6 ms·

Actually, how much do we know about whether a newborn has a compromised immune system or not? As an adult, we may know our medical history and immunity, either

by fecak 13y ago

Actually, how much do we know about whether a newborn has a compromised immune system or not? As an adult, we may know our medical history and immunity, either through testing or anecdotal evidence. However, we are talking here about newborns and infants between birth and six, who don't have 20 years of medical history that would indicate strength/weakness of an immune system.

mikeash 13y ago
Are there any vaccines given to newborns that are contraindicated for immune-compromised people? That strikes me as rather unlikely.
- fecak 13y ago
  Google is your friend.
  - mikeash 13y ago
    So you get to pose random questions without research, but I don't? How's that work?
    - fecak 13y ago
      First, I'm not a doctor, and people should consult doctors for medical advice. Do I get to pose random questions without research? I can only assume you were referring to my question "how much do we know about whether a newborn has a compromised immune system or not?" That seems like a pretty legitimate question, does it not? Do I need a medical degree to pose a question regarding how much medical history we have about your average newborn baby? Am I crossing some line into medical 'research' by asking that question? When babies are born, do they have clear documented medical histories that I'm unaware of? You also asked if there were "any vaccines given to newborns that are contraindicated for immune-compromised people". First we need to define newborns. Wikipedia says hours days or a few weeks old. I couldn't find how the CDC defines newborns. In the first couple days, the only scheduled vaccine per the CDC is usually Hep B. Whether others are given in the first couple days probably depends on doctors, the baby's health, the parents, the country we're in, etc. From the CDC: "Hepatitis B vaccination is contraindicated for persons with a history of hypersensitivity to yeast or to any vaccine component (92,189--191). Despite a theoretic risk for allergic reaction to vaccination in persons with allergy to Saccharomyces cerevisiae (baker's yeast), no evidence exists that documents adverse reactions after vaccination of persons with a history of yeast allergy." So assuming you consider an allergy to be compromising to the immune system (which, by definition, an allergy is), it appears your answer is "yes, there is a vaccine given (or at least recommended) to newborns that is contraindicated for certain immune-compromised people". Hopefully those contraindicated infants are not given that vaccine, but as I posed earlier, how much do we know about an individual infant's immune system within hours of birth? This probably depends on a lot of things as well - doctors, hospital (or home birth), availability of testing and results, etc. The RV vaccine is usually given in the first couple months, where the 'newborn' label could still apply depending on how you use the word. RV is contraindicated for SCID. Below is a full list of contraindications for several vaccines, listed on the CDC website. http://www.cdc.gov/VACCINES/recs/vac-admin/contraindications-vacc.htm http://www.cdc.gov/VACCINES/recs/vac-admin/contraindications...
      - mikeash 13y ago
        Are you for real? An allergic reaction is an overreaction of the immune system to a normally harmless material. "Immune compromise" is a weakening of the immune system. These are, you might note, almost exact opposites. People with weak immune systems won't generally suffer allergic reactions, because an allergic reaction requires the immune system to overreact, and "weak" generally precludes an overreaction. At worst, they wouldn't suffer anything worse than a normal person. Now, this does raise an interesting question, namely: are newborns ever allergic to this stuff? Could it cause a problem? The answer to the second would seem to be "no" given your CDC quote that there's no evidence for adverse reactions, and that would render the first moot. However, it's still an interesting question, but you'll notice that it's a completely different question from what you asked. Is your question legitimate? Of course. My point is that mine was legitimate too, but when I posed it, I got a stupid "GIYF" response from you. Apparently you think you have the right to ask questions without research, but I don't. That double standard annoys me. Worse, you don't even know what you don't know. You get the relationship between allergies and weakened immune systems completely wrong, yet you state that wrongness as fact, so obvious that you call it "by definition". And then, when I call you out on this bad behavior, I imagine you'll call me a "fascist" and say that I'm "suppressing dissenting views" or some such crap. The reality is, I welcome dissent, but only intelligent dissent. You're not providing it.
        fecak 13y ago
        I won't call you a fascist. We're nitpicking here. An allergic reaction is obviously not a good reaction to a vaccine, not a desired outcome. Whether an allergy is a result of a compromised immune system (the immune system isn't compromised, but the allergic person is worse off for it) an over active immune system isn't relevant to the argument. I'd also read the CDC quote again. My interpretation was a bit different, as they specified in the second sentence. Edit - I'm not sure how far you got in my last post, but if we're going to pick about allergies not being a compromised immune system, SCID is the reason for contraindication for RV.
        mikeash 13y ago

by fecak 13y ago

mikeash 13y ago

Are there any vaccines given to newborns that are contraindicated for immune-compromised people? That strikes me as rather unlikely.

