Facebook Pixel

Are Vaccinations Right For My Child?

By Expert HERWriter
Rate This
should my child have vaccinations? iStockphoto/Thinkstock

There is a lot of fear and confusion surrounding children’s vaccinations today.

Vaccinations serve a dual purpose in our society. They are used to protect the individual child, and they are also used to protect the larger population also from the vaccine-preventable disease.

From a public health perspective, childhood death rates have dropped tremendously since the mandatory vaccination schedule was developed between 1900 and the 1960s.

This is a huge step forward for children’s health and safety. If a child is vaccinated they are protected from the vaccinated disease and they cannot pass it to their classmates or peers.

So the protection is not just for the child but for the community and larger population as well. This is called herd immunity.

This is why so many doctors are strong proponents of vaccination and the standard CDC vaccination schedule. Since there has not been any research in this country about altering the vaccination schedule, many physicians see no need to change it.

People who are concerned about vaccination for our children usually don’t argue about whether or not there are benefits to a vaccination process. Their concern is usually about the number of vaccinations that children receive beginning at birth.

The CDC vaccination schedule recommends 25 vaccinations during the first 15 months of life. During a single visit a child may have up to five shots at once.

The controversy starts here. Parents fear that having that many shots at such a young age may have a negative impact on the child’s nervous and/or immune system.

Medical research is divided as to whether there are studies that can substantiate detrimental and lasting effects on children.

There is a separate issue that some of the chemicals used to preserve the vaccinations could also be causing harm to children as well.

With all of this controversy, parents are left wondering what is best for their children.

One solution comes from Dr. Robert Sears, who suggests that children should have vaccinations but on an alternate schedule of vaccination that would complete at age six, instead of at 15 months.

Add a Comment12 Comments

EmpowHER Guest

"Many complications of vaccinations including autism can be explained by vitamin D deficiency. Therefore, vaccinations should be avoided or delayed until the vitamin D deficiency has been corrected."
I indeed have indeed found studies connecting autism with vitamin D deficiency, and it may very well be an environmental factor that promotes autism. However, by and large the main culprit of autism is simply genetics. There is not single smoking gun for this issue. I have updated my google documents so I can now share my references :) (https://docs.google.com/folder/d/0B0bW46S9m61Kbk5OcGpHXzRuYjA/edit). Calcifediol is a metabolite of Vitamin D(3), so higher levels of vitamin D will typically correlate to increased levels of calcifediol. Vitamin D has been attributed to have some effects as in reducing infection, but likely no to a significant degree. (Grant & Soles, 2009). By and large this is the hypothesized benefit of not being vitamin d deficient, by reducing infection. Oddly enough, the best way to stop an infection from ever occurring is vaccines lol, which essentially decreases the implications calcifediol may hold, so it is not likely an overt factor for autism.

"Indeed, vitamin D deficiency “is present in up to 50% of young adults and apparently healthy children. ” Rickets has been on the rise in infants. It is now well established that a vitamin D deficiency increases the risk of certain autoimmune diseases such as type 1 diabetes and multiple sclerosis. Additionally, an association of thin bones (which can be caused by a vitamin D deficiency) has been observed in children with autism."
I am not exactly sure where you received the 50% statistics. I have indeed come across papers saying proportions from 25% to 50%, with a higher proportion among individuals with darker skin, as they have a greater difficulty producing vitamin D at higher latitudes, which is why lighter skin was prevalent at higher latitudes. I believe this paper (https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B0bW46S9m61KV3RwazBVS2ptRUE) may be one source for such statistic. With vitamin D deficiency certainly increasing, you would expect increases in direct side effects (rickets), especially in the more at risk portions (darker skinned individuals). It does appear most rickets occur in darker skinned individuals, however, I am not apparent of the rise in rickets. If you could provide such a reference I would greatly appreciate this. With regards to the other disorders associated, this is likely the paper you are referring to (https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B0bW46S9m61KN2pxNWZhWk1JRDQ), so it does appear to be supported.

