Pokes

I have always taken my kids for just one shot at a time. I feel that their bodies can better cope with the toxins that come along with a vaccination, and goodness knows it makes sense to me to only fight one disease at a time! (I realize that some vaccines are already combinations, and yes I do get those as they are...but I'm not going to get my kid shot up with a diptheria-tetanus-pertussis, a measles-mumps-rubella, AND a polio all on the same day!) I have had medical providers who were supportive of my choice, and providers who were not so much... But I smile and stand my ground and do it my way anyway. One per visit, no exceptions. I don't get any shots before 6 months old, and I get them when I get them--no fretting over following anyone elses schedule or being done by a certain age.

It has been my experience that with a toddler, they don't know what is coming. It hurts for a moment, they are upset and begin to cry, and by then it is over and so they recover and calm down again almost immediately.
 As they get to be 3 or 4 though, it gets harder.

I don't feel that it's honest to trick my kids (and can you think of an appropriate way to convince your child to drop his pants without telling him why?!) I avoid telling him until the last moment (because the anticipation is usually worse than the actual shot), but I do tell him. I explain that there will be a poke, it will be fast, then it will be over. I tell them why we do it--that the shot gives us a tiny bit of sickness, but that it's small enough that our body can fight it and make soldier cells to protect us from that sickness so that if it comes big we will be able to kill it (yes, I have boys, this is how we explain everything around here!).

Usually we go do something special afterward--an extra long day at the park, getting ice cream, etc. I tell him that it's ok to cry if he needs to (once Bear told me he didn't deserve ice cream because he had cried so he wasn't brave, so I made sure to nip that in the bud the next time). Often I take two or three kids together, and everybody gets a poke. In that case, I talk to the one who gets the most distressed (currently it's Bear), and I let him make some choices, such as whether he will be first or last, which arm, etc. It gives him control over something in a situation where he hasn't been given a choice, and I think that's important.

I have always taken them for just one shot per visit, but recently I had begun to wonder if the emotional distress of having so many separate visits might be harder on the kiddo than getting two shots at once. Bear gets really worked up, and will bawl for an hour (as I remember doing myself).
This last month, the whole family went in together. Hepatitis A is of concern out here in the bush, and so Hubby and I opted to get that along with the kids. Several of us also needed to get a tuberculosis screening, which is not a vaccination, but does involve a(nother) poke. When we walked into the room there was a tray with 8 needles on it, and Bear was very distressed, even after I explained that we were all getting shots and that they were not all for him.
Afterward, Bear told me that he didn't like getting pokes here, that it was better where we used to live. I thought he was going to say something about how he would only get pokes if we went back to the old place (which we both know isn't possible), but instead he just said "I liked it better there because we only got one poke instead of two." So it seems that--even for someone who gets really upset at each episode of poking--it's still better to do them one at a time, even if it means more total visits.

So we'll stick with the plan. One shot in a visit. No exceptions. The public health nurse can roll her eyes all she wants.

Delayed/Selective Vaccination and Mormon Missions

After the school question, this is usually the next one (at least from LDS parents):

So I'm homeschooling, or filing an exemption for my child to attend public school...but what about going on a mission? The church wants missionaries to have a bunch of vaccinations too...

Again there are a couple of options.

Firstly, there are some people who truly cannot be vaccinated. If they have certain allergies (dairy or eggs for example) then they are healthy enough to serve a mission, but cannot receive vaccinations because there is dairy and/or egg in most vaccines. For these individuals, they can still serve missions, but will most likely stay in the USA for their mission. A non-allergic individual who has simply opted-out of vaccinations would have this same option--to just stay 'stateside.' Many people are entirely comfortable with this.

If you are comfortable with vaccination, and simply didn't want to inject too much into a small child, then you have the option to get the vaccines at an older age. This is the route I intend to go with my children. I think that getting a whole bunch of shots in the last 6 months before a mission is equally inappropriate to getting a whole bunch of shots at once with an infant, so I would again spread it across a few years. When each child is in their mid-teens, I will discuss with them about missions and vaccines and inquire as to how they want to proceed. If they are comfortable with being limited in where they might go, I'm ok with that. If they want to keep the foreign/third world country door open, then we would set up a schedule to get the remaining 'required' vaccinations over the high school years. (And another reminder--keep your own records of all the vaccines your kids get and when they get them!)

Delayed/Selective Vaccination and Public School Attendance

Recently I got this comment on my Hep B post:

We avoided this one with our newborn, and I want to continue to avoid it. But if it's required for school entrance, at what point should we have it done so we won't have issues with the school nurse in five years? 

(image source)

Well, there are two answers to that question, and it depends on what your longer-term vaccination plans are. Are you a delayed vaccinator? Or are you a selective vaccinator?

If you are simply a delayed vaccinator, and plan to get all the shots but on a delayed schedule, then you simply spread the vaccines across 5 years rather than doing them all in 2 years (which is what the recommended schedule says). You have twice as long, so you can spread them out easily. Utilize a public health clinic to get the 'off-schedule' shots, or you can do what I do and take multiple children every time one of them has a doctor's appointment, and get shots for everybody even if it's not "their" appointment. (My doctor has been great about this.)
In this case, of course, by the time the child is school-aged, they have had all the 'required' shots for school, and there are no hassles.

Please note--keep your own records of your kids' vaccinations.  Many medical offices will give you a little card to track them, and that works fine, but if you don't have a card then make some kind of chart. You should have your own records and not just rely on what the doctor has in their office. For one thing, the 'recommended schedule' has more injections than what is actually required by the state or school (for example, for polio the CDC says that a child needs 3 injections, with the final one being after age 4. However the typical state schedule says to do 3 injections plus an additional one after age 4. I choose to spare my kids that extra shot!) You need to have your own records so that you can determine which shots to get for your child and when to get them. If you leave it up to your doctor, they will likely try to pressure you into getting "caught up" and/or getting more shots than you truly need.
So I'll repeat myself: keep your own records, make your own choices about what to get and when to get it. Take responsibility for your child(ren)'s health, don't leave it up to someone else. ☺

In the United States, if you are a selective vaccinator or a non-vaccinator, then you will have a different issue if you want your children to attend public school. It depends a little on how selective you are. The list of "recommended" vaccinations is far longer than the list of "required for school" vaccinations. If you get the required ones then you'll still be fine. But, if you opt out of some of those (such as the Hep B), then you will need to do a little extra paperwork in order to keep out of fights with the school nurse.
That extra paperwork comes in the form of claiming an exemption and putting it on file with the school.
The exemption filing process varies from state to state, however you can look it up online. You can also ask at your doctor's office or your local public health office, but they may not be very friendly about it...I recommend starting online (and the Mothering.com forums are a great place to start, I would go to "find your tribe" and find your region and then ask there for pointers about what to do for your area).
In some places you can just do it once, I believe in other places you may need to re-file for each school year. There should not be a fee associated with it, but I think I heard that in some places there is. I've never had to pay one so I'm not sure.
And how does an exemption work? Simple, you put it on file with your school, and your kids attend. IF (and only if) there is an outbreak of something your child hasn't been vaccinated for (measles, pertussis, etc), then you will be asked to keep your child home from school for the duration of the outbreak. That's all.

