So I got the Peach magazine at my door today

Hashem_Yaazor

Thu, May 15 2014, 9:44 am

For some of the diseases, at least, it's to give protection as vulnerable infants. For others, it doesn't make as much sense to me if the disease is not easily contractable at this point in time. Hep B is given very young for compliance reasons but not because children are at risk then.

What I'm waiting to hear back from amother about is if immunity would really be strong enough if given fewer doses at an older age.
I think checking titers vs blanket vaccination schedules is more prudent, personally. But for most diseases, that is not an option in terms of the board of health accepting vaccination records in school.

Scrabble123

Thu, May 15 2014, 9:55 am

amother wrote:

I have a question for the op who works in science.

We give tiny babies shots in a series 3 months, 6 months and nine months all the same shots because they are so small that it doesn't stay in their system. Why not just give it once at nine months if anyways it leaves their body and doesn't protect them why are we injecting babies do young if anyways it's not protecting them?

Me personally I just give these shots to my babies once at nine months but why are doctors doing it three times?

I'm not the amother who is a vaccinologist.

The vaccines are given at a time when they are MOST SUSCEPTIBLE to the diseases! Also, these vaccines are specially give at times when doctors want to trigger that specific immune response (when other immunity wears off). For example, if you give your child vaccinations at 9 months, she/he is no longer eligible to receive the rotavirus vaccine (which is a drink). I personally know someone who's baby had rotavirus at 2 months and was in the hospital for a long time really suffering. BTW, her baby was nursed and not in a day care setting. Your small infant needs to be protected and that is why shots are introduced when they are. Furthermore, you do know that certain shots require more than 1 to count as a series. That means that even if your child starts at 9 months, they will still need to get multiple shots, just they will no longer be eligible for the "infant" ones. For example, a complete set of polio requires 4-5 shots.

Think1st

Thu, May 15 2014, 10:06 am

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu.....hione

over 100,000 medical articles about glutathione, the foundation of our immune system, a tri-peptide produced in every cell in our bodies from 3 amino acids1 of them is bonded cysteine, minuscule quantities found in broccoli but primarily in raw proteins. the higher you heat the milk the more the amino acids get destroyed resulting in an immunodeficient population

Unless you want pop NAC pills which can be toxic at larger quantities & are made of duck feather or human hair ( from china) that's what we do to acetaminophen( tylenol) overdose patients in the ER, pump them up with glutathione via IV & some glutathione precursor orally

To Scrabble123: please explain how you came to conclude that newborn babies are more suseptible to Hep-B ?

Last edited by Think1st on Thu, May 15 2014, 10:11 am; edited 1 time in total

Scrabble123

Thu, May 15 2014, 10:10 am

Think1st wrote:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=glutathione

over 100,000 medical articles about glutathione, the foundation of our immune system, a tri-peptide produced in every cell in our bodies from 3 amino acids1 of them is bonded cysteine, minuscule quantities found in broccoli but primarily in raw proteins. the higher you heat the milk the more the amino acids get destroyed resulting in an immunodeficient population

Unless you want pop NAC pills which can be toxic at larger quantities & are made of duck feather or human hair ( from china) that's what we do to acetaminophen( tylenol) overdose patients in the ER, pump them up with glutathione via IV & some glutathione precursor orally

Think1st: I did not study how to treat and/or save patients from Tylenol overdose, but do you have another suggestion? Tylenol overdose is serious and life threatening. I do not even know if what you are claiming is true because I did not research it, but I do not believe ANYONE would mind being pumped up with Chinese hair to be saved.

amother

Thu, May 15 2014, 12:58 pm

amother wrote:

The short hand answer is to protect them young. A 9 mo old is at a lower risk of death from these disease and a lower risk of infection than an infant. That is why it is started young.

Giving one dose at 9 mo is usually not enough to acquire protective immunity. It takes a few doses. If you've ever seen a plot post-vaccination (like a specific antibody), you will notice it goes up a bit after the first vaccination. Then, it goes up lot after a boost synergistically not additively. Depending on the vaccine, there are more or less boosts. The number of boosts depends on many things. I.e. age started vaccines, live vaccine or not, route of administration. The idea is you need to get a high enough response to maintain immunity. Only a portion of the response you see goes to memory. Thus, you need to get a high response in order to "put some aside" to have a good enough memory response in case of infection. Simply, a single vaccine is often not enough.

