Mothering Forum banner

1 - 20 of 29 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
65 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Hi folks,<br><br>
I try not to respond to the flood of alarmist information out there on any subject, beyond getting a good grasp on the actual statistics--but when it comes to my baby I can't help it. I know there are, tragically, bad reactions, even very, very bad reactions to immunizations, but the same can be said about dairy products, nuts, dyes, wheat, just about anything, while the vast majority of people sail through with no problems. Nonetheless, again this is my baby and I feel very protective of him.<br><br>
Walter had his first DTP and HiB when he was two months old. He reacted by being sleepy all day, and a bit sleepy the next day, and if I didn't keep him close to me the first day he was fussy so I went to bed with him for the day. That was all, beyond some understandable soreness right at the injection site.<br><br>
He's scheduled for the second rounbd tomorrow. I would tend to assume that his lack of serious reactions last time makes it overwhelmingly unlikely there'll be any serious problem after tomorrow's booster. Is this, in you good folks' opinions, a safe assumption?<br><br>
Thank you,<br>
Katrina
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
234 Posts
Fist of all -<br>
What country are you in?><br>
IF he got DTP and that is what he would be getting again _ I would not allow tat period - no matter what. DTP is dangerous.<br><br>
That said - the fact tat he reacted by being sleepy and fussy is in fact a reaction, and reactions tend to get worse each successive shot.<br>
Unfortunately there is no magical way to tell who will react badly and wo will not. There is NO way to know. I am short on time , but I am sure others will have more detailed answers for you!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
65 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
I'm in the Netherlands. I had read that DTP is not dangerous, just slightly more likely to cause a (non-serious) reaction than DTaP, which will be used here by the time he gets his third and last booster. I am very interested in your response--can you cite some studies, articles, and/or statistics for me to look at?<br><br>
And yes, I know that he had a reaction at all--with vaccines, that is the norm. They excite an immune response and there will eb signs that this is happening. At least as far as I've always understood it.<br><br>
Thank you,<br>
Katrina<br><br>
Edited to add--vaccinations are not mandatory here but I am very serious about getting him fully vacci9nated, but obviously as safely as possible. Were you saying that the whole idea of this shot is dangerous, or were you only saying that DTaP is the one to go with instead of the DTP? If the latter, he is now three months old and had the DTP at two months. The DTaP will come into use here sometime during the upcoming month. Is it dangerous to wait until they have that one to get his next booster?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,203 Posts
Not a safe assumption at all, unless you are assuming the next shot will come from exactly the same lot as the first. You never know what contaminents will be in each vaccine, nor can you predict which vax may cause a reaction. Also, make sure your baby wasn't showing subtle signs of encephalitis, which is a serious complication to the vax,<br><br><a href="http://yourmedicalsource.com/library/encephalitis/ENC_symptoms.html" target="_blank">http://yourmedicalsource.com/library..._symptoms.html</a><br><br>
More interesting reading,<br><br>
In evaluating side-reactions to the vaccine, the following must be kept in mind:<br><br>
1. Vaccines are not standardized between manufacturers.<br><br>
2. For a given manufacturer, vaccines are not standard from one batch to the next.<br><br>
3. Unless the vaccine is properly prepared and refrigerated, its potency and reactivity varies with shelf life.<br><br>
In fact, the whole question of vaccine detoxification has never been systematically investigated.<br><br><a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1981251&dopt=Abstract" target="_blank">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract</a><br><br>
It really is a game of russian roulette, and the vaccine syringe is the loaded gun.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,758 Posts
Your child had a reaction to a vaccine. I would not under any circumstances , unless you are willing to play with his life , get him any other shots. Vaccines damage the immune system , they do not build up immunity.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
65 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
Well, my problem is that I also see it as "Russian Roulette" to play around with diptheria, polio, etc. There is a whooping cough epidemic here right now. Whooping cough kills babies. My grandmother's brother died of polio and her best friend is crippled and lost all her siblings. Vaccines are the reason this isn't happning here or in the States anymore. Statistically, having no shots is more dangerous than risking reactions--especially when the vast majority of reactions are mild. Serum immunization is the same as natural immunization without having to go into the field and actually catch the disease first. Contaminants and the like do happen--but look at how many people are dying of polio in the Punjab this year. It's considerably more than are suffering any ill effects from the vaccine worldwide.<br><br>
How to balance the two points of view? Seems I'm playing with his life either way.<br><br>
Can anyone answer my question about the DTP versus the DTaP?<br><br>
Thank you,<br>
Katrina
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
493 Posts
'Vaccines are the reason this isn't happning here or in the States anymore'<br><br>
Here we go................................................ ............
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
65 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
<div style="margin:20px;margin-top:5px;">
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px;">Quote:</div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="99%"><tr><td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset;">
<div>Originally Posted by <strong>Luckyinlife</strong></div>
<div style="font-style:italic;">'Vaccines are the reason this isn't happning here or in the States anymore'<br><br>
Here we go................................................ ............</div>
</td>
</tr></table></div>
<br>
Hmmm... have I jumped on some bandwagon, then? I'm just trying to discuss this. Your comment here is just ever so helpful to me...<br><br>
OK, I'll bite. What IS responsible for the difference in rates of such diseases between places that vaccinate routinely and those that don't? Coincidence? I can't consider your views until I hear them, so don't just reply with "sheesh" or something. Be persuasive. Make me understand.<br><br>
--Katrina
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,339 Posts
Here is an article I found about the differences between the DTP and DTaP.<br>
Hope it helps.<br><br><a href="http://www.parentsplace.com/health/vaccines/qas/0,,166606_100994,00.html?arrivalSA=1&cobrandRef=0&arrival_freqCap=1&pba=adid=12358074" target="_blank">http://www.parentsplace.com/health/v...=adid=12358074</a><br><br><br>
The pertussis vaccine, the "P" part of the DTP which is the immunization against whooping cough, has had a lot of notoriety associated with it for many years. This is because it was the vaccine most associated with side effects. By far, the most common side effects were soreness at the injection site, fever, and irritability. These are not necessarily unusual side effects of vaccinations. However, the pertussis vaccine seemed to cause unusually high fever and extreme irritability in some children. Then, there came reports of significant brain injury called encephalitis being caused by the pertussis vaccine. Careful investigation by the Centers for Disease Control never convincingly associated this vaccine to this brain injury, but the reputation for this vaccine soon plummeted in the eyes of the public. There was relative wide-spread refusal by parents of any vaccine containing the pertussis portion. This was unfortunate because the infection rate of whooping cough came storming back with large outbreaks in several cities in 1993. However, refusal was understandable as well because of the concern by parents for their children.<br><br>
The reason the pertussis vaccine had been so highly associated with fever and irritability is because of the components which make it up. The bug that causes whooping cough is a bacteria. And the vaccine was essentially made up of a killed version of this bacteria. In other words, the vaccine contained all the parts of the dead bacteria and was named the "whole-cell" vaccine. However, researchers soon realized that perhaps a better vaccine would be one that included those parts of the bacteria which allow for the body to become immune but leave out the parts that cause the fever and irritability. The fruits of this research became available a few years ago when the "acellular" vaccine was approved by the FDA. The word acellular describes the fact that this vaccine does not contain the "whole" bacteria cell but rather only the parts of the cell that allow for the body to develop good immunity. So, the name DTP was modified for this acellular vaccine and called the DTaP. The "a" stands for acellular.<br><br>
New vaccines and new combinations of vaccines seem to be coming out almost monthly, so your confusion is completely understandable. Quite honestly, it is becoming increasingly difficult for pediatricians to keep up with all the changes. But without further delay, I will answer your questions.<br><br>
Both vaccines contain only killed bacteria. Therefore, neither vaccine can actually give you the disease. So, any concern you might have about live versus dead bacteria in these vaccines is unwarranted. The regular or whole-cell DTP has all the parts of the bacteria in it while the DTaP has only a few parts. Studies have clearly shown the DTaP to have far fewer side effects including fever and irritability. In addition, several large well-done studies both in the U.S. and abroad have shown the DTaP to impart much better and longer lasting immunity in children. Therefore, I highly recommend you ask for the DTaP rather than the DTP.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,203 Posts
You're right, disease is still around. It seems you are already giving vaccines undue credit. Based on your beliefs, you should probably go ahead and take your chances with the vaccines.<br><br>
You asked for opinions, and they were given, but you don't appear to be listening with an open mind, and in that case, there isn't much anyone can say to help you.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
493 Posts
<div style="margin:20px;margin-top:5px;">
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px;">Quote:</div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="99%"><tr><td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset;">
<div>Originally Posted by <strong>Amsterbaby</strong></div>
<div style="font-style:italic;">Hmmm... have I jumped on some bandwagon, then? I'm just trying to discuss this. Your comment here is just ever so helpful to me...<br><br>
OK, I'll bite. What IS responsible for the difference in rates of such diseases between places that vaccinate routinely and those that don't? Coincidence? I can't consider your views until I hear them, so don't just reply with "sheesh" or something. Be persuasive. Make me understand.<br><br>
--Katrina</div>
</td>
</tr></table></div>
No, Didn't mean to sound 'confrontational'!!!! It IS hard to 'hear' emotions whey typing them!<br>
What I meant is that (on an almost daily basis) someone will say that vaccines are responsible for wiping out illinesses, I dont mean to sound 'bitchy' it's just that it is very frustrating to discuss the same phrase/viewpoint over and over on a daily basis which, is not your fault or mine........<br>
I'l just shut up and answer you with my view......<br>
Illnesses were declining all by themselves when 'vaccines' were introduced (dont have time to look up the charts again right now) and many statistics show that Sanitation, refrigeration, general cleanliness (more hand washing), water purification, meat/polutry regulations etc. are the reason for the decline of illnesses.......<br><br><br>
Gotta run for now, again, didn't mean to sound snotty and I wasn't trying to be bitchy. It just the same question, different day type of thing.<br><br><br>
Good luck to you whatever you decide!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
65 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·

Houdini said:
Here is an article I found about the differences between the DTP and DTaP.<br>
Hope it helps.<br><br><a href="http://www.parentsplace.com/health/vaccines/qas/0,,166606_100994,00.html?arrivalSA=1&cobrandRef=0&arrival_freqCap=1&pba=adid=12358074" target="_blank">http://www.parentsplace.com/health/v...=adid=12358074</a><br><br><br>
Thank you very much. My question now is whether to put off tomorrow's shot for a month and wait for the DTaP to hit the doctor's offices here, during a documented whooping cough epidemic. I will be discussing it at length with the doctor tomorrow, as well, of course.<br>
--Katrina
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
65 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
<div style="margin:20px;margin-top:5px;">
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px;">Quote:</div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="99%"><tr><td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset;">
<div>Originally Posted by <strong>suschi</strong></div>
<div style="font-style:italic;">You asked for opinions, and they were given, but you don't appear to be listening with an open mind, and in that case, there isn't much anyone can say to help you.</div>
</td>
</tr></table></div>
Ummm... You say "It's bad" and I say, "Ok, explain to me why, so that I can consider the information" and I'm not being open minded? Excuse me? Would it instead be the open-minded thing to do to say, "Oh! You say it's bad! OK, then, it must be bad!" I hardly think so. Tell me WHY it's so bad compared, for example, to a diptheria outbreak, and I will listen with an open mind and make an informed decision. The key word here is informed--I'm trying to get informed.<br>
--Katrina
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
65 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
<div style="margin:20px;margin-top:5px;">
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px;">Quote:</div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="99%"><tr><td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset;">
<div>Originally Posted by <strong>Luckyinlife</strong></div>
<div style="font-style:italic;">No, Didn't mean to sound 'confrontational'!!!! It IS hard to 'hear' emotions whey typing them!</div>
</td>
</tr></table></div>
Understood, understood. Sorry for the knee-jerk reaction.... I get the same feeling you posted on the home versus hospital birth boards (had my baby at home) and the circumcision boards (didn't have it done) and the breastfeeding boards (just went through hell <b>successfully</b> getting him fully onto the breast after his collapsed lung and two-week stay in intensive care left him on bottles of breast milk instead) (he's thriving and completely fine now, by the way)....<br><br>
My view is that these things you cite are indeed an overwhelmingly large factor in the diminishing of disease but that also vaccines play a role. I am open to opinions, though, or I never would have posted in the first place. Case in point, though, there was a group here a few years ago who clustered into one area of the city and didn't believe in vaccination. Their kids got polio while other, vaccinated kids in the same schoolds and apartment buildings using the same supermarkets and public transport did not.<br><br>
I also come from a place that uses rabies vaccines in animals and there is occasionally a case in a wild animal, which is right next to a place that does not and where thousands of dogs get it every year.<br><br>
--Katrina
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
493 Posts
It sure IS an awfully tough decision to make when you're not sure what to believe!<br>
I dont think we have one here (maybe we do but, not sure)<br>
We need a sticky with ALLLLLLL of the sites that have studies/info on vaccines so that everyone can easily go through it all (or alot of it anyway) and come to their own conclusions!<br><br>
Again, good luck on whatever you decide!!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
876 Posts
<div style="margin:20px;margin-top:5px;">
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px;">Quote:</div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="99%"><tr><td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset;">
<div>Originally Posted by <strong>Amsterbaby</strong></div>
<div style="font-style:italic;">OK, I'll bite. What IS responsible for the difference in rates of such diseases between places that vaccinate routinely and those that don't? Coincidence?</div>
</td>
</tr></table></div>
one thing responsible for the decline in disease rates is a better understanding of hygiene practices. washing hands and isolating the ill are just 2 factors that have contributed to the difference in rates of diseases.<br><br>
there have also been cases of outbreaks (measles is the one that pops into mind) in areas that have a 100% vaccination rate. sure, vaccines cause an immune system response, but it isn't always one that will confer immunity to that disease.<br><br>
getting the disease itself (minus the formaldehyde, aborted fetal tissue, thimerosal (mercury), and cow's and sheep's blood) and treating it appropriately will confer immunity much better than a vaccine (which has an 'inactivated' form of the disease, and therefore does not provoke the same kind of immune response as would be seen with the 'active' form of the disease).<br><br>
yes, there are risks involved either way, but i personally would much rather take the chance (slim as it is) of my son getting one of these diseases then shooting him up with unnecessary chemicals. i vaccinated him for the first year of his life, and i feel horrible about it. at the time, i thought it was the best thing for him. but after doing some reading, i no longer think it's such a wonderful idea.<br><br>
i wish you luck with your decision. <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="http://www.mothering.com/discussions/images/smilies/smile.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="smile">
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,863 Posts
Okay, so I understand that you believe getting the vaxes is in your child's best interest & have made up your mind that you are going to get them so I'll not bother to address the efficacy issue. As for whether he is or is not likely to experience a reaction different than the first is not really something you can predict. But just for an idea of how the acellular reactions compare with whole cell reactions, you can check out the charts beginning on page 10 of the Infanrix info: <a href="http://us.gsk.com/products/assets/us_infanrix.pdf" target="_blank">http://us.gsk.com/products/assets/us_infanrix.pdf</a><br><br>
I have no idea what vaccines are in use there but I imagine similar info would be available for them.<br><br>
