Strollerderby : vaccinations

They Say: Another Reason to Vaccinate Your Kid

JeanneSager — Wed, 27 May 2009 14:28:00 GMT

The no-vax movement got more bad news this week with a report in Pediatrics that confirms herd immunity does not keep the non-vaccinated safe.

The study by researchers at Kaiser Permanente Colorado and Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health determines kids whose parents opt out on vaccines are twenty three times more likely to develop pertussis than their vaccinated peers.

More commonly known as whooping cough, the incidence of pertussis was rapidly declining in the U.S. from the 1940s through the late nineties thanks to vaccinations. But with parents forgoing the vaccines, the numbers are back up - big time. In 2005 alone, more than twenty-five thousand cases were reported (for comparison check out the numbers in 1976 - only one thousand ten cases in the entire U.S.).

Those numbers should have proven the importance (and efficacy) of the vaccine, but parents have been skipping the vaccine in increasing numbers, or delaying it as part of the system touted by Dr. Robert Sears, a much revered pediatrician by the middle-of-the pack vax crowd. The study at Kaiser found that eleven percent of the kids who contracted pertussis were kids whose parents actually refused the vaccine (which makes a difference - these weren't kids whose parents opted out because of a medical issue that kept them from getting the vaccine).

What a fair number of anti-vaccine parents fail to realize is the problem isn't just the other kids their kids are coming in contact with. Even if the majority of American kids get the vaccine, adults age out of their immunity. Which means unless they head to the doctor for a booster, they're susceptible to the disease, and carriers who could be passing it on to your kids (studies indicate at least one third of pertussis cases were transmitted by mother to child).

And pertussis is not a silly, laugh it off disease. It can kill, particularly infants.

So if herd immunity isn't protecting your kids from pertussis, what else isn't it protecting them from?

Image: LA Times

Gardasil Accused of Serious Side-Effects; Parents Feel Put Off by Merck

Shannon LC Cate — Sat, 04 Apr 2009 18:02:00 GMT

Parents of girls and young women who had dangerous health crises--even sudden death--following Gardasil vaccinations, are feeling frustrated with doctors, the government and parent company Merck's response their concerns that the vaccination triggered the problems.

Did the vaccination cause incidents of Bell's Palsy, Epilepsy, ALS-like symptoms and similar issues? Did a pre-existing condition coincidentally rear its head after the vaccination--but unconnected to it--or could some combination be the case? Perhaps a pre-existing tendency towards a health problem was pushed into an actual condition by the drug?

Answers to these questions are critically important for their own sake of course. Perhaps these parents and their daughters are owed some compensation from Merck. Perhaps Merck needs to work out problems with the vaccine or add warnings and guidelines for doctors. But parents are complaining that they are too often put on indefinite hold, given forms to fill out that seem to go nowhere or simply dismissed by both Merck officials and the doctors administering the vaccines.

I worry that besides these possible dangerous side-effects of the vaccine, the most dangerous one yet is that a vaccine that is perfectly safe--and other vaccines by association--might develop a reputation as life-threatening, such that girls and women who might reap benefits--even life-saving ones--from this vaccine and others, won't get the shots.

Vaccines have a dark and murky reputation, more than anything because people who do have problems with them--however few--are treated with such disdain by the medical establishment.

I am of the opinion that vaccines are far and away a good thing. But that doesn't mean we should be uncritical of how they are developed or overlook serious complications that may arise from them. Quite the contrary, if we are to build public trust in them, serious scrutiny needs to be given to any claim that a serious side-effect has occurred.

image: merckfrosst.ca

Bad Science: How The Autism Vaccine Scare Snowballed

Kate Tuttle — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 16:31:00 GMT

Jenny McCarthy as an activist, "Green Vaccines," death threats against pro-vaccine doctors, deadly measles outbreaks: all sprang from one source, a flawed medical study with a tiny sample size, a lead author willing to fudge the facts, and a story the media found too fascinating to fully examine.

Writing in this week's Newsweek magazine, Sharon Begley lays out the timeline of what would become one of the biggest medical fairy tales of the past decade -- a narrative of corrupt pharamaceutical companies, poisoned children, and devoted parents. Too bad it wasn't, you know, true.

As is now clear, the study published in the Lancet medical journal back in 1998 linking the MMR vaccine to autism (via intestinal problems) was just plain bad science. The study looked at only twelve children, for one thing. Worse yet, the lead doctor, Andrew Wakefield, fudged the facts. A decade later, ten of the twelve co-authors have disavowed the research they published, but as Begley's story made clear, at the time the media and public found Wakefield and his findings not only trustworthy, but revolutionary. And he wasn't alone; in 2000 U.S. Representative Dan Burton chaired a congressional hearing to look into the connection, and TV's 60 Minutes gave it the old expose treatment. It wasn't hard to paint parents as heroes (because so frequently they are, even when their facts are wrong), nor to deride the drug companies as villains (because, again, they often are). A story so delicious has a tendency to rob the media of its hallowed skepticism -- how else to explain the major coverage of a study of 12 kids, when subsequent studies (such as one at Boston University that looked at two million children) showed zero relationship between the MMR and autism.

The story rode a wave of parental anxiety and media hype so big that it caused actual changes in behavior around vaccination -- and here's where, I think, Wakefield and his ilk bear some major culpability. As vaccination rates went down and outbreaks broke out, children died of easily preventable diseases. And despite the frequent exhortation from anti-vaccine crusaders to "follow the money" in looking at relationships between doctors and pharmaceutical companies, I'd love to see more digging into Wakefield's financial stake in the autism industry (he was officially sanctioned for misconduct in having hidden the financial support he had received from parents of children with autism before undertaking the 1998 study, and now makes his living running a center that claims to cure autism).

