U.S. News and World Report February Issue Features Dr. Bob’s Alternative Vaccine Schedule
Friday, March 20, 2009
The vaccine debate rages on, and Deborah Kotz’s feature in the February issue provided a very well done summary of many of the current issues. She included many quotes from various medical experts from around the country about parents’ growing fears over vaccines side effects and where we should go with research. Here are some of the highlights that I found interesting:
Pediatrician Catherine DeAngelis, editor in chief of the Journal of the American Medical Association (now that’s a credential!), was quoted as saying, “I certainly think it’s wrong to give [Gardasil] to young teenage girls. What are the risks? We won’t know until it’s given to millions of women.” It’s interesting that the chief editor of JAMA would make such a statement, but it does echo what many parents across the country are saying about Gardasil.
“According to the CDC, if every American child followed the schedule, 33,000 lives would be saved every year.” I find this very hard to believe. Vaccine-preventable diseases only kill about 500 children each year (a rough estimate, but it’s still very tragic). Where does the CDC get such a high number? I think they are probably including all the elderly people that die of the flu, Hepatitis B, and cervical cancer. That may be true, but this number gives the false impression that 33,000 children are dying each year of what should be vaccine-preventable diseases. That’s just not true.
Deborah discusses how the AAP and CDC are approaching the issue of vaccine safety. In my opinion, there is a significant disparity between the two institutions in how they are handling the public’s worries over vaccines. The AAP’s answer: form an “immunization alliance” to create a publicity campaign (not research!) to push for all kids to get all recommended vaccines on time, lead by vaccine patent-holder Dr. Paul Offit. But the CDC, while also encouraging the same policy, is willing to admit that more research needs to be done. Deborah quotes Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (which is a key partner in new research initiatives on vaccines) as saying “If we can show that individuals of a certain genetic profile have a greater propensity for developing adverse events, we may want to screen everyone prior to vaccination.” It seems to me that the AAP just wants to keep doing business as usual, and the CDC wants to do more research (while continuing to do business as usual for now).
In regards to the Hannah Poling case (whose autism was ruled by the U.S. Vaccine Court to be triggered by vaccines because she had a mitochondrial disorder), Deborah quotes neurologist Dr. Bruce Cohen (a mitochondrial disease expert at the Cleveland Clinic) as saying, “Mitochondrial disease often occurs in the later stages of a viral illness, and it’s proper reasoning to think that vaccines could do what viruses do” in terms of immune reactions.
John Iskander, the CDC’s associate director for immunization safety, is quoted as saying, “Vaccines are extraordinarily safe medical products.” He also comments on the issue of unknown safety risks of two new vaccines, Menactra and Gardasil, which only need to be tested on several thousand people in order to receive FDA approval: “These trials simply aren’t big enough to detect rare events that only come to light after 1 million or more doses are distributed.”
Dr. Bernadine Healy, former director of the National Institutes of Health, adds her two cents (or rather, her couple of bucks) to the article with a discussion of where the NIH is headed with its vaccine safety research efforts to learn “how to use them more safely and effectively.” They plan to study how vaccines can affect the immune in ways we don’t yet know, learn how to identify susceptible groups who may respond poorly to vaccines, to study various vaccine schedules, and to learn more about the infant immune system.
Deborah reminds us that “the original vaccine against rotavirus . . . was tested on fewer than 1300 American infants before it was approved in 1998; a year later, after being given to 1.5 million babies, Rotashield was pulled from the market because 13 reported cases of severe intestinal blockages were attributed to the vaccine. The meningitis vaccine Menactra was studied in just over 7500 people before it was approved in 2005 . . . It wasn’t until . . . after 15 million doses had been administered that the CDC announced a “small increased risk” of Guillain-Barre [a paralyzing disease] that needs to be studied further.”
Deborah points out the drawbacks of the VAERS system and discusses the CDC’s Vaccine Safety Datalink, a better monitoring system for studying adverse reactions. Dr. Richard Platt from Harvard is expected to release the results of this system’s monitoring of Menactra side effects (namely Guillain-Barre) later this year.
