 |
|
 |
 |
|
|
Forum
-> Parenting our children
amother
|
 Fri, May 16 2014, 12:00 pm
| Hashem_Yaazor wrote: | Thanks, I am glad to know I'm not the only one who sees this in shades of gray 
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? |
Like I said, I was nervous to post that answer for this reason...
No, I do not think it is prudent to make individual assessments based of individual disease risk. Let me explain why through a made up scenario: We stop giving rotavirus to all children under the age of 1. Then, the population in total is at a significantly higher risk for a rotavirus outbreak because there are fewer immune individuals. Because the risk for an outbreak increases drastically and because rotavirus isn't too far away from us, c''v it happens. (All developing countries are endemic to rota and 2nd world is a mix. Migration and emigration along with providing help bring it in. MERS with such a low incidence and emerged only 1 year age is already in the USA.) Then what? All the babies and immunocompramised people die or suffer. Rotavirus mortality is really only in infants, immunocompramised and old. We can't all start making assessments like that. If you say, it is only you not vaccinating young and everyone else in your place does so that the population's risk will not change, that is wrong. We don't rely on others to complete our responsibilities. We all have to vaccinate. Vaccination is amazing. But, like I said it isn't that easy because an infant's immune system is so different. Like I said we have nothing better than vaccination today. If we had something equivalent for the infants, I'd be a supporter. But, we don't.
If you want to say, based on USA epidemiology, I'd like to skip for this age. Let's talk about MERS. The MERS virus is similar to SARS except that it emerged in Saudi Arabia only one year ago. Fatality rate is 25%. In one year, it has spread to five other countries. Now, it is in the USA. One person brought it back in a visit to Egypt. Healthcare workers were infected. (Many Jews work in hospitals and this would result in exposures.) They were sent home to see if they were infected after diagnosis. All looked good and they came back to work. Then, one started showing symptoms... He had at that point seen patients, neighbors and family. Now what? They all need to be watched for MERS. Remember as of yet 1/4 has died from MERS.
The SARS outbreak started by one guy getting on a plane.
Now let's apply to polio. Live infective polio virus has already been found in israel. How many of us know people that go back and forth? How many of us will sit on planes? How many of us will see the same health care workers?
I'm trying to say your risk assessments have fault.
| |
|
| Back to top |
 0
 2
|
amother
|
Fri, May 16 2014, 12:48 pm
| Hashem_Yaazor wrote: | Thanks, I am glad to know I'm not the only one who sees this in shades of gray
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? |
I most assuredly don't think that it's irresponsible to consider the particular circumstances of your family, based on the scientific evidence, and giving a physician whom you trust a voice (although not necessarily a veto), in making any medical decision.
Let's take HepB for example. A family may read up on the vaccine, and the reasons its given at birth. Consider their own family circumstances. Discuss with their doctors the potential risks of not vaccinating at that age. Weigh those risks against other factors. Then decide that postponing the vaccine is a better decision for them. That is, however, light years away from saying "my baby's not having z3x," and inserting a mocking emoticon.
Or let's take Gardasil. The vaccine is only effective for a relatively short time frame (IIRC). My young teen sons are neither s3xually active nor even dating. No matter how small the risks, I'm not seeing any potential benefits at this time. I feel different for my daughters. And if I were in a different culture, where it would be more likely that my sons would be s3xually active before age 18, I might feel differently.
At the same time, I reserve the right to think their decisions are wrong. There are some diseases that are either so dangerous or so debilitating that I do believe that most decisions to delay or not vaccinate are wrong-headed. Pertussis, for example. And, of course, I object to decisions made on junk science or falsified/misconstrued statistics. A decision not to vaccinate -- or to vaccinate, for that matter -- should be based on real facts. Not on fear, falsified studies, or screeds by Playboy models.
There's plenty of room for gray. There's plenty of room for debate about the need for and efficacy of vaccines. But no one has done the anti-vaccination cause any favors in this most recent debate. (Except for you ... except you're not really anti-vax.)
