vaccine schedule

pablojml

Hello All,

I've read through the posts and agree and disagree with some. My partner and I will be parents soon and are a bit concerned with the vaccine topic. To give, not to give, be selective or delay.

I am not fully against vaccines as me and my sister were vaccinated with the full schedule and we didn't have major issues. As some have mentioned I wouldn't like to put a shot in my kids that contains mercury or other toxic ingredients (I guess all parents would agree on that). I agree that vaccines have reduced and in some cases eradicated diseases which is great however, one of my concern at this moment is that we have to put vaccines on a 0 to 1 year old baby who's immune system is still developing?

We most likely choose to start the vaccine schedule after the year once their immune system is a bit more mature.

Feel free to share your opinion, I'd like to hear back.

houlihand

absolutely vaccinate

Orion

pablojml wrote: »

Hello All,

I've read through the posts and agree and disagree with some. My partner and I will be parents soon and are a bit concerned with the vaccine topic. To give, not to give, be selective or delay.

There is no need for concern - vaccines are safe.

pablojml wrote: »

I am not fully against vaccines as me and my sister were vaccinated with the full schedule and we didn't have major issues. As some have mentioned I wouldn't like to put a shot in my kids that contains mercury or other toxic ingredients (I guess all parents would agree on that). I agree that vaccines have reduced and in some cases eradicated diseases which is great however, one of my concern at this moment is that we have to put vaccines on a 0 to 1 year old baby who's immune system is still developing?

The mercury and toxic ingredients argument is complete nonsense spread by antivaxxers and snake oil merchants. Ignore it completely. Read this: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/thimerosal/index.html

pablojml wrote: »

We most likely choose to start the vaccine schedule after the year once their immune system is a bit more mature.

Follow the vaccine schedule recommended by your doctor and the HSE.

pablojml wrote: »

Feel free to share your opinion, I'd like to hear back.

Do not listen to antivaxxers - listen to doctors. Get your child vaccinated on schedule to keep him/her and others safe from preventable diseases.

Orion

I've moved this out of an 8 year old thread to it's own one. pablojml: no need to drag up threads that old - you can just start new ones.

shesty

Why exactly do you think a 0-1 year old's immune system is not developed enough to stand up to a vaccine schedule developed with them in mind??.Or just 'not developed' enough?I really don't understand this argument.

We are happy to put kids into playgroups and creches and with other kids from a very small age where the level of exposure to 'germs' etc is huge.Our maternity laws would suggest that it's ok to stick a child in a care situation from about 22 weeks old (counting 24 weeks leave, less 2 weeks before due date .... approximate).Where they are often in direct contact with other kids and all the associated risks.Some would go so far as to say it's good for their immune systems to spend time with other kids.Why then, do people get so concerned with the immune system when it comes to vaccines?

I am sure there are a load of anti-vaccine studies that can be quoted to support these arguments, but honestly OP, the vaccines are there for a reason.They aren't a makey-uppy requirement, or forced on you by the Government or whatever.They are an age-old system of protecting people and there is just no reason (unless medical) that you would not vaccinate.

Delay if you want but on a practical level (I know people will jump down my throat here but anyway...)....if you both work and the child's mother is on mat leave in year one, it's a whole heap easier to just vaccinate on schedule when one of you is at home full time and you don't have to be worrying about juggling work, doctor appointments and a potentially cranky baby for the next 24 hours.It might not be one of the most compelling reasons for vaccinating, but certainly think about it.

skallywag

This is a contentious issue which comes up periodically. My own take would be that the benefits far outweigh the risks.

For one reason or another a work colleague of mine decided to go against the vaccine route, and ended up living out the horror of sitting on an intensive care ward while their child fought for life.

The statistics speak for themselves, meet me a few different doctors and health care workers, then form your own opinion.

angeldelight

The whole point is that the infants immune system is immature and this is why they need the protection given to them ASAP

pwurple

You have it backwards. To protecct the child you give them the attenuated version of the virus early on. Delaying it only leaves them exposed to the full blown version for longer. High ridk for no benefit.

The approved schedule is tested and verified for safety and efficacy. Making up your own schedule is not tested, so you are winging it. It may not be as effective, for example, to give the dose for a 6 month old, to an 18 month old.

bee06

I'm currently 19 weeks pregnant and I will be vaccinating on schedule. There is no doubt in my mind that this is the right thing to do. As a previous poster said, the benefits vastly outweigh the risks.

Don't forget a baby's immune system is even developing in the womb. That's why pregnant women are given the Whooping cough vaccine as it protects the baby after its born.

