View Full Version : Do you believe the current infant vax schedule is appropriate?
Just thought I'd do a poll on this as there seems to be a growing number of parents out there who are delaying and selectively vaxing their children.
I don't consider myself to be anti-vax, I just have a major problem with the amount of vaccinations on the current Australian schedule for infants under the age of 12 months.
I think vaxes definitely have their place in our society... but our schedule is growing and is currently more than double the amount of alot of European countries and also Japan.
I'm of the mindset that we have too many, too soon and that the "one size fits all" policy is not appropriate, especially with regards to premmies.
I've just been reading my purple booklet and I counted 25 vaccines in total (some given in multiples) given by the age of 6 months... 8 of these are given at 8 weeks of age. IMO, this is way too many and spacing out, delaying and separating vaxes where possible would be more appropriate.
So really, I'm just wondering what everyones thoughts are on the amount of vaxes on the current immunisation schedule. This thread isn't about whether vaxes are or aren't effective in reducing disease...it's about whether the amount of vaxes on the current schedule for infants under 12 months is appropriate.
Also, this thread is not designed to have digs at anyones beliefs. I'd really like everybody to be respectful of everyones reasons.
ETA - by request, below is the current immunisation schedule.
http://www.medicare.gov.au/provider/patients/acir/schedule.jsp
..
No, I don't believe it to be appropriate :no:
Fuchsia!
14-04-2009, 18:55
Nope
prideNJoy
14-04-2009, 19:05
I'm of the mindset that we have too many, too soon and that the "one size fit's all" policy is not appropriate, especially with regards to premmies.
IMO, this is way too many and spacing out, delaying and separating vaxes where possible would be more appropriate.
:iagree::iagree:
Hope you don't mind me cutting the rest of your post out Miriam, this part in particular speaks my sentiments exactly. :)
MamaLlama
14-04-2009, 19:07
I voted that its fine. Maybe there is an ideal that will reduce the 1/million reactions to 1/2million. Great, when they work that out. Until then it is fine.
I worked in a scientific research field several years ago and don't pretend to be an immunologist or up to date on everything BUT I have a general scientific understanding of the principles involved.
And with my awareness of the amount of total toxicity in the vaccinnes, compared to the amount of total toxicity the kid gets from an adult sneezing on them, or touching a doorknob, or playing on the grass - trust me they could give double the number of vaccines and it would still be miniscule by comparison.
I totally understand parents with sick kids want someone to blame, but it is almost never the vaccine, and even when it is, its almost always that someone mishandled/contaminated the vaccine (happened with polio vaccine years ago) or that the kid has an allergy that should have been detected beforehand (eg egg allergy).
I think with minimally competent doctors and good quality control on the vaccines - the schedule is no problem. Most people don't know that the MMR is approved for 9 month olds and has been tested on them, and is used that young in epidemics with no problems. Yet people fuss about giving it to 1 year olds!
I understand being worried, but really if you know the facts there is no reason to be.
I honestly believe that adverse reactions to vaxes aren't 1 in a million. Reactions are grossly under-reported in Australia and barely recognised by health care professionals. If a parent claims their child has had a reaction, often the doctor will put it down to just being a coincidence.
misskittyfantastico
14-04-2009, 19:38
I vax but wish there were single vaccines instead of one big lump of needly goodness. Poor bubs are bloomin' pin cusions. I think the vaccines should be singular and should be spaced over a longer period.
MimiGrace
14-04-2009, 19:47
I must admit i'm not entirely sure what the infant schedule is (since it hasn't been adhered to in my family anyway :p). But i will assume that when i got myself immunised last year, that it was reasonably close to the infant schedule.
And considering how much it knocked me about, i definitely don't think its appropriate for an infant.
The fact that they use the same dosage for all children, regardless of size and premie state, worries me most tbh.
But i know that many mothers would rather follow the schedule, and ensure their childs safety, than delay and risk it. and i respect their decision whole heartedly :thumbsup:
Lillynix
14-04-2009, 20:13
No, I don't think it is appropriate, mainly for the reasons you have stated, Miriam.
I believe that vaccines are given too early, I don't think messing with a still developing immune system is a good thing.
I believe that there are too many hits at once, meaning rather than the MMR, it should be a seperate vaxxes for Measles, Mumps and Rubella. If you're going to mess with a still developing immune system, don't overload it.
And I don't believe that ALL children should recieve the same dose. My DD was vaxxed and for example, at 6months she was around 10kg (97%)...my DS isn't vaxxed and at 6months was 5kg (below the 3%) so how can than be safe!? He was half the weight DD was but would have recieved the same dose! It just doesn't sit well with me at all.
I do believe the schedule should be changed, but alas it apparently works, so I don't think it would ever be changed. At least, not at any time that it would matter to me.
missie_mack
14-04-2009, 20:15
Yeah I don't get how a one year old who weighs 8kgs can be given the same immunisation as another that weighs 25 and it is both meant to work effectively despite being vastly different sizes :confused: yet alone an adult who could weigh 90kg (in excess of 10 times the weight of the 8kg 1 year old) get given the same immunisation. It appears illogical when this would never be applied to any other medication with different immune systems, size etc etc
reAllytee
14-04-2009, 20:15
Nope not one bit :no:
Too many given at once & all lumped in together.
As a mother of a child who does react I cant even tell you what he bluddy well reacts to because it could be ANY of them or even all who knows because I cant give them separately to find the answer !
Knocked_for_six
14-04-2009, 20:45
No, I don't believe it is appropriate, which is why we delay vax.
It might be useful to actually consult the Schedule (http://www.medicare.gov.au/provider/patients/acir/schedule.jsp), if we are going to discuss it.
The timing is determined by considering known data about safety and efficacy, as well as the morbidity of the actual disease at different ages. Variations are made as new data come to light.
