You are right, of course…I was thinking more about the potential negative effects, all of which I’ve heard talked about (both real and imaginary) only affect the vaccinated person.
I’m glad you brought this up, because that makes curlcoat’s accusations of “hysterical mom-ism” even more nonsensical. How is it hysterical mom-ism to take risks that only threaten their own children, in order to benefit society as a whole (including the childless)? Seems to me these mommies need to take some lessons in hysterical selfishness, because they are really not living up to curlcoat’s expectations.
I have to agree. The selfishness really seems to lie on the other side of things, as it is those who are against vaccinations, in part or in whole, who put the rest of us in danger. Most particularly, those who, for whatever reason, can’t get vaccinated. Someone who chooses not to vaccinate is taking a gamble that herd immunity will protect them, while weakening the effect that that immunity can have, which puts not only themselves but the rest of us at greater risk.
I recall not too long ago hearing about a country in Africa (?) that had almost eliminated polio when an anti-vax movement caused the disease to resurge, setting the program back. Whatever side effects a vaccine may have, it’s never as bad as the illness itself–that’s why why get those shots in the first place.
I was just screwing around. Spaying and neutering is a hot-button topic hereabouts (like vaccination, circumcision, and tipping). Ignore it, it was just snark.
But AFAICT, there is not evidence that getting immunized against a bunch of diseases is any more damaging than contracting a bunch of childhood diseases. Less so, overall, which is the point of my anecdote about measles.
Let me highlight the sentence that directly addresses that point for you to make it easier to read:
If that is still hard to understand then let me rephrase it at a simpler reading level: the more total vaccines kids received the less likely they were to have signs and symptoms that go along with severe allergies. There was no increased risk of allergic signs and symptoms with having more vaccines.
The next sentence
demonstrates that this result was not due to what is called “a selection bias.” That is to say that this result did not occur because those with allergies were avoiding immunizations or health care in general.
BTW Jackmannii, Offit has made the point another way too. In the standard shots that curlcoat and others of the late 50’s and 60’s received there were about 3200 different antigens. Smallpox alone had 200 and the other vaccines were quite crude by today’s standards, whole cell and the like. Now vaccines protect our society from many more diseases but improvements in vaccine technology have reduced the total number of antigens that children are exposed to down to about 123-126 (depending on the exact brands that are used). Pediatrics. 2000;109:124-129.
Are you too dumb to see that the question is whether adding 5-7 vaccinations at once, frequently, over a relatively short period of time, to the every day exposure might be the reasons that so many children these days have immune problems? Maybe that’s the problem - you just don’t have enough smarts to understand the question.
So, it is better to not get chickenpox and end up with a potentially life threatening food allergy? It is better to immunize babies against diseases they are unlikely to be exposed to and then spend their lives dealing with asthma? We should give them boosters they may not need and let them deal with the IBD later? This quote is just dealing with the issue in broad terms, as if all of the diseases children are vaccinated against are going to kill them for sure, and that living with autoimmune problems is a walk in the park. And it doesn’t address at all the question of whether or not the children actually need all those shots in order to be immunized against the diseases.
What misinformation? The questions I asked? The data I cited about pets? If you weren’t so, er, paranoid on the subject that you immediately jump to the conclusion that I am coming from an antivax position, you might have a few brain cells left to actually understand what I post. You know, that I’m not antivax? Sheesh.
You misunderstood the post you quoted. The amount of antigens produced by contracting the disease is far higher than you get through vaccination. If allergies were tied to antigens, getting the disease would be worse.
To prove how good you are at ignoring what I am actually saying? To show the multiple ways you can be rude & dismissive?
The study started with babies that already had eczema and a family history of allergies, so how does this study say anything to the question of whether or not multiple vaccinations create immune problems in a baby who genetically wouldn’t be prone to them?
And see, this is a great illustration of what is wrong with you. You post this study as proof that multiple, close together vaccinations don’t create autoimmune problems and then get all snarky when I don’t agree with your interpretation of the goal of the study and the results. You seem to feel that this study proves that it is ok to give babies multiple vaccinations because it won’t adversely affect their immune systems in any way, and I see it as a study to prove whether or not anything in the vaccine itself is going to affect allergies the babies already had, short term. Did you look at the title of the study? “Early atopic disease and early childhood immunization–is there a link?”
Lets try this. Do you disagree with the theory/opinion that far more children have immune related problems than 40-50 years ago?
A very good point (and one I made to Magiver in another recent vaccine thread).
Poor curlcoat and her fellow gee-I’m-not-really-an-antivaxer-but-just-look-at-all-these-terrible-problems-I’ve-imagined naysayers. Doomed to be viewed as irreparably dishonest, terminally stupid, or a combination of the two.
I can’t see wasting more time trying to educate her. It’s like pouring water into a colander.
