Why do or don't you give the chickenpox vaccine

amother

Tue, Feb 17 2015, 3:55 pm

yogabird wrote:

So scary for you and her!

Just curious-did the titers rise on their own without her having been vaccinated? Had she had chicken pox prior to treatment?

She had the vaccines when she was younger, but she lost the immunity from those, probably because of her disease, though we never checked her titers before she got sick so technically we don't know if she was ever immune. After her first treatment failed, we had to wait several months for her b cells ("memory cells") to repopulate so that she can get another vaccine before we did a different treatment, since she wouldn't be able to get the live vaccine after the treatment. It was only two weeks ago that we checked the titers again and it was positive, b"H.

luppamom

Tue, Feb 17 2015, 4:00 pm

BTW, thanks for this thread. Unlike other immunizations, I hadn't really thought about it. When we were kids, a lot of people thought it was funny that people got shots for chickenpox when we had it and it was so normal. This thread really opened me up to different POVs. My DH and I just had a conversation at dinner about what we will do w/ our baby. Instead of just saying that we both didn't get it and we both had it and managed (even DH w/ shingles), we were able to think more deeply and globally about the decision.

Scrabble123

Tue, Feb 17 2015, 4:17 pm

smss wrote:

so let's say someone breastfeeds and keeps her baby home, and doesn't vaccinate.
someone else formula-feeds, sends her baby to daycare, and vaccinates.

are either of them negligent?

I wouldn't call those parents negligent at all.
I would want the baby vaccinated, even if the child is at home because it is recommended by doctors and therefore by halacha. Also because the mother could be exposed to viruses like rotavirus or pertussis that could potentially harm the baby. I disagree with her choice not to vaccinate, but I would not call it negligent under those circumstances.

smss

Tue, Feb 17 2015, 4:31 pm

Scrabble123 wrote:

(but rotavirus is only transmitted via stool and saliva. if the mother washes her hands after using the bathroom and doesn't drink out of her baby's sippy cup, how will she expose her baby?)

I just wanted to point out that there are other ways to [do our hishtadlus to] prevent disease besides for vaccination. ways that don't have any negative side effects, and in fact have many positive ones. and while vaccination only protects against certain diseases or in some cases, certain strains of certain diseases, overall immune system function and hygiene help to protect from ALL disease.

can we agree that as long as a mother is doing her best to keep her children healthy, whether or not she vaccinates, she is not negligent?

yogabird

Tue, Feb 17 2015, 4:43 pm

amother wrote:

Hope you don't mind my nosiness. I'm only asking because I recently came across someone asking about this on another forum. She said she has heard that chicken pox immunity, whether from the actual disease or the vaccine, can survive immunosuppressive and/or myeloablative treatment (IOW chemotherapy) because the virus enters the cells, and can re-induce immunity once the immune system is reconstituted. All the other moms said their children were routinely revaccinated post chemo, and titers were never even checked because it was assumed they had lost their immunity for good.

So I just want to be clear: Your daughter regained her immunity after treatment (I'm assuming chemo?) without having to be revaccinated?

Orchid

Tue, Feb 17 2015, 4:52 pm

Raisin wrote:

Just to say there are clearly many medical professionals in Europe who obviously think the chicken pox vaccine is not medically necessary. In fact, where I did see it offered, it was promoted as saving you hassle of not taking off work etc, not for medical reasons.

Good point. In fact, that is how it was initially billed in the US -as a boone for working moms. But suddenly the fear swooped in and now it's mandated everywhere.

Scrabble123

Tue, Feb 17 2015, 8:40 pm

smss wrote:

Torahdig histadlus almost always involves vaccinations.

Furthermore, many well-meaning mothers are unfortunately negligent. They are not always to be blamed, but sometimes negligent none the less.

amother

Wed, Feb 18 2015, 10:03 am

chani8 wrote:

I am all for taking the chicken pox vaccine, after I got it as an adult, along with my 4 babies. The vaccine wasn't yet available at the time. It was horrible and I ended up with pneumonia. And a few years later, shingles.

But I do object to OP referring to anyone who doesn't take it, as negligent. Why are you starting another judgmental thread???

op here. no I said that not giving her baby the shot or medication after known exposure is negligent

Scrabble123

Wed, Feb 18 2015, 10:57 am

smss wrote:

oh, it absolutely is the breastfeeding in and of itself. Just a few examples from that link...

The examples you gave me discuss the anti bacterial/viral/etc. properties. That has nothing to do with "their claim of diabetes, obesity, etc." Those are lifestyle choices that in my personal opinion have very little to do with breastfeeding. It's just that those who breastfeed are more likely to also eat healthier, exercise more, etc. than those who formula feed. It's not the formula or lack of breastfeeding that has nothing directly to do with diabetes: that would be the Western poor diet and poor exercise choices. Many formula feeders engage in healthy eating, exercising, and behavioral acts, although more breast feeders do.

smss

Wed, Feb 18 2015, 3:17 pm

Scrabble123 wrote:

so, it's very interesting, because while part of it is likely lifestyle choices, part of it IS just breastfeeding.

