Your take on immunizations and are u concerned about contracting desease at work? - page 2

Hello everyone. Here i come again with a question :rolleyes: I lived in NY state for almost 9 years. I have a 3 year old and we did all the immunizations, according to AAP. From... Read More

  1. by   Frogman
    To respond to TraumaRus. Thimerizole was removed from vaccinations a long time ago and was never linked to autism. There have been several studies on this. I just want to let everyone know that, we all need to educate the public.

  2. by   Agnus
    This is not how superbugs are created. Antibiotics and immunizations are two compeltely different things. They act in very different ways. Immunizations do not kill bugs. Antibiotics do. Viruses are not effected by antibiotics.

    Very young children (as a general rule are most at risk for pertussus) the vaccine is meant to protect them. That is why we do not renew the Pertussus later in life (DPT) but we do renew the DT. (also, they are in greater danger if they contract it)

    Any vaccine has the ability to loose it's effectivness over the years without boosters through out life.

    Many vaccines we do not renew as adults because it is felt the risk of contracting them as an adult are minimal.

    No vaccine is fool proof. Much depends on the individual's ability to develop antibodies from the vaccine.

    Don't confuse the mechanism of action of antibiotic and it's role in creating super bugs, with vaccines (they are not even remotely related). AND remember antibiotics do not effect viruses.
  3. by   luvbug
    My take on immunizations is that they are generally necessary. I do have mixed feelings about children getting the flu vaccine and the Varicella vaccine. Why? I think that the research on these is limited and some of the long-term effects are not known yet. Not so much on the flu vaccine-but, what happens when we keep immunizing these people so they don't get sick with the flu? Then, someday, they are going to get some type of the flu that will undoubtedly do some harm, as they have not ever had to battle an illness like tht. Also, as far as the Varicella goes, my understanding is that nobody really knows how long it is effective, how well it really works, etc. I know my daughter got the vaccine, and 3-4 months later, she got the chicken pox anyway, so I still had to stay home with her for a few days. What will happen to the kids who are getting the vaccine now and it 'wears off' in 10-15 years? Don't you think it will be worse for them? OK, I've said my piece, thank you for reading
  4. by   Agnus
    Originally posted by luvbug
    [B]What will happen to the kids who are getting the vaccine now and it 'wears off' in 10-15 years? Don't you think it will be worse for them?
    Actually no. My take on this that there is often some trace of immunity that can at least lessen the severity.

    I did not have small pox vaccine as a child. My mom did not want me to have a scar so she finangled me out of getting it.

    When I started nursing school we all got the vaccine. (1969) I was the only one who had a sever reaction. In fact I was the only one who had a reaction at all and some of the people in the class had thier first one well over 30 years. (the time we presume it is no longer effective) In fact one woman was over 56 years since having the vaccine. No reaction at all.

    Then in 1977 I joined the army and was revacinated and I had no reaction.

    The reaction came the first time. as I had absolutely no prior exposure and therefore no immunity.

    the flu vac. works the same way. You are being exposed just to a dead or attenuated (non virulent)(very dilute) virus. And there are simulaities between flu bugs so one vac. can give some protection from another strain. So that at least if you get a different strain it is not as bad for you.

    You build antibodies just as you would if you actually had the flu. The vac, is not an injection of antibodies that you might loose it is actually a stimulus for you to produce your own immunity.

    I did hear that we can expect a pandemic in the next 10 years though because of the rate of mutuation. Viruses (I think) by their very nature mutate with or without vaccines being developed.
    SARS is a different bug all together not a strain of flu.
  5. by   Mr_D
    Interesting topic in that we've been discussing this in our medical microbiology class recently.

    One of the more interesting discussions was where Public health standards and pharmaceutical company profit conflicted.

    Case in point, the chicken pox vaccine is now mandatory in several places. Why? Was chicken pox inconvenient. Yes. Was it ever a scourge? Hardly. It was sold as a way to save millions in lost worker productivity. Now the vaccine does offer promise in preventing shingles later in life -- but why not make it a choice instead of mandatory?

