- advertisement -

Vaccines

Discussion in 'Parents of Children with Type 1' started by monkeyschool, Jun 8, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. monkeyschool

    monkeyschool Approved members

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2011
    Messages:
    526
    I am curious if those of you who had kiddos dx around their early teens and had no symptoms of a virus prior to dx had recently taken your kids for their vaccines.

    The kids have their physicals today and I just realized that DD12 had the shots at our last visit shortly before she started showing symptoms.

    D.
     
  2. miss_behave

    miss_behave Approved members

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2006
    Messages:
    2,217
    Many studies have shown that there is no link between vaccinations and the development of Type 1 diabetes. A quick google search will find them if you want to read them. Be warned, this is a VERY heated topic on these forums. Lets hope we can keep it civil :cwds:
     
  3. momof2greatkids

    momof2greatkids Approved members

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2011
    Messages:
    256
    My DD was diagnosed a month before turning 11. She had gotten a flu shot about 2 1/2 months before - same as she did every fall. Other than that, she hadn't had any vaccinations anytime close to that. She hadn't been sick at all in the previous 6 - 9 months - not even a cough or a cold. There was absolutely nothing out of the ordinary that happened in the fall that I can think of it that might have triggered it. I guess it was just D's time to show up in her life.

    When we were in the hospital, they were running around like crazy because they had four other kids just diagnosed and in at the same time. They said that was unheard of - they typically have one or two a week.
     
  4. swimmom

    swimmom Approved members

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2007
    Messages:
    647
    There may be a contemporaneous relationship between 2 events without there being a causal effect. There is no evidence that vaccines cause diabetes. There is ample evidence that unvaccinated children pose a health risk to others.
     
    Last edited: Jun 8, 2011
  5. Luke's Mom

    Luke's Mom Approved members

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    Messages:
    23
    My son was diagnosed six months after getting the Hepatitis A vaccine ... I always wondered about this as well ....
     
  6. BrokenPancreas

    BrokenPancreas Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2009
    Messages:
    1,517
    I go back and forth.

    It does say right on the MMR vaccine, that Type One disease is a possible side effect. So, in that case, I think the doctor should inquire if there is a strong family history of Type One.. If so, then I wouldn't have let her have it.
     
  7. Becky Stevens mom

    Becky Stevens mom Approved members

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2008
    Messages:
    8,719
    Im not sure what vaccines an early teen would get:confused: My older, non-d son was vaccinated for meningitis at his last checkup when he had just turned 12. Steven did have a virus approx 6 weeks before diagnosis and had been put on antibiotics for a sinus infection. He hadnt had any vaccines shortly before diagnosis
     
  8. monkeyschool

    monkeyschool Approved members

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2011
    Messages:
    526
    Just to be clear...I am not saying the vaccines 'cause' T1D.... I am trying to ascertain if they may be a trigger in the absence of another virus.

    My train of thought is that if we suspect a virus may be a trigger, a vaccine may contain a live virus, in the absence of a virus in he body, is the vaccine sufficient to be a trigger.

    Not disputing vaccines are or are not needed, etc and with the understanding that if DD didn't get a vaccine a cold may have triggered her T1D a week later.....can a virus contained in a vaccine be sufficient of a trigger.

    I am curious if anyone else here (not on google, but a live person sitting behind their keyboard at the present time) had vaccines just prior to DX and their kids had no other signs/symptoms of a virus.

    Thank you again
    D.
     
  9. Amy C.

    Amy C. Approved members

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2005
    Messages:
    5,560
    Just about everyone was vaccined before being dx'd with diabetes, some a long time ago, others more recently.

    Casual observations don't mean a whole lot in trying to determine the cause of type 1 diabetes.
     
  10. Christopher

    Christopher Approved members

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2007
    Messages:
    6,771
    What people are trying to tell you is that even if someone came on here and said "Yes! My child had a vaccine and then a week later they developed Type 1 diabetes!" it is not going to prove anything. There are too many other variables and too many other factors to be able to come to any meaningful conclusions.
     
  11. hawkeyegirl

    hawkeyegirl Approved members

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2007
    Messages:
    13,157
    This is not accurate. Vaccine manufacturers are required to list ALL adverse events that occur around the time of vaccination. So if someone gets a headache after the vaccine, that goes on there. Same for strep throat, watery eyes, a rash, or type 1 diabetes. It does NOT mean that there is any evidence of causation. Just that at least one child contracted type 1 around the same time they received the MMR. (My child was diagnosed right after Halloween. That doesn't mean he got type 1 from eating too much candy, however.)

    None of the studies that have been done show any link between MMR (or any other vaccine) and type 1.
     
  12. Lisa P.

    Lisa P. Approved members

    Joined:
    May 19, 2008
    Messages:
    5,380
    No, I don't think that's why. It was a theory put out here by a member but I believe it was simple speculation, not solid knowledge of the processes.

    I think the reason why the MMR vaccine has a warning is that either measles or mumps (I can't remember which) infection has shown some correlation somewhere with higher incidence of Type 1. Nothing says the vaccine is correlated with higher T1, and so there's no way to know if the vaccine could trigger T1 or actually prevent T1 instead in someone who would later run into the disease itself.

    To the OP, sorry, can't answer your question because Selah was 4. :)
     
    Last edited: Jun 8, 2011
  13. hawkeyegirl

    hawkeyegirl Approved members

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2007
    Messages:
    13,157
    I think your speculation that it was simple speculation is speculation. The member who put out that "theory" is an M.D. who does have knowledge of the processes.

