Conference moira::parenting

    Lynn,
    
    I can tell you what I have done.  I did my research and came to the
    conlusion that I would vaccinate my kids.  However my DO and I agree
    that if the little ones even look like they are coming down with
    something we wait until they are over it to vaccinate.  
    
    My midwife did vaccines but would only do the DT rather than the DTP
    shot, and went for the older salk vaccinne, rather than the sabin on
    polio.  She has gotten the mmr, and opted not to get the hebB or HIB
    shots for her kids.  We agree to disagree there.
    
    My mom grew up before the immunizations were available, and she made
    sure all of us were immunized.  She lived through whooping cough,
    measles, mumps, and a slew of childhood diseases and lost friends to
    them.  Whe considers the fact that none of us got the diseases after
    the immunizations to be a wonderful thing. 
    
    As to the MMR shot, if you don't decide to get this for your children,
    please remember to keep them away from pregnant women.  Should they be
    carrying rubella, the consequences for those of us who are not immune
    and our offspring are grave in early pregnancy.  I would hate to think
    that I was the cause of a freind's child beingborn with disabilities
    related to this virus.
    
    meg
    
    

    I agree with vaccinating.  However, last fall I saw a program 20/20 or
    something like that on children who had their DTP shot (I believe it
    was) and within a hour or so, they had seizures, stroke, brain tumor
    and the parents were "blaming" that on the shots.  That program 
    REALLY scared me.  When my daughter went in for her next set of shots, 
    I was really nervous and wondering if that shot would "be it"
    
    I still worry - but I still have her vaccinated.
    
    I thought you counldn't enter school unless you were up to date on the
    shots.  The daycare that my daughter goes to asked to see her
    vaccination record (the blue book) to make sure she was up to date.
    
    Or, maybe you are "waived" due to religious regions - I had heard that
    as well.
    
    Joolz
    

    In Colorado you can waive the innoculations for religious, medical or
    personal reasons.  

    In response to .2 about the 'Blue Book' - as I was told by my Pedi,
    this book is now strictly for the parent's record. It is not used for
    schools any longer. They apperently require some form of premanenet
    record from the pedi (or the state (?))

    I, too, went through the same wonderings when my babies were little,
    but I decided to vaccinate and pray that they were "typical kids" with
    no reactions.
    
    They were ... and still are.
    
    -sandy
    

    
    If I'm not mistaken, any reactions to any of the vaccines (aside from
    actually GETTING the illness), will be with the first dose of the
    vaccine.
    
    I too had heard about the potential problems with the pertussis vaccine
    and was very leary about letting my boys have it.  But, I decided to go
    with the odds, and have them have it anyway.  I will admit, I was a
    little bit thankful when the 2 older ones turned out to be allergic to
    the pertussis, and thus each only received 1 dosage of the vaccine, so
    thus were not immunized.  
    
    This past winter Chris picked up pertussis (whooping cough) at school. 
    Gave it to Jason a few weeks later, and a month later to Jonathan (who
    was only 5 mos old at the time, and wasn't fully immunized).  Since
    it's not a common occurance, it took a slew of Dr visits before it was
    properly diagnosed, and poor Chris was coughing for 2 mos before we had
    a CLUE what was going on.  There's a note in here with details, but it
    was the most drawn-out miserable experience of my life.  For infant's,
    the disease can be fatal.  For Chris, it ended up turning into Asthma,
    for Jason he threw up every time he coughed.  Jonathan didn't sleep for
    a long, long time because every time he laid down, he'd cough and cough
    and cough and stop breathing and wheeze .... you just can't imagine it.
    
    So, for that, I hated that the 1st 2 weren't immunized.  As for the
    other shots - you have to look at the real risks.  If the disease isn't
    permanent and/or fatal, how uncomfortable is it to contract?  As a kid
    I had mumps, measles and German Measles (Rubella).  I remember the
    rubella and mumps quite well, and I was quite sore and very very sick. 
    I wouldn't dream of putting my kids through that, if I thought I could
    possibly prevent it.
    
    Here's an anology for you ....
    
    If you let your kid walk across the street by himself, he might get hit
    by a car and die.
    
    If you walk with your kid across the street, you both might get hit and
    die, but the odds of that happening are a lot less - wouldn't you want
    to help??
    
    The street's there, and it's most likely got to be crossed ... you can
    'send them off' on their own, or you can arm them, and hope that the
    vaccine works (as it usually does!).  You can find isolated cases to
    support any belief that you want to hold dear, but you also have to
    look at the bigger picture - there's still next to NO polio, and there
    have been major decreases in the incidence of other diseases that are
    vaccinated for.  If it didn't work, this wouldn't be the case.  If the
    vaccines CAUSED more illness, then the numbers would be on the rise.  
    
    There's no guarantees ... you just have to take your best shot, and
    make your most educated decision.
    

    RE:  -1 Patty's response...
    
    Ditto.
    
    I had read much too much about the reactions children get from the
    shots and went crazy trying to figure out if they are worth it.  My
    husband made an interesting comment that went something like this,
    "Carla if you want to read about the bad things that happen, there is
    plenty of books out there that you can find that will have the
    information, just try and remember the statitics."
    
    On another subject, what is the mothering conference?  How do I access
    it?
    
                                                      cj

.7:

>    On another subject, what is the mothering conference?  How do I access
>    it?

I assume the reference was to _Mothering_ magazine.  Quarterly, full of
information; full of resources for "alternative parenting"  (extended
breastfeeding, family bed, at-home births, non-spanking, alternative medicine,
educational alternatives, etc.).  You probably either love it or hate it.  
We've been subscribing for ten years.

	Mothering
	P. O. Box 1690
	Santa Fe, NM 87504-1690

    We're a no vaccine family, but we kind of backed into it....
    Conor (6) was headed down the approved pediatric route of vaccines,
    earaches, amoxicillin and tubes (3 sets!).  Adam (3) was 14 months
    old when the mention of tubes first came up.  Having had the
    lack of results with Conor, I decided to follow the advice of a 
    friend and consult Dr. Cowan, a homeopathic MD in Peterborough.
    
    The short story is that he believes that vaccinations begin a chain
    reaction in the immune system that actually causes earaches.  He
    provided a very eloquent and plausible explanation, which I can't 
    do justice to - but he also thought that with the amounts of medication
    Adam had been on over the months, he had killed off not only what was
    causing the ear infection, but also killed off his digestive bacteria
    which could cause minor bellyaches.  We wound up taking Adam off 
    amoxicillin immediately, after 4-6 months of getting up once a night,
    he slept through the night, and the next 35 nights, undisturbed.  We
    altered Adams diet for a period of about 3 months to allow his
    digestive system to rebuild.  In the 27 months since, he has had 2
    minor earaches.  Suffice it to say, we became believers and halted
    the vaccinations.
    
    As for the pediatrician, he listened to us slightly interested,
    slightly amused, willing to see what happened.  We still use him
    for geographic convenience and expediency (i.e. the homeopathic cure
    to strep involves keeping them away from kids for another week, we
    can't do that).
    
    As for the daycare/school - they have a form that you can use to
    opt-out for personal reasons.  Daycare isn't very comfortable with
    the arrangement, but the public school didn't blink.
    
    As for the diseases, if whooping cough comes around town, we'll
    keep the kids home and batten down the hatches.  
    
    As a side note: we've also had EXCELLENT results treating mild
    coughing/asthma with homepathy.

We've had our daughter vaccinated, but before each vaccination we are
given a fact sheet to read which states the odds of the recipient being
damaged by the shot.  Usually the odds are low that the child will be hurt,
but that is different from non-existent.

We have a neighbour whose grown brother is retarded because of a reaction to
a shot -- small pox, I think.  He was one of those statistics.
She is considering each shot given to her children carefully.  She said
that so far they have done them all except for whooping cough, for which
she felt the risk was unacceptable.

The ideas offered by the homeopathic physician are similar to those I once
saw in a book about how damaging innoculations can be.  My cousin showed it
to me; I don't know what she decided about vaccinating her child.

It is a hard decision -- there seem to be facts on both sides.

Beryl

	I believe the risk of NOT vaccinating is much much greater
	than the potential risks of the vaccinations themselves.

