 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Family Forum / Parenting / Children's Health / July 2006vax quote of the year
In fact, Dr. Offit's studies show that in theory, healthy infants could safely get up to 100,000 vaccines at once. http://www.chop.edu/consumer/jsp/division/generic.jsp Pharmaland, or la la land > In fact, Dr. Offit's studies show that in theory, healthy infants could > safely get up to 100,000 vaccines at once. > http://www.chop.edu/consumer/jsp/division/generic.jsp > > Pharmaland, or la la land La-la land, Johnny: We’re Sorry! We couldn't find the page you are looking for on The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia Web site, www.chop.edu. This may have happened for one of the following reasons: The page has been removed from our Web site The page has been moved to another location and has a new address The URL (web address) that you typed in is incorrect I think he missed a bit off the URL... http://www.chop.edu/consumer/jsp/division/generic.jsp?id=81553 "Children have an enormous capacity to respond safely to challenges to the immune system from vaccines," says Dr. Offit. "A baby's body is bombarded with immunologic challenges - from bacteria in food to the dust they breathe. Compared to what they typically encounter and manage during the day, vaccines are literally a drop in the ocean." In fact, Dr. Offit's studies show that in theory, healthy infants could safely get up to 100,000 vaccines at once." > I think he missed a bit off the URL... > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > studies show that in theory, healthy infants could safely get up to 100,000 > vaccines at once." Thanks. John was wrong, and, of course, Offit is correct. >> I think he missed a bit off the URL... >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Thanks. John was wrong, and, of course, Offit is correct. The quotation is misleading. Offit's work shows that it would take 100,000 vaccinations (with different antigens) to saturate the immune system of a child. That doesn't necessarily mean that it is safe to give that much at once, particuarily of the same antigen (vaccine). The point he was trying to make was that multiple vaccinations we give to kids doesn't even come close to overwhelming the babies immune system, as the number of antigens administered by these vaccinations dosen't come close to approaching a saturating level. It is unfortunate that the hospital has chosen to use his research in this fashion, as it provides ammo to the anti-vax nuts, and doesn't actually reflect what his work showed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstra ct&list_uids=11773551&query_hl=10&itool=pubmed_docsum Long story short, dosage plays an important role in vaccination and it is important to get the dosage correct. Not enough = no response, too much = tolerance. Repetitive doses, too close together, occasionally may lead to hypersensitivity responses and even death. Best bet, follow your doctors instructions, and make sure to stay on the recommended vaccination schedule. Bryan >>> I think he missed a bit off the URL... >>> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > as the number of antigens administered by these vaccinations dosen't > come close to approaching a saturating level. Agreed. I have mentioned this study in the past, although I could never find it on Medline. The journalist who wrote the article said it was 10,000. This probably explains why I could not find it. It is unfortunate that > the hospital has chosen to use his research in this fashion, as it > provides ammo to the anti-vax nuts, and doesn't actually reflect what > his work showed: > > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstra ct&list_uids=11773551&query_hl=10&itool=pubmed_docsum Agreed. Thanks for the new bookmark. > Long story short, dosage plays an important role in vaccination and it > is important to get the dosage correct. Not enough = no response, too > much = tolerance. Repetitive doses, too close together, occasionally > may lead to hypersensitivity responses and even death. Best bet, follow > your doctors instructions, and make sure to stay on the recommended > vaccination schedule. I have a problem with the way this, from the abstract, is worded: "6) the fact that infants actually encounter fewer antigens in vaccines today than they did 40 or 100 years ago". It sounds as if there were vaccines 100 years ago. I suspect that it means that 100 years ago an infant was exposed to far more antigens in their environment (regardless of the source) than they are today. > I have a problem with the way this, from the abstract, is worded: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > means that 100 years ago an infant was exposed to far more antigens in > their environment (regardless of the source) than they are today. I don't think this statement is all that incorrect. 50+ years ago most vaccines were attenuated live, or killed whole organisms. This means that people were receiving the whole pathogen in either an inhibited or dead state. Even those which consisted of isolated proteins/toxins were often contaminated with large amounts of other bacterial materials. Today, most vaccines consist of specific pathogen proteins, rather then the whole vaccine. Likewise, our purification methods are much better, and contamination is extremely rare. As such the total number of antigens, as well as the risk of vaccine-associated infections, is dramatically reduced. And there were at least three commonly used vaccines 100 years ago - smallpox (cowpox inoculation), rabies and plague. By 1950 there was at least 5 more - diphtheria, pertussis, TB, tetanus and yellow fever (DPT wasn't given as a single vaccination until much later). Vaccines aren't nearly as new as people often think... Bryan > wasn't given as a single vaccination until much later). Vaccines aren't > nearly as new as people often think... Exactly... Variolation arose sometime in Africa, and was used extensively prior to a proper understanding of immunization. >> I think he missed a bit off the URL... >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Thanks. John was wrong, and, of course, Offit is correct. well, it all depend on how much antigen is being loaded. Whats the typical total protein loaded in a shot? 20mg would be 2kg, which is a lot for some babies. I imagine its in the microgram range which would still give 2g. Not insurmountable, but I wouldnt want 2g of protein injected at once. >>> I think he missed a bit off the URL... >>> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > typical total protein loaded in a shot? 20mg would be 2kg, which is a > lot for some babies. It would be a lot for adults. I imagine its in the microgram range which would > still give 2g. Not insurmountable, but I wouldnt want 2g of protein > injected at once. I would think that Offitt was referring to mcg doses. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.