Delaying Vaccines Won't Do Your Kids Any Good, Might Hurt Them

Earlier today, Ron Bailey blogged about a welcome decision in the U.K. to prevent vaccine fearmonger Andrew Wakefield from practicing medicine. Refusing vaccination (due to unfounded fears that vaccines cause autism) remains a minority phenomenon, but many cautious parents have taken to delaying their toddlers' vaccinations, or spacing them out over the course of many months or years to reduce perceived risk.

A new study published online today in Pediatrics demonstrates that the practice of delaying vaccines has no upside, and one notable downside:

Researchers at the University of Louisville analyzed the health records of more than 1,000 children. After comparing the kids' performance on 42 neuropsychological tests between the ages of 7 and 10 against the timeliness of vaccination during the first year of life, the researchers found no evidence that delaying vaccines gave children any advantage in terms of brain development.

The lead researcher on the study sums things up nicely:

"Our study shows that there is only a downside to delaying vaccines, and that is an increased susceptibility to potentially deadly infectious diseases. We hope these findings will encourage more parents to vaccinate according to the American Academy of Pediatrics schedule, and reassure them that they're making a safe choice when they do so."

Comments

[Ken Shultz]

It still seems weird to me to see libertarians essentially carrying water for those who would make these kinds of things mandatory.

Maybe individual freedoms and individual rights aren't necessarily and always in the best interests of society generally, but maybe I'd rather suffer the public health risks and leave parents free to make decisions about these things with...um...parents.

Free to make choices means free to make mistakes that very well may adversely effect other people, and with all the individual rights battles we've been losing lately, I'm starting to get damn adamant on that point.

Individual freedoms and individual rights means the freedom to be stupid.

[Astrid]

Yes, it also means freedom to call out idiots and point out where they are wrong.

[Hazel Meade]

Which is exactly the correct approach to deal with private businesses that discriminate on the basis of race.

Call them out. Boycott them. Picket them.

You just can't force them to not discriminate.

[Big B]

Getting your kid vaccinated is such a no-brainer, and has been preempted by the anti-science crowd so loudly, that I see no problem with supporting it.

Conversely, I see no advantage from ignoring the issue or taking a stance against vaccinations just because some would make it mandatory.

Sure, libertarianism means you can be an idiot and not get your kid vaccinated - but as Astrid points out, it also means we get to call you you an idiot for doing it. It also means that if you support mandatory vaccinations, I don't care how important you and I think they are - I can still call you an idiot.

[Ken Shultz]

It seems a very small step for your standard issue utilitarian to take though, doesn't it?

Once you've decided that mandatory immunization gets you a better outcome, why not go all the way?

...other than a decidedly un-utilitarian bias for individual rights?

It's gone so far in that direction around here that last week? One staffer thought I was talking about electric companies when I was talking about the "utility crowd". I saw a post from another staffer today who didn't seem to even think there was a moral case to make other than the observation that the freedom option benefited the most people.

It's different on Second Amendment issues because there's evidence that the freedom to own guns has a net benefit to society. The same can be said for the Drug War--there's plenty of evidence that the Drug War is a net negative for society by a long shot.

But what's the utilitarian argument for not forcing people to vaccinate their kids?

My answer is that it isn't a utilitarian argument--and those are the arguments that separate the freedom loving men from the boys. So maybe I'm just pounding my chest, but I used to argue that I'd rather take my chances than support torture or warrantless wiretapping, etc. ...those arguments had little to do with utilitarian ideas then.

And if the studies I'm reading have it right, I don't see much of a utility argument against mandatory vaccinations for kids either. It's a cause for concern! There's a hole in our swing, dammit.

[Astrid]

There really isn't a utilitarian argument against seatbelt laws or helmet laws either, though these actions tend to only hurt the person involved where as not vaccinating can hurt many more people, but it doesn't mean I don't oppose them.

I don't think vaccines should be mandatory, but I also think parents who don't vaccinate their kids are idiots and should be told so. And so long as there are angry, white, celebrity parents decrying the evils of vaccines we probably won't see much push to legally force parents to vaccinate their kids.

[gabe]

"though these actions tend to only hurt the person involved where as not vaccinating can hurt many more people."

this seems like bad logic. If your vaccine makes you safe then what do you care if I take a vaccine or not? if you truly think it is so healthy then darwin will get rid of the non-believers pretty soon right? and then we can have mandantory vaccines for all!

