Home > Preventable Diseases, Science & Research, Vaccine Myths > Why Delay Vaccines For Your Child?

Why Delay Vaccines For Your Child?

I hear this often.  

“I plan to vaccinate, but I’m going to wait until my child is a bit older and better able to handle the vaccines.”  

And this.

“I’ll vaccinate my child.  I just prefer to space them out for my child and only do one at a time.”

Parents who choose to delay vaccines, or design their own vaccination schedule, do so because they believe it will be safer for their baby.

They typically want their children to be protected from preventable diseases, but they’re not convinced they need to follow the CDC’s recommended schedule in order to do that.

Some parents find it hard to accept that one schedule can be suitable for all children and so they feel more comfortable with a schedule that they design themselves – one which gives them the freedom to administer their children’s vaccines one at a time, or maybe even when the child is older.  Some parents make these decisions because they’re concerned that the recommended schedule somehow puts their child at risk of suffering some adverse event or reaction.  Essentially, parents who delay vaccines, or space them out, believe they’re providing a safer option for their child.

Unfortunately, the opposite can be true.

Deviating from the well-tested and recommended schedule can actually put a child at greater risk of disease, without ever reducing their risk of adverse events.  Parents often fail to see the harm in spacing out vaccines, but they also fail to acknowledge the increased risk of disease and the data that supports the safety of the recommended schedule.

How can it be safe for such a small child to receive so many vaccines at a single visit?

Some parents worry that too many vaccines administered at such a young age may overwhelming a baby’s immune system.  Some might even believe that this could lead to injury or developmental delay.  It’s understandable that parents have these fears, but a good hard look at the science indicates that there is simply no evidence to support those fears.

Vaccines are designed to facilitate a baby’s own immune system, not overload it like the diseases have been known to do.  From the moment a baby is born they grow and thrive in a largely unsterile environment. Every day a baby’s immune system is bombarded with trillions of new threats in the air they breathe, on the hard surfaces they touch, and in everything they put in their mouths.

While children today receive more immunizations than their parents did, today’s vaccines are safer and contain less antigens.  Antigens are the elements of the vaccine that contain the weakened or killed versions of the germs that cause the disease.  They are the critical part of the vaccine that stimulate the immune response.  A child who receives all the recommended vaccines based on the 2014 childhood immunization schedule may be exposed to up to 315 antigens through vaccination by the age of 2However, in 1980, that figure was as high as 3,041 antigens.  So the argument that today’s schedule is more dangerous simply because there are more vaccines is simply not supported.

If we consider the number of antigens in four or five vaccines administered at one time, it pales in comparison to the extensive number of threats that a baby’s immune system encounters in their environment every day.  Therefore, if life outside the womb isn’t enough to overwhelm their immune system, how is it that a few vaccines are too much to handle?

While it may be difficult for parents to stand by while their child receives multiple needles in one visit, studies show that it is actually less stressful for the child to have multiple vaccines at one visit than it is to repeatedly experience the discomfort of a single needle time and time again.

Additionally, if multiple vaccines being administered in one visit were an overload to a child’s system, than we could expect to see scientific data that would support this theory.  Instead, what we’ve seen is an abundance of studies that have studied everything from the safety of individual vaccines, combined vaccines, multiple administration of several vaccines in one visit and the vaccination schedule.

In fact, one of the most comprehensive studies of the current vaccination schedule was conducted in 2013 by the Institute of Medicine.  In this study, professionals who represent all different disciplines of health and medicine, but who are unaffiliated with the vaccine industry, reviewed a compilation of evidence from a diverse collection of studies.  The conclusion was that the current vaccine schedule is safe and effective.

That wasn’t the only time the safety of the schedule was studied, and it certainly won’t be the last.  The recommended schedule is always being reviewed and revised, and there are plenty of other studies for parents to examine for evidence.   

Why is it necessary to vaccinate infants who are so young, and what harm is there in waiting until my child is older?

PertussisIf a parent is concerned that a baby may not be able to “handle” so many vaccines, shouldn’t they be equally anxious that their baby won’t be able to handle the dangerous and deadly infectious diseases that the vaccines are helping to prevent?

