Staggering 6mo vaccinations

[milly5]

Hi ladies,

DD has just had her 4 mo vaccinations, and it seemed to take alot out of her.

How many vaccinations do they get at 6 mo (I have a list of the vaccinations but I am not sure which ones are combined or how many actual injections it is).
I was hoping that for her 6mo vaccinations, she could have just one at a time, but I am not sure how many appts this would take and in what order they should be given in (which one first?).

Also, how long should the gap be between each one? I had "heard" a week, but when I had to have some vaccinations for travel, they needed to be either on the same day or 3 weeks apart.

Does anyone have any expperience or suggestions on staggering her 6mo vaccinations please?

[HotI]

What State are you in? (different States have different vaccination schedules)

In Victoria, the 2, 4 & 6 month ones are similar (if not the same), i can check my book if you are in Victoria. So, 2 needles & an oral vaccine. The rotavirus (oral vaccine) has to be given by a certain age or you miss out.

I was told that you want to wait at least 2 weeks to a month between vaccines to give baby a chance to react to the vaccine and recover before giving them another.

[kawazuki]

usually we don't stager the 2/4/6 month ones as they each need to begin quite close together.
in saying that
if you were given rotateq you will only have till 32 weeks to have the third dose, as after that age the stomach lining is regarded as being to thick and it wont absorb the vaccine.
the other two will be prevenar (pneumacocil) and infanrix hexa, which is your diptheria, tetnus, pertussis, poloiomelytis, hib, hep b shot.

when you say take it out her? what do you mean..
as we do expect them to be drowsy for 24-72 hours later and seem more sleepy and off food.
we also expect low grade fever of 37.4-38.8, we also expect a very grumpy baby with muscle aches and pains as the tetnus component is very rough and causes generalised pain and aches in the muscles.

Maybe ring and speak to the nurse, i have many mums ring me daily about imms and what to do. so they should be able to help, we are taught what to do in our immunisation training.

also if that doesn't give you a decent answer try your state immunisation centre the number should be in the front of your baby record book.

[milly5]

Thanks ladies,

Kate - I am in NSW

Kawazuki - at her 4m (and 2 mo) she was given infanrix hexa, prevenar and rotarix (sorry if I haven't got the names quite right - trying to read the nurses writing!). I don't think she has another dose of the rotarix? So it will be the same needles then at 6mo?
When I said it seemed to take it out of her, I meant that she seemed really unwell for about 5 days. I know that they get a fever and can be grizzly, but she seemed like it for almost a week. After he 2 mo needles she was relatively fine, just very sleepy and only a temp for one day.
I will give the nurse a ring though before her 6mo vaccinations.

[kawazuki]

Thanks ladies,

Kate - I am in NSW

Kawazuki - at her 4m (and 2 mo) she was given infanrix hexa, prevenar and rotarix (sorry if I haven't got the names quite right - trying to read the nurses writing!). I don't think she has another dose of the rotarix? So it will be the same needles then at 6mo?
When I said it seemed to take it out of her, I meant that she seemed really unwell for about 5 days. I know that they get a fever and can be grizzly, but she seemed like it for almost a week. After he 2 mo needles she was relatively fine, just very sleepy and only a temp for one day.
I will give the nurse a ring though before her 6mo vaccinations.

yes rotarix is a 2 dose course, so it will be the 2 needles only.
I would inform the nurse as to me i would report that as an adverse reaction.
the other thing which may of happened is that she may of got a virus at the same time, but wasn't unwell with it at the time of vaccination,
ok 5 days of being off and unwell, is not expected we only expect 48 hours max.
did she get any rashes near the injection sites? or become lethargic at all?
in that case, we could give one needle and wait 4 weeks and give the next, there would be no issue in doing that as long as they were done exactly at 4 weeks.
then have 5 months and I'd recommend splitting the 12 month needles as well.
PM if you want some more info on it.

[HotI]

My little one has had 3 different lots of vaccinations (2, 4 and 6 month old ones) and each time has been quite unwell for close to a week. I brought it up with the nurse (i had them done at local council sessions) at the following sessions and they really didn't care. They did not report it as adverse reactions. Their lack of concern has given me greater doubt that issues are followed up appropriately.

