dannylion
Junior Associate
Gravity is a harsh mistress
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 12:17:52 GMT -5
Posts: 5,197
Location: Miles over the madness horizon and accelerating
|
Post by dannylion on Mar 12, 2019 13:57:38 GMT -5
A "dose" is not a specific, absolute measurement. So three "doses" does not automatically mean 50% more medication than 2 "doses." It depends on the formulation of the individual doses, which are likely different for the 2 versions.
|
|
oped
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 20, 2018 20:49:12 GMT -5
Posts: 4,676
|
Post by oped on Mar 12, 2019 13:59:15 GMT -5
|
|
oped
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 20, 2018 20:49:12 GMT -5
Posts: 4,676
|
Post by oped on Mar 12, 2019 14:04:41 GMT -5
Actually, no. Studies are ongoing and a lot of times, if you look at the actual research, a best guess. Rarely does research explicitly replicate to an incontrovertible degree...
Yes. Vaccines change. That was the point i was making.
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Mar 12, 2019 14:17:38 GMT -5
Yeah, but where's the part that says 3 doses are harmful?
I've never said their infallible. And I'm well aware that science changes (kind of why we have more vaccines now than 40 years ago). But focusing on the number of times you're stuck with a needle as an inherently bad thing and reason to think twice about vaccines...that seems like an odd thing to hang your "pharma can be bad people" hat on. I'm not aware of anything legit that says X doses of a vaccine are fine but after Y problems start, it's just that there's not further effectiveness from additional doses and such a waste of vaccine. It's why often doctors just stick with you DTaP when you step on a rusty nail rather than take the time to check your titre. If it is an extra dose, there's not harm in having that done.
|
|
TheOtherMe
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 14:40:52 GMT -5
Posts: 27,262
Mini-Profile Name Color: e619e6
|
Post by TheOtherMe on Mar 12, 2019 14:38:56 GMT -5
I had the Hep C vaccine at my welcome to Medicare physical. I tested negative for it, so I got the vaccine.
Many people in the boomer generation are carriers of Hep C and I have watched a friend die from it.
|
|
steph08
Junior Associate
Joined: Jan 3, 2011 13:06:01 GMT -5
Posts: 5,458
|
Post by steph08 on Mar 12, 2019 14:49:54 GMT -5
My kids got their vaccines on schedule.
The 2-month shots were the hardest (first DTaP). Oh my goodness, the crying and uncomfortableness and wanting to be held all night. It was bad.
You know what would be worse? Watching my kid suffer and/or die from a totally preventable disease.
At my oldest daughter's four-year-old well visit last year, my pediatrician said they are done with vaccines (except for yearly flu shot) until they are 11. But besides those 2-month shots, my kids haven't had any adverse reactions.
|
|
oped
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 20, 2018 20:49:12 GMT -5
Posts: 4,676
|
Post by oped on Mar 12, 2019 15:57:47 GMT -5
Yeah, but where's the part that says 3 doses are harmful? I've never said their infallible. And I'm well aware that science changes (kind of why we have more vaccines now than 40 years ago). But focusing on the number of times you're stuck with a needle as an inherently bad thing and reason to think twice about vaccines...that seems like an odd thing to hang your "pharma can be bad people" hat on. I'm not aware of anything legit that says X doses of a vaccine are fine but after Y problems start, it's just that there's not further effectiveness from additional doses and such a waste of vaccine. It's why often doctors just stick with you DTaP when you step on a rusty nail rather than take the time to check your titre. If it is an extra dose, there's not harm in having that done. Moving the goalposts? The issue was flexibility in scheduling and you said it had to be backed up with research and yes people can use research to justify flexibility in scheduling. And yes it has been repeatedly suggested here that there is something pristine and totally conclusive about the current schedule which should not deviated from and anyone who does is emotional and not logical. Who is focusing on being stuck with a needle?
|
|
oped
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 20, 2018 20:49:12 GMT -5
Posts: 4,676
|
Post by oped on Mar 12, 2019 16:05:56 GMT -5
My kids got their vaccines on schedule. The 2-month shots were the hardest (first DTaP). Oh my goodness, the crying and uncomfortableness and wanting to be held all night. It was bad. You know what would be worse? Watching my kid suffer and/or die from a totally preventable disease. At my oldest daughter's four-year-old well visit last year, my pediatrician said they are done with vaccines (except for yearly flu shot) until they are 11. But besides those 2-month shots, my kids haven't had any adverse reactions. Who is being emotional now? This idea that if you don't give an infant an Hep B shot then they will 'die of a totally preventable disease'... that's histrionic.
|
|
lynnerself
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 3, 2011 11:42:29 GMT -5
Posts: 4,166
|
Post by lynnerself on Mar 12, 2019 16:07:18 GMT -5
I had the Hep C vaccine at my welcome to Medicare physical. I tested negative for it, so I got the vaccine. Many people in the boomer generation are carriers of Hep C and I have watched a friend die from it. When did the Hep C Vaccine become available? Last I knew they were still working on it.