Deborah reminds us that avoiding immunizations altogether isn’t a good solution for families because certain serious diseases could rise sharply and cause more fatalities if vaccination rates drop too sharply. “Parents who choose not to vaccinate had better hope that other parents aren’t following their lead. Certain approaches (referring to my alternative vaccine schedule), though, can help minimize risks without leaving children unprotected.
She ends the article with a layout of my alternative vaccine schedule. This is the first national publication to do so in a neutral/positive light (Yay!). You can find an online version of this part of her article here. If you click on the vaccine chart on the left side, you’ll see my alternative schedule laid out next to the AAP/CDC schedule.
This is the first vaccine article that I’ve read in a mainstream news magazine or newspaper that didn’t end with, “So vaccines are perfectly safe, parents have nothing to worry about, and everyone needs to vaccinate their babies according to the standard vaccine schedule.” But it didn’t end with “vaccines are dangerous and everyone needs to beware” either. The article summarized what seems to be a shift within the CDC, NIH and the government toward more research into making sure what we are doing with vaccines is safe, how we can improve upon it, how we can screen out that very small number of infants who may not react well, and how we can gain a better understanding of how vaccines affect the immune and nervous system.
The party line used to be “vaccines are perfectly safe, we know everything we need to know about their side effects and how they affect the immune and nervous system, and that’s that.” I can’t tell you how many AAP medical meetings I’ve been to where doctors just sit around and laugh at anyone who even thinks about saying anything negative about vaccines. They literally laugh. I think that arrogant mindset is changing. How can anyone pretend that we know everything? We need more research. I’m not saying we should stop vaccinating, neither is Deborah Kotz in this article, and neither are any of the doctors whom she quoted. But it seems that the call for more research and understanding has been heard. I look forward to seeing it all (in ten years or so, unfortunately).
What will happen to the vaccine industry if research finds that a small, but significant, percentage of children truly are susceptible to suffering some harmful neurologic or immunologic effects? I predict that this will NOT lead to a change in our overall vaccine policy. The fear over what would happen with diseases is too powerful of a concern in the medical community. I think that in most doctors’ minds, disease prevention takes precedence over the occasional developmental challenges that vaccines may trigger in a small subset of our population. I’m not saying that’s right, I’m just saying that’s the way I think the medical community would view this issue if research proves there’s a concern for a small percentage of children. Of course, the financial and emotional burdens of autism on each individual family and our nation as a whole is huge, and it’s climbing. What is going to happen with these 1 in 150 kids in 20 years?
What I think will happen as more research comes out is that we will learn how to screen newborns to determine who is susceptible, then we will learn how to vaccinate them differently in a way that doesn’t cause harm to that small subset. Or we may not vaccinate them at all. But I don’t think that this research is going to lead to a sudden revelation that vaccines are dangerous to all children and that we should stop. In order for something like that to overcome the momentum that vaccine policy has, the research would have to be very clear that vaccines can harm many or most children.
Pediatrician Catherine DeAngelis, editor in chief of the Journal of the American Medical Association (now that’s a credential!), was quoted as saying, “I certainly think it’s wrong to give [Gardasil] to young teenage girls. What are the risks? We won’t know until it’s given to millions of women.” It’s interesting that the chief editor of JAMA would make such a statement, but it does echo what many parents across the country are saying about Gardasil.
“According to the CDC, if every American child followed the schedule, 33,000 lives would be saved every year.” I find this very hard to believe. Vaccine-preventable diseases only kill about 500 children each year (a rough estimate, but it’s still very tragic). Where does the CDC get such a high number? I think they are probably including all the elderly people that die of the flu, Hepatitis B, and cervical cancer. That may be true, but this number gives the false impression that 33,000 children are dying each year of what should be vaccine-preventable diseases. That’s just not true.
Deborah discusses how the AAP and CDC are approaching the issue of vaccine safety. In my opinion, there is a significant disparity between the two institutions in how they are handling the public’s worries over vaccines. The AAP’s answer: form an “immunization alliance” to create a publicity campaign (not research!) to push for all kids to get all recommended vaccines on time, lead by vaccine patent-holder Dr. Paul Offit. But the CDC, while also encouraging the same policy, is willing to admit that more research needs to be done. Deborah quotes Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (which is a key partner in new research initiatives on vaccines) as saying “If we can show that individuals of a certain genetic profile have a greater propensity for developing adverse events, we may want to screen everyone prior to vaccination.” It seems to me that the AAP just wants to keep doing business as usual, and the CDC wants to do more research (while continuing to do business as usual for now).
In regards to the Hannah Poling case (whose autism was ruled by the U.S. Vaccine Court to be triggered by vaccines because she had a mitochondrial disorder), Deborah quotes neurologist Dr. Bruce Cohen (a mitochondrial disease expert at the Cleveland Clinic) as saying, “Mitochondrial disease often occurs in the later stages of a viral illness, and it’s proper reasoning to think that vaccines could do what viruses do” in terms of immune reactions.
John Iskander, the CDC’s associate director for immunization safety, is quoted as saying, “Vaccines are extraordinarily safe medical products.” He also comments on the issue of unknown safety risks of two new vaccines, Menactra and Gardasil, which only need to be tested on several thousand people in order to receive FDA approval: “These trials simply aren’t big enough to detect rare events that only come to light after 1 million or more doses are distributed.”
Dr. Bernadine Healy, former director of the National Institutes of Health, adds her two cents (or rather, her couple of bucks) to the article with a discussion of where the NIH is headed with its vaccine safety research efforts to learn “how to use them more safely and effectively.” They plan to study how vaccines can affect the immune in ways we don’t yet know, learn how to identify susceptible groups who may respond poorly to vaccines, to study various vaccine schedules, and to learn more about the infant immune system.
Deborah reminds us that “the original vaccine against rotavirus . . . was tested on fewer than 1300 American infants before it was approved in 1998; a year later, after being given to 1.5 million babies, Rotashield was pulled from the market because 13 reported cases of severe intestinal blockages were attributed to the vaccine. The meningitis vaccine Menactra was studied in just over 7500 people before it was approved in 2005 . . . It wasn’t until . . . after 15 million doses had been administered that the CDC announced a “small increased risk” of Guillain-Barre [a paralyzing disease] that needs to be studied further.”
Deborah points out the drawbacks of the VAERS system and discusses the CDC’s Vaccine Safety Datalink, a better monitoring system for studying adverse reactions. Dr. Richard Platt from Harvard is expected to release the results of this system’s monitoring of Menactra side effects (namely Guillain-Barre) later this year.
Deborah reminds us that avoiding immunizations altogether isn’t a good solution for families because certain serious diseases could rise sharply and cause more fatalities if vaccination rates drop too sharply. “Parents who choose not to vaccinate had better hope that other parents aren’t following their lead. Certain approaches (referring to my alternative vaccine schedule), though, can help minimize risks without leaving children unprotected.
She ends the article with a layout of my alternative vaccine schedule. This is the first national publication to do so in a neutral/positive light (Yay!). You can find an online version of this part of her article here. If you click on the vaccine chart on the left side, you’ll see my alternative schedule laid out next to the AAP/CDC schedule.
This is the first vaccine article that I’ve read in a mainstream news magazine or newspaper that didn’t end with, “So vaccines are perfectly safe, parents have nothing to worry about, and everyone needs to vaccinate their babies according to the standard vaccine schedule.” But it didn’t end with “vaccines are dangerous and everyone needs to beware” either. The article summarized what seems to be a shift within the CDC, NIH and the government toward more research into making sure what we are doing with vaccines is safe, how we can improve upon it, how we can screen out that very small number of infants who may not react well, and how we can gain a better understanding of how vaccines affect the immune and nervous system.
The party line used to be “vaccines are perfectly safe, we know everything we need to know about their side effects and how they affect the immune and nervous system, and that’s that.” I can’t tell you how many AAP medical meetings I’ve been to where doctors just sit around and laugh at anyone who even thinks about saying anything negative about vaccines. They literally laugh. I think that arrogant mindset is changing. How can anyone pretend that we know everything? We need more research. I’m not saying we should stop vaccinating, neither is Deborah Kotz in this article, and neither are any of the doctors whom she quoted. But it seems that the call for more research and understanding has been heard. I look forward to seeing it all (in ten years or so, unfortunately).
