Flu Shot Added to Babies' Recommended Schedule

The Washington Post ^ | April 30, 2004 | NA

[neverdem]

FINDINGS

Influenza has been added to the recommended schedule of shots for all infants, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said yesterday.

The CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Academy of Family Physicians recommend that, beginning in fall 2004, all children age 6 months to 23 months, as well as household and out-of-home caregivers for such children, receive an annual influenza vaccine, the CDC said.

The CDC had been moving toward the recommendation even before this past flu season, which began early and featured a nasty strain of virus that killed at least 142 children younger than 18. In an average year, influenza kills 36,000 people and puts 115,000 in the hospital.

[Triple Word Score]

The long-term damage to the immune system has not even been recognized yet. I guarantee that we don't want kids getting polio. The rare death due to chicken pox was an egregious thing, too.

But adults are getting lupus and arthritis and shingles and chronic fatigue syndrome and cancer and severe allergies at ever-increasing rates. It's like our immune systems become unfocused, and I think the vaccination schedules contribute to this. We ought to vaccinate intelligently. If there's an outbreak of measles, vaccinate for measles. I don't propose that letting thousands die of influenza is a great idea. (I think a LOT could be done simply by insisting that sick people stay HOME!)

Control our borders and keep sick people out (sorry, sir, you have a fever, we must quarantine you, your business trip will have to wait--how could that be harder than keeping out exploding tennis shoes?) Give the CDC fast computers and fast response units prepared to vaccinate targeted populations for everything from chicken pox to small pox. What are the odds of a kid in Kansas being exposed to whooping cough today, especially if we're watching for an outbreak? Almost nil. That's because practically all of the potential carriers are already immune. We could take advantage of that to allow a generation to grow up not vaccinated for that unless some risk actually shows up!

And then let our children's immune systems have a generation to breathe and go back to normal. I see that hardly anyone is able to throw off the simplest cold without being sick for weeks. We can't do anything without antibiotics anymore--and antibiotics are still prescribed for viral infections. We know what we're doing to ourselves, but we keep doing it in the quest for perfect health--when in fact perfect health comes from a strong immune system that can cope with natural challenges if it's left alone to do its job.

I don't think vaccines are evil. I think that we ought to be thinking very seriously about the consequences of making our childrens' immune systems respond to fifty-nine false alarms before they're two!

[Triple Word Score]

What happens to your 6 month old when she's 28 and gets exposed to chicken pox? Will she still be immune? or will she get one heck of a case? I too had my kids immunized for it because it was required, but if I had it to do over I think I'd rather they got chicken pox the natural way, as children, and have the full, normal immune response to a live virus as opposed to the attenuated immune response a distracted immune system gives the killed virus. They might get shingles someday (both of their parents did) but maybe they'd get only a mild case like we did, not one of the blinding, multiple-nerve-stem cases like some we've seen. Adult chicken pox is a terrible, terrible thing!

[TheMole]

Japan versus USA vaccination program

It has become rather well known that when Japan raised its minimum vaccination age to two years in 1975 the overall infant mortality rate improved to become the best in the world. In an effort to find out what has become of this 'no vaccination under two' policy that the following information was searched for and collected into one place. In 1995, Japan's vaccination laws changed. The 2002 vaccination scehdule is below.

Two 'immunization schedules' follow, the 1st is from Japan and the second is from the USA (CDC). One can readily compare the current recommendations for the two countries.

You will note that Japan recommends, in the first year of life:
six injections. (Count the red arrows, each of which is a shot.) And only three more in the second year of life.

Now count the shots recommended in the CDC recommended schedule, 13 in the first 12 months, with 15 being possible because an infant may receive the third Hep B and the third IPV shot in the first year of life. And seven more in the second year of life.

This does not take into account that the infant might be in a selected population in either country and be recommended for yet one more shot in the first year of life. The total for most children is 20 injections in the first two years of life in the USA and only 9 injections in the first two years in Japan.

link to the charts and the rest of the page

[mean lunch lady]

Yes!!
I think you've got something there. A case in point, about six years ago we had a controlled outbreak of measles in the county where I live. My son had to get an MMR shot before he could start college because that was the age group who were coming down with measles. There was a theory that maybe when those people were young the immunizations were done a little too early or that the batch that was used was not effective enough. At any rate, it was required that anyone who had their first MMR before 15 months (I think it was 15)had to have one before entering college. The outbreak was contained within a very short time and there have not been problems since.

[mean lunch lady]

Wow! that really puts it into perspective, thanks for the info. I forwarded those charts to a nurse I know who I think would find it very interesting. I especially like the idea of not starting so early on the majority of these injections. I would also say that if a child is at risk for certain things such as Hepatitis, then their immunizations should be done early if a doctor feels it is necessary.

[Triple Word Score]

It keeps coming back down to the fact that our government is dictating what we may and may not and MUST put into our bodies and our children's bodies.

We should be the freest country in the world, but Mexicans can buy medicines OTC we must get prescriptions for. We can drive to and from bars, and take our chances with self-prescribed ethanol, but our chemo patients can't legally try safe, commercially prepared marijuana to see if it helps them.

The FDA is so very unconstitutional, and yet on it goes, choking the development of medical treatments, limiting our right to buy what we want with our money and manage our own health care.

I was very interested in the material about Japan--thank you!

[Rebelbase]

How many infants die from the flu each year?

[mcg1969]

Very good point, Triple Word Score. I had forgotten about how bad chicken pox can be as an adult. I really don't know if they have any clue how effective the vaccine will be in adulthood. I agree with your analysis though: if the childhood vaccination leaves you open to a mild case of shingles as an adult, that's OK with me. But if it leaves you vulnerable to a full-blown case, yeah I'd rather just let my kid get sick.

[mcg1969]

Triple Word Score,
I seriously doubt that you want to take the comparisons with Mexico too far. Overregulation is certainly a bad thing---but when it comes to medicine, so is underregulation. I'll take our system, overall, over theirs, any day. In fact, those Mexicans who can afford to, do just that. (So do the ones that sneak across our borders :))

[cupcakes]

Well, they can kiss my tush. I'm about to deliver a baby boy, I have an autistic son already, and the flu shot is still preserved in the mercury based thimerisol(why I chose not to get it last fall when I was newly pregnant and no, I did not get the flu). This is a shot we will not get. Looks like as they add more and more vaccines we probably will have to look more and more at getting exemption status, even if it means lying as to the reasons why.

[cupcakes]

Apparently, you've never had the "pleasure" of dealing with an autistic child who you highly suspect became that way due to an environmental trigger--possibly vaccines.
The flu shot is still preserved in thimerisol which was removed from the MMR a couple years back.

[cupcakes]

So you are ok with the FLU shot being mandatory? We aren't talkikng polio here, we are talking the flu, something most of us have had at some point in our lives, even as children. I have no problem with a flu shot being taken on a voluntary basis, but making this yet another stick for babies to toddlers is outrageous!

[cupcakes]

Secondly, vaccinations generally work by stimulating immune response, so I don't think there is any real fear that we're compromising our ability to naturally fight disease because of vaccines
____

do you at least recognize that stimulating(or overstimulating) the immune response in some children and adults can be a problem? Sure are a lot of 30 and 40 something women now suffering from immune disorders where their immune systems are basically attacking their own organs and systems. Autism is still a mystery, but I don't doubt that that one can be approached from many angles--again immune over sensitivity triggered by childhood vaccinations being one.

[cupcakes]

don't think vaccines are evil. I think that we ought to be thinking very seriously about the consequences of making our childrens' immune systems respond to fifty-nine false alarms before they're two

AMEN! and deserves a bump!

[mcg1969]

cupcakes,

Sure, I could concede such points. However, the question seems to me to be one of, unfortunately, statistics. I say "unfortunately" because of course it's sad when someone has a negative reaction to a particular vaccination or the vaccination regimen in general. But what is the alternative: the elimination of vaccinations? I think not. You would have to concede that the 30 or 40 women you've cited is a drop in the bucket compared to the serious illness, permanent injury, and death that would result from many of the diseases that we have effectively eliminated from developed countries thanks to vaccination.

I think that any intelligent debate about vaccination ends up boiling down to questioning our society's obsession, and that of the medical community, to prolong and extend life. I happen to think it's indisputable that vaccinations save more lives than they hurt by a great margin. And since the effectiveness of vaccination programs truly depends on full participation, a focus on saving lives pretty much demands mandatory vaccination for at least some diseases.

But perhaps we ought not be putting so much value on life, or rather, the earthly life. I'm not being sarcastic here, I'm being serious. For those of us who are confident in our future station in heaven, an early death to some disease is sad for our loved ones but ultimately not a tragedy. But for a society that basically does not believe in such an afterlife---and certainly does not design itself around such a belief---the need to preserve this life at all costs drives many of our decisions.

In short, if we weren't so concerned about our mortality, then we could enjoy a bit more personal freedom.

[netmilsmom]

Oh my! I do so agree with you!
When Hep B shots became manditory for my newborn, although the disease is only bloodborne or sexually transmitted, I got suspicious.