	Not to knock the reply regarding homeopathic treatment, but
	my kids have received their vaccinations, and are virtually
	never sick.  My 2.25 year old had one month of ear infections
	when she began teething (at 7 months) and never again.  My
	six month old has never had an ear infection, nor been on
	any kind of medication.

	Anecdotal evidence, at best, I know...

	Karen

    We got everything but the Pertussis and used the older polio vaccine
    too. Our pediatrician agreed with us on the older polio for his kids
    too.
    
    michael

        
    	re. .9
    
        > As for the diseases, if whooping cough comes around town, we'll
        > keep the kids home and batten down the hatches.
    	    Once it is known that whooping cough is around town, it's
    	    it's probably too late to do anything.  This is taken from
    	    experience.  My son and I both had whooping cough almost
    	    two years ago.  To this day, we still do not know who we
    	    came in contact with that was carrying the disease.  We
    	    did not know that whooping cough was 'going around town'.
    	    People can be a carrier for many diseases without showing
    	    any symptoms of a disease.  Additionally, once people start
    	    showing signs of having a disease it is usually too late
    	    to protect yourself.  Chances are you have been exposed to
    	    the disease and may be a carrier or eventually show signs
    	    of having the disease that you have been exposed to.
    

    
    You may consider vaccination if you will go outside of this
    country on vacation, or may have a chance of meeting someone
    who entered this country illegally.
    
    
    
    Eva

    
	>KOALA::LAVASH
    	>   My son and I both had whooping cough almost
        >   two years ago.
    
    	Were you and he vaccinated?
    	What we need here are stats on the indidence of whooping cough
        in the vaccinated and unvaccinated population.

    Oh yeah .... I forgot to add to my note that I had it as well as my 3
    sons, and none of us were fully vaccinated.  Both the dads were vaccinated,
    and didn't get it.  They did put everyone on antibiotics to make sure
    we didn't pass it on to anyone else.
    
    At the daycare, all of the people at the daycare had been vaccinated,
    and no one there got it (the kids were there when they were
    contagious), that adds about 4 kids and 3 adults.  For family, my
    family was exposed once to the kids when they were contagious.  1 child
    (vaccinated and didn't get it), and 10 adults.  No one else got it.  The 
    1 child was vaccinated, of the 10 adults, 3 had had it before, so
    should have been immune, and 2 were vaccinated.  So that leaves 5
    'unprotected' (maybe 3, I'm not sure about 2 of them) and they didn't
    get it.
    
    We had it during the holiday season (started being contagious right
    after Christmas, and didn't really 'stop' till February), so we
    obviously came in contact with hundreds of people .... I don't know of
    anyone else that got it, though there were a couple people above
    (unvaccinated) who did get a cough 'that lasted forever!' for a while
    during this time.  Whether or not it was whooping cough was never
    determined.  We just thought it was something 'going around'.
    
    Hope this helps!

    Lynn,
    
    I think this is one of those concerns of every parent.
    
    I have no answers, but some questions, since you stopped Susana's
    shots after she had the first round.  Did she have any reaction?  Like
    one of the previous replies, I thought any problems would be evident
    after the first round, not later.  Am I wrong?
    
    You've got me thinking because since my daughter has had all her
    immunizations, she's developed a severe allergy to all antibiotics.
    I'm wondering if she'll have a problem with the next round of shots
    before school next year...
    
    (An aside on Mothering magazine; I get it and love it too.  I used to
    think it was too much but I think it's gotten more mainstream or
    I've gotten more alternative.  If breastfeeding, not spanking,
    fostering creattivity are alternative, then I guess so!)
    
    Tara

    Sometimes it isn't the actual disease that kills or hurts you, but the
    secondary bacterial infection.  For example, my mother (obviously
    before immunization), caught measles and a week later her brother
    caught them.  About two months later, still being weak from measles,
    they both caught scarlet fever.  My mother developed a huge abcess in
    her ear that drained and her brother formed an abcess in his brain and
    died.  Now this was before antibiotics, but....  the point is that
    there was a good reason for the development of vaccines.  More children
    died without them than with, sometimes from the primary disease,
    sometimes from the secondary.
    
    Ben Franklin was totally against vaccination for small pox.  Because
    the vaccine is made from cow pox, it was (at that time) considered
    totally wrong to use something like that across species.  There were
    cartoons of the time showing people mutating into cows, etc.  In
    Boston, he one of the most outspoken critics of vaccination until his
    son died and then it was too late.  He completely retracted his
    statements, but he wondered for the rest of his life how much harm he
    caused.
    
    There is always a risk and I'm sure all these arguments for vaccines
    aren't a comfort to the parents of a child who is in the small
    statistics of being hurt of dying from the vaccine.  
    
    
    

    re .9
    
    While the description of the stopping antibiotics stopped stomach and
    digestive problems is truly a valid point ... this does not lessen the
    good that antibiotics do and the number of deaths that antibiotics
    have prevented.
    
    BUT antibiotics are intended for treatment of bacterial infection,
    not prevention.
    
    Vaccines are generally intended for the prevention of viral illness,
    and are not a treatment.  There is NO comparison between antibiotics
    and vaccines in method or in behaviour.  All receiving a vaccine
    will do is alert the immune system to a particular virus and thereby
    allow the immune system to attack that particular virus as soon as
    it is exposed, rather than after becoming infected by that virus, when
    it must fight for your life.
    
    Stuart
    
    

    We get Derek his shots.  He's now a healthy 5 year old, but when he was
    6 months old he got meningitis (HIB).  At the time, they didn't get the
    shot until they were 18 months old.  After everything we went through
    (2 weeks in the hospital, 6 spinal taps, IV's, daily blood work, etc.),
    I'd never want him to go through anything like that again.  After he
    was released from the hospital, we were told that until he was
    innoculated, there was a chance that he could get it again.  Needless
    to say, I was very happy when he was finally vaccinated for it.
    
    In everything we do there is going to be a risk, but if we can get a
    shot to prevent something awful like this from happening, I do it.
    
    Just my opinion,
    Barb

    I may have missed some replies, but I get the impression that noters
    feel you either get the DPT shots or you don't.  9 years ago when Alex
    started the series, she had a mild reaction (lethargy, fever) so her
    pedi put her on 50% dose for the rest of the vaccination series, and
    she had no adverse reaction to that reduced dose.  (No cases of D or P
    or T, either :-} )
    
    I won't anger you all with my opinion of the "no vaccine" stance....
    
    Leslie

	I think I'm probably in the middle-of-the-road on this.  I got 
	vaccinations for Andy, and will do so for my next child as 
	well.  However, I also don't completely disagree that, in 
	addition to the good they do, they may also mess up your body's 
	natural balance.

	Andy has had nasty eczema and psoriasis since he was born.  In 
	addition to his normal pediatrician, he has visited a total 
	of three dermatologists, once allergist, and a homeopath/
	nutritionist.

	Our best luck has been with the homeopath.  He did some tests 
	to show how Andy's digestive system didn't have a "normal" 
	balance (one dermatologist, and our pediatrician agreed that 
	this may be related).  As we continue to try natural remedies 
	to balance Andy's digestive system, we are finding the best 
	results in his skin condition that we've seen in his almost 
	three years of more traditional treatments.

	Concerning vaccinations...  the homeopath/nutritionist believes 
	that part of the reason for Andy's system's imbalance is because 
    	of vaccinations.  I have a hard time believing this to be the 
	MAIN cause, since all of his skin problems have been around 
	since birth, not just after his vaccinations began.  

    	My conclusion is that both vaccinations and antibiotics probably 
    	DO cause some harm -- in our case, they most likely contributed 
    	to the fact that Andy has a lack of "good bacteria" in his bowels.
    	But, I'm still not convinced enough to avoid them and risk more 
    	fatal problems.

	Concerning other homeopathic remedies...  Andy ALSO went through 
	a bout of three ear-aches in a row when he was about a year old.  
	After the second antibiotic, I chose NOT to use a third, and 
	tried the garlic/olive oil in the ear each night (discussed in 
    	the earache note) method instead.  That seemed to do the trick, 
	and he never had another bad ear infection after that.

	Peggy

How does the daycare, schools handle this choice?  Aren't
some vaccinations required to enter school?

Curious...Iris

    Iris,
    
    At least in Colorado, you can fill out a form that says you have
    decided not to have your child vaccinated for medical religious or
    personal reasons.  I won't give my opinion of the latter two reasons,
    but the medical reasons are acceptable.  There are kids with immune
    suppression who should not be vaccinated.  My daycare mother flat out
    refused to take any children who were not up to date on immunizations. 
    As she put it, there are enough problems with large numbers of
    unrelated children in a daycare facility without adding in the risk of
    childhood diseases, some of which can be fatal, or permanently
    disabling.  To me it is the same way with the petri dish atmosphere of
    most schools.
    
    meg

    >6 months old he got meningitis (HIB).  At the time, they didn't get the
    
    Meningitis and HIB are two different things ...
    
    Meningitis is a bacterial infection of the Meninges (the protective
    sheath around the brain stem) ... of which there are several strains,
    some more ansty than others.
    
    HIB is Haemmophilus Influenza Type B ... a particularly nasty virus 
    infection that can often result in secondary infections ... and
    usually occurs only in Chilren up to age 4 or 5.  While older children
    and adults may contract HiB, it is not a significant illness.  Getting
    a HiB shot is not protection from meningitis as such, only from HiB and
    the risk of secondary infection.
    
    The HiB vaccine is given to children, and is not normally repeated.
    
    There are Meningitis vaccines, but their effectiveness is limited and
    is for a specific group of meningococcal bacteria and gives protection
    for at most one year, where viral vaccines usually give lifetime
    protection.
    
    S
    

    Steve,
    
    It was my impression that HIB was also linked to a form of meningitis
    and also a bug that causes ear infections.  Next time I take one of the
    kids in, I'll see if I can get the innoculation information for that
    again.  
    
    meg

>    
>    It was my impression that HIB was also linked to a form of meningitis
>    and also a bug that causes ear infections.  Next time I take one of the
>    kids in, I'll see if I can get the innoculation information for that
>    again.  
>    

It is only linked in that it can leave one open to secondary infection.
A not too common secondary infection associated with Haemopillus infuenza just
happens to be meningitis ... BUT getting this flu type does not mean that
you get Meningitis ...  Nor does it mean that a dose of meningitis was
caused by previusly catching an HiB infection.

There was a case in Ottawa Canada a few years ago, where meningitis was
hitting teens and young adults ... several deaths occurred.  These people
certainly did NOT have HiB ... It is not considered a significant illness in
children over 5 ... it is just another dose of the 'flu ... feel crummy for
a few days and that's it.

Stuart 

    For those who are interested in risk/benefit information on
    innoculations the US Department of Health and Human services has
    pamphlets out on innoculations.  
    
    	US Department of health and Human services
    	Public Health service
    	Ceneter for Disease Control
    	Atlanta, Georgia 30333

    
    I wanted to pass along some information which my mother recently saw
    on the CBS show called NOW (With Katie Couric and Tom Brokaw).  I think
    the program date was Aug 31st.
    
    I did not personally see the program, but my mother watched it and, as
    a grandparent, was very concerned for her grandchildren.
      
    The program was about the risks and hazards surrounding the DTP
    immunization.  These risks were associated with a 'bad lot' of DTP 
    vaccine.  The lot number given was 2M-31091 and it is currently in use 
    by pediatricians around the country.  The program advised parents to 
    check the lot number of the vaccine before your child is immunized.  
    The program stated that the FDA had refused to recall this lot of 
    vaccine for reasons like, insufficient data to recall, not enough 
    evidence, etc.  It was reported that 6 deaths, 90 emergency room visits, 
    and 20 hospitalizations had occurred as a result of this lot of DTP 
    vaccine.
                      
    Other lot numbers of 'suspect' DTP vaccine were 2A-41127 and 2E-4160 
    (I think I must have missed a digit in this one).  I think these lots 
    were out of circulation or something meaning that they had been used 
    up entirely.
                                 
    They also gave a hotline number for National Vaccine Information Center
    it is 1-800-909-SHOT  (1-800-909-7468).
    
    I have called the number but have not yet ordered any of the literature
    which they have available because my children, ages 2 and 4, have 
    already had 4 of their 5 DTP shots without incident and are not due 
    for another shot for at least another year.
    
    I hate to pass along secondhand information but I have not found any
    DECCIE who actually saw the show and I guess secondhand info is better
    than no info at all.
    
    Paula dtn 592-5637
    
    

    Paula, I saw the show last spring.  I think it's been on several times
    (unfortunately, NOW is now off the air - the last show was this week).
    Needless to say, I decided to steer clear of the DPT vaccine - based on
    that information, as well as my reading.  
    
    Susana's first pediatrician was willing to go with just a DT shot; her
    current doctor said that even one DPT would "protect" her for at least
    a year (and she's had two), so I have some time to decide whether to
    proceed.  Lynn  

    To reply to some of the previous notes...
    
    o The 1st shot isn't necessarily the riskiest.  It depends on the
    vaccine, and probabably on the child's state of health.  It's true for
    the oral polio vaccine; the risk of contraction drops significantly
    after the first dose.  But some very serious damage resulted from the
    3rd DPT shot - one of the things I learned on the NOW program.  One
    thing that's very clear is that *no* vaccine should be given to a
    child who is fighting off an illness (colds, flus, etc.) or who has any
    of the contraindications for a particular vaccine.
    
    o Every state has an exception policy to the vaccination requirements
    for school and day care.  Medical exemptions are typically for a
    specified period of time only, and require periodic re-evaluation. 
    Religious and philosophical exceptions are usually permanent.  NH, true
    to its "live free or die" motto in this case, allows a philosophical
    objection.  According to the NH Health Dept., schools and licensed day
    care centers are required to give objecting parents the official form
    to file with the state, and are required to admit the child once
    exempted.  The child is to be excused from school during an outbreak of
    contagious disease.  
    
    o In my experience with the CDC, one can get a lot of information on
    the benefits and alleged effectiveness of vaccines, but not a whole lot
    about risks.  They really push vaccination in a big way and really
    downplay the risks.  When I was preparing to travel to Paraguay for
    Susana's adoption, the list of vaccines they recommended was a mile
    long (slight exaggeration!).  I had a difficult time getting them to
    talk about risks at all.  The doctor at the travel clinic seemed a bit
    taken aback, and actually tried to discourage me from taking them all! 
    But the CDC assured me they were all very safe and gave me the
    guidelines on which could be taken together and which should be done
    first.  Paraguay doesn't require any shots, and neither does the adoption
    agency.  So I was somewhat selective (!) and spaced them out over a
    period of months.  But, believing I was actually protecting myself, I
    decided on polio, DPT, gamma globulin, 2 Hep Bs (the 3rd to be given
    after 6 mos), and typhoid.  I skipped others - yellow fever, malaria,
    etc.  Now, this may or may not be coincidental, but within several
    months of pumping all of that vile stuff into my body, I've had strange
    symptoms that I won't go into at this point.  My doctor suggests that I
    experiment by raising and lowering my intake various dietetic minerals
    and hormones. Homeopathy hasn't helped so far.  I can only hope that I
    haven't totally screwed up my immune system permanently.
    
    Since then, I've read some of the reports coming out of the CDC
    (Morbidity and Mortality Weekly) and the World Health Organization. 
    Their message is clear: vaccines are the answer to eradicating dread
    diseases.  But I did not get the impression I'd find balanced or
    unbiased information there.  
    
    o Re effectiveness and safety of various vaccines, I'll look for some
    extracts from my reading and enter them when I get a chance.
    
    Lynn
    

    Lynn,
    
    Not sure about DT, but with Pertussis, it requires either 3 or 4 (I
    think it's 4) innoculations to be 'protected'.  Jonathan had had 2,
    when at 5 mos old he got pertussis - he wasn't protected yet )-:
    
    I believe it's similar with the DT, and that's why there's so many in
    the series - they can't give little kids as much as is needed for full
    innoculation.  At least that's the way I understood it ....
    
    Patty

    Re .7: 
    
    Cj, I meant to say "Parenting" conference, not Mothering.  I get the
    magazines mixed up  too!
    
    I also erred in saying that Susana received IPV (injected) rather than OVP
    (oral polio).  The oral vaccine is recommended for children, as it
    innoculates the disgestive tract, which is the virus's entry path into
    the body.  But because it is a live rather than killed vaccine, it is
    associated with higher risk of paralysis for adults.  So adults should
    get IPV shots if they get boosters (something I wouldn't have found out
    if I didn't prod the CDC rep with questions).
    
    L.
    

    Patty, 
    
    It's actually 5 DPT shots.  Here are the CDC recommendations, from one
    of their pamphlets (dated 10/91 - they may have changed, but that was
    the latest info the NH dept of health had).
    
                  2 mo    4 mo    6 mo    12 mo   15 mo   4-6 yrs
    DPT            x       x       x                x*      x 
    Polio          x       x                        x*      x
    MMR                                             x**     x***
    HIB****
     option 1      x       x       x                x
     option 2      x       x                x
    
                     Birth     1-2 mo     4 mo      6-18 mo
    Hep B*****
     option 1          x        x                    x
     option 2                   x          x         x
    _______________________
    *      Many experts recommend these vaccines at 18 mos.
    **     In some areas this does of MMR may be given at 12 mos.
    ***    Many experts recommend this does of MMR be given at entry to
           middle school or junior high school.
    ****   HIB is given in either 3 or 4 doses, depending on the type of 
           vaccine.
    *****  Hep B can be givn simultaneously with DPT, polio, MMR, and HIB.
    

    re. .15
    
    >Were you and he vaccinated?
    	My son was 2 1/2 months at the time.  He had received
    	his first DTP at his 2 month checkup.  I was fully
    	vaccinated when I was a child.  Since this incident
    	he has not received the Pertusis shot.  At 2 years he
    	has had all the recommended vaccinations.  He has not
    	had a history of being sick or having ear infections.

    The oral polio vaccine is a live vaccine, so a child who has just
    received it cannot go near newborn babies who are not innoculated such
    as those in a NICU. In addition, people who have not had the vaccine
    like older people shouldn't change diapers of a child who has just had
    the oral vaccine. We got caught by this one. When Jessica came home
    from the hospital, we went for her first round of shots, and I knew
    about the polio vaccine so I knew she needed to get the injection
    version. What I didn't know is that the nurse wasn't going to mention
    to me that she was going to give it to Jessica, and I had stepped out
    of the room for a minute which was just long enough for her to start
    Jessica on the oral vaccine.  That meant we could no longer bring her
    to the NICU with us to see Brad, or she had to stay outside, and my
    parents who are in their 70's and are not vaccinated couldn't change
    her diaper. Made life real interesting for a couple of weeks while we
    juggled things since my folks were watching her during the day so I
    could work and we could go see Brad at night.
    
    After that, I asked at every visit if the polio vaccine was on the
    schedule, and I generally waited while they ordered the injection
    variety from the pharmacy.

    re .25 - I know what my son had - he had what his pediatrician called
    HIB meningitis.  Trust me, you could tell that there was swelling in
    his head because his soft spot was bulging, and from the spinal taps
    you could see that the spinal fluid was cloudy, not crystal clear like
    it should have been - all signs of meningitis.  For some reason, they
    said that it tends to strike kids at 6 months old, but now that they
    give them the vaccine at 2 months, it's much better.
    
    Barb

    re .26 - while he had meningitis, he also had a double ear infection
    and thrush .
    
    Barb

Barb,

I'm not doubting that he had Meningitis .... there is no question of
that ...  What I am trying to state is that there is no DIRECT connection
between HiB (Heamophillus Influenza type B) and meningitis.  Getting HiB
does not mean a child will get meningitis.

HiB DOES leave a child very open to secondary infection ... and meningitis
is one of the opportunistic secondary infections that can piggyback a
HiB infection.

So, it is possible to get Meinigitis after HiB.  Which is why the HiB vaccine
is strongly recommended now.

But getting HiB does not mean your child will get meningitis, nor vice versa.

HiB is one of those strange influenzas ... because after age 4-5 it is not
a particularly significant illness.

Stuart

>    re .26 - while he had meningitis, he also had a double ear infection
>    and thrush .

Again the ear infection is opportunistic secondary infection ...
Thrush may be a bacterial skin infection, OR it may be a yeast infection
from using antibiotics.

Stuart

    re .36
    
    According to Susana's first pediatrician, the organisms in the live
    polio vaccine remain active in stools for up to 2 months.  He advised
    me to keep unvaccinated folks away from her diapers for that long. 
    
    L

    
The CDC (or FDA) must have anticipated a ton of inquiries after the
NOW program. I received the following in the info I requested from the
NH Dept of Health.  Source was unattributed.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

DRAFT 3/3/94                                              38963.01

On Mar. 2, 1994, NBC aired on its show NOW with Tom Brokaw and Katie
Couric a program on safety issues related to the
diptheria-tetanus-pertussis (DPT) vaccine.  The following Q&A
addresses many of the questions raised.

Q.  Are deaths after infant vaccinations expected?

A.  We do not expect that deaths due to infant vaccinations will
occur.  That is exactly the purpose behind the US system for assuring
vaccine satety--because vaccines are generally given to healthy
children, they must be among the safest of all interventions.

However, some deaths after infant vaccination are expected due to
coincidence alone.  Amost all infants are vaccinated during their
first year of life.  Therefore almost all infants with any medical
illness (including death), will have been vaccinated ealier in their
life.  Asking this question is similar to asking whether deaths after
drinking milk are expected.  [!!@%$$*@ - oy - I can't help injecting
an editorial gasp here! - LL]  Because almost all infants drink milk
during their first year of life, almost all infants with any medical
illness (including death), will have drunk milk earlier in their life.

The difference between vaccinations and milk is that vaccinations are
administered at 2,4,and 6 months of age (vs. daily for milk).  The
mathematical chance of having any medical illness (including death)
occur during the first 24 hours after drinking milk by coincidence
alone is probably close to 100%.  The mathematical chance of any
event, death or otherwise, occuring within 24 hours of vaccination by
coincidence alone (and potentially falsely attributed to vaccine) is
1/222 (365 days/3 vaccinations/year).

This may seem like a smalll chance of coincidental deaths after infant
vaccination.  But given there are about 4.1 million births and (a very
conservative estimate of) 6.3 million doses of DTP administered during
the first year of life in the US annually, and the background rate of
sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) (which causes about 5000 infant
deaths per year), one would expect at least 34 SIDS deaths a year to
occur within each day after DTP vaccination by coincidence alone
(i.e., without any relationship to DTP vaccination at all).  Because
vaccinations are quite memorable (e.g. with crying/fussy baby after
the shot vs. just burping with drinking milk), there is an increased
chance that the parent will attribute the death to vaccination and
reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) even
when vaccine was not the cause.

The average number of all deaths per year reported to the VAERS that
occur within one day of infant DTP vaccinaton is 22 (15 during the
second day, 12 during the third day after DTP vaccination, etc.), less
than the at least 34 SIDS death expected by chance alone.

Q.  If deaths after infant vaccination are expected, how do we know that
some of these deaths are not due to the vaccine?

A.  All deaths report to VAERS are followed up by the Food and Drug
Administration  (FDA).  Many of the deaths have been classified as
SIDS, a syndrome shown not to be caused by vaccine.  Otherwise, no
specific clinical syndrome has been observed as one might expect if
they had the same cause (e.g. existence of a characteristic clinical
syndromes permitted researchers in recent years to find the causes for
Legionnaire's Disease, Toxic Shock Syndrome, and other "new"
diseases.)

The FDA and the Institute of Medicine (IOM) recently reported the
outcome of a detailed review of 206 deaths reported to VAERS
1990-1992.  Only one death was believed to be possibly from vaccine:
a 28 year old woman who died from Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS) after
tetanus vaccination.  The IOM concluded that the "vast majority of
deaths reported to VAERS are temporally but not causally related to
vaccination (IOM, 1994)."

Analysis of the age distribution and seasonality of infant deaths
reported to VAERS show that they match the age distribution and
seasonality of SIDS; both peaking about two months of age and during
winter.  In contrast, DTP vaccinations peak around 2,4,and 6 months of
age, and during summer (Haber, 1993).  If DTP actually caused these
deaths, one would expect the deaths reported to VAERS to match the
pattern of DTP vaccinations instead of the background SIDS.

