Advertisement
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Advice for Moms Advice for Moms

Half of Babies Are on a Slower Vaccination Schedule – Should Yours Be?

Posted by   + Show Post

Half of Babies Are on a Slower Vaccination Schedule – Should Yours Be?

Posted by Adriana Velez on January 23, 2013 

baby doctorAre you delaying vaccinations for your baby? If so, you're part of a growing trend. Vaccination delay (not following the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommended schedule), or under-vaccination, is something parents are doing more and more lately. It seems like we want more say in our kids' vaccination schedules, and we want those schedules to slow the hell down.

A recent study took a look at the under-vaccination trend and confirmed that it's building momentum. Nearly half of the 300,000 children in the study were under-vaccinated by at least one day by the time they reached their second birthday. What's especially interesting is that the study looked at children who were under-vaccinated because the parents chose that, and children who were under-vaccinated for any reason.

So there's the major finding that under-vaccination is a growing trend, the study also looked at what kinds of visits these babies had while they were under-vaccinated.


  • Under-vaccinated children do fewer outpatient visits than on-schedule kids. (This means visits to clinics, doctors' offices, and short hospital appointments.)
  • Under-vaccinated children have more inpatient visits than on-schedule kids. (This means hospital stays.)
  • Children who are under-vaccinated because of parental choice do fewer outpatient visits and have fewer emergency encounters.

In other words, under-vaccinated kids go longer between doctors' visits. But here's the worrying part -- under-immunized babies also check into the hospital more often. Other studies show that children who don't get vaccinations at all are nine times more likely to get chicken pox and 23 times more likely to get whopping cough than immunized kids.

So there you go -- some information to mull over while you decide whether you want to follow the ACIP schedule or an alternative schedule -- or none at all. Every parent who made a decision about this has their unique story to tell. My son followed the ACIP schedule (more or less) and has never needed a hospital stay. But that's just my story. We're all a special case and you can't generalize from one person's experience. All I know is, I'm glad I never had to check my baby into the hospital.

And if I had to do it all over again, I might delay the schedule for my child just a little bit more, but I'd still do all those immunizations pretty much on schedule. Except that chicken pox! Damn you, chicken pox vaccine. I had the chicken pox when I was five and I was just fine. Oops -- there I go, generalizing from my unique experience.

Have you chosen to delay vaccinations? Why or why not?

by on Jan. 24, 2013 at 1:52 PM
Replies (61-70):
USMCWifey2011
by Member on Jan. 25, 2013 at 10:40 AM

We use a slower schedule and DS does not receive DTAP due to sever allergies

mom_3.0
by on Jan. 25, 2013 at 10:40 AM

That reason was thoroughly developed in connection with the CDC to protect children at the earliest possible age. Timing it very essential, regardless of if your conspiracy theory tells you that it's ONLY because of Mega Money. Going by that logic,  the school system only exists because of mega money and the laws only exist because of mega money, etc. I could go on and on. 


Quoting Emilytrademark:

 Yep and that reason is mega money.

Quoting mom_3.0:

There are reasons why the schedules are created. Delaying leaves windows to become ill from the real diseases. 


Quoting Emilytrademark:

 "Under-vaccinated" is such a negative term. I prefer to use "over-vaccinated" for those who follow the normal schedule.

 I also think it's interesting that the author emboldened the negatives of delayed vaccine schedules and did not emphasize the benefits.



 



Emilytrademark
by on Jan. 25, 2013 at 10:42 AM
5 moms liked this

 School systems and law enforcement are drains on money... Vaccines are a multi-billion dollar industry. That is hardly a conspiracy theory- when you have that much money to be made, it is prudent to be skeptical. They are a business, not a public service.

 Also realize that the studies that show the increased vaccine schedule to be beneficial are conducted by those who are closely tied to that money.

Quoting mom_3.0:

That reason was thoroughly developed in connection with the CDC to protect children at the earliest possible age. Timing it very essential, regardless of if your conspiracy theory tells you that it's ONLY because of Mega Money. Going by that logic,  the school system only exists because of mega money and the laws only exist because of mega money, etc. I could go on and on. 

 

Quoting Emilytrademark:

 Yep and that reason is mega money.

Quoting mom_3.0:

There are reasons why the schedules are created. Delaying leaves windows to become ill from the real diseases. 

 

Quoting Emilytrademark:

 "Under-vaccinated" is such a negative term. I prefer to use "over-vaccinated" for those who follow the normal schedule.

 I also think it's interesting that the author emboldened the negatives of delayed vaccine schedules and did not emphasize the benefits.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 BabyFruit Ticker
mom_3.0
by on Jan. 25, 2013 at 10:44 AM
1 mom liked this


It's really an amazing thing to understand the value of statistics and how we can apply them to our own lives and theory. 

