Home > Expert Insights, Preventable Diseases, Science & Research > Finding the Silver Lining in Delayed Vaccination

Finding the Silver Lining in Delayed Vaccination

A new study, released in Pediatrics last week, examined medical records for 97,711 children from Oregon and noted a concerning trend among parents there.  There has been an almost four-fold increase between 2006 and 2009 in the percentage of parents who delayed or skipped vaccinations, with the results showing that the number of babies on alternative schedules grew from 2.5% in 2006 to 9.5% in 2009.

The concern is that

 “By delaying certain vaccinations, parents may be putting their children — and those of others — at a far greater risk of contracting deadly diseases, such as pneumonia and pertussis….”

The study showed that

“despite going to the doctor’s office more, those babies got fewer shots overall compared with those whose parents stuck to the recommended schedule.”

And the long-term impact of an alternative schedule illustrates that the delayed vaccines are often too little, too late.

  While many people who limit shots or follow ‘alternative’ vaccine schedules plan to eventually get all the shots, many don’t follow through, according to the study. By 9 months, infants whose parents were ‘shot limiters’ had an average of 6.4 injections, compared to 10.4 injections for kids whose parents adhere to the schedule, the study found. Followed to 19 months, the children of ‘shot limiters’ still hadn’t caught up, and were less likely to be vaccinated against chicken pox, measles-mumps-rubella and hepatitis A.”

While there were several other articles that reported on the results of this survey, none of them were very encouraging.

But I’m typically a glass-half-full kind of person, so I got to thinking…

 Where is the silver lining here?  What hope is there?

And I realized something very important.

Despite the fact that we are seeing more parents utilizing alternative vaccination schedules, the fact of the matter is that these parents ARE still vaccinating. 

Thankfully, “shot-limiters”, as they are defined in this study, differ dramatically from those who completely reject vaccines.  These parents may have some concerns, but they recognize the benefits of vaccines and they are making the decision to immunize their children.

Too Many Shots Per Visit

Some parents prefer to administer one vaccine at a time so that they can monitor their child for potential reactions.  While this sounds reasonable, the survey results illustrate that parents often fail to return to the doctor in a timely manner to ensure their child receives missed immunizations, leaving their child unprotected at the exact time when these diseases are the most dangerous for their children.  The recommended schedule is not only designed to maximize the time spent at well visits, and limit the need for parents to make additional trips to the doctor, there are also special considerations given to the age at which children need protection, as well as how long it takes to complete each vaccination series in order to provide a child with their best chance at immunity.

Too Many Shots Too Soon vs. The Importance of Timing

Some parents delay vaccines because they worry that their child’s immune system is not prepared to handle the shots when they are yound and they want to wait until their child is older.  Again, this may sound logical, but experts assure us that the immune responses elicited by vaccines – even if there are multiple shots administered in one day – are miniscule in comparison to the  attacks on an infant’s immune system during the course of a normal day just playing at home.   The Vaccinate Your Baby website addresses this concern as follows:

“While children are receiving more immunizations by the age of two, they are actually receiving less antigens, or bits of the vaccine that would challenge the immune system. Overall numbers of antigens have fallen from about 3,041 in 1980 to approximately 153 today. Compare this number to the trillions of bacteria infants are exposed to, and form an immune response against, the moment they are born. Babies’ immune systems are well-equipped to handle not only those bacteria but many more additional, external threats.”

Alternative Schedules Chosen out of Fear, Not Fact

Parents often utilize alternative schedules in an effort to try to minimize perceived risks.  Perhaps parents feel this provides them with some kind of control over something they feel they otherwise would have no control over – their child’s immune response.  However, all too often, there are people (even sadly some doctors, like Dr. Bob Sears) who validate these parental concerns, suggest that alternative schedules are safe (though untested) and then neglect to properly educate parents about the additional risk they subject their children to.

We need to focus our efforts on identifying effective communication techniques that can help parents understand that  (1) the recommended schedule is safe for their children, (2) their actions are not providing any real benefit, and (3) their choice to delay is only adding to their child’s risk.

We would love to hear from parents, doctors, nurses and public health experts who have been successful in altering the perceptions of concerned parents so that they are comfortable adhering to the recommended schedule or catching up after once believing it was best to delay.  By sharing your comments, suggestions and insights you will not only help others who are tasked with these communication challenges, but you may also influence readers who are currently considering an alternative schedule.   Parents can also view the videos available on Vaccinate Your Baby that ask experts to address many of these parental concerns. 

