I have children ages 3- 22 with some immunized and some not, so I have followed this topic for many years and read a lot information on it. The problem with this piece is the sheer one-sided information presented.. which looks a lot like propaganda. You can't call this good journalism when you are exploring a controversial topic about health and don't even present, explain, or interview anyone with a different opinion. The glaring omission here was that there was NO discussion about the RISKS of vaccines or factual cases presented where children's lives were ruined by reactions to vaccines. These really do exist. So the real choice parents must make is: DO I TAKE THE RISK OF REACTION AND LOSS OF FUNCTION FOR MY CHILD ALONE OR RISK OF INFECTION WITH A DISEASE FOR MY CHILD AND OTHERS? Granted, it's a difficult decision, but there are risks on both sides that were NOT presented in this piece. And... I refuse to have my children referred to as a "herd".

1. This was an important opportunity for a one sided scientific explanation of an issue that has only been recieving media coverage of one side for the past several years

2. No factual cases about "childrens lifes being ruined by vaccines" were presented because those "factual" cases pale incomparrison to the horrible damage that these disease can do to children when kids go unvaccinated (i.e. I would rather my kid be autistic than dead, if the autism link was even true).

3. The concept of herd immunity is different than reffering to your children as a herd, I thought you read alot about this and understand the concepts being presented?

4. Having children does not qualify one as someone who understands or should comment on a complex scientific issue. Going to Medical School and then obtaining a residency in peds and a fellowship in immunology qualifies one to comment on an important scientific problem.

5. Please heed the advice of Dr. Syd. Dont wait for a nasty outbreak of one of these diseases to kill a bunch of children for our generation to learn what past generations already have. Those who do not study or understand history are doomed to repeat it.

As a parent I would not want to take my children to this Doctor nor would I trust his opinion. He comes across as the worst kind of arogant, condescending human being with a God-complex that I've seen in quite some time. Your statement that the damage done by these vaccines "pales in comparison to the horrible damage" the diseases can do is another pompous and condescending comment. Yes, polio, mumps, measles, whooping cough, meningitis and others are terrible diseases that can cause death and permanent damage. YES vaccines can and have caused the same thing, and there are FACTUAL cases which prove that. Now, why is the suffering of those children and their families of less worth than the suffering from people who have been damaged by the diseases? If Doctor's like Dr. Syd would stop parroting the party line and if researchers would do a few well balanced studies that TRUTHFULLY evaluated the benefits and risks of vaccinations I think parents the world over would be better served and it would restore a lot more faith in the medical community. Most of the parents I know are worried more about the vaccination schedule than the vaccines, although I must admit ALL the additives in the vaccines are kind of worrying. (Aluminum? Why do we need metal in vaccines?) And it seems that our children are being vaccinated more and more. I don't actually remember any of my children agreeing to their children getting a vaccination at birth, but they did. A lot less arrogance and some well planned studies by researchers with NO links, past, present or for at least 10 years into the future, would do a lot more to restore faith in vaccinations that doctors like Syd, who tell patients not to come back unless they do it his way.

I won't be watching any more of his so-called expertise -- I don't trust he's even taken the time to really research his position. He's just spouting the party line.

RebeccaL I would love to read some of these factual cases you are refering to. Where are these studies that you are referencing? Are they from a credible source? Also, if you did some research (as you said you did) you would realize that the metals in vaccinations (called adjuvants) is what stimulates the bodies immune system to react to the virus in the immunization.

As far as long term studies... What about the success of the polio vaccination program. Here is a disease that used to KILL PEOPLE ALL THE TIME WITH A DIRECT CAUSATION RELATIONSHIP (remember basic stats 101; correlation does NOT equal causation).

Dr. Syd has an obbligation to his patients. If one parent chooses to be irresponsible and selfish than it is his right to not see those children, as well as his obligation to parents who believe in science. I, for one, would not want to take my child to a Dr. who sees unimmunized children. People who go to allopathic or osteopathic medicine generally believe in the science behind it. People should read the great article in the current Slate regarding paranoia in america. <link>

Also when did it start being arrogant for someone to present their expert opinion?