This study does not in any way MEAN that combo vaccinations are dangerous. It only CONFIRMS that with using common sense, if someone is GOING to have a reaction to a vaccine, OBVIOUSLY when given more than one at  a time, they are going to have a GREATER reaction therefor you will see the increase in hospitalizations. 

It's like this: If you're allergic to bees, and one bee stings you - oh shit. Get your epipen out. If 6 bees sting you simultaneously, it's way worse. 

Quoting emmy526:


Mortality Rate 50% Higher with More Vaccine Doses

http://gaia-health.com/gaia-blog/2013-01-13/medical-childrens-psych-journal-wont-retract-fraudulent-paxil-study/

JANUARY 13, 2013 by ADMIN in FEATUREDSCIENCEVACCINES with 27 COMMENTS


The deaths of children from multiple vaccine doses can only be called carnage. This study demonstrates that giving 5-8 doses instead of 1-4 doses at a time has resulted in an extra 51,750 to 103,500 child deaths in the last 20 years.

Shocked Boy, by Piers Nye

Shocked Boy, by Piers Nye

by Heidi Stevenson

A new study using data from the US government’s Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) shows that the more vaccines given, the more likely children will die or be hospitalized. The increased rates are highly significant, with a 50% greater chance of death with doubling the number of vaccines and  more than 100% increase in hospitalizations—that’s double the number of hospital visits!

VAERS is recognized to contain only a small percentage of all adverse vaccination events. As GS Goldman and NZ Miller point out,

[A] confidential study conducted by Connaught Laboratories, a vaccine manufacturer, indicated that ‘‘a fifty-fold under-reporting of adverse events’’ is likely. According to
David Kessler, former commissioner of the FDA, ‘‘only about one percent of serious events [adverse drug reactions] are reported.

Thus, the increased mortality and hospitalization suffered by children as a direct result of the aggressive vaccination schedule, with as many as 9 vaccines given in one day, is a huge number of children. If, according to the study’s report above, only 1 to 2 out of 100 adverse events is reported, then the numbers reported by VAERS need to be multiplied by 50 to 100!

Nonetheless, as this study has demonstrated, significant information about the hazards of vaccines can still be ascertained by running statistical analyses of the data given.

Graph of Hospitalization RatesThe graph on the right, produced by the study, displays the hospitalization rate charted against the number of vaccines. The solid diagonal line plots the linear regression calculated for the data. You can see that it’s a close match for the specific number of hospitalizations for each year.

The outlier references the hospitalizations for a single vaccine dose. This is likely explained by a combination of factors. One is that the earliest vaccines are generally given singly in the hospital shortly after birth. Newborns are at greater risk. Also, many parents will refuse to continue vaccinations, or will refuse multiple vaccines, after an early severe reaction.

R2 refers to the likelihood that the regression line is a good fit for the data. R2 of 0.91 is quite good. Perfect would be 1.00. Thus, it’s likely that the graph is showing the reality: When the number of vaccine doses increases, the number of hospitalizations increases dramatically, from 10% of VAERS reports with 2 doses to more than 20% with 8 doses.

Below is the table for the death rate by number of doses:

Table: Infant Mortality Rate, Number of Vaccine DosesInterestingly, the number of child deaths due to number of vaccine doses increases dramatically with 5. The reasons for this are unknown, but it may have to do with the particular vaccines given or simply be related to additive effects of toxins in the vaccines. That wasn’t analyzed in this report.

I’ve circled the salient data in red. They show the actual numbers of reported deaths, the numbers of reports of adverse events, and the rates of mortality for 1-4 vaccines added together and all adverse event reports of 5-8 vaccines added together.

Note: In reviewing the figures, I noted a possible small error. In my calculation, the circled 3.6% mortality rate should be recorded as 3.5%. It’s probably nothing more than a difference in method of rounding. I’ve written to the authors to ask about this and will report back on their response.

Update: Dr. Gary S. Goldman, Ph.D. responded quickly and frankly within a few hours:

Dear Heidi,

Yes, your calculation looks correct. The paper went through several revisions and what I think happened is that initially we showed the percentages accurate to the nearest hundredths, so 3.546… was shown rounded to 3.55, then at some point we decided to round only to the nearest tenths. Unfortunately, we likely rounded the 3.55 to 3.6 when we should have gone back to the original data. Sorry about that! Thank you for your find!

In looking at the table, it’s quite clear that something is going on with increasing doses of vaccines given at the same time. You can see that there’s a huge jump in mortality with the fourth vaccine, jumping by a factor of 3.88, from 42 to 163 deaths. The statistical method of reporting doesn’t clarify this fact, nor does it show that the increase is almost as great with the fifth vaccine dose, from 163 to 523, 3.21 times more children dying.

