What info can you give me on 2month vacc's, Advice please?

Hi Everyone,

Dd is due for her 2month vaccs & to be honest they terrify me.
I can't find the info I need to decide which ones she should & shouldn't have. I'm not a fan of getting vaccs just because they're what's scheduled.
At birth I declined hep b because the risk of her contracting it is minimal so she won't be having that.
Mmr concerns me' because I've heard of children becoming autistic after having it, but I'm scared of the effects that contracting mmr can have too.
Can you pls help me with info regarding the 2 month vaccs?
Which ones are really necessary? The risks of contracting certain viruses etc? Did your bub react badly?
Does anyone know where I can access info now? I've been on dr sears website but it doesn't say too much & If I buy the book I'll have to wait for it to be posted.
Not wanting a debate pls just honesty :)
TIA :)

Different States have different schedules, so looking at the info in your baby Blue book (in Victoria it's blue, not sure about the other States) will give you the recomended vaccinations.

It can be difficult to get individual vaccinations (or refuse individual ones) because they combine so many these days. In Vic, they combine Hep B with Diptheria/Tentanus/Pertussis/inactivated Polio/Hib1 so if you really do not want HepB then you also have to not get all the others OR you have to investigate getting individual vaccinations for the ones you want to cover.

The MMR is not until 12 months, so you've got awhile to decide on that one.

Here in Qld, there's three vaxes at 2 months. The INfanrix Hexa (same one Kate mentioned), Pneumococcal B and Rotavirus, which is oral. We declined Rotateq, as bubaloo is fairly low risk (not going into childcare) and her dadda is immune suppressed. We got the others. No real issues. I cried, probably more than the baby did.

ok so basically 2 monthe needles are
Infanrix Hexa prevear and rotateq.

rotateq must be given on time, it is for rotavirus, the bad gastro bug children get. this is an oral and can make them very ill as in gastric and vomiting for 7-10 days after

infanrix hexa is your multi one, it contains diphtheria tetanus, pertusis, (whooping cough) hep b, influenza b , think something else, but im worn out cant think.
this will cause temps, grizzlyness, muscle aches, has the highest risk of redness and swelling at the site. though since it contains the whooping cough and the tetanus i do recommend this as they are very prevalent in the community at the moment. also coming into winter the influenza component is very good.

prevenar is for pneumococci l and I do recommend this but also advise this can be delayed easily.

If you are concerned and not worried about having the rotavirus one, i recommend thinking about delaying, and taking some time to chat to your MCHN or GP Or even the practice nurse at your GP's. just ensure they have done their imms training.

or PM me, I do this every day, may not reply till tomorrow night tho as im about to go to bed.

I don't think hexa has influenza in it. It's diptheria, tetanus, pertussis, hib, hep b and polio. influenza vaccines are completely seperate.

You can delay the rotavirus one slightly, but it does have to be given by a certain age or it is not financed by the govt. 1st dose has to be given by 12 weeks, 2nd dose by 28 weeks and 3rd dose by 32 weeks.

sorry, brain snap, its actually for meningitis, and works within the upper respiratory tract so ears nose and throat or technically an infection common in the upper respiratory tract. and it is actually a normal part of the common flora in the upper respiratory tract.
Hib stands for haemophilus Influenzae type B

it also contains inactivated poliomyelitis. brain is catching bits and pieces tonight..

:

---

You can delay the rotavirus one slightly, but it does have to be given by a certain age or it is not financed by the govt. 1st dose has to be given by 12 weeks, 2nd dose by 28 weeks and 3rd dose by 32 weeks.

---

actually it has nothing to really do with funding its more to do with effectiveness, as the studies show they need the less matured stomach lining to be more effective in absorption rates. well thats what i was told 12 months ago during a refresher course. this may have changed.
and also because they are unsure of adverse events in older infants as it hasn't been tested on older infants so they can't guarantee it.

:

---

You can delay the rotavirus one slightly, but it does have to be given by a certain age or it is not financed by the govt. 1st dose has to be given by 12 weeks, 2nd dose by 28 weeks and 3rd dose by 32 weeks.

---

I think if it is not given by a certain age it doesn't work

eta: beat me to it kawazuki

:

---

You can delay the rotavirus one slightly, but it does have to be given by a certain age or it is not financed by the govt. 1st dose has to be given by 12 weeks, 2nd dose by 28 weeks and 3rd dose by 32 weeks.

---

Whatever the reason, these are the ages (described in the govt. info) that are latest that the rotavirus doses will be given.

As far as I am aware, the rotavirus vaccine is not funded after six months because after six months, the risks of rotavirus in the infant are significantly reduced, rendering the vaccine relatively pointless.

