4 ms·

> However the spacing for vaccinations in infants seems rushed, What does that even mean?

by dmm 13y ago

DenisM 13y ago
It means that some people have a "gut feel", and they believe their gut is more accurate than bazillions statistically validated studies on the proper vaccination schedule.
- phy6 13y ago
  Your unwillingness to accept that some people want to learn before doing something irreversible is borderline trollish. Having a gut feeling does not imply an immutable opinion, especially after evaluating related facts. Every person has a responsibility to understand the consequences of their actions and in-actions. What you are seeing here is a person being more diligent with his kid than he was with himself.
yapcguy 13y ago
Vaccines come in multiple doses. Some countries space out each dose every other month, others do it every two or three months. It varies. The US schedule is similar but not the same as many countries in the EU. Big pharma also keeps pushing cocktail shots, multiple vaccinations in one single shot, whereas before you would take multiple visits and each time it would be a separate vaccine.
- carbocation 13y ago
  The body can tolerate millions of antigens being presented to it simultaneously. In fact, it does every day. So do the bodies of children. This is not some push by the "pharma" bogeyman. It's a push by doctors to reduce the chance that a child fails to complete his or her vaccination series. If the probability of missing a visit is, say, 0.05, then the probability of missing a shot in a series of 3 is (1 - 0.95^3) ~= 14%, as opposed to 5% if you can actually do it all at once.
  - Fomite 13y ago
    Hell, the moment a baby passes through the vaginal canal they're probably exposed to more antigens than the entire vaccine schedule, let alone their first few hours in a hospital.
    - ceejayoz 13y ago
      Plus, by breathing, they're taking in a lot more mercury than they'll ever see out of a vaccine, thanks to coal power plants.
- ceejayoz 13y ago
  > Big pharma also keeps pushing cocktail shots, multiple vaccinations in one single shot, whereas before you would take multiple visits and each time it would be a separate vaccine. OK, so what's their motive? Surely Big Pharma in cahoots with Big Doctor would love lots of visits and lots of separate billable injections? The real reason is more likely to be that plenty of people only take their kids to the pediatrician once in a while, because they don't have insurance or they work a lot (particularly amongst the poor, where things like transportation can be an issue), so getting them all in in a few combination shots means higher vaccination levels across the board.
  - yapcguy 13y ago
    Who knows what motivates them... "GlaxoSmithKline agreed to plead guilty to criminal charges and pay $3 billion in fines for promoting its best-selling antidepressants for unapproved uses and failing to report safety data about a top diabetes drug, federal prosecutors announced Monday. The agreement also includes civil penalties for improper marketing of a half-dozen other drugs." http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/03/business/glaxosmithkline-agrees-to-pay-3-billion-in-fraud-settlement.html http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/03/business/glaxosmithkline-a... "Glaxo chief: Our drugs do not work on most patients A senior executive with Britain's biggest drugs company has admitted that most prescription medicines do not work on most people who take them. Allen Roses, worldwide vice-president of genetics at GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), said fewer than half of the patients prescribed some of the most expensive drugs actually derived any benefit from them. It is an open secret within the drugs industry that most of its products are ineffective in most patients but this is the first time that such a senior drugs boss has gone public. "The vast majority of drugs - more than 90 per cent - only work in 30 or 50 per cent of the people," Dr Roses said. "I wouldn't say that most drugs don't work. I would say that most drugs work in 30 to 50 per cent of people. Drugs out there on the market work, but they don't work in everybody." http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/glaxo-chief-our-drugs-do-not-work-on-most-patients-575942.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/glaxo-chief-our-dr...
    - ceejayoz 13y ago
      The first part has an obvious profit motive. Combining vaccines into fewer shots doesn't have a clear profit motive. I'm baffled by the "omg!" attitude towards the second part. Anyone who's had antidepressant treatment has likely experienced the need to try a couple different meds before finding the right one. Everyone seems to respond differently to different ones - the same med that works for one person may be totally ineffectual for another. If you're in the 50% that a med doesn't work for, you switch.
mhurron 13y ago
It seems to mean that they feel it's wrong, that they feel it should be slowed down, and later that they feel the ingredients are dangerous. It means they don't have any information to back it up.
phy6 13y ago
As someone mentioned, this is a gut feeling from someone who is pro-vaccine. It is true that I don't have information -- I'm actively, sincerely seeking information. Would you knock me for that? I understand there are anti-vaccine, conspiracy theorist kooks out there, but I'm not one of them. I also don't have information saying spreading out the doses over time would be better or worse. What are other countries doing WRT infant vaccine schedules? What are some options that still get my child vaccinated against disease? Are the doses they take 1/20th the amount that I would take, since I'm 20 times their weight? Does scaling doses even work that way? Why didn't I take organic chemistry when I was in college? Does ethyl-mercury metabolize into anything? When the CDC says 'a tiny bit' what does that mean quantitatively? These are just some of the questions I'm asking, so that I don't remain ignorant. It's no credit to remain ignorant, and it's no credit to be a belligerent fanatic on either side. If I can be bothered to wash my kid's grapes before they eat them, I could at least understand what the doctor is putting in them before following blindly.
- yapcguy 13y ago
  Agree 100%. Look at some of the rabid and downright insulting responses to what I wrote elsewhere in this discussion. Even if you're pro-vaccine but question the schedule and efficacy and necessity of some of the shots given exposure risk, you're called a crank.
  - mikeash 13y ago
    There's an easy way to avoid being called a crank: back up your questioning with some sort of evidence or reasoning. If you can't do that, please don't blame us for it.
fecak 13y ago
To some people, it means that they probably don't feel a Hep vaccine is necessary on the date of birth or perhaps even for longer, because the parents will control the infant's environment. If you are taking your baby home, controlling who will touch the baby, what it eats, etc, Hep shouldn't be an issue, and the vaccine at day 1 seems like an unnecessary risk (even at 1000000:1 odds of an adverse reaction, the risk of infection may lower due to a newborn's lifestyle). That is just one example, but vaccine schedules are impacted by exposure risk, but also by some level of convenience (based on the fact that we don't go to doctors every day, so "let's vaccinate you as much as we can in the few times we'll see you"). If you show up for a well visit and your child is not 100%, do you let the child get the vaccine or do you come back next week/month? Vaccine safety is easier to test under very strict conditions and single vaccinations, but the topic is complicated by varying levels of child health as well as offering vaccines in combination.