The second four vaccine doses, 5-8, are resulting in 50% more deaths than the first four doses, 1-4. When we also consider the likelihood that there are 50-100 times more adverse reactions than reported, what this study reveals is frightening:

1,458 deaths at 5-8 doses – 423 deaths at 1-4 doses = 1,035 extra deaths for doubling the number of doses.

Multiply that by 50 and you have 51,750 extra deaths simply for giving 5-8 vaccine doses, instead of 1-4 doses, at one time.

If the true underreporting is double that (only 1% adverse reactions reported), then the real number of excess child deaths would be 103,500.

That’s only considering the deaths caused by the fifth through eighth doses. It eliminates the deaths caused by the first four doses. Those would add up to 21,150 if VAERS includes 2% of actual adverse effects, and 42,300 if it includes 1%. Adding those numbers together gives us a total of 145,800 children who’ve died as a direct result of vaccines from 1990 to 2010.

This is carnage that can be laid directly at the doorstep of our aggressive vaccination program.

If you do want to have your children vaccinated, at least insist on only single doses separated by enough time to assure that there’s no cumulative effect. It’s clear from the evidence here that multiple vaccine doses, which have become standard, are responsible for a huge number of deaths in children.

Source:




kLynch315
by on Jan. 25, 2013 at 10:44 AM
2 moms liked this

My son (5) is on a delayed vax schedule and he has never been hospitalized and he has only been sick once. My fully vaxxed, and on time, daughter (9) has definitely had more health issues than my son. However, she is really healthy altogether also. We rarely have to visit the doctor around our house. 

I heard a lady talking at an office I was at, and she mentioned her little baby (maybe a few months old) had to go get some like 6 shots or something that day. I was thinking, that's nuts! I think vaccinations have their place, but pumping a tiny body with that much foreign sutff at one time seems dangerous to me!

Jenn8604
by Gold Member on Jan. 25, 2013 at 10:46 AM
I did mine on time for my son and the only time he stayed at the hospital was for a sleep study
Posted on CafeMom Mobile
mom_3.0
by on Jan. 25, 2013 at 10:46 AM

Still not a reason to jump on the anti-vax bandwagon. 


Quoting Emilytrademark:

 School systems and law enforcement are drains on money... Vaccines are a multi-billion dollar industry. That is hardly a conspiracy theory- when you have that much money to be made, it is prudent to be skeptical. They are a business, not a public service.

 Also realize that the studies that show the increased vaccine schedule to be beneficial are conducted by those who are closely tied to that money.

Quoting mom_3.0:

That reason was thoroughly developed in connection with the CDC to protect children at the earliest possible age. Timing it very essential, regardless of if your conspiracy theory tells you that it's ONLY because of Mega Money. Going by that logic,  the school system only exists because of mega money and the laws only exist because of mega money, etc. I could go on and on. 


Quoting Emilytrademark:

 Yep and that reason is mega money.

Quoting mom_3.0:

There are reasons why the schedules are created. Delaying leaves windows to become ill from the real diseases. 


Quoting Emilytrademark:

 "Under-vaccinated" is such a negative term. I prefer to use "over-vaccinated" for those who follow the normal schedule.

 I also think it's interesting that the author emboldened the negatives of delayed vaccine schedules and did not emphasize the benefits.



 



 



created4apurpos
by on Jan. 25, 2013 at 11:04 AM
1 mom liked this

my daughter followed the schedule and was in the hospital for 4 days at just 2 1/2 months old for seizures that we STILL don't know the cause of.  there were no problems during pregnancy or birth.  she now has developmental and communication delays.  if I had to do it over again I would at least choose a slower schedule and I'd have waited to start.

louzannalady
by on Jan. 25, 2013 at 11:10 AM
2 moms liked this

I was born in 1983, too. And I agree. How did I survive or do so well in life being so "under-vaccinated" compared to what my children are supposed to be per the CDC?! How come Japan has a much, much lower infant death rate than the States and other countries with intense vaccine schedules? How can the health organizations in this country say that this many vaccines are safe at once, when there are no studies done to confirm that?

Quoting MommaTasha1003:

DS wont start vaccines until age 1..... And 1-2 at a time... I cant understand how my generation seemed to grow up so healthy (DOB:1983) Yet the vax list is practically doubled!!!


louzannalady
by on Jan. 25, 2013 at 11:11 AM
1 mom liked this

*hug*

Quoting created4apurpos:

my daughter followed the schedule and was in the hospital for 4 days at just 2 1/2 months old for seizures that we STILL don't know the cause of.  there were no problems during pregnancy or birth.  she now has developmental and communication delays.  if I had to do it over again I would at least choose a slower schedule and I'd have waited to start.


Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)