Wesser

Your baby is exposed to 1000 s of germs everyday and is constantly developing antibodys. Everyday your child's immune system is successfully fighting off germs.
On the day you get a vaccine, she will just be exposed to 1003 germs!!! Thl
A vaccination just gives your baby a head start if they are ever exposed to measles meningococvus or polio, the antibodies are ready to go. There is no mercury in these vaccination. This idea that a vaccine is too hard on a baby is quackery. Too hard? What does that mean any way.

smokingman

If you believe the antivaxxers, the best advice I can give is "please don't procreate".

theLuggage

Please vaccinate! They work to protect YOUR child from very serious consequences that can arise from catching the various illnesses they are designed to protect from.

They also work from a herd immunity point of view - if the majority are vaccinated then the likelihood of the illness going around in epidemics/outbreaks is limited. And by the majority it means everyone who can get should get it! There are unfortunately children who are medically advised not to get vaccines - if they are fighting cancer etc. Immunising everyone else ALSO protects the vulnerable in our society who actually CANT be vaccinated.

rainbow kirby

Pertussis is too scary in young babies not to start the schedule on time. The schedule is there for a reason, and it's even more condensed in the UK (2, 3 and 4 months rather than 2, 4 and 6 months) to get kids as much immunity as possible quickly.

pablojml

I appreciate all for taking the time to answer, it will definitely help us make the correct decision!

pablojml

shesty wrote: »

Why exactly do you think a 0-1 year old's immune system is not developed enough to stand up to a vaccine schedule developed with them in mind??.Or just 'not developed' enough?I really don't understand this argument.

I am not an expert on all this, but I was reading that Japan for example between 1975-2002 delayed the vaccine schedule until kids were 2years old, and the overall infant mortality improved to become the best in the world. This sounds to me to be an amazing argument.

Woodbrook80

I wouldn't risk it some of the diseases polio etc are awful ive even vaccinated against chicken pox.

pablojml

Woodbrook80 wrote: »

I wouldn't risk it some of the diseases polio etc are awful ive even vaccinated against chicken pox.

Thanks for your response, here's some information I've researched:

Polio: according to studies Polio cases skyrocketed after the introduction of diphteria and pertussis and mass inoculation. Polio deaths decreased from 100% to almost 30% before the vaccine was introduced, it was already in decline because sanitation improved and there was no need anymore for it. investigations of 13641 reports of Poilio vaccine events included 6464 emergency room visits and 540 deaths (in case of he oral vaccine which has been retired). Polio vaccine is done in monkeys kidney cultive, it has been found that monkey kidneys can be infected with the SV40 virus which is a cancer casing virus in humans (maybe that's why we see increasing numbers of cancer in every family?) this virus can be passed from mothers that were vaccinated down to their children. The preferred monkey used for the polio vaccine is the green monkey of Africa and these monkeys were infected with SIV (simian immunodeficiency virus, which is closely related to HIV, maybe most of the HIV cases come from this type of infected vaccines?), today the vaccine still uses monkey kidneys and fetal tissue

Chickenpox: this is considered by many experts a relatively harmless childhood disease, children who catch it develop immediate immunity in their lifetime without serious complications. In my country there used to be chickenpox parties where children were exposed to it at early ages 4-10 maybe and nothing harmful happened, maybe a week of itchiness and gone. However if this disease is caught in teenagers and adults can be harmful. Serious reactions reported to the FDA and CDC are (taken from 100.000 samples) 4%, where 14% of these serious reactions come from kids 0-12months, these "serious" reactions categorized by FDA are: death, life-threatening events, hospitalizations, persistent or significant disabilities, and others.

Some of my research about these two and own words.

Would like to hear from you guys.

bee06

Would you care to post links to this research so we can make our own minds up about the validity?

Jawgap

I'll freely admit to being ardently pro-vaccine, because I work occasionally in countries where they aren't administered and you see the misery they cause.

Also, you only have to look at the current measles outbreak to see that vaccination makes sense.

Saying that, forget what I just wrote or what you might find on the internet and go talk to your GP or the practice nurse. And bring a list of questions, concerns etc along.

pablojml

bee06 wrote: »

Would you care to post links to this research so we can make our own minds up about the validity?

Those are my own notes and lots of time spent reading in internet, I don't have all the links at hand, one book I recently read summarizes in detail all the diseases and related vaccines with its implications, it's very well documented: Vaccines: are they really safe and effective? - Neil Z. Miller.

Also wanted to mention in the case of Hepatitis B vaccine: In 1993 there was a study where doctors and pediatricians were surveyed and 87% of them said the vaccine is not necessary in newborns.

You can also research about the Merck scandal regarding their vaccines.

Jawgap

pablojml wrote: »

Those are my own notes and lots of time spent reading in internet, I don't have all the links at hand, one book I recently read summarizes in detail all the diseases and related vaccines with its implications, it's very well documented: Vaccines: are they really safe and effective? - Neil Z. Miller.