> However the spacing for vaccinations in infants seems rushed, What does that even mean?

by dmm 13y ago

> However the spacing for vaccinations in infants seems rushed, What does that even mean?

It means that some people have a "gut feel", and they believe their gut is more accurate than bazillions statistically validated studies on the proper vaccination schedule.

phy6 13y ago
Your unwillingness to accept that some people want to learn before doing something irreversible is borderline trollish. Having a gut feeling does not imply an immutable opinion, especially after evaluating related facts. Every person has a responsibility to understand the consequences of their actions and in-actions. What you are seeing here is a person being more diligent with his kid than he was with himself.

yapcguy 13y ago

Vaccines come in multiple doses. Some countries space out each dose every other month, others do it every two or three months. It varies. The US schedule is similar but not the same as many countries in the EU. Big pharma also keeps pushing cocktail shots, multiple vaccinations in one single shot, whereas before you would take multiple visits and each time it would be a separate vaccine.

carbocation 13y ago
The body can tolerate millions of antigens being presented to it simultaneously. In fact, it does every day. So do the bodies of children. This is not some push by the "pharma" bogeyman. It's a push by doctors to reduce the chance that a child fails to complete his or her vaccination series. If the probability of missing a visit is, say, 0.05, then the probability of missing a shot in a series of 3 is (1 - 0.95^3) ~= 14%, as opposed to 5% if you can actually do it all at once.
- Fomite 13y ago
  Hell, the moment a baby passes through the vaginal canal they're probably exposed to more antigens than the entire vaccine schedule, let alone their first few hours in a hospital.
  - ceejayoz 13y ago
    Plus, by breathing, they're taking in a lot more mercury than they'll ever see out of a vaccine, thanks to coal power plants.
ceejayoz 13y ago
> Big pharma also keeps pushing cocktail shots, multiple vaccinations in one single shot, whereas before you would take multiple visits and each time it would be a separate vaccine. OK, so what's their motive? Surely Big Pharma in cahoots with Big Doctor would love lots of visits and lots of separate billable injections? The real reason is more likely to be that plenty of people only take their kids to the pediatrician once in a while, because they don't have insurance or they work a lot (particularly amongst the poor, where things like transportation can be an issue), so getting them all in in a few combination shots means higher vaccination levels across the board.
- yapcguy 13y ago
  Who knows what motivates them... "GlaxoSmithKline agreed to plead guilty to criminal charges and pay $3 billion in fines for promoting its best-selling antidepressants for unapproved uses and failing to report safety data about a top diabetes drug, federal prosecutors announced Monday. The agreement also includes civil penalties for improper marketing of a half-dozen other drugs." http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/03/business/glaxosmithkline-agrees-to-pay-3-billion-in-fraud-settlement.html http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/03/business/glaxosmithkline-a... "Glaxo chief: Our drugs do not work on most patients A senior executive with Britain's biggest drugs company has admitted that most prescription medicines do not work on most people who take them. Allen Roses, worldwide vice-president of genetics at GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), said fewer than half of the patients prescribed some of the most expensive drugs actually derived any benefit from them. It is an open secret within the drugs industry that most of its products are ineffective in most patients but this is the first time that such a senior drugs boss has gone public. "The vast majority of drugs - more than 90 per cent - only work in 30 or 50 per cent of the people," Dr Roses said. "I wouldn't say that most drugs don't work. I would say that most drugs work in 30 to 50 per cent of people. Drugs out there on the market work, but they don't work in everybody." http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/glaxo-chief-our-drugs-do-not-work-on-most-patients-575942.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/glaxo-chief-our-dr...