  1. Lara Lohne
    June 26, 2012 at 5:55 pm

    My son’s vaccinations were delayed, not because I chose to delay, but due to financial constraint and lack of medical coverage for him, until he was over two and a half years. During that time, while I was trying to focus on my family’s survival through our financial struggles, I was also constantly aware of how at risk my son was of becoming infected. He didn’t have much contact with other people though so he rarely was sick during that time, even when I came down with a flu that laid me low for a week, and my partner for 4 days, my son didn’t get sick at all.

    Once my state developed a medicaid program for uninsured children, even when their parents were making too much to qualify for regular medicaid, I got my son coverage. By this time is was pretty plan he was not developing normally, and we took him for evaluation which showed significant developmental delays and qualified him for the Early Intervention program. In the 5 months before he turned 3, we took him to the county health clinic which we were referred to and were able to get all his immunizations current to enable him to begin the early childhood special education preschool program, which required full vaccination. This was also when they began the evaluation for autism, which came back as positive for ASD.

    He is still fully vaccinated and still has autism, and still covered with better coverage then he originally had through medicaid because he has a developmental disability which requires therapies to address and help him overcome certain aspects of his autism. He begins kindergarten in September and will be in a class with neurotypical peers.

    Delaying happened in my sons case, but not by choice. But to a degree I am glad that his vaccines were delayed because it has allowed me to stay firm in my vaccine advocacy, even though he developed autism. Since he didn’t get vaccines until well after his development was showing delay, I know vaccines didn’t cause his autism. At the same time I am hugely relieved that he is fully vaccinated now simply because he is going to be coming into contact with many other children then he previously had contact with and who knows what their vaccine status will be. I can rest easy knowing I’ve protected him the best that science is able to currently, because when a child with autism gets sick, which rarely happens in my son’s case, everything that bothers, annoys or pains them is magnified significantly. I don’t even want to imagine if he got chicken pox. With him vaccinated, His chances of catching something are significantly lowered and now I don’t need to concern myself with his running out into the street to try and catch the spinning tires he is so enamored of.

    Like

  2. Lara Lohne
    June 26, 2012 at 5:57 pm

    Lara Lohne :
    and now I don’t need to concern myself with his running out into the street to try and catch the spinning tires he is so enamored of.

    That should read, “and now I ONLY need to concern myself…” Sorry about that hehe.

    Like

  3. lilady
    June 27, 2012 at 3:04 am

    I worked as a public health nurse in the Division of Communicable Disease Control in a County Health Department in a heavily populated suburb (1.2 million residents). I also work in the health department satellite clinics.

    Throughout my public health career I worked in various sections, including the Immunization Action Program. The three nurses assigned to that section were constantly on the phone answering questions from “concerned” parents about some…or all..of the Recommended Childhood Vaccines. We provided the answers to allay parents’ fears or concerns, the Vaccine Information Sheets and our States’ Fact Sheets for each of the vaccine-preventable diseases. We also guided parents to reliable websites such for additional information.

    Quite often we would get calls from pregnant women who had some questions about immunizations. They too, received all the accurate information from nursing staff. If parents or expectant moms did not have access to the internet, I would mail all the current Vaccine Information Sheets to them, along with my business card and a note urging them to call if they needed more information.

    I’ve stated on this blog, and on other science blogs, that I think it would be a great idea to provide expectant parents with a packet of the current Vaccine Information Sheets and the phone number of the County Health Department, for access to a nurse, to answer questions about immunizations. I think the expectant women’s OB providers would be amenable to providing the packets…especially if the packets are provided to them, free of charge.

    Like

  4. June 27, 2012 at 1:47 pm

    lilady :
    I worked as a public health nurse in the Division of Communicable Disease Control in a County Health Department in a heavily populated suburb (1.2 million residents). I also work in the health department satellite clinics.
    Throughout my public health career I worked in various sections, including the Immunization Action Program. The three nurses assigned to that section were constantly on the phone answering questions from “concerned” parents about some…or all..of the Recommended Childhood Vaccines. We provided the answers to allay parents’ fears or concerns, the Vaccine Information Sheets and our States’ Fact Sheets for each of the vaccine-preventable diseases. We also guided parents to reliable websites such for additional information.
    Quite often we would get calls from pregnant women who had some questions about immunizations. They too, received all the accurate information from nursing staff. If parents or expectant moms did not have access to the internet, I would mail all the current Vaccine Information Sheets to them, along with my business card and a note urging them to call if they needed more information.
    I’ve stated on this blog, and on other science blogs, that I think it would be a great idea to provide expectant parents with a packet of the current Vaccine Information Sheets and the phone number of the County Health Department, for access to a nurse, to answer questions about immunizations. I think the expectant women’s OB providers would be amenable to providing the packets…especially if the packets are provided to them, free of charge.