[Ken Shultz]

There are a lot of people who for various reasons shouldn't take vaccines. ...and the herd thing protects them.

If people who should get vaccinated don't, it increases the risk of an outbreak, and an outbreak exposes people who shouldn't get vaccinated.

Thus, people who can get vaccinated and don't are necessarily a threat to people who can't.

But all freedom's like that. No man's an island. Freedom's a risky business. Gotta love it anyway. At least I do.

[Astrid]

Perhaps you should read a few articles on vaccines and herd immunity, as you seem to not understand how it works. Also, never said anything about wanting mandatory vaccines.

[Astrid]

Post was directed at gabe.

[Tulpa]

I suppose you'd prefer it if parents just had to figure out which of the hundreds of students in their child's school passed measles to them and sued.

There are issues where the consistent-with-libertarianism "solution" is so clumsy and ineffective, and the costs to liberty of a marginally statist solution so minimal, that you have to go with the latter unless you're a complete ideologue. This is one of those cases, as is the road being owned by the government.

[marlok]

I don't think it's too anti-libertarian to argue for mandatory vaccines. Didn't somebody say something about one's freedom to swing a fist ends at another's face?
Not vaccinating your kid = endangering others.

[Ken Shultz]

"...one's freedom to swing a fist ends at another's face?"

No analogy's perfect, but in the fist swinging analogy, are you saying someone not wanting to be injected is the swinging fist? ...'cause I kinda see them as the face in that analogy.

In the age of global warming, holes in the gulf that spew petroleum for weeks, mandatory healthcare coverage and a proposed consumer protection agency that will presumably deny home loans to some individuals for the good of society generally...

What exactly can I do that doesn't adversely effect anyone? It seems to me you're giving freedom a really small box to live in--if all I can do is things that don't adversely effect anyone.

If individual rights exist, they exist despite the best interests of society--or they don't really exist at all, do they? If my rights don't work just because they're risky or inconvenient for other people--what good are they?

[Groovus Maximus]

The better analogy would be,"Your right to smoke cigarettes ends at my lungs."

[Ken Shultz]

A society where no one can do anything that might adversely effect anyone else is not a free society.

Whether you're driving a car that uses oil from the Gulf and releases carbon dioxide, whether you're shorting a stock, walking away from a home loan or giving your grandpa on Medicare a slice of birthday cake, you're adversely effecting other people.

Every one of us has an expectation of freedom, and the unrealistic expectation that everyone should behave themselves in such a way that it doesn't harm anyone else--that's a fist to the face of individual rights.

I don't exist for the benefit of society. Society exists for the benefit of individuals--to protect their rights and freedoms. Looking at it the other way around gets it all backwards...

Suddenly, my rights only exist if they're not too inconvenient for anybody? Hardly.

[Ken Shultz]

"There are issues where the consistent-with-libertarianism "solution" is so clumsy and ineffective, and the costs to liberty of a marginally statist solution so minimal, that you have to go with the latter unless you're a complete ideologue."

And yet...!

If freedom doesn't mean that the government can't inject something into you against your will, what does it mean?

[R C Dean]

Public health (properly and narrowly understood to mean the prevention of the spread of disease) is kind of a tough one for this libertarian.

On the one hand, it lies outside the scope of the "night watchman" state. On the other hand, at least some public health activities, especially the kinds of things that need doing during a genuine epidemic, are the kinds of things that only a state can do.

Vaccination falls at the very fringes of this, but I don't think its completely outside the realm of justifiable state action.

I do believe that any parent who refuses to vaccinate their kids should be held liable for any subsequent disease outbreaks caused by their little germ factory. I suspect if that was the case, a lot of these parents would change their tune. Right now, they get to indulge their fantasies without paying the freight.

[Groovus Maximus]

RC please read my post. I would like your input.

[R C Dean]

Free to make choices means free to make mistakes that very well may adversely effect other people,

Absolutely, but being free to make choices doesn't mean being free from responsibility for the consequences of those choices. If I do something stupid that harms other people, I should have to foot the bill.

[Marshall Gill]

Absolutely, but being free to make choices doesn't mean being free from responsibility for the consequences of those choices. If I do something stupid that harms other people, I should have to foot the bill.

Are vaccine producers shielded in any way from liability lawsuits arising from their products?

[gabe]

Are vaccine producers shielded in any way from liability lawsuits arising from their products?

yes they are...they bought immunity after the 70's swine flu scam

[buddyglass]

First off: I'm someone who delayed one of his child's vaccinations. Hepatitis B, to be specific. I also have some moderate libertarian leanings.

