Is it worth the trouble to spread a baby's vaccines out over more visits so less shots are given at a time?

Thursday, August 23, 2007
 
The main difference in my suggested alternative vaccine schedule is it spreads the infant vaccines out over the first few years of life, instead of bunching them all up in the first 18 months. It gives fewer vaccines at a time, gives the most important vaccines first, and slightly delays the less important vaccines. But ultimately the end result is the same - a fully vaccinated child. What are the benefits of my alternative schedule compared to the standard one?

• By only giving two vaccines at a time (instead of as many as 6), I decrease the chance of chemical overload from grouping so many vaccines chemicals all together at once. This allows a baby's body to better detoxify the chemicals one or two at a time.
• I give only 1 aluminum-containing vaccine at a time (instead of the recommended 4). Overloading on this metal can be particularly toxic to the brain (See Resources, page ___ of The Vaccine Book to view the research on this).
• I give only one live-virus vaccine component at a time to allow the body's immune system to better handle the live viruses in these vaccines.
• Giving fewer shots at a time may decrease the side effects, in my experience.
• Giving fewer shots at a time also makes it easier to figure out which vaccine a child is reacting to if a severe reaction occurs.

Sure, vaccinating this way means more visits to the doctor's office, more gas money, more insurance co-pays and more time off work to take your baby in. BUT, some parents may decide it's worth the extra time, money and trouble.