Most importantly, several carefully controlled epidemiologic studies
have been performed.  The IOM reviewed this issue recently and
concluded that "the evidence does not indicate a causal relation
between DTP and SIDS (IOM, 1991)."

Recent evidence show that prone sleeping position is associated with
SIDS.  Changing this practice alone has resulted in major decline in
rate of SIDS (AAP, 1992).

The bottom line is that while each new death reported to VAERS has to
be examined to ensure there is not a new problem, all the evidence
examined to date indicate that the vast majority of deaths reported to
VAERS are not due to vaccine.

Q.  How many deaths after a lot of infant vaccine are "expected"?

None are expected due to the vaccine.  However, by coincidence, some
will occur, and this will happen more frequently for large lots.  Lots
can vary in size quite significantly.

A large lot, such as OC21045, accounts for approximately 5-10% of all
doses distributed for use in infants in a given year.  With this one
lot, one would expect 5-10% of 34 SIDS deaths or 1.7-3.4 deaths within
each day after administration by coincidence alone.

Of the 10 deaths from this lot reported on the NOW program, 2 were
non-SIDS (one child had congenital hart disease, another was
attributed to viral pneumonia).  Of the remaining 8 SIDS deaths, they
were reported 2,2,2,4,6,6,9, and 42 days after vaccination.  So we can
see 3 reports were reported within 2 days of immunization vs. 3.4-6.8
expected by coincidence alone; 6 reports were reported within 7 days
of immunization, vs. 12-24 expected by coincidence alone.  This
information was provided by FDA to NBC on Jan. 29, 1994, but not
reported on NOW.

Q.  Should I be worried about a lot of vaccine that my child has
received or is about to receive?

A.  No.  Each bulk lot of vaccine is tested for sterility, toxicity,
and potency by the manufacturer.  This information is reviewed and
frequently the FDA retests the vaccine also before it is released.
Almost all problems with vaccines in recent years relate to isolated
instances of vaccine contamination due to poor handling of the vaccine
vial (Simon, 1993).  Such instances are almost always picked up by the
physician and local health department.

There is absolutely no need to call in to "find out" about the adverse
event experience of a particular lot before your child's vaccination
as suggested by the NOW program.

Each VAERS report is reviewed to make sure that it is not an
"unlabelled" reaction (i.e., one that is not already on the package
insert).  The VAERS reports for each lot released are reviewed monthly
at FDA to identify any usual experiences.  The vaccine manufacturers
also carefully monitor the experience of their products.

Q.  How many deaths after any lot of vaccine is "too many" (i.e. what
is the threshold for recall of a lot)?

A.  Again, the answer depends on the size of the lot.  One would
expect a certain number expected by chance alone with each lot of
infant vaccine.  One must also take into account other factors such as
1) what other vaccines are given in combination, 2) variation in
reporting.

Given these complications, lot-to-lot variability in number of adverse
event reports is to be expected.  In the three years that the VAERS
program has been in existence, no lot has been associated with a
number of serious or fatal adverse events that was clearly larger
that what might be expected based on chance variation (i.e. there are
no "hot" lots as implied by the NOW program).  The term "hot" lot is a
lay term which has no technical meaning and is not used by the FDA.

Q.  Why won't the FDA release information on the size of a lot of a
vaccine?

A.  This information is considered proprietary by the manufacturer as
it relates to its "market share".  It is provided by the vaccine
manufacturer to the FDA on a confidential basis.

Q.  Are there over 54,000 "serious" VAERS reports as claimed by the NOW
program?

A.  No.  VAERS has received about 34,250 reports between July 1, 1990
and Jan. 30, 1994.  About 15% [note: this figure was circled in ink
and the number 5137 was written above it - LL] are considered serious
by the FDA.  The majority of VAERS reports are for events that are
minor or known to be caused by vaccine such as fever, agitation, or
injection site swelling.

By law, doctors are suppose to report any event occurring within
certain time after a vaccine regardless of whether they think it is
related to the vaccine.  This casts a "wide net" looking for any
potential reactions and VAERS reports relfect this wide net.

Of the remaining reported events, to ascertain whether a reported
adverse event after vaccination is a true vaccine adverse reaction or
not, one needs to examine if: a) there is a laboratory finding
specific to the vaccine reaction (e.g. isolating mumps vaccine virus
from patient with aseptic meningitis), b) if the clinical syndrome is
specific to known accepted faccine reaction (e.g. acute flaccid
paralysis of vaccine-associated poliomyelitis in a setting without
wild poliovirus circulation), and/or c) in an epidemiologic study, the
risk of the adverse event is gerater among vaccinated than among the
unvaccinated persons.

VAERS reports are generally of medical events that are not unique to
vaccination, however.  VAERS reports are also generally inadequate for
scientific assessment of causality because events occurring among an
otherwise similiar comparison group of unvaccinated persons are not
reported to VAERS.  Because of these weaknesses of VAERS, CDC began in
1991 to organize a large-linked database (LLDB) study of about 500,000
children zero to 6 years of age in 4 Heath Maintenance Organizations
(about 2% of US population).  All information necessary to permit
controlled epidemiologic studies are being gathered in this study.
The LLDB will permit the timely assessment of potential vaccine safety
concerns raised by VAERS report or other sources.

References:

AAP Task Force on Infant Positioning and SIDS.  Pediatrics 1992;
89:1120-6.

Haber P, et al.  Comparison of deaths reported to passive surveillance
for vaccine adverse events and SIDS in the US.  Postmarketing
Surveillance 1993;7:205-6.

Institute of Medicine. Howson CP, et al. eds.  Adverse effects of
pertussis and rubella vaccines.  Washington, DC: National Academy
Press; 1991.

Institute of Medicine.   Stratton KR, et al. eds.
Diptheria-pertussis-tetanus (DPT) vaccine and chronic nervous system
dysfuction: a new analysis.

Simon PA, et al. Outbreak of pyogenic abscesses after diptheria and
tetanus toxoids and pertussis vaccination.  Pediatr Infect Dis J
1993;12:368-71.
    
    (cross-posted)

                        "The Myth of Vaccine Immunity"
    
    [Excerpted and edited without permission from What Every Parent Should
    Know About Childhood Immunization, by Jamie Murphy (1993).]

The rationale that has been used by medical science to validate the
theory of immunization is based on the presence of antibodies.  When a
person is immunized for measles, for example, the antibody that is
produced in response to the measles vaccine antigen can be detected
and measured from that person's blood sample.  The level of measurable
antibody in the blood is called the antibody titre.  ...[T]he antibody
titre is detectable in blood serum six days, six weeks, or even six
years followig a primary immunization or booster shot.  The presence of
circulating antibody... is one of the indicators that is used by
medical science to prove that infection with vaccine virus has indeed
taken place, and that immunity... is still active.  It is this second
point--that vaccine immunity is still active or effective--that I have
found to be false.

In 1913, Bela Schick, a Hungarian-born pediatrician and
bacteriologist, developed a test that allegedly determined whether a
person was susceptible or immune to diphtheria.  During the Schick
test, a small amount of diptheria toxin was injected under the skin.
If a red spot developed at the injection site, indicating a positive
reaction, the person was susceptible to diphtheria.  If the red spot
failed to appear... the person was immune to diphtheria.

Leon Chaitlow, one of Europe's leading naturopathic physicians...,
points out that sufficient antitoxin in the blood... does not
necessarily mean that the person is immune to diphtheria.[1]  In
England, during the 1940s, diptheria occurred in many people who were
innoculated with the vaccine.  The Medical Research Council of Great
Britain lead one investigative study in which 40 percent of those
vaccinated against diphtheria who later contracted the disease has
antitoxin concentrations greater than Schick's standard dividing
line.[2]  Although they should have been immune, they weren't.
Conversely, others who were not innoculated for diphtheria and showed
no antitoxin in their blood escaped the disease...