Most parents don’t believe their children will get sick, be hospitalized, or die from diseases that we vaccinate for.  I’ve come to know many parents whose children have died at the hands of a preventable disease and not one would say they had expected it.  Most people believe the incidence of vaccine preventable diseases is rather low (and it often is, thanks to the community immunity that help protects both vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals when the majority of the population is adequately immunized). However, as we see outbreaks of diseases we realize that these diseases are still a threat to those who are not already immune.

When a child becomes sick, their body makes infection-fighting antibodies.  If and when they recover, these antibodies remain prepared to fight off the disease should it reappear. But it can be especially difficult for some babies to fight off aggressive infections like pertussis, and that’s when the disease can overwhelm the child, resulting in severe symptoms, hospitalizations and even death.

This is where vaccines can help.  Vaccines work by preparing the immune system for the possibility of exposure ahead of time.  They can trigger the same immune response without causing illness.  This allows children to benefit from the immunity that comes with infection, without having to suffer the severe, and occasionally fatal, consequences of infection.

Why does it matter when my child is vaccinated, as long as they’re eventually vaccinated?

The vaccination schedule is not arbitrary, but rather it is based upon an abundance of data and research. Each vaccine is individually tested before it is added to the schedule, and all new vaccines must be tested in conjunction with existing ones to ensure there are no negative interactions. Regulatory agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are careful to look for any side effects associated with concomitant use before approving a new vaccine.  Even after the public begins using a vaccine, it is continually monitored by the FDA, the CDC, and other healthcare organizations, through the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System and the Vaccine Safety Datalink.

After determining the safety and efficacy of a vaccine, a decision must be reached as to when it would be best to be administered.  Disease statistics are analyzed to identify which age groups are most susceptible to which diseases and when.  Then the recommendation accounts for when a child is most at risk for disease and when their immune system is able to mount an appropriate immune response to the vaccine.

For example:

Hepatitis B Vaccine

HepBWhen it comes to the hepatitis B virus, the age of infection can influence the likelihood of chronic issues.  That’s one reason it’s recommended that babies get a birth dose of HepB vaccine. About 90% of infants who become infected will develop liver cancer and chronic liver disease later in life.  However, when the illness is contracted at an older age, the chronic effects are less prominent.  So the earlier a child is protected, the less likely it is that they will suffer chronic infection.

The virus is transmitted in the blood of infected individuals and while some think this is restricted to things like intravenous drug use, tattooing, or sex with people who are infected, it’s also possible to catch hepatitis B virus through more casual contact, such as sharing washcloths or toothbrushes.  The blood is quite infectious – 100 times more infectious than HIV.   Even unseen amounts of blood can contain enough viral particles to cause infection, and the virus remains viable and infectious in the environment for at least 7 days.

Of the estimated 1.25 million people hronically infected with the hepatitis B virus in the U.S., 30%-40% of them acquired the infection during childhood.  Since many of those infected don’t show any signs or symptoms and often don’t even know they’re infected, they are often unknowingly transmitting the disease to others.  By administering a birth dose of the vaccine, we minimize the risk of infection from a mother or other close contact.  If an infant is born to an infected mother, administering the vaccine soon after birth can avoid a positive HepB infection for the child.

Pertussis (DTaP)/ Rotavirus, Pnuemococcal and Hib Vaccine

PertussisHib (also known as whooping cough) is most deadly when it is contracted by a young child, as is rotavirus, pneumococcus, and Haemophilus Influenzae Type B (Hib). To achieve the greatest immunity from these diseases, babies need multiple doses of these vaccines starting at two months of age, and continuing at 4, 6, and 12-15 months of age.  (A 5th dose of DTaP is also recommended between 4-6 years of age).  With each vaccine in the series a child’s immunity is expected to increase, with the most complete protection expected once the full series of vaccines are complete.   Since only partial immunity is expected after a single dose, any vaccination delay leaves the child at a greater risk of infection and simply prolongs complete coverage.

Measles Containing Vaccines

The reason the MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) vaccine isn’t usually administered until babies are 12 months old is because there is evidence that the baby still has some passive immunity from the mom. This can prevent the baby from mounting a robust immune response to the vaccine. Once the baby is 6 months old that immune response does start to wane, and by 12 months old we can be more certain that the passive immunity from the mother is gone.

