SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the and-the-oscar-for-vaccine-education-goes-to... dept.
Catherine Saint Louis reports at the NYT that according to a survey of 534 primary care physicians, a wide majority of pediatricians and family physicians acquiesce to parents who wish to delay vaccinating their children, even though the doctors feel these decisions put children at risk for measles, whooping cough and other ailments. One-third of doctors said they acquiesced “often” or “always”; another third gave in only “sometimes.” According to Dr. Paul A. Offit, such deference is in keeping with today’s doctoring style, which values patients as partners. “At some level, you’re ceding your expertise, and you want the patient to participate and make the decision,” says Offit, a pediatrician specializing in infectious diseases. “It is sad that we are willing to let children walk out of our offices vulnerable to potentially fatal infections. There’s a fatigue here, and there’s a kind of learned helplessness.”
Part of the problem is the lack of a proven strategy to guide physicians in counselling parents. “Unfortunately, we don’t have a solid evidence base in terms of how to communicate to patients about vaccines,” says Saad Omer adding that although he does not sanction the use of alternative vaccine schedules, he understands why primary care physicians keep treating these patients — just as doctors do not kick smokers out of their practices when they fail to quit. Dr. Allison Kempe, the study’s lead author and a pediatrician at Children’s Hospital Colorado, thinks the time has come to acknowledge that the idea that “vaccine education can be handled in a brief wellness visit is untenable” and says that we may need pro-vaccine parents and perhaps even celebrities to star in marketing campaigns to help “reinforce vaccination as a social norm.” "Whether the topic is autism or presidential politics," says Frank Bruni, "celebrity trumps authority and obviates erudition."
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 04 2015, @11:51PM
The problem with the current vaccination schedule is that kids are getting multiple shots at time and each shot contains vaccination against multiple diseases. It's just a lot for a body to handle. As far as I know, this is pretty much the main concern for folks opting for a "modified schedule" rather than a no-vax routine. In fact, a few pediatricians I've spoken too agree whole hardheartedly with a modified schedule. The thinking goes, if there is a reaction, it's not a guess what caused it.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by vux984 on Thursday March 05 2015, @12:05AM
This pretty much. Its what we opted for when the children were small. And horror stories of sudden fevers and autistic children resulting etc were the anecdotes being passed around. One plausible prevailing theory was that the vaccination wasn't the direct cause, but brain-damaging high fevers in the reactions were -- so we were advised to proceed with caution...
Do one vaccine at a time so there was no guesswork as to any causes of any reactions. And monitor the child extra carefully after each, including mid-night checks for temperature; and treat any fever immediately and aggressively.
Maybe it was hokum... but it seemed to make sense not to hit an infant with a whole cocktail at once, and then potentially let her blaze away with fever all night before we even noticed anything was wrong...
Long and short, we vaccinated, we think it was the right thing to do, but we feel justified (right or wrong) that a more gradual schedule was safer and smarter.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by physicsmajor on Thursday March 05 2015, @05:03AM
The most reasonable excuse for this I've seen is exactly this. "One variable at a time" to provide controls. Here's the problem: a study with a sample size of one by definition doesn't have a control. If you treat it this way, it's a recipe for anecdotal crap because you become hyper-vigilant at that time and the population is large. In reality neither actual evidence nor knowledge of the actual science of vaccinations or the immune system support this position. Like quantum mechanics, this is one place where intuition will lead you wrong.
Stating multiple shots is "too much" for the immune system to handle is actually a tremendously bold statement. I have to call [citation needed] - and there isn't any actual evidence to support that position. Young childrens' immune systems are reacting to millions to billions of threats, simultaneously, at all times. One or two from a vaccine doesn't even register.
Here is what really happens. Kids come into this world without passive or active immunity, get by with Mom's antibodies for a while, and then it's literally kill or be killed. All of the bugs on the planet are trying to get a piece of your child, and the kid's immune system is fighting back as hard as it can. However, it's new at the job. The good news is that by surviving this long, our species is really quite good at hunkering down and winning the war. The bad news is that we get sick a lot when we're young, building up our immunity for later. The really bad news is that there are a number of opponents that will regularly knock us right off or cripple us for life unless we have help.
In this massive conflict vaccines are essentially gifts. They are the trump cards, the aces in the hole, the intel to stop a crucial terror plot before it takes out the capital. They are the way to keep your child safe, stonewalling the very worst bad guys out there - so they can concentrate on fighting the minor fights instead of potentially losing the entire war against a terrible opponent. A loss we could have trivially prevented.
