I was on mobile for my first response, but I do want to address your comments.
This whole thing got started when I replied to a comment you made stating "A weakened immune system is not a condition you can really have without realizing it."
My response was a rhetorical question about how we don't know about a newborn's immune system. If it wasn't clear that "how much do we know about whether a newborn has a compromised immune system or not" was a rhetorical question, I apologize for not making that more clear, but I think the question has an obvious answer and I didn't ask it to get your opinion. If you feel that question has an answer other than "very little", feel free to elaborate.
The reason I asked that question is that your statement that one cannot have a weakened immune system without knowing only applies to adults, as baby in the first moments does not have a medical history. So yes, someone can have a weakened immune system without anyone knowing it, but likely that would be at birth and in the earliest days of lives - when some vaccinations take place. As one gets older, weakened immune systems might become more evident, but they would be least evident at birth. I'm not sure we can debate that as anything but fact, but I'm certainly willing to listen to dissenting views on that.
So I ask a rhetorical question, and your response is to pose a question to me - "Are there any vaccines given to newborns that are contraindicated for immune-compromised people? That strikes me as rather unlikely."
Your question clearly wasn't a rhetorical question, and was something that someone could just look up (thus, the Google comment). I could have said 'I believe there are but don't care to look them up', but I figured you'd just look them up yourself and that would be the end of it. I was aware that there were some vaccines that were contraindicated for certain allergies and other conditions, mainly because I wasn't able to get certain vaccines as a child.
I'm honestly not sure why you didn't just look it up, unless you were more interested in my response than what you would have found on your own. But I did answer it, yet you chose to pick apart the one answer
Your response to that was "So you get to pose random questions without research, but I don't? How's that work?" I wasn't posing a random question, and my rhetorical question really shouldn't require research. Again, I think the answer was pretty obvious - if someone has a very brief lifespan, the person would likely have little medical history. There is a double standard about being expected to answer rhetorical question vs answering a factual question that you could also look up.
The answer to your question was clearly something you could have found on your own, but you asked me instead. Were you looking for an answer, or just looking to see how I'd answer it?
So I write out a longer reply, which you find some flaws with. You don't reference the part about RV/SCID in your reply, which seems to be the most relevant part of my response. That was the question you asked, yet you didn't even acknowledge the answer.
An allergy is not indicative of a weakened immune system, and I could have worded that a bit better. The person with allergies is 'compromised', and having an overactive immune system does compromise an individual. Having incredibly low blood pressure is dangerous, and having incredibly high blood pressure is dangerous too. Both indicate a compromised system that is not in balance, just as severe allergy and a condition such as SCID are impairments.
Whether or not an immune system is overactive (allergy) or weakened, I think using the term 'compromised' might have been the issue. Instead of "assuming you consider an allergy to be compromising to the immune system ", I could have left off at 'compromising'.
I did reference RV and SCID in the post as well, but you didn't reference those in your reply. I think your question, as asked literally, would be answered by RV being contraindicated in SCID cases. I answered the question as if you'd asked if vaccines were contraindicated in people with 'immune system irregularities' instead of 'immune system deficiencies'. The difference is, in my opinion, splitting hairs for the purpose of our dialogue, but that was what you chose to go with.
So yes, RV is contraindicated in SCID patients, and RV is recommended for newborns if you use the term newborns to indicate weeks instead of days. Hep B is not contraindicated for infants with weakened immune systems, but is contraindicated for infants with irregular immune systems that might be overreactive to yeast.
Regarding the calling out on bad behavior, I don't think I've behaved badly unless you somehow feel that my failure to clarify the difference between a weakened immune system and an overreactive one is a sin. What we are discussing here are mostly facts, not really opinions, and there really isn't much room for actual dissent. I have not problem with your opinions, as you haven't really provided any other than your opinions on my comments. I don't think you're suppressing any views. I'm not really providing opinions here, just facts for the most part (with the obvious clarification necessary to define allergy as irregular immune system instead of weakened).