okay i've just read this by dr bob sears
http://www.askdrsears.com/thevaccinebook/labels/Vaccines%20and%20Autism.asp about the latest research with the MMR vaccine and autism and i do feel a bit better about getting it done, however it still questions whether we should be giving 3 live viruses at once... something else to worry about!
however by worrying about the 3 live viruses i would be contradicting myself completely, as if i was hoping that breastfeeding would help her get over measles, 3 viruses of lesser form whislt breastfeeding helping should be better too?
gosh this is so stressful.
Funny how they call this "informed choice" yet the FDA, numerous university studies, and medical research all emphatically stress the safety and efficacy of vaccines. This is once again a bunch of uninformed pseudo-intellectual scientific-wannabes masquerading around with their Chicken-Little-esque claims.
Gosh, I will always get my kids vaccinated regardless of what is in them.
As a child, my boyfriend had a severe allergy to eggs. He can eat them now, but as a child he couldn't have the MMR as it is grown on eggs and it could kill him. He still can't have the vaccine.
Where we live, measles is an epidemic from parents not vaccinating their children (because of those ridiculous autism claims). Therefore my unprotected boyfriend is at a great risk of catching it, and measles as an adult can make men sterile.
Also, I got chickenpox last year. We aren't given the vaccine over here unless you request it. I now have lovely pockmarks on my face, and it made me depressed for a good few months.
People always say a lot of the diseases the vaccines prevent are 'harmless childhood illnesses'... they aren't so harmless if you're unfortunate to contract them as an adult.
I think 'epidemic' is an exaggeration. Measles is still rare (as most children are being vaccinated). But it is a real problem. Measles was virtually eradicated, but kids now are starting to catch it again, and some do die from it. Others are left with permanent damage such as deafness or blindness. Not to mention that not vaccinating your kid against measles doesn't only put YOUR child at risk, but it also puts at risk those children who can't have the vaccine because they're immunocompromised, e.g. children with leukaemia (I'm not sure about the egg allergy thing... I'm fairly sure we were told in med school that that was a myth... but I don't have time right now to look it up). There needs to be a 70% + herd immunity (that is more than 70% of children vaccinated), to protect the children who can't have the vaccine.
It's not just measles either. Mumps and rubella can also cause permanent damage such as deafness. The risk however is greatest to children and pregnant women (or rather the woman's unborn baby).
Not to mention, the studies which claimed there was a link between the MMR and autism have since been disproved. There is no good evidence of such a link. It's all the media going about scaring parents. But what's really scary is that it's putting children at risk of deadly diseases.
That said though, I was reading an article recently saying the vaccination rate is up again, as finally parents are starting to trust it again. So the kids presenting with measles are actually those aged 5 or 6, the ones who weren't vaccinated as babies as it was when there was a lot of hype about a link with autism.
Well they can still catch measles (or mumps or rubella) under the age of 2. And if they do, it can be incredibly dangerous. They can die. And my friend's boyfriend had mumps has a baby and as a result is almost totally deaf. Much like measles, mumps is a disease which is coming back. I would personally never delay the vaccines and put my child at such risk.
As for giving the vaccine... it's not hours old, it's weeks old. And these vaccines have been being given to babies for years and years, and the VERY small risk of mild side effects (such as a fever afterwards) is well documented. Personally I think the benefit of the vaccine FAR outweighs the risk.
The Hep B vaccine is routinely given to brand new babies before they are discharged from the hospital. So at least one is given within hours of birth.
Whatever I ultimately choose to do about these vaccinations, my children will not be in day care or public school and it's my hope to exclusively breastfeed. These factors alone reduce a child's risk of getting a disease.
For those of you wondering about my personal opinion, please know that I'm not much concerned about a "small reaction to a jab" or the pain associated with needles. Children die from illnesses, and children die from vaccines. Of course, you won't hear much about the latter situation - that's just bad for business. It's all a matter of risk, and the "it didn't happen to me, or so-and-so" way of thinking is not exactly relevant to this kind of gamble.
The trials for the HPV vaccines like other vaccines are made public and the deaths in the groups were also published, in the UK when a child dies a short while, e.g a few days after a vaccine it is in the media, recently a girl suffered lower body paralysis after a few days after a vaccine but her doctors still cannot figure out exactly how/what caused it or how to rectify it as it hasn't happened before. Here if you want the Hep B vaccine the earliest the baby receives it is two full days old.
Just by not putting them in daycare is not going to stop them getting an illness, since many are airborne.
And what if your child gets an illness you never vaccinated them against as an adult? Would you not feel guilty if measles made your adult son sterile?
Not trying to change your opinion as what you do is not my choice, but I have a hard time understanding why parents do not vaccinate children.
there are many reasons why people don't vaccinate, people are just looking for the best for their child and want to be sure they are doing that. things such as the aluminuim levels in vaccinations, and okay now disproven autism links, and the controversy of giving your child 3 viruses at once which they would never encounter in normal circumstances together.... i'm sure theres more. they all raise questions and risks and you have to weigh things up and decide and redecide until you find what you think is right for your child.... because you will never forgive yourself either way if something goes wrong, you want to be sure you're as right as you can be.
I know how and why you feel the way you do about vaccines, and I no nothing about when they administer the Hep B vaccine to babies, though what you said seems completely plausible. But I can say that especially in hospitals, they want people to have Hep B antibodies in them because Hep B is so HIGHLY contagious and can last several days outside of the body. That's probably why they do it so soon on babies... there are a LOT of hep b patients in hospitals.
I'm not telling you this to change your opinion at all, just explaining why they might do it so quickly on babies.
That's nonsense. To catch Hep B you need direct contact between bodily fluids, e.g. if you get stabbed with a needle covered in contaminated blood, or if you have unprotected sex with an infected person. If bodily fluids are spilled in the hospital, and then cleaned up, there is no risk.
that's not nonsense. i wasn't saying that is contagious if airborne, but hep b is very serious. and being a doctor, you KNOW this. I work in a dialysis clinic and every single employee gets tested annually. you don't have to get stabbed with a needle to catch hep b. there are other ways. i'm not saying it's super easy, but it is possible. and in a perfect world, all hospital spills are cleaned up properly, but in reality, that's not always so.
Of course it's serious, but it's extremely unlikely you would catch it unless you were in a position where you were likely to be exposed. So babies are HIGHLY unlikely to catch it (unless their mother is infected). Yes, there's other ways to catch it besides needle stick injuries, and I do believe I already specified some of them... it can be caught from shared needles, from needle stick injuries to health care workers (or, rarely from contamination via mucous membranes, such as splashes the eye, or via broken skin), from sexual intercourse, passed from mother to baby, but that is about it. If blood is promptly cleaned up in hospital, there should not be a risk of exposure. And in the UK there is no routine checking of health care workers (because the chances of catching it without a specific episode of exposure, is so minimal).
Also, are you sure that the workers on your renal unit are being checked for hep B infection? And NOT for hep B antibody titre? I do believe some places still regularly check health workers for hep B antibody titre (i.e. their immunity). Which is very different from checking to see if they've caught the infection.