Yes, there is a very, very small chance that someone could have a bad reaction to a vaccine. But that chance is far, far smaller than the risk of coming down with the disease itself without the vaccine and winding up worse off. And not getting the vaccine also increases the risk to others of getting the disease. So on a total risk basis, it makes overwhelming sense to get the vaccine, even if getting the vaccine is not itself completely risk-free. (Heck, driving a car is statistcially one of the more dangerous things people do, and we don't even think twice about it.)

It's like surgery (except far, far less risky). Every surgery has risks. So we choose surgery when the risks of the procedure are outweighed by the risks of doing nothing. And sometimes doing nothing will have a terrible result.

As for the call for studies: they have been done and are simply overwhelming on this issue. It's not just the party line; it's the result of decades of research. The anti-vaccination chorus, by contrast, have no reliable studies to back up their position that not getting children vaccinated leads to statistically better outcomes for their children or others than getting them vaccinated.

dsimon,

You wrong... there is a lot of data that show's some vaccines are more dangerous than the diseases.

check out vaccinenation.net.

I don't think I can convince you though if your mind is not open.

Phomet,

having had a quick look at that website, not only does the author make some misleading statements on the front page, and try to sell his book/video, but the 'articles' page presents nothing in the way of scientific evidence to support your statement.

Most of the entries are from newspapers: the top one states

"According to the US government's own Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) in 1998 there were 88 vaccine related infant deaths, in 1999 there where 73 infant deaths, and in 2000, 73 infant deaths. This trend of between 70-90 reported infant deaths continues yearly through 2007."

In the two proper journal articles listed, the first is a discussion of the legal actions being taken against vaccine manufacturers, and does not present a medical opinion. It also contains the information that during a previous vaccine scare "droves of British families refused the pertussis vaccine, substantial numbers of children became ill with whooping cough, and some 70 children died." That is, from some families refusing one vaccine in the UK, you had the same number of fatalities you get yearly from adverse reactions to all vaccines in the US. Even allowing for some inaccurate reporting of causes of death, that's a hugely greater risk from the actual disease.

The other NEJM article listed says "The number of febrile seizures attributable to the administration of DTP and MMR vaccines was estimated to be 6 to 9 and 25 to 34 per 100,000 children, respectively. As compared with other children with febrile seizures that were not associated with vaccination, the children who had febrile seizures after vaccination were not found to be at higher risk for subsequent seizures or neurodevelopmental disabilities.

Conclusions There are significantly elevated risks of febrile seizures after receipt of DTP vaccine or MMR vaccine, but these risks do not appear to be associated with any long-term, adverse consequences. "

This can hardly be interpreted as supporting a non-vaccination position, and I cannot understand why the author it - unless he was not expecting people to read more than his summary.

The statistical evidence is not in dispute. Vaccines carry a real risk, but it is small compared to the diseases they protect against. Now if you want to discuss vaccines against less deadly diseases, such as chickenpox, there could be a debate in that.

Please keep your own mind open to the possibility than anti-vaccinationist have their own agendas, every bit as much as the pharmaceutical companies.

I accept people having beliefs that cause them to not wish to have their children vaccinated. Hell, there are some pople that are so far down that path, they deny their children insulin when diabetic, as it goes against their beliefs. While I do not myself carry these beliefs, nor would I let such people have any decision making capacity over my children, I do respect their rights to hold or express said same.

My willingness and tolerance comes to a screeching halt, however, when these same people insist that there is some scientific or research related basis for their reticence to vaccinate. The supposed autism agent with vaccinations was thimerisal, a mercury containing preservative that used to be widely used in all sorts of things, including contact lens solution. This chemical is no longer used, and even when it was, no statistically relevant link was even suggested between vaccines and autism, at least among the researchers involved. Many whackjobs and other Luddites have come since, however, to make all sorts of outlandish claims about vaccines. Dont even get me started about the increased and unwarrented incidence of autism diagnoses either, or I will get long winded and pissed off.

If there is one argument that can be made regarding vaccines, it is a simpel one. What is the number one cause of polio in the developed world today?

Polio vaccination, at least, Sabin polio vaccination. Now, due to the potential for live virus reversion, a Salk or recombinant vaccine is used. There have also been other past issues such as viral contamination of vaccine stocks, etc. But to have gone from a deadly virus like polio to about 1 in 750,000 mortality is truly a miracle of modern medicine.

I dont mind if people dont want to believe in miracles, even if they are scientific ones. But to call their objections scientific, without rigor, review or evidence, is misguided at best.