I wrote about
my story on my blog.
I really liked the part prosciencemum quoted from the article above. There are those who have reasoned themselves into thinking vaccines may be too risky, or may just not be worth it, who can be reasoned away from that position. That was the case with me, as well. I've had a few friends ask me "why do we need to vaccinate for polio?" or "why should an infant get the Hep B shot?" and those kinds of questions often lead to questioning the entire schedule, then turning to someone like Dr. Bob who offers an appealing alternative, or just rejecting vaccines entirely.
It seems fairly easy to get the idea into a person's mind that vaccines are an unjustified risk until someone can prove otherwise by demonstrating that an individual child is actually vulnerable to the disease. *
The truth is just the opposite, that vaccines are incredibly safe and low-risk for those of us without known contraindications, even for some diseases for which the risk of an individual child contracting an illness is miniscule (diptheria in the US, for example).
For myself, rather than a lack of understanding of science-- though this certainly was a factor-- I think I had an inappropriate view of risk and a lack of appreciation for the larger picture of what vaccines can do and have done for public health. When it gets into the *false* argument that it's public health (ie- government involvement) vs. individual health (freedom! choice!) a person's political views can rapidly crowd out the best of scientific evidence.
*ETA- To clarify: What I mean is, there might be a risk profile for children of certain demographics, but it's simply not possible to know every risk factor and quantify it for each child. I've been asked why I think I put my child "at risk" by delaying vaccines, and there's no way I can demonstrate his personal risk for each disease. All I know is that, based on the way risk is measured, he was at more risk for harm when unvaccinated than if I had vaccinated him by the schedule.*