Vitamin D deficiency certainly does seem to have some detrimental effects associated with it, however, if you are looking for the smoking gun, it likely isn`t it. There is never a `magic sandwich` if that is what you're looking for. Nearly every disease is caused by multiple factors, with the exception of diseases caused by infections (then a pathogen is to blame), but even then, it can sometimes only account for a certain percentage.

For area's where consumption of certain foods is less prevalent, it might be smart for a government program to increase synthetic vitamin d use. The india deficiency may be explained as one of the larger sources of vitamin D in our diet (dairy products) as well as fish, are not at as high of prevalence within India. The latitude is not always a direct aspect, because yes, India is a very sunny country, but most residents have skin colour dark enough to make it similar to a Caucasian person at European latitudes. It may likely be a result of increase office work in India, basically reducing UVb irradiation... but that is just speculation on my part.

August 22, 2012 - 12:17pm
EmpowHER Guest

Dr. Laibow,

First and foremost, I would like an actual response to my post that deals with the factual claims you made in your previous comment. I have cited several (25) papers that are in direct contradiction to your claims.

"starting with the concept that papers published are not necessarily either accurate or definitive,and then getting ready to do what would basically be a review of publications of significance which you were apparently not able to find."

I will agree. Not all papers are factual. Some have had data skewed, or have flawed methodology. Some journals have less stringent standards, and some you can pretty much just pay to get it your article in. This I will not dispute. This is a problem with much research today. The standard level for publication has certainly lowered in recent years. However, I think you misunderstand the scientific method to a point. Yes, someone can publish an article with wild new claims, but it is not accepted until it is beaten and pummelled by scientific peers trying to falsify your results. This occurred with the Wakefield study. Every study found contradictory results, so the paper was dismissed. This didn't happen with germ theory, or the theory of relativity, or the theory of evolution. People tried to falsify it, but they didn't because the results were factual. I found studies in direct contradiction to all your statements, all within the first two pages of google scholar. The landmark value of each is not the point. The point is, there are LOADS of studies in direct contradiction of your claims, because researchers actually researched your claims and found contradictory results. You are fighting a loosing battle, with a lack of evidence. If I reference one paper supporting your claims, you would say it is exemplary, but if I find ten in contradiction to that exact paper, what then? Is the value of the one greater than ten? Wouldn't the sheer law of probability state the one is more likely to be statistically insignificant than all of the other ten?

"that is, I was until I read the last two paragraphs of your comment in which both my competence was impugned (based on the fact that you disagree with my position) and my right to speak authoritatively based on my academic bibliography a la PubMed."

Alas, I apologize for my ad hominem attack. This is below me and I should not have made this statement. I would attempt to report that your competence was called in to question by me based on supporting evidence. I think your claim of herd immunity may have been the most abrupt claim, as it is well demonstrated in not only human studies, but animal and plant inoculation tests. For example, treatment of ash trees with a chemical against the Emerald Ash borer is expensive. By randomly applying it to 20% of the trees, the actual protection is above 80% because of herd immunity. If you decrease the pool by which an organism can foster, and then dilute that pool with immunity, you can understand why it is more difficult for disease spread. As for your right to speak authoritatively, you do have some I suppose, but by no means does is give any weight to unsupported claims. Argument by authority (argumentum ad verecundiam) is a fallacy. This is why when someone like Linus Pauling, winner of a Nobel peace prize and Nobel prize in chemistry, one of only two people to win prizes in separate fields, makes the claim that mega doses of vitamin c cured cancer and the common cold it lends no weight to it without evidence. His results were falsified, and we know that if you take 3 grams of vitamin c, your body will absorb what it can, then urinate out the rest. Now, if you were to make a claim like live attenuated virus versus heat killed viral vaccines provide an increased incidence in disease (x) upon immunized individuals`` and you happened to be a virologist, or epidemiologist, or other related fields, your claims would have slightly more weight. If your field was say, proctology, I may be more sceptical unless the disease was say cancerous polyps in the colon. The pubmed search was just to see if you had published any papers with regards to anything you have actually mentioned. Unfortunately it appears you have made more claims then research.