What will happen to the vaccine industry if research finds that a small, but significant, percentage of children truly are susceptible to suffering some harmful neurologic or immunologic effects? I predict that this will NOT lead to a change in our overall vaccine policy. The fear over what would happen with diseases is too powerful of a concern in the medical community. I think that in most doctors’ minds, disease prevention takes precedence over the occasional developmental challenges that vaccines may trigger in a small subset of our population. I’m not saying that’s right, I’m just saying that’s the way I think the medical community would view this issue if research proves there’s a concern for a small percentage of children. Of course, the financial and emotional burdens of autism on each individual family and our nation as a whole is huge, and it’s climbing. What is going to happen with these 1 in 150 kids in 20 years?
What I think will happen as more research comes out is that we will learn how to screen newborns to determine who is susceptible, then we will learn how to vaccinate them differently in a way that doesn’t cause harm to that small subset. Or we may not vaccinate them at all. But I don’t think that this research is going to lead to a sudden revelation that vaccines are dangerous to all children and that we should stop. In order for something like that to overcome the momentum that vaccine policy has, the research would have to be very clear that vaccines can harm many or most children.
Labels: Vaccine News
posted by Sears Family @ 11:17 AM
17 Comments:
At March 20, 2009 1:14 PM ,
jennifer said...
excellent information and thank you! Sounds encouraging, at least a little bit!
At March 20, 2009 2:06 PM ,
Valerie said...
Thank you, Dr. Sears, for being the voice of reason! After all of the research, for and against vaccinations, yours is the one book, that gave me the confidence to selectively vaccinate. (I may even fully vaccinate, but not on the typical schedule). My pediatrician had respected my wishes, but all he could ever give me was anecdotal evidence and scare tactics. After I read your book and told him I was willing to do some vaccinating (my daughter was 4), I encouraged him to recommend your book to other parents. I have a masters degree in science, and I respect the scientific method, but didn't appreciate the party line answers I was getting from the AAP, nor the fear-mongering from the anti-vac people. I'm particularly excited to read that there will be research investigating the link between vaccines and immune diseases. I have an auto-immune disease that seemed to worsen after the administration of several vaccines in my adulthood, and I think these types of potential links warrant further investigation. Thanks for your continued work and for keeping us informed!!
At March 31, 2009 11:32 PM ,
Isabella said...
Thank you for giving validity to this issue.
I hope some day the Courts will acknowledge that the standard view of the AMA should not be the rule of the land. I tried to delay the live virus chicken pox vaccine for my preemie baby..and a Court ordered me to give it to her. (Fortunately, I delayed it for a year.) My child at 2 responded to the live virus with a 106 temperature; I spent the night getting her fever down alternating Tylenol and Motrin, and sitting in a cool bath with her. My child might not have faired so well if she had had it at 1 year old.
And why is the HEp B schedule beginning at 2 months old. My daughter was 2 lbs. and born at 28 weeks and at 2 months old (not even 40 weeks gestation) the hospital wanted to give all the vaccines.. Giving Hep B at 4 lbs and not even 40 weeks. What's wrong with this vaccine picture?
Isabel
At April 1, 2009 9:46 AM ,
Krissy H said...
Thank you Dr. Sears for encouraging the medical community to consider other options for our children!
At April 1, 2009 4:22 PM ,
Anonymous said...
Love your book! Recommended it to anybody who was skeptical about giving so many shots in such a short period of time to their babies. Thank you for writing a well thought out, and easy to read book on the subject!
At April 6, 2009 10:59 PM ,
Anonymous said...
As a teacher of children with ASD, I see the numbers growing and growing. I am glad hear that someone is recognizing the connection between Autism and the vaccines. As a parent I was so grateful for your book, as I was terrified to vaccinate my own child. Thanks to you, I was able to give my son the vaccines he needed without "drowning" his little body!
At April 7, 2009 5:25 AM ,
Anonymous said...
Dr. Sears, from the bottom of my heart THANK YOU for all the excellent information you provide parents. Its so scary the world of vaccines knowing that there isn't anyone who you can trust. Your book allow us (my family) to make an intelligent choice to vaccine my newborn. Thank you!
I do have a questions, is there anyway you can provide us with Brand names of vaccines that are free of mercury so I know that my pediatrician is using the right ones even thou he says they are mercury-free?
At April 7, 2009 11:54 AM ,
TARA.KELLY said...