Research has also suggested that delaying measles containing vaccination is not necessarily a safer choice since a more robust immune response in older children, versus younger children, may result in a higher risk of fever and a lower threshold for seizure.  For example, a study published in JAMA Pediatrics looked at the vaccine safety surveillance data of 850,000 children 12-23 months of age after receipt of measles containing vaccines.  The study revealed that the risk of fever and seizure significantly increased in 16-23 month old children, as compared to 12-16 month old children.

If you’re a parent that is willing to vaccinate your child, why wait?

Consider the fact that in delaying vaccines you’re simply extending the chances that your child will catch the disease before they’ve been adequately protected.  You may also be causing them more stress and greater risk of adverse events.

Before you delay, take a moment to review the scientific evidence that supports the recommended vaccination schedule and the safety of administering multiple vaccines in one visit.  For links to more safety studies check out the  Vaccinate Your Baby website and listen to what a few immunization experts had to say on the subject.  

For more video interviews with immunization experts addressing frequently asked questions about the vaccine schedule, click here.

  1. jgc56
    October 8, 2015 at 10:31 am

    If it were possible for an infants immune system to be overwhelmed by exposure to multiple antigens over a short period of time such taht they developed a ‘vaccine injury’, without exception we’d all suffer from vacine injuries.

    After all, a newborn infant is exposed to multiple orders of magnitude more previously unencountered antigens present in their environment in the first hour after delivery than they could ever encounter even as a result of the most aggressive immunization schedule imaginable.

    Like

  2. October 8, 2015 at 11:47 am

    In my experience, parents who delay vaccination or design their own schedule aren’t afraid that the antigens are going to overwhelm their child’s immune system–they’re terrified that the adjuvants and preservatives in them are going to overwhelm their child and lead to delays. In their minds, it isn’t the antigen that causes developmental delays or reactions–it’s “all the aluminum and mercury in the vaccines.”

    Never mind the fact that the safety studies still provide ample evidence that the adjuvants in vaccines are safe and do not cause harm to children. To them, it sounds scary and “chemical” and toxic. When it comes to overcoming obstacles to vaccinating children, that’s the biggest hurdle that be cleared, in my opinion–teaching or convincing people that adjuvants and preservatives aren’t things to be feared and aren’t toxins.

    Like

  3. jgc56
    October 8, 2015 at 12:03 pm

    I hope those parents completely eschew breastfeeding then–the child will be exposed to far more aluminum from breast milk than it could ever see as a result of immunization.

    And tuna fish sandwiches, if they’re worried about mercury. Apple sauce, if they’re worried about formaldehyde.

    Like

  4. TLJ
    October 8, 2015 at 5:18 pm

    JGC56 – I guess you think it is ok that aluminum is found in breast milk? Where do you think the aluminum in breast milk came from? Yes, I’m sure part of it is from vaccines. Aluminum should not be in breast milk.
    You guys are crazy if you think aluminum is safe, there are so many studies stating otherwise you would have to be a fool to disagree.

    Like

  5. TLJ
    October 8, 2015 at 5:21 pm

    This is also in idiotic statement, “If it were possible for an infants immune system to be overwhelmed by exposure to multiple antigens over a short period of time such taht they developed a ‘vaccine injury’, without exception we’d all suffer from vacine injuries.”

    Based on what?? We “all” don’t have the same genetics and/or are not in the exact same state of health. Vaccines should be given specifically based on the person, and this will be the way of the future.

    Like

  6. TLJ
    October 8, 2015 at 5:24 pm

    “And tuna fish sandwiches, if they’re worried about mercury. Apple sauce, if they’re worried about formaldehyde.”
    Agreed! And don’t forget arsenic in apple juice.
    Funny, the way you make fun of people trying to stay out of harms way. We’re not all blind sheep just moving along. You have a brain, use it.

    Like

  7. October 8, 2015 at 5:33 pm

    You do realize that aluminum is one of the most common elements in the environment, right?

    You have more of it in your body right now, than is contained in all vaccines you might receive….and no, elemental aluminum is not in vaccines anyway.