    I agree with Lilady. The many prenatal visits that an expectanct mother makes during a pregnancy presents a tremendous opportunity to intiate education on immunizations. Packets, vaccine ‘Hotlines’ with health professionals and websites are a great start. Immunizations should also be addressed in birth classes and parenting courses for expectant parents. The earlier parents are made aware of the importance of vaccines, the easier it will be to ward off the influence of misinformation.

    Like

  5. publichealthgal
    June 27, 2012 at 2:39 pm

    I’d love to see if physicans have explained to parents that they want the parent and child to have the full benefit of their best medical advice. Parents who are not “adament” about delaying may find it useful to consider that working out a deal to delay vaccinations is about the physician placating the parent by supporting their fear. While we all want to be heard and respected, few of us want to be placated by getting less-than-the-best because the parent is worried.

    Like

  6. lilady
    June 27, 2012 at 9:42 pm

    Hmmm, my suggestions about educating parents-to-be about immunizations, before delivery would be easy to implement, especially within public health clinics and HMOs where there is a continuum of care for moms and their babies.

    We have to be cognizant of the numbers of websites which lure expectant parents in. What could be *wrong* with an organization such as the National Vaccine Information Center? How about *well-meaning* moms and dads who hand out advice to expectant parents about delaying vaccines and alternative schedules (“too many, too soon”)…and other nonsense?

    Yes, yes…Melody RN…”The earlier parents are made aware of the importance of vaccines, the easier it will be to ward off the influence of misinformation.”

    Like

  7. Kelly
    June 28, 2012 at 11:34 am

    I was delighted to discover that British Columbia, Canada offers a “ask a question” and a “chat with a nurse” features on their vaccine information website (right side, about half way down). I haven’t used the service, but I think it is a brilliant idea to help address concerns of parents before they go for their immunization appointment.

    http://immunizebc.ca/

    Like

  8. Sharon
    June 28, 2012 at 12:07 pm

    Thank you all for your comments. For the past year and a half I have been a public health educator focusing on immunization education. The learning curve has been more like a straight line for me, as you can imagine. I organized some focus groups last spring, talking mostly with parents who are clients in our clinics and learned a lot about the gaps in vaccine ed…from people who are vaccinating their kids. Qualitative information even in this small big city backed up what I learned is true of many parents all over the country, such as that parents mostly want information from their providers, but in a 15-minute appointment, it is hard to get. What I was most stunned by, being new to this area of work, is how little vaccine information parents get in prenatal visits. As one parent put it, “They talk about birthing, breastfeeding and burping. If immunization is so important, why don’t they talk about it while you’re already thinking about everything your baby needs?” Lots going on in a prenatal appointment already, maybe?

    I’m putting together a packet with information for providers as well as their patients. I agree. Whether parents vaccinate without question or never will, and everything in between, if their decision is based on fear, it may not be the right one. I have some one-pagers for many types of parents (and their providers), including those who we don’t seem to talk about very much–teens, refugees and others who aren’t used to the US medical system, people who think all diseases come from some other country (and they don’t usually mention Europe), and those who just haven’t had reason to think about their child becoming very ill with some vaccine-preventable disease. Why would they? Anyway, when you put all those people together, it’s a lot of folks who need a public health response…to what they’re hearing and not hearing!

    Now I think something to add to the mix would be around alternate schedules. I can see how it sounds really good, especially if you’re just scared (heck, I stood outside the room when my baby got her shots) because what else is that decision based on? Another point this study you refer to mentions is that some unacceptable-to-public-health number of infants and young children started on an alternate schedule never catch up. I don’t think even providers realize that, so it’s good to see that data.

    I hope it’s obvious that I’m not talking about families whose children cannot be vaccinated for whatever reason.

    Thanks

    Like

  9. my3sons
    July 9, 2012 at 10:54 am

    What are your thoughts on this?

    http://www.bolenreport.com/Mark%20Geier/foiasuit6.htm

    or this

    http://www.naturalnews.com/036417_Glaxo_Merck_fraud.html

    Was Merck really caught faking vaccine efficacy?