This right here is reality. This is not an opinion piece. It isn't up for debate. I'm being nice and engaging you; it sounds like you were one of the lucky ones. But wouldn't you want to get that precious intel to command as soon as possible? I will concede that later vaccination is better than no vaccination, however, how would you feel the same if your child died to whooping cough because you delayed? Because that is happening, too, but you won't see coverage of it (people don't seek coverage after such events for obvious reasons).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 05 2015, @07:37AM
Young childrens' immune systems are reacting to millions to billions of threats, simultaneously, at all times. One or two from a vaccine doesn't even register.
If it "doesn't even register" there wouldn't be that much point of vaccination would there?
Not everyone reacts badly, but a significant percentage do get fevers, so those vaccinations are definitely "registering" far more than your supposed millions/billions of threats which don't cause fevers etc.
When you vaccine millions or billions there are bound to be adverse reactions, maybe even fatal. Overall it's the "greater good" and arguably better than not mass vaccinating.
Just look at those people who have severe or even fatal allergic reactions to stuff that most of us have no problems with. Some of these stuff have been tested as safe for consumption by the FDA etc. You do a test with 1000 candidates and if it's 100% safe for 999 of them, that's good enough for a drug/treatment that's only used if someone is sick. But when billions are forced to take something, even if that something is extremely safe, don't be surprised if a few still get crippled or killed by it.
In my experience most people especially mothers aren't very rational when it comes to children (which is probably why this works: https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/783904-the-state-must-declare-the-child-to-be-the-most [goodreads.com] ). So you have to lie to them to tell them its perfectly safe even though there is no such thing as perfectly safe.
So if it makes such people feel better, letting them pick a more relaxed schedule is better than not vaccinating at all. And I don't think it is such a huge problem as long as their children still complete their vaccinations in a timely manner, and especially before they hit preschool or similar and dramatically increase their exposure.
(Score: 2) by Leebert on Thursday March 05 2015, @02:51PM
Indeed. I'm by no means an anti-vaxxer, but I routinely refuse the flu vaccine because of how I react to it. Once or twice I can dismiss as anecdotal, but I worked for a hospital for years where flu vaccines were mandatory, and I'd invariably spend the following couple of days feeling miserable. In some cases, it was every bit as bad as actually catching the flu, so it seemed fairly pointless.
That said, I did recently make the decision that I'd go ahead and give it a try next year since it's been probably 15 years since I've last tried it.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Thursday March 05 2015, @07:28PM
I haven't had the flu vaccine in years because most sources seem to say that it doesn't really work because the strain that ends up going around isn't the strain that was in the vaccine for that year. Plus I'm healthy and rarely get sick.
However, I did get the flu vaccine several times in my late teens, and I remember one time I got it and promptly got horribly sick, with a fever. I lied down, and then about 3-4 hours later, I felt fine. I guess my body thought it had caught the flu and reacted accordingly, until it realized the virus was dead.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 05 2015, @07:50PM
Maybe try the live-attenuated vaccine FluMist instead. Maybe the typical inactivated egg-origin vaccine is the problem.
If you interact with any elderly family or friends, then maybe you should weigh dealing with a bad reaction with the risk of infecting them.
(Score: 2) by Leebert on Thursday March 05 2015, @08:04PM
Hence my statement of deciding to try it again next year. I decided to take an altruistic approach instead of a self-defense approach. We'll see how it turns out.
(Score: 1) by vux984 on Thursday March 05 2015, @06:21PM
Here is what really happens. Kids come into this world without passive or active immunity, get by with Mom's antibodies for a while, and then it's literally kill or be killed. All of the bugs on the planet are trying to get a piece of your child, and the kid's immune system is fighting back as hard as it can. However, it's new at the job. The good news is that by surviving this long, our species is really quite good at hunkering down and winning the war. The bad news is that we get sick a lot when we're young, building up our immunity for later. The really bad news is that there are a number of opponents that will regularly knock us right off or cripple us for life unless we have help.
You have a knack for narrative, I'll give you that. :)
Stating multiple shots is "too much" for the immune system to handle is actually a tremendously bold statement. I have to call [citation needed] - and there isn't any actual evidence to support that position.
I can't cite a study that hasn't been done; for which there are no results for OR against. However, I can observe that it is a well known phenomena that being sick with 2 different things is worse than being sick with 1 thing at a time. That having an allergic reaction while fighting a flu is worse than doing them separately. That the elderly often die of lesser diseases that aren't generally fatal due to being weakened by something else they were fighting.
Young childrens' immune systems are reacting to millions to billions of threats, simultaneously, at all times. One or two from a vaccine doesn't even register.
None of those other threats are so adept at killing us that they even have names. None of those other threats are causing a fever. Yet the vaccine... a defanged or even dead facsimile of the real threat that gets a reaction. Its RIDICULOUS to suggest that the vaccine doesn't even register when "A baby fever after vaccination shots or immunization is a natural reaction." is right in the child vaccination pamphlet.
