When my wife and I decided not to vaccinate our child we did so understanding that it is a lifestyle choice and not just a belief. If there is a chance he will be exposed to a dangerous illness, we remove him from the danger. If we cannot remove him from the danger then the responsible thing to do is to vaccinate. Does that sound like an irrational approach. Try this one, I reccomend a cocktail of toxic (yes toxic) chemicals to keep your child safe. Better to risk a dibilitation than a future trip to the doctors office. It sounds rediculous but that is what you are saying.

Lastly, why is it always the parents of vaccinated children who are scared of there kids contracting these diseases? Arent you protected?? Is my child going to cultivate the super bug that defeates these vaccines? Would the vaccine protect from that?

Vaccinating or not vaccinating has nothing to do with attachment parenting. For an explanation of attachment parenting see this: http://www.phdinparenting.com/2008/11/16/what-is-attachment-parenting/

As Esther explained, a lot of parents that embrace attachment parenting are also either against vaccinations or use alternate schedules for vaccinations. But not all of them do. My children were vaccinated. Other major attachment parenting advocates, such as Kelly from kellymom.com have also vaccinated their kids.

I don’t think that vaccinating or not vaccinating is a cut or dry issue. There are pros and cons to both options and some of the pros and cons affect only the individual child in question and others affect society as a whole.

I can understand why a “middle ground” vaccine schedule as suggested by Sears would be popular with some parents (and, incidentally, sell books and enrich Doc Sears). It is certainly better than parents eschewing vaccines altogether, though it does contribute to the erosion of herd immunity. My main beef with Sears is that he lends credence to several ideas about vaccines that simply aren’t true, and ultimately may scare off more parents from certain vaccines or even all of them. Instead, he raises yet another bogus scare (that of aluminum). So yes, his solution is to spread out the vaccines, but others will take this as “aluminum in vaccines is a legit issue, look – even Dr. Sears says so!”. Why could Sears not have taken the time to educate himself (and then others via his book) about these subject from reall vaccine experts?

I would also add that, in the US, we do not have public health nurses making the visits you describe, so the kids aren’t seen unless the parents deign to remember. To me this says, still, the best prevention in our country is the standard schedule. I think it is difficult for Canadians to understand how our (lack of a) system impacts the public health terrain here.

OK, change, yes we can! Mamas for Obama, etc. And he’s from Hawaii, like the good doctor. Aloha.

WonderingWilla. When you mock peoples efforts to inform themselves and refer to their efforts as “research” (meaning the use of the quotes), you are essentially calling them idiots. You can post helpful information (like you did) without the snarky comments attached – it is much more productive.

Just a few points of clarification, then I’m done.
- I read the article you linked to, and I also thanked you for for the link.

- In Ontario (and I think the rest of Canada), going to the doctor to get your standard vaccines once past early childhood is not required, as a crew of public health nurses goes to schools to administer vaccines.

- The rotavirus vaccine is approved for use here, but you have to pay for it ($200-$250). It isn’t even mentioned as being available on any vaccine schedule I’ve seen. Clearly it isn’t considered much of a priority here. That doesn’t mean babies don’t get sick from it, it just means that public health authorities haven’t seen the cost/benefit analysis come down in favour of widespread vaccination. Because that is how decisions are made about what vaccines to pay for. That isn’t evil, that’s just how it works.

- Did I say at some point that I am anti-vaccine or working with an alternative vaccine schedule for my child? Did I try to defend any kind of anti-vaccine position? I don’t think I did. I was just trying to point out that in this conversation that supposedly only has one valid side, there is a gray area in the form of differing opinions from public health agencies. I’m sure they use just as stringent decision making criteria here as where you live, but they’ve reached different conclusions, based on a multitude of factors that have to be weighed against each other.

Really, now, I don’t have to be *nice* about this at all, which, by the way, I have been, I just stick to an alternative niceness schedule. All I have to do is have the facts to back me up which I do. Please see the article I posted.

And do listen to the radio piece mentioned and tell me who suffered more? The people who didn’t vaccinate who were wringing their hands over how to demonstrate to the media this was the right thing to do or the 10 month old baby who contracted full blown mealses and his family who had to tend do a seriously ill child for a month, all the while putting their livelihood at risk, which is no small matter in this economy.

Failure to vaccinate or even vaccinating on an alternate schedule erodes herd immunity. This has very grave consequences. In my area, there have been two separate pertussis outbreaks, a mumps outbreak, and a measles outbreak since the beginning of 2008. The reason for this is there were unvaccinated people in the population. I don’t have to be nice about that, I don’t have to be tolerant of the behavior in the same way I don’t think society has to be tolerant of drunk driving.