The recent ruling by a special court that declared no connection between autism and vaccines has settled the legal question, for now. As for what happens in the court of public opinion, it's clear that's a far more complicated matter. The anguish felt by parens of autistic kids is real, as is the desire of every parent to protect her child. Let's hope that getting past the vaccine witch-hunt will free up more energy toward finding causes, cures and treatments for peope with autism.

Resercher Fabricated Autism Link in Vaccine

Florida Dad Pushing to Ban All Thimerosal in Vaccines

More By This Author:

North Dakota Passes Law Establishing "Personhood" at Conception

Kittens Have Their Say (Aided by Nutty Six-Year-Old)

Twenty-Year-Old Kidnapping Solved

Little Girl with Bowel Disease Kept Alive on Donated Breastmilk

Flu Has Claimed at Least Three Kids This Season

JeanneSager — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 13:09:00 GMT

When people ask me why I'm so pro-vaccine, I have one answer: they prevent disease and/or death.

So why have three kids already died in what is being described by doctors as a pretty average flu season?

At least one of the children went unvaccinated not because his parents were lax, but because the twelve-year-old reportedly lost his permission slip to get the immunization at a school clinic. Hunter Pope is the first child in Massachusetts known to have died from the flu this season; he was fine on a Friday and gone by Sunday.

Sadly, the weekend also brought the death of a ten-year-old boy on Long Island, the first ever pediatric flu death in the five years since public health officials have been tracking the diease. First believed to have been fighting meningitis, tests eventually showed the boy was carrying the A-strain of the flu, one of two preventable by this year's vaccine. The two deaths followed the announcement of a six-year-old North Carolina child who succumbed to flu complications on February 9 - again because he had not been vaccinated.

Why? It's the question you always ask when a child dies (when anyone dies, really, but the question is more plaintive when a child has been taken). It's just that much more confusing when there was a clear method for preventing a tragedy, and people opted to ignore it. I equate vaccines with seatbelts - they might not work every time, but there's a much higher degree of success with them than without them.

The Centers for Disease Control came out with new recommendations this flu season, calling for every single American under the age of eighteen to get the shot - which paved the way for insurance companies to cover the shot and for those on public assistance to get them for free. They made it even EASIER this year, and yet parents refused.

Why? Read the answers to my post on the CDC recommendations last fall: because they've never gotten it before (neither - might I add, had Hunter Pope - whose parents said he had no pre-existing health conditions), because they are afraid of thimerosal (not necessarily - there are thimerosal-free flu vaccines available for kids six months to twenty-three months), because they think the pro-vax crowd is too preachy.

I realize I stand on a soapbox and beat the vaccine drum, but I will tell you I also practice what I preach. On Halloween day, I lined up at a crowded neighborhood clinic with my daughter so the two of us could get our flu shots. My husband got his - separately, but around the same time.

Seeing the flu really can kill children, will you do the same?

Image: Flu-Vaccine.org

Florida Dad Pushing To Ban ALL Thimerosal in Vaccines

JeanneSager — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 22:01:00 GMT

I'm already prepared for what "Dr. Gary" is going to say to this post.

Because the chiropractor friend of Florida Gov. Charlie Crist and father of two autistic children isn't listening to anyone in his bid to have the state ban all vaccines that contain thimerosal.

All of them. Even those not administered to kids.

The proposal by Dr. Gary Kompothecras would be the strictest in the nation, and doctors say it would keep vaccines like the one that prevents the flu, from saving people most at risk of dying. Kompothecras's response? He calls everyone who dares disagree with them "dirt bags."

The argument over vaccines and autism is at an all-time fervor of late, spurred by last week's revelation by the London Times that the "study" that started all the hubub about autism and thimerosal back in the nineties was bogus. As in fabricated. Made up. Nonsense. Then came the report from a special court here in the states that says the measles vaccine didn't cause three children's autism. All of that was preceded by another study, this one in Italy, that determined thimerosal itself is safe.

What's concerned me most in the responses here on Babble to each reporting of these incidents is not that parents are concerned about autism or concerned about vaccines. That's natural. Autism is real. Autism is terrifying. And there is still a lot about vaccinations that we don't know.

It's the all-consuming nature of the focus on vaccinations. It's the refusal to home in on anything else. It's the assumption that disagreement means another parent doesn't care about your plight. We have written dozens of stories here on the 'Derby about other studies that have been linked to autism. The environment. Aged parents. Prematurity.

But there are still parents like Kompothecras who are blind to any other suggestions. Dare disagree with him, and he calls you a "dirt bag." The trouble is, they are not only doing a disservice to their own kids, but a disservice to other people. In Kompothecras' case, his proposed ban of the flu vaccine would put the thousands of Florida residents who are at highest risk for the flu - ie. the elderly, the asthmatic - at permanent risk. People die from the flu. But he doesn't care.

He is doing this because, as he told the Herald Tribune, "If I can do this, my son won't go down for nothing."

How can you argue with that? How can you argue with the parent of an autistic child who only wants an answer? Because I do believe autism is real. And I do believe that the parents of autistic children need an answer. The fact that I am pro-vaccination because I've seen it save lives does not mean I am unfeeling or that I refuse to see the forest for the trees. Autism diagnoses are up, and there are children in trouble. Somewhere, some scientist has to break this code.

But I don't see how taking the flu vaccine out of the hands of people who need it, people who choose to use it, is going to help the parents of autistic children. I don't see how ignoring existing science and accusing parents who are "pro-vax" of being "dirt bags" or "not caring," is going to provide an answer.

