Believe me, we all clearly see your stance on the issue of "trading one disease for another", as disturbing as it may be.
All this "trading diseases" could be avoided by simply waiting longer to vaccinate, and\or spreading it out a bit, OR REMOVING THIMEROSAL, but you
can't seem to understand that??
Instead of the "Lesser of 2 evils" arguement that you are fond of, how about "No evil at all?" Ever consider that?
since you side-stepped the question that I really wanted you to answer, I will repeat it again.....
Let me get your opinion on the Hepatitus vaccine given "moments" after birth. Is that necessary? (Hepatitus infected mother excluded)
The first week of life is the most crucial don't you agree?
Could we, in our vast wisdom, at least wait 1 week before introducing our "home-made toxins" into a developing baby?
Would really like to get all doctors opinion on this.
I didn't feel that I side-stepped it, but now I'll answer it exclusively. I just assumed you were able to use the power of inference from my other
Yes, it is necessary. When an infant is born, it only has an innate immune system, as opposed to an adults complementary acquired immune system. This
is why it is so easy for an infant to contract colds and such. Now, if even one hepatitis virus were to enter an infants system, the infant would not
have enough cytotoxic T cells (also called CD8 cells, those responsible for fiting viral infections). This would lead to massive liver damage and most
likely death due to organ failure or shock. Now, if you know this is a major risk factor, it would seem to make the most sense to me that immunizing
them BEFORE they leave the sterile hospital (well, more sterile than their home) would help prevent infection in the less than sterile world outside.
Of course not every infant is going to even be exposed to the HepB virus, but there's no way to look into an infant's future and see whether or not
contant with the virus is in their near future.
I especially take offense to your idea of me choosing the lesser of two evils instead of no evil at all. There is most certainly evil in waiting to
immunize the infant. I would bet a good sum of money that by waiting a period of one week, you would see many more cases of hepatitis B related liver
infections in infants. Not to mention, I don't see why you would wait only one week. There's really little to no change in an infant's immune
system in the first week. It takes generally 5-10 days for the body to produce antibodies against ONE agent. Now, imagine all the agents your baby is
encountering the first day out of the womb. And the second. And third. Every day of our lives, we are encountering agents, some of which we have
never seen. A person's immune sytem never stops adapting. Do you think the statistics that lead to a government mandate on hepatitis immunization at
birth showed little to no change in case rates? No, they most certainly showed that early immunization leads to lower case rates in children. I
don't see preventing 90% of children from being infected by hepatitis B as a "lesser evil", I see the side effects as a necessary risk included in
the best solution.
As for thimerosal, no immunizations intended for children 6 and under actually contain more than a trace amount of this compound, and many of the
adult immunizations have been reformulated with cheaper preservatives. I know in my country, very few immunizatios contain any thimerosal at all. On
your own FDA site, it shows that the FDA works with the WHO to eliminate exposure to thimerosal to the point where any exposure is nearly harmless
[quotethe maximum cumulative exposure to mercury from vaccines in the recommended childhood immunization schedule was within acceptable limits for the
methylmercury exposure guidelines set by FDA, ATSDR, and WHO.
The only risk associated with immunizations prior to 2000 in the United States seems to be infants exposed to methylmercury, not ETHYLmerucry, the
natural metabolite of thimerosal. In fact, the hepatitis B vaccine you are so worried about contains NO thimerosal as dictated by law
New pediatric formulations of hepatitis B vaccines have been licensed by the FDA, Recombivax-HB (Merck, thimerosal free) in August 1999 and
Engerix-B (Glaxo SmithKline, trace thimerosal) in March 2000.
So, my question to you is, how do you account for the increase in autism rates while in the same span of time, there was a decrease in thimerosal
exposure? Seems like there's no connection to the two to me, but who knows how you anti-immunization people will see it.