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Mar 12, 2019 16:14:47 GMT -5
Yeah, but where's the part that says 3 doses are harmful? I've never said their infallible. And I'm well aware that science changes (kind of why we have more vaccines now than 40 years ago). But focusing on the number of times you're stuck with a needle as an inherently bad thing and reason to think twice about vaccines...that seems like an odd thing to hang your "pharma can be bad people" hat on. I'm not aware of anything legit that says X doses of a vaccine are fine but after Y problems start, it's just that there's not further effectiveness from additional doses and such a waste of vaccine. It's why often doctors just stick with you DTaP when you step on a rusty nail rather than take the time to check your titre. If it is an extra dose, there's not harm in having that done. Moving the goalposts? The issue was flexibility in scheduling and you said it had to be backed up with research and yes people can use research to justify flexibility in scheduling. And yes it has been repeatedly suggested here that there is something pristine and totally conclusive about the current schedule which should not deviated from and anyone who does is emotional and not logical. Who is focusing on being stuck with a needle? I'm not moving the goal posts. You're the one that's posted several time about the "24 vaccines" kids get before 2 now. Which has been one of the many things I've responded with. And of the studies you've linked the only one regarding # of doses was the HPV one saying 2 might be as effective as 3. Which is what I was responding with. You never only posted about a flexible vaccine schedule. You definitely questioned whether they needed "24 vaccines".
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Mar 12, 2019 16:17:32 GMT -5
My kids got their vaccines on schedule. The 2-month shots were the hardest (first DTaP). Oh my goodness, the crying and uncomfortableness and wanting to be held all night. It was bad. You know what would be worse? Watching my kid suffer and/or die from a totally preventable disease. At my oldest daughter's four-year-old well visit last year, my pediatrician said they are done with vaccines (except for yearly flu shot) until they are 11. But besides those 2-month shots, my kids haven't had any adverse reactions. Who is being emotional now? This idea that if you don't give an infant an Hep B shot then they will 'die of a totally preventable disease'... that's histrionic. Death is most assuredly a possibility from Hep B. You can argue on the chance of it, but it's not histrionic to say that if someone was one of the 3000 people that die from Hep B in the US a year that it you 'died from a totally preventable disease'.
|
|
oped
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 20, 2018 20:49:12 GMT -5
Posts: 4,676
|
Post by oped on Mar 12, 2019 16:20:29 GMT -5
Why they needed that number BY THE AGE OF TWO...
My ENTIRE posting has been about flexible scheduling and allowing parents to make decisions on scheduling and taking an individual approach that recognized that not all kids react to things the same way as others and going from there.
My first post on this thread was that my kids have had them all... actually they had Hep A long before it was on the schedule because it was recommended... WHEN we needed it... That they tolerated them well and we had them all, if not all 'on schedule' because they did tolerate them well and so there was no reason not to do so. Until they were old enough to make their own decisions (with the knowledge they had always tolerated them well).
|
|
oped
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 20, 2018 20:49:12 GMT -5
Posts: 4,676
|
Post by oped on Mar 12, 2019 16:21:42 GMT -5
Who is being emotional now? This idea that if you don't give an infant an Hep B shot then they will 'die of a totally preventable disease'... that's histrionic. Death is most assuredly a possibility from Hep B. You can argue on the chance of it, but it's not histrionic to say that if someone was one of the 3000 people that die from Hep B in the US a year that it you 'died from a totally preventable disease'. Please share the stats on infant mortality in the united states from Hep B prior to immunization protocols...