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
3
|
Scrabble123
|
Fri, May 16 2014, 12:52 pm
| amother wrote: | I most assuredly don't think that it's irresponsible to consider the particular circumstances of your family, based on the scientific evidence, and giving a physician whom you trust a voice (although not necessarily a veto), in making any medical decision.
Let's take HepB for example. A family may read up on the vaccine, and the reasons its given at birth. Consider their own family circumstances. Discuss with their doctors the potential risks of not vaccinating at that age. Weigh those risks against other factors. Then decide that postponing the vaccine is a better decision for them. That is, however, light years away from saying "my baby's not having z3x," and inserting a mocking emoticon.
Or let's take Gardasil. The vaccine is only effective for a relatively short time frame (IIRC). My young teen sons are neither s3xually active nor even dating. No matter how small the risks, I'm not seeing any potential benefits at this time. I feel different for my daughters. And if I were in a different culture, where it would be more likely that my sons would be s3xually active before age 18, I might feel differently.
At the same time, I reserve the right to think their decisions are wrong. There are some diseases that are either so dangerous or so debilitating that I do believe that most decisions to delay or not vaccinate are wrong-headed. Pertussis, for example. And, of course, I object to decisions made on junk science or falsified/misconstrued statistics. A decision not to vaccinate -- or to vaccinate, for that matter -- should be based on real facts. Not on fear, falsified studies, or screeds by Playboy models.
There's plenty of room for gray. There's plenty of room for debate about the need for and efficacy of vaccines. But no one has done the anti-vaccination cause any favors in this most recent debate. (Except for you ... except you're not really anti-vax.) |
I think it would have been appropriate to state that you are not the amother the question was directed to. We are all interested I'm your opinion, and want to hear the answer, but since this question was directed to the neonatal vaccinologist, I feel it is important to state you are not her before answering.
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
1
|
amother
|
Fri, May 16 2014, 1:13 pm
| amother wrote: | I most assuredly don't think that it's irresponsible to consider the particular circumstances of your family, based on the scientific evidence, and giving a physician whom you trust a voice (although not necessarily a veto), in making any medical decision.
Let's take HepB for example. A family may read up on the vaccine, and the reasons its given at birth. Consider their own family circumstances. Discuss with their doctors the potential risks of not vaccinating at that age. Weigh those risks against other factors. Then decide that postponing the vaccine is a better decision for them. That is, however, light years away from saying "my baby's not having z3x," and inserting a mocking emoticon.
Or let's take Gardasil. The vaccine is only effective for a relatively short time frame (IIRC). My young teen sons are neither s3xually active nor even dating. No matter how small the risks, I'm not seeing any potential benefits at this time. I feel different for my daughters. And if I were in a different culture, where it would be more likely that my sons would be s3xually active before age 18, I might feel differently.
At the same time, I reserve the right to think their decisions are wrong. There are some diseases that are either so dangerous or so debilitating that I do believe that most decisions to delay or not vaccinate are wrong-headed. Pertussis, for example. And, of course, I object to decisions made on junk science or falsified/misconstrued statistics. A decision not to vaccinate -- or to vaccinate, for that matter -- should be based on real facts. Not on fear, falsified studies, or screeds by Playboy models.
There's plenty of room for gray. There's plenty of room for debate about the need for and efficacy of vaccines. But no one has done the anti-vaccination cause any favors in this most recent debate. (Except for you ... except you're not really anti-vax.) |
Yes, that is true -the person who wrote this was not immunologist amother who works in vaccine development. But, she was responding to me who is that. Just to be clear, this amother is clearly not working in anything related to science.
I was answering Hashem Yaazor because she is very nice and respectful. She wants to understand the scientific point of view. I can maybe portray a taste of that.
But, can pple here please stop saying HepB is only contracted through STD mechanisms!?! Please! It just shows you don't understand what you are talking about.
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
2
|
amother
|
Fri, May 16 2014, 1:14 pm
Oh, from now on, when I state facts, I will write who I am.
-amother in vaccine development!
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
0
|
Think1st
|
Fri, May 16 2014, 1:37 pm
| amother wrote: | Yes, that is true -the person who wrote this was not immunologist amother who works in vaccine development. But, she was responding to me who is that. Just to be clear, this amother is clearly not working in anything related to science.