Reading back, it appears you skipped the cite that answered the question whether the multiple vaccinations added to the natural burden on the baby’s immune system would be harmful:
This despite the fact that Jackmanii quoted some relevant bits for you. I’ll offer you the link again. It’s really quite informative.
Well, just in case you are actually interesting in discussing it, I will point out that it seems in that article the premise is that there is less load on a baby from the vaccinations than from getting the disease, except it seems to be ignoring the overwhelming odds against getting all of the diseases at the same time, or even over the child’s lifetime. I’m not even sure why they even go into such detail regarding the less load from a vaccine than from the diseases, since it seems to be a no brainer. So, I certainly agree with that part of the article, but don’t know why it is pertinent here.
Regarding the part on antigens, I’m not sure why this was included without any reference to the difference between exposure to natural and artificial antigens, and the difference between exposure thru skin or respiration, and having it injected. I noted someone sort of asked about it in the comments and wasn’t answered.
This sentence - “We go from sterile to a complex and enormous normal flora in months.” Babies are born sterile?
Then there is this comment - “I wouldn’t give a child 10,000 vaccines.” with no followup. Why? Is he saying there is a limit to the number of vaccinations that can be given safely?
I note the snark in the comments about antivaxers saying “too many too soon” - is it detrimental to the baby and/or herd immunity to slow down on the frequency? It would be nice if people wouldn’t just dismiss these folks as crazy or dangerous - it seems to me they are just trying to figure out why it is that so many kids are born autistic or wind up with dangerous allergies. It’s not like science hasn’t been seriously, fatally wrong in the past.
No, the environment inside the placenta is considered sterile (or at least it should be/is very close to it). It doesn’t mean that infections cannot occur (resulting sometimes in death of fetus or illnesses, malformations, carrier states, etc.). But in general a healthy system (both mom and fetus) will prevent spread of microbes into the growing fetus.
During birth is when animals are (usually) first exposed to pathogens.
Pathogens are things that can cause disease, usually microbes (fungi, bacteria, viruses). They produce antigens (membrane wall proteins, cell wall components, receptors, etc.) to whom the body makes antibodies against.
And yes, it is thought that in the placenta, a fetus is in a sterile environment. The uterine and other female repro tract immune system is busy keeping everything in that region as clean as possible.
But think again, the quote is talking about lack of any flora (as in the normal bacteria that live in our bodies and to which we’ve adapted well). How are they supposed to get it? Eating they do not do, nor breathing, and the uterus works damn hard to prevent any contamination from getting into the placenta. Therefore, it is thought that the fetuses in their amniotic sac are in a sterile environment (and certainly a much cleaner environment than the one that supports them).
It is not until the process of birth that the fetus encounters things foreign to its environment (its environment having been the placenta, which shares the same DNA as the fetus, having been developed by the same cell clusters).
Awesomelly, the immune system in the fetus has developed in utero so well that for the most part it can take all those things in, process them, mount according responses, and thrive.
Well, okay. If your question was “does getting more vaccinations than was the case thirty years ago lead to more allergies?”, then the answer is No.
No, this isn’t the case. Read down a ways on the article.
Yes, the increased risk of contracting the disease, plus the chance that the vaccinations will be missed or skipped because of the increased number of doctor visits.
Keep in mind that there isn’t any evidence of increased risk from multiple vaccinations. If you think you have such evidence, please bring it forward.
I personally had measles, mumps, chickenpox and rubella over the span of a few years, and all those viral antigens far exceeded what I would have received in vaccines, had they been available. I was fortunate to avoid whooping cough (pertussis), which both my siblings had.
Well, it should be a no-brainer after being explained in detail.
Not crazy (although some antivaxers are clearly over the edge, imagining government conspiracies and hiding needle phobias). Dangerously ignorant, in denial, driven by unreasonable fears and refusing to consider the overwhelming evidence that debunks them, prone to endlessly repeating nonsensical talking points - yes.
Ah yes, a classical altie comeback. “Science has been wrong before, so you must give credence to my crazy-ass theory”.
Science is self-correcting based on the accumulation of evidence. Antivaxery just keeps repeating the same false mantras, no matter how foolish they’ve been shown to be.
We’ll stop dismissing anti-vax morons when they stop endangering public health:
:rolleyes:
Measles is one of the most contagious diseases on the planet.
Oh and the reason autism is on the rise is because people who would have been given a diagnosis of other diseases in the past are now being called autistic:
Go away.
Aw c’mon Jackmannii.
Measles and mumps and rubella and chickenpox are fun. Nothing says good time like an old fashioned throat swelling or a rash and high fever and lots of itching! Your mom got to stay home I bet. She took really good care of you with lots of chicken soup and vitamin c. Vaccines would have been a real hardship in comparison.