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Mar 12, 2019 16:25:18 GMT -5
Death is most assuredly a possibility from Hep B. You can argue on the chance of it, but it's not histrionic to say that if someone was one of the 3000 people that die from Hep B in the US a year that it you 'died from a totally preventable disease'. Please share the stats on infant mortality from Hep B prior to immunization protocols... Steph did not say the kid "was likely to die". Nor that the kid had a good chance of it. Either of those would be histrionic. She merely stated she would feel horrible if the kid DID die and it IS possible to die from Hep B so not a histrionic statement.
|
|
TheOtherMe
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 14:40:52 GMT -5
Posts: 27,262
Mini-Profile Name Color: e619e6
|
Post by TheOtherMe on Mar 12, 2019 16:29:35 GMT -5
I had the Hep C vaccine at my welcome to Medicare physical. I tested negative for it, so I got the vaccine. Many people in the boomer generation are carriers of Hep C and I have watched a friend die from it. When did the Hep C Vaccine become available? Last I knew they were still working on it. Sorry. I misspoke. I had the blood test only. Sorry.
|
|
oped
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 20, 2018 20:49:12 GMT -5
Posts: 4,676
|
Post by oped on Mar 12, 2019 16:38:17 GMT -5
So, anyone who doesn't vaccinate on schedule for any reason is inherently emotional and irrational... but as long as you vaccinate you can make any claim, however unlikely or unrealistic, and it is totally sane and rational. Got it.
Did you go back and reread and see that I did indeed only discuss flexible scheduling on this thread?
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Mar 12, 2019 16:59:47 GMT -5
So, anyone who doesn't vaccinate on schedule for any reason is inherently emotional and irrational... but as long as you vaccinate you can make any claim, however unlikely or unrealistic, and it is totally sane and rational. Got it. Did you go back and reread and see that I did indeed only discuss flexible scheduling on this thread? It's not a claim because it does happen. And she didn't say that she got it because her kid was going to die without it. She merely stated that if the worst case scenario happened - and said nothing to the likelihood of that happening - she wouldn't forgive herself. Your flexible scheduling was based on the remark of why kids needed "24 vaccines" in 2 years. I've seen is that you wanted to make sure your kids react weird and you don't see a reason to vaccinate those particular diseases at that particular age because your kids aren't homeless. I didn't extensively read all the links you posted - but at least one had nothing to do with a vaccine that is given in the first two years (HPV) and entirely deals with not needing as many doses and nothing to do with an alternative schedule. Regarding Hep B - it's a small case study and didn't make any claims to refute vaccinating early it was whether the vaccine lasts throughout ones life -- nothing in the study included looking at those who were vaccinated later in life and if it lasted for more time than those vaccinated in infancy so drawing conclusions that Hep B in infants is somehow bad and should be left until they're old is not something you can even remotely draw. As for your polio study - you do realize that the "alternative schedule" was only waiting until 28 WEEKS right? So the study only proved an alternative schedule still within the first 2 years which you are against. So none of them point to any benefit of a flexible schedule to the degree you were talking about.
|
|
oped
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 20, 2018 20:49:12 GMT -5
Posts: 4,676
|
Post by oped on Mar 12, 2019 17:18:32 GMT -5
From my first post to my last it has been all about flexible scheduling.
And i said when i posted them, those were the first three from google scholar i picked related to the topic. I wasn't trying to make any specific point beyond the fact that there is not irrefutable evidence that the current schedule must be adhered to with strict vigilance or everyone is doomed.
No. Babies dying of Hep B in the US didn't happen really happen any more than people dying of, i don't know... walking to the playground alone?. The only possibility is if you count that of the .03% of children who contracted Hep B, 1/4 might die of kidney or liver related issues in adulthood. And again, that % was more like .01% if you were white and didn't look at any other demographics.
Its just funny that anyone who has a concern about vaccinations in their specific situation and wants to deviate from the currently accepted norms is emotional and irrational, but nothing is emotional or irrational from the other side...
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Mar 12, 2019 18:53:21 GMT -5
No one said there was no emotion on the other side. But the one side has what could happen without them - regardless of how small. Yet the argument for flexible schedule...is what scientifically? There's no reason to delay unless there is a negative to following the schedule. If there's no negative then it's feelings and emotions over science.
And I'm not just buying what the CDC says hook line and sinker either. I've randomly googled a few European countries and they all do the vaccines on a quicker schedule than ours. They seem to be finishing around 12-14 months instead of spreading it out over 24 months.
|
|
steph08
Junior Associate
Joined: Jan 3, 2011 13:06:01 GMT -5
Posts: 5,458
|
Post by steph08 on Mar 12, 2019 19:16:29 GMT -5
I wasn't being emotional or anything. Seriously. It was just a post to this whole thread.