fecak 13y ago
Google is your friend.
- mikeash 13y ago
  So you get to pose random questions without research, but I don't? How's that work?
  - fecak 13y ago
    First, I'm not a doctor, and people should consult doctors for medical advice. Do I get to pose random questions without research? I can only assume you were referring to my question "how much do we know about whether a newborn has a compromised immune system or not?" That seems like a pretty legitimate question, does it not? Do I need a medical degree to pose a question regarding how much medical history we have about your average newborn baby? Am I crossing some line into medical 'research' by asking that question? When babies are born, do they have clear documented medical histories that I'm unaware of? You also asked if there were "any vaccines given to newborns that are contraindicated for immune-compromised people". First we need to define newborns. Wikipedia says hours days or a few weeks old. I couldn't find how the CDC defines newborns. In the first couple days, the only scheduled vaccine per the CDC is usually Hep B. Whether others are given in the first couple days probably depends on doctors, the baby's health, the parents, the country we're in, etc. From the CDC: "Hepatitis B vaccination is contraindicated for persons with a history of hypersensitivity to yeast or to any vaccine component (92,189--191). Despite a theoretic risk for allergic reaction to vaccination in persons with allergy to Saccharomyces cerevisiae (baker's yeast), no evidence exists that documents adverse reactions after vaccination of persons with a history of yeast allergy." So assuming you consider an allergy to be compromising to the immune system (which, by definition, an allergy is), it appears your answer is "yes, there is a vaccine given (or at least recommended) to newborns that is contraindicated for certain immune-compromised people". Hopefully those contraindicated infants are not given that vaccine, but as I posed earlier, how much do we know about an individual infant's immune system within hours of birth? This probably depends on a lot of things as well - doctors, hospital (or home birth), availability of testing and results, etc. The RV vaccine is usually given in the first couple months, where the 'newborn' label could still apply depending on how you use the word. RV is contraindicated for SCID. Below is a full list of contraindications for several vaccines, listed on the CDC website. http://www.cdc.gov/VACCINES/recs/vac-admin/contraindications-vacc.htm http://www.cdc.gov/VACCINES/recs/vac-admin/contraindications...
    - mikeash 13y ago
      Are you for real? An allergic reaction is an overreaction of the immune system to a normally harmless material. "Immune compromise" is a weakening of the immune system. These are, you might note, almost exact opposites. People with weak immune systems won't generally suffer allergic reactions, because an allergic reaction requires the immune system to overreact, and "weak" generally precludes an overreaction. At worst, they wouldn't suffer anything worse than a normal person. Now, this does raise an interesting question, namely: are newborns ever allergic to this stuff? Could it cause a problem? The answer to the second would seem to be "no" given your CDC quote that there's no evidence for adverse reactions, and that would render the first moot. However, it's still an interesting question, but you'll notice that it's a completely different question from what you asked. Is your question legitimate? Of course. My point is that mine was legitimate too, but when I posed it, I got a stupid "GIYF" response from you. Apparently you think you have the right to ask questions without research, but I don't. That double standard annoys me. Worse, you don't even know what you don't know. You get the relationship between allergies and weakened immune systems completely wrong, yet you state that wrongness as fact, so obvious that you call it "by definition". And then, when I call you out on this bad behavior, I imagine you'll call me a "fascist" and say that I'm "suppressing dissenting views" or some such crap. The reality is, I welcome dissent, but only intelligent dissent. You're not providing it.
      - fecak 13y ago
        I won't call you a fascist. We're nitpicking here. An allergic reaction is obviously not a good reaction to a vaccine, not a desired outcome. Whether an allergy is a result of a compromised immune system (the immune system isn't compromised, but the allergic person is worse off for it) an over active immune system isn't relevant to the argument. I'd also read the CDC quote again. My interpretation was a bit different, as they specified in the second sentence. Edit - I'm not sure how far you got in my last post, but if we're going to pick about allergies not being a compromised immune system, SCID is the reason for contraindication for RV.
        mikeash 13y ago