Might there be something else in a vaccination that might lead to autism? Maybe. There might also be a link in the environment. In aged parents. In prematurity.

So let's get started on those. Thimerosal is a dead horse. It doesn't deserve another beating.

Image: Herald Tribune

Special Court Says Vaccines Don't Cause Autism

Brett Singer — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 20:15:00 GMT

In a decision that will infuriate many parents (including readers of this web site), a special court has ruled that the MMR vaccine did not cause autism in three children.

Special Master George Hastings of the Department of Justice wrote that, "The evidence does not support the general proposition that thimerosal-containing vaccines can damage infants' immune systems." The ruling comes from The Vaccine Court Omnibus Autism Proceeding. (Aside: "Special Master"? "Omnibus"? It sounds like a comic book.)

Addressing one of the children whose parents say became autistic after receiving the MMR vaccine, Hastings said, "I further conclude that while Michelle Cedillo has tragically suffered from autism and other severe conditions, the petitioners have also failed to demonstrate that her vaccinations played any role at all in causing those problems."

There have been over 5,000 cases filed by parents seeking compensation from the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, a $2.5 billion fund that was created through a "75-cent-per-dose tax on vaccines," according to Reuters.

Everyone's least favorite vaccine guy Dr. Paul Offit hailed the decision, saying, "it's a great day for America's children when the court rules in favor of science." I think there are a few parents out there who will disagree with him.

Does this put the issue to rest? I doubt it. I myself am highly skeptical of the notion that vaccines "cause" autism, mostly because so far the studies that I have read about can't find a link between the vaccines and autism. Of course, it doesn't help the anti-vaccine movement's case that the doctor who conducted a landmark study on the matter faked his data.

I know that many of you have strong feelings on this issue. Does this court ruling change your opinion at all?

Source: Reuters

Image: USA Today via Babble

Researcher Fabricated Autism Link in Vaccine

What Does a Smile Mean? Teaching Emotions to Autistic Children

They Say: Vaccines are Safe - Take That Jenny McCarthy

Researcher Fabricated Autism Link in Vaccine

JeanneSager — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 17:01:00 GMT

The man who launched a decade's-long fear for parents heading to have their children vaccinated has been proven a forgery.

The Sunday Times revealed the results of an investigation today showing Andrew Wakefield, the man who posited that the MMR vaccine was at the root of the increased autism diagnoses, fabricated his research.

Published in 1998 in The Lancet, the study claimed eight out of twelve children vaccinated with the MMR innoculation began showing symptoms that fall somewhere on the autism spectrum within days of getting the shot. It was performed at the same time as another study, for which Wakefield was paid, that was supposed to help parents who believed there was a link between the two put up a legal case. Some of the kids were used in both studies, and Wakefield has often been accused of crossing a clear ethical boundary in performing both studies.

The study has borne numerous attacks over the years - in part because it included just twelve children - but it is the most-often quoted piece of evidence by parents who point a finger at pro-vax parents as risking their kids' lives (this despite studies published in the time period since that have debunked his story). The investigation by the Times is just another nail in the coffin for that line of thinking. The investigation revealed that in most of the twelve cases, the ailments described in Wakefield's published reports were different from their hospital and general practitioner records.

From the Times: "Although the research paper claimed that problems came on within days of the jab, in only one case did medical records suggest this was true, and in many of the cases medical concerns had been raised before the children were vaccinated."

I feel for parents of autistic children who are searching for a reason. Autism is very real and equally terrifying, but as a parent who has vaccinated her child, I have always bristled at the inference that I am a bad parent for making that choice - with so little evidence to support their claims.

Image: USA Today

They Say: Vaccines are Safe - Take That Jenny McCarthy

JeanneSager — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 16:31:00 GMT

In yet another round of good news for those of us who vaccinate, the February issue of Pediatrics features a study out of Italy that says . . . wait for it . . . vaccines are good for kids!

In a month when I've written first about the meningitis vaccine working (yay!) and the death of a child from a disease his parents refused to vaccinate against (bad), I'm starting to feel like I'm beating the non-vaccinators out there over the head with all this pro-vaccine talk.

And then, there's more good news!

The study in Pediatrics comes out of Italy, and it's centered on the whole "thimerosal causes autism" debate. Children in Italy were given two different sets of shots in the early 1990s. According to the AP: Ten years later, 1,403 of those children took a battery of brain function tests. Researchers found small differences in only two of 24 measurements and those "might be attributable to chance."

Out of more than one thousand kids, only one case of autism was found - and that child received the lower level of thimerosal in his or her vaccine. Overall, the kids tested all scored - on average - within normal ranges on mental acuity tests.

The significance in this study is in the varying amounts of thimerosal, and its affects. If thimerosal causes autism, scientists who worked on the Italian study say it would stand to reason that increased dosages would show marked effect on kids. Yet the only autistic child in the randomized study to fall on the autism spectrum received a lower dose. The kids exposed to more thimerosal (which breaks down as ethyl mercury, hence some advocates' claims that mercury poisoning causes autism) should have been at higher risk if the theories held true.

"Put together with the evidence of all the other studies, this tells us there is no reason to worry about the effect of thimerosal in vaccines," said the new study's lead author, Dr. Alberto Tozzi of Bambino Gesu Hospital in Rome.

So, is it time those who don't vaccinate their kids stop looking cross-eyed at those of us who do?

Image: USA Today

AAP: Delayed Vaccines Too Risky for Kids

Kid Dies After Parents Said No to Hib Vaccine

School Has Autistic Child Arrested

Faith-Healer Parents Charged after Daughter's Death

Shannon LC Cate — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 22:00:00 GMT

The parents of Kara Neumann, an eleven-year old who died of untreated juvenile diabetes are being charged with reckless endangerment after refusing to seek medical care for their daughter due to their religious beliefs. The court has ordered regular medical checkups for their two surviving children.

