Staggering Vaccinations?

[Clearlymisunderstood]

What's the benefit of it? My DD will be having all of her vaccinations but I've heard of people staggering then so was just wondering why basically and whether that is something I should consider? Apologies if I sound ignorant but googling has made my brain hurt!

People stagger for fear of 'overloading' the immune system, particularly with multiple vaccines. From what I've read, there is no benefit and the longer you wait between jabs, the more at risk your DD will be from contracting the disease. I'm sure others will come on and explain this better than I.

I found a link though which explains quite clearly that children's immune systems are much more robust than we might think and are easily up to the task of having multiple vaccines in one shot. Mr Offit also says that vaccinations give immune systems a boost making them stronger. So yet another good reason to vaccinate!

BFG, I think people have concerns about vaccines bypassing parts of the immune system (because they pretty much go straight into the blood stream in comparison to 'natural' exposure via inhalation, ingestion etc.) Saying 'babies come into contact with so many antigens on a daily basis' may not be that reassuring considering you aren't injecting all those antigens.

I think people also have concerns about the amount of Al in vaccines and some doctors recommend spreading them out for that reason.

I am with LeBFG - vaccines are not injected "straight into the blood stream" either. The actual challenge to the immune system that modern combination vaccine pose is tiny compared to what we got (BCG - live bacterial vaccine, smallpox - "live" viral, whole cell pertussis - whole dead bacteria, ew - hundreds and hundreds of antigens).

I didn't say they were injected straight into the bloodstream Catherina, I said they 'pretty much go directly in' in comparison to natural exposure via inhalation, ingestion etc - bypassing skin, mucus membranes, the GI tract - all of which can act as 'filters'.

bm - you've failed to adress Catherina's well put point. Do you understand how vaccines stimulate immunity? Your second point has been roundly dismissed on the other thread - any concern about Al in vaccines is a misfounded concern. Do you know of a doctor who advised spreading out vaccines because of Al? If there WERE a risk, it would in any case be best to have the combined shots all-in-one as you're receiving less Al.

Dr Sears (US) is one of the doctors who has recommended spreading them out because of Al. I know Dr Halvorsen also expressed concerns about Al too.

Sorry, but the other thread hasn't 'roundly dismissed' anything. Despite their best efforts only studies that compare the amount of Al in vaccines to safe levels of oral Al were found. While these obviously reassured some of the posters on that thread, other people still have more questions. I'm hoping they'll eventually be able to be answered.

You're talking about 'combined shots' having less Al than giving them all seperately and I think you may be a bit confused - it isn't currently possible to split the 5 in 1 because vaccines against the individual diseases aren't available. When people talk about spreading/spacing them out, they are usually talking about giving the MenC and pneumococcal vaccines at a different time to the 5in 1 - they leave a bit longer between each vaccine rather than giving them on the same day. So the amount of Al in each vaccine is the same but because they are given at different times, it is not all going in at once.

I don't want to get bogged down in the whole Al thing because people's concerns aren't always to do with Al. I've already mentioned what another concern may be and I'm sure other people could tell you others.

Re Catherina's point about new vaccines vs old vaccines. The BCG is still in use (although not given to everyone) and Iirc the old DPT shots actually have less Al than the Pediacel vaccine (I think different brands vary. We do actually give more vaccines now than we used to as well - and they are much closer together.

oh and to answer the OP - the "benefit" of spreading vaccines out usually is that mummy feels better, at least that was the reason for me to separate the DTaP and MMR 12 months shots for my son.

Catherina. Can you say what it is about his comments about Al that you specifically disagree with?

I don't believe I need to add anything about Dr Sears. The emminent Dr Richard Halvorsen however, GP of all the specialities! He peddles in the whole MMR-autism scare, no doubt making nice a pot of cash. I have a GP who recently told my friend to treat his high blood pressure with a glass of wine a day (this is France btw). Advised my pregnant friend to NOT take folic acid pills. This is all genuine. I saw his daughter-in-law GP who works in the same clinic when DS was 2mo. She tried to manually pull back his forskin in an out-of-date babaric technique to 'cure' him of pissing upwards. So, frankly, I don't rate crank GPs very highly....