For instance, meningoccocal vaccine is less effective prior to 12 months of age, whereas it's obviously a good idea to administer a pertussis-containing vaccine as early as possible. A birth dose of Hep B vaccine is given because although the risk is low, a neonate who does contract Hep B is expotentially more likely to become a chronic carrier.
Most vaccines have different formulations for adults and children but not because of body size (in the cases of diptheria and pertussis, there are fewer antigens for adults, for example).
There seems to be a misconception that vaccines work like what people call medicines, such as panadol or antibiotics. They don't. They contain minute quantities of antigens, the amounts are not at all related to body weight but to the immunogenic effect.
The main combination vaccine used in Australia, Infanrix Hex, reduces the likelihood of adverse reactions, which are overwhelming local, by reducing both the number of injections and the total amount of inactive ingredients.
Altering the current Schedule involves making some specific recommendation about what to delay and why, based on the evidence (as was done with removal of the 18-month DTPa booster) and some understanding of the science involved, rather than vague feelings or beliefs.
I voted yes.
MimiGrace
14-04-2009, 21:01
It might be useful to actually consult the Schedule (http://www.medicare.gov.au/provider/patients/acir/schedule.jsp), if we are going to discuss it.
To be fair. The rest of the girls DO know the schedule, and i admitted i wasn't sure of it (but i was right on most of them anyway. i just wasn't sure of how many at each stage. but as the OP said, it was 23 by 6months of age, and i only had around 20 needles in one year so my comments were no less valid.)
NibbleCurlynBub
14-04-2009, 21:19
:no: I don't.
MamaLlama
14-04-2009, 23:10
It might be useful to actually consult the Schedule (http://www.medicare.gov.au/provider/patients/acir/schedule.jsp), if we are going to discuss it.
The timing is determined by considering known data about safety and efficacy, as well as the morbidity of the actual disease at different ages. Variations are made as new data come to light.
For instance, meningoccocal vaccine is less effective prior to 12 months of age, whereas it's obviously a good idea to administer a pertussis-containing vaccine as early as possible. A birth dose of Hep B vaccine is given because although the risk is low, a neonate who does contract Hep B is expotentially more likely to become a chronic carrier.
Most vaccines have different formulations for adults and children but not because of body size (in the cases of diptheria and pertussis, there are fewer antigens for adults, for example).
There seems to be a misconception that vaccines work like what people call medicines, such as panadol or antibiotics. They don't. They contain minute quantities of antigens, the amounts are not at all related to body weight but to the immunogenic effect.
The main combination vaccine used in Australia, Infanrix Hex, reduces the likelihood of adverse reactions, which are overwhelming local, by reducing both the number of injections and the total amount of inactive ingredients.
Altering the current Schedule involves making some specific recommendation about what to delay and why, based on the evidence (as was done with removal of the 18-month DTPa booster) and some understanding of the science involved, rather than vague feelings or beliefs.
I voted yes.
:iagree: :smiliedance:
I also think I love you. :o You put it so much better than I did but I agree entirely.
:smiliedance:
NOPE i dont agree with how some are done together, My Dd had the ones that coukld be seperated done seperate
I cant for the life of me fathem how the same dose is used in a tiny under 2 kilos 8 week old as they use in a 5 kilos baby same as all the other ones how can the dose be the same when the size of the child varies so much
If i am to give DD her 4 year old vax next year she wi be about the size of an average one year old but wil be given the same as a normal 4 year old
MamaLlama
14-04-2009, 23:39
NOPE i dont agree with how some are done together, My Dd had the ones that coukld be seperated done seperate
I cant for the life of me fathem how the same dose is used in a tiny under 2 kilos 8 week old as they use in a 5 kilos baby same as all the other ones how can the dose be the same when the size of the child varies so much
If i am to give DD her 4 year old vax next year she wi be about the size of an average one year old but wil be given the same as a normal 4 year old
Please reread john's explanation, it really is spot on. Basically the antigens are sooooo infinitessimally small that that variation i nweight (though it seems a lot to you) makes no difference. Its like saying that a 100kg person gets the same dose as a 50kg person, yeah that's half the weight but it really doesn't change the effect of the tetanus jab you get, because it isn't dose dependent like panadol. Sorry I can't put it better t han John. I clearly was locked up in a lab too long when I was working :-)
Please reread john's explanation, it really is spot on. Basically the antigens are sooooo infinitessimally small that that variation i nweight (though it seems a lot to you) makes no difference. Its like saying that a 100kg person gets the same dose as a 50kg person, yeah that's half the weight but it really doesn't change the effect of the tetanus jab you get, because it isn't dose dependent like panadol. Sorry I can't put it better t han John. I clearly was locked up in a lab too long when I was working :-)
Most people don't worry solely about the antigens. There have been no studies testing the safety of multiple vaccines given at once. Vaccines are only safety tested individually....not the accumulative affect of several at once.
The phrase "one size doesn't fit all" doesn't specifically refer to the size of the recipient. It means that every person has a different tollerance and will react differently. A baby is that is full term, is breastfed and has an overall general good health may tollerate a vaccine differently to a premature, formula fed baby who may not be as robust. (sorry for the FF/BF comparison...not wanting to start any debates.) This is where we need to use our judgement and parental instinct to assess whether we think our babies can tollerate so many vaxes all at once.
I cant for the life of me fathem how the same dose is used in a tiny under 2 kilos 8 week old as they use in a 5 kilos baby same as all the other ones how can the dose be the same when the size of the child varies so much
It might help if we plug some numbers in. Childhood pertussis vaccination contains a total quantity of antigens that are measured in millionths of a gram. There are generally three components for a total weight of about 60-70mcg.