One thing to note is that vaccines aren't 100% effective. Some portion of the benefit they offer derives from "herd immunity". That is to say, when everyone's inoculated, not only is each person individually less likely to contract the disease, he's also less likely to contract it because everyone else is less likely to be carrying it, meaning he's less likely to come into contact with it in the first place.

So if I'm vaccinated and you're not, then you increase my risk of becoming ill simply by coming into contact with me.

While I would never advocate mandatory vaccination, I wouldn't necessarily object to, for instance, a school district refusing to admit non-vaccinated children due to the health risk they pose to other students.

[Ken Shultz]

"While I would never advocate mandatory vaccination, I wouldn't necessarily object to, for instance, a school district refusing to admit non-vaccinated children due to the health risk they pose to other students."

I'm not necessarily against that either.

...and that's a great argument for home schooling, etc.

But I get creeped out by the one size fits all arguments. And I have to say, they could show me a stack of studies to the contrary, and I'd still be hesitant to vaccinate a kid with a genetic predisposition to auto-immune diseases...

Nobody said something can't be both counter-intuitive and true, but if my kid already has a predisposition to a disorder that makes his immune system attack his own organs as if there were a pathogen there, it's kinda counter-intuitive to inject him with something that beefs his immune system up to fight something that isn't there.

[buddyglass]

One of my reasons for delaying HepB was a study I read that discovered a possible (weak) link between HepB vaccination and childhood asthma. Both my wife and I have asthma. Abstract here:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12182372

Since HepB is primarily transmitted by unprotected sexual contact and shared needles, it seemed fairly safe to delay vaccination of my newborn.

[gabe]

so the vaccines don't work so we all should be forced to take it?

[Ken Shultz]

The last line of that post reads, "While I would never advocate mandatory vaccination..."

So, no, he's not saying we should all be forced to take it.

[buddyglass]

The point in mentioning herd immunity is to point out that the vaccines "work", but aren't 100% effective. When nearly everyone is vaccinated, though, their effectiveness is enhanced by the fact that everybody's exposure level goes way down.

Some anti-vaccine folks assume that their decision only impacts their own children, when, in fact, it necessarily increases (to some degree; possibly small) the likelihood of vaccinated children contracting these diseases.

[Bronwyn]

It also means that some unvaccinated kid could expose a too-new for vax newborn or an immunocompromised individual.

[bubba]

It seems unlikely that 1,047 kids is going to be enough unless they're testing for the possibility that vaccines cause autism in, say, 10% of cases. They've used surrogate markers to look for differences in unaffected kids, but this doesn't really tell us anything about the incidence of actual autism.

[Patriot Henry]

"They've used surrogate markers to look for differences in unaffected kids, but this doesn't really tell us anything about the incidence of actual autism."

Autism is excluded from this study. In order to prove that vaccines are safe, they excluded the issue that is allegedly the problem caused by vaccines. Next up: automobiles are perfectly safe and there are no automobile crash deaths (automobile crash deaths excluded from the safety study).

[Joe_D]

Why is it that the articles keep responding to things brought up earlier comments? We just had a thread where some... I think "cunt" was the word used... she said she would delay vaccinating her kids. This has happened other times... it is unsettling.

[nmg]

Good lord. Everyone has their exceptions for allowing tyranny.

Allowing the government to force vaccinations on your children... what could possibly go wrong?

[Groovus Maximus]

Folks, I hope you have your intoxicant of choice handy, because there's gonna be a lot of DRINK in this post.

Disclaimer: I am not a pediatrician. I am general surgeon.

First, speaking as a licensed Osteopathic physician, and I am offering educated opinon here, I see no problem with vaccinations of neonates and toddlers, or even school aged children. I do not believe that there is a demonstrable evidence of a vaccine/autism link. (For the vaccine-hysterists, DRINK!)

Second, though the "herd immunity" is a demonstrable phenomenon, from a efficiency POV, it is, IMO, a poor substitute for regular vaccination of virulent diseases with a high degree of pathogenicity, meaning "easier to catch and damn difficult to kill." This is where education from your pediatrician is key, and education as a parent vital. If a parent decides it is the child's interest, as that child's steward, then I don't see where questioning the child's parent is helpful. Hospitals make all sorts of exceptions for religious and cultural beliefs and practices all the time. This is RC Dean's area of expertise, particularly protecting his hospital from liability claims shen TX goes awry or TX is refused, and I am stalwart defender of patient's rights and their right to decide their course of TX, even if I disagree and have provided them the expertise of my opinion to provide the best care and also release myself of liability should the patient choose not to consent to a particular TX or RX regimen or a surgical procedure. Hazel is right, this creation of a "False Dilemma" via preying on people's fear of (legitimate) disease is beyond ridiculous. (DRINK!)