    Like

  10. lilady
    July 9, 2012 at 11:34 am

    my3sons: What are your thoughts on this?

    http://americanloons.blogspot.com/2010/06/31-tim-bolen.html

    I suggest you also read what other science bloggers have written about this loon, as well.

    The lawsuit you refer to has just been filed by two *self-styled* whistle blowers. The federal government has declined to join this lawsuit. You would do well to not get your information about vaccines and lawsuits from a crank website…or any of the notorious anti-vaccine websites that have *featured* this lawsuit since it was first filed.

    Like

  11. My3sons
    July 9, 2012 at 12:29 pm

    What about my Merck question?

    Like

  12. Lawrence
    July 9, 2012 at 1:16 pm

    @my3sons – take anything that comes from “natural news” with a very small grain of salt. The Federal Government / DOJ investigated these claims for two years and declined to prosecute. If it goes to Court, we’ll see what the evidence says.

    People can claim whatever they want – and file suit as well. Until such time as the evidence is reviewed in Court, these are nothing but unproven allegations.

    Like

  13. lilady
    July 9, 2012 at 1:26 pm

    The site you linked to, run by the Health Ranger Mike Adams, already has convicted Merck of fraud.

    Adams is a crank health blogger and a known alarmist who *trades* in conspiracy theories.

    Here’s an article from a more reliable website:

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/gerganakoleva/2012/06/27/merck-whistleblower-suit-a-boon-to-anti-vaccination-advocates-though-it-stresses-importance-of-vaccines/2/

    Notice two posters there Hilary Butler and “Dr. Suzanne” (Humphries) are already *convicting* Merck…all part of their anti-vaccine pseudoscience conspiracy theories.

    Try to learn a wee bit of the law. View the legal complaint (it is available on some of the notorious anti-vaccine websites). IMO, and IANAL, the evidence is mighty thin gruel to commence a lawsuit, and, IMO, that is the reason that the Department of Justice did not join the plaintiffs in their lawsuit.

    Like

  14. my3sons
    July 9, 2012 at 1:51 pm

    So the Merck case is still ongoing…what will be the outcome regarding efficacy of vaccines if it’s true? Don’t we then have to question all vaccines?

    What do you think about GSK settling this suit for $3B? Do we assume that since they were willing to put children at risk by promoting “off-lable” use for Paxil it’s only limited to that particular drug? Or should we question their recommendations of their vaccines as well? This is all very alarming…

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/jul/08/pharma-misbehaviour-gsk-fine

    Like

  15. Chris
    July 9, 2012 at 1:55 pm

    My3sons:

    Was Merck really caught faking vaccine efficacy?

    The efficacy of mumps vaccine strains has been independently researched, often comparing the Urabe, Rubini and Jeryl Lynn strains.

    That is a stupid lawsuit done by persons who have not been employed by Merck for at least ten years. It is just a ploy that if they can’t succeed with science to smear the MMR vaccine, they’ll try the legal system. Even though it did not work before:

    In addition, he said, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration “previously examined the issues raised in the lawsuit, and they were resolved to the agency’s satisfaction.”

    Like

  16. Chris
    July 9, 2012 at 2:05 pm

    Ugh, screwed up the link:
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=mumps%20vaccine%20efficacy%20jeryl%20lynn

    There you go, My3sons. Use that tool to research the efficacy of the mumps vaccines. Note that Rubini is almost useless, and the Urabe strain causes meningitis (but less so than actually getting mumps). They have all been researched, and even by other countries like the UK. The UK removed two MMR vaccines with the Urabe strain of mumps, and settled on a version with the Jeryl Lynn strain in 1992 (switching to a different manufacturer with the Jeryl Lynn strain in 1998).

    And GSK lawsuit means that they are not immune to regulation and fines. That is all. Unlike supplement manufacturers that have very little regulation, and have been known to almost kill people with faulty manufacturing practices (including Gary Null who accidentally overdosed on his own brand of Vitamin D).

    What are doing is a tactic known as “poisoning the well.” If you cannot provide actual scientific evidence, you go on innuendo and point to a related company being fined for an unrelated product. It is a silly and dishonest tactic, and has nothing to do with the safety or efficacy of vaccines.

    Like

  17. lilady
    July 9, 2012 at 2:16 pm

    Try to stay on topic my3sons. The name of this blog is “Shot of Prevention” and the subject of this thread is the deviating from the recommended immunizations schedule…and the risks inherent in following *alternative schedules*.

