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
The sheer number of vaccines very small children has increased greatly in the last 40 years. As has the rate of autism. A does not necessarily equal B, as we all know.
However....I have two friends whom I did not know prior to their children being diagnosed with autism. They swear the change in their child happened withing 48 hrs of rec. the vaccine. I believe these people about everything else they have ever told me, I see no reason to doubt them on this.
I have a niece whose oldest son recieved the MMR and went into seizures, ran a high temp and now has severe behavioral problems. Both of my grandchildren, (cousins to that child), born after that happened, have rec. their vaccines on a slower schedule, did not start until 6 months old, one shot at a time, no combined ones, not two or three on one visit, but ONE a month.
They did have to go nearly every month there for a while, but to have the peace of mind that brought our family, it was worth it. Grandmas as well as the parents of the children all took our turn taking them for their shots.
In the end you have to do what makes you feel best. We decided the one shot a month thing was acceptable, ran much lower risk of side effects especially with the family history. We certainly didn't want the kids to get all these diseases, but there are compromises.
One doctor told my son his child HAD to get these immunizations PER THE RECOMMENDED SCHEDULE, IT WAS LAW. Fortunately I was able to tell my son, No, it isn't the LAW to take a RECOMMENDED schedule, (Hello? Didn't the stupidity of that sentence occur to the doc as he said it?), just a requirement that the child get all the shots by a certain age which allows PLENTY of wiggle room. Not to mention that one could even claim a religious objection and be excused, at least in our state.
My father actually had his varicella vaccine last week. I thought it was kinda silly seeing he had a pretty bad case of chicken pox as a kid. But, his doctor greatly encouraged him to get it because of my father's health problems. Shingles would almost certainly be a death sentence for my father. So, after thinking about it that way - I agreed.
First of all the vaccine didn't do anything since he has natural immunity and he can still get shingles.
First of all the vaccine didn't do anything since he has natural immunity and he can still get shingles...
You are wrong. In fact the above post makes no sense whatsoever. If he had chicken pox as child then he does not have natural immunity. His childhood infection conferred acquired immunity.
Earlier you note:
I would like to say that anyone that wants to quote a research study for any reason, don't...its not accurate no matter what it says. I try to use research studies to form my decisions but in the end your guess is as good as mine.
Nursing is a scientific discipline. You will find posters on these message boards making frequent and abundant use of scientific literature. There are many message boards on the internet that are completely void of scientific evidence. I use this one because I am interested in evidence, not opinion.
You are wrong. In fact the above post makes no sense whatsoever. If he had chicken pox as child then he does not have natural immunity. His childhood infection conferred acquired immunity.
Earlier you note:
Nursing is a scientific discipline. You will find posters on these message boards making frequent and abundant use of scientific literature. There are many message boards on the internet that are completely void of scientific evidence. I use this one because I am interested in evidence, not opinion.
My apologies on two accounts...the first I did mean aquired not natural. Thanks for that!!
The second: I was being facetious. While I do believe its hard to find REAL "evidence" based research, I would rather read that than someone's opinions. Yes, I gave opinions based on the research I did but anyone that will listen to me without doing the research themselves is ignorant. :stone Sometimes I will quote where I read something particular but I find that when I do, there is another study/quote to disprove it...especially on this subject.
I didn't mean it literally when I said not to quote research...sorry! It was just part of my point that there are too many flaws to make a definite decision...but an educated decision is much better than nothing!
First of all the vaccine didn't do anything since he has natural immunity and he can still get shingles...
No one knows if the vaccine did anything for my father or not - he just got it a couple weeks ago and he hasn't gotten shingles yet. Ofcourse nobody really knows if in his lifetime he will get shingles or not! The purpose of vaccines is to prevent or lessen the severity of diseases. Shingles is the 'reawakening' of the chicken pox virus and it is not clear as to what triggers this. It is more likely in the older population as they have lowered immune systems. Here is a link to the mayo clinic - I find them to be a very reliable source. http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/shingles/DS00098/DSECTION=1 If my father does get shingles - you will be the first to know!