I often wonder if Edward Jenner, along with Alexander Fleming, the discoverer of penicillin (relevant because overuse of antibiotics has created "smart" and "superbugs"), with his successful test of the hypothesis of using cowpox serum to inoculate from smallpox would lead to such controversy (it should be also noted that the original vaccines caused approx a third of the test subjects to die of the very disease being inoculated against). Our production of vaccines are better, the risk factor is fairly neglible, barring contraindications to immunization. I do, however, follow the money trail and who provides these vaccines that government mandates? That's right good old protectionist, government cocksucking Big Pharm. (DRINK)

If a parent chooses to delay vaccination, let's call such a parent Steff (she really pissed in your cornflakes, didn't she KMW? Oh, and DRINK!) If her children are healthy and there is no demonstrable harm to her children or others, I don't see the problem. If schools (public, private or charter) require proof of immunization for admittance, well you have two choices, immunize or home school, and the NEA is very hostile to home schooling since parents who wish to delay immunization are obviously too stupid to have children, like the paragons of parenthood, teenage parents.(DRINK)

The most effective protection against disease is hygiene and sanitation. The aformentioned immunizations and antibiotics have saved countless lives, but their efficacy is lessened without hygiene and sanitation. Yes, good old fashioned hand washing, covering your mouth when you sneeze, avoiding contact with sick people when possible, brush your teeth, not drinking after other people, not sharing needles if you are an IV drug user, and responsible conduct in one's sexual life. Did you not post an article with kids lamenting because their stupid condoms didn't fit KMW? Call me a fuddy duddy, but perhaps a kid that can't buy his own stupid condoms A) shouldn't bitch about free ones and B) if he is too cheap and disrespectful to buy properly fitting ones should the little twerp be poking his pecker in a girl or boy in the first place? (FUDDY DUDDY DRINK). Moreover, should I have to PAY for other's stupid mistakes?

My largest problem with this issue, and government mandated preventive medicine in general, is making doctors and the medical industry de facto agents of the state, with pediatricians, MPHs, GPs and nurses willing accomplices to the Nanny State via Obamacare. (I'm sure I'm perilously close to a Godwin here, so DRINK!)

The point is when government mandates things using I'm sure the General Welfare and Commerce Clause here to justify the socialization of healthcare, your autonomy goes out the window. I would hate to think the loss of liberty came from a hypodermic needle. (DRINK)

If your smashed after this post, don't take Tylenol for your headache, as it it hepatoxic when ethnanol is in the blood. And don't call me in the morning.

/end rant

[Urkobold?]

ALL EXCELLENT AND VALID POINTS, DR. MAXIMUS. HOWEVER, THE URKOBOLD IS SIDING WITH WHICHEVER SIDE HAS THE HOTTEST SPOKESWOMAN. IT'S THE AMERICAN WAY.

WHILE MS. MCCARTHY HAS FORMIDABLE ASSETS, SHE IS DECAYING AND FADING INTO LOOKS OBLIVION. THE URKOBOLD SUGGESTS YOU HIRE THIS PERSON TO CONVEY YOUR COGENT AND MEDICALLY CRITICAL MESSAGE.

[dbcooper]

Amanda Peet is the spokeswoman for a vaccination campaign. And she's not bad.

[Groovus Maximus]

I'll take it under advisement Urk! There is truth to the adage "Tits sell!"

I already have a lovely woman in my life, but I don't think she would be interested in being a spokesperson.

[Captain Edward John Smith]

dump the lovely woman, for the girl with the big tits. If your boat sinks, you have two big life preservers at the ready.

[Groovus Maximus]

I already know how to swim.

[Tulpa]

You don't want to swim in the ocean. It's like a planetwide toilet bowl.

[Ron L]

"If your smashed after this post, don't take Tylenol for your headache, as it it hepatoxic when ethnanol is in the blood."
WIH is "hepatoxic"?
Aside from that, are you saying mandatory vaccination would be fine if you weren't the agent?

I'll take this POV:
No, it is not acceptable for a coercive agency to require *any* medical procedure.
Yes, it is possible that by not doing so, some portion of the population is in greater danger of infectious disease than it would be otherwise.
Tough; your Mommy isn't in charge of the world.

Further, I'm all in favor of vaccination, simply because it is shown to be effective and I'm all for medical advances, as endangered as they have become. But coercion pretty much includes the 'initiation of violence' and that extreme seems not indicated here.

[Groovus Maximus]

WIH is "hepatoxic"?

Typo. Heptatotoxic. As in poisonous to the liver.

Aside from that, are you saying mandatory vaccination would be fine if you weren't the agent?

No. I am not for mandatory vaccinations.

[Groovus Maximus]

Typo. Heptatotoxic. As in poisonous to the liver.

Goddammit, I joe'z law'ed myself.

Hepatotoxic is the correct spelling.

[Ron L]

Got it.

[Tulpa]

I think "hepatoxic" is the stuff that clogs up your hepa filter.

[Groovus Maximus]

In more ways than one, my friend.

[Steff]

(General you.)

There are risks and benefits. Part of the problem with the lot who doubtless jumped on me (I haven't bothered to go back and see. XD Sorry, guys. I'm on vacation, and don't see the point in arguing further than I have with you), is that they assume that I am just a raging hippy and/or stupid, or otherwise, without bothering to consider that every individual case should be treated individually.

My family, including myself, are afflicted with autoimmune disorders. I have RA. I'm thirty, and I will spend the rest of my life fighting it. My mother has lupus, my aunt has severe rheumatoid arthritis like I do. This is one of the individual factors I have to consider when I wondered if, when and how my kids would be vaccinated.

There is no one-size-fits-all. The potential link, for instance, between autoimmune disorders and vaccinations is a fairly recent thing to come up. I don't buy the autism thing. But I do know that my children are very low risk when it comes to the diseases they'd be vaccinated for -- they live and play in very low risk areas. The chances of them contracting anything they could be vaccinated for is extremely slim. In the meantime, their nutrition is great, they play like crazy from sun up to sun down; they don't eat sugar, they don't veg in front of the TV, they don't suck down soft drinks and they eat a whole lot of fruits and veggies. They have been absurdly healthy their whole lives thus far. I believe that's as important, especially given my family's history, as vaccination.

On top of that, I also then have to consider the risk if they DO, by some minuscule chance, catch this disease. Could they die of it? Possibly. Is it even remotely likely?

No.

So, finally, there is what I had in mind when I decided to delay and research each individual vaccination, taking into account what the most likely scenario was, versus research, versus my own family history, and incorporating into it that, of course, there will be people who cry foul. But in the end, kiddies, the chances of you having to live with the consequences are exceptionally slim, whereas I will live with them, any which way.

If that makes me a cunt, that's fine. 😉 It's not your choice. It's mine. And I, for one, am very fucking grateful for that fact.

[Groovus Maximus]

Far from a cunt, IMHO. I hope you know I was sticking up for you, Steff. I wish you well.

I hope you have a marvelous vacation! 🙂

[Steff]

I didn't go back to see, but thank you. ?

[marlok]

Hope the tikes at least get the tetanus shot, as that bacteria is ubiquitous (no herd immunity).

[Steff]

Absolutely. Tetanus is actually the first shot they're going to get; my daughter will be getting it within the next two months or so.

[marlok]

Oh and good luck keeping the RA at bay.

[Steff]

Getting there. I have discovered that a cortisone shot is an AMAZING thing. I take methotrexate, and that's also helped a whole lot. For the first time in a year, I can walk up and down steps without breaking into a cold sweat. Makes me all kinds of optimistic for the future.

Well, except that Obamacare bull. It took months to get an appointment with my rheumatologist because there are less of them than a lot of specialties. I can only imagine how many less of those there will be if this gets to take full effect.

...and I was rambling. So, thank you. ?

[Libertymike]

Groovus-

Is it a fact that, for every single disease for which allopathic medicine "counsels" vaccination, those who refuse such vaccination are more likely to contract the diesease than sustain some injury as a direct and proximate result of the vaccination if they had been vaccinated?

It seems to me that, if there is a greater likelihood that vaccination will result in my child suffering some adverse reaction than contracting the disease if not vaccinated, the decision is not a diffucult one to make.

[dbcooper]

Please tell me you haven't bred.

[Groovus Maximus]

Libertymike.

