|
Nasal Spray Flu Vaccine Now Approved for Kids as Young as Two Years of Age
FluMist, the nasal spray form of the flu vaccine, has been used as an alternative to getting an injected flu shot for many years for ages 5 years through 50 years. This week, FluMist was just approved for use down to age 2 years. Does the nasal spray have any advantages over the shot, besides being pain-free? It has been shown to be more than 50% effective than the flu shot. However, the nasal spray also has a slightly higher rate of flu-like side effects. A major advantage of the nasal spray is that it is mercury free. Many brands of the flu shot still contain mercury. The single-dose vials of the Fluzone brand of the flu shot are the only flu shots that are completely mercury free. Labels: Vaccine News
How to Make Sure Your Baby's Flu Vaccine is Mercury-free
Almost 10 years ago the American medical community was rocked by the realization that millions of infants were being overloaded with mercury from childhood vaccinations. Medical policy-makers and vaccine manufacturers scrambled to remove mercury from vaccines, and by the end of 2002 mercury was a thing of the past. Or was it? Mercury has now been removed from all vaccines except for some formulations of the flu vaccine (and some diphtheria-tetanus shots). But when you take your child in to the doctor's office for the flu shot this year, there may not be any mercury-free flu shots left. For the upcoming flu season, here are the brands your doctor can choose from: - Fluvirin brand is approved for kids 4 years and older and adults. Mercury is used in manufacturing, but then filtered out.
- Fluarix and FluLaval are for adults only. Fluarix filters out the mercury too, but FluLaval contains the full dose of mercury (25 micrograms).
- Fluzone is the only brand that is used in infants age 6 to 35 months. The half-dose infant and toddler sindle-dose vials are mercury-free, but there isn't enough to go around.
- Fluzone also makes a very small supply of mercury-free flu shots for older children and adults, so only the first kids in line will get one.
- Fluzone devotes most of their manufacturing facilities to making the full-dose mercury-containing large bottles of flu shots for all age groups.
Ask the nurse to physically show you the bottle as she prepares the shot. If it is Fluzone brand, and it is a small single-dose vial or a pre-filled single-dose syringe, then you can be sure it is mercury-free. If it is Fluvirin or Fluarix brand, then there is only a tiny, barely detectable, insignificant amount of mercury. If it is FluLaval brand, or the large 10-dose bottle of Fluzone, then just say no! What should you do if the only thing your doctor has left are shots with the full dose of mercury? First, healthy kids 5 years and older don't need a flu vaccine, but if you want one anyway, the nasal spray flu vaccine is mercury-free and was just approved for use down to age 2 years. Second, you can search elsewhere for any left-over mercury-free shots at other offices or clinics. Or you can simply decide to do without the flu vaccine for that year. This is especially true for pregnant women and young children. No one wants their developing fetus or infant to be exposed to mercury while their brain is developing. Do you even have to worry about mercury in the first place? The debate rages on. Researchers battle back and forth over this issue. We've known for decades that mercury is toxic to the brain and body tissues. But whether or not the amount in vaccines is enough to cause damage is still up in the air. Some research shows there is enough evidence of harm; other studies have determined there is not enough proof that the mercury in vaccines is dangerous. No study, however, has yet to prove for certain that this mercury is safe. Labels: Vaccine News
Vaccine Shortages September 2007
From time to time vaccine shortages occur for a variety of problems. Here are the current shortages that may affect the vaccine supplies at your doctor's office: ProQuad - The current supply of this combination of MMR and Chickenpox vaccine (by Merck) has run out, due to a variety of manufacturing factors. It is unclear how long it will remain unavailable. The shortage may continue into 2008. This vaccine is given at age 1 year and 5 years. However, the MMR and the Chickenpox vaccine can also be given separately. So this shortage won't disrupt the actual vaccine schedule. It simply means that the convenient combined shot won't be available. Mumps Vaccine - Some families choose to separate the MMR into its separate components. Well, the separate Mumps vaccine by Merck is in short supply and may not be available until October. If you are planning to get this vaccine, don't worry. There's no rush. Simply wait until your doctor has it back in. Chickenpox Vaccine - This is also in short supply, although we haven't run out completely. But doctors may run out for a week or two from time to time for the rest of the year. But don't worry - it can be given at any time after age 1. Hepatitis A Vaccine - the Merck brand of this shot (Vaqta) has run out. It's not expected to become available until early 2008. There is another brand, Havrix (by GlaxoSmithKline) which IS available for now Labels: Vaccine News
Polio vaccine and disease: Herd immunity - Are parents who don't vaccinate their infants for polio taking advantage of the rest of you?
This is one of the timeless debates over vaccination, and it rings very true for the polio vaccine. This disease has been gone from the U.S. since 1985. Yet, we continue to vaccinate. Why? The answer is obvious - to keep the disease out. It still occurs in parts of Asia and Africa. If we all stop vaccinating before the disease is eradicated from the whole world (like Smallpox was almost 40 years ago), it could potentially make its way back into our country, and we'd have to start all over again. But some parents choose to skip the vaccine because they know their child is shielded by everyone else around them who are vaccinated ("herd immunity"). However, if too many sheep in the herd hear about this, and decide to skip the shot for themselves, what happens when a sheep from Asia (do they even have sheep in Asia? I guess they do. I always think of sheep being in Ireland, Israel, or Australia) wanders into our herd? If only one of our sheep isn't vaccinated, chances are the two will never come into contact. But what if 10 sheep aren't vaccinated? Or more? The result could be a resurgence of polio, sheep would become paralyzed, some would die, and we'd have less wool to make nice blankets for those cold winter nights. Put into human terms, we'd have a resurgence of paralytic polio. There are still some adults today who were affected by this decades ago and are still suffering from the effects. Admittedly, it is extremely unlikely that an unvaccinated child living in the U.S. and not traveling to Asia or Africa would catch polio. So I have to admit that parents who skip the vaccine aren't really putting their own individual child at risk. BUT they ARE putting our nation's overall public health endeavor to eliminate polio at risk. Until the entire world is polio-free, continued vaccination, even in our country, is fairly important. So, how do you make vaccine decisions for your own child? Do you base them on just your own child's risk? Or do you take into consideration the health of all the other kids in your neighborhood, your city, your country, your "herd". Are parents WRONG to put their own kid's health first and foremost? Don't all parents put their own kids first, before anyone else's? This is definitely one of those things that makes me go "hmmmmmm". Labels: Vaccines and their diseases
Pneumococcal vaccine and disease: Some vaccines are much more important than others.
This bad bug is still fairly common. It's the most common cause of infant meningitis. Continue vaccination is quite important. That's why I start this vaccine very early in my Alternative Vaccine Schedule. I know some parents choose not to vaccinate their kids, and some choose to delay vaccines until their kids are older. After reading all the available negative literature on vaccines myself, I'm not surprised that some parents make this choice. However, some anti-vaccine literature states that ALL vaccine-preventable diseases aren't that serious or common, and parents shouldn't worry about them. This simply isn't true. Some diseases ARE serious, and some ARE still common. While pneumococcal disease isn't the MOST common or serious, it certainly is high up on the list. Parents who decline vaccines, or who wish to delay them, may find Chapter 18 in The Vaccine Book of particular interest. It highlights which diseases are the most common and serious ones. Parents should be aware of how these diseases are contracted and how they can be prevented. Parents should also consider Selectively Vaccinating their kids against these diseases. Labels: Vaccines and their diseases
Rotavirus vaccine and disease: Do you want your baby to be among the first to try a new vaccine?
This is a dilemma faced by all parents every time a new vaccine hits the market. And parents are once again faced with a new vaccine - Rotavirus. There's no question that this disease is a real pain in the diaper area. It is extremely common and can be very severe for infants. But since the vaccine is fairly new, some parents are leery. No one wants their own baby to be among the first to try out a new vaccine, but someone has to! You want your baby protected from this bad disease, but you'd rather wait until the vaccine has been given to hundreds of thousands of other babies first. Since this vaccine went into widespread use in 2006, nothing really bad has shown up yet. That's why I've put it first on my Alternative Vaccine Schedule. But this debate will come around again the next time a new vaccine comes out. Labels: Vaccines and their diseases
Hepatitis B vaccine and disease: Do newborns need a vaccine for a sexually transmitted disease?
Whose idea was it to begin vaccinating ALL NEWBORNS for a sexually transmitted disease? I had an interesting discussion with a doctor who used to work for the public health department. She told me that when her whole staff heard about this decision during the 1990s, they were dumbfounded. They saw no sense in it at all. But, they had no choice. The "powers that be" had made the decision, and they had to follow orders. But given the fact that this disease is virtually unheard of during infancy or childhood (unless an infected mother passes it along to her newborn baby during the birth process, a situation that is preventable with proper screening and treatment), and also given the fact that the vaccine can cause fever, lethargy, poor feeding, and irritability in infants (according to the vaccine's product insert), making them appear to have caught a severe bacterial infection that requires IV antibiotics and invasive testing (when all it really is is a vaccine reaction), again I must ask, WHY? I cannot tell you why. But I can tell you that by delaying this vaccine until your child is a few years old (according to my Alternative Vaccine Schedule), you avoid risking a severe reaction in your newborn that will put him in the hospital. Labels: Vaccines and their diseases
|
|