There are three types of exemptions: medical, religious, and personal/philosophical, but not all are available in all states. Every state has to allow medical exemptions for children who have certain allergies or who are immuno-compromised. A medical exemption has to be signed by your doctor, stating why the child is exempted. I believe that all states also have to allow the religious exemption, because otherwise it would be discrimination. This is just a matter of printing off the form and signing it and turning in a copy to the school. The personal or philosophical exemption is only available in some states, but essentially it says "we don't believe in or don't want vaccinations [for whatever reason, we don't have to tell anybody why]" and, like the religious exemption, you just fill out the form, sign it, and turn it in to the school. In some states you may need to have it notarized.
For those who are choosing selective vaccination (or non-vaccination) for personal reasons rather than medical, this can become sticky if you are in a state which only allows medical or religious exemptions. I, personally, still feel comfortable with claiming a religious exemption. My religion is not opposed to vaccination, but it does teach that we should "search, ponder, and pray" when making decisions. My research, thought, and prayer over my family's health has led me to the decision to vaccinate selectively. I suppose not everyone would feel comfortable with that reasoning, but I do.

So that's how we work it out with delayed/selective vaccination and public school attendance. Of course, a lot of folks who opt out of mainstream vaccination practices also opt out of mainstream educational practices, and homeschooling doesn't have any vaccination requirements either way. ☺

The BRAN Principle

Anytime one needs to make a medical decision nope, scratch that, most any decision, I believe it is important to consider all the sides of the issue. Unfortunately I find that very often people read one article or hear one story or one recommendation from someone they trust and then they just go with it without asking any more questions. I have a humanist perspective in that I don't think that anybody out there is deliberately trying to spread medical misinformation, but since there is so much conflicting information then it seems pretty obvious that the issues are more complicated than any one party is willing to admit. Thus my belief in studying it out for myself and then utilizing the BRAN principle.

In my childbirth class we were introduced to the "BRAN principle" which is to consider each potential course of action in light of the Benefits, Risks, Alternatives, and what would happen if we did Nothing (for the present). For example, while laboring with Bear I stalled out for several hours. I was having regular contractions, but was not dilating because the baby had floated up and there was no pressure on my cervix. The doctor said he could break my water, but if I didn't want that then I should go home because I wasn't progressing. He knew I was wary of interventions, so he gave me the choice. Well, the benefits of breaking my water were that the baby's head would re-engage and labor would almost certainly get moving. The risks were that without the water cushion labor was likely to get much more intense (which might affect my hopes for an unmedicated labor), and if labor did not progress as anticipated then broken water means an increased risk of infection, and thus a timeline for delivery (which could lead to needing pitocin or theoretically even a c-section). The alternative was to go home and try to rest and/or get things moving with the water sack intact. If we did nothing for the time being, well, that would mean going home. I knew that labor had to get more intense before the baby could come, and that because of the regular (if ineffective) contractions I wasn't going to be able to sleep anyway, so we opted to break my water. Was it interfereing with nature? Sure. Was it a good choice? I definitely think so. But most importantly, it was an informed choice.

Here in Alaska the public health department conducts regular screenings for Tuberculosis. It's an ugly disease, and one that has apparently held on here more strongly than in the rest of the country. I have never hesitated a moment in giving my permission for my children to be screened. If a screening comes back positive, that indicates that the person has been exposed to TB, so then they do another screen (a chest x-ray) to look for signs of actual infection (past or current). If the person has signs of infection, they put them on a medication. So far so good--I'm entirely comfortable with all of that. However, if the person does not have any signs of infection, the health department still wants to put them on 9 months of medication as a preventative/suppressive measure, in spite of the fact that the original screening has a certain rate of false positives (only some doctors will recommend re-screening before medicating). The downside of the suppressive medication is that it carries a risk of giving the person Hepatitis (aka liver failure). So they also prescribe vitamin B in an effort to prevent that possibility, and most doctors will do a blood test a month into the regimen to ensure that the liver is, in fact, not failing.
So wait, if the screening (which is safe, but may or may not give a false positive) comes back positive, then they will do an x-ray (which is more or less safe), and then regardless of the outcome of that x-ray they will prescribe a medication which is clearly only sortof safe?! Whoa, stop the train here, I think I needed to get off a couple of stops ago. Yes, I understand the desire to keep TB in check--I'm not arguing that point--but for someone with a clear x-ray, doesn't it make sense to require a second screening just to make sure before starting someone on a 9-month regimen of a medication that might kill them?!

Most medical actions (be they medications, procedures, or vaccinations) have some fairly clear intended benefits. Some have varying efficacy rates, so actual results may vary a bit, but the intended benefits are obvious. In many cases, the risks are not hard to determine either--some are decidedly larger than others, but pretty much any kind of action has some degree of risk. I think that most people are at least somewhat aware of these two sides of a choice. The parts that seem often overlooked are the alternatives (opting-out of the choice altogether, doing something else) and the always available option of doing nothing--at least for now.

Is that so very odd?



As my readers may have noticed, I have not shared my thoughts on swine flu nor the vaccination for it, nor do I intend to do so. I genuinely believe that it's best for each person to do their own study and make their own choice. However, the BRAN principle came to mind for me recently during a discussion on facebook, so I thought I would share it as something that is one of my guides in making these kinds of decisions.

Vaccines--Chicken Pox (Varicella)