With regards to spacing out - I can see why parents might be queasy about giving lots of shots at once. But as the link upthread explains, you needn't worry. Vaccine formulations have been refined and simplified over the years. Although we currently give children more vaccines than in the past, the actual number of antigens they receive has declined significantly. Whereas previously one vaccine, smallpox, contained about 200 antigens, now the 11 routinely recommended childhood vaccines contain fewer than 130 antigens combined. The antigens are attenuated or dead, not the live ones they would receive in an illness.

bm: I was under the impression parents wanted to give separate MMR jabs? Perhaps if concerns were raised about 'overloading' the immune system with multiple-shot jabs they would also be offered separately?

I'm not sure what Dr Halvorsen has to do with GPs in France recommending wine or telling people not to take folic acid. Also, how are foreskins and Al in vaccines related? I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make. You've bundled a lot of poor advice/bad experiences with other doctors together to say what exactly about Dr Halvorsen?

Wrt vaccines having fewer antigens, that's great but how do you know whether or not it is still 'too many'? I'm not old enough to have been given the smallpox vaccine anyway. Iirc it was DPT and measles vaccines in childhood, the BCG around age 10 and rubella around 13 and we were given polio drops too. Also, some vaccines given now are still live.

Yes, some people want to give the MMR seperately but that's not to do with Al content. The MMR doesn't contain Al afaik.

"Dr" Halvorsen is a crank. My examples were to show you that crank GPs exist everywhere (you're being obtuse not to see this). Have YOU or anyone you know been advised by a doctor to space out vaccines because of the Al 'risk'?

I never said the MMR was to do with Al - that's your obsession. I said people spread these vaccines out. I also didn't say live virus weren't used in vaccines - I said they were attenuated!!!

From the reasons I've heard and read about spacing out vaccinations, I can honestely say no-one has mentioned Al - they almost always refer to immune overload (sometimes in quite waffly terms like 'oh, it's a lot to have at once').

As usual, we can't prove tap water is safe. By your reasoning, bm, no one would be vaccinated. To quote from my link: even if all 11 of the routinely recommended vaccinations were given to infants at one time, only about .01 percent of the immune system would be used. Given that most babies don't have anything more serious than a slight temperature for a few hours, compared with even a small cold which is commonly accompanied by a temperature lasting a couple of days, common sense tells you the babies' immune systems are coping extremely well with the combined vaccines.

Dr Halvorsen is a registered medical practitioner with a licence to practise and is on the GP register.

If you object to the Dr title - he is an MB, as most are in the UK, with Dr being a courtesy title. By this same token we should refer to all of them as "Dr"...

I used the inverted commas to enhance my skepticism, not of his qualifications, but of the money-centered career path he's carved for himself. His assertions were so contentiously in breech of the science he was impelled to take them off his website. He may well be a fully qualified GP but I nonetheless feel fully justified in calling him a crank. Don't you?

I'm still not seeing what you're basing your 'crank' assertion on.

As I said before, Dr Sears is an example of a doctor who mentions spacing out Vaccines in relation to Al. I'm not sure what Catherina's specific concerns are with his opinions on Al and you haven't said either.

Wrt to MMR/Al. You initially said:

"If there WERE a risk, it would in any case be best to have the combined shots all-in-one as you're receiving less Al."

I explained that spreading/spacing out was not to do with seperating out individual componants of the combined vaccine but giving them at different times to the pneumococal/Men C vaccines and you replied:

"bm: I was under the impression parents wanted to give separate MMR jabs?"

Which was why I replied that they do but it's not to do with Al (which was what your initial question about separating the vaccines was to do with - see above)

Immune overload was another of the reasons I mentioned in my first post and I explained why some people may be concerned - because it bypasses the skin, mucous membranes etc that have an important role in the body's immune response.

To put your quote in context, the article says:

"Our analysis shows that infants have the theoretical capacity to respond to about 10,000 vaccines at once...Using this estimate, we could predict that even if all 11 of the routinely recommended vaccinations were given to infants at one time, only about .01 percent of the immune system would be used" (Emphasis added)
Without even going into how they've estimated 'how much' of the immune system is used (given how much is still not completely understood about it) - it's not exactly concrete is it? If you've been reassured by it though then that's good but I don't think you are really in a position to dismiss other people's concerns.

p.s there are plenty of studies investigating the safety of tap water.

I would like to have some vaccinations and not others so that would be a reason to stagger.

If my children were to react to a vaccination I would like to know which vaccination had caused the reaction. Again a reason to stagger.

Unfortunately it is pretty much impossible to stagger on the NHS these days (it was very easily done until the wP was replaced with the aP a few years ago).

I was refering to the Al risk in general, not specifically MMR. The point still stands. If the Al risks were so widespread and well known (if unproven) someone somewhere would be peddling separate vaccinations, would they not?