Check out the WAVE website (World Association for Vaccine Education) and look up the ingredients for each of the vaccines which are scheduled for 2 months olds in your state. Only then, knowing the potential short and long term side-effects of each ingredient can you make an informed decision about vaccines.

Oh - the book in my signature is gold too!

:-)

I think important to educate yourself. Information about vaccines is rarely unbiased in either direction. I personally think it comes down to how you answer two questions...


1 - If your child caught a natural disease they may not of caught or could have had a milder case of if they were immunised against it, but instead had to deal with the full force of it which may mean they could get very sick or on rare occasion could possibly die, how would you feel about not immunising? Could you forgive yourself for this choice?

2 - If you child had an adverse reaction to the vaccination (understanding that vaccines might not even stop them from catching the disease you're immunising against and on some occasions may even give them the disease you're immunising against), and you then had to deal with the fallout anywhere from sickness to perhaps life long auto-immune, or on rare occasion even death, how would you feel about having made the choice to immunise? Could you forgive yourself for this choice?

I personally think live vaccines are dangerous, but that's just me and I admit I'm extremely biased having a husband who caught typhoid off his typhoid vaccination when he was a kid. Apart from almost killing him, he then had to suffer from 6 years of blindness and kidney issues from all the drugs they gave him. It's REALLY important that you do the work to make an informed decision through your own investigation, not just trusting what people tell you because they will have their own biases, and decide which answer to the top two questions you can live with the most.

Yeddi,

I agree with you & that's why I'm asking but I just don't know where to start to find the right Information but some pp have given me some good places to have a look at.

As for your two questions I feel strongly about both but once I've got the info I need I'll prob feel stronger about one or the other.

Thanks :)

The best way is to start with one particular disease, rather than looking at general information about vaccination. Look at what the disease can do, how it's transmitted etc. then look at incidences of outbreaks of that disease, vaccination rates, adverse reactions to that vaccination, how many people got it despite being vaccinated - that sort of thing. If you don't have direct access to journals, make google scholar your friend, at the very least you should be able to view abstracts. Still not ideal, but better than just taking a blanket view sites word for it. When you find a journal read ALL of it if you can, not just the conclusions which will be coloured by the researcher's bias. I think this is the ONLY way to get a semi-unbiased picture of what is going on because it is such a murky and emotive topic, and when things are talked about generally they can be made to mean anything. Unfortunately, studies will also be restricted as to what someone would fund, and finding studies that haven't been funded by a stakeholder in vaccines (and I would consider the government a stakeholder) is very, very hard. To be honest, they're practically non-existant within the main-stream.

As an example of why you need to read the whole study: one of the platinum studies on vaccine safety's conclusions says that the levels of toxic metals are safe. This is one of the main ones used by the CDC, WHO, FDA, and government health departments around the world. A quick glimpse at the figure at the bottom of the table would collaborate the conclusion made in this study UNTIL you look at the method and the information further up the table of figures. The method of getting this magic number that is under toxic levels was calculated by adding up the total level that was in all vaccinations received over a six months period and then dividing that by 180. That's akin to me downing two 25 unit packets of cold tablets in one day and then saying as long as I don't have any more of that medication for the next month ingesting those tablets is safe because my daily dose will be under the recommended safe levels of 6 a day. If I did that, I'd be in the hospital getting my stomach pumped. This is junk science, and that is what is being used as PROOF that metals in vaccines are safe. Vaccines aren't given gradually over 180 days. They are given in bulk injections, so to even get close to the reality of whether the metals a child exposed to at vaccination is safe the science should have at least divided it by the number of doses. Even this would be an inaccurate figure though, as some vaccines contain more toxic substances than others. As you can see, vaccine safety is a murky topic, hence the reason I think a parent has to navigate it for themselves because there are just too many agendas.

We delayed the 2 months vacs till 4 months, and didn't get the rotavirus one at all.

We developed our own schedule (and posted it on BB somewhere...) and did exactly what Yeddi suggests. No one can give you the answers about which vax to get or not get and when, because each family is different.

FYI, we decided against getting the Infanrix Hexa (which has 6 vax) and instead chose the Infanrix IPV, which only has 4 (whooping cough, diptheria, tetanus & polio). We had to pay for the Infanrix IPV but it's only about $40 a dose. You have to ask for it specifically, but we had no issues with getting something different from the Schedule.

Oh, and the Schedule is the same all over Australia, it's a federal government thing, not State-based.

ETA: My thread with our custom-made delayed schedule (which is on page 2) is HERE