Every B cell that encounters a single antigen and subsequently differentiates into a plasma cell will then produce pertussis-specific antibodies at a rate of 3,000 per second. These B-cell factories can live for months or years in the body, and memory B-cells (which are also activated and responsible for quick response) can live even longer.
This mathematics is not related to body size but to the state of the immune system, which is why adult booster shots typically contain far fewer pertussis antigens (about 12mcg total) as those used for childhoold vaccinations.
Most people don't worry solely about the antigens. There have been no studies testing the safety of multiple vaccines given at once. Vaccines are only safety tested individually....not the accumulative affect of several at once.
Where on earth did you get that idea? To be licensed, combination vaccines cannot be tested as individual components and aren't. That's as true for DTPa as it is for MMR or any other combination.
Where on earth did you get that idea? To be licensed, combination vaccines cannot be tested as individual components and aren't. That's as true for DTPa as it is for MMR or any other combination.
I am refering to multiple different vaxes given at a single doctors visit, ie - DTPa, IPV, Hep B and Hib given at 8 weeks of age. I am not refering to combination vaxes like MMR and DTPa.
There have been no safety tests done for the accumulative affect of DTPa, IPV, Hep B and Hib given all at once.
..
It might help if we plug some numbers in. Childhood pertussis vaccination contains a total quantity of antigens that are measured in millionths of a gram. There are generally three components for a total weight of about 60-70mcg.
Every B cell that encounters a single antigen and subsequently differentiates into a plasma cell will then produce pertussis-specific antibodies at a rate of 3,000 per second. These B-cell factories can live for months or years in the body, and memory B-cells (which are also activated and responsible for quick response) can live even longer.
This mathematics is not related to body size but to the state of the immune system, which is why adult booster shots typically contain far fewer pertussis antigens (about 12mcg total) as those used for childhoold vaccinations.
thankyou for your repply, I have read that or simalar before and even though I understand it, It stil doesnt and ever will sit right, Im sure that you and your :iagree:team, See my reasons for this as clouded or uneducated, But real life has taken away my rose coloured glasses in terms of medical reserch and I dont see things as black and white.
As for the B cell factoory and the momory B cells that must be yet another area that Mito efects my DD seen as she seems to lack immunity even though she is was vaxxed, But then like every other cell the B cels contain Mitochondrial so there is the reason for it.
I am refering to multiple different vaxes given at a single doctors visit, ie - DTPa, IPV, Hep B and Hib given at 8 weeks of age. I am not refering to combination vaxes like MMR and DTPa.
There have been no safety tests done for the accumulative affect of DTPa, IPV, Hep B and Hib given all at once.
But that's simply not true. The combination you are referring to is called Infanrix Hexa, and is commonly used in Australia. Try typing
"Infanrix Hexa testing" into Google for starters. Extensive double-blind trials have been conducted around the world, the results of which are closely monitored by regulatory authorities in the US, Europe and here.
MamaLlama
15-04-2009, 11:29
But real life has taken away my rose coloured glasses in terms of medical reserch and I dont see things as black and white.
Another way to look at is that you are seeing it in black and white, good and bad. Whereas no pro-vaccine advocate has ever said there are never ever any adverse effects. Sure there are. But they are soooooooo rarely anything more than a sore arm (and personally I find it insulting that even counts as an adverse effect) that the benefits of everyone getting vaccinated on time and just trying to ID those vulnerable 1/1Million in advance is a better way to go.
Are you saying your child has mitochondrial disease? In which case, there isn't any evidence vaccines make any difference and there has actually been some scrutiny of that. The Pohling case in the US was in a special court without the usual rules of evidence, that is basically requiring only a "theory" no proof. So the fact they were paid out doesn't prove anything scientific. Just that it is cheaper to pay them off than deplete the research funds.
I sympathise, kids with mito issues have a tough time, and its totally understandable parents want to blame vaccines, but I'm sorry the evidence just is not there. There is a lot of stuff recently in the New York Times by Dr Paul Offit about it if you want to look.
But that's simply not true. The combination you are referring to is called Infanrix Hexa, and is commonly used in Australia. Try typing
"Infanrix Hexa testing" into Google for starters. Extensive double-blind trials have been conducted around the world, the results of which are closely monitored by regulatory authorities in the US, Europe and here.
Infanrix Hexa is also given in conjunction with Prevenar and Rotateq. Safety tests for the combination of these given together have not been conducted.
Another way to look at is that you are seeing it in black and white, good and bad. Whereas no pro-vaccine advocate has ever said there are never ever any adverse effects. Sure there are. But they are soooooooo rarely anything more than a sore arm (and personally I find it insulting that even counts as an adverse effect) that the benefits of everyone getting vaccinated on time and just trying to ID those vulnerable 1/1Million in advance is a better way to go.
Are you saying your child has mitochondrial disease? In which case, there isn't any evidence vaccines make any difference and there has actually been some scrutiny of that. The Pohling case in the US was in a special court without the usual rules of evidence, that is basically requiring only a "theory" no proof. So the fact they were paid out doesn't prove anything scientific. Just that it is cheaper to pay them off than deplete the research funds.
I sympathise, kids with mito issues have a tough time, and its totally understandable parents want to blame vaccines, but I'm sorry the evidence just is not there. There is a lot of stuff recently in the New York Times by Dr Paul Offit about it if you want to look.
Where did I ever say that my child isnt vaxed she is vaxed its a dam hard decision for me having an epileptic child
Im also DID NOT blame vax for my DDs mito, It is beleived her Mito may have been caused my another metobolic condition we are curently in the porocess of testing for them all her blood work indicated Mito the biopsy will determine the complex, John was talking about the B cells and I was replhying to that saying that MAYBE that is why DD doesnt hold her vax it MAY be becuase of the mito in the B cels not working properly
I dont see things as black and white hense why I have agornised over the decision to contiuniue vaxing my DD that does not apear to hold her vax status for the simple fact that I am hopeing that the smal amount she may hold may help her, I Do not see things as black and white I actualy find that laughable and insulting, I am not PRO nor am I ANTI vax.
