Vaccine Discussion Master Thread

[frenchfries]

For what benefit?

Because if I have the option of injecting something into my 0-day-old vs. my 1-month old I'll go with the latter. What's not to get?

[BlueCorner]

I understand individuals choosing to not go along with that. What I don't understand is those individuals craving some sort of validation, and trying to convince others to do the same.
If you believe in herd immunity, but want the best of both because with herd immunity you don't need to vaccinate your kid, shut up about it so herd immunity remains.

I assume you are referring to people in general and you're not attacking me, right?

Where do you explore the if? Maybe I missed a post, but I didn't see a reason why you think they go against each other.

Fair enough question. The way I see it is that an immunization itself = a net negative. The vaccine alone can cause side effects (mild or serious is an impossible question to get a straight answer to). Now that negative can easily become a positive IF there are valid reasons to take it (like to prevent a disease).

The burden of proof (to change it from the baseline "negative" into a "positive") is on you (or not you per se, but the medical community who's guidelines say to get the Hep B vax within 24 hours).

I have yet to understand why it is a good idea to give a vaccine to a actual newborn to prevent a disease that is literally impossible to get (based on the conditions I outlined above). I'm not trying to bash anyone or take an anti-vax stance, I'm just genuinely struggling to understand the point of getting this vaccine, especially the minute the baby is born (notwithstanding herd immunity). Again, the burden of proof is not on me when I ask - "what is the benefit of giving my newborn a vaccine for something that is of zero risk to him/her?"

We know that the whole I do my own research things is a bunch of bunk because it always ends with cherry picked misinterpreted data. Most of the time it is data presented by people with an agenda. Either way, very few are truly equipped to do any research that gets close to adequate.

I didn't mean to literally go and read every piece of literature out there. I meant to educate myself and every vaccine, the disease it prevents, how effective it is, and the likelihood of side effects.
For this particular vax, even using the data from the PRO-VAX side, I still come out with no clear reason why they rec you give it in the hospital....

[BlueCorner]

For what benefit?

The burden of proof is on you. Not the other way around.

Those who rec giving it to a newborn need to articulate why it should be given so young (if at all...). And why specifically this vax is SOOO important that it can't wait a few months like the rest of them (which to me seem far more urgent - e.g. dtap)

[Moshe Green]

...
I have yet to understand why it is a good idea to give a vaccine to a actual newborn to prevent a disease that is literally impossible to get (based on the conditions I outlined above). I'm not trying to bash anyone or take an anti-vax stance, I'm just genuinely struggling to understand the point of getting this vaccine, especially the minute the baby is born (notwithstanding herd immunity). Again, the burden of proof is not on me when I ask - "what is the benefit of giving my newborn a vaccine for something that is of zero risk to him/her?"
I didn't mean to literally go and read every piece of literature out there. I meant to educate myself and every vaccine, the disease it prevents, how effective it is, and the likelihood of side effects.
...

My mother-in-law is actually a nurse for Tipat Chalav (that gives vaccines to infants/children) and the most normal woman you can imagine. She actually did do the research. She did not give every vaccine to her children that the government has for kids. Some are for se*ually transmitted diseases or other such stuff and we who don't generally suffer from such issues have no reason to get the vaccine. There is 0 reason not to be skeptical about what the government is mandating to be put into your veins after they've been proven incompetent (at best) so many times. I'm not even going into Big Pharma and corruption.

On the other hand. Once the vaccine is proven over many years of its success, then those those that want to prevent the Oilum from getting it are now required to prove why it should NOT be taken...

[skyguy918]

Do you have children? If yes, did each of them get the Hep B vaccine in the hospital, at a later date, or not at all?

[imayid2]

For this particular vax, even using the data from the PRO-VAX side, I still come out with no clear reason why they rec you give it in the hospital....

Part of reason seems to be due to the possibility of errors is the mothers lab reports:

https://beta.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5416a1.htm

Even when maternal HBsAg testing does occur, certain infants of HBsAg-positive mothers do not receive postexposure immunoprophylaxis because of testing errors and lapses in reporting of test results (13)

[Jack Last]

Even when maternal HBsAg testing does occur, certain infants of HBsAg-positive mothers do not receive postexposure immunoprophylaxis because of testing errors and lapses in reporting of test results (13)

In the vast expanse of biomedical discourse, vaccines emerge as a quintessential embodiment of immunological symbiosis, eliciting a profound interplay between pathogenic deterrence and the expansive tapestry of host resilience. These prophylactic agents, meticulously engineered through the dexterous manipulation of antigenic epitopes, evoke an intricate cascade of adaptive immune responses, thus catalyzing a pivotal metamorphosis within the immunological milieu.

The philosophical ramifications of such interventions posit vaccines not merely as biological entities, but as harbingers of existential deliberation on health stewardship and collective wellbeing. They challenge our ontological inquiries into the nature of autonomy vis-à-vis communal responsibility, rendering a nuanced dialectic on the epistemology of informed consent and ethical implications therein. In essence, the very act of vaccination transcends mere medical intervention; it is a manifestation of humanity's perennial quest for equilibrium between individual liberties and the overarching moral imperative to safeguard societal health against the vicissitudes of contagion.