I had a boxer once, who had adverse reactions to vaccines. The Leptospirosis vaccine, I believe. His head blew up like a balloon and wouldn't go away with benadryl. We had to go back to the vet for a steroid shot. From then on, he didn't get combo vaccines that contained lepto. He got each shot individually, spaced out. Cost me a little more money and more time, but he didn't have any other reactions.
I can see doing that with children, if your child is sensitive to combo vaccines or has reactions outside the norm. But other than that, I think the protocol should be followed.
Call me emotional or a sheep or whatever you want. I know that my kids are protected as much as they can be.
|
|
oped
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 20, 2018 20:49:12 GMT -5
Posts: 4,676
|
Post by oped on Mar 12, 2019 19:43:25 GMT -5
The UK added Hep B in 2017. They also booster differently than we do. they don't do varacella and pertussis is given to mothers. etc. just simple examples of how people do things differently and a single protocol is not the end all be all.
No. It isn't, hey prove what i want is worse, or you have to do my thing. If there is no problem with doing my thing, i can do that. And the whole point is... if the only two choices become some kind of mandatory on the date follow the protocol as dictated by government, or everyone decides for themselves if they do or not... i'm going to have to go with the anti-vaxers. And its a shame that is the black and white line that is being suggested. I hope it doesn't become anyone's active policy initiative.
If you think the protocol should be followed, follow it. Just don't say that its mandatory that that exact timeline be followed and don't suggest that anyone who follows an alternative or flexible schedule is irrational and illogical. I have perfectly logical and rational reasons for what I do... and they required more thought and research than just doing what a governing body recommends for the general public.
I didn't say you were sheep. I said that it makes no sense to suggest it is logical and rational to say you have to give an infant a Hep B vaccine because they might die without it... when that just does not happen in the real world... but then to say it is illogical and irrational to follow a flexible vaccination schedule.
|
|
oped
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 20, 2018 20:49:12 GMT -5
Posts: 4,676
|
Post by oped on Mar 12, 2019 19:50:52 GMT -5
No one said there was no emotion on the other side. But the one side has what could happen without them - regardless of how small. Yet the argument for flexible schedule...is what scientifically? There's no reason to delay unless there is a negative to following the schedule. If there's no negative then it's feelings and emotions over science. And I'm not just buying what the CDC says hook line and sinker either. I've randomly googled a few European countries and they all do the vaccines on a quicker schedule than ours. They seem to be finishing around 12-14 months instead of spreading it out over 24 months. I'm trying to decide what your end game is here and i really just can't figure it out?
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Mar 12, 2019 20:13:50 GMT -5
No one said there was no emotion on the other side. But the one side has what could happen without them - regardless of how small. Yet the argument for flexible schedule...is what scientifically? There's no reason to delay unless there is a negative to following the schedule. If there's no negative then it's feelings and emotions over science. And I'm not just buying what the CDC says hook line and sinker either. I've randomly googled a few European countries and they all do the vaccines on a quicker schedule than ours. They seem to be finishing around 12-14 months instead of spreading it out over 24 months. I'm trying to decide what your end game is here and i really just can't figure it out? The studies that support why a flexible schedule is better than following it. You seem to think I'm wrong when I say it's not based in science. So I'd like to be pointed towards the reasoning.
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Mar 12, 2019 20:17:17 GMT -5
|
|
oped
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 20, 2018 20:49:12 GMT -5
Posts: 4,676
|
Post by oped on Mar 12, 2019 20:40:11 GMT -5
I'm trying to decide what your end game is here and i really just can't figure it out? The studies that support why a flexible schedule is better than following it. You seem to think I'm wrong when I say it's not based in science. So I'd like to be pointed towards the reasoning. I'm unclear. When did i say science was wrong. I said it is not incontrovertible. It is constantly changing. Not everyone interprets it the same way (thus differences in how different countries handle their protocols). That there is scientific evidence that different scheduling, fewer doses, etc. can be as effective as the current protocol. That if someone has concerns about their own specific situation there is nothing inherently illogical or irrational about taking a flexible schedule and treating each child as an individual rather than following general schedule recommendations. A flexible schedule doesn't have to be better. It just has to be able to be applied as effectively, and there is no evidence that it cannot be. Seriously, the only thing i can figure you hope to gain is that somehow you will convince me i am irrational and illogical because i view this differently than you do? I also don't get annual mammograms and would never go on cholesterol meds if they were recommended to me... because the evidence just doesn't support the protocols and for me it doesn't make sense. But vaccinate on schedule if you want, get all the mammograms you want, take cholesterol meds.... I don't care. The issue i've tried to bring up is that this hard line, that anyone who doesn't immediately bow down to the current USA vaccination schedule protocol is irrational and illogical and that everyone should do it exactly as they spell it out, no matter what... is that this draws dividing lines where they should not exist, in my opinion, and could be detrimental to the whole cause if they persist.
|
|
|
Post by The Walk of the Penguin Mich on Mar 13, 2019 0:09:40 GMT -5
|
|
oped
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 20, 2018 20:49:12 GMT -5
Posts: 4,676
|
Post by oped on Mar 13, 2019 7:51:44 GMT -5
That's interesting Mich. Like with most things, i doubt any of this is explainable by one cause. Too many things correlate and I'm guessing that it is most likely a combination of many things that results in things like increases in autism and allergies. Some of them are environmental, some physiological, some social, etc. and we gather perfect storms.
|
|
|
Post by The Walk of the Penguin Mich on Mar 13, 2019 10:59:17 GMT -5
That's interesting Mich. Like with most things, i doubt any of this is explainable by one cause. Too many things correlate and I'm guessing that it is most likely a combination of many things that results in things like increases in autism and allergies. Some of them are environmental, some physiological, some social, etc. and we gather perfect storms. I didn’t say it was. But most people consider cleaner is better and this is not necessarily so. My point in posting this is that our immune systems are bombarded by antigens 24/7, not only b6 injecting it under our skin, but what we breathe, eat, hits our eyes and noses, genitals and any other mucosal tissues. All of these contain systems of immunity that allow us to mount an immune response. So assuming that a single dose of an antigen injected under your skin is too much for our immune systems is a fallacy. Here is an example.....each time you get your teeth cleaned, you effectively immunize yourself with roughly 700 different species of microbes at that time. You can very clearly demonstrate this by doing a pre and 3 month post cleaning blood draw (some of my very early research). It happens to a lesser extent when you brush your teeth too. Just because it is a needle going under the skin, it is merely a more controlled way of exposing an immune system to a microbe. Incidentally, this also occurs once your child gets its first tooth. Infants quickly mount immune responses to those bacteria in their blood once their first tooth appears, and usually it has similar patterns of their primary caregiver. So while there is some flexibility in immunizations, there is really no flexibility in getting kids in regularly for immunizations.....especially when they need a series of immunizations, like for DTaP and Hep B. Once a kid reaches the age of around 1-2, they start being taken to the doctor only yearly for well child exams, and the idea of getting them into the doctor 3 times in 6 months becomes more difficult. Any other visits to a doctor are usually those for illnesses, which is not an appropriate time for vaccinations.
|
|
raeoflyte
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 3, 2011 15:43:53 GMT -5
Posts: 14,754
|
Post by raeoflyte on Mar 13, 2019 11:08:06 GMT -5
We did the delayed schedule with dd. I didn't like giving ds 5 shots in 1 day (oh the irony!), so we spaced hers out, but she still had everything "on time" just a few extra visits.
There is research that says that getting the flu might be one of, or the last trigger that causes T1D when you have all the other triggers. That fits with ds, and we get flu shots, but that year he got it literally days before his appointment for the vaccine.
|
|
|
Post by The Walk of the Penguin Mich on Mar 13, 2019 11:43:19 GMT -5
We did the delayed schedule with dd. I didn't like giving ds 5 shots in 1 day (oh the irony!), so we spaced hers out, but she still had everything "on time" just a few extra visits. There is research that says that getting the flu might be one of, or the last trigger that causes T1D when you have all the other triggers. That fits with ds, and we get flu shots, but that year he got it literally days before his appointment for the vaccine. Did your ped have a well baby day to get infants in for immunizations, or were you with the rest of the ped population in the waiting room? More visits to the peds = more exposure to disease. I remember needing to go to the ped because I was sick.....really sick. I had turned 12 the day before, and was most insulted that I was still at the baby doctor. So while I waited, my mom had dragged me to the far corner of the waiting room, away from all the kids/toddlers, but it didn’t stop the mobile kids from doing drive bys near us. As it turned out, I had a massive case of scarlet fever. I wondered if I ever infected any of those kids.
|
|