The varicella vaccine is recommended at 12m and/or 24m (not everyone agrees on the second dose). It is supposed to protect your children from that horrible scary disease the chicken pox! [cue scary music...] Alright, who remembers having had the chicken pox? Go ahead, raise your hands. Was it really that bad? I mean, yeah, it was itchy, and for a week or so you probably felt lousy...but think about it, now you're immune for life! That's not too terrible a trade is it? I know, a few of us got little scars from the pox-marks, but do you know of anyone who made it through childhood without a scar or two? I was 10 when I got the chicken pox--so older than most kids--and my memories of it are pretty clear. It wasn't fun, but it wasn't horrible. Actually, I'd take the itching over a make-you-barf stomach bug any day! It is true that chicken pox can be dangerous for an infant under 1 year, or for people who don't catch it until they are in their teens or adult years. So, for decades mothers have taken their kids to 'pox parties' with other kids who were infected, to insure that everybody got it while they were in those perfect middle years. Now these mothers are just getting their kids a vaccine. But the vaccine is far scarier than the disease ever was. First of all, it's not available until the child is over a year, so infants are still at risk. Secondly, the 'immunity' bestowed by the vaccine lasts for 10 years at most, so around the age of 11 or 12 (ie, just when catching chicken pox would begin to be dangerous again) the vaxed child is now again at risk. Who is the dummy that thought this was a good idea?! "Protect" them for exactly the years when catching it would be no big deal?! C'mon people!!! Oh, and it gets better. You know shingles? Well, having chicken pox (and getting that immunity) also gives immunity to shingles. Having the chicken pox vaccine (varicella) appears to cause shingles. Oh yeah, it quite often causes chicken pox too. Um, why are we giving this shot again?! For those who don't know, shingles is related to chicken pox. Basically some people get a little stuck in them like a chronic case of CP. It doesn't break out unless their immune system is lowered...exposure to others with active cases of CP re-boosts their system and prolongs the immunity (postpones/prevents outbreaks). Now that we're preventing CP in the first place, shingles is showing up more than ever before. In fact, many doctors are now recommending a shingles shot for anyone over age 50. Yay, another shot. Oh, and there are boosters too...more shots, more shots! Or we could start holding pox parties again. I suspect that any kid you ask will tell you he'd rather be spotty and itchy than have a whole bunch of shots. I suspect most adults feel the same way. I know your immune system does. This article is full of references and helpful information about the varicella vaccine, and has lots more details on the shingles connection. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I typically don't share my personal decisions on vaccination--I think it's important for each family to make their own decisions based on the research. BUT, in this case, I don't mind saying that I think this vaccine is silly for a small child. I would consider this vaccine only for a young teen who had not managed to catch the actual disease, and I would have said teen be part of the decision-making process about whether or not to get the shot.

2023 update: guess what is nearly impossible to catch in the wild anymore? Yeah, chicken pox. So I did not get the vaccine for my kids at age 2 because I hoped to get them natural infection and immunity. However, around middle school age (when they had not been able to get it) I did get them the vaccine. 

The world is a shifting place. If my kids were babies today, I would do the same thing, but I would be more realistic about the improbability of getting them wild chicken pox. 

Dr Weil’s “Shot in the Dark”

From Dr Andrew Weil’s column at www.aarpmagazine.org/health I wanted to post this here because I respect Dr Weil as “a pioneer in the field of integrative medicine.” I don’t agree with him 100%, but I think he is widely respected, and thus his opinions carry some weight even in mainstream culture… Italics are mine. Q: Some say that vaccines—or the chemicals used to preserve them—can be risky. Should I avoid them? A: My opinion is simple: the benefits of vaccines outweigh the risks. And yes, there are risks, mostly of immediate adverse reactions. But these are much lower than the risks of the diseases that the vaccines prevent. If we still lived with diphtheria, polio, and tetanus, no one would question the wisdom of preventing these diseases. Immunization facilitates a natural process by simulating encounters between the body’s immune system and killed or weakened viruses and bacteria (or pieces and products of them). In early life, such encounters can enable the immune system to defend us against these pathogens. I understand some people’s resistance to the idea of injecting toxins and germs into children (or themselves) but I think they have not considered immunization’s very favorable ratio of benefits to risks. The risk varies from vaccine to vaccine, but it always a miniscule fraction of one percent. And I take very strong exception to those who believe that febrile illnesses of childhood are necessary for optimal lifelong health. That is nonsense. That doesn’t mean I’m in favor of every vaccine though. I’m not sure universal vaccination against Hepatitis B is a good idea. The people are risk are in well-known subgroups, so the shots (and the small risk) should be limited to them. Nor am I sure we should vaccinate all children against chickenpox. For most people, getting chickenpox confers lifelong immunity, but the vaccine does not. And catching the disease as an adult is more dangerous than getting it overwith in childhood. I’m glad that mercury preservative has been nearly phased out of vaccines, though I have not seen credible evidence that it causes autism, as some claim. I hope that genetic engineering will bring us better (and even safer) vaccines. Finally, for the record, I keep current on my own immunizations—I had the pneumonia vaccine along with my flu shot—and my 15-year-old daughter has had all of hers. 

Vaccines--Polio--update

In the interest of accuracy, I wanted to share that I recently learned that the US government (the FDA I suppose?) is no longer saying that they expect to see polio eradicated by 2010... eradication is (at this point) not in the forseeable future.
Of course, polio still exists almost exclusively in just a few small geographic areas (none of them in the western hemisphere)...but that whole eradication thing, yeah, no longer accurate...

Books and Guts

Yesterday someone gave me a whole lot of grief for not vaccinating my baby according to the recommended schedule. It's a convoluted story about how it all came up, but she knew that I was only doing one vax at a time, and asked how often I was doing them "every two weeks?" I said no, I was doing them a couple of months apart. She got a shocked and condescending look on her face and said "but then you'll never be able to get them all done by the time he's two." "I know, but he'll have them before he starts school." "Oh, but he really needs them by two." I launched into an explanation of how I have done my research, from authoritative sources such as the CDC (Betcha *she* hasn't read the pink book cover to cover, even though she's an MD!) She looked at me as though I were insane, and said "Well, I can see you've done your research, and you have the right to make those choices for your children, but I'm glad that other parents aren't making those same choices or we would lose the herd immunity. Other parents don't ask as many questions, they just accept. You are lucky that they are getting their shots, because they are helping protect your child." I was livid. She's glad that other parents don't have/take the time to research for their kids? That they don't question? 

*deep breaths* 

After the fact, I came up with a number of great retorts for her, but in the moment I was just so overwhelmed with her staunch insistence that I was doing my children a disservice by doing research rather than just following the party line. I've spoken with other doctors who may not have agreed with me, but they at least respected that I was trying to make educated decisions. I make my parenting choices based on three things: education, intuition, and prayer. I would venture to say that the prayer actually overlaps into the intuition, because much of the intuition is actually inspiration. I 'go with my gut,' be those feelings based on Divine guidance or on instinct. Book and Guts people. That's how I mother. I'm far from perfect, but the method is not flawed, and I think we'd have a better world if more people tried it. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Edited to add: A few of those responses I thought of later: "Oh, have you read the CDC's book cover to cover? Because I have..." "Herd immunity? Are we talking about children or sheep?" [after she asked if family members had had reactions, and why I was worried about them] "It's not just about reactions. Giving multiple vaccines at once, or close together, gives a child toxic levels of aluminum." [after "you'll never get done by two"] "Well thank heaven for that!" (this was my dh's response when I told him. Yay Hubby!!! He's pro vax too, but at least he has the sense to want them spread out!) "Oh, so you're saying that good parents don't ask questions? Have you ever read 1984?" [after "what if he got measles out here in the middle of winter"] "Well, hallelujah if he gets the real thing and can develop real immunity, that's so hard to do nowdays!"