The case might help to set precedent for an unsettled area of law: where does an adult's religious freedom end and society's responsibility to children begin? Can parents who believe strongly that medicine is morally wrong be allowed to let a child die of a treatable condition while they pray for recovery?

Can the law dictate that children must get certain kinds of medical treatment?

It seems obvious enough that an insulin-dependent diabetic child should be treated. But what about vaccination resisters? Should they be forced to allow their children be immunized? Where do you draw a line between society's responsibility and parental authority?

Defenses of the parents will probably draw on freedom of religion. Prosecutors will charge child abuse. What do you say? Should these parents go to jail, their children sent to foster homes? Or do they have a right to allow a child to die if they believe it is for the salvation of something beyond--and more important than--her physical body?

They Say: Meningitis Vaccine Actually Works

JeanneSager — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 13:24:00 GMT

We hear a lot of bad news these days about vaccines. Aack, autism. Aaack, superbugs.

Finally, some good news: the meningitis vaccine is working.

Since pushing the Prevnar plunger into the thighs of babies two months to two years began in 2000, rates of pneumococcal meningits have dropped sixty-four percent in kids under age two.

That’s based on studies in kids in 1998-99 to 2004-05 published this week in the New England Journal of Medicine. The numbers are dipping for bigger kids (and the biggest kids of all - us) too, dropping thirty percent in the same time frame. In people over sixty-five, the rates dropped by more than fifty percent.

The study notes that vaccinating children is as important if not more than getting to the rest of the population, because fewer sick kids means fewer germs spread around.

When kids are sick, they not only fail to cover their mouths and practice the type of hygiene adults (should) practice, but they’re also a sector of the population that can’t be isolated when sick. We as adults can stay home from work and hide on the couch, kick everyone out of the room (well, unless we’re parents, in which case we just try to hide from our kids and spray a lot of Lysol).

Kids, on the other hand, need to have someone in close proximity caring for them - and that someone can easily pick up their germs. The disease cycle doesn’t stop when you’re dealing with kids – it just gets passed over to Mom and Dad. But with immunized kids, researchers say they're able to create a "herd immunity."

It doesn’t solve the autism debate or the superbug debate, but this is the kind of news that puts a little wind back into the sails of Moms like me who have vaccinated their kids. At least some of them are working.

Image/Source: USA Today

Related Posts:

FDA Asked to Approve Gardasil for Boys

AAP: Delayed Vaccines Too Risky for Kids

Cops End Search for Baby Thrown in Hospital Trash

New to Birth Certificate: Does Mom Have Chlamydia?

New Pro Vaccine Book Author Getting Death Threats

FDA Asked to Approve Gardasil for Boys

JeanneSager — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 15:25:00 GMT

If you thought parenting boys meant you were off the hook on having to decide whether or not to go with the Gardasil shot, listen up.

Gardasil, the HPV prevention shot aimed girls nine to twenty-six, has been submitted to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) by maker Merck for consideration as a vaccine for boys.

Obviously, we're not talking about cervical cancer here (please, tell me that was obvious), but a Merck study tracked four thousand boys ages sixteen to twenty-six who were given Gardasil and found it prevented ninety percent of cases of penile cancer and genital warts caused by the four common virus strains targeted by the vaccine.

The proposal calls for the vaccine to be approved for boys in the same age group as that already approved for girls - nine to twenty-six - and all report indicate it would come at a similar cost.

The three-series shot has drawn controversy for its $360 pricetag in the past, and its not the only one. Parents have had mixed reactions to the vaccine, some rushing out to have it administered to be on the safe side. As reported on Babble last month, however, others parents say Gardasil has caused paralysis in their daughters. I'm still undecided, myself, and hoping more conclusive research on the risks and benefits is available six years down the line when my daughter would first be "of age" for Gardasil.

But if the Merck study results are to be believed, this could save little boys lives. What do you think parents, would you take your sons in for the shot?

Image: Jezebel

Source: USA Today Via Jezebel

Vatican to Women: The Pill Pollutes Environment, His Testes

New to Birth Certificate: Does Mom Have Chlamydia?

Mother Blames Cervical Cancer Vaccine For Daughter's Paralysis

Teen Has Cancer and Lives in a Car

AAP: Delayed Vaccines Too Risky for Kids

JeanneSager — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 13:24:00 GMT

Parents who have become wary of vaccinations for their children have been making the news for ahile now. But decisions by parents to simply delay vaccinating their kids seemed to have taken off this year.

It’s a trend that’s alarmed the American Academy of Pediatrics – enough to prompt the AAP to publish an article this week, along with its new vaccination guidelines, that strikes at the core of the delayed vaccine movement.

The movement got traction this year with sales of pediatrician Dr. Robert Sears’ book. The Vaccine Book: Making the Right Decision for Your Child came out last fall, and calls for splitting up the MMR and chicken pox vaccinations.

“Theoretically, giving each shot separately may allow the immune system to create better immunity to the disease,” Sears says in a blog that complements the Amazon listing for the book. “Since the MMR and chickenpox vaccines are live viruses, injecting them all on the same day is like exposing a child to all four diseases at once. That doesn’t happen in nature, and I feel it is safer to ‘simulate’ these infections one at a time so a child can handle them better.”

The AAP’s article comes from the desk of Dr. Paul Offit, chief of infectious diseases at The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, who cites that break Sears says will allow the child’s body to heal may actually put a baby at further risk. What’s more, Offit says Sears developed his “delayed schedule” without any clinical trials to determine how effective or safe they might be for the kids.