    Have you any comments, you know, about vaccines/alternative vaccine schedules?

    Like

  18. my3sons
    July 9, 2012 at 2:19 pm

    Does Dr. Hooker’s story have any validity? Is the CDC really withholding evidential research? Wouldn’t this case have been thrown out of the courts long ago if it was so transparently false? This person is a biochemist…why would he do this? I’m just trying to make sense of all this recent info that is coming out that seems to cast a huge shadow of doubt over the CDC, FDA, and the big drug companies. Tactic? Wasn’t aware that asking questions of people that seem to do a lot of research on these topics was considered a tactic….maybe I should try an anti- vax site. Thanks for nothing but confusion and suspicion!

    Like

  19. Chris
    July 9, 2012 at 2:37 pm

    No, no, and if you read what I said it was already tossed a bit. Here let me repeat that quote:

    In addition, he said, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration “previously examined the issues raised in the lawsuit, and they were resolved to the agency’s satisfaction.”

    And, again, if you read my links you would see it is not just the CDC, or the FDA. Dr. Hooker has no expertise in epidemiology, his research is in plants, not animals. His most recent paper is from 2009.

    I had mumps twice. I am unable to get an immunity from mumps, even by actually getting the disease. I am not alone, there are others whose genetics makes it impossible to become immune to certain diseases. So it is disingenuous, and silly to expect any vaccine to confer better immunity than the actual disease.

    “Wasn’t aware that asking questions of people that seem to do a lot of research on these topics was considered a tactic….maybe I should try an anti- vax site. ”

    Except your questions honestly answered, and yet you continue. There is a term for that: JAQing off. Another pointless and dishonest tactic.

    And yes, you will get the answers you want from an anti-vax site, because that is where you got the links from in the first place. If you want some honest answers, the start poking around the PubMed link I posted.

    Like

  20. publichealthgal
    July 9, 2012 at 2:45 pm

    It seems that the burden of proof would be on Dr. Hooker. Lots of people try to sue the government. Some have good intentions and good causes. Some are credentialed researchers who go against the preponderance of evidence (think Andrew Wakefield). Some simply have nothing to back them up but their own suspcions.

    my3sons, I think it’s a good thing that you ask questions. Many people blindly follow their convictions and dont really search for evidence. But none of us wants to be duped. That’s why digging deeper to find scientific evidence to support claims should be the final arbitor of how to make your mind up. You can always find people who will agree with you. But credibility of claims should be checked.

    Like

  21. my3sons
    July 9, 2012 at 2:57 pm

    One of my FB friends just shared this…It seems like a great conflict of interest to me.

    Dr. Julie Gerberding, head of CDC from 2002 to 2009 (the same year Pfizer and Merck admitted to vaccine fraud) is now the PRESIDENT of Merck’s global vaccine division!

    And this seems worrisome…from PubMed that Chris recommended…

    Curr Med Chem. 2011;18(17):2630-7.
    Aluminum vaccine adjuvants: are they safe?
    Tomljenovic L, Shaw CA.
    Source

    Neural Dynamics Research Group, Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, V5Z 1L8, Canada. lucijat77@gmail.com
    Abstract

    Aluminum is an experimentally demonstrated neurotoxin and the most commonly used vaccine adjuvant. Despite almost 90 years of widespread use of aluminum adjuvants, medical science’s understanding about their mechanisms of action is still remarkably poor. There is also a concerning scarcity of data on toxicology and pharmacokinetics of these compounds. In spite of this, the notion that aluminum in vaccines is safe appears to be widely accepted. Experimental research, however, clearly shows that aluminum adjuvants have a potential to induce serious immunological disorders in humans. In particular, aluminum in adjuvant form carries a risk for autoimmunity, long-term brain inflammation and associated neurological complications and may thus have profound and widespread adverse health consequences. In our opinion, the possibility that vaccine benefits may have been overrated and the risk of potential adverse effects underestimated, has not been rigorously evaluated in the medical and scientific community. We hope that the present paper will provide a framework for a much needed and long overdue assessment of this highly contentious medical issue.

    PMID:
    21568886
    [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]
    I’m sorry if I don’t feel my questions were answered…did Merck admit to vaccine fraud??? I guess I’ll just keep looking…thanks to those of you who didn’t think my questions were a tactic.

    Like

  22. Chris
    July 9, 2012 at 3:10 pm

    My3sons, why are you changing the subject again? Are you avoiding the actual subject of this page?