As for the sore arm No i dont see that as a reaction and I find that as ridiculus as you do, To me a reaction is seizures, brain damage that sort of thing
As for Vax causing issues in Mito children, Im wel aware of the info on that and Im also aware that there are studie going on in regards to the actual vax not causeing the issue but more the child getting high temps post vax and that cuaseing metoboilc crisis, But again im not sayying that the vax is the cause more the bodies response to the tempreture
As for you am I saying my DD has Mito, Yes that is right her bloood work indicates that she has MIto they thought its was MNGIE but the recont test has shown other wise so when she is fit enough for surgery she wil be hacing a muscle biopsy to find out what type she has, there is talk that hers is likely secondry mito perhaps cause by another underlining metobolic condtion posible Glycrogen storage Disease acording to the Neuro but we wil find out soon
She also has Nutrapenia, which may be cause by her GSD, as well as CP, a disfunction gut ( psuebo obstruction, Fed into her small bowel through a broviiak cathater seen as her formal jej ruptured due to her motility, at this time she was fed into her veins through a PICC line, As wel as this she chiari malformatiion, pineal cysts, and epilepsy short stature, and hypotonia hypermobile joints, So yer a sore are :rolleyes: wouldnt be an issue
Infanrix Hexa is also given in conjunction with Prevenar and Rotateq. Safety tests for the combination of these given together have not been conducted.
With respect, you have now changed your argument for the third time. First it was that vaccines are only tested singly. Untrue. Second, that the combination used in Infanrix Hexa (or other multivalent vaccines) had not been tested. Untrue.
Now, it is that administering a multivalent vaccine at the same time as another vaccine such as Prevenar has not been tested. Sadly, this is also untrue. Indeed, I am just looking at a recommendation that the Infanrix product information be updated as follows in the light of testing:
Update of sections 4.4, 4.5 and 4.8 of the SPC with regard to concomitant administration of Prevenar, and the possible occurrence of a higher rate of febrile reactions with the co-administration of these vaccines.
In other words, providers should be alerted that there is a slightly higher risk of fever with co-administration.
It really does your position no good to persistently make false claims.
It really does your position no good to persistently make false claims.
My claim is not false. I will repeat it again. There are no safety tests for the combination effect of numerous different vaxes given in one Doctors visit, ie Infanrix Hexa, Prevenar and Rotateq. Do you know of a safety study for these 3 combined together that I'm not aware of?
She also has Nutrapenia, which may be cause by her GSD, as well as CP, a disfunction gut ( psuebo obstruction, Fed into her small bowel through a broviiak cathater seen as her formal jej ruptured due to her motility, at this time she was fed into her veins through a PICC line, As wel as this she chiari malformatiion, pineal cysts, and epilepsy short stature, and hypotonia hypermobile joints, So yer a sore are :rolleyes: wouldnt be an issue
It's a terrible business when a child faces such a range of health challenges, particularly when the doctors have not yet worked out what is cause and what effect. I am do sympathise deeply :hugs:
missie_mack
15-04-2009, 12:37
John I believe you have simply misunderstood what Miriam was trying to say I don't believe that she has changed her story.
missie_mack
15-04-2009, 12:50
I think you will find that she is referring to having 3 different vaccines administered at once. Hep B and tetanus are not exclusively given in the infanrix hexa vaccine they can be administered individually and I don't *think* all states use it for young infants from memory (at least thats what we were told in Vic when they looked at DS' immunisation record from NSW) and SA had a different set of preferences again ..
But let it go John. Nobody said you had to agree with her personal conclusion. I would be interested to know what you have done with your own children from personal experience instead of from textbooks
Far too many. I have heard the vaxxes are less potent than they once were. But any poison in any volume is too much.
I had a feeling that it was too many when my almost 12mth old had 4 needles at once. In retrospect I wish I had trusted my instinct.
Okay, just so there are no doubts. I have already dealt with Prevenar and Infanarix. So rotavirus vaccines.
The Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation considered 12 RCTs in depth in making their recommendation. The two largest safety trials involved over 60,000 children each in a range of countries, which have a range of vaccination schedules, many (particularly in Europe) the same as our own.
Anyone with research access to the publications can read these studies in detail and confirm that the vaccines were concommitantly administered with other vaccines, including Infanarix Hexa and Prevenar where these were scheduled. Indeed the ATAG noted:
The body of evidence is applicable to the Australian healthcare context based on the similarity of the study population and settings to Australia.
As for my personal experience. One son contracted a mild but persistent case of whooping cough at age 16. He was fully vaccinated as a child but had not received the age 15 booster. All other children have been fully vaccinated without complications, including a foster child with neurological problems.
Thread closed for cleaning
I am re-opening this thread after a significant clean-up.
If this thread is to remain open it needs to stay on topic:goodvibes:
MamaLlama
15-04-2009, 21:38
OK I know you didn't specifically ask me but my personal experience is that my child is fully vaccinated for his age, including fighting to get a vaccine that is on the schedule in Australia and not in the US. Can you believe they told me Meningicoccal C wasn't an issue until you were at college? I said bollocks and showed how it was on the Australian schedule, and explained why it was. I paid top dollar to get him vaccinated with it too. Imagine what the American anti-vax lobby must think of me :rolleyes: I went out of my way to get a vaccine they believe is toxic to toddlers.
Also we have egg and dairy allergies, as well as other allergies and autoimmune disorders in the family (quite prevalently, both sides) so we had a few skin tests done on DS before he had some vaccines to make sure he didn't have those. For example my SIL can't have mumps or varicella vaccines for that reason (had to have measles and rubella separately and has to be super careful in the periodic mumps outbreaks). Luckily DS had no issues but I know from that experience it is not that hard to be careful about truly adverse reactions.
However, I really don't think personal experience is what people should make decisions like this on. And yes that is JMO. If that's all we needed then why have the last 2 centuries of scientific research? Why not just do what our parents did? We'd be dying of polio at the same rate as our great-grandparents but hey, no one would blame vaccines. Also, I think there's no point to scientific research if laypeople just have no respect for it. Luckily enough people do still that herd immunity is still working for most diseases, but it could very easily be undermined and then the relative safety from these diseases which fuels complacence, and fuels vaccine concerns vis-a-vis those diseases would suddenly blow up in their faces.
The reason you guys even have space to think about hypothetical risks of vaccines is only because they've been so safe, and so successful that people are not dying like flies from diptheria every winter. If they were I bet everyone in the developed world would be lining up to vaccinate their kids EARLY!
Just something to think about, vaccines have given you the luxury to worry about vaccines. Don't take it to extremes or you'll have something bigger to worry about. Because there will always be the newborns, the elderly, the sick and people like my SIL who will die when herd immunity fails. So it isn't silly for those of us who are vaccinated to worry about those who don't vaccinate on time. Also there's some altruism involved, I care about all kids, not just mine. Sorry if that offends anyone but surely we all feel that way on some issues?
I have not read all the thread but just for general information, although children receive more vaccinations then in the past, they are actually receiving less antigens as technology has progressed. For example - in the 80's they were receiving over 3000 (which would be a lot of people on BH) , today it just over 123-126 so in view of that, my answer is no.
Here is a link to a study that looking at multiple vaccines and if they overwhelm or weaken infants immune system. It's heavy, but interesting reading and provides all the references ( as you would expect it to...). . It is a complicated topic but for people to be able to make informed decisions as to if they think there are too many vaccines on the schedule, they really need to understand the immune system and how the immune response is generated.
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/109/1/124
Just something to think about, vaccines have given you the luxury to worry about vaccines. Don't take it to extremes or you'll have something bigger to worry about.
That is a very good summary of these issues...well said.:yelclap:
vaccines have given you the luxury to worry about vaccines. Don't take it to extremes or you'll have something bigger to worry about.
Love how you can simplify things so much and asume that because people question vax that that is the only thing they have to wory about
I dont doubt that you are a dam good resercher and i know that you miss your work but on here you are just a mum like the rest of us, and every one on here has the right to question things if they wish to
I've been thinking a bit more about the original question, and I think it only makes sense to say "no" if you are also prepared to say what you would change, delete or delay in the current schedule. Otherwise we will just keep talking in generalities and vague opinion without actually coming to grips with the question the OP and the poll posed.
I looked again at the schedule and thought a candidate might be invasive pneumoccocal disease (Prevenar), but then I looked at the notification and the hospitalisation data since it was introduced, and removing it from its current position just looks irresponsible to me.
So if you voted "no", what would you change, and why? Here's the link again to the current Schedule (http://www.medicare.gov.au/provider/patients/acir/schedule.jsp) for anyone who wants to consider the issue.
Genuine question :yes:
MimiGrace
16-04-2009, 00:32
I've been thinking a bit more about the original question, and I think it only makes sense to say "no" if you are also prepared to say what you would change, delete or delay in the current schedule.
I chose Other. So my decision isn't set in stone (not that i think most mums is. these things can change).
From the infant schedule (and i am speaking very generally. until i can assess each one of my children individually my answer can only be hypothetically), i will not be giving i won't be giving any of them at the scheduled time.
However, DTP WILL be given to them by the time they go to school. - since my child won't be protected from WC till they are around 12 months, and by that time it will no longer be at risk of dying, i feel that i can put it off a few years. I am not convinced that being vaccinated means they won't pass it on. But i am willing to have them vaccinated for the 'good of the community', once they aren't quite as fragile anymore.
MMR i will delay as well, but i will wait till after i have had them tested for autism/aspergers (so at least 4 i think. instead of first at 12months). While i accept that the studies that claimed to have found a link, have been found to be fraudulent, i am all to aware of the prevelence of the autism spectrum in my family, and do not want to mistakenly blame the vaccine ;) but i will get them immunised for it at some point.
Chicken pox i won't vaccinate against. Hep B i will vaccinate them against when they are closer to being sexually active. Men. C i will vaccinate them for, but i am not sure if it will be at 12months, or if i will wait a few extra months/years.
Hib, pneumoccocal and rotavirus i haven't looked into yet, and therefore don't have an opinion (which means that for now i won't vax, but i will have weighed up both sides before i fall pregnant most likely, let alone have a child).
I hope i have addressed them all.
and just because it seems to be a concern for a few of you - not one of my decisions has been based on internet sources. :thumbsup: and no i have absolutely no sources to back up my decisions
As I said in my original post, there are many other countries who have alot less vaxes on their schedule and are given at a later age.
Iceland has an interesting schedule and also Norway and Sweden. Their schedules begin at 3 months, instead of 2 months and also contains alot fewer vaxes and more spread out over a longer period of time.
http://www.euvac.net/graphics/euvac/vaccination/iceland.html
reAllytee
16-04-2009, 00:38
I've been thinking a bit more about the original question, and I think it only makes sense to say "no" if you are also prepared to say what you would change, delete or delay in the current schedule. Otherwise we will just keep talking in generalities and vague opinion without actually coming to grips with the question the OP and the poll posed.
I looked again at the schedule and thought a candidate might be invasive pneumoccocal disease (Prevenar), but then I looked at the notification and the hospitalisation data since it was introduced, and removing it from its current position just looks irresponsible to me.
So if you voted "no", what would you change, and why? Here's the link again to the current Schedule (http://www.medicare.gov.au/provider/patients/acir/schedule.jsp) for anyone who wants to consider the issue.
Genuine question :yes:
So I get that you are asking this genuinely but why would those saying no have to give reasons ?
As I said in my original post, there are many other countries who have alot less vaxes on their schedule and are given at a later age.
Iceland has an interesting schedule and also Norway and Sweden. Their schedules begin at 3 months, instead of 2 months and also contains alot fewer vaxes and more spread out over a longer period of time.
http://www.euvac.net/graphics/euvac/vaccination/iceland.html
Useful link, thank you. Sure some have fewer, some have more (eg UK persists with its meningococcal infant booster program). We are probably closest to somewhere like The Netherlands, but vax programs I think need to be responsive to incidence and morbidity of particular diseases as they apply to their own environment.
So the question stands: what could/should we change in the Australian schedule, given the known data?
So I get that you are asking this genuinely but why would those saying no have to give reasons ?
No one has to do anything :D, but it's a bit pointless IMO to say the schedule should be changed without indicating how it should be changed.
I believe that Iceland, Sweden and Norway also have the lowest mortality rates in the world for children under 5.
Iceland also has one of the lowest rates of Autism as well - 1 in 1100. I believe it's much higher in Australia, 1 in 150.
I don't have a link for that at the moment but I can probably dig one up.
reAllytee
16-04-2009, 01:02
No one has to do anything :D, but it's a bit pointless IMO to say the schedule should be changed without indicating how it should be changed.
Thats right & really this thread isnt about that so thats why I ask ...
It always seems to be the non-vaxxers or delayed vaxxers who have to back themselves up or give full answers as to why & how things can change ....
I find it a little frustrating ...
Yes they are against the current schedule but it doesnt mean any have sat down & mapped out how it could be changed.
I know I havent ( I said I dont agree with the schedule btw ) & that doesnt make me in any way irresponsible or less knowledgable but means I havent thought that far ahead or its not something I feel I can change at this point. Nor is it something I wish to debate at this point in time. Maybe others will feel differently.
I also have one son full vaxxed & the other has only had a few due to reactions.
reAllytee
16-04-2009, 01:04
I believe that Iceland, Sweden and Norway also have the lowest mortality rates in the world for children under 5.
Iceland also has one of the lowest rates of Autism as well - 1 in 1100. I believe it's much higher in Australia, 1 in 150.
I don't have a link for that at the moment but I can probably dig one up.
Iceland have great rates all round with their kids in regards to many things ....
My sister lived there for approx 10yrs :thumbsup:
Thermolicious
16-04-2009, 01:06
No I dont think it is appropriate.
Nor is it something I wish to debate at this point in time. Maybe others will feel differently.
Sure, I'm not wanting a debate either (hence I won't get myself sidetracked into Iceland ;)) but I do think it is a legitimate inquiry. After all, if one says the current schedule is "not appropriate", then that surely implies some other schedule is more appropriate IFYKWIM. For those who haven't thought it through, it's an invitation to do so, and share their thoughts.
Sure, I'm not wanting a debate either (hence I won't get myself sidetracked into Iceland ;)) but I do think it is a legitimate inquiry. After all, if one says the current schedule is "not appropriate", then that surely implies some other schedule is more appropriate IFYKWIM. For those who haven't thought it through, it's an invitation to do so, and share their thoughts.
you say you dont want a debate yet as soon as some one gives there reason you will shoot them down and tel them they are wrong, I gave my reason and told I was wrong by your follower, You was at least polite about it unlike your folower but still thats why you want people to give reason so you can tel them that they are wrong and you are right, we could seriously go on all year with this
I cant get why people cant just live and let live I vaxxinate my child, yet i dont feel the need to haras other thats dont, Its the same old thing with all of these hot topics no one can ever exept what another person is doing
Do you seriuosly in all honesty think you have a chance of chaging the opinion of the Non vaxers on here, cause the way I see it there is just as much chance of them turning you into an anti vaxer as there is of turning you into a non vaxer its never going to happen
Amy, I am genuinely interested, and this is a forum after all. I'm sure if we try hard to not personalise this and remain polite, not only will the mods be happy but we might have a more fruitful discussion about the issues and evidence rather than simply trading non-negotiable opinions.
So my (non-trick) question stands; perhaps there may be some answers.
IMO, Iceland's Vax schedule is definitely the most appropriate.
I just checked Icelands mortality rate for children under the age of 5 and they have the lowest mortality rate in the world, so for this reason, I believe their vaccination schedule to be the most appropriate.
See attached link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_infant_mortality_rate_(2005)
IMO, Iceland's Vax schedule is definitely the most appropriate.
Thanks, Miriam. That's a concrete answer worth considering. There are likely to be different thoughts out there as well, which I hope other people who voted "no" may share.
Wow, the more I delve into this, the more interesting it gets.
When I look at the list of countries with lowest mortality rates for children under 5, the top 5 with the lowest rates are:
1. Iceland
2. Singapore
3. Japan
4. Sweden
5. Norway
These 5 countries also have some of the least amounts of vaccinations on their schedule in the world. Roughly half of what we have in Australia. Also interesting is that Iceland do not give Hep B at birth (or at all for that matter) and their schedule begins at 3 months compared to Australia at 2 months.
Australia is ranked at #17 (which is shockingly bad) and we have one of the highest amounts of vaccinations on our schedule. John pointed out earlier that the Netherlands' schedule is most similar to ours, and when I check their mortality ranking, they sit an # 19 in the world....almost on par with Australia.