    Like

  8. TLJ
    October 8, 2015 at 5:43 pm

    So what, just because it is a common element does not mean it should be part of human biology or that it is good for you. Come on, you can do better than that.

    Like

  9. TLJ
    October 8, 2015 at 5:52 pm

    BTW, Aluminum is abundant in the earth’s crust, but it is never found free in nature. All of the earth’s aluminum has combined with other elements to form compounds.

    Like

  10. October 8, 2015 at 7:07 pm

    And guess what isn’t in vaccines….elemental aluminum.

    They use aluminum salts.

    Like

  11. Lawrence
  12. Lawrence
  13. October 9, 2015 at 12:28 am

    Aluminum is already everywhere–you breath it, eat it, and drink it everyday for your entire life. It’s unavoidable as long as you live on this planet. To claim that it’s some weird and exotic, harmful compound is really ignorant.

    Too much of anything will kill you. Even something as benign as water. So what’s your point? Aluminum is somehow different or special? Close the “Natural News” tab on your browser and pick up a chemistry book, please.

    The body is perfectly capable of metabolizing and excreting aluminum–the only people we find aluminum toxicity in are those with kidney failure, because they can’t excrete it.

    And FYI, if you’ve ever taken an antacid, you’ve ingested 300-600 mg of aluminum. The average vaccine has no more than 0.85 mg in it–about 300x-700x LESS than a single antacid tablet.

    http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/phs/phs.asp?id=1076&tid=34

    http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/165315-overview

    “Vaccines should be given specifically based on the person”

    ^And how would that be done, exactly?

    “So what, just because it is a common element does not mean it should be part of human biology or that it is good for you.”

    ^This is a ridiculous and ignorant statement. There are toxic things everywhere in the environment, from plant and animal toxins, to minerals and other chemicals. You do know that your body evolved on this planet, right? And that it evolved specific ways to deal with things it’s constantly exposed to in the environment…and that accordingly you have a liver, whose primary function is to basically metabolize and detoxify anything you may come into contact with.

    But TLJ perfectly illustrates my point: the average person doesn’t know enough about biology and chemistry and they instead just latch onto scary headlines and buzzwords. They’re clueless about how their own bodies work and how they interact with the environment, and they’re convinced that they’re correct despite the fact that their beliefs aren’t grounded in reality or evidence, but rather the far flung corners of their own imaginations.

    Like

  14. Lawrence
    October 9, 2015 at 6:18 am

    @ryan – it is distressing to see the lack of the most basic understanding of chemistry or biology…have our schools done such a poor job of educating children (now adults) that they don’t understand even the simplest concepts of elements vs. compounds?

    Like

  15. lineinthesand
    October 9, 2015 at 4:16 pm

    I’m going to a chicken pox party this weekend.

    I am the parent and the rest of you can suck it! We don’t want your autism causing vaccines! And none of you can ever force them on me or my children! Good day.

    Like

  16. Lawrence
    October 9, 2015 at 6:47 pm

    Well, that was a “sane” comment – seriously, what parent would, in their right mind, encourage their child to catch a disease that might be fatal?

    Like

  17. Chris
    October 10, 2015 at 10:59 am

    Lawrence, only a sadistic parent who enjoys seeing feverish children suffering with dozens of itchy open wounds that could get a secondary bacterial infection.

    Like

  18. novalox
    October 11, 2015 at 1:53 am

    @line

    I certainly hope that you are lying and are not a parent. If you are, I truly pity your child, who has to be raised by such a mean-spirited and ignorant individual like you, instead of avoiding such suffering.

    Like

  19. Chris Smith
    October 12, 2015 at 5:03 pm

    @Ryan
    “Aluminum is already everywhere–you breath it, eat it, and drink it everyday for your entire life. It’s unavoidable as long as you live on this planet. To claim that it’s some weird and exotic, harmful compound is really ignorant.”
    So your point is? Are you stating that it is good for you? Or is needed by the human body?

    “Too much of anything will kill you. Even something as benign as water. So what’s your point? Aluminum is somehow different or special? Close the “Natural News” tab on your browser and pick up a chemistry book, please.”
    Again, your point is? A little aluminum won’t hurt you? Is that your point?

