Comments on: Why following a delayed vaccine schedule may be dangerous

By: drkateatkinson

drkateatkinson — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 02:15:30 +0000

i just cant understand why one person can state these claims and a nation of parents is following him. there is no evidence in favor of delayed vaccines and my experience is that no parents who elect to do this ‘schedule’ actually stick with it as it requires such frequent visits that it isnt feasible for working parents to stick to it.

By: Cyndi

Cyndi — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 14:49:54 +0000

In my previous comment:
“She gives me her advice and recommendations, clearly explains all the options and potential concerns related to each option, and I make the final decision. The end result is that I remain fully engaged in the care of my children, and I am more likely to follow her recommendations than not.”

I forgot to mention the trade-off benefits to the care provider. I don’t always choose to follow her recommendations, but I’m never non-compliant because whatever I do agree to is followed through as planned. As well, because I am an active participant in all decisions, in fact rather than in theory, she will never have to worry about a lawsuit from me regardless of the outcome. By taking an active role, I also take responsibility for the decisions made. That is a benefit worth pursuing for all care providers, in my opinion.

By: Cyndi

Cyndi — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 12:27:45 +0000

As a parent who did not follow the “standard” schedule with the result that my children’s pediatrician chose to not treat them, a list of doctors who are willing to accept that they are partners in the care of my children rather than dictators of their care would have been helpful to me.
I found a wonderful pediatrician by referral from the PICU intensivist who treated my youngest a few days after her birth (DiGeorge Syndrome), and we reached an understanding that has held for 14 years thus far. We have a partnership. She gives me her advice and recommendations, clearly explains all the options and potential concerns related to each option, and I make the final decision. The end result is that I remain fully engaged in the care of my children, and I am more likely to follow her recommendations than not.
We eventually reached a compromise on the vaccine issue as well, and my daughter is almost “up-to-date” for her age group with the exception of a medical exemption for live virus vaccines. There is no way this would have been the outcome had I remained with a care provider who felt that their job was to tell me what to do and my job was to do it.

By: Lisa S

Lisa S — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 22:46:37 +0000

Regarding Hepatitis B vaccine for newborns, the intent is to try to immunize newborns against Hepatitis B that they may acquire from mothers with unknown or undetected Hepatitis B infection. — Anon

I disagree.Pregnant women are tested for Hep B. If you are negative, they still want you to vaccinate your infant. It is because the group of people at risk for hep B were not easily pulled in for vaccination that the powers that be figured it was easier to fix the herd at birth. The prob with this (other than some of the side effects this vaccine has is not great for newborns) is that the vaccine protection is going to wane by the time the kids get sexually active and are sharing IV drug needles.

Kristine I was reading on the CDC site that the last wild polio in the US was 1979. They stoped the oral polio vaccine b/c it was giving kids polio. So Bookstore, if you are a parent and you give your kid a vaccine that gives them polio whose resposibility is it? Who pays for vaccine damaged kids? The American taxpayer does b/c vaccine companies are protected by the government.

I’m for more research. There are enough families out there that are refusing vaccines – track them for 20 years and find out what the rate of autoimmune disorders, autisim, neuro problems are and if it proves vaccines are safe there’s the end of the argument.

By: Dr. Steve Perry

Dr. Steve Perry — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 02:51:48 +0000

I appreciate all of the comments. There are many reasons that vaccines should be given at the intervals and ages recommended by every scientific organization out there, immune response, safety, protection early in life from serious disease. There is absolutely no biological/rational reason for separating the vaccines. The only reason I see is an emotional one. Parents who come to a pediatrician should be coming to them because the pediatrician has the best advise on when to vaccinate/how to vaccinate/ and use the latest scientific and clinically proven safesty way to protect their infant and child.

I often warn parents that these diseases are rapidly spread and are not 100% protective and if the rate of immunizations declines it puts even the fully immunized children at risk. This is not just a personal issue, it is a public health issue which makes the argument to toy with the vaccine schedule even that more serious.

By: J

Mon, 31 Aug 2009 05:15:15 +0000

By including HepB and HepA and chicken pox in your argument, you lessen it’s forcefulness. Some of us aren’t sheep of Dr. Sears, but have our own well-researched thoughts. My kids get vaccinated, just not on the schedule the AAP (or sears) suggest. Can anyone demonstrate that the AAP schedule isn’t simply convienent (getting them in early and often) as opposed to immunologically sound? Is there a reason some shots should be administered every two months? Because none of my peds have known.

By: Squillo

Squillo — Sun, 30 Aug 2009 17:00:14 +0000

Anonymous (#9)

I took a look at the list, too, and you appear to be correct: all one need do is request to be included. That said, I’m not sure I agree that the poster misconstrues the true purpose of the list.

I doubt most responsible peds would want to be included, for a number of reasons. First, given the disclaimer Sears placed at the start, any ped on the list might expect to be inundated with inquisitions regarding his/her vaccination philosophy, and, potentially, with patients who are not really looking for a pediatrician to advice them. Many will be parents not open to a rational discussion–only looking for a ped who will do what they have already decided is best.

Moreover, if you look at the websites of many of the docs included on the list, it appears that many are dangerously close to what many of us would consider quacks. There are quite a few “naturopathic physicians” who, in many jusisdictions, cannot practice even any basic form of medicine. Many also don’t bill insurance, and/or offer only “concierge service”–not unethical per se, but, in my opinion, somewhat suspect in this context; it implies to me that they may be more interested in making a buck than in providing real medical care. (My bias, I realize.)

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 30 Aug 2009 14:24:59 +0000

I agree that delaying vaccines may place infants at risk, but I think this post misconstrues the purpose of Dr. Sears’ “vaccine-friendly” list. I looked up the list, and all a doctor need do to be on the list is email Bob Sears to ask to be included. Dr. Perry, if you take time to address parents’ concerns regarding vaccines AND you would still keep them in your practice if they decline or delay certain vaccines, you could be on that list. My sense from reading your post is that you would not want to, but your post made out that you were being excluded. The tone of victimization that many pediatricians have regarding parents deciding not to vaccinate is not helpful to the issue of improving vaccination rates.

By: tpetrusick

tpetrusick — Sun, 30 Aug 2009 13:14:30 +0000

I am an “old Fart”. HiB vaccine has probably had the biggest impact on daily general peds practice. In the old days EVERY infant two and under with a fever made you stop and look them in the eye to think do I need to tap this one? Of course you did not tap every one but think about how many times a day you see a child under two with a fever for evaluation and remember that the most frequent ped law suit was delayed dignosis of menigitis. I tell my vaccine refusal parents that it is their responsibility to inform me and every provider that sees their child that immunizations have not been done or are incomplete so that the MD can consider all possibilities.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 30 Aug 2009 06:30:53 +0000

With so many other parents not vaccinating their children these days (in some wealthy communities, vaccination rates are under 90% — clearly not a question of people being too poor to vaccinate their children), it may be more important for parents to ensure that their children (and perhaps themselves) are vaccinated, since unvaccinated children in schools, playgrounds, churches, etc. are just that many more additional vectors of serious disease.

Regarding Hepatitis B vaccine for newborns, the intent is to try to immunize newborns against Hepatitis B that they may acquire from mothers with unknown or undetected Hepatitis B infection.