"The articles you claim do not exits are, in fact, quite easily found, assuming that you wish to find them. Do your own research."

I don not believe I say the words do not exist once in my entire comment, with the exception of the quotation of your comment. If I can still read correctly I always mentioned "please show me" for the evidence you mention. I did not make claims the papers did not exist, if I did I regretfully retract my statements, as I cannot speak with full competency about that. The entirety of my comment was taking your "factual" claims and providing evidence in direct contradiction to that claim. You made comments such as
"Study after study shows that unvaccinated children are healthier, have far, far less asthma, autism, allergic response, deaths from all causes, days absent from school, behavioral and neurological problems, etc " and "On that basis, since placebo controlled double blind studies against NO vaccine, not a more toxic one, are never done." in which I provided evidence in direct contradiction. I even found several studies involving twins of placebo controlled double blind testing, which is about the best medical testing we can conduct... You made factual claims, I provided evidence of my claims, and evidence against yours. I provided citations as to where my evidence was located. You have not, although I still gladly offer this opportunity.

Assuming these articles are widely available, and the fact they would be landmark papers, they should be widely discussed and supported. I am not going to go looking for the needle in the haystack. I have searched before, but I search for unbiased strings, such as placebo controlled double blind vaccine testing. This is not a leading search, but would return results of such you requested. If I search for "evidence against vaccines" or "evidence for vaccines" that would be cherry picking evidence, although the fact I still find more papers in support of vaccines when searching for evidence against vaccines should say something in it of itself.

I have provided my evidence and made my claims. Provide your evidence to the contrary. I am fairly confident that I will be able to provide at least five papers in direct contradiction to each reference you provide. Perhaps that is cocky, but I suppose I am an optimist.

Braeden Cowbrough
THIRD YEAR Biochem. Student
Carleton University

August 2, 2012 - 7:31am
EmpowHER Guest
Anonymous (reply to Anonymous)

Let's start with the devastating criticisms of medical journal information by senior editors of major medical journals (http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml, for example, this rather interesting piece: http://www.ecomed.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/3-tomljenovic.pdf.
This is worth reading, too: http://www.ddponline.org/epidemics.pdf.
As I have a moment here and there I will share references and articles which I believe have merit.
There is a structural problem: some of us have been conditioned to believe that we are openminded and can evaluate data fairly BUT that anything that contradicts our religion of Vaccinationism, so obviously self-evidently true, is not worth serious consideration. Those who worship in the Holy Church of Vaccinationism "KNOW" exactly as Joseph Priestly "KNEW" that the presence of phlogistine, the colorless, odorless, weightless and altogether invisible substance which allowed things to burn, was the only reason that things could burn. Priestly went to his death bed defending the dogma of phlogistine combustion. He was the discoverer of oxygen and one of the great minds of his time. He was, on this matter of religious conviction, however, dead wrong.
When scientists raise the possibility that vaccines are not effective, harmful or downright dangerous, they generally lose their tenure, if they have it, their grants and their labs. Publication becomes massively difficult so the peer review, once again, reviews only what is permitted into the line of sight of the peers.
Several editors of major scientific and medical journals have made this intellectual corruption, totally dependent, by the way, on industry funding of both the journals and the scientists, quite clear.
I hope that these articles are stimulating.
Yours in health and freedom,
Dr. Rima
Rima E. Laibow, MD
Medical Director
Natural Solutions Foundation

August 4, 2012 - 5:52pm
EmpowHER Guest
Anonymous (reply to Anonymous)

Dr Rima, you are lazy (just like Dr Jones), not even commenting on *one* link that Braeden posted for you - don't you read science? There is no shame in that, but don't pretend then.
The first link goes to the Forbes magazine home page. What are we supposed to find there? This article maybe? http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevensalzberg/2012/07/23/anti-vaccine-movement-causes-the-worst-whooping-cough-epidemic-in-70-years/ ooo, we agree then?