CONTINUE THE SEPERATION OF THE
MMR SHOT ONLY 3 SIMPLE STEPS
1. CALL MERCK TOLL FREE @ 800-672-6372
2. Hit #2 for consumer
3. Get a “Person” on the phone ask them to please put you down on their consumer feedback report that you are unhappy that Merck took the option away for a separated MMR shot, please reconsider this - "YOUR REASON IS FOR HEALTH & SAFETY".
They will ask 1 question, the state you live in.. it’s that simple…
It will only take less then 3 minutes.. the more people who rally against this the greater the chance as a mom & for all other mom's like myself we will get a choice again!!
Thank you for your support & help!!
At April 9, 2009 10:46 AM ,
Joselle said...
Thanks for your helpful and informative work. I just wanted to make one small blog suggestion. Can you please spell out all acronyms when you first use them? I think this will help with clarity. That's the medical journal editor in me! Thanks. :)
At April 11, 2009 9:06 PM ,
Leah said...
Good news Dr. Sears. Thank you.
Here is a famous quote that I like that seems fitting:
""The world hates change, yet it is the only thing that has brought progress." Charles F. Kettering
At April 15, 2009 5:44 AM ,
Anonymous said...
Dr. Sears, we are so thankful to God for you and your integrity and committment to truth, choice, and research in this vital area of our lives.....our children's health. As children are a gift from the Lord and we as parents are to have good stewardship over them. Thanks to God that he has enabled you to be a vessel of reason and integrity, one that is unafraid of intimidation, who echos the voice of wisdom in an area where parents must make these decisions for their children. May God richly bless you and your family all of your days. Thank you again and again!
At April 16, 2009 9:02 AM ,
Dr. Bob said...
Thanks everyone for the nice comments.
One of you (Anonymous) asked about brand names and mercury. You will find this info in two places in the book - First, in the vaccine ingredients chapter, I spell this out very thoroughly by vaccine type and brand name. Then, in each chapter I specify all the ingredients in each brand name.
At April 30, 2009 7:11 AM ,
Mark said...
I just folowed tara.kelly's advice and Merck told me that they are planning to bring the separate vaccines back in 2011 (barring no changes in supplying the combo vaccine) Call your pediatricians and see if they have any of the single doses left - they might reserve them for you. Keep your kids safe!!!
At April 30, 2009 5:42 PM ,
Anonymous said...
Thank you so much for your book. I am following the alternate schedule with my 3rd child. I did not have any problems with my first two children but this time I am playing it much more safe with the vaccines. With that said my doctors office as well as other's in town are posting information around the office that say things like this; "Please be advised, however, that delaying or "breaking up the vaccines" to give two at a time over two or more visits goes against expert recommendations, and can put your child at risk for serious illness (or even death) and goes against our medical advice as providers at _____ Pediatrics at Medical Park. Furthermore, we will ask you to sign a waiver releasing us from any liability."
Needless to say this completely freaks me out and makes me question my judgment. I am sure other parents feel the same way. Thanks for your courage thinking outside the box!
At May 4, 2009 1:37 PM ,
Anonymous said...
i spoke with a merck representative today and here is the update:
they are "planning on making the measles, mumps, and rubella separately in the future", but not for at least 2 years
At May 26, 2009 12:20 PM ,
Anonymous said...
Thank you Dr. Sears!! My husband and i had a meet and greet to find our baby's pediatrician & i was nervous about getting the third degree on using the alternative schedule, but i had your book with & had your schedule on a piece of paper to show him and was sooooo happy when he said that he would be fine with working with us. Thank you for giving parents the knowledge to make the best decisions for their children!!!
At September 5, 2009 11:49 AM ,
Minority said...
Insidevaccines did some research on the source of that 33,000 children a year will die of vaccine preventable diseases if we stop vaccinating. It is an interesting story. Here are the links:
Part I http://insidevaccines.com/wordpress/2008/06/16/where-do-they-find-these-scary-statistics/
Part II http://insidevaccines.com/wordpress/2008/07/28/where-do-they-find-these-scary-statistics-part-ii/
Part III http://insidevaccines.com/wordpress/2008/09/02/where-do-they-find-these-scary-statistics-iii-lets-make-a-few-assumptions-hepatitis-b/
Post a Comment
<< Home