I have been reseaching vaccinations lately, out of curiosity...
Before the age of 18 months children are given between 22 and 30 vaccines. By the age of 5 they are given 38. Now, mercury has been found at toxic levels in these shots...even for adults.
So, my question is this: How many of you RN's would delay your childs vaccination schedule? How do you feel about the 22-30 vaccines given to a child before 18 months?
I do not feel it is neccessary at birth or in infancy... I mean, Hep B shots at birth? Polio? DpT, etc. I do not feel that delaying vaccines until 2-3 would increase the risk of the child getting these diseases.
In fact, I read where there is no correlation in third world countries between vaccines and decreased infectious diseases. But that there was correlation between good hygiene and diet and decreased infectious diseases (the dieseases decreased by 95%)
I read that babies at 1.5 years were normally developing and after the vaccines their development (physically, mentally, etc) slowed severely and were diagnosed with Autism (oddly enough Autism and Mercury poisoning have almost exact symptoms...)
Like I said, I have just began researching the correlation between Autism and vaccines...and was wondering how people in the medical community felt. And I do not have kids yet, so its just research that caught my eye lol
Yes -thank you for the clarification. It is, in fact, an important distinction - one that carries both clinical and political significance.
And thank you sharing the info about the study done in Denmark. Your remarks highlight the difficulty in explaining risk to a person unfamiliar with statistics and the curious world of "not."
I once heard about as study showing pointing rates of autism among the children of knowledge workers in the high-tech world. I have searched for it with no luck . Are you familiar with this study.
I think you're referring to the correlations drawn between incidences of autism in the offspring of certain professionals: math and science professors, engineers, the software 'geeks'; the idea is that those who have an apparent predisposition to mathematical work and analysis also seem to have a higher rate of autism amongst their children. The higher the level of education amongst the parents, the higher the rates of autism. Hard to say what any of it truly means, although the information gets tossed around to support the idea that there is a genetic framework set up that predisposes certain couples to having autistic children.
My middle son (now 9) had a severe and "bizarre" reaction to the MMR vaccine........Scared the living daylights of us, his pediatrician, the neurologist and the allergist.....
Within two hours of the vaccination, this normal toddler could no longer hold his head up and could barely stay awake. After 24 tense hours, he finally returned to normal. We have not had any long term issues with him as yet.
[edited for brevity]
As for the autism and vaccine connection - the government recently settled a case for a "vaccine injury" case relating to autism:
With the high incidences of autism these days, a vaccine connection should not be dismissed without very long term, independent studies - it's amazing to think that not that many years ago, cigarette smoking was not in any way connected to "lung trouble."
An temporary, adverse reaction to a vaccination is of course not the same thing as acquiring a permanent disability. It's scary, and enough to make a parent freak right out (I would have if I were you!) but still, the potential for both side effects and allergic reactions is possible for ANY vacciination. A little different than the current discussion about a vaccination causing (or not causing) a permanent disabling condition.
As for the article you cited, one must be careful of which sources we get our information from, and what can be deemed reliable. I'm not entirely comfortable with this website as being impartial at all.
Which, of course, goes to my last thought on your post: A vaccine connection CAN be dismissed at this point because of the numbers of studies just like you asked for--independent. Privately funded studies, brought forth by parent advocacy groups just dying to make an official connection, have failed to do so. Certainly, they had every intention of skewing it their way, and yet still no connection emerges.
The Danish study is considered both impartial and reliable. It covered 500,000 children, not a few dozen or a couple of hundred, like most studies. I remember when it came out a number of years ago, even the loudest of the advocacy gurus (what was that guy's name??) had to respond to the many news questions with something like 'this gives pause' and 'I'm not sure where we can go from here'. All that's paraphrased, of course, but you get the idea.
Wondering about the Danish study - did they control for autistic relatives of the children? Some parents with autistic children or siblings may have withheld vaccines because of a perceived risk.
I honestly don't recall those specifics in the study. Since it did cover 500,000 children, I'd have to believe that it was done with the best standards they could muster, including the question you ask. Still, knowing that the incidence of autism WAS just a mite higher amongst the non-vaccinated group, it would have to punch a hole in the idea that the non-vaccinated siblings were therefore less at risk (from the vaccinations) because the parents delayed or eliminated them. As I recall, the folks in charge of that study were dumbfounded to realize that particular result. This study also followed these children for quite a number of years, so it wasn't just a cluster of sudden diagnoses; it was consistent between the two groups.
Something other than vaccinations was causing these children to be autistic.
My own child's health trumps community health. I know not everyone feels that way, but I do. I did take community health into consideration; but ultimately I did what was best for our family. Each situation is different, but I will tell you that particularly with my youngest, she showed symptoms of having some type of health problem. She was never diagnosed with anything other than a vague failure to thrive, seasonal allergies and asthma, but as a toddler she was tested for everything under the sun, including cystic fibrosis and lymphoma. There was no way I was immunizing her until I knew that she didn't have a condition that would be worsened by any type of insult to her already fragile immune system. So yes, I wholeheartedly place my child's health before community health. Can one be a socialist-libertarian? Sometimes I try.
I wasn't necessarily taking offense at your posts; you've obviously researched and thought about this a great deal, and I do appreciate that. It was the statement I quoted which rubbed me the wrong way.
I completely agree with you on the Hep B and HPV vaccines. I also wrote papers and letters to the editor, my representatives, and the school board when my state was considering mandating the HPV vaccine for 6th graders. A public health concern; yes. A concern for classmates and all those in casual contact; no. Not to mention expensive as heck and at the time fairly difficult to get if you weren't a public health clinic or large office.
I still wholeheartedly support a parent's right to decide treatment for their child.
As for the article you cited, one must be careful of which sources we get our information from, and what can be deemed reliable. I'm not entirely comfortable with this website as being impartial at all.
I am not comfortable with that website's impartiality either. But the story is kinda true.
Hannah was 19 months old and developing normally until 2000, when she received five shots against nine infectious diseases. She became sick and later was given a diagnosis of autism.
Late last year government lawyers agreed to compensate the Poling family on the theory that vaccines may have aggravated an underlying disorder affecting her mitochondria, the energy centers of cells. Vaccine critics say the Hannah Poling settlement shows the government has finally conceded that vaccines cause autism.
But government officials say Hannah's case involved a rare medical condition, and there is still no evidence of a link between vaccines and autism. (my bolding)
So while this child was given compensation from the fund it no way establishes a causal connection.
Compensation from the fund is political process more than a scientific process. The threshold for compensation is fairly modest - when the fund was set up the govt wanted to err on the side of giving compensation rather than denying it. This was and is a good plan. If society demands that we vaccinate then society must step in and help out when problems arise.
As an aside - I think the govt really out to be helping out families with disabled kids in general. The expense of properly caring for a child with autism must be overwhelming for middle class families. Not good.
How much are we willing to pay for this? Will everyone be able to have their children's mitochondria checked prior to immunizations, or only those with insurance and/or means? I wonder what other types of tests will evolve, and what happens if your child tests positive for being at risk for a severe reaction? I don't really have any answers to these questions, just thinking out loud. I'm glad there is ongoing dialogue and research.
I agree with the last quoted sentiment, though; vaccinations are fine, but must we really slam most of them into the first two years? Is that really what is healthiest for the children and the community?
Can one be a socialist-libertarian? Sometimes I try.
LOL!
Sorry, but you cannot!
Socialism rests on the principle that groups rights trump individual rights. Libertarianism takes the exact opposite position (ie the one you hold).
In Cuba for example, everyone without exception gets vaccinated. Vaccines are required and the state pays for them. Cuba has a much higher vaccination rate than we do (theirs is pretty much 100%.) They also have a much lower infant mortality rate (no connection implied, most infants do not die of infectious disease in this country, nor in cuba.) So, in socialist Cuba the group right to be protected from preventable infectious disease outweighs the individual right to be left alone by the state. Not that I am a great fan of Cuba, but their health is mighty good by any measure, let alone that of a very poor country.
I argue that group rights trump individual rights in fairly rare circumstances - public health is the big one. So maybe one can be a socialist and libertarian.....Hmmmm
But back to autsim. (I am obsessed with this tonight) JennRN65 notes
...With the high incidences of autism these days,
This has been on my mind because of the "Autism Speaks" ad campaign underway. (our buses in San Francisco are plastered with ads)
Autism diagnosis are increasing but it is hard to know if the actual prevalence of autism is increasing. Remember that autism was not a disease until the 1940's. It is reasonable to suggest that for much of history most autistic kids were cared for by the community like everybody else that was outside of "normal." I think that Luther described what we would today call a person with autism in one of his books - of course he did not call it autism.
Beginning in the early 20th century autistic persons were probably diagnosed as mentally retarded and were placed in institutions along with kids with MR, CP, and everything else that rendered kids too different for society to handle.
The mortality for measles in the US (with our advanced interventions) is about 1 for 1000 cases with a significant higher mortality for children under the age of one.Obviously it is much higher in the developing world.
Speaking of which....there is an outbreak of measles in my town right now. Now, employee health is scrambling to prove the MMR vax or titers on every staff member who works near a hospital.
The Archives of Disease in Childhood's March or April issue has the results of the South England study that followed children born in the 90s looking for any link between the MMR specifically and autism. This is the third independent and large study that shows zero statistical correlation.
But anyway... about the above post by czyja on diagnosis... there was a very interesting and thought-provoking article here...
But before anyone thinks that I'm saying that autism isn't on the rise, let me just throw in a quote...