Vaccines—Polio/IPV

The IPV is recommended at 2m, 4m, 6-18m, and 4-6y. Doses must be given at least 4 weeks apart, and while 4 doses are on the recommended schedule, 3 doses is considered sufficient vaccination so long as the final dose is given after age 4. The IPV is not recommended over the age of 18years unless the person will be traveling to certain regions with high rates of polio. The MTC does not have this on their list of recommended vaccines (although it might be recommended for specific missionaries if they are going to those areas). Polio gets a bad name because of cases like FDR, who developed lifelong paralysis. Many people know someone who was paralyzed by polio…what they do not realize is that millions of other people had polio and were NOT paralyzed. In fact, only around 5% of cases of polio resulted in any kind of paralysis, and fewer than 2% of those had lifelong paralysis. In other words, only something like 1 of 2000 infected people had residual paralysis, and not even all of those were para- or quadriplegics. The truth is that many cases of polio were not as dangerous as we have been told. Now this is not to say that it’s no big deal—the risks were and are real, but they are just not terribly common. 

***2023 NOTE***
As of the early 2000s there had been NO cases of wild polio reported in the western hemisphere since 1991. BUT in 2022 there was an outbreak in the US among unvaccinated individuals... We almost had Polio eradicated (the way we eradicated smallpox 30 years earlier), but non-vaccination has allowed it to get a foothold again. When I wrote this post in 2007 I wrote that researchers estimated we would have Polio eradicated by 2010...but guess what.
Polio is still a ‘posterchild’ for vaccination, just as smallpox was. (Smallpox was declared eradicated in 1980, and the vaccine has not been administered since that time, although small samples of the virus do still exist in laboratories.) Eradication has been delayed but is still achievable. 

***BACK TO YOUR REGULARLY SCHEDULED PROGRAMMING***
It is important to recognize the different forms of the polio vaccine. For decades the oral (live) polio vaccine was given. As with any live vaccine, it was quite effective, but also very dangerous (it caused paralytic polio in about 10 people each year). Now the USA uses only the injected Inactivated Polio virus (IPV). The CDC reports current research showing that 2 doses provides 90% immunity, and 3 doses provides 99-100% protection from paralytic polio. Duration of protection is unsure, but adults who were fully vaccinated as children typically still have immunity.

IPV contains formaldehyde, phenoxyethanol (ethanol—toxic, depressant, tranquilizer), and neomycin, streptomycin, and polymyxin B (antibiotics—Included to prevent germs in the vaccine cultures!) The vaccine serum is grown in cells taken from monkey kidneys. There are documented cases of monkey viruses spreading to humans via polio vaccinations, and there is current suspicion that SV40 (another monkey virus) may be being transmitted, and may be causing certain cancers in humans. Some experts even believe that early HIV/AIDS transmission to humans came via contaminated polio vaccine serums. Of course this cannot be proven, but the spread of AIDS among humans occurred at around the same time and in the same areas as the increasing usage of the polio vaccine, so the theory is not unfounded. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ My Conclusions Polio can be a dangerous thing, with lifelong side effects. The oral polio vaccine was scary, but the IPV seems relatively safe.

2023 Update: we fully vaccinate for Polio, with the first dose after 6m and a total of 3 doses (not 4) with the last dose after age 4. It would be awesome if we could stay on track for eradicating this one...we were so close. 

Vaccines—MMR

The MMR (Measles, Mumps, Rubella) vaccine is one of the old standards. It is given sub-cutaneously (meaning just under the skin, but not into the muscle). As this is a live virus vaccine, reactions are quite common, and it is possible for the vaccine to actually cause the disease against which it is supposed to protect. While the combined form is standard, it is worth considering getting the three vaccines in separate shots—at least for the first dose of each—so that if a reaction occurs, you can tell what the reaction is to. (Good luck finding them separate though.)

With many vaccines, the adverse reactions are difficult to define. Meaning that while one person may be certain that the symptoms are effects of the vaccine, it is difficult to prove that the two are linked, and (in these days of multi-vaxing) it is even more difficult to determine which vaccine caused the reaction. HOWEVER, studies have PROVEN that the MMR vaccine—the rubella portion in particular—can cause arthritis or arthritic symptoms which may be temporary or permanent. This happens in about 25% of cases, and it causes by chemical confusion (the molecular structure of some components of the vaccine are extremely similar to some components of natural joint fluids, and the immune system becomes confused and while it is attacking the toxins from the vaccine, it also attacks the joints…) There are innumerable reactions attributed to vaccinations, but this is one that is proven. I repeat, this reaction is NOT speculative, it is proven. Furthermore, it is common. 

 MMR is a famous ‘bad guy’ vaccine, because it has been accused of causing autism. (The other infamous link is DTP and SIDS.) Firstly, there is absolutely no evidence supporting a correlation let alone causation between vaccines and autism. There may be links between some vaccine ingredients and adverse reactions (One example is Stephanie Cave’s chart showing the parallels between the symptoms of autism and the symptoms of mercury poisoning, with the speculation that some cases diagnosed as autism may actually be heavy metal poisoning). There continues to be progress with vaccine ingredients to get the dangerous ones removed and to make them safer. Additionally, primary brain development slows down by age 2, so waiting until that time to give this vaccine may help reduce the risk of adverse reactions. 

Schools require 2 doses of the MMR, and the MTC recommends the same. Doses should be administered at least 4 weeks apart. The recommended schedule is 12-15m, 4-6y, and then a rubella booster (although the full MMR is usually given) especially for girls around 12y or the onset of puberty. Note that doses given to a child under 12months don’t count for anything. The MMR vaccine contains gelatin (allergen), sorbitol (allergen), neomycin (an antibiotic), and in the measles and mumps portion, it contains egg (allergen). 

The original serum for the rubella vaccine was made in 1964 with aborted fetal tissue (the mother got Rubella). While I appreciate that that is an effective way to acquire the virus, many people have moral considerations about the origins. 

As for the other diseases? Well, they are not really as scary as we are led to believe. Measles is no fun. On the other hand, it’s not usually that big a deal either. The patient gets spots and feels yukky for a while, but that’s about it. Once it’s over, they have natural lifelong immunity. Primary treatments include doses of vitamin A (suggesting that this would also be helpful with the live vaccine). It used to be most common in children 4-5years old, but since the introduction of the vaccination it is most common between ages 10-14y, and is seen as young as 6m and as old as 20y. About 1 in 1000 cases is fatal. Most cases of measles in the USA are in people who were vaccinated. Recent outbreaks have been in partially-vaccinated populations, and weird strains of measles are appearing, suggesting that the virus is mutating and the vaccine is losing efficacy. In decades past, women had childhood measles, and then their natural antibodies protected their (breastfed) infants during the first 12-15months of life. However, now that most mothers have been vaccinated, they do not have those natural antibodies, and so cannot protect their children. The result is that infants are catching measles during their first year of life, when they are too young for the vaccination, and too small to cope with the actual disease. In other words, mass vaccination of one generation has now put the next generation at increased risk. 