  - ceejayoz 13y ago
    The first part has an obvious profit motive. Combining vaccines into fewer shots doesn't have a clear profit motive. I'm baffled by the "omg!" attitude towards the second part. Anyone who's had antidepressant treatment has likely experienced the need to try a couple different meds before finding the right one. Everyone seems to respond differently to different ones - the same med that works for one person may be totally ineffectual for another. If you're in the 50% that a med doesn't work for, you switch.

mhurron 13y ago

It seems to mean that they feel it's wrong, that they feel it should be slowed down, and later that they feel the ingredients are dangerous. It means they don't have any information to back it up.

phy6 13y ago

As someone mentioned, this is a gut feeling from someone who is pro-vaccine. It is true that I don't have information -- I'm actively, sincerely seeking information. Would you knock me for that? I understand there are anti-vaccine, conspiracy theorist kooks out there, but I'm not one of them. I also don't have information saying spreading out the doses over time would be better or worse. What are other countries doing WRT infant vaccine schedules? What are some options that still get my child vaccinated against disease? Are the doses they take 1/20th the amount that I would take, since I'm 20 times their weight? Does scaling doses even work that way? Why didn't I take organic chemistry when I was in college? Does ethyl-mercury metabolize into anything? When the CDC says 'a tiny bit' what does that mean quantitatively? These are just some of the questions I'm asking, so that I don't remain ignorant. It's no credit to remain ignorant, and it's no credit to be a belligerent fanatic on either side. If I can be bothered to wash my kid's grapes before they eat them, I could at least understand what the doctor is putting in them before following blindly.

yapcguy 13y ago
Agree 100%. Look at some of the rabid and downright insulting responses to what I wrote elsewhere in this discussion. Even if you're pro-vaccine but question the schedule and efficacy and necessity of some of the shots given exposure risk, you're called a crank.
- mikeash 13y ago
  There's an easy way to avoid being called a crank: back up your questioning with some sort of evidence or reasoning. If you can't do that, please don't blame us for it.

fecak 13y ago

To some people, it means that they probably don't feel a Hep vaccine is necessary on the date of birth or perhaps even for longer, because the parents will control the infant's environment. If you are taking your baby home, controlling who will touch the baby, what it eats, etc, Hep shouldn't be an issue, and the vaccine at day 1 seems like an unnecessary risk (even at 1000000:1 odds of an adverse reaction, the risk of infection may lower due to a newborn's lifestyle). That is just one example, but vaccine schedules are impacted by exposure risk, but also by some level of convenience (based on the fact that we don't go to doctors every day, so "let's vaccinate you as much as we can in the few times we'll see you"). If you show up for a well visit and your child is not 100%, do you let the child get the vaccine or do you come back next week/month? Vaccine safety is easier to test under very strict conditions and single vaccinations, but the topic is complicated by varying levels of child health as well as offering vaccines in combination.