"However, Professor Bishop cautions against using the results to suggest that the prevalence of autism is not genuinely rising.
"We can't say that genuine cases of autism are not on the increase as the numbers in our study are very small," she says. "However, this is the only study to date where direct evidence has been found of people who would have had a different diagnosis today than they were given fifteen or twenty years ago."
Personally, I think that this issue - like every other debatable issue in healthcare that I'm aware of - is complex and gray, rather than black-and-white.
Probably, the changes in diagnosis criteria over the last 20 years has led to a huge increase in numbers. And probably, autism rates are rising.
I wasn't necessarily taking offense at your posts; you've obviously researched and thought about this a great deal, and I do appreciate that. It was the statement I quoted which rubbed me the wrong way.
I still wholeheartedly support a parent's right to decide treatment for their child.
Sorry my opinions rub you the wrong way. We all have our different opinions and that needs to be respected. I certainly don't have a problem with the fact that your son had a reaction to the MMR and you voiced your opinion. I am glad that it was a temporary situation. I would probably have my reservations about the vaccine myself if my son had a reaction such as that. I have researched it and I still don't have a problem with it. It covers diseases that killed children back in the day, as a matter of fact I have family that died from these diseases when they were children. Back in the day before the vaccine. I actually had the MMR more than the reccomended because I had to have titers drawn for a home health position I had and I was not immune. I certainly couldn't imagine going to work and bringing home measles, mumps or rubella to my child and spreading it to others. These are very scarey diseases. There is an outbreak in WI right now! Most of those affected are children. Too close to home for my comfort!
One thing we all need to remember is that every medication/vaccine out there, (be it tylenol, morphine, or penicillin) has a risk for an allergic reaction. That is a risk we take everyday when we take and give medications. It is the whole benefits vs risk issue.
My son was vaccinated on schedule. Granted he is 10 and there are now more vaccines then when he was born. At that time the chicken pox vaccine was optional and I saw no need for it. Afterall - my brother and I both had it as kids and we are just fine. My son had chicken pox when He was about 1 1/2 yrs. Now, WI is mandating the chicken pox vaccine for children - we just got papers home from school a couple weeks ago - and unless there is documentation of the child having chicken pox, they will be required to have the vaccine for school. I don't agree with this and I guess I will have to dig up old records for my son! I don't see the harm in having the MMR, infact I think it is a good vaccine. Maybe it's because there is currently a measles outbreak (a small one so far) in WI. It can be scarey, especially for children.
Many of us who had chickenpox didn't see a doc for it, we just stayed home a week or so and had calamine lotion all over us. What I did was have a titer drawn by the health dept. to show that I'm immune to chickenpox. Same for my other things, but I wound up needing a few boosters to things like measles, hepatitis, etc. It's worth checking on a titer vs. automatically vaccinating if you know your kid had chickenpox.
Sorry my opinions rub you the wrong way. We all have our different opinions and that needs to be respected. I certainly don't have a problem with the fact that your son had a reaction to the MMR and you voiced your opinion. I am glad that it was a temporary situation. I would probably have my reservations about the vaccine myself if my son had a reaction such as that. I have researched it and I still don't have a problem with it. It covers diseases that killed children back in the day, as a matter of fact I have family that died from these diseases when they were children. Back in the day before the vaccine. I actually had the MMR more than the reccomended because I had to have titers drawn for a home health position I had and I was not immune. I certainly couldn't imagine going to work and bringing home measles, mumps or rubella to my child and spreading it to others. These are very scarey diseases. There is an outbreak in WI right now! Most of those affected are children. Too close to home for my comfort!
One thing we all need to remember is that every medication/vaccine out there, (be it tylenol, morphine, or penicillin) has a risk for an allergic reaction. That is a risk we take everyday when we take and give medications. It is the whole benefits vs risk issue.
Ummm, maybe you have me confused with someone else? Maybe JennRN, whose son had a reaction to the MMR? My post didn't quote you and wasn't in response to anything you posted.
I agree with your statement that every medication et vaccination has a risk for reaction et it is an issue of benefits vs. risks. How do you feel about parents' rights to decide whether something is a benefit or too much of a risk for their child? Or should the government make that decision when it comes to community health, meaning that parents do not have the right to decline certain treatments for their children?
Whatever your thoughts, of course they are welcome. Disagreeing does not mean that an opinion is not respected.
RNsRWe, ASN, RN
3 Articles; 10,428 Posts
I think you're referring to the correlations drawn between incidences of autism in the offspring of certain professionals: math and science professors, engineers, the software 'geeks'; the idea is that those who have an apparent predisposition to mathematical work and analysis also seem to have a higher rate of autism amongst their children. The higher the level of education amongst the parents, the higher the rates of autism. Hard to say what any of it truly means, although the information gets tossed around to support the idea that there is a genetic framework set up that predisposes certain couples to having autistic children.