Please re-read the post. I addressed parental choice. Twice.

Reading comprehension FAIL.

[Libertymike]

GM-

Did I assert that you did not address parental choice? I asked a question of you in the first paragraph. Did you answer it?

Your post was READING COMPREHENSION FAIL BY NON-SEQUITUR AND FALSE ASSERTION OF READING COMPREHENSION ON MY PART

[Groovus Maximus]

No need to yell Libertymike, your inherent hostility to allopathic medicine notwithstanding.

Is it a fact that, for every single disease for which allopathic medicine "counsels" vaccination, those who refuse such vaccination are more likely to contract the diesease than sustain some injury as a direct and proximate result of the vaccination if they had been vaccinated?

I also addressed this in my original post. Reading comprehension FAIL DEUS EX.

But to elaborate. The reason why vaccination is desireable is because children, adults and elderly that are in close contact and close quarters are indeed at a higher risk of being a vector of transmission of disease.

Ever heard of day-cares Libertymike? Or schools? Or nursing homes? Or hospitals? By proxy of close contact factor, not to mention an excellent breeding ground for pathogens, provides opportunistic and virulent pathogens to cause disease.

For every disease where vaccination is indicated, there is risk factor of contagion, depending on both the pathogenicity (how "strong" the offending pathogen is) and the health of the individual. I mentioned this and all sorts of mitigating factors in my post.

Because you could not infer that each patient is different, some people are more prone to disease than others for a variety of reasons.

Can I say conclusively that every case of refusing a vaccine will result in contracting a disease? No, that's foolish. Is the likelihood of contracting disease markedly higher? Yes. The likelihood of sustaining an injury from a vaccine? Negligible, unless vaccination is contraindicated.

Again, risk factors are different for every person. Also, see: Bayes' Theorem

[Ron L]

Libertymike|5.24.10 @ 7:17PM|#
"...allopathic medicine..."

Doesn't this simply mean 'medical efforts backed by evidence'?
IOWs, doesn't it mean, sorta, 'science'?
If so, what's the alternative?

[Libertymike]

allopathic medicine is death by medicine.

[Ivan]

A more detailed description of the study can be found at:
http://online.wsj.com/article/.....48864.html

[Ryan]

I've been trying to find any statistics about non-vaccinated children who have caught the diseases that are preventable through immunization. Does anyone have ideas about where that kind of info is available?

[marlok]

pubmed all the way, dude

Here's one to start with:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19959985

[buddyglass]

In some ways the stats in that abstract aren't helpful since they're talking about global measles deaths, not death rate, and not specifically not the death rate in first-world countries with ample access to health care and good sanitation.

According to wiki, the death rate is approximately 0.2-0.3%. This abstract:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7425188

...describes the mortality rate in the U.S. from 1971-1975 as 0.1%. However, it can also cause lasting brain damage in a smaller percentage of cases.

Multiple studies seem to suggest that the death rate is much higher in areas of high poverty and low access to health care, which shouldn't be surprising. Also, children with pre-existing health issues are also more vulnerable.

(While 0.1% is pretty low, it's still undoubtedly higher than the death rate from being vaccinated, which, while not zero, is nevertheless lower than 0.1%.)

[Hacha Cha]

The thing that pisses me off is the fact that people ignore or aren't aware that thimerosal doesn't get absorbed by the body!!! There is a difference between ETHYLmercury and METHYLmercury. Fuck ignorance.
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/07-06-20/#feature

[Dr. K]

Keep your kids away from my kids as they are not vaccinated. Our pediatrician is kind of bummed they never get sick. My sister's kids on the other hand seem to live in his office.

[Notary Sojac]

I also delayed my kids' vaccinations. Everyone was focused on the possibility of the MMR/autism link, but what no one in the media seemed to pick up on is the widespread use of adjuvants in vaccines and how safe they are. To me, it is just common sense that you do not want to inject a newborn baby with several doses of vaccines, each with their own cocktail of unknowns which may or may not have harmful side effects.

[buddyglass]

"it is just common sense that you do not want to inject a newborn baby with several doses of vaccines"

If there were no positive benefits, then you're absolutely correct. No way would you want to inject a newborn with a bunch of unknowns.

That said, you also don't want your newborn contracting X, Y or Z, which, hypothetically, having him/her vaccinated has a high probability of preventing.

[jersey]

maybe I'd rather suffer the public health risks and leave parents free to make decisions about these things with...um...parents.