I think this more or less sums things up...

[Euclid]

In the vast expanse of biomedical discourse, vaccines emerge as a quintessential embodiment of immunological symbiosis, eliciting a profound interplay between pathogenic deterrence and the expansive tapestry of host resilience. These prophylactic agents, meticulously engineered through the dexterous manipulation of antigenic epitopes, evoke an intricate cascade of adaptive immune responses, thus catalyzing a pivotal metamorphosis within the immunological milieu.

The philosophical ramifications of such interventions posit vaccines not merely as biological entities, but as harbingers of existential deliberation on health stewardship and collective wellbeing. They challenge our ontological inquiries into the nature of autonomy vis-à-vis communal responsibility, rendering a nuanced dialectic on the epistemology of informed consent and ethical implications therein. In essence, the very act of vaccination transcends mere medical intervention; it is a manifestation of humanity's perennial quest for equilibrium between individual liberties and the overarching moral imperative to safeguard societal health against the vicissitudes of contagion.

I think this more or less sums things up...

What's the source of this? Rule 21?

[yfr bachur]

Fair enough question. The way I see it is that an immunization itself = a net negative. The vaccine alone can cause side effects (mild or serious is an impossible question to get a straight answer to). Now that negative can easily become a positive IF there are valid reasons to take it (like to prevent a disease).

?
Not sure why you would say that.

It's one thing if people who are super careful about whatever they put in their bodies - meds, foods, electronic waves etc... start to get all upty about "hashem yereachem, what they put in the vaccines"... but regular people who ingest whatever the FDA approves as "foodsafe"?
There's likely more heavy metals in your meals in a week than there is in the vaccine (statistic with no source, it may be just one can of tuna), and prob more nasty chemicals in all the chinese candy that you kid will eat too. (OK, some of this is changing with RFKs FDA reforms, but you get the drift)

I don't get this "but he's so small/new/etc" for a newborn, what changes in the short amount of time til he gets to be a month old?

On the other hand, I applaud you not just being a sheep. I would suggest that you ask an experienced pediatrician what they would do for their own kids.

[yfr bachur]

What's the source of this? Rule 21?

Rule 21 may help us understand what it says 

[aygart]

On the other hand, I applaud you not just being a sheep.

Sheep of a different shepherd

[BlueCorner]

?
Not sure why you would say that.

It's one thing if people who are super careful about whatever they put in their bodies - meds, foods, electronic waves etc... start to get all upty about "hashem yereachem, what they put in the vaccines"... but regular people who ingest whatever the FDA approves as "foodsafe"?
There's likely more heavy metals in your meals in a week than there is in the vaccine (statistic with no source, it may be just one can of tuna, but you get the point), and more nasty chemicals in all the chinese candy that you kid will eat too. (OK, some of this is changing with RFKs FDA reforms, but you get the drift)

I don't get this "but he's so small/new/etc" for a newborn, what changes in the short amount of time til he gets to be a month old?

On the other hand, I applaud you not just being a sheep. I would suggest that you ask an experienced pediatrician what they would do for their own kids.

I hear your point, but to be fair, yes, I wouldn't give a newborn "meds, foods, electronic waves, tuna, or Chinese candy".

I know that sounds silly, but that's my point exactly. Why is it necessary to give a (unnecessary) vax to a newborn who can't even handle plain water in a bottle?

[yfr bachur]

I hear your point, but to be fair, yes, I wouldn't give a newborn "meds, foods, electronic waves, tuna, or Chinese candy".

But your wife puts it in hers, and therefore in the baby...

[BlueCorner]

But your wife puts it in hers, and therefore in the baby...

Interesting point, and what your saying is true, but it still doesn't answer my question head on

[yfr bachur]

Interesting point, and what your saying is true, but it still doesn't answer my question head on

didn't say it did.
My parents def turned down some vaccines, (especially the ones that aren't relevant for a good bais yaakov girl, but honestly in todays dor, I'm not sure that that would be the most prudent thing to push as standard for Anshei Shlumainu).
My wife feels as you, and refuses the HepB after birth. (And I ain't fighting with a woman after she gives birth)

As one of my rebbeim used to say

It's a sugya. like everything else.

You need to find a rav and/or doctor who you trust to help you work this out.

If you are really looking for the sechel hayashar, you'd do best to stay away from extremes to either direction.

[mevinyavin]

Vaccines are a sugya that often are motzi the meshugoyim on both tzedadim, but lechora, aderabeh, neither tzad is punkt.

FTFY

[mevinyavin]

Very few are truly equipped to do any research that gets close to adequate.

It is next to impossible to argue with feelings. It is highly unlikely that I will ever be privy to enough information to make an informed decision, and the same goes for almost everyone here, I'm sure.

[Excalibur]

https://www.artscroll.com/Items.aspx?hierId=NIA&srsltid=AfmBOooHumC8V2s0U17_PpGLL2sX-8ZPpy4tfyZWEz-Be8wPW2hVkHr0

Does anyone know what volume of nishmat Avraham should have coverage of vaccines?