Vaccines question

j@utis

I was thinking to start a new thread but I saw Meningitis B mentioned here couple of pages ago so I might just ask here. I want to get my son vaccinated for it. He's 8months old. What should I do: wait until his routine vaccinations are finished and get it done then or get it now?
What are the chances of contracting MenB at home? He's not attending the creche yet and won't be until he's well over a year old. He comes into contact with very few people too. He's healthy and happy baby.

Also, why do you think we have many more cases of MenB here in Ireland comparing to rest of Europe?

Satori Rae

j@utis wrote: »

I was thinking to start a new thread but I saw Meningitis B mentioned here couple of pages ago so I might just ask here. I want to get my son vaccinated for it. He's 8months old. What should I do: wait until his routine vaccinations are finished and get it done then or get it now?
What are the chances of contracting MenB at home? He's not attending the creche yet and won't be until he's well over a year old. He comes into contact with very few people too. He's healthy and happy baby.

Also, why do you think we have many more cases of MenB here in Ireland comparing to rest of Europe?

So far from what I know is the inital shot is at 2 months followed by a booster at 4 months and another booster at 12 months. However you should confirm this with your own doctor or nurse.

I wouldn't be sure why it is such a high risk here, but the b strain is bacterial based seems to target children under 5 more so than anything, possibility that its just sadly one of those things that can be just passed along easily, and children need time to develop a immune system.

tinkerbell

MenB can be given at any age over 2m but the time when you give it dictates how many primary doses and if a booster is required.

J - your son would need 2 doses 2 months apart plus a booster between a year and 23 months. For me, MenB was a no brainer - if you wait til the schedule is over that's not til after 13m so I don't see the benefit of waiting, in my opinion. Get it now. It's expensive - around €150-€160 for each vaccine plus the cost to administer it by a medical professional.

bovril

j@utis wrote:

I was thinking to start a new thread but I saw Meningitis B mentioned here couple of pages ago so I might just ask here. I want to get my son vaccinated for it. He's 8months old. What should I do: wait until his routine vaccinations are finished and get it done then or get it now? What are the chances of contracting MenB at home? He's not attending the creche yet and won't be until he's well over a year old. He comes into contact with very few people too. He's healthy and happy baby.

j@utis wrote:

Also, why do you think we have many more cases of MenB here in Ireland comparing to rest of Europe?

Hi,

You should talk to your gp about it. We decided to get our baby vaccinated starting at 3 months. She needs 3 shots and a booster. She is getting them at 3, 4 and 5 months. The 4 month one is 1 week after the scheduled shots. You can get the men b vaccine in between the scheduled shots if you want. It's recommended on the HSE website to leave minimum 1 month between the men b shots. At your baby's age you will need 2 shots and a booster. You could if you wanted have them with a month between them. I don't know what risk there is of your baby contacting men b. We felt there was no point waiting. Men b doesn't mind what age the child is so we wanted our baby protected as early as possible.

Ireland has the highest rate of meningitis in the whole of Europe. I've no idea why. Meningitis c used to be the most common strain until then vaccination for it was included in the scheduled ones. Men b is now the most common strain.

If you go onto the HSE website and search for men b in the search box one of the results is a PDF called menbfaq I think and it has the schedule for the baby's/child's age.
Found a way to copy the link
http://www.hse.ie/eng/health/immunisation/hcpinfo/OtherVaccines/menbfaq.pdf

mulbot

Sligo1 wrote: »

To conclude... Vaccinated people may demonstrate decreased severity of illness symptoms Compared to unvaccinated people. Exactly what I said in my previous post.

Yes,with the key word here being "may"

sleepyheadh

pwurple wrote: »

Are either Downs Syndrome or DMD preventable with a vaccine? Those are both chromosome disorders.

We are talking about a preventable disease being prevented.

No plaguing of minds, but if suffering is preventable, surely it's patently obvious to go ahead and prevent it.

what I was alluding to in that post was the anti-vaxxer view of comparable risk. I.e the risk of vaccination for chicken pox for example, compared to risk of other disease, such as downs.

Very few people would be worried about having a child with DMD which has a prevalence of 1 in 3,600 roughly. But in the case of vaccinations, the occurrence of side effects, at rates that are far less rare than DMD, are considered significant.

Sligo1

mulbot wrote: »

Yes,with the key word here being "may"

Precisely. Which is exactly what I said in my previous post . It was you who quoted always not me. Now perhaps stop trying to play dumb and annoy people when the stats are there. Perhaps stop trying to backseat mod aswell... U asked me to provide a link to my assertions which is what I did 100%. What I posted is exactly the same info in this link. In future do your own googling.

Sligo1

Sligo1 wrote: »

You said always... Not me. I'm talking statistics. It's more likely that they would recover quicker or more significantly than those children who have not been immunised against these diseases. Perhaps not always tho. But I for one wouldn't want to take that risk knowing the statistics that are available. I dont think I need to post a link? If you just read the thread, the last few pages have provided more than ample links stating these scientifically proven facts . Just take a read of the last few pages. It's all there For you if you want to read it?

See

mulbot

Sligo1 wrote: »

Precisely. Which is exactly what I said in my previous post . It was you who quoted always not me. Now perhaps stop trying to play dumb and annoy people when the stats are there. Perhaps stop trying to backseat mod aswell... U asked me to provide a link to my assertions which is what I did 100%. What I posted is exactly the same info in this link. In future do your own googling.

Yes,i said always as i think that's an important point,i did read the link but i thought it was gonna be an actual study,but i'll try find the sources

Sligo1

mulbot wrote: »

Yes,i said always as i think that's an important point,i did read the link but i thought it was gonna be an actual study,but i'll try find the sources

The WHO publications are based in findings of actual studies so I thought that would be enough as no matter what stidies you read it's pretty obvious this anti vacc idea is ingrained in you. So I for one am definitely not going to waste my time reading studies and posting links trying to change you mind... Obviously not going to happen.

I've proved my point and that's all that matters to me.

mulbot

Sligo1 wrote: »

See

Yes and that's your choice to decide on the risks,just like it's mine,i believe vaccines have alot of risks that make me think twice about their use

mulbot

Sligo1 wrote: »

The WHO publications are based in findings of actual studies so I thought that would be enough as no matter what stidies you read it's pretty obvious this anti vacc idea is ingrained in you. So I for one am definitely not going to waste my time reading studies and posting links trying to change you mind... Obviously not going to happen.

I've proved my point and that's all that matters to me.

Relax,I've said i will find the sources, I'm not looking for you to change my mind,i know from what i've read,(and i read both sides from medical point of views/studies)that my opinions are gonna be the same. Like i said at the beginning of the thread,the idea of a vaccine is good,however in reality i consider their side effects warrant a personal/medical decision on whether to use them

Sligo1

mulbot wrote: »

Relax,I've said i will find the sources, I'm not looking for you to change my mind,i know from what i've read,(and i read both sides from medical point of views/studies)that my opinions are gonna be the same. Like i said at the beginning of the thread,the idea of a vaccine is good,however in reality i consider their side effects warrant a personal/medical decision on whether to use them

Absolutely. But u asked me to post a link to prove my assertion that symptoms in vacinated children may be less severe than those in unvaccinated children/people. I've only done what you asked me to do. That all.

January

sleepyheadh wrote: »

what I was alluding to in that post was the anti-vaxxer view of comparable risk. I.e the risk of vaccination for chicken pox for example, compared to risk of other disease, such as downs.

Very few people would be worried about having a child with DMD which has a prevalence of 1 in 3,600 roughly. But in the case of vaccinations, the occurrence of side effects, at rates that are far less rare than DMD, are considered significant.

Down syndrome is not a 'disease', it's a syndrome, the clue is in the name. A genetic disorder is not a disease, it's a defect. It cannot be caught like measles or mumps or polio etc.

How disgusting of you to refer to it as so.