Mumps is an all around mild disease, and natural immunity results. For years people have feared it because of the rumors that it can cause sterility. While it is true that about 25% of cases do include infection in the reproductive organs, it is rare for that infection to cause sterility. Even if sterility of the organ does result, it is VERY rare for the infection to attack both testes or both ovaries, so while fertility might be reduced by half, it is almost never lost entirely. Furthermore, the effectiveness of the mumps vaccine is questionable. Some doctors theorize that it is 75-95% effective, and lasts for around 30 years, but not everyone agrees. The one thing that is certain is that there has been a 600% reduction in mumps infection rates since introduction of the vaccination. 

Rubella is also called ‘German Measles’ because it causes spots like measles does, however it should not be confused with regular measles. Rubella does carry some danger, but only to unborn babies. In fact, the vaccine is recommended for children to protect the pregnant women around them rather than to protect the children themselves, for whom the disease would be no big deal. The danger to a fetus is so extreme that a pregnant (or potentially pregnant) woman should NEVER get a rubella vaccination, and no one living in a household with her should get the vaccination. A woman receiving the rubella vaccination should be careful to not become pregnant for at least 3 months (the advice used to be 6 months, and before that they said 12months…actually no one knows how long the live virus remains in the body, but 3 months seems to be the shortest anyone is willing to go). The danger is this: if a woman contracts rubella in the first half of a pregnancy it can cause deafness, bone defects, heart defects, glaucoma, mental retardation, cataracts, poor growth or death to the baby. Miscarriages and stillbirths are common results of rubella. I have personal experience with a reaction to the rubella vaccine. I was fully vaccinated for rubella as a child, but at age 25, my titers showed that I did not have the antibodies. Whether they had worn down, or whether I had never developed them, we don’t know. Since I was pregnant, the doctor recommended getting the vaccine immediately after delivery. I chose to do so. Within a couple of days I developed SEVERE itching all over my body. I am one who can usually resist scratching, but this was so severe that I developed rashes on my arms, legs, belly, and breasts, and even broke the skin in a few places due to scratching. I called the doctor’s office to ask what they recommended I do, and the nurse told me that they usually recommended a benadryll cream. Usually? Meaning that is kind of reaction was common?! Yup. So I got a benadryll cream, and applied it…I used almost the entire tube in 4 days, and that was trying to use the minimum possible because the label warned against using it on large areas! So, the itching subsided after about a week, although the rashes took at least another week to clear up. Then came the joint pain. My wrists began to be sore. At first I thought it was from holding my baby—that I was inadvertently putting my wrists at bad angles and thereby hurting myself. So I paid careful attention to not bend my wrists, but to keep them straight while holding my baby. The pain continued. I wondered about carpal tunnel, but the symptoms didn’t quite match. The soreness came and went a little, but I always noticed it at night, especially when I lifted my baby to feed him. He was a small baby, but just picking him up caused such excruciating pain in my wrists and hands that I had to grit my teeth to do it. This lasted for several months. Finally, all the symptoms faded away. I now sincerely regret having chosen to get that vaccination though. I had never had a reaction to any vaccine before then, and certainly did not expect to have one this time. But I’m now a little wiser for the wear I suppose, and I cannot think of any circumstance where I would recommend that a mother get this as I did. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ My Conclusions: Well, following my rubella experience, I don’t care what future titers may say about my immunity or lack thereof—I will not get that vaccination ever again. Mumps seems hardly worth protecting against, and measles, well, who is to say that the vaccine will hold up to the new mutations of the virus?! This vaccine has been around a long time, and until my recent experience and research I would never have thought to question it…but I must say, it’s definitely worth questioning.

 

Postscript, 2023: My titer was negative with my next baby and I did not get the vaccine again. I have gotten the MMR vaccine for my children. We get the first dose at or after age 2, and the second dose somewhere around starting school. 

Vaccines—DTaP

The DTaP vaccine is recommended for missionaries entering the MTC. “Full vaccination” for school consists of 4 or 5 doses, administered into the muscle, a minimum of 4 weeks apart for the initial series (3 doses), with subsequent boosters at least 2 years apart. (The CDC states that giving boosters too often will increase negative reactions, and frankly the potential reactions for this vaccine are scary enough already!) Most vaccination schedules recommend giving this vaccine at 2m, 4m, 6m, 15-18m, and giving a booster at 4-6y. However, so long as the final dose (the booster) is given after age 4, only 4 doses are needed. Efficacy for the combined vaccination is 80-85%. The DTaP is NOT approved for use in children over 7y. However, both the tetanus and diphtheria vaccines require boosters to maintain efficacy, so the Td or Tdap are approved for children over age 10. Boosters should be given every 10 years throughout life. 

The DTP has been generally agreed to be one of the more dangerous routine vaccines on the market. More than half of reported vaccine reactions have been to the DTP, with fever and prolonged inconsolable crying topping the list. Many people also attribute *SIDS to this vaccine. The new version—the DTaP (with acellular pertussis, rather than the whole-cell pertussis of the original)—has fewer side effects, but inevitably still carries risks. The vaccine contains aluminum (toxic), formaldehyde (eww!) and thimerosal (mercury—toxic). To my knowledge, there is NOT a thimerosal-free version of this vaccination like there are of all the others. However, unlike some other vaccinated diseases (such as chicken pox), these diseases have risks of their own, and can be extremely severe. 

The highest risk group for diphtheria is children between the ages of 2-5years. Diphtheria is transmitted via touch or respiratory droplets, so is highly contagious. It is considered treatable, but the current treatments cannot mend the damage caused by the disease—they can only stop additional progression. Diphtheria can be difficult to diagnose in the early stages because it often looks like a simple cold; in the later stages however, heart damage is common, and often a tracheotomy is needed to allow breathing. [Does this scare anyone else? You can’t catch it early, can’t fix the problems it causes, and may end up with a busted heart or a hole in your neck just to survive the thing.] There is a 5-10% death rate in diagnosed cases. There is no telling what the actual infection rate is. Getting diphtheria will NOT provide immunity against getting it again. The vaccine is considered about 95% effective. 

Tetanus bacteria cannot live in oxygen (they are anaerobic), so they thrive in deep wounds. One fairly effective way to protect yourself against tetanus is to be sure to thoroughly wash any deep wound—flowing blood will oxygenate the area, and substantially reduce the risk of developing tetanus. This is not always possible however, because potentially infectious wounds include burns, dental infections, crushing wounds, puncture wounds, and ear infections. If acquired, the tetanus bacteria produces a poison which blocks the nerve signals that relax the muscles. The result is strong and painful muscle spasms which can even break bones. In the United States, 30% of tetanus victims die, usually from suffocation when their chest muscles become rigid. Getting tetanus will NOT provide immunity against getting it again. The vaccine, although it requires boosters every decade, is considered over 95% effective. 

 Pertussis, also called Whooping Cough, is not a pretty disease either. Its name results from the fact that heavy mucous in the airways inhibits breathing, often causing the victim to ‘whoop’ as they cough. The disease usually lasts 2-4 months. Children under the age of 1 year have the greatest risk, with 75% of cases occurring in children under 10. A case of Pertussis often will include nosebleeds, bruised ribs, pneumonia, bronchitis, ear infection, and hemorrhaging in the eyes. The virus is transmitted by respiratory droplets, so even brief exposure to an infected person can lead to infection. Natural infection will provide the patient with immunity. The CDC says that the pertussis vaccine is 70-90% effective (meaning that is the percent of people who develop antibodies and immunity), and it has reduced infection rates by 98%. It seems to have been the whole-cell pertussis portion of the DTP vaccine that caused most of the negative side effects. These effects included convulsions, shock, high fever, swelling of the brain, brain damage, cardiac distress, and respiratory distress. In 1996, the switch was made to using the DTaP, which has acellular pertussis, and the number of negative reactions has dropped drastically. The pertussis toxin remains the most dangerous portion of this vaccine, but vitamin A improves the body’s response to it. 

 An interesting study showed that infants die at 8x the normal rate within the first 3 days after receiving this vaccination. *SIDS is more common within the first 3 weeks after any DTP (the original or a booster). Both apnea (stopped breathing) and hypopnea (shallow breathing) are documented reactions to the DTaP vaccine, and some doctors feel that is the reason for the increased death rate. *SIDS, or Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, is the label they use when they don’t really know why the child died. There are theories ranging from uneven growth of vital organs (with one causing another to stop functioning) to toxins in old mattresses to sleep apnea/stopped breathing. Personally, I think that the apnea/hypopnea theory makes a lot of sense. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ My Conclusions These are three REALLY ugly diseases. The vaccine carries risks, but so do the diseases—and in my opinion, the diseases are worse than a wisely administered vaccination (meaning dosing up on vitamin C, vitamin A, etc). Diphtheria and Tetanus do not even bestow natural immunity, so there is no benefit whatsoever to acquiring the disease. These all have fairly high rates of severe side effects or death. This is a vaccine I do believe in. As always, it should not be combined with other vaccines, and should be preceded and followed by immuno-boosting vitamins and herbs.

 

Postscript 2023: I begin vaccinating at 6months, I spread out vaccines, but I do get all 4 doses of DT or DTaP, with the last one at school age. We also get our boosters. I don't mess with the D, P, or T. They are nasty.

Vaccines--Hep B

My stated requires 3 doses of Hepatitis B for school attendance. The MTC also recommends 3 doses. The CDC recommends giving this vaccine to a baby immediately after birth, as well as at 1-2m, and 6-18m. If the vaccine is given to a child in their teens (11-15y), then only two doses are needed for full vaccination. Patients over the age of 14y have fewer side effects from this vaccine. The National Vaccine Information Center recommends that this vaccine only be given to high risk groups--not given routinely to children. (see below for information about risk groups) Around 90% of people receiving this vaccination develop the desired antibodies (95% of children), but the rates drop with age (only 75% over 60y), so it is preferable to give this vaccine to younger people. Antibodies decrease with time, but vaccination is estimated to give immunity for 15 or more years (studies on this matter have not yet been completed). Current vaccination options are far less effective for people over 40, males, smokers, and those who are obese. There are two versions of this vaccine: "Engenrix B" and "Recombivax HB." Both brands have *thimerosal-free versions, but both also have versions which contain *thimerosal, so know what you are getting! This is a genetically engineered vaccine, so it CANNOT give the actual disease...on the other hand, genetic engineering has its own problems. *Thimerosal is a preservative which contains mercury Some experts feel that this vaccine is related to rising rates of Multiple Sclerosis and Type 1 Diabetes in children. They have several studies to back this up (details in Dr Cave's book). This vaccine contains yeast, aluminum hydroxide, latex (in the needle), and ethylene glycol. Allergen, poison, allergen, poison...do we need to go through all these again? Hepatitis B is pretty ugly if you catch it. It messes with liver function, leading to jaundice (since the body can't get rid of toxins), and chronic Hep B is a common predecessor of liver cancer. 50% of infected adults are asymptomatic, and may pass on the disease unawares. Almost all children are asymptomatic. Approximately .5-1.5% of acute cases are fatal (2-300/year in the USA), and approximately 10% of cases become chronic carriers who can infect others (although they may still be asymptomatic and thus unaware of their carrier status). Chronic Hep B is not easy to treat--the most effective treatment seems to be Interferon, and it is only 25-50% effective. And the whole liver cancer thing... Hepatitis B is a bloodborne pathogen. That means it is transmitted when bodily fluids, such as blood or semen, come in contact with the mucus membranes of another person. It is spread most often via sexual contact or shared needles. In other words, it is primarily a disease of promiscuous people, male homosexuals, and intravenous drug users. Is your baby a junkie hooker?! (The reason the CDC recommends giving this vaccine at birth is that there is some slight risk of the baby contracting Hep B from its mother during birth...IF she has the disease. There is also some slight risk to a small child if they were to be bitten by a HepB carrier, because saliva could infect them if their skin were broken by the bite.) The lifetime risk of contracting Hepatitis B in the United States is <20 africa="" amazon="" and="" asia="" china="" east="" is="" islands="" middle="" n="" pacific="" risk="" southeast="" the="">60%) Those in the USA at HIGH risk for contracting Hepatitis B are: homosexual males, illicit drug users, immigrants from areas with high risk of Hep B, and developmentally disabled persons who are in institutions. Those with MODERATE risk are: health care workers, prisoners, prison workers, promiscuous heterosexuals, and staff in institutions for the developmentally disabled. The highest risk age group is 20-39. So why are we shooting this one into babies? Hepatitis B rates in the USA have NOT CHANGED since the introduction of this vaccine. I believe this is because the children we are vaccinating are not the ones who were at risk anyway. The CDC says we need to spread awareness among high risk groups in order to see improvement. Well duh! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ My conclusions: I feel that my children (indeed, most children) have little or no risk for this disease. Frankly, I don't really understand why it's on the 'required' list for school, OR for the MTC--even when traveling to a high risk area, a drug-free, non-sexually-active person is not really at risk. I don't see this as a practical vaccine for a small child unless they fall into a risk group. I do see it as more practical as a person gets older and may be at higher risk for personal or professional reasons.