And, calling my father's Dr. a quack is insulting not only to the Dr, but also to my father and my family. We made an educated decision to get the vaccine. Sorry that it isn't the choice you would've made. I can understand and deal with differing opinions, but not insults. I respectfully diagree with you and we will leave it at that.
No one knows if the vaccine did anything for my father or not - he just got it a couple weeks ago and he hasn't gotten shingles yet. Ofcourse nobody really knows if in his lifetime he will get shingles or not! The purpose of vaccines is to prevent or lessen the severity of diseases. Shingles is the 'reawakening' of the chicken pox virus and it is not clear as to what triggers this. It is more likely in the older population as they have lowered immune systems. Here is a link to the mayo clinic - I find them to be a very reliable source. http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/shingles/DS00098/DSECTION=1 If my father does get shingles - you will be the first to know!
And, calling my father's Dr. a quack is insulting not only to the Dr, but also to my father and my family. We made an educated decision to get the vaccine. Sorry that it isn't the choice you would've made. I can understand and deal with differing opinions, but not insults. I respectfully diagree with you and we will leave it at that.
According to the WHO: Although antibody assays are conveniently used as an indication of previous infection or response to vaccination, failure to detect antibodies against VZV does not necessarily imply susceptibility, as the corresponding cell-mediated immunity may still be intact. On the other hand, about 20% of persons aged 55-65 show no measurable cell-mediated immunity to VZV in spite of persisting antibodies, and a history of previous varicella. Zoster is closely correlated to a fall in the level of VZV-specific T-cells, and an episode of zoster will reactivate the specific T-cell response.
My apologies AGAIN of calling the Dr. a quack. If I could retract that statement I would. If I could retract that post, I would. That was stemmed from a misplaced distrust due to unfortunate circumstances revolving my grandparents and a Dr. whom is no longer permitted to practice.
I just feel like sometimes we overvaccinate when the body is capable of defending itself. I hope your grandfather does not contract shingles, as I have had them when my daughter contracted chicken pox and heard they only get worse as you get older.
Could the vaccine not cause shingles?? Seriously curious.
Could the vaccine not cause shingles?? Seriously curious.
The varicella vaccine it could result in varicella infection. But the pathophysiology of shingles is rather complex so I dont know if this infection would present as chickenpox or shingles in somebody who had childhood chickenpox.
The varicella vaccine is a live attenuated vaccine (like the smallpox vaccine) and does carry a small risk of the vaccinand contracting a varicella infection. It is therefore contraindicated in immunocompromised individuals.
With respect to your earlier posts - I thought there may be something going on there! Sorry to be such a dope and not catch you humor.
when I was having children 30 some years ago, one didn't think to ask questions re; vaccines. but then they didn't give more than 2 at a time , & they were months apart, & no, I don't remember kids dying from measles & whooping cough in the 60's, either. I read a mag articles recently, mom was implying son's autism was due to vaccines, & in the article, she non-chalantly mentioned the day he was given 10 vaccines! I couldnt help but think whoa, nelly! what dr. would do that?. You coulndn't possible know which, or how many vaccines could have caused autism features!
With respect to your earlier posts - I thought there may be something going on there! Sorry to be such a dope and not catch you humor.
See this is why I should have used smilies:uhoh3:...since no one can actually read my expressions I guess its hard to tell when I'm being serious or sarcastic.
As for the editing...I didn't know that! Thanks...next time I misspeak (or should I say mistype?:chuckle) I will definitely take advantage! I've seen old posts resurrected a year later that I almost made an argument on before finally realizing they had posted that ages ago. Boy would I look like a dolt! I'd hate for my words to come back to haunt me a year from now:no:.
Thanks for your help regarding the varicella. I don't mean to step on others opinions by any means. Everyone has a right to choose for themselves. I just thought the risk of the vaccine outweighed the benefit IMO. I've seen some pretty crazy stuff especially involving the elderly. So sometimes red flags go up even when they shouldn't.
See this is why I should have used smilies:uhoh3:...since no one can actually read my expressions I guess its hard to tell when I'm being serious or sarcastic.
As for the editing...I didn't know that! Thanks...next time I misspeak (or should I say mistype?:chuckle) I will definitely take advantage! I've seen old posts resurrected a year later that I almost made an argument on before finally realizing they had posted that ages ago. Boy would I look like a dolt! I'd hate for my words to come back to haunt me a year from now:no:.
Thanks for your help regarding the varicella. I don't mean to step on others opinions by any means. Everyone has a right to choose for themselves. I just thought the risk of the vaccine outweighed the benefit IMO. I've seen some pretty crazy stuff especially involving the elderly. So sometimes red flags go up even when they shouldn't.
Smileys may have made the difference - although maybe not much of one with the Dr. Quack statement!:nuke: I do except your apology. Sometimes it is hard to express things on a board and not have them taken the wrong way. I'm sure we've all had our statements misconstrude (?SP) at some point or another.
As to the vaccine for shingles (Zostravax - if I'm remembering the name of it correctly. Don't have time to look it up right now.) It does say that it may cause a case of the shingles, but not as severe as otherwise and with less longterm side effects. It was a risk my Dad was willing to take.
Smileys may have made the difference - although maybe not much of one with the Dr. Quack statement!:nuke: I do except your apology. Sometimes it is hard to express things on a board and not have them taken the wrong way. I'm sure we've all had our statements misconstrude (?SP) at some point or another.
As to the vaccine for shingles (Zostravax - if I'm remembering the name of it correctly. Don't have time to look it up right now.) It does say that it may cause a case of the shingles, but not as severe as otherwise and with less longterm side effects. It was a risk my Dad was willing to take.
Thanks, I've requested they delete the post or at least the statements regarding the Dr. Either way, its a lesson learned. :imbar
While I do believe its hard to find REAL "evidence" based research, I would rather read that than someone's opinions. Yes, I gave opinions based on the research I did but anyone that will listen to me without doing the research themselves is ignorant. :stone Sometimes I will quote where I read something particular but I find that when I do, there is another study/quote to disprove it...especially on this subject. 
That was stemmed from a misplaced distrust due to unfortunate circumstances revolving my grandparents and a Dr. whom is no longer permitted to practice. 
...since no one can actually read my expressions I guess its hard to tell when I'm being serious or sarcastic.
KaroSnowQueen, RN
960 Posts
The sheer number of vaccines very small children has increased greatly in the last 40 years. As has the rate of autism. A does not necessarily equal B, as we all know.
However....I have two friends whom I did not know prior to their children being diagnosed with autism. They swear the change in their child happened withing 48 hrs of rec. the vaccine. I believe these people about everything else they have ever told me, I see no reason to doubt them on this.
I have a niece whose oldest son recieved the MMR and went into seizures, ran a high temp and now has severe behavioral problems. Both of my grandchildren, (cousins to that child), born after that happened, have rec. their vaccines on a slower schedule, did not start until 6 months old, one shot at a time, no combined ones, not two or three on one visit, but ONE a month.
They did have to go nearly every month there for a while, but to have the peace of mind that brought our family, it was worth it. Grandmas as well as the parents of the children all took our turn taking them for their shots.
In the end you have to do what makes you feel best. We decided the one shot a month thing was acceptable, ran much lower risk of side effects especially with the family history. We certainly didn't want the kids to get all these diseases, but there are compromises.
One doctor told my son his child HAD to get these immunizations PER THE RECOMMENDED SCHEDULE, IT WAS LAW. Fortunately I was able to tell my son, No, it isn't the LAW to take a RECOMMENDED schedule, (Hello? Didn't the stupidity of that sentence occur to the doc as he said it?), just a requirement that the child get all the shots by a certain age which allows PLENTY of wiggle room. Not to mention that one could even claim a religious objection and be excused, at least in our state.