    “The body is perfectly capable of metabolizing and excreting aluminum–the only people we find aluminum toxicity in are those with kidney failure, because they can’t excrete it.”
    Whose body is capable of excreting it? There are many who don’t excrete toxins well. What about them? It is very naïve to think every person is exactly the same. Why do you suppose that there are people who have allergic reactions to medications but not others? It is no different with vaccines.

    “And FYI, if you’ve ever taken an antacid, you’ve ingested 300-600 mg of aluminum. The average vaccine has no more than 0.85 mg in it–about 300x-700x LESS than a single antacid tablet.”
    Point? Then maybe you shouldn’t take a lot of antacids.

    “Vaccines should be given specifically based on the person. And how would that be done, exactly?”
    Simple, through genetic testing.

    “This is a ridiculous and ignorant statement. There are toxic things everywhere in the environment, from plant and animal toxins, to minerals and other chemicals. You do know that your body evolved on this planet, right? And that it evolved specific ways to deal with things it’s constantly exposed to in the environment…and that accordingly you have a liver, whose primary function is to basically metabolize and detoxify anything you may come into contact with.”
    Again, claiming that every person has the same capability to cleanse and detox. You are the ignorant one. And the claim that because it is on this planet it is good for you. More ignorance.

    “But TLJ perfectly illustrates my point: the average person doesn’t know enough about biology and chemistry and they instead just latch onto scary headlines and buzzwords. They’re clueless about how their own bodies work and how they interact with the environment, and they’re convinced that they’re correct despite the fact that their beliefs aren’t grounded in reality or evidence, but rather the far flung corners of their own imaginations.”
    Ironic. My nephew had a reaction to vaccines, and as it turns out many of the metals from the vaccines are still in his system, and as it turns out, he doesn’t deplete toxins like he should. Now tell me again what exactly it is that I don’t understand?

    Like

  20. Gray Falcon
    October 12, 2015 at 6:15 pm

    Chris Smith: Our point is simple. There is far more aluminum in the environment than there is in any vaccine. If someone were sensitive enough that the miniscule amount in a vaccine could harm them, they would already be dead. Basic logic.

    Like

  21. Chris Smith
    October 13, 2015 at 5:11 pm

    @Gray
    Your logic is not logical at all. It’s ridiculous.
    It doesn’t have to kill you, it can really mess you up, and that is exactly what is happening. Possibly because of aluminum in the environment or elsewhere it builds up and then a vaccine could be the tipping point?

    Like

  22. Chris
    October 13, 2015 at 7:43 pm

    Mr/Ms Smith, it is really simple. If you think the vaccines are dangerous, then just post the PubMed indexed studies by reputable qualified researchers (Shaw does not count) that any vaccine on the present American pediatric schedule is more dangerous than the disease. Please show us exactly how much more dangerous the DTaP is compared to diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis.

    Also, you said “Simple, through genetic testing.”

    Please name those genetic tests, and post the PubMed indexed papers indicating what particular gene sequences show the issues. When my son had genetic tests to determine which one caused his genetic heart disorder, it was accompanied with a list of what they were looking for and the papers that showed why.

    Like

  23. Gray Falcon
    October 13, 2015 at 9:52 pm

    @Smith: What’s so hard to understand? If you can drink several liters of substance A every day without ill effect, then getting splashed with a little of it won’t cause any harm. The same principle applies to aluminum.

    Like

  24. Chris Smith
    October 16, 2015 at 5:29 pm

    @Gray Falcon
    You must be a little dim.
    I just told you that my nephew can’t “drink several liters of substance every day without ill effect.” So yes, a “splash” will hurt him.

    Like

  25. Chris Smith
    October 16, 2015 at 5:32 pm

    @Chris
    Why don’t you prove that any number of diseases are more dangerous than vaccines.

    Do the research yourself in regards to genetics. It is happening and is the way of the future. I am not going to argue with you about this.

    Like

  26. Chris
    October 16, 2015 at 6:17 pm

    Answer the question. This might help you: The Clinical Significance of Measles: A Review

    Measles causes pneumonia in about one in five cases and encephalitis in about one in a thousand cases. Just prove to us that the MMR vaccine causes the equivalent amount of harm.