Your point about the variations on the schedule is moot, because it begs the question how will the child get the injection against Hep B, say, if he or she isn’t going to the doctor any more once in the seventh grade? You pointed out that this was indeed the case. So theoretically, I can agree, but practically it just doesn’t matter. (An aside Esther has a good post about the Hep B vaccine on her blog, but I couldn’t find it with a quick search, also worth a look.)

It’s funny you mention rotavirus. Not three hours ago I stepped outside to see if it had warmed up enough for a trip to the park. Who do I run into but the grandmother of my neighbor’s baby and the tot herself toddling behind. Grandmother didn’t want the tots to get too close together as neighbor baby had a nasty cough. In fact, she said, it’s been a really rough month for her, she caught the rotavirus, spent three nights in the hospital on oxygen, and subsequently contracted pneumonia. Sure would hate to have a vaccine against that!

BTW, the rotavirus vaccine is not on the schedule here but it is offered. The problem is, as I understand it, the first dose must be administered within the first two months of life and a lot of doctors are not yet in the practice of offering it or educating parents about it and parents are not voluntarily going forward with it en masse, probably wigged out by ‘information’ from the likes of Dr. Bob, Jenny McCarthy, and Deirdre Imus, so again we’re getting back to the shots administered at doctor visits that don’t happen type of problem.

Anyway, thanks to babyshrink, for explaining why doctors would go along with an alternative schedule. Up until now, I really thought they were delivering sub-standard care by doing this, because, well, the schedule is the standard of care and there could be ethical problems with going a different route.

You make an excellent point. There ARE acceptable variations in the timing and schedule of vaccinations. But there are also some legitimate criticisms of Dr. Bob’s suggestions. And I do understand and appreciate that he is pro-vaccination, and, like our pediatrician, he is working with families who are terrified of giving their kids those shots. He needs to offer something practical as an alternative to simply NOT giving the vaccinations. I applaud that effort, and hope it changes the minds of otherwise misinformed families.

And may I also say: I don’t blindly accept the directives of the pharmaceutical companies, and have my own misgivings about the quality and necessity of some of the medications and vaccinations we are offered today. So perhaps I contradict myself, but I might as well own up to my ambivalence.

But what else are we to do? To me, the simple danger of the illnesses we are vaccinating against make it a “no-brainer”. College kids are coming down with mumps — some of those kids will be sterile from it. We now have to worry about taking our not-yet-fully-vaccinated babies out into crowds and exposing them to potentially un-vaccinated people, who are “hiding in the herd”. The anti-vaccination movement is starting to have a terrible effect, and it’s only going to grow. I do hope that in the future, science can modify and improve the system of vaccination. But for now, it’s the best defense we’ve got against terrible (deadly) illnesses.

I, like you, (and Willa and Joana, I believe, as well as the other commenters) only want the BEST scientifically supported care for our children. Strong emotions aside, so far it seems to me that we’re all on the same page. We want scientifically-supported evidence to back up the best possible care for our families — and we’re smart enough to know the difference between “quasi-science” — which is so prevalent out there, and confusing to so many people — and REAL SCIENCE — published in peer reviewed journals, etc.

I’m glad we’re having this conversation!

WonderingWilla, I’m guessing that your comments are not entirely directed at me but rather at the vast number of people that you entirely disagree with on this topic. I say that because while your post seems to respond to mine, it doesn’t really jive with what I actually said.

My main point was to say that Dr. Sears’ book is not anti-vaccine, because a PP had insinuated that it was. Whatever problems may exist with the book (and I agree that there are some), it was clear to me when I read it (have you read it?) that he advocates full vaccination. I did enjoy reading the Pediatrics article you linked to, so thank you.

My point in mentioning variations in vaccination schedules was simply that since “routine” schedules vary widely, that means that opinions vary on what is “best” or “optimal”. I wasn’t saying one way of coming up with a schedule was better than another, I was simply saying that there are differences. Where I live (in Ontario, Canada), immunization for rotavirus and HepA aren’t on the schedule at all and Hep B isn’t given until grade 7. These are examples of HUGE differences in approach to vaccination. Should I be angry with my government for denying my child these vaccines on the same schedule as you have in the US? Is my child being denied adequate coverage from these diseases? I’d say not. These are public health decisions made by different jurisdictions based on their own data and financial resources. Similar differences exist between provinces in this country.

In case it isn’t clear, my point is simply that there IS more than one approach to vaccinating. Scientifically based, publicly funded, differing approaches.

As an aside, mocking people and essentially calling them idiots isn’t any nicer when in an anonymous forum than it is if you are face to face. Play nice.