Could be because I am not interested in developmental disorders. Or it could be because I am a mature adult who doesn’t assume negatives until proven otherwise.
I once knew an autistic horse who was allergic to peanuts, and he’d never been vaccinated.
That should prove to any mature adult who’s still listening that vaccines are safe.
Mature adults accept science and reason. When proven wrong they admit it and move on.
Vaccines are not a problem for nearly all children despite what you have mistakenly repeatedly and idiotically implied in this thread. Those that are at risk from vaccines face even greater risks from non-vaccinators. Said non-vaccinators willfully punch holes in herd immunity and ultimately help bring back dangerous and infectious illnesses because they are not mature adults capable of understanding basic science.
Sigh. I knew I shouldn’t have bothered to respond to you, since there is no point in engaging willful snotty idiots. So, unless you actually manage to post something that isn’t insulting blather, I shall go back to ignoring you, Jackmannii and apparently, wring.
I was thinking along the lines of whether there are more severely allergic children due to genetics, vaccinations, hyper cleanliness, etc. It really isn’t all that common to give babies peanuts - at least it wasn’t when I was growing up (unless there were peanuts in formula??) - so why would they need to be exposed to them early on now in order to try to prevent an allergy?
I’m not sure what that has to do with the subject. I am certainly not anti-modern medicine. Had an MRI just last week.
Do they, in the US? My diet isn’t all that much different now than it was when I was a child, except I started eating more ( and more authentic ) Mexican when I moved to California.
There wasn’t any evidence that they were causing auto immune problems in dogs until someone thought to research it either. I really don’t understand why there is all of this, sometimes quite hostile, rejection of the idea.
That isn’t what I meant. I was wondering if there was anything different in the three HepB shots, or if it was the same shot three times. If it is the same thing three times, then it is no different than essentially getting a booster two times after the first one.
The first one was not good enough at getting the desired response from the body. The second and third one insure that the immunity takes and that there are enough memory cells (that will hang around and reproduce equal memory cells that will produce the same antibodies) over a long period of time.
Obviously there are some vaccines (rabies in dogs and cats, for example) in which one shot provides longer immunity (in that case some are approved for up to 3-4 years).
I shall try to bear the disappointment.
Just to make it clear: In many cases, just one shot will NOT produce a long lasting effect. It will produce a response, it will prime, it will work somewhat, but it will not produce the type of long lasting effect that is wanted. Why? Age that it is given, type of vaccine, type of disease, route of administration, type of response that is desired, etc.
In other cases, just one shot with boosters once in a while will suffice.
I am aware of that. Doesn’t seem to have anything to do with what I said about whether adding a bunch of vaccines to natural loads might be too much for a young immune system.
Ah. So we have always had multiple influenzas around?
The only reduction in vaccines I was talking about in pets (dogs & cats) is boosters of DH2PL or some similar combo shot done every year, plus some reduction of use of bordatella and measles tho that is a minor side issue.
Yes, I know. Seems to make more sense to wait to give the vaccine until the affects of maternal antibodies are past.
Unless, as was discovered, the response had not declined. Apparently, the only reason anyone thought that it was necessary to give boosters was because the vaccine companies thought it was a good idea. Would it be all that shocking if the companies that make human vaccines had done the same?
We could probably do a whole new thread on this topic alone, my .02 worth, Our technology is overcoming evolutionary pressures. Children who would have died a dozen times over as infants 50 years ago are being saved by the level of medical care we have available these days. Weak immune systems and life threatening allergies are not being selected out like they used to therefore they live to childbearing age and pass on those poor immune systems/allergies to their children.
Ooooooh! Oooooh! Can I be ignored too!?! (Unlike Jackmannii I do not know of any horses with autism, but there is this ass in this thread who definitely has some mental disability … )
Meanwhile simple answers to simple questions:
Perhaps not all that shocking if it was true, but it is not. The vaccine schedule was tested by measuring titres and responses in sample populations. When they have erred (and they have), it has been in underestimating the need for boosters. Hence the pertussis booster added later to the dT at age 11 to 14 and every ten years, the second Varivax and MMR vaccine several years after the first, etc.
Karl is of course completely correct. A series of vaccines designed to get the titres and cellular response up to a protective level in the first place is called the primary series. Repeated doses later to refresh the response and prevent it from dipping below protective levels are called boosters.
Yeah, human breeding stock just isn’t what it used to be! Seriously, I sometimes wonder what some parents were thinking when they decided to have their own children, given the genetic problems they have.
<Mod hat> WARNING
Do not reveal the names on your ignore list. http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7697065&postcount=13
Lynn
For the Straight Dope
</mod hat>
They were thinking “DAMN! The rubber broke!” or something similar. MY thoughts were “How could I get pregnant when we were using a condom AND contraceptive foam!1!11”
I don’t have an ignore list, I just meant not bother to read what they post.
Naw, there are folks I’ve know who planned to have children even tho they had multiple genetic issues themselves as well as problems in their family tree. If there is a one in four chance their kids won’t get whatever, they just assume there’s no way it will happen to them. Or rather, their kids.
The most ironic ones are the people who expect the puppy they buy for their asthmatic, diabetic kids from me to be perfect, with no health problems every…
OK, warning rescinded. In the future, please be a little clearer, OK?
So given your own genetic predisposition for allergies, you are saying that your parents were irresponsible for having you and you should have never been born?