US News -- Slow Down Vaccines for Some Kids?

For more than a year now, in my talks, slide presentations, and interviews, I have been discussing the possibility that there may be a subset of genetically susceptible children who simply cannot handle the overstimulation of our rather crowded "one size fits all" vaccine schedule.

I have suggested trying to screen out children who might be most vulnerable to vaccine injury - including autism, as in the case of Hannah Poling and countless others like her - and devising a separate vaccine schedule for them. The goal is to get them immunized, but on a less intensive timetable.

Below are comments from health experts and medical journalist on this very subject. Virtually any one of these statements could have been made by me at one of my talks. But they weren't.

Can you try to guess who said these quotes? (Answers below) They were all admittedly "cherry picked" from a major vaccine series just out in US News and World Report:

Vaccines Get New Scrutiny
A Parents' Guide to Managing Vaccinations
A Government Call for Vaccine Research

Here are the quotes:

1) "The government is acknowledging that, at the moment, science doesn't know much about how many shots a kid can safely get at once and which children will be harmed."

2) "If we can show that individuals of a certain genetic profile have a greater propensity for developing adverse events, we may want to screen everyone prior to vaccination."

3) "These (vaccine) trials simply aren't big enough to detect rare events that only come to light after 1 million or more doses are distributed."

4) "The capacity of the young immune system to handle a sudden and concentrated exposure to the less benign antigens in vaccines needs further investigation, particularly with the flood of new vaccines on the horizon."

5) "The amount of mercury in one shot is very small, but scientists don't know how long it stays in a child's brain or whether it can accumulate over time."

6) "The CDC recommendations aren't set in stone; the agency advises doctors to 'explore acceptable options,' if that's what parents prefer."

7) "We'd like to know (before vaccinating) if there are particular markers that signal undetectable diseases like a subclinical mitochrondrial disorder."

8) "(We) recommend against vaccinating a child with moderate to severe illness; the definition of 'moderate to severe' depends on the doctor but usually includes a fever, hacking cough, diarrhea, or other acute symptoms."

9) "It may be wise to delay vaccines if your child has a minor cold or stomach bug."

10) "(We) propose comparisons of the immunologic and physiologic effects of different combinations of vaccines administered on different schedules."

11) "The one-size-fits-all vaccine schedule has served the public well but has yet to be tested for optimal efficacy and safety."

(ANSWERS:)

1) Deborah Kotz, Senior Editor, Health Section, US News Magazine

2) Dr. Anthony Fauci, Director, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases,

3) Dr. John Iskander, Associate Director for Immunization Safety, CDC

4) Dr. Bernadine Healy, Medical Editor, US News, Former Director of NIH

5) Dr. Tom Burbacher, Professor at the University of Washington (Source: US News)

6) Deborah Kotz, Senior Editor, Health Section, US News Magazine

7) Dr. Anthony Fauci, Director, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases,

8) American Academy of Pediatrics (Source: US News)

9) Robert Naviaux, Associate Professor of Medicine and Pediatrics at the University of California-San Diego School of Medicine

10) National Institutes of Health (Source: US News)

11) Dr. Bernadine Healy, Medical Editor, US News, Former Director of NIH

 

Comments

[camsmom]

I would like to stress that these vaccines have not been proven safe for anybody. There are no long term studies on side effects. If you look at the current health of American's - what a disaster. I would say our current medical system including vaccines is a huge failure.

Why aren't health insurance companies, jumping up and down about all these kids with autism seriously cutting into their profits. The insurance companies are paying for the dirty vaccines and cleaning up the damage afterwards. I guess the insurance lobbyists aren't as good as pharma's. What a shame.

[ObjectiveAutismDad]

Insurance companies are just starting to feel the pain. Previously if you had a diagnosis of autism you just didn't much of anything covered -- because there's no cure, so why bother (and this is why many got alternative diagnoses -- like static encephalopathy). Now businesses and the state governments are starting to require that certain things be covered and I think this is critical; when the insurance companies start to feel the pain we'll have an allay that has enough $ to compete with big pharma.

[martalli]

I am sorry, but no one can claim that vaccines are 100% safe. However, do you think that diptheria and measles are 100% safe? Do you believe that rubella infection during pregnancy is 100% safe? Do you think that pertussis infections in infants are negligible, or that tetanus does not cause lockjaw?

These infections have not been eradicated. With only a short lapse in nationwide vaccinations, Russia experienced large diptheria outbreaks with 150,000 cases and 4,000 deaths. That´s about a 2.5% mortality rate.

I do not want to complain that vaccines are perfectly safe. In fact, I believe that something like nationally/internationally mandated vaccines should be very closely studied, with continuing efforts to improve the vaccines. However, we also need to keep in mind that many of these illnesses are serious, even life threatening.

[AutismNewsBeat]

I'm surprised insurance companies aren't more concerned about being scammed into paying for unproven and ineffective alternative treatments. Health care fraud is an $80 billion a year racket in the US, and the bad guys know about autism.

[Gatogorra]

Thank you for staying on this issue, David.

Our out-of-pocket testing for mitochondrial soft markers was probably a few hundred dollars. That's a fraction of what it's cost to care for vaccine injured twins, and they're still tykes. Insurance covered the tests that discovered our son's so-called "transient hypogammaglobulinemia of infancy"-- also regarded by some as a risk factor.

It would have been free if our ped had ever asked if there was a history of autoimmune disorders in the family before vaccinating our kids, free if he'd warned us about the glutathione-reducing qualities of Tylenol and free if he'd asked if the kids were sick at the time of the shots.

[BlackJAC]

And how much would said genetic screening cost to perform?

[ObjectiveAutismDad]

I doubt anyone knows the answer to that question. However, it would certainly cost considerably less to have ALL children tested than it will cost for 1% of them to be incapacitated for the rest of their lives.

Estimates are the it will cost over a million dollars (I can't remember the exact figure, but it was into the 7 figure range) to care for a child with autism for the rest of their life. At that rate even if the test cost $10,000 you're saving money. BUT, money isn't the only issue. The cost of caring for a child is insignificant when compared to the loss of that child's quality of life.

David, as always, thanks again for keeping us up to date.

[BlackJAC]

It's a legitimate question, trooper, for practicality often is the deciding factor in implementing good ideas.

[fluvaccinedamagedmom]

I would guess the bill would be much less than the $140,000 my insurance company spent trying to keep me from dying from the flu shot. Or the thousands since then trying to get me well. I would pay whatever cost to keep my children safe from the pain and suffering I live with since my shot in 2005.

[CraigWilloughby]

How much does it cost to raise an autistic child?

[BlackJAC]

Self-righteous posturing does not solve problems, regardless of what AM talk radio may suggest. In fact, it actually turns people off to those problems.

Asking about such a test's practicality is valid. A high price tag could keep it out of the reach of the poor, for genetic defects don't recognize social strata and nobody's asked if every health insurance company or even plan would cover it. Too long a turnaround time for results, and people may decide to skip it altogether. And if the test comes back positive for the defect in question, can gene therapy correct it? Too often these things can be much more complex than the first glance suggests.