3 ms·

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 r

by 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
    I don't see how it could possibly be "nitpicking" to discuss this stuff in detail. The conversation started out with the question of why some vaccines are not given to certain people, and why that does not mean that these vaccines are dangerous to other people. We then diverted to the question of dangers in infants, but understanding exactly what the dangers are and why certain vaccines have certain dangers is hardly "nitpicking". And to be honest, no, I did not read the end of your post. I stopped at the moment I got to that completely ludicrous statement that an allergic reaction qualifies as an immune system compromise. This is not some obscure detail, this is an extremely basic fact about how the immune system works.
    - fecak 13y ago
      I wrote a longer reply that you may not have read yet (just posted a few minutes ago). I thought the spirit of the question was more to an irregular immune system and not just specifically a weakened one. Allergies are not indicative of a weakened immune system - whether or not 'compromised' is a term worth using for a system that is irregular is probably not a debate worth having, but the individual clearly is compromised. Agreed that it's not nitpicking to know why vaccines cause a potential danger - overactive or underactive immune systems obviously react (or don't) in different ways, but I understood the nature of the question to be much less specific (are vaccines contraindicated in the sick, instead of are vaccines contraindicated in this specific group of sick people). What you point out is not an obscure detail, but if the spirit of the conversation were how I had interpreted it, the detail wouldn't be relevant. I focused more on the vaccine being recommended to sick people and not people sick with x.

by fecak 13y ago

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
  I don't see how it could possibly be "nitpicking" to discuss this stuff in detail. The conversation started out with the question of why some vaccines are not given to certain people, and why that does not mean that these vaccines are dangerous to other people. We then diverted to the question of dangers in infants, but understanding exactly what the dangers are and why certain vaccines have certain dangers is hardly "nitpicking". And to be honest, no, I did not read the end of your post. I stopped at the moment I got to that completely ludicrous statement that an allergic reaction qualifies as an immune system compromise. This is not some obscure detail, this is an extremely basic fact about how the immune system works.
  - fecak 13y ago
    I wrote a longer reply that you may not have read yet (just posted a few minutes ago). I thought the spirit of the question was more to an irregular immune system and not just specifically a weakened one. Allergies are not indicative of a weakened immune system - whether or not 'compromised' is a term worth using for a system that is irregular is probably not a debate worth having, but the individual clearly is compromised. Agreed that it's not nitpicking to know why vaccines cause a potential danger - overactive or underactive immune systems obviously react (or don't) in different ways, but I understood the nature of the question to be much less specific (are vaccines contraindicated in the sick, instead of are vaccines contraindicated in this specific group of sick people). What you point out is not an obscure detail, but if the spirit of the conversation were how I had interpreted it, the detail wouldn't be relevant. I focused more on the vaccine being recommended to sick people and not people sick with x.