Quote:

Epidemiologic studies suggest that children who are formula fed in infancy are more likely to become obese or develop type 2 diabetes.1,19,20 In meta-analyses, children formula fed in infancy were 1.1 (95% CI, 1.0–1.1)21 to 1.3 (95% CI, 1.2–1.5)22 times as likely to become obese as children who had ever been breastfed. Being formula fed in infancy is also associated with a 1.6-fold risk (95% CI, 1.2–2.3) of type 2 diabetes, compared with being breastfed.1,19,23 Some studies have also suggested an increase in risk for cardiovascular disease, including higher blood pressure19,24,25 and less favorable lipid profiles,26 but the literature is mixed. Researchers have proposed several mechanisms to explain these associations, including differences in composition of human milk versus formula, feeding practices, associated lifestyle factors, and self-regulation of intake by the infant. 27 Moreover, human milk contains adipokines, which may play a role in regulating energy intake and long-term obesity risk.28 Several authors have postulated that long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids in breast milk may affect blood pressure and insulin resistance in later life.19 Nevertheless, observational data must be interpreted with caution because of potential confounding by other lifestyle behaviors in families with long durations of breastfeeding versus formula feeding.

so part of it's the breastmilk, part of it is the nature of breastfeeding (the baby decides how much to eat according to his own hunger; many bottle-feeders encourage the baby to just finish the bottle every time), and part of it is probably lifestyle choices, but no, not only.

Hashem_Yaazor

Wed, Feb 18 2015, 9:12 pm

I just thought of something, not sure why I didn't think of this before.

How is it despicable and negligent of a mother whose baby was exposed to chicken pox to not give the vaccine?

The vaccine is a live virus one; with the same logic, one can say it's despicable to knowingly put the disease in a child.

Now I understand most people don't get chicken pox following vaccination, and most people who do get it get a very mild form. But there is no guarantee that said child will come down with it, and will come down with a bad case either. OP was talking about a baby who happened to be exposed. Not that she mentioned the age either, if the baby was old enough to be vaccinated, but that's beside the point.

Contrary to popular belief, there is benefit in natural immunity, and I don't think it's wrong for a person to trust Hashem gave their baby chicken pox before being vaccinated as His master plan. It's not that big a deal usually.

And contrary to popular belief, there are risks in vaccination, but I have never heard someone call a mother who knowingly has her baby injected with many vaccines at once as negligent and despicable.

It's all a gamble. Benefits and risks on all sides. Not all vaccines are the same, not all children are the same. There cannot be one easy answer, contrary to popular belief (again).

So let's stop labeling people who think a little differently, and make sure they have correct information on all sides to be able to make an informed decision, and trust that with that information, they can do the best job with the information they have as a parent.

Scrabble123

Thu, Feb 19 2015, 9:09 am

HY, it doesn't work like that. There is some level of risk that is deemed appropriate. As long as you follow what medical professionals and even psychological professionals advise, then the risk is deemed appropriate: wearing seat-belts, using vaccines, appropriate use of antibiotics, etc. etc. Once you start going against the normal risk and exposing your child to situations which are advised against, it becomes negligence. I don't think that that goes anywhere near labeling people who think differently. There is a lot of room for difference of thought in this comment: I'm not going to say that a parent who leaves their 6 year old how to babysit has a difference of thought and excuse it as that. Professional do not advise leaving such a young child at home: the child needs to be older, and even though there is a risk involved when leaving even an older child to babysit, it has been deemed an acceptable, lower risk than leaving a 6 year old. If you leave a 6 year home to babysit other children, you have acted negligently.

yogabird

Thu, Feb 19 2015, 10:13 am

Scrabble123 wrote:

Scrabble, some risk benefits analyses are very clear-cut, and some are not. The weight that different people allot to benefits and risks will differ greatly based on many factors. Professionals in the medical field make decisions very differently than parents.

Also, have you never heard of medical and psychological professionals erring?

Scrabble123

Thu, Feb 19 2015, 10:21 am

yogabird wrote:

Yogabird: It's ridiculous to discuss clear cut with regards to vaccinations:
It's clear cut medically.
It's clear cut halachically.
It's clear cut mathematically.
It's clear cut scientifically.
It's even clear cut psychologically.
If you want to discuss other risks, be my guest, but there is no room for discussion on the "risk analysis of vaccinations."

Orchid

Thu, Feb 19 2015, 12:29 pm

Scrabble123 wrote:

Of course, but that contradicts Merck's package insert which states that certain populations are at greater risk of severe side effects and doctors need to determine if patients are within that population before vaccinating, which we KNOW never happens in real life.

It says, in part: ----------------------- WARNINGS AND PRECAUTIONS ------------------------
 Evaluate individuals for immune competence prior to
administration of VARIVAX if there is a family history of congenital
or hereditary immunodeficiency. (5.2)
 Avoid contact with high-risk individuals individuals susceptible to varicella
because of possible transmission of varicella vaccine virus. (5.4)

So what exactly is clear cut? That there are no chances of side effects? Because that is demonstrably false.