"This alternative schedule may respond to parental anxiety at the price of keeping the baby susceptible to serious infectious diseases for a longer period of time," Offit notes.

Ironically, even Sears can’t say the delay is the best bet for baby.
In the same blog, he notes, “Now, I admit that this precaution is completely theoretical. I have no research to show that giving these four live virus vaccines together is dangerous. In fact, in safety research virtually all kids who get them together don’t have any apparent problems at all.”

Regardless, Sears stands behind his writings, and he says parents who are wary of going forward with the vaccination schedules put forth by their doctors would do better breaking them up than they would to eliminate vaccinations entirely. He is also supportive of parents going full bore with their vaccination plans – and following the AAP-approved schedule.

So who do you trust? Raised in a healthcare-heavy home, I’ve always been pro-vaccine myself, so I can hardly speak for the anti-vaccine crowd. But for those parents who are still on the fence, does the lack of clinical trials bother you? Or does Dr. Sears’ all-encompassing attitude give you faith that he’s got your kids’ best interests at heart?

Image: Amazon

Baby Born on Mom and Dad's Birthday

They Say: Schools Near Fast Food Makes Fat Kids

Is Going Hard on Handmade Bad for Parents?

Teen Has Cancer and Lives in a Car

Mother Blames Cervical Cancer Vaccine For Daughter's Paralysis

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 23:20:00 GMT

The cervical cancer vaccine can’t seem to untangle itself of controversy. First, abstinence groups worked overtime to block its widespread use, arguing that it would encourage premarital sex. What it actually does is prevent girls from contracting four of the strands of HPV that are responsible for the majority of cervical cancer cases in the world. Yes, HPV is an STD, but the vaccine has almost nothing to do with premarital sex. Since HPV is so easily spread, it is entirely possible that a girl could wait until marriage to have sex and then contract HPV if her husband had had as much as one sexual encounter before the marriage.

Fortunately, the abstinence argument against the vaccine has been mostly steamrolled, particularly in the U.K., where a government-funded program aims to save 400 lives a year by administering the Cervarix vaccine to 300,000 12- and 13-year-old girls. (In the U.S., the more commonly used, but very similar, vaccine is called Gardasil.)

But the program has gotten some bad—and scary—press recently, after a 12-year-old girl became paralyzed from the waist down shortly after receiving the vaccine at school. Ashleigh Cave’s mother, Cheryl, believes that the shot was implicated in her daughter’s illness, but doctors have claimed that the vaccination was unrelated to the sudden onset of Ashleigh’s dizziness and eventual loss of the use of her legs.

Although nothing I’ve read indicates that Ashleigh has been definitely diagnosed yet, it seems clear that she has Guillain-Barré syndrome, which can cause paralysis, and which has previously been linked (perhaps wrongly) with the cervical cancer vaccine.

13 girls are reported to have been diagnosed with Guillain-Barré after receiving the Gardasil vaccine in the U.S., causing some concern among parents about the safety of getting their daughters vaccinated. However, considering the total number of girls who received the vaccine and the natural incidence of the disease, 13 is within the number of people who would be expected to fall prey to Guillain-Barré just by chance. Doctors and health experts continue to assert that there is no reason to believe the cervical cancer vaccine is unsafe.

Still, it is only too easy to understand why Ashleigh’s mother harbors her doubts, considering that her daughter’s initial diagnosis was “vertigo and generalised myalgia, probably due to recent vaccinations.” I hope further investigations can set the public’s collective mind at ease.

Photo: straightfromthedoc.com

Defying Doctors, Parents Blame MMR Vaccine on Toddler's Sudden Death

Coroner Finds No Link Between Vaccine and Toddler's Sudden Death

Update: Coroner Finds No Link Between Vaccine and Toddler’s Sudden Death

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Sun, 07 Dec 2008 21:51:00 GMT

After hearing testimony from bereaved parents and numerous health care professionals on the sudden death of toddler George Fisher ten days after he received the vaccine against measles, mumps, and rubella, a coroner ruled that the child’s death was unrelated to the vaccine.

Because George had suffered an epileptic fit four months before receiving the MMR vaccine, he had a 2 percent chance of suffering from a seizure as a result of the MMR. However, there are no known cases of children dying as a result of these seizures, and therej is no evidence that George suffered one before his death. The coroner also ruled that George’s symptoms (he had diarrhea and red eyes in the days before his death) emerged too soon after the MMR shot to be linked to it.

The coroner agreed with other infant health experts that George had died of a rare condition called Sudden Unexpected Death in Childhood.

George’s parents strongly disagree with the verdict. Sarah Fisher, George’s mother, said, “I think it’s so wrong to put the death of a healthy little boy down to natural causes. There’s nothing natural about an 18-month-old boy dying of nothing, because that’s what it was—nothing.”

My heart goes out to George’s parents in these unthinkably difficult times, further complicated by a legal controversy.

Photo: Getty Images

Toddler Dies Suddenly 10 Days After MMR Vaccine

New Jersey Lays Down the Law: Vaccinate All Kids Against the Flu

JeanneSager — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 18:36:00 GMT

I should probably preface this with a bit of a disclaimer: I'm a pro-vaccine parent, particularly the flu shot. But I still think the ultimate choice for vaccinating my child should rest with me. Which is why I'm glad I live an hour outside of New Jersey.

Parents were storming the statehouse in Trenton this week, protesting a new law that mandates children between the ages of 6 months and 5 years be vaccinated against the flu. Mandated. As in, made law.