    And more Just Asking Questions:

    I’m sorry if I don’t feel my questions were answered…did Merck admit to vaccine fraud???

    Why should they? The data is there for all to see. Just look at the PubMed link that I supplied, and read the Forbes link that lilady provided. We answered your questions, it is up to you to actually click on the links and read them.

    Some clarification: Brian Hooker is a bioengineer, his lawsuit has nothing to do with real science. Never, ever, never believe anything written by Patrick Timothy Bolen. See the link posted by lilady.

    The bit about Gerberding is another “poison the well” tactic claiming that her previous work is now compromised because who she works for now. It is like she needs a time machine to predict her career down the road.

    Shaw is an eye doctor (Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of British Columbia). The work his and his research assistant is printed in obscure journals for a reason, they are very poor quality. As noted in this article: And global warming is caused by the decrease in the number of pirates or: Why an inorganic chemistry journal should not publish a vaccine epidemiology paper.

    Like

  23. lilady
    July 9, 2012 at 5:10 pm

    my3sons: Still trying to derail this thread, eh?

    Your mentioning of the supposed COI by Dr. Gerbeding is lifted straight of the Age of Autism playbook…as are all your other thread-derailing comments.

    Now, when it comes to COIs…how about the darling of Age of Autism and other anti-vaccine organizations…the disgraced Andrew Wakefield:

    He failed to disclose to the Royal Free Hospital and to the Lancet his COIs…

    – His hiring as an *expert witness* by the lawyer who was getting set to sue vaccine manufacturers.

    – His payments of more than $ 750,000 USD received from the lawyer…even before he testified in court for the *proposed* lawsuit.

    – The consecutive referral of Wakefield’s study subjects to him, by the lawyer.

    – The setting up of two offshore (Ireland) corporations under his wife Carmel’s name to develop an *alternative vaccine* and to market test kits to test for his bogus diagnosis of autistic enterocolitis.

    Stick to the subject of this thread…or crawl back to the anti-vaccine websites that are your *sources*.

    Like

  24. publichealthgal
    July 9, 2012 at 7:30 pm

    I believe there’s pretty good science out there already indicating that aluminum adjuvants do not pose any significant health threats. “experiemental research” sounds shaky to me. That would not be a standard used to approve a vaccine. One may always raise a plausible hypothesis about a potential hazard. But you have to have something to back it up with. Otherwise, it ends up being used to fear-monger (intentionally or unintentionally). Conclusions should never be based on small scale “experiemental” or mouse studies that cannot be generalized or replicated. Personally, I would not set my fact-meter on whether Merck (or any vaccine manufacturer) admitted to some wrong-doing. The facts must be supported by credible replicable research findings.

    Like

  25. lilady
    July 9, 2012 at 8:34 pm

    @publichealthgal: And, Dr. Bob Sears has capitalized on parents’ fears about vaccines and aluminum adjuvants in particular….based on some fairly shaky and fairly shady *research*:

    http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/123/1/e164.full

    “Sears’ main argument for spacing out vaccines is to avoid giving infants too much aluminum at one time, writing, “When a baby gets the first big round of shots at two months,
    the total dose of aluminum can vary from 295 micrograms… to a whopping 1225 micrograms if the highest aluminum brands are used and a hep B vaccine is also given. … These doses are repeated at four and six months.” Extrapolating studies of patients undergoing hemodialysis and severely premature infants to healthy newborns, Sears claims that these quantities might be unsafe. However, Sears fails to put aluminum exposure in context. By 6 months of age, infants typically ingest ∼6700 μg of aluminum in breast milk, 37800 μg in infant formula, or 116600 μg in soy-based formula.16 Furthermore, Sears fails to describe scientific studies that led the National Vaccine Program Office to conclude that the amount of aluminum contained in vaccines did not warrant changing the vaccine schedule.17”

    Like

  26. Gigi
    December 30, 2013 at 11:41 pm

    My son nearly died from his 6 mo. vaccinations. After assuring a parent that their child is safe, how would you deal with that? We decided not to vaccinate after that.

    Like

  27. December 31, 2013 at 6:55 am

    Well, I would ask exactly why your child had such a severe reaction? Was it an allergic reaction, because if so, then that is a perfectly valid reason to be concerned.

    Otherwise, I would ask what did occur and ask also for the VAERS entry, because that is certainly information that would be excellent to have for followups.

    Like

  1. June 28, 2017 at 9:04 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s