Let me know if you need clarification.

amother

Thu, May 15 2014, 1:31 pm

I give my kids vaccinations on a delayed schedule and I found that I definitely given kids way less shots than the average kid. My doctor gave me a pamphlet of the delayed shot schedule showing you that if kids get shots at a later age what they need or don't need to be considered fully vaccinated. For example the dtap if you give the third dose after the age of four then your child doesn't need the fourth or fifth dose so I just make sure my child gets the third dose after age four.

What I appreciated about peach magazine is that it opened parents eyes to do their own research. You don't have to listen to everything they wrote but it is an eye opener for parents who never knew there was controversy behind shots.

Parents should know that they can legally delay vaccines and they don't have to give their child 5 shots in one visit.

amother

Thu, May 15 2014, 2:01 pm

Hashem_Yaazor wrote:

So, that answer I owe you... I'm nervous to post because people will take this out of context and possibly stop immunizing babies. If we don't immunize babies, more of them die from preventable disease. We see this very clearly in third world countries. There are temporary grants to vaccinate, we vaccinate and death decreases. The grant ends/vaccination ends, then, infants start dying again.

But, scientifically, here goes. Yes, if the vaccine schedule started later than we would require LESS boosters not NO boosters. The reason is because babies have an immune system that tries to prevent immune responses. Therefore, in order to bring the immune response, they require more boosters. BUT, if we stop vaccinating infants, they die more often. BUT, vaccinating them is less effective. Its a dichotomy many people in my shoes face every day. So, what should we do and how and why. Vaccinating young is less effective than vaccinating toddlers. But, without vaccines infants are at very high risks. So, what to do, what to do. I don't have the answer to this question. It is very, very difficult. It is a real question without an answer. Do we let a kid die or force a response?

Currently, the scientific community feels until we have a better alternative to protect those really, really young that die at very high rates, we have no better alternative than to vaccinate. And, that is the truth, what alternative do we have. We don't have one today, maybe in 50 years, maybe tomorrow. I don't know.

amother

Thu, May 15 2014, 4:32 pm

Think1st wrote:

I know we are sick and tired of this thread... But, your science, still:

First off, we synthesize glutathione ourselves. We do not absorb that which we eat. We can eat methionine (met) which our body then converts to cysteine (cys). met is in tons of stuff we eat. I wouldn't worry too much about this. And, since when did cooking things containing met destroy them. Why don't we start eating raw meat? That has tons of met. I think that it was dehydration that resulted in loss of met. Second, since met is essential, we would all literally drop dead if we weren't getting it, we would completely unable to synthesize any protein without it. But, we apparently are.

Now, the real trick question, since you know organic and biochemistry, please explain the actions of glutathione, its active group, how it is synthesized.

Frumdoc

Thu, May 15 2014, 7:22 pm

Think1st wrote:

Sadly you've misunderstood this as well.

Standard and best expertly proven practice for treating acetaminophen overdose is in fact intravenous NAC, which replenishes the intracellular glutathione in liver cells. And although there have been some studies of using iv glutathione in mice, it remains untested in humans compared to the proven antidote of iv Nacetylcysteine. That oral glutathione precursor you're talking about, that is oral NAC, the same drug you're calling in the yuk factor in. (I don't know how it's made, but most drugs are synthetic when produced in such large quantities, and hey, we wear Chinese hair on our heads!)

I'm sorry, but the poor comprehension Think1st has demonstrated towards such basic simple medical facts and treatments, such as NAC v glutathione, the apparent vanishing of cholera and typhoid, which remain hugely significant in worldwide medicine (I have treated many people for typhoid in my life, and even had it, it was horrific Confused

), leads me to conclude that either she is deliberately misunderstanding basic science to twist things according to her prejudicial viewpoint, or is not able to adequately interpret the evidence she is bringing to the table. Which leads to the inescapable truth that her other conclusions are equally invalid.

This is not a personal attack on someone who maybe a very nice individual, but it is an evaluation of the mistaken logical deductions made by that person who is using these factually incorrect arguments to persuade people to her viewpoint.

If someone came along, and others do, with reasonable doubt and scientifically valid and rational arguments as to whether vaccination or any other treatment, such as yearly pap exams, internals during pregnancy etc, were necessary, I would consider that a healthy attitude towards medical practice, to question, to research, to evaluate.

But to come up with a bunch of misinterpreted data and call that a conclusion when a first year med student could find the holes in it, this is not a valid argument and there is no point in the debate.