[milly5]

Thanks Kawazuki!
she had a red area on her infranix site, which later became like a red pimple, both of which the nurse told me was normal. THe red area lasted a few hours and the pimple a few days. She also was very uncomfortable laying on that leg (eg for feeding - had to do football hold) for the rest of that day.
I guess she was lethargic, but mostly she was just so unsettled and so tired - which I had put down to her being so unsettled, crying and not sleeping.
I will PM you though, thanks!

Kate - that is a shame that they didn't listen to your concerns. Did you have the same nurse each time? I am guessing probably not if it was at the council.

[kawazuki]

oh kate im so sorry they didn't show more concern
its the first question i ask and i Probe into it alot. i swear some people think i'm being nosey but i need to know so mum and bub are comfortable with it all.
the red area is normal and the pimple is normal, but there shouldn't be pain or discomfort after 48 hours.

[milly5]

Kawazuki,

I just emptied my inbox. I tried to re-pm you but now your inbox is full! LOL!

[Yeddi]

My little one has had 3 different lots of vaccinations (2, 4 and 6 month old ones) and each time has been quite unwell for close to a week. I brought it up with the nurse (i had them done at local council sessions) at the following sessions and they really didn't care. They did not report it as adverse reactions. Their lack of concern has given me greater doubt that issues are followed up appropriately.

That's because asking a "health" professional about the negatives or side effects of vaccination is like asking a butcher about the pros of being vegan. If you want to go against the recommended and never tested as safe vaccination schedule you're better off doing your own research and making an informed decision based upon facts rather than asking your nurse's or GP's **opinion** (because that is all it is). I encourage you to look up information about CYP450 enzyme in infants and how that might affect vaccination.

[milly5]

Kawazuki - I tired to PM you again, but your box is full.
I just wanted to say thanks Kawazuki, that info & links is a great help! and yes it all makes sense! Much appreciated!

[kawazuki]

That's because asking a "health" professional about the negatives or side effects of vaccination is like asking a butcher about the pros of being vegan. If you want to go against the recommended and never tested as safe vaccination schedule you're better off doing your own research and making an informed decision based upon facts rather than asking your nurse's or GP's **opinion** (because that is all it is). I encourage you to look up information about CYP450 enzyme in infants and how that might affect vaccination.

Yedi I AM A "HEALTH" PROFESSIONAL, and i ensure all my patients know the pros and cons and their full options.

so its not ALL just some and sadly people talk about negatives more the positives so us who do the right thing and make sure we are getting INFORMED consent get tarnished with that horrible spoon.

sadly My knowledge is not shared with all nurses or doctors, and everyone does indeed have their opinion, but when seeking advice from a "health" professional that is what you are doing.

I could prob list a number of ingredients which MAY cause an adverse event, though the chances are very slim like 1:10000000
the ones which are very common we explain about and I do touch on GBS and EPilepsy, though it hasn't been clinically linked yet, still doing research and testing into it

BUT the companies do know about these are they are trying to make them as safe as possible.

[kawazuki]

its empty now. im slack and havent em[ptied it for 6 months

[Yeddi]

I'm sorry kawazuki if you took offence at my post, but your reply doesn't actually convince me that you have an overly different mentality then the majority of health care providers - as it still contains the cart before the horse logic. "Cart" logic that says parents should prove vaccines are UNsafe, prove they directly DO cause an issue, and DON'T work in order to NOT or STOP injecting them into their children. "Horse" logic says that the medical establishment should prove that they DO work, ARE safe, and DON'T directly cause an issues BEFORE injecting them. I KNOW the dangers of NOT vaccinating, however (and I'm sure you can't really tell me otherwise) I DON'T really know ALL the dangers, both short and long term, of vaccinating because not enough research has really been done in the area, and often possible links are investigated only if someone first thinks to investigate it and secondly can get the funding to investigate it. I guess it really comes down to what choice a parent can live with.

[kawazuki]

I'm sorry kawazuki if you took offence at my post, but your reply doesn't actually convince me that you have an overly different mentality then the majority of health care providers - as it still contains the cart before the horse logic. "Cart" logic that says parents should prove vaccines are UNsafe, prove they directly DO cause an issue, and DON'T work in order to NOT or STOP injecting them into their children. "Horse" logic says that the medical establishment should prove that they DO work, ARE safe, and DON'T directly cause an issues BEFORE injecting them. I KNOW the dangers of NOT vaccinating, however (and I'm sure you can't really tell me otherwise) I DON'T really know ALL the dangers, both short and long term, of vaccinating because not enough research has really been done in the area, and often possible links are investigated only if someone first thinks to investigate it and secondly can get the funding to investigate it. I guess it really comes down to what choice a parent can live with.

I agree not enough research has been done.
BUT enough has been done to prove that there is minimal chance of danger.
nothing is ever 100% as long as the parents go into it with the most education and understanding that is what I am worried about.

I have a duty to ensure my patients know what MAY Happen.
and the biggest factor is actually that person, as how it reacts with one person will be 100% different to another person.
They are tested for around 20-30 years before being introduced, with exception to pandemic vaccines, though they are made on a base which HAS been.

I am more annoyed with the whole labelling of a profession instead of a single person.
its like saying all dads should go to work and be the bread winners. its not true.

I do not believe PARENTS should prove a vaccine is unsafe. as it is the medical professions job to do so.
But i DO BELIEVE that a parent should be taken seriously when they ring with a concern.

I can't change the way teh government and health commission work nor do i even try to understand but i do work with it and try to make it user friendly for parents

[Yeddi]

Kawazuki, I admit you seem to be a little more open-minded than others I've met, however some of your comments I can't agree with. For instance:

1. "BUT enough has been done to prove that there is minimal chance of danger." This is simply not true. The stat you used before of 1:10,000,000 is a statistic that is as dodgy in its mathematics as they get. This figure has been reached by comparing the reports of only deadly, anaphylactic and extremely mentally damaging reactions on VAERS (which is said to only be about 10% of actual reactions) with that years population census. It is not a comparison between the number of reactions verses the number of injections given, nor is it a comparison made between age groups, it is a comparison made between the number of life-threatening reactions verses the entire population from newborn babies to the 100 year old granny in the nursing home. Not everyone gets vaccinated, and if they do they don't do so every year and for everything so this stat is completely misleading. GACVS (the WHO organisation for monitoring vaccine safety) recently had to admit that 1 in every 1500 DTP injections given resulted in severe outcomes. That's just the DTP and each baby gets three injections of that over their first year of life. In essence that takes it to a stat of 1:500 just for ONE vaccine. Even if we keep it at the 1:1500 that's really not that much better. This information can be found in their reports if you're interested, of course they're not going to go advertising it and as ALWAYS they conclude that the risk is worth the benefit. Really? By what measure? What is the risk ratio, with today's modern medicine of dying from Whooping Cough **IF** you catch it? Last year there was 30,000 reported cases of whooping cough in Australia (it is estimated that the new synthetic vaccine is only 30% effective because it misses many of the strains, and who is to say those people wouldn't be immune anyway), and 3 deaths. While those deaths are tragic, that shows a 1:10,000 risk, and I debate whether a death caused by whooping cough is any less devastating than a death caused by vaccination. The math of the risk/benefit here for me just doesn't add up.

Additionally, as not ONE single study has been conducted comparing unvaccinated and vaccinated kids there is no way to see what difference vaccination really makes. ALL studies compare vaccinated kids against each other, or less vaccinated kids. If a child is going to be damaged by vaccine they don't have to have all the vaccinations before they do, it takes just one for them to reach toxic load, and how do you know which one? When the FDA, CDC and WHO were asked to do a study comparing the vaccinated against the unvaccinated they refused. Why? Because THEY couldn't deprive anyone from the protection of vaccination in order to conduct the study. What a load of bull. There are plenty of parents out there that don't vaccinate at all whose children could be used as the unvaccinated control group. I being one of them, would happily allow them to follow my son's health and development so they could make comparisons.