..
MamaLlama
16-04-2009, 11:26
1. Iceland
2. Singapore
3. Japan
4. Sweden
5. Norway
It would be interesting to study the relationship between demographics, travel patterns, epidemic behaviour and climate in relation to the incidence and morbidity of these diseases. Because at first glance these countries have a lot of differences from Australia along those lines.
You could hypothesise that those differences explain the difference without reference to vaccinations at all. It would be interesting to see evidence on that.
BTW I think you can say yes t o the schedule on the basis that you understand the system of testing and validation without going out and testing it all yourself. Whereas if you want it changed you kind of have to say "why" and "how" or it isn't much of a statement... its like saying "I want the school uniform at my school changed but I have no view on what it should be"....it just doesn't sound very convincing nor does it give those who disagree anything to respond to. You have something to respond to in our views, you have the schedule. KWIM?
MamaLlama
16-04-2009, 11:32
JMO but I'd be more interested in mortality rates overall from these diseases than mortality for under 5s generally. That would exclude SIDS, accidents, neonatal deaths in extreme premmies (which will be much more common in richer countries) and will include deaths of the unvaccinated and undervaccinated elderly, sick, pregnant and allergic people.
Its not just our kids we are protecting. It might be our parents.
What's also interesting is the results from America.
They are ranked at #33 and they have the highest amount of vaccinations on their scedule and are the only country in the world where vaccinations are mandatory.
MamaLlama
16-04-2009, 11:51
Miriam, what's their compliance rate? Having lived there for years I suspect it is poor and since it is a big place (and unlike Australia not deserted in the middle), it would be interesting too to know WHERE the rates of vaccination are highest and where the deaths (from those diseases) are.
My guess, without checking of course, would be that in the South where disadvantage is highest, there will be lower rates of actual vaccination and higher death rates from those diseases.
Again, you really need t o look at death rates from those diseases because the US has a higher than usual rate of neonatal deaths for various reasons (poor prenatal care, poor health coverage for the poor because no medicare system, high intervention to try to save very premmie babies and SIDS rates). Their infant mortality rate has been used against them re hospital v midwife births too, but as was pointed out in that debate, you can't count deaths up to 1 year old as deaths due to how they were born automatically. I think the same problem exists here. You need to look at deaths from those diseases (or complications thereof) to get a fair comparison.
Otherwise anywhere that has high unrelated deaths is going to get slammed and that's unfounded.
JMO but I'd be more interested in mortality rates overall from these diseases than mortality for under 5s generally. That would exclude SIDS, accidents, neonatal deaths in extreme premmies (which will be much more common in richer countries) and will include deaths of the unvaccinated and undervaccinated elderly, sick, pregnant and allergic people.
Its not just our kids we are protecting. It might be our parents.
I would consider Australia to be one of the richer countries with possibly one of the best healthcare systems in the world.
MamaLlama
16-04-2009, 12:10
I would consider Australia to be one of the richer countries with possibly one of the best healthcare systems in the world.
Exactly my point. We are. So is the US. And we have higher rates of deaths partly because we can (and should I would argue) try to save younger and younger premmies, and sicker and sicker babies and kids. But we don't always succeed, and thus have higher death rates. In poorer countries a lot of those deaths would not be recorded (would be not counted as live births or would not be fully reported at all).
In particular premmie intervention is quite differently treated in the US and Australia than in some countries in Europe, though obviously it varies within Europe.
ETA there are also diseases (spina bifida is one, but there are others) where the rich developed countries sometimes will try to operate in utero to save the baby and end up with a live birth but the child may or may not survive in the end. In countries with less intervention (not just the poorer countries, but also those culturally less inclined to intervene in births and in utero) those babies could die in late pregnancy or not survive birth and never be counted as live births in the first place (so their deaths wouldn't count). Australia and the US count those deaths in the infant mortality stats.
It's all cleared up though if you look at the deaths from the diseases covered by the vax schedule.
Miriam, in case you haven't found it already the WHO database (http://www.who.int/vaccines/globalsummary/immunization/countryprofileselect.cfm) contains comprehensive information on all member states about current schedules, disease incidence, infant mortality, etc etc.
My experience is that the more you look at the data, the less straightforward things become, but I will be interested in your conclusions in regards to our own immunisation schedule.
Exactly my point. We are. So is the US. And we have higher rates of deaths partly because we can (and should I would argue) try to save younger and younger premmies, and sicker and sicker babies and kids. But we don't always succeed, and thus have higher death rates. In poorer countries a lot of those deaths would not be recorded (would be not counted as live births or would not be fully reported at all).
In particular premmie intervention is quite differently treated in the US and Australia than in some countries in Europe, though obviously it varies within Europe.
So you are saying that our rates of deaths in Australia are high due partly because we can try to save younger children and younger premmies, and sicker and sicker babies and children, but we don't always succeed and thus have higher death rates.
Sorry, but I find this explanation totally unacceptable considering we are one one of the wealthiest countries in the world with possibly the best healthcare systems yet we are ranked at #17 in the world with our under 5 mortality rates.
Looshkin
16-04-2009, 12:49
1. Iceland
2. Singapore
3. Japan
4. Sweden
5. Norway
Miriam I think that's a really interesting point.
These countries also have very high levels of health care available, yes?
Sorry I know it is off topic.
I am thinking about it though, I just feel too uneducated in regards to human vaccines to offer an alternative schedule.
I did seem an awful lot of 35 - 55 year olds were part of the outbreak*, being older and supposably having previous vaccinations would mean if they did receive boosters, they would have a much higher immunity than an 8 week old infant would have anyway (if we were considering the falling rates in infant vaccination were to blame for the outbreaks. (*as per your lovely graph JohnC)
I think ongoing adult and teen vaccination needs to be looked at.
In an ideal world the up to date herd immunity would protect our young so we could vaccinate a bit later when they had a more matured immune system, which would in turn mean a higher efficacy anyway.
We would just need to get to that point.....
[quote=Zeltronica;3650335]1. Iceland
2. Singapore
3. Japan
4. Sweden
5. Norway
Miriam I think that's a really interesting point.
These countries also have very high levels of health care available, yes?
Yes, I would assume so. We are not comparing Australia's high mortality rate with poorer countries.
We are not comparing Australia's high mortality rate with poorer countries.
A few words of caution about infant and child mortality rates among countries of similar levels of economic development, in this case OECD countries.
Infant mortality rates among countries that are closely grouped (let's say in our case, 3-6 deaths/1000) need to be broken down for meaningful comparison. You may wish to look at this summary (http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Latestproducts/04FEBEF9C81FE6BACA25732C002077A2?opendocument) to get a feel for the Australian situation.
Childhood mortality is perhaps even less relevant to this discussion since the leading causes of death are accidents, poisoning and violence (external causes) which accounted for about 46% of all deaths among children. This was followed by congenital anomalies (14%) and neoplasms (11%).
Comparison of these breakdowns between similar countries is required before one even begins to form a hypothesis.
Currently the most common cause for infant mortality is pneumonia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pneumonia). Major causes of infant mortality in more developed countries include congenital malformation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congenital_malformation), infection (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infection) and SIDS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudden_infant_death_syndrome).
Iceland also has the lowest infant mortality rate in the world. They also have the least amount of vaccinations on their infant schedule and do not give the Hep B vax at birth.
..
Currently the most common cause is for infant mortality is pneumonia. Major causes of infant mortality in more developed countries include congenital malformation, infection and SIDS.
Iceland also has the lowest infant mortality rate in the world.
Excellent example of how one can be led astray. In fact, the main cause of infant death in Australia is "fetus and newborn affected by maternal factors and by complications of pregnancy, labour and delivery" (27%). Interestingly, a cause that has been consistently rising is "disorders related to short gestation and low birthweight" (7%), and the reason for that is as Mamallama outlined earlier ie more aggressive intervention in Australia to keep premature babies alive. Also of interest is the dramatic fall in the incidence of SIDS deaths over the past 20 years (by 83%).
The infant death rate in Australia in 2007 was 4.2/1000 (it continues to fall), and I suspect that there is very little real statistical difference between any of the countries in the top 20 if one compares similar demographic segments.
Unfortunately, the Icelandic data is all in Icelandic, which makes a more detailed comparison a little difficult. But when you are dealing with a total population of 320,000 one should be a little cautious in just comparing headline figures.
Bottom line though: I cannot see anything in the Australian data on infant mortality that would point to adverse vaccine effects. The death rate continues to fall as the number of vaccinations on the schedule has increased.
They also have the least amount of vaccinations on their infant schedule and do not give the Hep B vax at birth.
That's because they don't have a Hep B problem. Singapore with virtually the same nominal infant mortality rate does vaccinate for Hep B with a virtually identical schedule to us (including birth).
Iceland isn't the only example. Japan, Sweden and Norway also have the lowest infant mortality rates in the world and they also have mucher higher populations than Iceland. They also have the least amount of vaccinations on their schedule, roughly half the amount that we currently have in Australia.
That's because they don't have a Hep B problem. Singapore with virtually the same nominal infant mortality rate does vaccinate for Hep B with a virtually identical schedule to us (including birth).
I wasn't aware that Australia had a Hep B problem with newborns.
Iceland isn't the only example. Japan, Sweden and Norway also have the lowest infant mortality rates in the world and they also have mucher higher populations than Iceland. They also have the least amount of vaccinations on their schedule, roughly half the amount that we currently have in Australia.
But that's not right. The Swedish schedule for the first year of life is practically identical to ours, except they do vaccinate for TB and we don't, and they haven't commenced rotavirus (like everyone else in Europe they are awaiting some byzantine EU approval process). Second add: Norway looks the same as Sweden.
As for Japan, their schedule may be different but its hardly less. They administer vaxxes for Hep B and Hep A, for TB and Japanese encephalitis. Mumps is for some weirdo reason given after 1 year of age, but they had 200,000 cases of mumps in 2006 as a result. There are also 4 doses of DTPa by 18 months (3 here).
Opinionated
16-04-2009, 15:55
I think it is appropriate. I am pro-vax, and get my kids and I a flu shot every year on top of the schedule.
I don't buy into the "too much for a developing immune system argument. Every day our babies immune system deal with all sorts of bacteria, fungi, virus' etc unless they are living in a sterile bubble. A few more on any given day isn't going to cause any problem to the majority of children.
I wasn't aware that Australia had a Hep B problem with newborns.
The birth vaccine is given because of the expotentially increased risk of a neonate becoming a carrier (chronic and incurable) should they be exposed, compared with older children or adults. The relevant index for the decision is overall incidence.
MamaLlama
16-04-2009, 16:25
Bottom line though: I cannot see anything in the Australian data on infant mortality that would point to adverse vaccine effects. The death rate continues to fall as the number of vaccinations on the schedule has increased.
:iagree: :yelclap:
And I defer to John's much more precise analysis of the appropriate statistics, but I believe they back up my general point which is that looking at infant mortality in general is not a very good way to look for a vaccine problem. Even if there was one, that wouldn't be a way to find out. JMHO.
One of the things that does stand out in countries such as Japan and Sweden is the extraordinarily high coverage rates. The benchmark is DTPa-containing vaccines, and you are looking at coverage of 99% for completion of the primary course.
Not too many conscientous objectors, it would seem.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.9 Copyright © 2012 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.