It's the first law of its kind in the country - although plenty of other states have rules regarding medical interventions and our kids. I had no reason to protest the Vitamin K shot administered when my daughter was born, but then again, I wouldn't have been able to. I live in New York, one of a number of states that requires babies be given the injection right in the hospital, shortly after birth.

New Jersey's new law, which technically states children (under 5 and over 6 months) who attend daycare or preschool need to be vaccinated against the flu and pneumonia by Dec. 31, comes as we enter the first flu season for which the CDC has advocated all children (not just those under 5) be vaccinated. Advocated. Not mandated.

The flu shot has a lot going for it, don't get me wrong. The flu sends 200,000 Americans to the hospital every year, 20,000 of them children under 5. It kills 36,000 Americans, including people who die from a secondary illness due to an immune system weakened by the flu. It's a disease that spreads easily and can hit anyone. It's a shot I'm going to get, my husband is going to get and our daughter is going to get.

But I've seen nothing in all the news reports - even those that have come out in support of the new mandate - to explain how parents are supposed to pay for this. And I'm still leery of letting the step in at surface level to tell us how to parent. When a child is in clear danger, yes. When a child might or might not get a disease that might or might not make them seriously ill and might or might not be avoided by a shot, I wouldn't call it a clear and present danger. Are parents who don't get the shot playing with fire? Personally, yes, I think so. But I don't think there's enough evidence to show that the state stepping in on this one will make a difference in a child's life.

Image: Health News-Stat

They Say: Get Your Kid the Flu Shot

We Know Some Toys are Infectious, but This Will Put a Pox on You

Party with the Pox, but Don't Say We Didn't Warn You

The Flu Shot: Do You Dare Not to Get It?

Keep Kids From Getting Fat - Get a Dog

Students Suspended for Hair Dyed Pink in Honor of School Nurse's Battle with Breast Cancer

The Flu Shot: Do You Dare Not to Get It?

Jen Chaney — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 12:04:00 GMT

It's that time of year again: Flu shot season. As items like this remind us, it's especially important for pregnant women to get the vaccine because the flu carries potential risks for both baby and mother. Really, anyone with a child under the age of five is encouraged to sign-up for a shot for the same reason: It's no good for a kid that young to contract a potentially serious virus.

All that said, I find myself wondering how many pregnant women or parents ignore this advice and don't bother getting flu shots. I ask this as someone who never once got the shot until I was pregnant and felt like I had to. I had absolutely no solid medical reason for believing this, but I always thought the flu shot was b.s. I knew people who got it and still wound up sick. And I knew people who didn't and were perfectly fine.

Of course, once I was pregnant and a walking candidate for an HOV lane, I figured the potential benefits of the flu shot outweighed any doubts I had about it. And I'll probably get my third consecutive one this year, primarily to protect my son from any germs I might inadvertently pick up.

But what about you? Is anyone bold enough to admit to avoiding the flu shot during pregnancy or while raising young ones? Or, on the flip side, do you have a flu horror story that will scare all of us into running to the nearest doctor's office to get the vaccine? If so, by all means, post a comment. Just do me a favor: If you must cough or sneeze while adding your thoughts to this post, please -- cover your mouth.

Related Post:

They Say: Get Your Kid the Flu Shot

Party with the Pox, but Don't Say We Didn't Warn You

JeanneSager — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 20:04:00 GMT

I can’t help feeling like a freak of nature. “Nobody gets chicken pox twice,” they all say. Umm, sorry to disagree, but I did.

In fact, I’m one of a relatively large group of Americans who scratched their way through two bouts of the scaly spots. A 2006 report by researchers at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill showed some 13 percent of us have double the suffering.

Which is why Madeline’s post about the germ-sharing “pox parties” really creeped me out. Parents are purposely exposing their kids to the varicella virus rather than queuing up at the pediatrician’s office for the vaccine.

I hate to burst their bubbles, but you might not be protecting them from all that much. The secondary infections are rare, according to the CDC, but they ARE possible. I present myself as Exhibit A . . . and Exhibit B. I was 2-years-old when I came down with my first minor case, which I then passed on to my poor mother. What is true is the rumor that it’s better to get chicken pox as a child. I was itchy and lethargic. My mother was deathly ill, with a sick child to boot.

Then it all came back.

So what’s the scoop? Dr. Jane Seward of the CDC told Reuters Health back in 2006 that some of us just don’t develop enough antibodies the first time around. Not every case of chicken pox is a true pox – there are other diseases masquerading as the varicella virus (gives me a great idea for this year’s Halloween costume). Those who truly do suffer twice usually develop a mild case first, at a young age (yup, that sounds about right).

Another little pin in the bubbles? Twenty percent of people who went through chicken pox once will have it come back in the form of shingles as adult, an activation of what they call the herpes zoster virus – which is related to varicella. Just think, a little party today, inflammation of the spinal column down the road.

Still want to party?

Image: Spud

They Say: no link between autism and measles vaccine

Brett Singer — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 17:30:00 GMT

This news is unfortunately not likely to solve anyone's questions about whether or not vaccines are a cause of autism.

"Dr. W. Ian Lipkin of Columbia University, collaborating with a team from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Massachusetts General Hospital, and Trinity College in Dublin, tackled the hot-button question: whether the MMR vaccine causes autism.

"'We are persuaded there is no link,' said Lipkin, director of the center on infection and immunity at Columbia's Mailman School of Public Health in Manhattan."

HOWEVER…

"The study was not designed to address other rumored theories of autism's cause, such as thimerosal, the much-debated mercury-based preservative in some other vaccines, Lipkin said."

Now, as usual, the devil is in the details. The 1998 study that linked MMR vaccines to autism was based on a whopping 12 children. I'm no scientist (nor have I played one on TV) but that doesn't sound like a very large sample base.