Also, the way they test whether vaccination even works is by seeing whether the pathogen has stimulated the production of antibodies, it is **assumed** that if you have antibodies then you're immune. The pathology of AIDS just blows that out of the water, doesn't it. A disease where the immune system exhausts itself making antibodies that don't do anything but divert energy and weaken it, opening them up to other infections. What are some other auto-immue disorders.... Type 1 diabetes, anaphylactic allergies, Eczema, IBS, Lupus... autism. Over-active immune systems and vaccines, who by their very purpose, are designed to stimulate the immune system can't be linked in any way, what an unreasonable theory!

2."They are tested for around 20-30 years before being introduced". Again, not true. The WHO and FDA have a pre-approval program for many vaccines currently in circulation, which means they can skip a lot of the checks and balances. Those in circulation now are not the same ones that were in circulation 10 years ago. For instance, in 1997 there was a whooping cough epidemic in Denmark despite a 97% vaccination rate. It was discovered that it was actually the live virus in the vaccine that was causing the epidemic. Hence the synthetic version of the vaccine was rolled out without much testing because it could only be better than the vaccine in circulation... Vaccines only go through three phases of testing before being introduced into the public, with the understanding that adverse reactions to vaccines can't really be understood until they are in circulation within the population. The manufacturers even admit this, so in essence our little iddy biddy babies are the guinea pigs for the fourth phase of testing, and when one understands the phases of testing, this should concern parents, and it's certainly not 20-30 years of testing. Phase I is animal testing (we're not animals, we are the only warm-blooded species that can't produce our own vitamin C. What do people take when they are getting a cold? Vitamin C. Why? Because it boosts the immune system. Therefore we process thing differently to animals). Phase 2 is human testing in around 300 volunteers, usually adults. Phase III is about a 10,000 sample of volunteers, again usually adults or maybe older children. Then it's rolled out. I have never seen one study on how the CYP450 enzyme system in babies would effect vaccination. This enzyme system is fundamental in processing medications/chemicals in the body, and therefore would change how someone would process the chemical components in a vaccine. Babies don't even START to produce this enzyme until two weeks of age (and the schedule requires hep b vax on the first day of life...), and children don't have the full load of this enzyme system until they are two, hence the reason when you read most medications - even vitamins - "not suitable for children under the age of 2" is written on the packet. Add to this that vaccines are changing all the time, they're loading more and more chemicals into one shot to be processed all at once, even **IF** they have tested a vaccine for 20-30 years I bet you they haven't tested what happens when you combine them. Funny enough, one of the treatments suggested for autism is an enzyme supplement. Also funny are the studies that analyse the hair of autistic kids that show they can't process heavy metals, perhaps because they don't have enough cyp450 enzyme because the system has been compromised by overloading it before it's developed...

An interesting bit of trivia: the above stat regarding the DTP came out in 2008. In 2004 the WHO kept getting reports that the DTP vaccination was behind some very high morbidity and mortality rates in third world countries, so they set up an independent task force to investigate. That's good, right? You would think this task force went to these countries to investigate, doing lab tests and meeting with the suspected victims.... Nope. Well they would at least get sent all the case reports and went through them unbiasedly... Nope. Do you know what they did? That sat in a UK office and read through several studies on the DTP vaccination that had been conducted over the previous several years. All had been conducted in Western countries and the largest sample size was 100. From these clinical studies they decided it couldn't possibly be the DTP vaccination and that was the end of their investigation. So much for the fourth phase of testing. Funny thing about facts, is they don't go away, hence the 2008 admission of 1:1500.

Kawazuki, don't get me wrong, I'm not attacking you personally, and my sarcasm is not directed at you but my irritation with the lack of transparency and open-mindedness within institutionalised healthcare. A LOT of people believe in vaccination which is their right to and I'm not judging that, people must make decisions for themselves as they will suffer the consequences (good or bad) for those choices. However I think it is a highly censored topic, and if you question that censorship you're labelled "selfish", "moron", "endangering your child", "quack". However, if it's censored or ridiculed for asking questions, how can parent's really make informed choices?

[kawazuki]

I totally agree with your last statement.
not taking it personally at all, i got thicker skin and can see your side of it as well, and its a very valid point your making.

I guess im trained to have more confidence in the system than a non medical person thats the difference. lol
I am somtimes unsure f that TRUST I have is valid or not, i do question it daily.