Young Lucija Tomljenovic is an anti-vaccine activist of the the finest sort, now babbling (thanks Braeden, most appropriate word) about government conspiracies and lobbying for Andrew Wakefield. She is clearly a child of the post-vaccine introduction era, getting all excited about reported vaccine side effects, while ignoring the devastating effects of disease.

Maniotis is an Aids denialist - well, no wonder he denies vaccines, too and quite telling you would consider that drivel about "no epidemic prevented ever" as a valid argument, when it clearly contradicts what we observe.


August 5, 2012 - 12:50am
EmpowHER Guest
Anonymous (reply to Anonymous)

Thank you Dr. Catherina, It appears this comment board is exclusive to the three of us at the moment. I currently do not have the time to read the two huge pdf files she sent (also the Forbes link was to the main Page? I assume the article you provided is the one she was referring to).

You have definitely made the point has she cites two authors, for two major reports prevalently, that I have doubts as to whether they even cite some of the claims she originally made. One of the two articles I already am skeptical about just because of the fact neither of the articles are journal publications. The BSEM article appears to be on a society website... Who's credibility is certainly in question when they support the wakefield publication, even though they acknowledge, the problems with his publication... They support the link between autism and mmr vaccine, even though it is one of the few things we can claim there is no causal link (to at least to not to any appreciable amount).

I have apologized for my attack on her character, and she accuses me of such again, and therefore refuses a retort other than the dismal one she offered me that appears more along the lines of a misinformed parents rebuttal than a licensed Medical Doctor. Referencing a Forbes article, and providing two publications, that likely haven't even been subjected to peer review, for all of her extraordinary claims is not something I would expect who has gone through the academic difficulties of Medical School, of which I hope I am able to attend... She does appear to have a Medical Degree though, so I will not call that into question.

August 7, 2012 - 8:44am
EmpowHER Guest
Anonymous (reply to Anonymous)

Well seeing as I have no Internet connection save
For my phone, I won't reply till Tuesday at the earliest. This should still give me time to read over the 59 page babble you likely sent,
And as for the other two web pages I can't seem
To open them on my phone(likely flash; stupid iPhone) so I have no idea what they say.

On a side note, providing me with a link to a web page article on Forbes is not setting your rebuttal off to a
Good start... As anyone can claim anything on a web page, and rarely document sources for things like newspaper articles. This is also
Holds for that 59 page document that isn't even referenced! Which means I have to go out of my way to check all of his stupid claims
No doubt.

Also, claiming there must be a conspiracy for your claims to be factual truly makes you seem incorrect. You can make the same claims for global warming, creationism, doomsday predictions and the moon landing... Doesn't lend you any credibility.

Also that speel about Joseph priestly was
Unessasary considering it is also aPplicable to anti vaccers...

Good day until streams of data fly through t
Home once more.

Braeden cowbrough

August 4, 2012 - 8:01pm
EmpowHER Guest
Anonymous (reply to Anonymous)

Braedon, given that your assessment of the links I sent was to label them as "babble" BEFORE you read them, your scientific objectivity is a wee bit spotty.
Say what you like, insult as you please, but we are done. There is simply no point in engaging in a debate that starts off with an ad hominim argument, apologizes for it and then repeats the error.
When you develop both good sense and good manners, we can have a discussion. Right now, you are, as I pointed out, an acolyte at the needle alter of the Holy Syringe and are attacking, not thinking.
Have a great time with your assertions and assumptions.
For those, however, who are interested in a dialogue, not a diatribe, please feel free to contact me via this medium.
Yours in health and freedom,
Dr. Rima
Rima E. Laibow, MD
Medical Director
Natural Solutions Foundation

August 4, 2012 - 8:45pm
EmpowHER Guest

Thank you Braeden, your comment is spot on and very well researched and referenced, while Drs Jones and Rima are irritatingly lazy. The "there is a unicorn in my garden, but you will have to find it yourself" argument doesn't really impress.
Dr Catherina (not MD)

August 2, 2012 - 1:38am
EmpowHER Guest
Anonymous (reply to Anonymous)

Thank you Dr. Catherina. I am a strong proponent for vaccines, as I have personal affiliations to a culture effected by lack of vaccination. I appreciate your support and commending of my comment.