    Another big discussion was about the recommended vaccination schedule. We have a lot of new parents in my class, including myself.

    Why Hep B for new borns? Do they engage in any activity that warrants Hep B shot? Some may need it b/c poor choices of the mother, however *I think* one could argue that Hep B for the majority of new borns is not warranted.

    That's the problem I have with these mandatory vaccination rules. At some point they lose the science and mandate that it should be done out of FEAR. I personally detest that approach. As parents get more educated about vaccines, immunizations -- they realize the "one size fits everybody" is slip shod advise.

    Ask the question " Does a new-born have an immune system developed enough to adequately handle all these vaccines" and you get a party-line response. More times that not, they don't know! They are just parroting. No science. No explanation of vertical immunity. No rationale of "why now?". No offer to research it. "The CDC has lots of scientists and their guidelines say so -- do you have any more questions?"

    There's no thinking going on here -- none that's evident anyway. ("So EVERYONE in medicine agrees on this approach?! Wow! no controversy???!!) Question dismissed without thought. You can bet your sweet toucas there is going to be some resistance from parents. I can tell you that a few parents in my class are somewhat peeved with their pediatrician.

    I like how the UK waits a few weeks -- allows an infant's immune system to develop. That is beginning to make sense to me -- I plan on learning more about it in great detail. As a parent, I plan on reviewing each and every vaccine. If the science doesn't support the "official recommendation", then I'll start asking a lot of questions. I expect thoughtful answers. We do believe in vaccinations. We also want the best for our child. Based on the latest information available, it appears to me the vaccination guidelines may need to be a little more flexible and may need updating.

    I have noticed the people who zealously enforce it the most know the least about this stuff (daycare managers, school officials). They have NO CLUE about what they are saying. I recall showing an college admissions counselor a positive titer for (something, I forgot). Didn't matter. She required me to get a shot! At the time I didn't know what a titer was either, so I shrugged my shoulders and got another shot. How is it that both of us got this so wrong? I think from witnessing the WWII public health culture of "not thinking" about what's going on here -- just follow procedure.

    Guidelines have replaced thinking. Mandates are replacing Guidelines. Why? Mandates are easier to enforce, and give more political cover to even less thinking/conversing/educating than before. IMHO -- mandates will eventually backfire -- it's just asking for a fight. If the hospitals and the law mandate it so parents have no influence on the process, then watch for a rise in at-home births. . I wonder if at-home births are on the rise already?

    Regrettably a few senior public health officials in the past have dumbed down the guidelines b/c they relate to their audience as essentially dumb. It's coming back to bite all healthcare professionals in the butt. As they say in the South, you get more results with honey than with vinegar. Treat people in a negative manner and eventually they will return the favor. IMHO -- if we want folks to take vaccines (and the rest of medical science) seriously, then relate to them as decision makers. Oh yes, it takes more time and more effort. An I bet would result in a well informed, far better "herd immunity".

    Ugh. Gotta walk the dog and study more Chemistry. I planned on visiting AllNurses for only 10 minutes, here it is 2 hours later. This board can really eat up study time!
  6. by   SnowymtnRN
    Hmm. I'm surprised there's not more diversity in answers as well. I vax my children, but i vax them consciously. Neither of my boys have had the Hep B, Prevnar or Varicella. (not to mention, neither of my kids received the erythromycin ointment in their eyes at birth, but that's another discussion!! lol) Why you ask?

    I think its ridiculous to give a newborn child something as potentially dangerous as the Hep B. Its hard enough being born and adapting to environment outside the womb, and then you want to slam a vaccine that is potentially dangerous on an immature liver? nope, not me. We decided we'd kinda do the "japan" schedule. We'd wait until they were 2 or over, and then do the Hep B. I'm glad we waited, cuz both my boys were severely jaundice at birth, (Gage went to 19.8 and symptomatic) so i feel it would have been MUCH worse had i started the Hep B then. Now he's 3, and still hasn't had it. Why? Cuz he's not at risk. he's at home with me, doesn't go to daycare/preschool, NEVER has a babysitter (although i'm working on that one! ) so i'm not worried about exposure that way either. My DH and i are both health care workers. And Hep B can be prevented by universal precautions and proper handwashing. So we feel right now, there's no need. When they go to daycare or preschol and are around people more often, then yes they will get it. And they will be older now, more mature and can handle the vax much better IMO.