Also wanted to mention in the case of Hepatitis B vaccine: In 1993 there was a study where doctors and pediatricians were surveyed and 87% of them said the vaccine is not necessary in newborns.

You can also research about the Merck scandal regarding their vaccines.

I think when you go to review the profile of an author and Google returns quite high up the search results their entry in the "Encyclopedia of American Loons" the spider senses should start twitching.

First and foremost, he's trying to sell books and being controversial is a good way to sell a lot of books.

Second, if you liked that book maybe you'd like to read one of his other works co-authored with his daughter, Damiana Sage Miller. Apparently she "...is an intergalactic ambassador for benevolent extraterrestrials from advanced civilizations. She also receives messages from ascended masters, angels, archangels, and other beings of Light, sharing their messages of love and hope."



Seriously, GPs and nurses are your best bet.

bee06

Neil Z Miller according to his own website has a bachelors degree in Psychology nothing medical or science based. I think i’ll stick with the medical professionals and scientific studies.

Wesser

Chicken pox vaccine is not part of the childhood schedule.

Jawgap

bee06 wrote: »

Neil Z Miller according to his own website has a bachelors degree in Psychology nothing medical or science based. I think i’ll stick with the medical professionals and scientific studies.

Plus he owns the publisher - New Atlantean Books - that publishes that rubbish.

pablojml

Jawgap wrote: »

I'll freely admit to being ardently pro-vaccine, because I work occasionally in countries where they aren't administered and you see the misery they cause.

Also, you only have to look at the current measles outbreak to see that vaccination makes sense.

This is totally true and I agree with that, and what you say is on point, am I safe to assume that those countries are undeveloped countries?

However, most of these diseases are barely gone from developed countries because of sanitation practices, good nutrition and exposure to clean environment.

Measles in the US and UK was in decline, the year that the vaccine was introduced 1955, Measles had declined by 97% on its own. In 1989 for example from all the Measles outbreaks 89% of the people were vaccinated, so you tell me if the vaccine really causes immunity (1988 69% and 1995 56%). The pharmaceutical company that produces this vaccine includes a list of ailments known to have occurred: encephalitis, subcutane sclerosing panencephalitis, guillain-barree syndrome, febrile and afebrile convulsions, seizures, ataxia, ocular palsies, and many others.

Jawgap

pablojml wrote: »

This is totally true and I agree with that, and what you say is on point, am I safe to assume that those countries are undeveloped countries?

However, most of these diseases are barely gone from developed countries because of sanitation practices, good nutrition and exposure to clean environment.

Measles in the US and UK was in decline, the year that the vaccine was introduced 1955, Measles had declined by 97% on its own. In 1989 for example from all the Measles outbreaks 89% of the people were vaccinated, so you tell me if the vaccine really causes immunity (1988 69% and 1995 56%). The pharmaceutical company that produces this vaccine includes a list of ailments known to have occurred: encephalitis, subcutane sclerosing panencephalitis, guillain-barree syndrome, febrile and afebrile convulsions, seizures, ataxia, ocular palsies, and many others.

yes, they are.....and seriously, don't mind what I post, or what Mr Miller writes.....go talk to a doctor or nurse - someone actually qualified to answer your questions and talk over your concerns.

Sorry, but I'm not going to answer any of those stats unless the papers are put up so the study and the associated stats can be properly scrutinised.

EDIT: and as a 'btw' those people in those developing countries that are unvaccinated? They move around - some even fly to places like Ireland.

pablojml

bee06 wrote: »

Neil Z Miller according to his own website has a bachelors degree in Psychology nothing medical or science based. I think i’ll stick with the medical professionals and scientific studies.

You don't need to be a doctor or scientist to conduct research imo.

Jawgap

pablojml wrote: »

You don't need to be a doctor or scientist to conduct research imo.

No, you don't but it helps

pablojml

Jawgap wrote: »

Sorry, but I'm not going to answer any of those stats unless the papers are put up so the study and the associated stats can be properly scrutinised.

Check this out as well.
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM198703263161303

Jawgap

pablojml wrote: »

Check this out as well.
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM198703263161303

I did - it's from 30 years ago! So I can't access a the full article as the service I use only allows me back to 1990 in respect of the NEJM.

However, it is cited 291 times and one paper (Measles elimination: progress, challenges and implications for rubella control in the "Expert Review of Vaccines Journal) makes the point that following that event, and others, the US changed its vaccination strategy in respect of measles (moving to a double dose, instead of s single dose)......so I don't think that paper is relevant, other than to demonstrate that medical knowledge is not perfect and is always evolving.

pwurple

This is 4 months later... are your kids still not protected coming into winter with a measles outbreak going on?