I was answering Hashem Yaazor because she is very nice and respectful. She wants to understand the scientific point of view. I can maybe portray a taste of that.
But, can pple here please stop saying HepB is only contracted through STD mechanisms!?! Please! It just shows you don't understand what you are talking about. |
I agree with you HepB it is not only an STD, AIDS can also be contracted via an open wound in cotact with contaminated blood altough that is far from majority.
But you can't have it both ways claim that is not an STD, then try to push it on minors without parental consent with the excuse that is an STD. Like this proposed law
http://assembly.state.ny.us/le.....ext=Y
It is imperative that we promote protection against often fatal diseases to those who will most benefit from that protection. By allowing health care professionals to administer immunization against
HPV, hepatitis B, and other STD to persons under the age of eighteen without the consent or knowledge of a parent or guardian, this legislation promotes the health and well being of
persons at a most critical juncture in their lives: prior to being
s--ually active and prior to exposure to viruses we know are linked to
deadly diseases.
Is there no limit to the drug-pushers & their puppets' CHUTZPAH?
Famous Lakewood MD in weekly magazine op-ed, in response to anti-vax magazine references are fabricated Shocked . Anyone who has the peach mag can you please check out any random reference & notify us of your results Laughing
Is that little bit of integrity to much to expect of a frum Doc
| |
|
| Back to top |
1
0
|
Frumdoc
|
Fri, May 16 2014, 2:08 pm
| Think1st wrote: |
Famous Lakewood MD in weekly magazine op-ed, in response to anti-vax magazine references are fabricated Shocked . Anyone who has the peach mag can you please check out any random reference & notify us of your results Laughing
Is that little bit of integrity to much to expect of a frum Doc |
Sorry, is this English? Your sentence structure has broken down to the point of complete incomprehensibly?
Good shabbos, why don't you give this a rest for the next few days and think about something else?
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
8
|
Scrabble123
|
Fri, May 16 2014, 2:19 pm
| amother wrote: | Oh, from now on, when I state facts, I will write who I am.
-amother in vaccine development! |
The reason I posted that was because people will look to you for guidance/advice in this area because of your experience and credentials. It just gets so confusing with all of the smothers. I meant no offense to neither you nor the other amother.
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
0
|
amother
|
Fri, May 16 2014, 2:31 pm
Just so you know, I will not respond to anything you say (other than this comment to inform you). I am tired of the insults to me and everyone else here.
PS. It was perhaps funny and just ridiculous until that insult about my mother. I took that very, very personally considering she passed away when I was a teen. No, I am not mochel you for making a smart comment like that. It was not cute, it was not funny.
-amother who works in vaccine development (with pride)!
| |
|
| Back to top |
7
6
|
amother
|
Fri, May 16 2014, 2:32 pm
| Scrabble123 wrote: | | The reason I posted that was because people will look to you for guidance/advice in this area because of your experience and credentials. It just gets so confusing with all of the smothers. I meant no offense to neither you nor the other amother. |
Understood. Agreed! Thank you.
-amother in vaccine development.
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
0
|
amother
|
Fri, May 16 2014, 2:51 pm
Dear amother in vaccine development, do you know if it's possible to get the MMR in divided form? My doctor said he didn't think so but would call his rep to find out. I am looking to give my baby vaccines for measles, mumps and rubella in 2 or 3 shots instead of 1.
-new amother
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
1
|
amother
|
Fri, May 16 2014, 3:02 pm
| amother wrote: | Dear amother in vaccine development, do you know if it's possible to get the MMR in divided form? My doctor said he didn't think so but would call his rep to find out. I am looking to give my baby vaccines for measles, mumps and rubella in 2 or 3 shots instead of 1.
-new amother |
While, this was possible a while ago, I believe the companies unfortunately stopped making it. I do not know if they will start producing it again or if they already have started to produce it again. Your ped should be able to find that out for you. If it makes you feel more comfortable and its available, go for it.