January

This is the last warning on this thread, do not call out people as back seat mods. If you have a problem with a post report it, and let a mod decide whether it is actionable or not.

sleepyheadh

January wrote: »

Down syndrome is not a 'disease', it's a syndrome, the clue is in the name. A genetic disorder is not a disease, it's a defect. It cannot be caught like measles or mumps or polio etc.

How disgusting of you to refer to it as so.

Ok, well lets sort this out.

Firstly, Lets take a look at some definitions.

"Disease: Illness or sickness characterized by specific signs and symptoms."

A disease is a particular abnormal condition, a disorder of structure or function, that affects part or all of an organism. The causal study of disease is called pathology. Disease is often construed as a medical condition associated with specific symptoms and signs. It may be caused by factors originally from an external source, such as infectious disease, or it may be caused by internal dysfunctions, such as autoimmune diseases. In humans, "disease" is often used more broadly to refer to any condition that causes pain, dysfunction, distress, social problems, or death to the person afflicted, or similar problems for those in contact with the person. In this broader sense, it sometimes includes injuries, disabilities, disorders, syndromes, infections, isolated symptoms, deviant behaviors, and atypical variations of structure and function, while in other contexts and for other purposes these may be considered distinguishable categories. Diseases usually affect people not only physically, but also emotionally, as contracting and living with a disease can alter one's perspective on life, and one's personality.

That is taken from Dorlands medical dictionary.

A genetic disorder can be classified as a disease, and it is certainly not "disgusting" to say that it is such.

Secondly, to take a minute to poke a few holes in your argument.

You seem to think that a disease, is something you can catch (I think you are confused with infectious disease). However, Do you think you can catch, coronary artery disease?

A bit of an over-reaction on your part.

January

You can throw medical descriptions at me all you like, in my opinion calling anyone with Down Syndrome or other genetic conditions 'diseased' is despicable. Yes, I may have over reacted but I have children that live with genetic syndromes and defects so call me emotional all you want, my children are not diseased.

It just dilutes your argument further, the discussion is about vaccinating children against infectious diseases, comparing people being worried about their children catching chicken pox and not being so worried about them 'catching' Down Syndrome or DMD or a CHD or anything genetic is like comparing apples and oranges. It's not comparable at all.

sleepyheadh

January wrote: »

You can throw medical descriptions at me all you like, in my opinion calling anyone with Down Syndrome or other genetic conditions 'diseased' is despicable. Yes, I may have over reacted but I have children that live with genetic syndromes and defects so call me emotional all you want, my children are not diseased.

It just dilutes your argument further, the discussion is about vaccinating children against infectious diseases, comparing people being worried about their children catching chicken pox and not being so worried about them 'catching' Down Syndrome or DMD or a CHD or anything genetic is like comparing apples and oranges. It's not comparable at all.

I am not throwing medical definitions at you, I am simply showing you that the actually medical definition of disease, is a term, which can extend to include genetic disorders, such as Down Syndrome.

I would argue that calling someone with Down's "defected" as you seem to like it being called, is equally offensive.

You are confusing the term disease with infectious disease. A person with CHD, is diseased, they suffer from a disease. Just as someone with Down's or Marfan's suffers from a disease. They both did not "catch a disease".

A disease is simple a physiological state that elicits a set of specific signs and symptoms in a person.

Again, if you go back and read my posts, you will see me explain how I was using the cases of Down's and DMD, with regards to comparable risk.

I never said that one could "catch downs" or that downs was preventable.

The Point being made is that Parents are overly concerned with the minuscule risks that vaccinations pose, I used DMD as a comparator to show how insanely small the risks were.

sleepyheadh

January wrote: »

Down syndrome

How disgusting of you to refer to it as so.

January wrote: »

Calling anyone with Down Syndrome or other genetic conditions 'diseased' is despicable.

I would also like to add that denigrating my character, has really added nothing to your own argument.

Lucky for me, I've been called worse things than, disgusting and despicable.

