Originally Posted by Marnica
I would call delaying until 6 months still pretty provax. I mean there is not a huge difference in a babies immune system at 6 months than at 2 and 4 months IMO.
From a pro-vax point of view, starting at 6 months rather than birth is pretty bold.
I wish more doctors would go against the recommended schedule and say, "Let's start a little later," (even if it is just a few months) because then at least more doctors seem to be questioning the norm, and perhaps this would encourage more parents to look into the issue for themselves.
I know that one thing that encouraged me to look into the issue more closely is that I interviewed all 4 peds in my daughter's group and got 4 very different answers, though all were very pro-vax. One of them told me vaccines have very serious risks and that I should research each vaccine and the ingredients before making a decision (although he still stressed that he recommended getting all of them, but was open to an alternative schedule OR not vaccinating,) another ped told me that it was literally dangerous not to follow the recommended schedule and that my daughter could get menigitis and die. Still another talked about asking for low-mercury, while another one laughed and said shots have never had mercury.
The different answers REALLY got me thinking. I thought, "WTH? All of that was just a bunch of opinions
...I've got to do my own research."
Anyway, I'm not disagreeing with your original assertion that it's still pretty pro-vax; I was just adding my thoughts to it!