nonvaccinators on 2005:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...101301733.html

Public health officials in the US act to end these outbreaks in the US when they occur.
06-12-2014 05:18 PM
serenbat
Quote:
Originally Posted by tadamsmar View Post
Note.

I'm saying that those vaccinated with a different type (the type we use in the US) lack a certain superpower, the power to turn the water supply into a vaccine by pooping into it.
06-12-2014 05:17 PM
serenbat
Quote:
Originally Posted by tadamsmar View Post
That polio vaccine is so strong that it's been known to immunize people in the US who had religious objections to being vaccinated for polio, even though it was not being administered in the US at the time.
06-12-2014 04:42 PM
tadamsmar
Quote:
Originally Posted by tadamsmar View Post
It's stronger in that it tends to immunize the unvaccinated.

A surprisingly large number of people who can truthfully say "I'm not vaccinated" can also truthfully say "I was immunized by the vaccine."

If one wants to avoid being immunized by the vaccine, one has to be careful about where one travels!
That polio vaccine is so strong that it's been known to immunize people in the US who had religious objections to being vaccinated for polio, even though it was not being administered in the US at the time.
06-12-2014 03:24 PM
tadamsmar
Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post
Stronger? And you are saying those vaccinated with a different type are not really immunized???
Note.

I'm saying that those vaccinated with a different type (the type we use in the US) lack a certain superpower, the power to turn the water supply into a vaccine by pooping into it.
06-12-2014 01:33 PM
serenbat
Quote:
Originally Posted by tadamsmar View Post
It's stronger in that it tends to immunize the unvaccinated.

Stronger? And you are saying those vaccinated with a different type are not really immunized???
06-12-2014 12:33 PM
applejuice But all John Hager and Lenita were doing were changing diapers. They did not go to another country and they get polio and are still in wheelchairs, 30-40 yrs later.

And Lenita was vaccinated against polio as a child. So was the 29 yr old in the quote and link I cited.

You aren't reading anyone's posts are you?
06-12-2014 11:49 AM
tadamsmar
Quote:
Originally Posted by applejuice View Post
Stronger? In what regard?
It's stronger in that it tends to immunize the unvaccinated.

A surprisingly large number of people who can truthfully say "I'm not vaccinated" can also truthfully say "I was immunized by the vaccine."

If one wants to avoid being immunized by the vaccine, one has to be careful about where one travels!
06-12-2014 10:57 AM
applejuice Stronger? In what regard? The reason we do NOT use the Sabin vaccine in the US is because between 1979-1999, the Sabin LVOPV was the ONLY cause of polio in the last 21 yrs of the twentieth century in the US. The very last wild case of polio.http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/polio.html
http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/travel/yellowbo.../poliomyelitis

Quote:
The last documented case of WPV-associated paralysis in a US resident traveling abroad occurred in 1986 in a 29-year-old vaccinated adult who had been traveling in South and Southeast Asia.
Don't believe me? Ask John Hager, FIL of Barbara Bush .... https://engineering.purdue.edu/ME/Pe...EAs/hager.html
And regular people too. http://www.vaccinationnews.org/Daily...1/MoneyMag.htm It appears the only way to get polio in the US is to get the OPV or stand next to a child that just got the OPV

Another explanation I was told for using the Sabin live virus oral polio vaccine in developing nations India, Nigeria, and Pakistan and not in the US is that the vaccine does not work in white people. Yes, true. Some children in India get 14 doses of this vaccine before age five and still get polio. If the children get AFP, acute flaccid paralysis, the vaccine is considered a success.
06-12-2014 06:43 AM
Turquesa You must have misunderstood my question. What is the science-based reason for different Hep B schedules in the U.S. and Canada?
06-11-2014 05:12 PM
tadamsmar For instance, other countries use a different stronger polio vaccine because polio virus is still present in sewage, or because of they have have more cases recently relative to the US.
06-11-2014 04:43 PM
Turquesa
Quote:
Originally Posted by tadamsmar View Post
Other countries have different standards due to the fact that they have different prevalence levels of the diseases for which humans can be immunized. They use different vaccines. A vaccine that is the best of those available for one country is not always the best for another country.
Can you provide evidence that the aforementioned discrepencies in vaccine schedules, such as the different ages for the Hep B vaccine, are based on science relevant to the country's population? What is the difference between the children on either side of the St. Lawrence River where one set would need Hep B at birth and the other at adolescence?
06-11-2014 11:17 AM
samaxtics The province I live in, the Hep B is offered in Grade 5.