SpaceSasqwatch

gar32 wrote: »

So after a long chat with an expert. I am not a 100% convinced vaccination doesn't harm a child's ability to fight other sicknesses. between the two of my kids the oldest was only sick once. I myself have had no boosters and have never had a sickness other than a cold. My friends children seem to be sick often. What do people think of that?

Thats correlation evidence...considered very poor and used sometimes used to just indicate more research should be done.

A friend of mines child has autism.The kids never got any vaccinations.Presenting that as correlation evidence would indicate NOT getting vaccinations causes autism.

sleepyheadh

SpaceSasqwatch wrote:

Thats correlation evidence...considered very poor and used sometimes used to just indicate more research should be done.

Do you mean anecdotal evidence?

Orion

sleepyheadh wrote: »

Do you mean anecdotal evidence?

Your forum ban has expired. The instruction not to post in this thread hasn't. If you post again in this thread you will be permanently banned from Parenting and all sub forums.

SpaceSasqwatch

sleepyheadh wrote: »

Do you mean anecdotal evidence?

Nope mentioned correlation specificaly.Being pedantic ,the post I quoted and my own are both.

And thats the level of debate the anti-vaccination crowd are at...bad science with nothing to back up their assertions (apart from bad science) and rubbish 'evidence'.

No point talking to you anyway, you're gonna be banned very soon.

Orion

SpaceSasqwatch wrote: »

No point talking to you anyway, you're gonna be banned very soon.

Not helpful. Don't backseat mod please.

SpaceSasqwatch

so thats a no both then sleepyheadh :rolleyes:

gar32

Just a question for all reading. How up to date a you with your vaccines ?

Do you have a record of them?

Also if they are only 90% ish effective does that mean 10% of vaccinated people can become carriers and spread just like non vaccinated people.

I agree vaccines have changed the world for the better but something must happen to the body that normally would not. Is it full understood?

Why do vaccines last for 1 year. Would you buy veg that last a year? I stay clear of E numbers as much as possible. Injecting something that last a year seems to be preserved unnaturally.

Any thoughts?

gctest50

gar32 wrote: »

......
Why do vaccines last for 1 year. Would you buy veg that last a year? I stay clear of E numbers as much as possible. Injecting something that last a year seems to be preserved unnaturally.
..................

if you just take say .... the 'flu - its mutating

so this years vaccine may not be very effective against "next years" versions

so the manufacturers etc of the vaccine take a best guess at what to include in next years vaccinations

gctest50

gar32 wrote: »

..
Also if they are only 90% ish effective does that mean 10% of vaccinated people can become carriers and spread just like non vaccinated people.
.........

as long as above the critical amount are safe - it should stop it spreading

mulbot

gar32 wrote: »

Just a question for all reading. How up to date a you with your vaccines ?

Do you have a record of them?

Also if they are only 90% ish effective does that mean 10% of vaccinated people can become carriers and spread just like non vaccinated people.

I agree vaccines have changed the world for the better but something must happen to the body that normally would not. Is it full understood?

Why do vaccines last for 1 year. Would you buy veg that last a year? I stay clear of E numbers as much as possible. Injecting something that last a year seems to be preserved unnaturally.

Any thoughts?

I've never had a vaccine. for me,i think bypassing the bodies normal process of gaining immunity has to have some effect in the body-so i'm thankful i never got any..

pwurple

mulbot wrote: »

I've never had a vaccine. for me,i think bypassing the bodies normal process of gaining immunity has to have some effect in the body-so i'm thankful i never got any..

Vaccines are the normal way of gaining immunity. That's how they were discovered and invented. You are exposed to a version of the virus, your body learns a defense.

That's what happens normally, all the time, every day of our lives. But with vaccines you get a weakened version that doesn't cause symptoms. (Just like how cowpox worked for smallpox when vaccines were discovered... Dairymaids didn't get smallpox because they had been exposed to the weaker cowpox in their work).

That's the best bit about vaccines! How it works with our natural immunity mechanisms, and the natural way viruses work in the world.