Hacker News Reader

Comment by camworld | Hacker News Reader

I am not anti-vaccine. However, my toddler had a very severe reaction to a vaccine she was given at two years of age. This led my wife and I to decide to not allow our daughter to have all of the vaccines at once. She is not completely vaccinated but will have them all before she turns five. We feel that staggering the vaccinations out as much as possible allows her immune system to respond better without severe reactions that cause very high temperatures, which could lead to brain damage and/or death.

View on HN

I'm sorry that this happened to you. However, the question that you pose is empirical and has been studied extensively. To my knowledge, no benefit has ever been shown from spacing out vaccinations.

Staggering vaccinations is unlikely to be helpful or harmful, but in general would reduce adherence, so should be discouraged on a population scale without evidence supporting it.

Our pediatrician recommends spacing the vaccinations. It turns out that when you give them very early, many require a booster later because the infant immune response isn't as strong. If you give it a bit later, no booster needed. So then if there are risks they are less by virtue of having only one immunization.

Never been thrilled with the insistence of infant immunization of Hep B either. Main vectors: sewage an sexual contact. I think we an safely rule those out for a few years at least.

Main vectors: sewage an sexual contact. I think we an safely rule those out for a few years at least.

Don't dismiss sewage. A surprising fraction of people don't wash their hands, and if you don't wash your hands before preparing food you can pass on diseases.

This is a surprisingly common disease vector.

A professor at my medical school likes to say that, "The entire world is covered in a thin fecal veneer."

To my knowledge, no benefit has ever been shown from spacing out vaccinations.

Correct.

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=333

And to go farther with that point, multiple vaccines like MMR are standard across the population, so they are better tested and better understood than multiple spaced-out single vaccines.

Here's a review of Dr. Bob's schedule from the journal Pediatrics:

http://www.immunize.org/concerns/offit_moser2009.pdf

This is a legit concern. My wife also had reactions to some of the vaccines given her as a child, putting her life in danger, as did some of her siblings. So when we have kids, we'll definitely be very careful about that and do a lot of research beforehand.

The autism concerns are almost certainly overblown, and the benefits of vaccines are enormous, as has been pointed out.

But I think its also a mistake to unreflectively get every vaccination possible. Side effects can and do happen. As with every medical procedure, responsible parents should know what they're getting into, and what the pros and cons are. Even though the answer SHOULD be to get vaccinated in 95% of cases.

BTW, most likely she had a reaction to P in DTP.

P is no longer used, and now it's aP (acellular pertussis, DTaP), which doesn't cause those reactions.

Which is exactly the kind of research I'm talking about - to determine what chemicals are in the injections, and the statistical incidence of side effects for them and any indicators that a person might be at risk.

If you're going to be ignorant, then you should go ahead, trust your doctor, and get the vaccination. But I don't think it's wrong to do the research on something before it goes into your child's body, just as long as you are properly scientific about it and rely on good research.

I don't get the part about not trusting your doctor. When aP vs P was made it was rolled out nationally.

You will probably find that anything you discover in your research is already being done.

All the things that are marginal and maybe won't be "good research", although of course you may considers the "possible" results enough reason to act, but you need to be very knowledgeable on the subject, and few people are.

Modern vaccines have almost no side effects beyond mild fevers. Talk with your pediatrician, most will promise you that you'll see nothing like the things your wife's generation saw.

The autism concerns are almost certainly overblown

I don't mean to pick on you, but this is exactly the kind of thing so many here have a problem: that some people still equivocate and hedge because they think "hey, who knows?" in spite of all the evidence being on one side. How many studies will it take to convince you that there is no link at all between autism and vaccines?

This is the reason why the anti-vaxxers are such a big problem. If everyone who is healthy gets vaccinated, then the diseases can't spread, and even the kids who can't get a vaccine for legitimate medical reasons will be safe.

I'd like to see schools required to disclose any children who have not been vaccinated without a valid medical reason. (I'm in California -- you can get into school without vaccination if you state a personal belief.)

My 4 year old had a very strong reaction to a vaccine this year and had to be transferred by ambulance. We have an appointment to special center where they test the vaccine's different components separately. Maybe that could be another option in your case too.

His next vaccine is only at 12 so we could just do nothing but we want to know if tetanus shots could be the culprit because they are often administered following an accident.

I'm completely fine with this. We just need to internalize the externality. You not vaccinating your child harms not only your family but potentially many others around you.

We need some sort of legal construct that would hold those who do not vaccinate responsible if there is an outbreak in the area. For example, you don't vaccinate your daughter for whooping cough and my daughter(too young to vaccinate) catches it. My daughter has to suffer months of terrible pain and discomfort in addition to potential long-term consequences. I should be able to seek compensation from you.

Of course there are other social alternatives, such as lychings.

As a side note, you probably don't know shit about vaccines. What makes you think spacing them out will improve her reactions to them?

Provided that most everyone else does get vaccinated, it should be fine to avoid vaccinating the small percentage of people with natural allergic reactions to the vaccine.

I don't think you should find the allergic culpable in your scheme, because if the reaction is bad enough, you're asking them to either endure suffering or die so that there is no possibility that they can harm you.

"As a side note, you probably don't know shit about vaccines. What makes you think spacing them out will improve her reactions to them?"

For the same reason that I let my toddler eat dirt if she wants to. The longer her immune system has to build up a defense, the better it will defend against something in a vaccine that causes her medical or allergic distress.

If your kid was allergic to peanuts, would you be allowing your neighbors to force her to eat peanuts?

Recent research suggests the best way to deal with peanut allergies is exposure to small amounts. Kind of like a vaccine really.

Science is very difficult, frustrating and time consuming. The reason we bother with it is that human intuition is remarkably bad at most things.

You should just admit that you are making medical decisions about complex phenomenon based on vague feelings. Why do we even bother studying immunology? Let's just ask how camworld is feeling today!

How exactly would you be able to prove that your daughter caught a disease from any particular person?

For instance, if someone with whooping cough coughed hard, then left the room, and 10 minutes later your daughter walked through the room on the way to meeting the other person's daughter, how exactly could you tell that?

I think that there ought to be a law against people who think "there ought to be a law against X" ...

> How exactly would you be able to prove that your daughter caught a disease from any particular person?

Set the standard of evidence to whatever the current technology can provide. Right now I'm fine with unvaccinated people having responsibility for all outbreaks in their area.

> I think that there ought to be a law against people who think "there ought to be a law against X"

I think there ought to be a law against people who don't know the difference between civil and criminal law.

What makes you think spacing them out will improve her reactions to them?

The thinking probably goes something like, "If A and B each individually cause severe symptoms, A and B combined will probably be worse." This accurately describes most things.

It sounds sensible, but turns out to be faulty for several reasons. See the parallel thread above.

And heavy things fall faster than lighter things! Right? Oh wait, intuition can and is very often wrong. Particularly with respect to complex phenomenon such as the human immune system.

You are getting vaccinated though. You get they are important and are going through a very harsh trial (high temperatures are very scary in young children, especially to them) to get them all. You should be given a medal.

May I ask if you reported the reaction to your doctor and to VAERS? http://vaers.hhs.gov/ .

Reply on news.ycombinator.com