Weird that some provinces are using the hexavalent vaccine and others are not. Wonder why that is?
06-11-2014 09:50 AM
kathymuggle
Quote:
Originally Posted by tadamsmar View Post
Other countries have different standards due to the fact that they have different prevalence levels of the diseases for which humans can be immunized. They use different vaccines. A vaccine that is the best of those available for one country is not always the best for another country.
I can go stand on the Quebec/Ontario border - on one side, hep b is given in grade 7, on the other it is given at 2, 4, 18 months and grade 4. I sincerely doubt there are huge differences in hep B prevalence from Quebec to Ontario

Actually, there are a lot of difference in when vaccines are given in different provinces. It makes the whole "thou must vaccinate according to schedule thing" seem a little arbitrary.

http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/im/ptimpr...able-1-eng.php
06-11-2014 09:02 AM
applejuice That is just un-acceptable, as says Dr. Opel, MD, the educated, licensed expert here.
06-11-2014 08:52 AM
tadamsmar
Quote:
Originally Posted by applejuice View Post
You are in agreement with Dr. Douglas Opal, assistant professor at the University of Washington School of Medicine.
http://www.latimes.com/health/la-he-...607-story.html

So other nations of the globe, with better infant mortality, better living standards, better life expectancy, and better government health care plans than the U.S. who do NOT follow the CDC's recommended vaccine schedule, - these nations do not practice medicine to an acceptable standard? REALLY? I think thousands of doctors around the globe would find that statement grossly offensive and they would be right.
Other countries have different standards due to the fact that they have different prevalence levels of the diseases for which humans can be immunized. They use different vaccines. A vaccine that is the best of those available for one country is not always the best for another country.
06-11-2014 08:18 AM
samaxtics Flu vaccine is less effective and getting it could create bigger problems. re:seasonal flu vaccine that made people more susceptible to H1N1 back in 2009.

Quote:
Canadian researchers noticed in the early weeks of the pandemic that people who got a flu shot for the 2008-2009 winter seemed to be more likely to get infected with the pandemic virus than people who hadn’t received a flu shot.
http://metronews.ca/health/363279/ca...t-study-finds/

Getting back to the OP, frankly I would be more worried about my children having to eat out so much. As someone who has travelled a fair bit with my kids, I know sometimes it can't be helped. But if we were to have to stay for any length of time in one spot, I would look for alternate accommodations that would allow me to cook meals for my family. If you presently have your own home, perhaps you could look into a home swap arrangement.
06-10-2014 09:44 PM
Turquesa
Quote:
Originally Posted by applejuice View Post
You are in agreement with Dr. Douglas Opal, assistant professor at the University of Washington School of Medicine.
http://www.latimes.com/health/la-he-...607-story.html

So other nations of the globe, with better infant mortality, better living standards, better life expectancy, and better government health care plans than the U.S. who do NOT follow the CDC's recommended vaccine schedule, - these nations do not practice medicine to an acceptable standard? REALLY? I think thousands of doctors around the globe would find that statement grossly offensive and they would be right.
Actually, they're not in agreement. PSM and her children are on the medically unacceptable British vaccination schedule.

That's an awful, cringe-worthy article, by the way. The cry for paternalism is pitiful.
This thread has more than 30 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

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