What Your Doctor May NOT Tell You About Children's Vaccinations by Stephanie Cave MD

"What Your Doctor May Not Tell You About Children's Vaccinations"
by Stephanie Cave MD, FAAFP

Dr Cave is pro-vaccine, however she believes that vaccines are not without dangers. In this book, she discusses the realities of the diseases for which we vaccinate, as well as the medical information available about each vaccine. She does not say that something is proven if it is not (for example, the link between autism and vaccination), however, she discusses the facts behind the hypothesis (for example, that many vaccines used to contain mercury--some still do--and that the symptoms of mercury poisoning are almost identical to the symptoms of autism).
She also discusses the difference between natural immunity (that acquired by actually getting the disease) and vaccinated immunity, which is imperfect. Natural immunity is usually lifelong, whereas vaccinated immunity usually is not, and may last for as little as 7 years, or as long as 30+ years, depending on the vaccine. Dr Cave explains the difference between a 'live vaccine' (which is one with the live virus in it) and an 'inactivated vaccine' (where the virus has been killed prior to injection). Live vaccines may actually cause the disease they are meant to avoid--since they contain live virus. These cases are usually mild though, and may result in natural immunity, which is a good thing. On the other hand, while inactivated vaccines are considered safer, and will not cause the disease, they also have a lower rate of efficacy, and still have the risk for other side effects.

I found this book VERY informative, and would recommend that any parent who genuinely cares about their child's health should read this before making decisions about vaccinating (either for OR against).

Here are a couple of quotes from the book which I found particularly interesting:

"[A]n infant's immune system cannot adequately respond to a vaccine until he or she is four to six months old."

(She later explains that this is because the body does not produce bile until that age, and is therefor unable to flush out toxins such as aluminum and mercury which are in the vaccines.)

"Since the late 1950s, when mandatory mass vaccinations started in the United States, there has been an increase in the incidence of immune system and neurological disorders, including Attention Deficit Disorder, asthma, autism, childhood diabetes, chronic fatigue syndrome, learning disabilities, rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, and other chronic health problems."

(While not proven, many people feel that this is happening for one of the following reasons: 1--not catching these diseases is leaving the body without toxins to attack, and so it begins to attack itself. 2--ingredients in the vaccines are chemically similar to things in the body, and when the immune system begins to fight the vaccine it confuses the similar cells and also attacks healthy body parts [eg: arthritic symptoms]. 3--the disorders are responses to ingredients in the vaccines which are poison [eg: autism])

Howard Urnovitz, PhD, microbiologist, and founder of Chronic Illness Research Foundation, Berkley "there's no scientific evidence to prove that vaccines cause chronic diseases, but they [the government] won't fund any research in that area either. If you don't look for something, you won't find it."

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Dr Cave, as I mentioned, is in favor of vaccination. However, she has some recommendations for doing it safely:

• Do not get ANY vaccination if you are even slightly ill, or have been so in the last two weeks. (The AAP says to avoid vaccination if you are moderately or severely ill, but that it's ok when mildly ill, such as just a cold.)
• Know your own medical history, as well as your family's medical history. Avoid vaccines that you or a family member has had an adverse reaction to.
• Know your allergies--avoid vaccines that have ingredients which you or a family member are allergic to (since food and medicine allergies often run in families).
• Learn about each vaccination--read the package insert ahead of time, know the ingredients, know the risks and benefits, and know the proper way to administer it (under the skin or into the muscle) and be sure that your doctor gives it correctly.
• Do not give multiple vaccinations at once (she feels that it is ok to give HiB and IPV together, but no others. She also recommends getting M, M, and R separately, rather than together, but is ok with the DTaP combo.)
• Use single dose vials of vaccination serum, OR, if they are not available, have your care provider shake the vial prior to withdrawing your serum (to make sure that all ingredients are evenly mixed).
• Insist on having mercury free vaccines. Every vax has a form that is mercury free, but not all doctors use them.
• Give the vaccine recipient extra vitamin C and vitamin A for several days prior to the vaccination. (This helps the body cope with the toxic ingredients, and reduces the risks of adverse reactions.)
• Do not get a vaccination for anything while pregnant.
• Breastfeed for at least six months.
• 
  
• I have one recommendation of my own to add to the list, and it is similar to her recommendation of giving extra vitamins prior to vaccination--this advice came from my mother's naturopath, and that is to give the recipient echniacea (immune system booster) for several days before AND after the injection. Bolstering up the immune system in this manner helps the body respond positively to the vaccination--by making antibodies--rather than negatively.

Vaccines--Hep A

Two doses of Hep A are required for school attendance. The MTC also recommends this vaccination for any missionaries who will be traveling internationally. (The CDC suggests that risk is negligible in USA, Canada, Western Europe, Scandinavia, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand. Risk is particularly high in Central and South America, Asia, the Middle East, most parts of Africa, and the Western Pacific.)

Hepatitis A vaccines come in 3 forms: Havrix, VAQTA, and Twinrix (which is a Hep A/Hep B combo). Havrix contains the preservative 2-phenoxyathenol, while VAQTA has no preservatives, however the CDC warns that neither is approved for administration to a child under the age of 2. I could not find information about approved ages for Twinrix, but considering that it contains the same Hep A as the others, I presume that the >2 years old guideline holds. [update--Twinrix is an adult dose, and only approved over age 18, so it's not a valid option if you are considering it for childhood vaccinations.]
Full vaccination consists of 2 doses, a minimum of 6 months apart. The vaccination schedule recommends giving this vaccine between the ages of 12-24 months (did they not read the Pink Book?! The CDC even put the "not approved under 24 months" part in boldface!)

Hepatitis A is the most common form of Hepatitis reported in the United States. It is often thought of as a foodborne illness, but that is not entirely accurate. Hep A is actually acquired via fecal-oral transmission (yes, you heard that right--you get sick when poo from an infected person gets into your mouth). So, in other words, if someone with Hep A neglects to wash their hands after using the toilet, and then handles your food, then yes, you could get Hep A 'from food'...but it wasn't really the food.
In the United States, approximately 14% of reported cases of Hep A come from 'personal contact' with an infected person (this could be sexual, or just regular household contact such as diaper changes, cleaning the bathroom, etc). 10% of cases came from male homosexual activity; 8% were daycare related; 6% drug use; 5% international travel; and 4% foodborne. However, since 45% of Hep A infections came from 'unknown sources,' we actually have no way to know if any of the data here is actually correct...
Risk groups for Hepatitis A are: international travelers, homosexual men, illegal drug users, those with blood clotting disorders, and people who work with Hep A-infected primates. Food handlers, health care workers, and waste management workers are NOT at increased risk, although their diligence or negligence could affect the risk of others.

As an interesting note, Hepatitis A rates are disproportionately high in the western part of the United States in recent decades. Between 1987-97, 11 states (AZ, AK, OR, NM, UT, WA, OK, SD, ID, NV, and CA) reported 50% of the nation's cases of Hep A, in spite of the fact that they have only 22% of the nation's population. So, for those living in those states, I would infer that risk is somewhat higher than for those residing in other parts of the country.

If one is infected with Hepatitis A, it is almost always very mild. The highest rates of infection are between the ages of 5-14 years old, but as many as 70% of children under age 6 are asymptomatic (this means that the virus gets into their system, but nothing happens). Asymptomatic infection does increase the risk for those around the child though, since nobody knows they are infected, and may not take proper hygenic precautions (with a potty-training child for example). In older people, asymptomatic infection is not common, and >70% get jaundice.
Hepatitis A is fatal in about 0.3% of acute cases (increasing to 2% of cases where the person is over 40 years old). That may be an inaccurately high number though, since so many cases are asymptomatic that it is virtually impossible to know how many people are or have been actually infected.