    ETA: The package insert ITSELF says "without regard to casuality." I'm not sure how it can get more clear than that.

    I have absolutely no knowledge about the evidence or lack thereof regarding mumps/measles themselves triggering type 1, and I won't comment on that. But I stand by my initial assertion that there is NO evidence that type 1 is a "side effect" of the MMR vaccine.
     
    Last edited: Jun 8, 2011
  14. Flutterby

    Flutterby Approved members

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2006
    Messages:
    14,623

    You do realize that when then do the studies on the vaccines that they have to report every little thing that happens.. If someone gets a headache, gets the flu, or a cold, a broken toenail or a hang nail, they have to report it even if it had nothing to do with the vaccines. Someone developed type 1 after they got their vaccine, so they MUST report it. It doesn't mean its a cause of it. I can't even find it listed anywhere.

     
  15. Flutterby

    Flutterby Approved members

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2006
    Messages:
    14,623
    mumps and rubella infections (not vaccines). This was back in 1978..
    I also found this..

    Taken from http://www.consumerreports.org/heal...ention/what-works/is-the-mmr-vaccine-safe.htm
     
    Last edited: Jun 8, 2011
  16. Lisa P.

    Lisa P. Approved members

    Joined:
    May 19, 2008
    Messages:
    5,380
    My memory of the original post positing the possibility of the "he stubbed his toe after getting the vaccine so it has to be on the insert" theory was that the posting member (whose identity I apparently am remembering incorrectly) was speculating and had no direct knowledge of the MMR vaccine insert.

    If he/she had a direct knowledge of the regulation of insert warnings, that gives his/her speculation credibility. It's still speculation, not fact.

    The words "without regard to casuality" hardly definitively mean that the manufacturers believe the MMR does not cause Type 1. They are simply stating that by including this warning they are not claiming a cause and effect relationship, which makes sense since if they did they'd be lawsuited out of business if they did, whether the vaccine had any connection with Type 1 or not. It's lawyer language. Clearly.

    Look, I tried to phrase my post very simply, I made it clear that there is no evidence that the MMR itself causes Type 1, but I'm not going to sit here and let people be told the warning label on the insert inside the vaccine packaging itself is definitively meaningless.

    No one knows, we're all guessing in the dark. There is some evidence that viruses can trigger Type 1. It may be wrong. There is some evidence that the viruses innoculated against in MMR can trigger Type 1. It may be wrong. There is no evidence -- meaning studies or surveys, etc. -- that the MMR triggers Type 1, certainly none that it "causes" it. But that doesn't mean it doesn't, because the absence of evidence is no proof, either. There is no evidence that the MMR vaccine protects against the triggering of Type 1 from a virus later. But that doesn't mean it doesn't, because the absence of evidence is no proof, either.

    I'm great with having it pointed out that the warnings on medicines aren't necessarily a sign of direct knowledge of a connection. I'm not great with it being stated as fact.


    Now, that said, it's pretty clear this is not going to be a thread about discussion, it's gonna be one of those "pick your side and defend it like a mamma bear with her cub and plug your ears against what anyone else might say that makes any sense" sorts of threads, so I've got one more post then have fun!
     
  17. Lisa P.

    Lisa P. Approved members

    Joined:
    May 19, 2008
    Messages:
    5,380
    Thanks for the information, I'm not sure there's not more but I'm not spending time googling on this beautiful day. I actually thought it was measles that had been linked. Personally, I suspect a viral trigger so I think the measles, mumps, and rubella only showed up because they were being looked at, I doubt they are anything special. And, like I've said, I have yet to see anyone give a good answer on whether if there is a trigger from one of those viruses it would be better or worse to vaccinate against it. I suspect there's no good way to know.

    Since the viruses haven't learned better since 1978 I'll figure if it was valid info then it's valid now. It would be hard to study this today since there are, like, 250 cases of rubella in the U.S. each year.


    Thanks for the info.

     
  18. hawkeyegirl

    hawkeyegirl Approved members

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2007
    Messages:
    13,157
    Holy crap.

    It is untrue that there is ANY evidence that type 1 is a "side effect" of the MMR vaccine. That was the post I was responding to originally in this thread, and I stand by my response to that post.

    I am not getting into it with you about what is a "fact" and what is not. I cannot, and never have been able to follow your logic, and your most recent post is no exception.

    I will say that we are not all "guessing in the dark." No study has shown a causual relationship between vaccines and type 1. To you, that means that they haven't done the "right" study yet. To me, that means that there is as much credible evidence showing a link between vaccines and type 1 as there is to show that eating too much Halloween candy caused my son's type 1.

    But, just so we're clear, I'll repeat my original point. It is untrue that there is ANY evidence that type 1 is a "side effect" of the MMR vaccine.
     
  19. Lisa P.

    Lisa P. Approved members

    Joined:
    May 19, 2008
    Messages:
    5,380
    This:

    "Vaccine manufacturers are required to list ALL adverse events that occur around the time of vaccination. So if someone gets a headache after the vaccine, that goes on there. Same for strep throat, watery eyes, a rash, or type 1 diabetes. It does NOT mean that there is any evidence of causation. Just that at least one child contracted type 1 around the same time they received the MMR."

    is not a known fact.
     
  20. Lisa P.

    Lisa P. Approved members

    Joined:
    May 19, 2008
    Messages:
    5,380
    This:

    is an untruth. I do not believe this, nor have I ever stated that this is the case.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

- advertisement -

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice