Skip to main content

View Diary: Anti-vaccine quack Jenny McCarthy joins "The View" as new co-host (207 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  FWIW (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I'm almost virulently (?) pro-vaccination, but I agree with you, in large part because a very young relative of mine (2-3 months) had a horrible reaction to a round of vaccinations and ended up in the ER, then getting a spinal tap, then in the hospital.

    Not a common reaction, but can and does happen.

    I believe some restraint is only common sense.

    •  A reaction can happen to any medicine (10+ / 0-)

      Sometimes these side effects can be severe, even fatal.  But side effects to small molecule medicines are often much more prevalent than vaccines, percentage wise.  Yet vaccines are attacked much more prominently.

      "Give me a lever long enough... and I shall move the world." - Archimedes

      by mconvente on Mon Jul 15, 2013 at 12:00:50 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  because they are given to babies (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        indubitably, protectspice

        Small molecule medicines generally aren't.  Is that so hard to understand?  If spacing out the vaccination schedule reduces side effects, why is that a bad thing?

        •  Because there is no evidence (9+ / 0-)

          that spacing out vaccines reduces side effects. Indeed, as stated above, delaying vaccines may increase risk to the child. Or, some parents may just not make it back for later shots (or they move, etc), leaving the child unprotected.

          I could just as easily propose the "let's get the shots over with" approach. That is, giving many vaccines at once is better because it reduces the number of times that side effects or reactions may occur. If I "feel" this is the best method and "I am not convinced" that spacing out shots is better and may lead to more problems, then is this better then just relying on the science and experts recommendations?

          •  to rephrase that (0+ / 0-)

            I should not have said that "spacing out the vaccination schedule reduces side effects".   I should have said, "spacing out the vaccination schedule spaces out the side effects."

            Adverse Effects of Vaccines: Evidence and Causality

            As some of the conclusions suggest, individuals with certain characteristics are more likely to suffer certain adverse effects from particular immunizations. Individuals who have serious immunodeficiencies are clearly at increased risk for specific adverse reactions to live viral vaccines, such as MMR and varicella vaccines
            •  If you have a serious immunodeficiency (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              then you should not receive live vaccines. That could be quite dangerous. Also could be a problem if others in your household have a significant immunodeficiency. In these cases, you (or child) should be under care of a specialist- typical allergy/immunologist. Typical rules would not apply to these patients. However, these real problems are very uncommon. There is typically a defined genetic reason, not just someone with a "poor immune system."

              This is not the same as spacing out the vaccines to reduce side effects. I do not see anything in the linked report to suggest that is the case. Again, your view would seem to support my "get it over with at once" strategy.

              Key point in linked report

              Vaccines offer the promise of protection against a variety of infectious diseases. Despite much media attention and strong opinions from many quarters, vaccines remain one of the greatest tools in the public health arsenal. Certainly, some vaccines result in adverse effects that must be acknowledged. But the latest evidence shows that few adverse effects are caused by the vaccines reviewed in this report.
      •  Oh, I agree (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        cordgrass, protectspice

        However, does it really serve the purpose of our side to deny these reactions can and do happen, albeit rarely? In the past, more restraint was used, which was fortunate for my family, at least. I know one of my brothers went into anaphylaxis from 1/10th? 1/100th? of a dose of a vaccine, given to him just to see if his body could handle it. Those doctors wisely used restraint.

        Restraint really is not such a bad thing, and I'm not sure it serves our purpose to claim otherwise.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (156)
  • Community (71)
  • Elections (44)
  • Environment (42)
  • Bernie Sanders (42)
  • 2016 (40)
  • Hillary Clinton (35)
  • Spam (34)
  • Culture (33)
  • Republicans (31)
  • Climate Change (31)
  • Media (31)
  • Civil Rights (27)
  • Labor (27)
  • Congress (24)
  • Science (24)
  • Education (24)
  • Law (23)
  • Barack Obama (22)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (22)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site