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
0
|
amother
|
Fri, May 16 2014, 3:05 pm
| amother wrote: | | While, this was possible a while ago, I believe the companies unfortunately stopped making it. I do not know if they will start producing it again or if they already have started to produce it again. Your ped should be able to find that out for you. If it makes you feel more comfortable and its available, go for it. |
Thank you!
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
0
|
Think1st
|
Fri, May 16 2014, 6:05 pm
The MMR as 3 individual vaccines was discontinued, "coincidentally" shortly after Dr Andrew Wakefield recommended that until we research the matter further we should go back to the individual shot some time apart , for daring to say we need to investigate the sacred cow he was lynched
Retracted Lancet article
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(97)11096-0/fulltext
We did not prove an association between measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine and the syndrome described. Virological studies are underway that may help to resolve this issue.
If there is a causal link between measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine and this syndrome, a rising incidence might be anticipated after the introduction of this vaccine in the UK in 1988. Published evidence is inadequate to show whether there is a change in incidence22 or a link with measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine.23 A genetic predisposition to autistic-spectrum disorders is suggested by over-representation in boys and a greater concordance rate in monozygotic than in dizygotic twins.15 In the context of susceptibility to infection, a genetic association with autism, linked to a null allele of the complement (C) 4B gene located in the class III region of the major-histocompatibility complex, has been recorded by Warren and colleagues.24C4B-gene products are crucial for the activation of the complement pathway and protection against infection: individuals inheriting one or two C4B null alleles may not handle certain viruses appropriately, possibly including attenuated strains.
Urinary methylmalonic-acid concentrations were raised in most of the children, a finding indicative of a functional vitamin B12 deficiency. Although vitamin B12 concentrations were normal, serum B12 is not a good measure of functional B12 status.25 Urinary methylmalonic-acid excretion is increased in disorders such as Crohn's disease, in which cobalamin excreted in bile is not reabsorbed. A similar problem may have occurred in the children in our study. Vitamin B12 is essential for myelinogenesis in the developing central nervous system, a process that is not complete until around the age of 10 years. B12 deficiency may, therefore, be a contributory factor in the developmental regression.26
We have identified a chronic enterocolitis in children that may be related to neuropsychiatric dysfunction. In most cases, onset of symptoms was after measles, mumps, and rubella immunisation. Further investigations are needed to examine this syndrome and its possible relation to this vaccine.
So anyone who tells you anything else is either ignorant or a lier
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
1
|
flowerpower
|
Fri, May 16 2014, 6:37 pm
|
Think1st, do you only come to this site to fight against vaccines? I haven't seen you post anywhere unless the title of the post says something about vaccines.
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
5
|
mille
|
Sat, May 17 2014, 10:14 pm
| flowerpower wrote: | | Think1st, do you only come to this site to fight against vaccines? I haven't seen you post anywhere unless the title of the post says something about vaccines. |
I asked the same thing and received no response. The answer is yes.
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
3
|
Think1st
|
Sat, May 17 2014, 10:52 pm
1. Look again
2.Is that the best you came up with ?
| |
|
| Back to top |
1
0
|
Hashem_Yaazor
|
Mon, May 19 2014, 10:49 am
MMR is not available separately, and has not been available for years in that form.
I would also like to see separated vaccines as an option. Even if you choose to give only one shot these days, you're many times giving many vaccinations at the same time. If someone has a reaction to a component of the vaccine that is deemed medically inappropriate to resume, there is no option for continuing vaccination with the other components...
Thank you vaccinologist amother for your response. I found it easy to ascertain which was your response and which was not, despite the lack of signature
I appreciate your insights. I will still reserve the right to use my individual discretion when vaccinating my children, though
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
3
|
Think1st
|
Mon, May 19 2014, 9:48 pm
| ShanaMatele wrote: | | http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2632526/There-NO-link-autism-childhood-vaccines-major-new-survey-found.html |
Thank you for the interesting link, however from the comments & votes it appears the public is not buying the official story
| |
|
| Back to top |
2
0
|
|
Imamother may earn commission when you use our links to make a purchase.
© 2024 Imamother.com - All rights reserved
|  |
 |
|
 |
|
|
