controversial article

[JadasMommy<3]

"The problem with Dr Bob's alternative vaccine schedule."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...ubmed_RVDocSum

Has anyone else read this article? If so, how do you respond to the points it makes? Do you agree with any of the points? Which do you disagree with and why? I ask because I think it was written with people like us in mind.

[mamakay]

First of all, I'm not a far of Sears' schedule, or feeling any need to defend his book (which I haven't even read). That said, I'll comment.

Although Sears is correct that doctors do not often
review all of the studies on vaccine science, safety, and
efficacy, he ignores the expert committees that do,

Right, but his point was that people's own docs might not know a lot about what we're concerned about. So...since we can't directly communicate with with the ACIP, we're stuck there.

Point #2 is that the CDC isn't always trustworthy. I agree with him. Basically everyone who looks into this issue ends up concluding that the CDC spreads misinformation.

Sears thinks that vaccines should be optional.

The US is the only developed nation where vaccines aren't. Vax uptake is higher in many countries without the mandates. I'm pro-vaccine choice for a multitude of reasons.

The next point about VPD's not usually being serious...I don't understand where they're going. I also don't understand their criticism of the "hide in the herd" message. What do they want him to say?

Ok...I'm over it. I'll let someone else comment on the rest.

[kiara7]

http://www.askdrsears.com/thevaccinebook/

Dr. Sears' response. We've discussed both on here to death back in January. I'm sorry but I have a hard time believing experts like Offit and believing CDC when their own stats are wrong and are there just for fear-mongering purposes.

[mamakay]

hahaha...I didn't even notice Offit was the author.