What else does the pamphlet say?
Symptoms after immunization shots
So the child that was just fine fighting a billion other bugs now feels like crap (fussy/irritble/uneasy); and develops a fever ... you think that's just another day in the trenches? I see it as a day of particularly heaving fighting; higher than usual casualties; maybe even gave a bit of ground to regroup and fortify a rear position.
And what of the "rare cases"? Sounds like a major battle was lost that day. You certainly can't credibly claim vaccine's don't even register.
So if one vaccine is major incident for the body; its pretty reasonable to suggest that 5 of them at once might be worse; and pretty reasonable to suggest "lets do them one at a time" just in case.
I'm being nice and engaging you; it sounds like you were one of the lucky ones.
Go ahead and 'engage'. I'm not an anti-vaxxer, not even close. But I'm not going to pretend that vaccinations don't cause reactions either. Its right in the pamphlet.
I will concede that later vaccination is better than no vaccination, however, how would you feel the same if your child died to whooping cough because you delayed?
Because delaying it 5-10 days (or moving it forward 5-10 days) that's going to be what got my child killed? Weaksauce. How would you even determine that was the direct cause?
I mean, what if I didn't mess with the schedule at all, but my family Dr. was on vacation so her 1 year shots were delayed 3 weeks as we scheduled it for when the Dr. was back? And she dies of something that would have in the vaccination. Are you really suggesting that if only I'd gone to a vaccination clinic on the day of birthday that she'd have survived? I should feel guilt for having killed my child? Really?
What I undertook was actually more effort for all involved; since I had to make a series of trips to the Dr. around each vaccination mark.
What do you tell people who took their kids in for shots, took them home, then rush them to the hospital late that night because they are feverish and breathing irregularly? And when they go home a few days later; the child that was walking, and imitating sounds and would call out mama and dada to their parents, calls the dog, cat, and neighbor "bubbup" ... that child no longer walks, no longer makes eye contact, and no longer imitates or talks. I *know* those parents. Call it an anecdote, because that's what it is. But its still true.
I am NOT anti-vaxxer; I vaccinated knowing and agreeing with the science that the benefits greatly outweigh the risks both for my child, and for society. But don't pretend there aren't risks. No matter how good the odds are, somebody always loses. What do you tell them?
"At least she didn't die of the measles." ? or "Well, its for the good of the herd." ? Doesn't really cut it, does it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 05 2015, @07:56PM
The millions/billions of things the baby is exposed to are called antigens and the immune system can deal with all of them. Vaccines are supposed to provoke an immune response to particular antigens, so it is ready if it encounters the real pathogen. An immune response can induce a fever, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. If a vaccine does not induce a strong enough response, then the patient could be at an increased risk when they encounter the real pathogen (the RSV vaccine of the 60s had this problem).
(Score: 5, Informative) by compro01 on Thursday March 05 2015, @01:37AM
And that "concern" is as much bullshit as the rest of the anti-vaxxers' nonsense [aappublications.org]. Infants are bombarded with a vast array of pathogens before they're even finished being born. Vaccines are a drop in the ocean compared to everyday exposure.
(Score: 2) by GungnirSniper on Thursday March 05 2015, @04:24AM
The vast array of pathogens aren't typically injected into infants.
How did we come to the current scheduling model anyway?
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 05 2015, @02:31PM
Science and Medicine. All done by really smart people. Stop being the idiot that thinks they are smarter then that person who *actually* is smarter than you.
(Score: 1) by stormreaver on Thursday March 05 2015, @02:55PM
How did we come to the current scheduling model anyway?
That part is simple: the pharmaceutical industry created new cocktails for which it needed new profits. Nothing else mattered.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 05 2015, @08:14PM
The pharmaceutical company gets pennies for each dose of vaccine. You can make that claim with many other drugs, particularly lifestyle drugs, but vaccines are not a profit maker for them. They might even be considered a loss leader, as in they help keep you alive now, so you can buy their lifestyle meds later.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 05 2015, @06:52AM
Pakistan Arresting Anti-Vaxxers To Curb Polio Crisis [carbonated.tv]
This isn't a personal freedom thing; it's a public health matter.
Get with the program or find your own desert island to live on.
-- gewg_
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 05 2015, @02:34PM
I'm waiting for the back lash to all the Anti-Vaxxers in this country when we have our first polio outbreak since the 50's. You think the measles crap from Disney was news? Wait until you have kids that loose the ability to *breath*.
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Thursday March 05 2015, @04:10PM
The problem with the current vaccination schedule is that kids are getting multiple shots at time and each shot contains vaccination against multiple diseases. It's just a lot for a body to handle.
That's a scientific claim, not a matter of opinion. Citation needed.
Not the first time [slashdot.org] I've encountered this nonsense.