Pertussis vaccines can cause serious reactions like encephalopathy & hypotonic hyporesponsive episodes. Acellular vaccines are a lot safer & that's why many countries, including the US, have transitioned to them. Occasionally though, they still can cause those types of reactions.<br><a href="http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00048610.htm" target="_blank">http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00048610.htm</a><br><br>
I would rather wait a couple of weeks for the safer product. As I understand you to be saying, he had dose #1 at 2 mos & you're planning to have dose #2 at 3 mos? The dosage here in the US is 2 mos and 4 mos so I wouldn't say waiting a few weeks would be dangerous from your perspective.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,203 Posts
<div style="margin:20px;margin-top:5px;">
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px;">Quote:</div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="99%"><tr><td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset;">
<div>Originally Posted by <strong>Amsterbaby</strong></div>
<div style="font-style:italic;">Ummm... You say "It's bad" and I say, "Ok, explain to me why, so that I can consider the information" and I'm not being open minded? Excuse me? Would it instead be the open-minded thing to do to say, "Oh! You say it's bad! OK, then, it must be bad!" I hardly think so. Tell me WHY it's so bad compared, for example, to a diptheria outbreak, and I will listen with an open mind and make an informed decision. The key word here is informed--I'm trying to get informed.<br>
--Katrina</div>
</td>
</tr></table></div>
1) When was the last outbreak of diptheria in your area?<br><br>
2) How many cases?<br><br>
3) How many deaths?<br><br>
4) What was the rate of vaccinated vs unvaccinated in most recent outbreak?<br><br>
Answer same questions for polio.<br><br>
I don't know enough about your area to comment about the benefits vs risks, as I am in the US, and here, the benefits do not outweigh the risks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
65 Posts
Discussion Starter · #19 ·
<div style="margin:20px;margin-top:5px;">
<div class="smallfont" style="margin-bottom:2px;">Quote:</div>
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="99%"><tr><td class="alt2" style="border:1px inset;">
<div>Originally Posted by <strong>suschi</strong></div>
<div style="font-style:italic;">1) When was the last outbreak of diptheria in your area?<br><br>
2) How many cases?<br><br>
3) How many deaths?<br><br>
4) What was the rate of vaccinated vs unvaccinated in most recent outbreak?<br><br>
Answer same questions for polio.<br><br>
I don't know enough about your area to comment about the benefits vs risks, as I am in the US, and here, the benefits do not outweigh the risks.</div>
</td>
</tr></table></div>
<br>
OK, so I don't know aboutthe diptheria--probably a very long time ago. Polio--have to look up the exact statistics, but it was about 8 years ago, there were a few hundred cases among unvaccinated children, a few deaths, a few dozen crippled. At the moment, far more pertinent so I guess I should have said that instead of diptheria, we DO have a whooping cough epidemic going on and it is very dangerous to babies.<br><br>
By the way, it is in the US where my gandmother's family suffered terribly from the polio epidemic and I haven't seen one there recently. When was the last time you saw a case of smallpox?<br><br>
--Katrina
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
65 Posts
Discussion Starter · #20 ·
I would rather wait a couple of weeks for the safer product. As I understand you to be saying, he had dose #1 at 2 mos & you're planning to have dose #2 at 3 mos? The dosage here in the US is 2 mos and 4 mos so I wouldn't say waiting a few weeks would be dangerous from your perspective.[/QUOTE]<br><br>
Thank you. I will discuss this in depth with the doctor. I think one reason the shots are closer together here is that the dose is weaker so as to lessen the chance of side-effects--I will be asking about this also. Given that we do have an epidemic right now I find this to be a real mess of a decision to make--in another year I would DEFINITELY wait. I also have to take my huband's view equally into account, of course, and he, like me, has a better-than-layman's understanding of epidemiology and cellular medicine, and is swayed by the actual rarity of the worse effects. At the same time, brain damage is our worst nightmare. This is just a bitch of a decision to have to make. We've just decided that even though my husband works nights he'll still get up early and come to the appointment so we can both discuss it with the doctor and make a decision as a family.<br>
--Katrina
 
1 - 20 of 29 Posts
Top