We pride ourselves on having the friendliest
and most welcoming forums for moms and moms to be! Please take a moment
for free so you can be a part of our growing community of mothers.
If you have any problems registering please drop an email to email@example.com.
Our community is moderated by our moderation team so you won't see spam or offensive messages posted on our forums. Each of our message boards is hosted by JustMommies hosts, whose names are listed at the top each board. We hope you find our message boards friendly, helpful, and fun to be on!
I just had twins a bit early (30 weeks) a week ago and want to do the delayed vaccination schedule that Dr. Sears suggests. The doctor in the NICU doesn't seem that interested in obliging and unfortunately DH is one of those "let's just do what the doctors suggest" people. I showed her the Sears book which I really haven't had a chance to go through thoroughly yesterday and she lambasted it , talking about the science behind it is flawed blah blah blah, to which I countered well the science behind why some of these vaccs are recommended to babies (e.g. Hep B) is flawed. Like a Baby is going to contract an STD unless it was vaginally delivered from a mom infected with it? Not likely.
Besides Dr. Sears and Dr. Google, what resources have you guys used to prove your case to your family/DH if needed? I'm not so interested in proving my case to the Doc. She's one of many that the kids will see while they're in the NICU and they can't vaccinate without my express permission which I will not give unless it's for the schedule I want. Only one of them may be in the hospital when they would like to give the first vaccination and I'm going to make sure EVERYONE who comes into contact with him knows not to give him what they're planning to (I can't remember what it is but it's a combination of FIVE things at once which I'm not cool with at all) if he's still there. The way she acted you would think that I was saying I don't want to vaccinate the boys at all. I don't see what's the big deal with delaying the vaccinations, they'll get everything they need before school, just at a different rate, and we're not planning on sending them to daycare for the first couple years so they chances of them getting something is even lower than the average kid. I just need DH on board.
Last edited by BlueLight; April 14th, 2012 at 07:00 AM.
That said, while hepatitis b is not just a STD, most babies are at extremely low risk, so delaying that one isn't likely to be a big deal. The reason it is given to newborns is because maternal screening for hep b is not 100% accurate, and the implications for a baby contracting hep b are much more serious than for an adult.
I can't help you much with evidenced-based support for a delayed schedule, because there simply isn't any. The schedule is designed to protect babies from the diseases they are most vulnerable to.
If you do decide to space out the schedule, just be sure to check with your insurance company to be sure they will cover the extra visits. For example, if your insurance only covers 7 well-visits the first year, you'd have to pay the full out-of-pocket cost (not just a co-pay) for the remainder of the visits, per child. I ran into that problem with my middle kid when I finally started getting her vaxed.
If you are planning on doing a delayed vax schedule go to the choosing not to vax board. They do delayed, alternate schedules and choose not to vax. They can give you resources. This board is basically for on schedule or your are wrong. Not 100% but that is the general impression you will get. (Coming from a mommy who also delays vaxes due to immune suppression in my son.)
This board is basically for on schedule or your are wrong. Not 100% but that is the general impression you will get.
We won't tell someone they are "wrong" for not vaxing on schedule, but we will point out why a particular argument or source of information may not be accurate. I am a former non-vaxer, and happen to be sympathetic to alternative vaccine schedules, even if I no longer agree with them.
I imagine the CNTV board would be pretty offended if I went on there telling people not to bother posting unless they want it implied that they're are poisoning their babies with vaccines, and be given a gish gallop of links from self-discrediting "resources", eh?
I didn't say you were all opposed to this. I specifically said that you weren't all opposed to this. However, if someone is looking for support rather than reasons why delayed vaxing is not good than they should go to the CNTV board. If they are looking for opinions on vaxing than they can go to both but both boards are equally biased in both directions. It depends on what you are looking for. I wouldn't go to a forum supporting fast food chains to ask for advice on organic food (yes it is a stretch but I am a little short on good analogies tonight). It is the same situation here. The most accommodating place for what it sounds like she wants information on would be the CNTV board. I was just stating my opinion...not asking for a debate. My opinion is my opinion and I do not want to force it on anyone else. I am just offering one opinion in a sea of options. My opinion is that the best place to get support for a delayed vax schedule that has already been decided on (which is what she asked for) would be the other board. Like you said, you are sympathetic to them but do not agree with them. Since you do not agree with them you are more likely to give evidence of why it is wrong rather than why it is a good idea. That is all I meant. Basic probability. Some members on this forum may support delayed vax schedules but she is more likely to find the information she is looking for on the CNTV board. :/