    Prevnar. Don't get me started on this one. It came out a few years back, and then BOOM all the sudden the stupid LPN at the doc's office was saying "Its going to be mandatory soon, you might as well start it now." Ok, what a STUPID remark to be made by a healthcare professional. I asked her "do you know what criteria children who receive Prevnar are?" She said ummmm let me look. I told her don't bother. If your children are:
    frequent URI's or OM

    then they should receive it. otherwise its moot don't you think?

    The varicella IMO is a vax cuz people think they will be immune from the CP. ok, it may prevent shingles in adulthood, but 50% of pts receiving the vax are breaking out in "mild CP". Well had they not received it, would they have gotten the CP to begin with? 50% of people who had it is a LARGE number. And honestly CP is a common childhood disease that *usually* isn't too severe. Yes there are some cases that are BAD, but usually not the case. So at this point we are passing on it, and if they get it naturally then so be it. We'll see what happens. OR if the vax is improved in any way, then we'll rethink it then.

    I do believe like the PP said that people hide behind the mandatory vax rule. Just because its mandatory and "everybody does it" doesn't mean YOU should. Yes certain diseases are on the rise. Yes it could be by lack of vaxing in certain populations. But we live in a free country where the freedom of choice is a precious freedom. i don't want anyone telling me i *have* to do something i don't feel is safe for my child after much research and learning. Everybody is different. Do i agree with complete no vaxing? No of course not. But i feel that everyone should do what is right for them, whether i agree or not. All we can do as health care professionals is put the PROPER information out there, not the scare tactic crap, and trust that after education our patients and families will make the proper EDUCATED choice.
  7. by   Gldngrl
    I wrote my 3rd year writing requirement on this subject, but my focus was upon the lack of legal options for recovery for children injured by vaccines. I believe another poster addressed this as well, but it becomes an ethical concern when when the same physicians that are on vaccine advisory committees (advising mandatory vaccine schedules), are also conducting trials for pharmaceutical manufacturers on those very same vaccines and participate in financial relationships with vaccine manufacturers.
    The choice of vaccines used in the US is also of concern as I found in my research. The enhanced potency killed virus injected Salk polio vaccine (IPV), is an example of the United States' failure to choose a safer, alternative design that had been accepted in Europe for years. IPV was developed in 1978 and replaced the Sabin live virus oral vaccine design (OPV) in many areas of Europe. IPV does not carry the risk of infecting persons with paralytic polio that OPV does, but the United States continued to administer the Lederle manufactured OPV for 20 years. OPV is no longer used except in emergency mass immunizations to control polio outbreaks. Meanwhile, people had to accept the warnings of OPV and involuntarily consent to having their children immunized. Warning them failed to solve the problem in the absence of a risk-free alternative on the market in the United States. One could argue that the failure to institute a proven, safer alternative that had been used in Europe for 20 years was unreasonable. (Source: George W. Conk, The True Test: Alternative Safer Designs for Drugs and Medical Devices in a Patent-Constrained Market, 49 UCLA L. Rev. 737, 781 (2002). See also Advisory Comm. on Immunization Practices, Poliomyelitis Prevention in the United States, 49 Morbidity & Mortality Wkly. Rep. 1 (2000), mmwrhtml/rr4905a1.htm.)
    I believe that vaccines are beneficial, but that before making the decision to vaccinate, we must be educated and that does not neccessary mean accepting as true doctrine the CDC's recommendations, believing that they are an objective entity. MMB
  8. by   Agnus
    Just a bit of info. not an argument.
    I recall that some time back I read some research from a consumer watchdog group that keeps tract of drug companies and thier profit tactics. It demonstrated that vaccines are costly to produce YET YIELD a relatively low profit for the drug company. That is the reason so many have stopped making vaccines at all and others never started.

    There is nothing requiring that any drug company produce these at all. Far be it from me to defend drug companies. I hate what they do to us. But after reading the studies on this I had to wonder just a little about the posibility of loosing vaccines all together.

    I really don't think we can villify the drug manufacturer on this one.
  9. by   Gldngrl
    This is an excerpt from my paper:
    The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 established the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP) that went into effect in 1988 as a no-fault alternative to the traditional tort system to compensate those alleging vaccine injuries. The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) protects vaccine administrators and vaccine manufacturers by requiring that claims first be filed with the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) before civil litigation through the tort system is initiated. If a petitioner accepts an award under the VICP, the claim cannot be brought subsequently under the tort system. Awards are paid from the Vaccine Injury Compensation Trust Fund, funded from an excise tax on every dose of covered vaccine that is purchased.

    A database for reporting vaccine reactions called Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) arose from the creation of the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP). VAERS is a "passive" database in that it does not require health care providers to document vaccine related incidents, nor does it investigate the validity of the reports.

    Despite this protection and the protection from strict liability claims that drug manufacturers already enjoy, there continues to be a shortage of vaccines, namely for the reasons Agnus stated (too costly to produce and not enough profit). I am not sympathetic to the drug companies because they can't raise the prices of vaccines the way they do with other drugs and I feel that they have a duty to provide for the public welfare by creating and manufacturing vaccines. MMB
  10. by   Gldngrl
    I apologize, I'm having problems with my computer so I couldn't put my sources in with my paper on this topic.

    Karin Schumacher, Note: Informed Consent: Should it be Extended to Vaccinations? 22 T. Jefferson L. Rev. 89, 110 (1999); See also the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program website at The program compensates both the victim and his family of a vaccine injury; See also 42 U.S.C. Section 300aa-1 to -34.
    Katherine A. Davis, Comment: An International Drug Administration: Curing Uncertainty in International Pharmaceutical Product Liability, 18 NW. J. INT'L L. & BUS. 685, 713 (1998).
    National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program website at
  11. by   fergus51
    I don't get why people are saying vaccines are mandatory? There is nothing mandatory about them here. Parents decide whether or not to get their children vaccinated. I certainly believe they have the right to do that, but I also think other parents should have the right to protect their children from the diseases the unvaccinated could bring into daycare and public school, for instance. The research has shown again and again that when vaccination rates fall, the rates of illnesses increase with disastrous consequences. We had a nasty outbreak of pertussis a while back, and I would never want to see that again.
  12. by   fergus51
    A bit about why theer are new recommendations in place for immunizing all babies for HepB::: (they don't just pull this stuff out of the air cause they like to give shots to kids)
    Why is it recommended to give hepatitis B vaccine to infants when the greatest number of cases occur in young adults?

    Prior to the implementation of routine infant hepatitis B immunization in the United States, about 15,950 (8,980-32,190) children under 10 years of age were infected with hepatitis B virus (HBV) annually. Two-thirds of these children who became infected with HBV during childhood did not have HBV-infected mothers. These infections would not have been prevented by perinatal prevention programs that identify HBsAg-positive mothers and provide immunoprophylaxis to their infants.

    In contrast to other vaccine-preventable diseases of childhood, HBV infections in infants and young children are usually asymptomatic. Thus, the small number of reported cases of hepatitis B among children represents the tip of the iceberg of all HBV infections in children. For every child with symptoms of hepatitis B there are at least 100 children with asymptomatic infection.

    HBV infection during childhood carries a high risk of chronic infection. Based on the age-specific risk of chronic HBV infection, it is estimated that about one-third of the 1.25 million Americans with chronic HBV infection acquired their infection as infants or young children. Children who become chronically infected have a 25% risk of dying prematurely from liver cancer or cirrhosis. (8/99, updated 6/01)
  13. by   kitty29
    If I had children I get them the shots....I take whatever shots I need for my age group.