Improved
6112 HealthChanged
3785 LivesSaved
3568 Lives0 lives impacted in the last 24 hrs Learn More
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.
He also suggests a reduced vaccination schedule with less total vaccinations for children. It is a compromise for children and parents.
I think it is a great option to support the health and growth of the child’s nervous and immune system.
It is true that other countries do have vaccination schedules that extend longer than the U.S. schedule.
Still there are doctors that will not honor Dr. Sear’s schedule.
Ultimately, parents best option is to get educated on the pros and cons for vaccinations, because there are pros and cons.
Parents can consider an alternative schedule as a compromise and work with their pediatrician to support the health of their children and the community as a whole.
Live Vibrantly,
Dr. Dae
Dr. Dae's website: www.healthydaes.com/
Dr. Dae's book: Daelicious! Recipes for Vibrant Living can be purchased @ www.healthydaes.com/
Dr. Dae's Bio:
Dr. Daemon Jones is a Naturopathic Physician who maintains a holistic practice and treats patients all over the country using Skype and phone visits. She helps her patients harvest health and feel great, using a combination of safe and effective naturopathic and conventional methods.
Sources:
"CDC - Vaccines - Immunization Schedules for Children in Easy-to-read Formats." Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 July 2012.
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedules/easy-to-read/child.html
"Robert Sears' Alternative Vaccine Schedule for Babies." WebMD Children's Health Center - Kids health and safety information for a healthy child. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 July 2012.
http://children.webmd.com/vaccines/features/robert-sears-alternative-vaccine-schedule
Reviewed July 31, 2012
by Michele Blacksberg RN
Edited by Jody Smith
Add a Comment12 Comments
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."
Watch me. Even you should know that argument from authority is a fallacy.
"There is no documentation that vaccines are either safe or effective although every vaccine must be both to be used in the United States".
(Vu et al., 2002. Vaccine 20(13-14):1831-1836; Vazquec et al. 2004. JAMA 291(7):851-855;Harling et al.,2005. Vaccine 23(31):4070-4074;Cohen et al., 2007. Emerg. infect dis. 13(1):12-17) So there are a few references contradictory to that statement... and that was the first page of google scholar search.
"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?"
(Villa et al., 2005. Lancet 6(5):271-278; Harri & Martti, 1999. Ped. Infec. Dis. Journ. 18(9):779-783;Peltola & Heinonen 1986. Lancet 327(8487):939-942;Govaert et al., 1994. Vaccine. 12(13):1185-1189) Are all placebo controlled double blind studies contradictory to that statement, and again, only first page of google scholar...
"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".
Yea, tell that to small pox lol. The first ever (now one of two) diseases made extinct by human kind. (Murphy et al., 1993. JAMA. 269(2):246-248; Adams et al., 1993. JAMA 269(2):221-226; Olin et al., Vaccine 21(17-18):2015-2021; Dales et al., 2001. JAMA 285(9):1183-1185; Stowe et al., 2009. Vaccine 27(9):1422-1425; Honda et al., Journ Child Psy. and Psychiatry. 46(6):572-579). Wow. Again, articles in direct contradiction of your claims.... Yes, increased hygiene is a big factor in the decrease in disease incidence; however, decreased vaccinations play a big role in the resurgence of these diseases. My home town (Norwich, Ontario, Canada- north of london south of Branford) has had outbreaks of Rubella, and Polio during the 70's. The dutch reform church has a low population that vaccinate and we saw outbreaks in my community of these diseases only among the dutch population. This was because there was a dense concentration of unvaccinated children within the private school.
"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?"
(Anderson & MAy, 1985. Nature. 318:323-328;Ali et al., 2005. 366(9479):44-49) They exemplify herd immunity and some of the effects they have. Herd immunity is not really applicable to vaccinated individuals in a sense. It basically is if 90% of the population is vaccinated, then the chances of that 10% running into each other, and the chances of that 10% running into each other and having the disease is so low it is essentially full immunities. This is more applicable though to persons that may be allergic to certain components of a vaccine, such as the polysorbate. The vaccination of everyone else protects them. You should know this being an MD after all..
"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."
Show me these studies please? (Offit & Hackett 2003. PEDIATRICS 111(3):653-659; Wiskens et al., 1999. Epidemeology 10(6):699-705; Festefano et al., 2002. Ped. infec. Dis. 21(6):498-504; Myleus et al. 2012. Pediatrics 130(1)-63-70). There are mine in direct contradiction of that claim. NOT TO MENTION most of my other sources also dispute those claims, atleast towards autism, the most referenced side effect...
"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."
Never been any connection of vaccines to these, please provide evidence of such. Increases in rates of most of these diseases can be explained by an increased level of diagnosis. For example, we now understand there are over 200 different types of cancer. Cancer is not one disease. Each one is a bit different. We know some things that cause it, but much of it is just shitty luck. Not to mention, I am fairly sure we wouldn’t know how to cause autism if we wanted to. Vaccines work. The companies that produce them, use them too..
"I also note that although supposedly mercury, in the form of Thimerosol, 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."
Thimerosol is a mercury containing organic compound. Typically vaccine denialists will quote (x) amount of mercury, when it is (x) amount of thimerosol and only a percentage of that is mercury. You still get more mercury containing compounds from Tuna and the ambient environment than your childhood vaccines combined. Not to mention, with the removal of thimerosol autism rates were not correlated (Madsen et al., 2003. Pediatrics 112(3):604-606.) I would like to see this source on the rinsing with mercury, as I cannot see how rinsing the vials in mercury would serve any purpose.
"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."
You get more aluminum from tea than from a vaccine. MSG has a lower LDF 50 than salt, and glutamate is already prevalent in many foods such as parmesan cheese and tomatoes, and in much higher doses than is added to Chinese food. Fluoride is present in municipal waters and is beneficial at low concentrations to prevent tooth decay. Foreign DNA is present in any food we eat, and really won't have an effect on us with the exceptional of viral DNA possibly being able to reproduce, but this is unlikely as it needs access into cells, which protein coats are required. Stealth viruses, Please show me any evidence of this. Squalene is used as an adjuvacant and has thus far not been correlated with any other risks or side effects (Pellegrini et al 2009. Vaccines. 27(49) 6959-6965). Polysorbate 80 is already ingested daily at higher doses than vaccines give. It has been confirmed as non-carcinogenic with a few people having sensitivities to the substance (Ema et al., 2008. Reproductive toxicology 25(1):89-99; Steele et al., 2005. Nephrology 10(3):317-320;Roberts et al., 2010. Gut.59:1331-1339)
As for an argument from authority, I can’t even find one paper from pub med with reference to you as an author…
You honestly must not be a very good doctor if you make the claims you have today.
Braeden Cowbrough
August 1, 2012 - 1:29pmTHIRD YEAR Biochem. Student
Carleton University
This Comment
You know, Braeden, I was preparing my response to you as I read your comment, 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. 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.
August 1, 2012 - 9:28pmPersonal attacks are not worth replying to and, after all, that is what your comment turned out to be.
The articles you claim do not exits are, in fact, quite easily found, assuming that you wish to find them. Do your own research.
Yours in health and freedom,
Dr. Rima
Rima E. Laibow, MD
This Comment