In the event of an outbreak, vaccination seems to be effective at disrupting continued spread of the infection.
At this time, no serious reactions have been attributed to any Hep A vaccine. The vaccines are too new for comprehensive studies to be completed about duration of efficacy, however the CDC estimates that immunity is effective for 20+ years.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
My conclusions:
While the true danger of this disease seems minimal, and the risk of acquiring it also fairly low, it does seem a wise precaution for international travel--especially to third world countries. Considering that we hope/plan to travel, and also that we live in one of those western states, we will be getting this vaccine for our children, however we will wait until they are at least 2 before beginning the series.

Vaccines--HiB

The Hib vaccine is not required for school, so it an optional vaccine, even for those who believe in full, on schedule, vaccination.

It is an inactive vaccination, which means that they kill the virus before injecting it. This means that it is a reletively safe in that regard (you're not terribly likely to catch the actual disease from the vaccination). However, the vaccination also contains ethanol (toxic, a depressent and tranquilizer) and aluminum hydroxide (which causes constipation, loss of appitite, tiredness, and muscle weakness). Aluminum is also a heavy metal, and getting too much into your system at once will poison you; especially if you are small. This vaccine is also one (of several) which has been linked to increasing rates of Type1 Diabetes in children.

The first HiB vaccine came out in 1983, but was pulled in 1985, because it was not effective for children under 18 months old (which is when the primary danger is), and furthermore it actually caused a few cases of HiB. In 1990 a new HiB vaccine was licensed. The current vaccination is successful (gives immunity) approximately 93-95% of the time

It is on the schedule at 2m, 4m, 6m, 12-15m (booster) and 'catch-up' doses can be given up to age 3. If the child has not been vaccinated for HiB at all, and is over 15m, then the CDC says that one dose is considered sufficient for full vaccination. Doses must be a minum of 4 weeks apart, but 8 weeks apart is optimum. The last dose must be given after the age of 12m and must be a minimum of 8 weeks after the prior dose.
The CDC states that the HiB vaccine does not require booster doses (although one is on the schedule!!) It is not given to older children or adults. (We shall soon see why!)

HiB itself is NOT a type of flu, but is mis-named because the doctor who originally identified it thought that it was related to the flu which was going around at the time, and named it accordingly (Haemophilus influenza type B). Nobody has bothered to correct the name. In and of itself, HiB is really not dangerous, but has been found to lead to meningitis (inflamation of the brain), which, of course, is dangerous. HiB was almost unknown until recent decades, and the medical community believes that it is probalby the result of a mutation of an older bacteria, and that the mutation probably resulted from increasing usage of antibiotics. HiB is usually ampicillin-resistent--a confirmed example of mutation and resistence to antibiotics. (Yes, boys and girls, we are making super bugs now.)
Risk factors for Hib include: weak or weakened immune system, poor diet, being in daycare, smoking (including second-hand smoke), bad housing/living conditions, and not being breastfed. The risk of getting HiB is also somewhat increased during the 7 days immediately following a HiB vaccination. HiB is almost unheard of among breastfed, non-daycare children (whether vaccinated or not). Getting an invasive (ie-serious) infection of HiB is very rare even among higher risk groups. (In other words, even if you get it, you will most likely just get a really mild case.) HiB is most common around 6-7m old, and is virtually non-existent in children over the age of 5.

Prior to the invention of the HiB vaccination, most children acquired natural immunity by 5 or 6, via asymptomatic infection (ie, they got the virus but had no symptoms or 'sickness' from it).
One interesting observation is that HiB via vaccine introduces only one type of antibody, whereas natural HiB introduces several types, and may provide more complete protection than the vaccine is able to.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There you have it. That is the research.
My conclusion? Unless the baby will be in daycare, or will not be breastfed, there is not much point in getting this vaccine. If your child is in a low risk group, and since getting the vaccine increases the risk of infection, I would venture to say that for some people getting the vaccine may actually make them more likely to get HiB than if they did not get it. Something to think about! If you do want to get it, your child can get 'fully vaccinated' in just one dose (rather than four) if you do it at age 15m or later. However, since the primary risk is around age 6m, is there a point in vaccination at 15m?!

Vaccines--Introduction

Today I am beginning a series of entries about vaccines. I believe that vaccines are good in general, but that there are dangers associated with them, and that it is a poor parent who does not take some time to research them and make choices for their child, rather than just blindly accepting the "recommended schedule" pushed by most pediatricians. Many vaccines are not safe for some children (such as those with milk or egg allergies), or are not safe at certain times/ages. Some vaccines are not safe for any children (such as the recent rotateq--which has killed more babies than the last rotovirus vaccine which was pulled from the market because it was killing babies...). Some vaccines are not even effective (such as the varicella vaccine, which even the manufacturer discribes as being effective for a maximum of 10 years--in other words, as soon as the child is old enough that chicken pox would actually be a severe disease, their vaccination wears off...) Futhermore, many new vaccinations are being released to the market without sufficient testing (the HPV vaccination is causing paralysis, Rotateq is causing death...how did we not test for these things prior to injecting the unsuspecting public?!)

I wish to make one thing very clear right from the beginning--vaccination is NOT the same as immunization. When one is immunized, one is immune from the effects of a disease--this can happen by getting the disease and building up sufficient antibodies, OR (thoretically) by vaccination--by being injected with some form of the disease which is supposed to trigger that same buildup of antibodies. Therefore, I am very careful about which term I use--vaccination and immunization are two very different things, and one is not always connected to the other.

Now, as I said, I do believe in vaccinating. BUT, I do not believe in getting all available vaccinations, nor do I believe in getting as many doses or as early as the schedules recommend. I have been researching this at length, and my research comes from the CDC (Centers for Disease Control), the Pink Book (the CDC's official vax information book), and the package inserts that come with the vaccines themselves. I am not making this up. I am not being suckered in by emotional inflamatory arguments. I am basing my choices on hard science. Facts. If you are bothered by that, or if you have neglected to do the research for your own family, shame on you.

The sites from which I have gleaned my information:
Center for Disease Control
CDC's Pink Book
Utah Public Schools Requirements for Vaccination
Utah Health Department's Recommendations for Vaccination (Also includes listings of the MTC's recommendations for missionaries)
Health Sentinel (this site has graphs of infection rates, and shows their changes over time, including the affect of the introduction of various vaccines.)
Package Inserts (This is actually a series of articles which summarize the contents of the package inserts. Each article includes a link to the original insert, but those are hard to slog through. I know this author personally, and hold her above reproach in her research. All the research I have done backs up everything I have found in her articles.)