    Diphtheria causes death in about one in ten cases, a little boy recently succumbed to it in Spain. Tetanus is even worse, and pertussis likes to kill babies. Now just prove to us that the DTaP vaccine causes as much harm.

    Also, you said “Simple, through genetic testing.” If you make a claim, you need to come up the evidence to support that claim. I suspect I know a wee bit more about the usefulness of genetic testing than you do, since we’ve actually done it our family as I explained.

    Like

  27. Gray Falcon
    October 17, 2015 at 11:06 am

    Mr. Smith, does your nephew eat, drink, bleed, or breathe? If so, then he is exposed to far more aluminum in his everyday life than he would ever recieve from vaccines. If he reacted so badly to the minute amount in a vaccine, why wasn’t he affected by the constant exposure to natural aluminum?

    Like

  28. jgc56
    October 19, 2015 at 1:23 pm

    “Again, your point is? A little aluminum won’t hurt you? Is that your point?”

    Exactly: the fundamental principle of toxicology is, after all, “The dose makes the poison”. A person is exposed to far more aluminum daily from dietary and environmental sources than they could ever be exposed to as the result of the most aggressive immunization schedule conceivable.

    “Whose body is capable of excreting it? There are many who don’t excrete toxins well. What about them?”

    The only individuals I’m aware of who are unable to adequately excrete aluminum are patients with severe chronic kidney disease requiring hemodialysis whose glomerular filtration rate[is less than 30 mL/min per 1.73 m^2. This is problem because dialysis water may contain enough aluminum that they receive a much higher aluminum exposure during dialysis than could be achevied via routine vaccination. The fix for such patients is the use of aluminum free dialysis water incorporating phosphate buffers that don’t bind aluminum, and even these patients are seen to handle aluminum exposures achievalbe by routine vaccination without trouble.

    “Simple, through genetic testing.”

    Which target alleles would the genetic testing look for, which would indicate they were not suitable candidates for vaccination? Be specific.

    “Again, claiming that every person has the same capability to cleanse and detox.”

    What evidence is your claim that not everyone has sufficient capability to handle the low exposure to aluminum achievable by vaccination based on? Be specific.

    ” My nephew had a reaction to vaccines, and as it turns out many of the metals from the vaccines are still in his system, and as it turns out, he doesn’t deplete toxins like he should. Now tell me again what exactly it is that I don’t understand?”

    What reaction to the vaccine did your nephew experience?

    How have you established the reaction actually was caused by the vaccine? it is, I trust, on some basis other than a post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy.

    How did you determine 1) that many metals are still in his system and 2) that those metals can only have comefrom the vaccines he received?

    How has it been determined that he has a problem with adequately metabolizing and eliminating toxins?

    Like

  29. Chris Smith
    October 19, 2015 at 3:16 pm

    @Gray

    “Mr. Smith, does your nephew eat, drink, bleed, or breathe? If so, then he is exposed to far more aluminum in his everyday life than he would ever recieve from vaccines. If he reacted so badly to the minute amount in a vaccine, why wasn’t he affected by the constant exposure to natural aluminum?”

    I’m sure he is Gray. His parents are aware and do what they can, which includes NO vaccines. Your attitude is astonishing.

    Like

  30. Chris Smith
    October 19, 2015 at 3:22 pm

    @jgc
    “Exactly: the fundamental principle of toxicology is, after all, “The dose makes the poison”. A person is exposed to far more aluminum daily from dietary and environmental sources than they could ever be exposed to as the result of the most aggressive immunization schedule conceivable.”
    Again, what a stupid claim. Because the environment may make him sick, you should go ahead and give him more via vaccine? Idiot!

    “The only individuals I’m aware of who are unable to adequately excrete aluminum are patients with severe chronic kidney disease requiring hemodialysis whose glomerular filtration rate[is less than 30 mL/min per 1.73 m^2. This is problem because dialysis water may contain enough aluminum that they receive a much higher aluminum exposure during dialysis than could be achevied via routine vaccination. The fix for such patients is the use of aluminum free dialysis water incorporating phosphate buffers that don’t bind aluminum, and even these patients are seen to handle aluminum exposures achievalbe by routine vaccination without trouble.”
    What are you God? You know all? If you don’t know any better it doesn’t exist? Please get down from your know-it-all high-horse and find out.