My only purpose here is to correct the medical facts on the ground, which I have done, and will continue to do.

I may continue to quote Shakespeare though, it is fun Wink

Last edited by Frumdoc on Thu, May 15 2014, 7:47 pm; edited 1 time in total

Frumdoc

Thu, May 15 2014, 7:41 pm

Here's that glutathione paper, it is about an experiment on mice.

Hey, it isn't easy to understand biochemistry, immunology or cellular physiology. It's a cutting edge science.

Hepatology. 2010 Jan;51(1):246-54. doi: 10.1002/hep.23267.

Novel mechanisms of protection against acetaminophen hepatotoxicity in mice by glutathione and N-acetylcysteine.

Saito C1, Zwingmann C, Jaeschke H.

Author information

Abstract

Acetaminophen (APAP) overdose is a major cause of acute liver failure. The glutathione (GSH) precursor N-acetylcysteine (NAC) is used to treat patients with APAP overdose for up to 48 hours. Although it is well established that early treatment with NAC can improve the scavenging of the reactive metabolite N-acetyl-p-benzoquinone imine, protective mechanisms at later times remain unclear. To address this issue, fasted C3Heb/FeJ mice were treated with 300 mg/kg APAP and then received intravenously 0.65 mmol/kg GSH or NAC at 1.5 hours after APAP. The animals were sacrificed at 6 hours. APAP alone caused severe liver injury with peroxynitrite formation and DNA fragmentation, all of which was attenuated by both treatments. However, GSH (-82%) was more effective than NAC (-46%) in preventing liver injury. Using nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy to measure tissue adenosine triphosphate (ATP) levels and the substrate flux through the mitochondrial Krebs cycle, it was observed that the reduced liver injury correlated with accelerated recovery of mitochondrial GSH content, maintenance of ATP levels, and an increased substrate supply for the mitochondrial Krebs cycle compared with APAP alone. NAC treatment was less effective in recovering ATP and mitochondrial GSH levels and showed reduced substrate flux through the Krebs cycle compared with GSH. However, increasing the dose of NAC improved the protective effect similar to GSH, suggesting that the amino acids not used for GSH synthesis were used as mitochondrial energy substrates.

CONCLUSION:

Delayed treatment with GSH and NAC protect against APAP overdose by dual mechanisms-that is, by enhancing hepatic and mitochondrial GSH levels (scavenging of reactive oxygen and peroxynitrite)-and by supporting the mitochondrial energy metabolism.

Hashem_Yaazor

Thu, May 15 2014, 9:31 pm

amother wrote:

Thanks, I am glad to know I'm not the only one who sees this in shades of gray Wink

Would it therefore in your opinion be wrong for a parent to make an individual decision for her child and pick and choose which vaccines her infant gets and waiting a bit based on the reality of her lifestyle and region, after confirming with her doctor what the actual risks of each disease is, instead of giving everything at the exact time it is listed on the schedule for the global vaccination needs?

This is what I've been posting about -- not vaccinations, but the vaccine schedule, which leads people to believe I am anti-vaccine. I understand globally, giving something like Hep B to newborns ensures those who need the protection from birth will get it. But for those of us who feel the risk of Hep B being contracted by our babies is miniscule, can we really say it's wrong to forgo that at 24 hours, 2 months, etc? What about diseases no longer prevalent in America? (Before everyone discusses ethics in terms of "everyone else vaccinated which gives you the privilege of not thinking your kid will contract it", let me remind you that the current vaccine schedule has so many other vaccines in it these days that we ARE battling against, and I do not feel it's wrong to do different things at different times in history, but I digress with my pre-empting...)
For example, I do believe polio is important to keep at bay. However, I do not believe a baby at 2 months old in America in this decade must have the vaccine given then, not for the "greater good" nor for individual protection. I do believe delaying that will still provide the needed benefits for where we are now. Do you believe it's medically irresponsible to do such a thing?

Last edited by Hashem_Yaazor on Thu, May 15 2014, 11:04 pm; edited 1 time in total

amother

Fri, May 16 2014, 2:55 am

Hashem_Yaazor wrote:

Thanks, I am glad to know I'm not the only one who sees this in shades of gray Wink

I wonder if within the Jewish community it makes sense to only look at our geographical location because we have such a high rate of population exchange between countries.
If the polio in Syria crossed the border to Israel, would you change your opinion regarding the urgency if the vaccine?