Shot forced on newborn over parents' objections

One of the things I find ironic and sad about this whole affair is this. Of the three main types ( A, B, C ) hepatitis B is absolutely known to be sexually transmitted. And one of the highest risk factors for HBV infection is homosexual behaviour.....And homosexuals are NOT forced to take the vaccine. Although I'm not sure if they have a higher rate of becoming chronic carriers...my guess is they would..considering their not surprising 80% seropositivity rates.

Interesting enough..after exposure with HBV, the infection is usually self-limiting, with most patients mounting an effective immune response. Most HBV infections are clinically inapparent and result in solid and permanent immunity. Approx. 6% to 10% of infected people cannot eradicate the virus and become chronic carriers of HBV.

Perinatal transmission of HBV is relatively common. Neonates have a 70% yo 90% chance of becoming infected...and a 90% chance of becoming chronic carriers. ( Thus the vaccination at birth..)

FRegards,

You wrote:

"BS, it's a sexually transmitted disease and the fact that the mom didn't have it is entirely relevant."

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

Transmission of HBV can occur through needle puncture, blood transfusions, cuts or abrasions in the skin, and absorption by mucosal surfaces. Direct contact with infected body fluids, such as tears, cerebrospinal fluid, synovial fluid, gastric juices, pleural fluid, semen, and urine, may pass infection.

Interesting enough is that the HBV can survive on inanimate objects for up to 1 week. So.....it's not just an STD.

FRegards,

Nice post. Consider another factor in regard to the position of the hospital. It could get by medically with far less tests, vaccinations, procedure, etc., BUT this is a charitable institution surrounded by a sea of sharks. Any deviation from, their procedure, licensing authority procedure, and the most current medical knowledge leaves it subject to multi-million lawsuit potential.

ANY suit costs a minimum of hundreds of thousands of dollars, I would suspect, with maximums of multi-millions bled into the all-consuming maw of the lawyers.

Few things infuriate me more than unnecessary involvement by the legal system in medical matters and feel that is the principle reason health care costs have gotten out of control. This crushes poor people and kills them.

Thus, when I smell a case which will soon be dragged into Court for lawyers to rip pieces of flesh from this institution developed to serve the poor, I allow my scorn and disgust to get the better of my courtesy. I am certainly not intending to insult strangers.

These factors, which limit what you view as personal liberty, can only be mitigated by a reform of the tort system to remove the forces which drive these legal decisions. In a legal question, the hospital is almost forced, as best as I can understand, to make decisions which are not the same as a pure medical decision.

Those who are concerned about this family's dilemna would be best to concentrate their attention on the movement to reform the legal system to cap these montrous suits. That is the necessary condition to both lowering medical costs so that the poor can afford it, which this family couldn't because of its too soon formation and in removing the legal necessity for the medically unnecessary tests, procedures which is so expensive. The lawyers have become very limiting on freedoms. Ironic, no?

No question your concerns and remarks in other respects are valid. My family made a similiar sacrifice when my wife stayed home from a well-paying and personally satisfying career to raise our boys. It is a tricky balance of material and spiritual issues making a decision on how to live our lives. There are no guidebooks any better than the Bible, that I have ever found, though I am sure you know that. May God Bless you in your choices.

You wrote:

"My family and I have chosen to not follow the state recommended schedule for getting our children vaccinated. Notice I did not say I did not say we are NOT getting our children vaccinated. We are just slowing the schedule down and spacing the vaccinations further apart. "

))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

This is exactly what we did...some 17 yrs ago. We actually had a OB-GYN well-baby doc...who advised us at the time of the pros and cons of early vaccinations. We researched as far as we knew how...and discussed it with people whom we respected. Over time we ended up taking most everything offered then....except only enough to obtain nessary titers.

My HS'ed kids have been about as healthy as can be....The oldest is now almost 18...and visited a Ped's doc once...for poison oak.

FRegards,

"Wrong again. The immunse system like EVERY OTHER system is still developing. In no way shape or form is it wise or healthy to have an army of germs injected into a newborn."

No, I was not wrong. The immune system is working right away when the baby is born. In fact it is working very well and at a high pace, just as it is designed to do. It processes proteins and learns to distinguish between self and other. Antigens are foreign proteins. Immunizations are not an army of germs, they are preparations of a foreign protein that is harmless. It is simply a presentation of protein to the immune system, so that it can be learned and a proper response be prepared and memorized. Once this is done, any such antigen that is encountered will be met by previously prepared antibody and alerted white cells.

Without the immune system any bug would be able to feast on the baby. That's why those babies are contained in sealed, sterile containers with life support provision. The healthiest folks are those that have been exposed early and often with the maximun number of pathogenic antigen.

"have ALL the shots and increase your odds of geting autism. Autism is now an epidemic from vaccines."

Autism results from genetic defect. There maybe an effect from mercury in Timersol(sp), or another source of similar heavy metal, but that effect can only be present when the genetic defect is already there. That preservative can not have an effect in a healthy normal immune system. The concentration is too miniscule. In fact those babies that were exposed to mercury didn't show a particular increase in developing autism. Other damage was noted though.

Also, autism doesn't develope from exposure to antigen, Gulf was syndrom included. Exposure to antigen results in the production of antibody and the rest of the immune response, so that upon a future encounter with pathogens displaying the antigen, the mmune system is already alerted and set to kill it before damage is done. Without prior immunization, the immune ussually can't beat the pace of the pathogen growth rate.

If you read my posts you should have noticed that the parents decision rules regardless of the reasons presented, as long as the parents are competent. So I don't really care if you think vaccines result in whatever. This reply was made, because you challenged what is known to be the truth about the very complicated immune system. If you want to check it, you can start by learning what occurs in the baby's spleen.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.