Time Magazine has an interesting article (HERE) on the Poling case this week. We were particularly struck by this passage from the Time article:
"It's difficult to draw any clear lessons from the case of Hannah Poling, other than the dire need for more research. One plausible conclusion is that pediatricians should avoid giving small children a large number of vaccines at once, even if they are thimerosal-free. Young children have an immature immune system that's ill-equipped to handle an overload, says Dr. Judy Van de Water, an immunologist who works with Pessah at U.C. Davis.
"Some vaccines, such as those aimed at viral infections, are designed to ramp up the immune system at warp speed," she says. "They are designed to mimic the infection. So you can imagine getting nine at one time, how sick you could be." In addition, she says, there's some evidence, that children who develop autism may have immune systems that are particularly slow to mature."
We thought this was pretty responsible reporting. It's interesting to compare that to a statement made by Paul Offit, who often serves as a spokesperson for the Vaccine Lobby:
"A more practical way to determine the diversity of the immune response would be to estimate the number of vaccines to which a child could respond at one time...then each infant would have the theoretical capacity to respond to about 10,000 vaccines at any one time."
So, Dr. Van de Water, an immunologist, feels that giving nine vaccines at one time could make a child very sick. We wonder how she would feel about the additional 9,991 vaccines Dr. Offit, a "vaccinologist", feels would also be safe. Why do reporters talk to his guy?