How can it matter if the disease enters via the nose or through the muscle? How can this attenuate the seriousness of an infection? The barriers in the body are there to prevent the infection getting in. Once in and established, the immune system is working pretty hard to contain and eliminate the foriegn body. With a dead or attenuated virus, the infection never (or very rarely with some vaccines) gets hold. But I'm sure you know all this anyway.

There are plenty of studies on both the saftey of tap water AND vaccines. In both sets of studies there will be estimates of certain parameters. So nothing concrete in any of them really. Perhaps you'd advise not drinking tap water? If I am in no position to say how safe vaccinations are, you are cerainly in no position to say how unsafe they are....oh, wait, you never get as far as that do you? I'll paraphrase for you: 'I think this is a concern' 'the studies are not concrete' 'x expresses doubt'...and so on in several hundred different threads on these boards. I add them all up and think to myself, here is someone who is basically saying vaccines are unsafe and advising not to use them in all and everyway she can without actually saying so. Sneaky, eh?

The crank assertion: I gave you some examples of crank GPs - to be more explicit, I could define them as doctors who stick to unscientific and out-dated behaviours. Your highly esteemed "doctor" is just such a one. He was there, spreading unease over the MMR/autism in the aftermath of the Wakefield report and its subsequent rubbishing...and making money out of it no less. And when the evidence shows Al in vaccines to be safe, there he is spinning money by telling people to spread out vaccinations. As a simple GP, you could equally say HE is in no position to influence people to do this.

Oops, just realised the first sentence of the first post makes no sense (I have a tantruming toddler at my side...and still going). If Al were such a risk, people would want to combine vaccinations as much as possible. You should be campaigning for that. As it is, they only give a maximum of two jabs at once anyway. So, you're only proposing to spread out two vaccinations....I don't see the great advantage. You're only halving the dose.

Then why did you ask about people wanting to separate the MMR?

I'm sure you can read up about the role the mucous membranes play in the immune response yourself.

Was it the cochrane report that said that concluded that safety studies for the MMR were inadequate? It also seems to be the case for studies showing the effect of Al in vaccines.(see other thread)

I've already said on another thread that I would never advise anyone not to vaccinate, it's not my decision to make. I think it is important to look at all the information about vaccines not just the stuff that says 'of course they're safe, don't be silly'.

I thought 3 jabs were given at 4 months - 5-in-1, PCV and MenC.

I was specifically asking about Halvorsen which was why your other examples weren't really relevant. So your objection to Halvorsen is that he offers an alternative vaccine schedule to concerned parents? If single vaccines were offered on the NHS he wouldn't need to do that. I would have thought you would appreciate doctors who give parents who wouldn't otherwise give the MMR an opportunity to have their children vaccinated - the old 'herd immunity' argument etc.

As far as evidence showing that Al in vaccines is 'safe' - there's a whole thread going about that so if you'd like to link to that evidence it would be great. So far we've only really got studies comparing the amount of Al in vaccines and the 'safe' amount that can be taken orally.

There are two issues that are confused here. One about combining vaccines and the overloading the immue system, the other about Al. The MMR comment I made was in relation to overloading the immune system. Though, confusingly, I mentioned the two side-by-side.

I only know about vaccines in France. DS has only ever had a max of two at once.

I know what I need to about immunity - you're talking about barriers to infection. You should compare like-with-like: an infection with a vaccination.

And that old chestnut, the Cochrane report - perhaps Jimjams would enlighten us?

Every time you post your 'concerns' on a public forum, there's a chance someone reads it and thinks, 'oh, it's all a bit risky isn't it. I better not vaccinate'. Do you think of the effect you have on readers? Do you not think the slough of pro-vaxers on here is simply a reaction to your stance - trying to balance the argument a bit, bring in a bit of common sense?

Why are parents concerned about MMR?

Any doctor worth their salt knows that separating out the three jabs leads to a great many children only partially vaccinated. By offering all three, everyone will think there really IS a danger in the combined jab. And I disagree with you - it's not a choice of non-vaccinated kids or single jabs. Most people would, in the end, choose to vaccinate even if they would prefer separate vaccines. Thankfully, very few dare go 'natural'. They do realise it is to protect their own offspring (I personally see herd immunity as a postive side effect of vaccination, not the goal. I paraphrase something said in a ethics paper about vaccinations, 'if not in the interests of the individual it cannot be for the greater good' or words to that effect).