    “Which target alleles would the genetic testing look for, which would indicate they were not suitable candidates for vaccination? Be specific.”
    Go find out for yourself. I am not going to argue with you about this.

    “What evidence is your claim that not everyone has sufficient capability to handle the low exposure to aluminum achievable by vaccination based on? Be specific.”
    Again, you know it all. Go find out for yourself.

    You are completely full of yourself and completely ridiculous. This is a waste of time.

    Like

  31. Chris Smith
    October 19, 2015 at 3:24 pm

    @Chris
    “I suspect I know a wee bit more about the usefulness of genetic testing than you do, since we’ve actually done it our family as I explained.”

    Wrong, at least 20 people in my family have had their genetics done now because of my nephew.

    Like

  32. shay
    October 19, 2015 at 3:34 pm

    “It doesn’t have to kill you, it can really mess you up, and that is exactly what is happening.” Actually, it’s not messing us up. Otherwise everyone on the planet would be suffering from this mythical aluminum poisoning.

    Also, in science debates, the person who makes the claim provides the evidence to support that claim. Telling someone “go look it up for yourself” is a tacit admission that you don’t have the science on your side.

    Like

  33. Lawrence
    October 19, 2015 at 3:46 pm

    And I bet that company that did it is laughing all the way to the bank……and since not all vaccines use aluminum salts (like the MMR), I would assume that your nephew still gets the ones that don’t?

    Like

  34. jgc56
    October 19, 2015 at 3:51 pm

    ‘Again, what a stupid claim. Because the environment may make him sick, you should go ahead and give him more via vaccine?”
    That isn’t the claim I’m making: I’m noting that exposure to much greater amounts of aluminum has not been shown to be sufficient to make anyone sick, so there’s no rational reason to predict exposure to the very much smaller amount of aluminum found in some vacines is capable of making anyone sick.

    “What are you God? You know all? If you don’t know any better it doesn’t exist? Please get down from your know-it-all high-horse and find out.”
    No, I’m not god, and while I don’t know all I know some things quite well: I’m a research biologist who been following the relevant literature for more than 30 years. If you can offer any actual evidence that indicates individuals can be harmed by aluminum at exposure levels acheivable by routine vaccination please share it so I can revise my position, but otherwise I must ask: How do you know it can? Are YOU god?

    “Go find out for yourself. I am not going to argue with you about this.”
    It’s clearly not that you won’t argue about it,.but taht you have no argument to offer: you cannot suggest even a single target allele to be tested for to tailor vaccines individually.

    ‘Again, you know it all. Go find out for yourself.”
    Got nothing, huh?

    “This is a waste of time.
    As long as you continue to refuse to answer relevant questions, I agree.

    Like

  35. Chris
    October 19, 2015 at 4:01 pm

    Chris Smith: “Wrong, at least 20 people in my family have had their genetics done now because of my nephew.”

    Great! Then you can find one of the reports which will clearly show what sequences they were looking for, then post them here for our education. Please include the PMIDs. That is what a reputable genetic testing lab includes on their reports. If your family did not get that, then they may have been swindled

    Like

  36. Chris Smith
    October 19, 2015 at 4:52 pm

    @Shay
    “Actually, it’s not messing us up. Otherwise everyone on the planet would be suffering from this mythical aluminum poisoning.”
    Oh, because everyone on the planet is the same and has the same genetic makeup? That’s why everybody reacts the same to medications right???? Because we are all the same. I guess you suffer from a peanut allergy like myself huh? Because we all suffer the same.

    Like

  37. Chris Smith
    October 19, 2015 at 4:53 pm

    @Lawrence
    “And I bet that company that did it is laughing all the way to the bank”
    Wrong, I am laughing at you for making that statement.

    Like

  38. Chris Smith
    October 19, 2015 at 4:56 pm

    @JGC
    “That isn’t the claim I’m making: I’m noting that exposure to much greater amounts of aluminum has not been shown to be sufficient to make anyone sick, so there’s no rational reason to predict exposure to the very much smaller amount of aluminum found in some vacines is capable of making anyone sick.”

    Who is “anyone sick” . We are all the same?? My God you people are stupid.

