I am getting frustrated by the lack of clear articles I am finding about this. There is an article saying that each individual vaccine is bad, and another saying that the same vaccine is good. Since so many parents are concerned about vaccines, and there are seemingly some doctors who agree with the, why isn't there a consensus about what a conservative approach to vaccinations would look like?
I suppose what I would like is for the doctors who are neither in the mainstream max-vac crew, nor in the no-vax crew, to get together and vote on which vaccines provide the maximum benefit for the least risk (which would be the recommended vaccines), and which provide the least benefit for the most risk (the not recommended vaccines).
I have one friend who followed a delayed vaccination schedule, meaning she got all of the usual vaccines for her daughter, but with more time between each vaccination than usual. Intrigued, I asked her why, and she just said it was because she had a general feeling that it was bad to expose a baby to so many pathogens at once. Her daughter is healthy, just as my other friend's daughter who was given the mainstream schedule is healthy, so I'm not complaining about her decision, but her reasoning didn't really help me with mine.
Is there any sort of established selective or delayed vaccination plan that numerous experts have agreed upon? (I am hoping the answer is that I have just not found it yet.) If so, do you personally agree with this plan? Why or why not?
I am not someone who cares about being natural for natural's sake, though I do find that, more often than is acknowledged in mainstream society, the natural choice turns out to be the best. What I am finding frustrating is that anyone who doesn't want to follow the single mainstream recommendation on any given issue has to practically do PhD-level study in the subject, herself, in order to make basic decisions.