For this new study, "Lipkin and colleagues searched for traces of genetic material linked to the virus in intestinal tissue taken from 25 children with autism and gastrointestinal problems. They compared the samples to those from 13 children without autism but with intestinal problems. In 24 of the group of 25 and in 12 of the 13, there was no evidence of viral persistence, leading researchers to conclude the vaccine did not cause autism or gastrointestinal problems." So it’s a larger group of kids. Not that many, but on the surface it sounds more valid.

HOWEVER…

Why not do a study on thimerosal, which contains, as Jenny McCarthy calls it, "frickin' mercury"? Wouldn't that be, like, actually useful?

In theory, this study will put to rest parents' fears about this particular vaccine. Of course, as the great Homer Simpson once said, communism works -- in theory. In other words, I doubt this news will do anything to change anybody's mind one way or the other.

source: Newsday

image: timesonline.typepad.com

Creepiest spam message ever: "we have hijacked your baby"

Retarded movie boycott

Upcoming Sesame Street Guests

Warner Bros. sues over Hari Puttar film

Revenge of the Baseball Gods-Little League Scandal Revisited

Do kids do better on tests if they get paid?

Palin family online - real or fake?

Sarah Palin, Sportscaster

Man ejected from Yankee Stadium for lack of patriotism

McCain, Palin oppose teen pregnancy aid and sex education

Nasty Surprise in McDonalds Burger

The 'Vaccine Fugitives' Can Come Home

Jen Chaney — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 16:28:00 GMT

A couple of days ago in this space I wrote about the Australian couple who went on the run to avoid vaccinating their newborn for hepatitis B. Now it looks like the couple and their kids -- they also have a three-year-old -- can now go home.

The Department of Community Services had obtained a Supreme Court order demanding that the infant receive the vaccine because the mother has hepatitis B. The first stage of the vaccine needed to be administered by yesterday morning to take effect. Since the family was on the lam and couldn't be tracked down by the government in time, a judge decided there was no longer any point in pursuing the court order.

As I said in my previous post, it seems somewhat irresponsible not to vaccinate either of their children since they know the mother has the disease. But the bottom line is that the government can't force the parents to get their children immunized if they're intent on avoiding it. Whether it was smart or not, becoming fugitives just days after their son was born cannot have been a pleasant experience.

I just hope that both of those kids remain hepatitis-free and that the family can resume something resembling a normal life.

Couple Goes on the Run to Avoid Vaccination

Jen Chaney — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 13:06:00 GMT

A mom and dad from Sydney, Australia are now on the lam because they refuse to get their two-day-old son vaccinated against hepatitis B. Australia's Department of Community Services has gotten a Supreme Court order requiring the baby to receive the vaccine because the mother was diagnosed with hepatitis B several years ago.

Like many immunization-averse parents here in the States, the couple believes their son faces greater danger from the aluminum in the vaccine than from the disease itself, which they say they could manage if he happens to contract it. They fled their home last week after Community Services indicated it would take the child into custody and ensure that he gets the vaccine. Apparently, the family -- which also includes a three-year-old girl who has not been vaccinated against hepatitis B and has not been screened for the disease -- plans to continue life on the run.

Based on the information in this article, it seems like this couple is in a bit of denial about the hepatitis. I could sort of understand their reticence to get the vaccine (a little), but the fact that they aren't actively making sure their daughter is hepatitis-free strikes me as irresponsible.

But should the Supreme Court really get involved? Does the government need to step in to this degree?

I was erring on the side of no until I got to this graph in the article from the Sydney Morning Herald, which quotes pediatric professor David Isaacs.

"Professor Isaacs said the baby had a 5 to 40 percent chance of contracting hepatitis B from its mother and 'about 30 percent of people with hepatitis B will develop cancer or cirrhosis and die young … I don't understand why these people are willing to sacrifice their child for a warped idea when the benefits far outweigh the risks.'"

Ultimately they know the children are being exposed to an existing disease. I don't know if the aluminum in the vaccine could harm those kids or not. But it seems like you have to go with what you definitely know. They know the mom has hepatitis. So they should do whatever they can to make sure it doesn't run in the family.

Related Link:

Was Amanda Peet Right? Jump In Measles Cases Linked to Vaccine Refusals

SunnyChanel — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 13:26:00 GMT

Recently starlet Amanda Peet infamously stated in Cookie Magazine that "parents who don't vaccinate their children are parasites.". On Cookie.com she responded (and kinda apologized), in due part from the avalanche of criticism she received from her comments, that “I still believe that the decision not to vaccinate our children bodes for a dangerous future. Vast reductions in immunization will lead to a resurgence of deadly viruses. This is as indisputable as global warming. I know a lot of parents who secretly use as a justification.” "Well, enough other people are vaccinating, so therefore, we don't have to." She continues to write that “It's so hard to appreciate vaccines now that so few children are dying from preventable diseases today, but that could all change if we're not vigilant. There are currently multiple measles outbreaks in the United States. Hopefully children do not have to die before people start to realize the cost of withholding vaccines.”

Well, it looks like Amanda Peet had a point. New studies have found that measles cases have been popping up at their highest level in more than ten years. And half of those cases are from kids who didn’t get vaccinated. There’s been 131 cases so far this year (a 7 month span) whereas there were just 42 cases all of last year. Fortunately, there were no fatalities of those inflicted but there were 15 that had to be hospitalized. In addition to the Measles outbreak, about seventeen kids caught the whooping cough in the San Francisco Bay Area, and thirteen of those had not been vaccinated against it.

For more info check out the CDC report from their MMWR (Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report) here.

Via: AP Medical Report here.

They Say: Everybody's Catching Measles

Madeline Holler — Fri, 02 May 2008 21:02:00 GMT

Are you sure you want to skip childhood vaccinations? Because in at least seven states, federal officials are expecting more cases than ever in 2008 thanks to several measles outbreaks around the country.

The numbers, according to the NY Times:

There were 64 cases from January through April 25, more than in all of 2006 and the highest number during that four-month period since 2001. None have yet proved fatal, but officials said they expected the total to keep rising.

Fourteen patients, or 22 percent, have been hospitalized, mostly for pneumonia.

How bad could measles be? After all, an invite to a measles party is a rather coveted thing in some areas. (Want a lick my lollipop?) Worldwide, measles kills about 242,000 each year. Sure, those deaths are likely in countries where they couldn't get treatment for the side effects.

Still, who wants to be this mom? In Washington State, eight siblings came down with measles -- three of them getting pneumonia -- after attending an international religious conference. Also, one baby caught measles at the doctors office, where she went for her measles shot.

What do you think? Worth the risk in skipping the measles shot?

Photo: dermatology.about.com

Cribsheet: Circumcision, vaccination, and autism rates

editors — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 18:00:00 GMT

Percentage of American boys circumcised in 1963-65: 76
In 1999: 65.3
In 2003: 55.9
Percentage of American pediatricians who recommend circumcision to all parents: 24
Percentage of American pediatricians who discourage circumcision: 9.4
Percentage of American pediatricians who make no recommendation: 50.4

Mean number of parents refusing immunization, per 1000 children according to one survey: 7.2
Immunization refusals based on fear of side effects: 52%
On religious belief: 28%
On anti-government sentiment: 8%
Number of new U.S. cases of polio each year in the 1950s: 20,000
Year polio vaccination was begun: 1955
Number of cases of wild polio per year in the U.S. today: 0

Percentage of people under the age of 21 who have Autism: 0.2-0.6
Number of American children diagnosed with ADHD: 4.4 million
Number of American children receiving ADHD medication: 2.5 million

Increase in diabetes rates among people under the age of 44 since 1980: 100%
Number of diabetes cases today that are type 2 (formerly considered "geriatric") diabetes: 90-95 percent
Fraction of American children born five years ago who are expected to develop diabetes: 1/3

Number of American children with asthma: 5 million
Number of schooldays missed due to asthma every year: 14 million
How asthma ranks among reasons for hospitalizations of 3 – 12-year olds: #1
Increase in death rate for asthma among children since 1980: 80%
Percentage of summer campers on one or more medications for chronic conditions: 40

Research by Sarah Sundberg. Cribsheet appears in Strollerderby every Wednesday.

Pediatrician Poll: Vaccinations

editors — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 16:00:00 GMT

"Yes, I do accept patients who don't immunize. My opinion is that every child and their parents deserve the best pediatric care available. My job is to educate. If those are their beliefs, I don't hold it against them." — Kenneth Saul, MD, FAAP. Thousand Oaks, CA.

"We are very, very pro-vaccination. All of our vaccines are thimerosal-free. I try to do all I can to convince parents that they are taking a much greater chance not vaccinating than they are doing with vaccines. We do have a handful of parents who, despite our best efforts, choose not to vaccinate. We continue to see those children, but we insist that the parents sign a waiver we have indicating that we are 'agreeing to disagree' on this issue and having them accept full responsibility should their child contract one of the diseases in question." — John W. Waidner, MD, FAAP. Jacksonville FL.

"We do not accept parents who totally refuse to vaccinate; however, we have parents who customize their children's vaccination schedule." — Andrzej Klos, MD, FAAP. Hoboken, NJ.

To obtain these results, Babble randomly called 300 AAP-approved pediatricians in 50 states, then tallied the answers of the 20 who called back. Pediatrician Poll appears in Strollerderby every Friday.

Parents Face Prison For Failing to Vaccinate Kids

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 17:37:00 GMT

Is it okay for the state to interfere in parenting decisions if it’s a matter of public health? In Belgium, the answer to that question is an emphatic yes: two sets of parents have been charged with five-month prison sentences and fined 4,100 euros (about $8,000) for failing to vaccinate their children against polio. Belgium’s pioneering decision to punish offending parents with prison terms—France is the only other country that makes the vaccine mandatory by law—was criticized as overly strident by the World Health Organization, but hailed by many ethicists. The offending parents can avoid prison by getting their children vaccinated by a set deadline.

According to John Harris, a bioethicist at the University of Manchester, “Nobody has the right to unfettered liberty, and people do not have a right to endanger their kids.” But in most states in the U.S., parents are allowed to opt out of required vaccinations, including polio, if they have religious or philosophical objections. This opt-out option is only safe because enough parents get their children vaccinated so that the chances of an epidemic are extremely low. If more and more people started opting out, we’d have a serious problem.

Although the incidence of polio has dropped by 99 percent worldwide since the World Health Organization began systematically tackling the disease in the late 80s, it continues to present a problem in several developing nations. And because it spreads so easily, this means that a polio outbreak is possible in all parts of the world until the disease is completely eradicated. I’m all for freedom of religion (and parenting styles), but I definitely understand the thinking of ethicists like Harris who believe that sometimes public welfare trumps personal belief. Perhaps the best option is to have very strong incentives for parents to get their children vaccinated—such as imposing fines or an extensive opt-out application process—so that the number of parents who refuse to do so is miniscule.

What do parents think of the United States’ opt-out option for vaccines? Any parents out there who choose not to vaccinate their children for religious or other reasons?

Photo: classbrain.com