    Like

  39. Chris Smith
    October 19, 2015 at 5:02 pm

    @Chris
    “Great! Then you can find one of the reports which will clearly show what sequences they were looking for, then post them here for our education. Please include the PMIDs. That is what a reputable genetic testing lab includes on their reports. If your family did not get that, then they may have been swindled”

    As I said, I am not arguing with you about this. There is plenty of information online if you are truly interested. I’m not going to tell you only to start another debate with you. If you weren’t so full of yourself, we could have a discussion, but unfortunately I am dealing with a few very arrogant know-it-alls on this forum.

    Like

  40. Lawrence
    October 19, 2015 at 5:04 pm

    Actually, you are making assertions that go against the available scientific evidence – i.e. that aluminum salts are safe adjuvants.

    If you have proof that they are not, then it is up to you to provide the evidence…..if you cannot, then we certainly aren’t going to take your word for it.

    Like

  41. Chris Smith
  42. Chris Smith
    October 19, 2015 at 5:34 pm
  43. Chris Smith
    October 19, 2015 at 5:37 pm
  44. Chris Smith
    October 19, 2015 at 5:40 pm
  45. Chris
    October 19, 2015 at 5:43 pm

    Chris Smith: “As I said, I am not arguing with you about this.”

    So you just made it up, and there are no valid reports from the genetics testing lab.

    Exley, Shaw and Tomljenovic are not qualified reputable researchers. No one who spoke at the “Vaccine Safety Conference” in Jamaica is reputable. It was funded by the Dwoskin’s, no one who takes funds from them is reputable.

    Like

  46. Chris Smith
    October 19, 2015 at 6:07 pm

    Genetic testing is all made up? Ok Chris, in your world.

    ha ha researchers are not reputable?? But all of the pharma researchers are – right??

    Like

  47. Chris Smith
    October 19, 2015 at 6:09 pm

    Thanks for linking those two opinion pieces Chris.

    Like

  48. Lawrence
    October 19, 2015 at 7:49 pm

    http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/tag/lucija-tomljenovic/

    Why would anyone think either of those researchers are “credible?” There science is the worst possible junk.

    http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/10/30/ovarian-failure-caused-by-gardasil-not-so-fast/

    Like

  49. Lawrence
    October 19, 2015 at 7:50 pm

    Given that none of that “research” you provided has ever been replicated, by anyone…I’d say you’ve jumped on the aluminum bandwagon & left with a tin-foil hat.

    Like

  50. Lawrence
  51. Lawrence
    October 19, 2015 at 7:54 pm

    Given that the only mentions of “aluminum” allergies seems to be on the most crank of websites, I’d say Chris Smith wouldn’t know real science if it came up and bit him.

    Like

  52. Lawrence
  53. Lawrence
    October 19, 2015 at 7:59 pm

    And just as an aside – breaching the Blood / Brain Barrier has been one of the most difficult challenges faced by modern medicine – how to deliver medicine across this divide….yet anti-vaxers somehow believe that a simple vaccine is all that is necessary to do this….again, showing their complete and utter lack of any scientific understanding whatsoever.

    Like

  54. jgc56
    October 20, 2015 at 10:24 am

    “Who is “anyone sick”?

    You tell me. I’ve noted that we do not see toxicity at levels of aluminum exposure from the enviornoment and dietary sources much greater than than acheivable by routine vaccination.

    You’ve claimed to the contrary that a small portion of the population may be so sensitive to aluminum we would see them to suffer toxicity or harm at these much much loser exposure levels: pleas provide evidence supporting that extraordinary claim.

    And no–do not tell me to look it up myself. You’ve made the claim, so it’s your obligation to support it with evidence.

    Or to simply admit you don’t have any such evidence in support of your claim.

    Like

  55. shay
    October 23, 2015 at 7:33 pm

    Chris Smith, the proof that the amount of aluminum in the environment does no harm lies in the fact that nobody gets poisoned by it.

    Like

  56. shay
    October 23, 2015 at 7:36 pm

    Chris Smith… when the research supporting a claim has all been conducted/written by the same people, that’s a red flag.

    Like

  1. No trackbacks yet.

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

%d bloggers like this: