New Vaccine to cover for the old?
@OpinionatedLady (5965)
United States
February 26, 2010 9:07am CST
I read an article about Pfizer's new vaccine for infants. Now I have no problem protecting my kids when needed but this article made me wonder. It states that the new vaccine was needed because the strands the old one protected babies from had become immune to the original (or at least the one in use) vaccine. I have to ask how safe is this trend. Vaccines becoming more and more potent to fight off "bugs" that have become stronger and stronger. Will this not just perpetuate the situation? I have lost some faith in these companies ans it seems this came out just when Pfizer is struggling from losses and I lost faith in the FDA even longer ago, so part of me questions if it is even needed or is it another Piggy flu scam being blown out of proportion? Thoughts any one?
1 person likes this
3 responses
@missliss08 (766)
• United States
27 Feb 10
My kids take all the recommended vaccines, except for Prevnar, the one mentioned in the article. Why? When it first came out my son was an infant. It was brand new, and they were unsure of the long term effects of it. Matter of fact it was so new that they didn't really know much about it at all. After that I just always refused it. I have not personally seen any need, or reason to give that one. And you do raise an interesting question. If we continue to keep making vaccines for illnesses that may not be completely necessary, are we causing a bigger problem, than if we just let people get sick once in a while. Sickness is not necessarily a bad thing. Your body is given the chance to let its own immune system take care of it if it can, and build immunity in the process. I work in the medical field, and I think a lot of the things they do are to increase profits, and maybe not necessarily what is best for the whole.
@OpinionatedLady (5965)
• United States
1 Mar 10
That is very interesting. I was wondering if their where other reasons for you not getting that one in particular? I stay away from certain ones as several people in my family have had bad reactions to these one having her mental capabilities stunted at age 5. she is 47 years old and has the mentality of a five year old. It is a very scary thought.
@Hatley (163772)
• Garden Grove, California
26 Feb 10
hi opinionatedlady well I thought the whole idea is to protect the infants from disease and if the new vaccine will do that, what the heck is the problem? I am not an immunologist and I assume you are not either so would you not follow the directions of a person trained in that medical field? I think it is very safe and surely a lot safer than leaving an infant not protected because you think that they do not know what they are doing. I am a lay person and I have to trust the medical officials to know what they are doing as I have not the expertise to prove them wrong or right. I still think the medical people do a damned good job if you ask me. I really do not think it is a scam. I am
totally turned off people running down doctors and nurses here in mylot.That is of course my own opinion but I do have the right to have it and to have it respected.
@celticeagle (189927)
• Boise, Idaho
27 Feb 10
This is all normal. Just the way it works for the most part. I don't have much faith in any institution now days. I think alot of it is how do you feel about it and do you want to have your baby get it. Period. You either do or you don't. The poor kid has to get alot of must have immunizations anyway and alot of these illnesses are rare anyway unless you are in an area that there is a definite break out.