One of the alleged benefits of mass immunizations is that, in addition
to protecting large numbers of immunized children from clinical
disease, it protects the rest through "herd immunity."  According to
this theory, if a sizeable portion of a given population (usually 75
percent or greater) is vaccinated against a particular disease, this
will protect the remaining susceptibles in the population from
contracting the disease by successfully halting its spread.  In 1964,
when many adult women contracted rubella (German measles) during their
pregnancies and gave birth in many cases to children with birth
defects, a big push for the liscensure of a rubella vaccine took
place...  [B]y  the 1970s mass rubella vaccination programs were
already under way.  Because a percentage of women of childbearing age
were susceptible to rubella infection, it was believed that by
immunizing a large percentage of children... herd immunity among
children would protect the 15 percent or so of adult childbearing
females who were susceptible to rubella infection.  However, a number
of studies that followed... proved those "beliefs" to be false.  One
study demonstrated that in a given population, with 80 to 95 percent
of the people immune to rubella, the remaining susceptibles were not
prevented from contracting the disease.[3]  In addition, the
percentage of people who were vaccinated... but reinfected a second
time fluctuared, sometimes reaching as high as 80 percent.[4]
However, less that 10 percent of those who contract rubella naturally
(the nonvaccinated) suffer rubella a second timee![5]  What is
perplexing to many vaccine researchers is that strong levels of
rubella antibodies have been detected in the blood of vaccinees for up
to seven years following rubella vaccination, and yet a high number of
vaccinated individuals become infected again, perhaps a number of
times afterwards.  Vincent Fulghiniti, M.D., asks the crucial
question:  "How then does reinfection occur, if serum antibody is
indicative of immunity!"[6]...  It seems apparent to me... that the
presence of serum antibody does not indicate foolproof protection
against infection, reinfection, or disease, nor does it denote
immunity.  Nor does the lack of antibody mean, in all cases, that the
individual will necessarily suffer the disease.  Therefore, based on
the evidence, the theory of vaccine protection, validated by the
presence of antibody, is false.  Moreover, it appears that herd
immunity does not work...  The scientific principle behind
immunization does not stand up under scrutiny.  In truth, immunization
provides "artificial" immunity.  It is temporary.  It is fleeting.  In
fact, it may not exist at all.

References:

1.  Leon Chitow, Vaccination and Immunization: Dangers, Delusions, and
Alternatives (Saffron, England: CF Daniel Co. Ltd, 1987), pp 41-43.

2.  Percival Hartley et al, "A Study of Diphtheria in Two Areas of
Great Britain," Speical Report Series no 272 (London: His Majesty's
Stationery Office, 1950), pp 65, 99-107.

3.  Vincent Fulginit, "Controversies in Current Immunization Policy
and Practices: One Physicians Viewpoint," Current Problems in
Pediatrics 6, no 6, (1976); 14.

4.  Ibid, p. 15.
5.  Ibid, p. 16.
6.  Ibid.


    

Excerpts on ineffectiveness of DPT vaccine, from "Vaccination: 100 Years of
Orthodox Research shows that Vaccines Represent a  Medical Assault on the
Immune System", by Viera Scheibner (1994)


"Noah (1976) discussed the attack rate of whooping cough in fully
immunised and partly-immunised children.  Although there was a lower
incidence of whooping cough in fully immunised children compared with
those partly immunised, the fact remains that the incidence in both
groups was quite high.  If the pertussis vaccine were effective, no
immunised child should have contracted the disease.

"Miller and Fletcher (1976) reported on the severity of notified
whooping cough.  Some 8,000 cases were reported during an outbreak.
The ages of victims ranged from less than five months to less than
five years.  Of the hospital admissions, 39 were fully vaccinated, 41
partially vaccinated, 616 not vaccinated, and for 79, the vaccination
status was unknown.

"Of the home cases, 2901 were fully vaccinated, 590 partially
vaccinated, 1,808 not vaccinated at all, and 2,028 not known.

"The figures hardly indicate that the vaccine was effective.

"In 1960 Justus Strom, A Swedish medical doctor, published an article
in the British Medical Journal in which he stated that, in Sweden, not
only did the incidence of neurological complications after pertussis
appear to be not as high as the complications after vaccination, but
the disease itself had become much milder and did not justify mass
vaccination." [pp. 20-21]

References:

Noah, ND, 1976.  Attack rates of notified whooping cough in immunised
and unimmunised children.  Br Med J; 17Jan:128-129.

Miller and Fletcher, 1976.  Severity of notified whooping cough.  Br
Med J; 17Jan:117-119.

Strom, J 1960.  Is universal vaccination against pertussis always
justified?  Br Med J; 22 Oct:1184-1186.
    

Excerpts on measles and measles vaccine, from "Vaccination: 100 Years
of Orthodox Research shows that Vaccines Represent a  Medical Assault
on the Immune System", by Viera Scheibner (1994)


"Measles is a prevalent disease, and practially all children get it
before they reach puberty.  It also has a characteristic epidemiology
which was a subject of interest to AW Hedrich who, in 1933, published
a study on the epidemiological patterns of measles in Baltimore from
1900 to 1931.  He concluded that when 68% of the children less than 15
years of age were immune to measles, epidemics did not occur.  This is
the basis of the concept of herd immunity.

"Cherry (1980) wrote that '...today we would regard that proportion of
immunes to susceptibles as too low, but we still retain the basic
concept -- that there exists a threshhold of herd immunity that will
prevent epidemics.'"

"We know that today, in the US, with 98% immunisation status due to
enforced vaccination, epidemics of measles still occur at three to
four year intervals, unabated and uninfluenced by vaccination.

"Epidemiologists have a hard time explaining this recurrence...

"Measles occurs irrespective of and despite vaccination.  It is
governed by the same rules of natural immunity (there is not other
true immunity) which is achieved only by contracting measles, as in
Hedrich's time.  the major difference between then and now is that,
due to vaccination, we now have 'atypical measles,' an especially
vicious form of measles resisting treatment, and the so-called 'mild
measles' with under-developed rash, which exposes children in later
life to dangers of chronic diseases, including cancer...

"Many practitioners know that cancer patients have a particularly
small number of infectious diseases of childhood to report in their
medical history.  Ronne (1985) found evidence of a relationship
between lack of rash in measles and increased incidence of
degenerative and autoimmune diseases.  It is also well-know that
measles is an important developmental milestone in the life and
maturing processes in children.  Why would anybody want to stop or
delay the maturation processes of children and of their immune
systems?"
[pp 82-83]

[chapter then goes on to posit that in the 1960s measles was a mild
disease, rarely with serious complications, and that in the 1970s, after mass
vaccination was started in the US, the medical literature began
reporting numerous cases of what was called 'atypical measles.'  Then
more documented studies showing ineffectiveness.]

"Predictably, the programme to eradicate measles in the US by 1st
October 1981 fell flat on its face.  After 1981, instead of achieving
eradication of measles, the US was hit repeatedly by major epidemics
of measles, mostly in fully vaccinated communities.  Atypical measles
persisted as a 'continuing problem' (Nichols 1979).  The age of those
contracting measles continued to climb well above 10 years and was
associated with serious illnesses.  Adults, and babies below the age
of 2 years, often only a few months old, were now contracting
measles." [p. 87]

"Black et al (1984) summarised data on the problem of ineffectivenss
of re-vaccination published by several authors, who demonstrated that
antibody titre in re-immunised children may fall after several months
to very low levels, and that chldren vaccinated twice may still
experience clinically recognisable measles, although in a much milder
form.  Black et al concluded that 'This state in which a child is
immunologically sensitized, but not immune to infection, we shall call
'inadequate immunity.''

"This observation highlighted another looming problem, namely that
generations of children with this 'inadequate immunity' would grow
into adults with no placental immunity to pass on to their children,
who would then contract measles at an age when babies are normally
protected by maternal antibody.

..."As pointed out by the group of Swiss doctors opposing the
US-inspired policy of mass vaccination against measles, mumps, and
rubella in Switzerland, 'We have lost the common sense and the wisdom
that used to prevail in the approach to childhood diseases.  Too
often, instead of reinforcing the organism's defences, fever and
symptoms are relentlessly suppressed.  This is not always without
consequences...'

"They quoted measles as an example of a childhood disease with fever
and eruptions affecting the organism as a whole.  When the process of
general inflammation is not correctly handled, the illness may
subsequently affect the ears (otitis), the lungs (pneumonia) or the
central nervous system, giving rise to the feared complication:
encephalitis.  The also pointed out the benefits and cure potential of
childhood infectious diseases." [pp. 87-89]

"Weiss (1992) reported on the WHO's suspension of an experimental
high-titre Edmondson-Zagreb measles vaccine.  Children in some
third-world countries seemed well-protected from measles but had an
increased risk of dying from a variety of other diseases in the years
following administration of this vaccine.

"The researchers were baffled.  However, it is quite clear that
contracting and overcoming measles primes and matures the immune
system and increases immunity to a host of other diseases."

"...In April 1993, the Ministry of Health and Welfare in Japan decided
to discontinue the use of measles, mumps and rubella vaccine (Sawada
et al 1993; Lancet; 342, 7 August:371).  This decision was prompted by
published reports of vaccinated children and their (unvaccinated)
contacts contracting mumps from the MMR vaccine."  [pp. 91-92]

References:

Cherry, JD, 1980.  The 'new' epidemiology of measles and rubella.
Hospital Practice; July 1980; 49-57.

Ronne, T, 1985.  Measles virus infection  without rash in childhood is
related to disease in adult life.  Lancet, 5 Jan: 1-5.

Nichols, EM, 1979.  Atypical measles: a continuing problem.  Am J
Public Health; 69 (2); 160-162.

Black, Berman, Reichelt, dePinheiro, DaRosa, Figueira, Gonzales, 1984.
Inadequate immunity to measles in children vaccinated at an early
age: effect of revaccination.  Bull WHO; 62(92):315-319.

Weiss, R, 1992.  Measles battle loses potent weapon.  Science; 258(23
Oct):546-547.

Anonymous, 1992.  Two MMR vaccines withdrawn.  Lancet; 340;722.
    

    I've read through the reports and all other replies in this note,
    but I still believe that the benefits of immunizations far outweigh the
    risks of not immunizing a child against miserable and potentially fatal
    diseases like DPT, MMR, and Hib. I can't ignore the fact that myself
    and the majority of my contemporaries who were in the first wave of
    immunizations (35+) haven't contracted these diseases and made it
    through the immunizations with minor or no complications. The lack of
    major outbreaks (meaning beyond a few hundred people at a college, for
    example) since the years before immunizations also reaffirms my faith
    that innoculations are worth the pain and costs.
    
    As far as people who choose not to immunize themselves or their
    children, I think they should continue to have that right. However,
    since the effectiveness of today's immunizations isn't 100 percent (as
    pointed out in earlier reports), they place many more people than
    themselves at risk. Therefore, they should be willing to accept
    restrictions in heavily populated environments such as schools,
    camps, and large corporations. This may sound unfair, but to me it's a
    tradeoff for the freedom not to innoculate.
    
    This subject is very close to me at this time, as my daughter came home
    from school yesterday with a note from the nurse in which she informed
    us that the school has a documented case of the mumps. If that child
    (if it is a child) or adult wasn't immunized, he or she, in my opinion,
    shouldn't have been allowed to attend/work in that school. If it's a
    child, he or she can be schooled at home or if it's an adult, he or she
    can work elsewhere.
    
    I wrote and deleted this note several times before entering it, as I
    was trying to be rational and not angry. I'm trying very hard to
    respect others' opinions and beliefs, and I hope that they will do the
    same for me.
    
    Nancy-   

    
    
    I ditto Nancy ....!  
    
    

    Several of the papers entered here read like outrageous
    strawman arguments, weakly trying to prove a point without
    any true supporting data.  However there is one aspect to
    this issue that really strikes a chord.

    Despite what the medical profession seems to keep saying, it sure
    seems to me that the cancer rate is increasing.  Our doctor
    believes that one of the reasons for this is the lack of really
    high fevers that people used to get (for example, the flu).
    So he does NOT like to provide immunizations for the flu.  He does
    not recommend asprin or tylonal unless necessary.  When we have
    a fever, his attitude is 'GREAT'!  Almost, the higher the better.
    He believes that spiking a nice high fever not only helps fight
    whatever it is that you have (causing the fever), it also destroys
    other foreign bad things that unchecked eventually will lead
    to cancer.

    I raise sheep, and without immunizations there's a good chance
    I'll lose a lot of lambs.  Tetnas is no laughing matter.  I hope
    you have your dogs and cats immunized for rabies.  Its a terrible
    disease that kills many people in 3rd world countries.  Horrible death.

    I believe its possible to vacinate for too many things and that its
    good to get sick sometimes and let your body get stronger by fighting
    the disease.  but I also believe that we need protection from the
    diseases that really will do us harm.
    bob

    Another case for vaccinations - "slow" viruses (those that reside in 
    our bodies and show no symptoms) have possible links to cancer and 
    other diseases that take years to manifest themselves (according to
    medical research).
    
    Example:      Chicken pox, as a child -> shingles, as an adult
    
    Anyone heard anything about availability of the chicken pox vaccine ?  
    
    
    I too am an advocate of using technology to improve the quality of our
    health, and vaccinations are a low risk, low cost solution to some
    wicked illnesses.  I also am uncomfortable with unvaccinated children
    in my son's pre-school.  We prefer less exposure to illness, not the
    possibility of more.  But the law allows it...

    the chicken pox vaccinne is still under test the last I heard.  the
    major concern is that it might not give lifelong protection, and CP is
    much more severe in adults than kids.  this is where the risk/benefit
    side of the equation for vaccinnes comes in.  It is being used on
    children who have their immune systems impaired due to chemotherapy and
    some immune system diseases.
    
    
    stats from the CDC about measles.  1 in a thousand people who contract
    measles get a form of encephalitis, which can result in metal
    retardation, blindness, siezures or deafness.1 child out of every
    500-10000 who contract measles dies from it, or complications such as
    encephalitis and pneumonia.  1 out of 10 children who contract measles
    will get pnuemonia or an ear infection.  Babies and adults who catch
    measles are sicker and more likely to experience complications and
    death.  
    
    Up to 1/2 of in-utero fetuses whose mothers contract rubella will lose
    their babies ro give birth to babies who are blind, deaf, have heart
    defects or mentally disabled.  having baby-sat a child when I was was
    in my teens who's mother contracted rubella in the first trimester, I
    have seen the results first hand.  they were "lucky"  Tabith was deaf,
    had congenital cataracts, and had had three heart surgeries before she
    was 5.  
    
    1 out of every 10 adult women of childbearing age are currently not
    immune to rubella.  If you haven't innoculated your kids, please avoid
    pregnant friends if your kids are feverish, have a rash, or swollen
    glands or joints.  
    
    meg

Speaking of german measles...  People who are thinking about becoming
pregnant might want to check their immunity.  I developed a strange
virus in my first trimester and one of the tests they ran was to
check my immunity to german measles.  It turns out I had no immunity
even though I had them as a child.  According to my doctor, a small
percentage of people will actually loose their immunity over time.

I asked the doctor why this test wasn't standard for all patients 
planning on getting pregnant.  "Too expensive" was the reply.

Turns out I didn't have GM and I was vacinated against them the day
after my daughter was born.

Laura

The vaccine being worked on for chicken-pox is a tough one ...  for the
reasons in the previous note, and because like other viruses in the
Herpes family, the virus is capable of disguising itself to the immune system
and lying dormant for years.

Herpes simplex ... the kind that causes cold sores as Oral Herpes, and
considerable discomfort as Genital herpes ... 

Herpes zoster ... the chicken pox and shingles virus 


Both can lie dormant in the human body, disguised to the immune system, and
at some time in the future may "undisguise" itself and cause their classic
symptoms again.  It seems that one never really develops a real immunity
to the Herpes viruses, which is why it ihas been very hard to develop a
Chickenpox vaccine.  When it does come, you can be certain that a Herpes
Simplex vaccine won't be far behind.  Imagine ... no more cold sores!

Stuart

    re .48
    
    Isn't that interesting ..... a few years back I read an article in
    Reader's Digest stating that there is a very real correlation between
    'non-illness' and future cancer development.  The article said that the
    people (in a study?) who developed cancer had much less incidence of
    normal illnesses, the flu etc, and those people who got 4+ (I think
    that was the number) 'colds' a year had a much lower rate of cancer. 
    Their reasoning was similar to what you write - when you're sick it
    fights off more than just what you're feeling at that particular
    moment.  I wish I still had the article.  It was either 2-3 years ago.
    
    Patty

    re .17
    
    > I have no answers, but some questions, since you stopped Susana's
    > shots after she had the first round.  Did she have any reaction? 
    > Like one of the previous replies, I thought any problems would be
    > evident after the first round, not later.  Am I wrong?
    
    Tara,
    A more specific reply...  Susana had her first round of shots in
    Paraguay before I arrived, so I don't know the answer to that.  I know
    she was in the hospital for a week just before that with what was
    described as a severe intestinal infection.  They took her off formula
    after that, thinking she was allergic, but the drs. I spoke with here
    said babies shouldn't be given any milk-based products so soon after
    such an infection.  (I suppose I should worry that they innoculated her
    too soon after a serious illness, but nothing I can do...)
    
    When she came into my custody she was basically healthy but
    undernourished and had some coughing.  I put her back on formula, and
    within 2 weeks she looked like a different child!  She gained weight
    and really blossomed.
    
    For her second round at 5 months, she may have had a very slight reaction.
    Her breathing seemed a bit more rapid and shallow for the first 2-3
    days.  I watched her closely because I was so afraid of SIDS.  But she
    returned to normal.  I didn't report it because it seemed so
    insignificant at the time.  After reading about DPT later, I realized
    it's important to report any change, no matter how meaningless it
    seems, even if it's unrelated.
    
    Hope things go well with your daughter.
    
    Lynn
    
    
    
    

    re:                     <<< Note 820.9 by AIMHI::STOKES >>>
                                    -< one no vote >-
    
    >    We're a no vaccine family, but we kind of backed into it....
    >    Conor (6) was headed down the approved pediatric route of vaccines,
    >    earaches, amoxicillin and tubes (3 sets!).  Adam (3) was 14 months
    >    old when the mention of tubes first came up.  Having had the
    >    lack of results with Conor, I decided to follow the advice of a
    >    friend and consult Dr. Cowan, a homeopathic MD in Peterborough.
    
    You mentioned that you keep the kids home and "batten down the hatches"
    when diseases hit town.  [If I knew how to scroll the note in the top
    buffer, I would have copied the correct quote!]
    
    What does that mean?  How do you know when to take them out of school,
    and when to let them go back?  How do you know when they've been
    exposed?  When Adam was in daycare, how did you feel about him being
    exposed to children who had just received polio and other vaccines? 
    
    Are you confident enough in homeopathic treatments that you believe
    you'll be able to successfully treat anything they may catch?  Or do
    you feel that their immune systems should be able to protect them from
    most stuff?  Have you or the kids experienced any hostility or
    judgments that they may be putting others at higher risk?
    
    The one time so far that I became somewhat nervous was at a picnic for
    families with adopted Paraguayan kids this summer.  Susana was just
    about a year old, and I knew there would be hundreds of kids there --
    some who just arrived from Paraguay, many others who were in day care
    or school.  Kids were sharing toys and food and playing in the lake
    together.  I tried to keep Susana out of the part of the lake where most
    of the other kids were, on the other side of the wooden docks
    that separated the swim areas.  But I know I can't keep her in a
    bubble!  
    
    If I truly believed vaccines were safe and effective, I'd have no
    reservations about vaccinating her.  On the other hand, if vaccines
    themselves actually spread the diseases they were designed to prevent,
    I'm putting her at risk by exposing her to vaccinated children.  Home
    schooling may be an option for people who don't do other paid work (not
    me, I'm afraid), but obviously we can't isolate children from the
    world.
    
    I'm very interested in your thoughts about this.
    
    Lynn
    
    
    
    

>    Her breathing seemed a bit more rapid and shallow for the first 2-3
>    days. 

Did she also have a fever?  The reason I asked is that fever is a "normal"
side-effect of the vaccinations, and Noelle always had shallower, more rapid
breathing when she had a fever (as an infant).  

- Deb B.

    Re .55
    
    Yup ... this is common ...
    
    Re .54
    
    I am always reluctant to "batten down the hatches" and keep kids away
    from illness ... Chances are that by the time you realize that the
    place you are going, like school or daycare, has a rash of illnesses,
    chances are your child has been exposed already.
    
    The other thing I've noticed of others is if they've protected their
    child from illnesses, generally when they do catch something, they seem
    to come down far harder with it.  THis is just an observation.
    
    
    Stuart

    re .56
    
    She didn't have a fever - at least not more than her usual high-end
    range.  
    
    The only time she's had a fever so far was last month when she broke
    out in some kind of bumps.  Started as 2 little bumps on the back of
    her calf when we were at the beach.  I thought they were sand flea
    bites or something.  A few days later she had a few more scattered
    around on her legs and a few in her diaper area.  Still no fever.  A
    few days later the "rash" seemed to be spreading quickly in her diaper
    area, and the original 2 looked like poison ivy.  She had a low fever
    (100.8) but wasn't scratching.  I wondered if it was chickenpox, but
    the nurse said no. Her temperature returned to normal; the bumps
    went away within 2 days, and I never discovered what they were.
    Mystery bumps.    

    I am expecting my first baby and will have all of the immunisations
    done.  One of the reasons I have decided to do this is because one of
    my cousins didnt have her Whooping Cough Vaccinations, I think she was
    ill when she was supposed to have gone for them.  Anyway when she was 7
    she got Whooping Cough and it very nearly killed her.  I can remember
    it and I know it scared the living daylights out of us.
    
    Alain.

    
     Does anyone know of a doctor in Mass who will support parents in their
    decision regarding vaccines? Due to some family history, I would prefer
    that my son have the Diptheria and Tetanus but not the Pertussis. My
    doctor said she understands my position (and reasoning) but that she
    is legally liable if I do not get the full DPT for my son. I have
    contacted several doctors and received the same response: either get
    the full DPT or they will not provide medical care.   
    
    Does anyone know of a doctor (MD) in Mass that would support getting
    the Diptheria and Tetanus but not the Pertussis?
    
    I appreciate your help.
     Beth 

    My son got just the Diptheria and Tetanus, but not the Pertussis
    when he got his first dose. He has neurological problems and there
    was some concern that the P vaccine might aggravate them. But after
    consulting the neurologist it was decided that the dangers of not
    vaccinating against Pertussis were worse than the chance that he
    might have some problems. So he did get the Pertussis later and has 
    not had any adverse effects. Noone mentioned any legal issues.
    
    We have HCHP as our HMO and you can talk to our doctor - Dr. Salomon -
    if you like. His number is 508-250-6300.
    
    Manisha

    Kyle (15 months) just received his first MMR vaccine last Friday.  He
    did have a red mark about the size of a quarter develop where the shot
    was given but that only lasted about 4 days and has been disappearing
    slowly since.  It's still there now (6 days later) but it's very
    slight.  Besides this red mark, he hasn't had a fever or rash but for
    the past 4-5 days has been very much on the cranky side.  He's usually
    such a happy kid that this is very out of character.  I've read all the
    info on the vaccine that the dr had given us and it does say that mild
    pain in joints can occur.  It also mentions that rarely one could have
    pain or numbness in the hands and feet.  How can you tell if a 15-month
    old has sore joints ??  or sore hands and feet ??  Besides being fussy/
    cranky he's been tough to get to sleep at night and has been getting up
    at least once every night (usually he's great at bedtime and sleeps all
    night without a peep). 

    Has anyone else had these reactions just after the MMR vaccine ??
    Hopefully this will go away soon, I hate to see the little guy so
    miserable.

    Jean

    

Hi Jean,

We had some similar reactions... but more.

Matthew (15 mos) had his first MMR a couple weeks ago.  He was also sort of
cranky and clingy (unlike him) for the first 3 or 4 days.  And he also stopped
sleeping though the night.  But then it got worse.  He got a double ear 
infection (something he hadn't had in 6 months) and then a fever as high
as 106 (no typo there) for a few days.  The doctors told us both problems 
were caused by the MMR...  Another week later and he's fine now and back to 
his usual self (happy and sleeping through again).

Dan