August 2, 2012 - 12:14pm
EmpowHER Guest

Dr. Daemon Jones dismisses the information of a non physician. I am a licensed physician so it will be harder to high-handedly dismiss my comments.
There is no documentation that vaccines are either safe or effective although every vaccine must be both to be used in the United States. On that basis, since placebo controlled double blind studies against NO vaccine, not a more toxic one, are never done. Without them, how is it rational to hold to the belief that the vaccine has been proven to be safe, effective, or both?
The decline in infectious diseases began BEFORE the introduction of vaccines and went back UP again after their introduction in disease after disease since the decline was due, in each case, to the adoption of better hygiene and nutritional standards by the populace. The epidemiology is rock solid.
It is also rock solid on the fact, and it is not a theory, but a statistical fact, that the best way to predict epidemics and pandemics is to document where vaccination campaigns take place. That's where you will find the epidemic/pandemic of the disease supposedly vaccinated "against". Check the work of Professor Maniotes of the University of Pennsylvania. And check out the pertussis epidemic not in action: the vast majority of cases are in fully vaccinated children. Vaccine proponents still call for more vaccinations despite the fact that the logic is so flawed as to be non-existent. Brainwashing is working here, not science or logic.
Herd immunity simply does not exist. If vaccines work, then they work. If they do, then a vaccinated person is unaffected by whether or not another person is vaccinated. That is, after all, the supposed purpose of the vaccination, isn't it?
Study after study shows that unvaccinated children are healthier, have far, far less asthma, autism, allergic response, deaths from all causes, days absent from school, behavioral and neurological problems, etc.
Good for the kids, bad for the pharmaceutical lobby and bottom line.
I believe strongly that the real reason people are vaccinated is to enhance the bottom line of the aftermarket: cancer, including leukemia, diabetes, asthma, auto immune and neurological disorders, infertility, sterility, etc.
I also note that although supposedly mercury, in the form of thimerisol, was removed from pediatric vaccines, only 4% of the vaccines administered to infants and children is reduced in that toxic material. The rest, in multi-dose vials, is still rich in neurotoxic mercury and, in the case of vaccines which are packaged in single vials, these vaccines are bottled in vials which have been rinsed in mercury so they still contain measurable, and toxic amounts of mercury.
With the madly increased vaccine schedule from the CDC's ACIP, the amount of mercury in total is now far greater than it was BEFORE the supposed "removal" of mercury from those vaccines.
Oh, yes, the supposedly "necessary" annual flu vaccine, which children start receiving at 6 months, is not even remotely mercury free.
Then there is aluminum, and squalene, and Polysorbate 80 and fluoride and MSG and foreign DNA and stealth viruses like SMV 40, the known cause of much of the childhood leukemia epidemic.
So, just exactly why are we vaccinating our children and ourselves?
If you want to find out more, I urge you to sign up for the free Health Freedom Action eAlerts of the Natural Solutions Foundation, of which I am the Medical Director. Go to www.HealthFreedomUSA.org and enter your email.
Yours in health and freedom,
Dr. Rima
Rima E. Laibow, MD
Medical Director
Natural Solutions Foundation

July 31, 2012 - 8:20pm
Enter the characters shown in the image.
By submitting this form, you agree to EmpowHER's terms of service and privacy policy
Add a Comment

We value and respect our HERWriters' experiences, but everyone is different. Many of our writers are speaking from personal experience, and what's worked for them may not work for you. Their articles are not a substitute for medical advice, although we hope you can gain knowledge from their insight.


Get Email Updates

Measles Guide

Have a question? We're here to help. Ask the Community.


Health Newsletter

Receive the latest and greatest in women's health and wellness from EmpowHER - for free!