Send in Your Million Dollar Puzzle Dollars
David Kirby on HuffPo: Notes from the "Big Anti-Vaccine" Conference Autism One

Dr. Bob Sears, Author of "The Vaccine Book": If A Vaccine/Autism Link is Proven, Will Vaccine Policy Change?

The vaccine book Managing Editor's Note: You can purchase a copy of The Vaccine Book by Dr. Bob Sears HERE.  Thanks to Dr. Sears for sharing this discussion with our Age of Autism readers. KS 

By Dr. Bob Sears

This may sound like a rhetorical question, but I submit that the answer isn’t going to be as clear cut as one might believe.  Before I dive into my opinion on this, allow me to introduce myself (for those of you who don’t know me).  I’m a pediatrician, a DAN doctor, and a writer.  I’ve been researching vaccines for about 15 years now.  While I’m not anti-vaccine, I do acknowledge there are problems with our current vaccine system, there are potential very serious side effects, and I view the decision that some parents make to not vaccinate their babies as an understandable choice.  I have always openly accepted such patients into my practice and have never come down on such parents.  I believe parents should be well informed about vaccine risks versus benefits before they vaccinate.  You are probably wondering, “Why the preface?”  Is it because there’s going to be some sort of “But” that I’m going to write about and I feel I have to soften the blow or butter you up a bit before I say something you aren’t going to like?  Maybe.  I’ll let you decide. 

As the autism epidemic continues to rage on, everyone is searching for a cause or causes.  Many parents and some medical professionals believe there is already enough evidence to show a link between vaccines and autism, and they are calling for a change, even a halt, in vaccine protocol.  They hope and pray that someday mainstream research will give them vindication and make a clear declaration that “vaccines cause autism.”  Not that this would help any children who have already been affected (except for easing the financial burden these families have to endure), but it would bring peace and closure to families who have been trying to find why their child regressed into autism.  And it would help protect future children.  For many parents, such a ruling would also create renewed anger and a demand for accountability.  Is such a day ever going to come?  It may or may not.  That’s not the purpose of my discussion here.  The question that I want to address is this:  If a link is proven, will the routine use of vaccinations change dramatically?  I actually don’t think it will.  Now, should it change?  Yes.  But will it?  I’m not so sure.  And before you get angry at me for making sure an outrageous suggestion, allow me to explain my reasoning.  If you still doubt my prediction at the end, I look forward to your responses. 

Most doctors believe that the disease-preventing (and therefore life-saving) value of vaccines is so all-encompassing, that they are willing to accept some drawbacks, such as the very occasional severe, life-threatening, or even fatal, reaction (and some still live in denial that such reactions are even possible).  Some doctors would even be willing to accept the occasional case of autism (if such a connection were proven) in the interest of disease prevention for the nation’s children.  This mindset would make any parent whose child suffered such a reaction very angry.  But let’s explore what most doctors believe could happen if we stopped vaccinating all babies.  Right now there are five childhood diseases that kill infants:  Pertussis (whooping cough) kills about 20 babies each year, Rotavirus (vomiting, diarrhea, and dehydration) about 50, HIB meningitis kills around 10, Pneumococcal disease approximately several hundred (precise numbers aren’t known), and the flu kills around 100 infants and young kids each year.  Those are just the most serious diseases.  And these numbers are probably this low because most parents vaccinate.  What would these numbers look like if we didn’t? 

There are also some diseases that are usually harmless for most people, or extremely rare.  Measles almost never kills anyone, but that’s because there are only about 150 cases each year in the U.S.  How many would die if measles ran rampant?  Chickenpox used to kill about 50 people each year, and now it only kills around 5 because the disease is disappearing.  Mumps and Rubella don’t kill and are very rare, but they can cause the occasional complication.  Hepatitis A (food poisoning) doesn’t kill.  Hepatitis B (an STD) isn’t an infant or childhood diseases, but does kill many adults each year.  And finally, Polio hasn’t existed in the U.S. for almost 30 years now, but we’d sure like to keep it that way.  Meningococcal disease (a type of meningitis that we vaccinate teens for) kills about 300 kids and teens and HPV disease causes thousands of cervical cancer deaths each year, but these are teenage vaccines and not something parents would consider for a young baby or child.  The medical community is so afraid of regressing to the days when these diseases were an everyday part of American life (and death), that halting the vaccine system just wouldn’t be viewed as an option (although I hope and pray that individual parents will continue to have the option to choose for their own children).  

Vaccines and disease prevention is so ingrained into our nation’s healthcare policy that I really don’t think the government’s answer is going to be to stop vaccinating, or even alter the schedule to any significant degree, if a definite link to autism is found.  The very thought of stopping routine vaccines in all children would give most doctors a heart attack.  Infectious disease specialists and public health officials would probably have a stroke right before their coronary.  And the stockholders of the pharmaceutical companies?  Well, they can probably afford to have their bodies cryo-preserved right before their own attacks, so they’ll be alright.  Although I poke fun, this is a fairly accurate assessment of how the medical community would react if anyone tried to put a halt to vaccinations. 

(Allow me to pause briefly to remind you that this isn’t what I’m saying should be done, I’m just predicting what will be done.  So don’t shoot the messenger.  I would also mention that while I am writing statements such as “if” and “when” medical research concludes that vaccines do cause autism, many of you who are reading this are of the opinion that research has already proven exactly that, and you may be annoyed with me for suggesting otherwise.  I would ask you to remember that the mainstream medical community doesn’t see it that way.  I know there is some research that shows there is a connection, but the majority of research that is being published, read by mainstream doctors, and trusted by our nation’s healthcare policymakers, shows there is no connection.  And lastly, I know that some people believe vaccines don’t even work and don’t buy into the idea that the disease numbers I quote are so low because of vaccines, but again, I am just presenting the mainstream medical viewpoint here.  If you are still angry with me, read the preface again, then come on back and read some more.)

So, how will the government and medical community react if a link between vaccines and autism is proven?  I predict that what they will conclude in their research is that yes, vaccines can cause autism, but they will find that it seems to only happen to a small percentage of children with some sort of genetic and autoimmune susceptibility to vaccine chemicals and germ ingredients.  The focus will then become (and somewhat already is) to determine how to screen every newborn baby to figure out which ones have such susceptibility.  We would then vaccinate such babies more carefully (or perhaps not at all, at the parent’s discretion).  I also think that vaccine manufacturers would also begin studying other ways to make vaccines that limit or remove such risks, even for susceptible individuals, so that even they can get vaccinated (because, after all, everyone must get their shots, right?).  But research like that takes decades.  And there’s no way the medical community is going to stop vaccinating in the meantime. 

The U.S. Vaccine court has already determined that such a rare susceptibility to autism is possible.  Although the court said “no” to the 5000 Omnibus families who claimed thimerosal and/or the MMR vaccine caused their childrens’ autism, two cases have come to light in the past two years in which the vaccine court did find that vaccines caused “autism” in two children.  In the case of Hannah Poling, it ruled that vaccines caused her to become very ill and develop autistic-like symptoms due to an underlying and previously unapparent mitochondrial disorder.  Everyone then tried to discount the autism-vaccine connection by saying “autistic-like” is completely different than actual autism.  The court also ruled last year that Bailey Bank’s Acute Demyelinating Encephalomyelitis (latin for brain inflammation and nerve degeneration/dysfunction) and decline into PDD-NOS was also caused by vaccines.  But that’s not autism either (insert sarcastic tone of voice here).  So, while the court is saying no to autism and vaccines in general, they are allowing for the possibility that, in some susceptible individuals, vaccines could trigger a child to develop autistic symptoms. 

But many parents, and some researchers, believe that vaccine susceptibility isn’t a rare condition.  However, those who are trying to prove a link between vaccines and autism are fighting an uphill battle.  Here is why:  Most medical research is supposed to begin on neutral ground, then study a subject to determine a yes, no, or we-don’t-know answer to a hypothesis.  Well, when the autism/vaccine debate first came to light in the 90s, virtually every doctor and health care official said, “No way!  Impossible.  There is no way vaccines could possibly cause autism.”  I’ve actually been to medical meetings where doctors sit around and laugh, literally laugh, at the very idea.  Seeing that made me embarrassed to be a doctor.  I always took the position, “Well, how do we really know until we study it?”  But the medical community doesn’t think that way.  Standard operating procedure is to assume vaccines are safe, unless someone finds and proves a problem with one.  And vaccine safety research is designed to look for noticeable immediate side effects that cause significant harm.  Long-term safety research isn’t nearly as thorough.  As long as initial safety studies don’t yield any immediate problems, the vaccine is released to the public.  And it stays there unless a major problem is then proven.  In essence, vaccines are assumed safe unless proven otherwise.  I don’t mean to bash the vaccine safety research system, because they do try to be as thorough as possible.  But it isn’t a perfect system, and it could be better. 

So, the burden of proof is put on trying to find that vaccines do cause autism.  Researchers and the vaccine manufacturers don’t have to try to prove that they don’t, because it is already assumed that they don’t. Plus, virtually all doctors already passed judgment on this idea back in the 90s before any research began.  So, in order to convince the medical community, research would have to shift the thinking of an entire nation of doctors from a “No way” mindset to at least a neutral mindset of “We don’t know – we better research it,” and then eventually to a “Yes, vaccines can cause autism” belief.  This task is much more difficult than if everyone had started off neutral on the whole idea in the first place.  Now, about 15 years after the debate began, the vast majority of research has failed to prove a link.  Yes, there is some research that has found otherwise, but that’s in the minority.  I know that many parents feel that there is already enough proof, but when you line up all the research side by side, the “nays” have it for now according to the mainstream medical establishment.

Meanwhile, as this battle rages on, 5 million babies are born each year in the U.S., and 33,000 of them are destined for autism (1 in 150).  Since we don’t yet have valid screening tests, should parents just accept that risk without at least thinking about it?  If there is a connection to vaccines, is that simply an unavoidable risk that every parent has to take?  Or is there a way to lower the theoretical vaccine-autism risk?  What can parents do today in light of all the uncertainty and debate?  Well, not vaccinating is certainly an option, although a parent would have to feel comfortable with the disease risk.  And if too many parents make that decision, we could see many diseases increase.  Another way to approach vaccines would be to only vaccinate against diseases that are potentially fatal to infants and young children, like HIB and PC meningitis, whooping cough, rotavirus, and the flu, but delay vaccines for diseases that don’t pose much risk to babies.  Hepatitis B (a sexually-transmitted disease) could easily be delayed until a child is at least a few years old.  Polio, although very serious, doesn’t exist in the U.S., so a baby could go for a year or two without it.  The MMR?  Parents could delay it at least until their child is a few years old and past the age of regressive autism.  Hepatitis A vaccine could easily be put off for a few years, since it’s a harmless disease for young kids.  Chickenpox could be delayed until school age, if you don’t mind your child catching it (some parents actually want their kids to catch it while young). 

That’s what I do in my office, and what I promote in my vaccine writing and speaking.  I offer parents a way to vaccinate that spreads the shots out, limits vaccines to two-at-a-time instead of the usual 6, concentrates on the more important ones first, and delays some less important vaccines until a baby is a little older.  I believe this approach reduces the risks of a vaccine reaction, but if a reaction does occur, it’s easy to determine which vaccine was the culprit (which is impossible to do if you’ve given a baby 6 shots at once).  I also watch very carefully for mild to moderate reactions and take them seriously.  I don’t like to repeat any shots that a baby doesn’t seem to handle well.  Parents who are concerned about autism, but want to vaccinate, can consider using an approach such as mine.  It’s not easy to find a doctor who will work with you to do this, but if it’s important to you, keep looking.  The AAP doesn’t like doctors offering alternative vaccine schedules, so most doctors are hesitant to do so.  But in my opinion, us doctors are here to serve parents (not the other way around, although I’ve heard in the old days it used to be that way).  I think parents have the right to vaccinate in any way they choose, and it’s up to the doctor to work with them to find a vaccine approach they are comfortable with.  I have over 100 doctors nationwide registered on my Vaccine Friendly Doctor’s List who feel the way I do about vaccines and are willing to offer options, or are willing to happily provide healthcare for families who choose not to vaccinate (HERE).  There may be one on the list near you, so check it out. 

Here is what I think every new parent with a new baby needs to think about:

1. If you have a family history of autism or severe autoimmune disease, you need to approach vaccines very carefully.

2. Realize that severe reactions CAN happen.  They may not be common, and there hasn’t been enough research to determine just how common they are, but they can occur. 

3. Understand that there is disease risk as well.  Several hundred infants die each year of what should be vaccine-preventable diseases. 

4. If you do vaccinate, consider doing so using an alternative vaccine schedule that spreads the shots out.  I’ve provided a couple of suggested schedules in my writing.  Also consider delaying vaccines if you feel comfortable with disease risk.

5. Although some doctors are studying ways to pre-screen newborns for genetic or immune susceptibilities to vaccine reactions, no one really yet knows how to accurately screen out all such babies or exactly what types of screening tests are a useful predictor of vaccine susceptibility.  Hopefully this technology will become available soon.

6. Do I think that all parents should stop vaccinating, or delay all shots for a couple years, until more research is done?  Parents certainly have the right to do so.  I don’t take a position on what parents should or shouldn’t do, except that I insist they educate themselves first. 

The vaccine/autism debate isn’t over (despite the U.S. Omnibus Vaccine court ruling), and research will continue.  We need to find the cause (or causes) of autism, and we need to find a way to screen babies for genetic and immune susceptibilities.  What types of changes in vaccine policy might occur if a link is proven, only time will tell.  But I don’t think the government will ever bring the vaccine system to a halt.  Changes in the schedule may occur, possibly similar to what I propose can be done now, and this may help limit vaccine risk.  But if any parents are hoping for the day when the government admits that vaccines do cause autism and decides to stop recommending them altogether, I don’t think that day will ever come. 

Dr. Bob Sears, Pediatrician and author of The Vaccine Book: Making the Right Decision for Your Child, The Vaccine Book.



Hello friends -

A key to opening this discussion up might be to forgo moderation on this post? If we want our views to be taken seriously and not laughed at, we should not be afraid of well constructed and polite criticism.

No one who is unwilling to have their views criticized will be able to affect policy. In this regard, this site consistently fails, and in a sense, perpetuates the stereotype of scientific illteracy, conspiracy theories, and closemindedness. It is the kiss of death for anyone who would seriously want to see policy modified.

- pD


Dr. Sears,
Thank you for being one of the open minds in this mess. What your colleagues seem to have forgotten is their oath which said FIRST DO NO HARM. It is a betrayal of this oath to blindly accept that all vaccines are safe. It is a betrayal to continue vaccinating according to the present schedule and to add more vaccines to the schedule in the face of the alarming rise in autism, juvenile diabetes, asthma, learning disablilities, etc.


When doctors accept such risks (severe reactions/death/autism) are they not contradictory to the oath stating "first do no harm"?

Harry H.

I can't help but believe that the Govt and the AAP know there is a link between vacines and autism as well as other neurological damage in babies. But in their fanatical adherence to "The Vaccine Program" they have determined that the 33,000+ yearly cases of autism are worth it to save a few hundred lives and halt the possability of reemerging diseases. Our children are the collateral damage from a severely damaged program and a few select morally damaged govt officials and MD's.

LJ Goes

Wow, Dr. Sears. Two things struck me about your article. First, what have we, the autism community, become? The consistently apologetic tone of your email tells me we are viewed as hostile to the medical community and the non-autism world. I suppose this makes sense given our paths and the ridicule we have endured--but sadly if this is how we are perceived we more than likely cannot be taken seriously. I will definitely be altering my pitch about this topic to non-believers and I am going to exert herculean efforts to keep my emotions in check.

Secondly, I think you accomplished in this book and this article what we are asking for. ACKNOWLEDGMENT. The part about the doctors sitting around and laughing-that-that right there-that's what makes us sick and sleepless and hostile. We know it our hearts, no matter what we are told to our faces, this is the sort of thing that is happening. We are dismissed. Your openness to scientific inquiry is what we need to believe there is hope.

We need to believe there are mainstream medical doctors who will be strong enough to stand up to the current establishment and their myopic beliefs. We do NOT want disease running rampant amongst our children, we are NOT IDIOTS.

There are zealots among us, sure, just like in any faction. But for the most part we are reasonable educated people made mad because we have been labeled as counter cultural, green freak whackos, who don't get it. It's undeniable that the mainstream media and society in general have been influenced to treat us as such.

Most moms who criticize my choice to choose the alternate schedule for our youngest child DO NOT EVEN KNOW WHAT THEY ARE VACCINATING AGAINST!!! They just know that if someone says they should do it, they should do it. "They" say...THEY...?

When I ask them who "they" are I have yet receive an answer from my neurotypical contemporaries. They don't know how pharmas are influencing our lives, or what the CDC or AAP even stand for. But by golly, they know WE ARE WRONG.

This passsionate belief without education is the same train of thought that led otherwise peaceable white teenagers to bludgeon innocent blacks during the civil rights movement.

I don't know why I hate you, but I do.

I don't know why you won't vaccinate but I know you are wrong.

It seems histrionic, I know, but deconstructed it is THE SAME WAY OF THINKING.

Fear supported by ignorance equals dangerous polarization. I pray fervently we will find more reasonable voices like you, Dr. Sears. Medical minds willing to bridge this gap on both sides to find solutions for our beautiful, innocent children.

best, lj goes and mom to Noah Patrick


I would like to add that many of us hope for an acknowledgement of vaccine-injury so our desires to no longer vaccinate will not be repeatedly questioned and criticized by pediatricians, and we wouldn't need to live in fear that the few services that we do receive from the school would be taken away because they decide to challenge our religious exemption. But certainly the acknowledgement of the harm done is a necessary component of healing for anyone who has been traumatized. We have found one of the nicest pediatricians in the state but still have to endure Jenny McCarthy cracks for simply reminding him that we are not going to be vaccinating at that visit due to prior reactions. So the natural response has been to find our pediatric care from NDs which I never would have imagined previously.
But mainly, I want to assure you that there is no need to be concerned about angering many of us because we are already abundantly aware of how pediatricians and the mainstream community are comfortable enough with the autism as collateral damage to "protect the herd" (or their bottom line). And we're not necessarily waiting for a vaccine schedule change or hopelessly wounded if it's not accomodating the injured, because my prediction would be that the recommended schedule will become increasingly irrelevant as it already has for many of us. For instance, my sister delayed her schedule for her first child when her nephew was vaccine-injured and regressed into autism (acknowledged by his big pharma exec dad), and she spread them out even more when our son suffered the same fate. But is wasn't until her perfectly healthy 2 mos old son died from "SIDS" 2 days after his first shots that she resigned herself to not playing the game at all. So the more determined the AAP and CDC is to protect a so deeply flawed schedule, the more that those of us whose lives were directly destroyed by vaccines will influence our friends and family to do their own research and learn that there are many other routes that people take to keep their children healthy other than pumping them with countless vaccines. And if the dying establishment response is a medical dictatorship with forced vaccinations, I know we're prepared to either change to homeschooling or change countries. But I predict that it's only a matter of time before all of the injured subgroups (SIDS, juvenile diabetes, childhood autoimmune d/os...) increase and collaborate to protect our right to make medical choices for our children. Increasingly, that choice will not involve members of the AAP.


Thank you Dr. Sears for a very good article. I have often thought that the only way main stream medicine will conduct meaningful research is if enough new parents start choosing not to vaccinate. If that happens, some of these childhood diseases will reappear and the government will be forced to address this issue in a more genuine and meaningful way. Either that, or start legislating mandatory vaccines and locking people up who don't follow the current schedule. The question I have always had is WHY hasn't the government supported research on doing exactly what you are doing --- spreading out the vaccines and administering only the critical ones at the early ages? If a study were done that evidenced a lower incidence of autism with no increase in the childhood diseases vaccines aim to prevent, then it would seem that the laughing doctors and Big Pharma could have their cake and eat it too. Until we study alternative schedules parents are left with the "my way or the highway" approach endorsed by the AAP and the CDC. Any new parent that asks my advice will be shown to the on ramp.

Robin Nemeth

You speak of Doctors who sit around and laugh at the notion of vaccines causing autism. The idea that anyone could laugh at anything connected with autism disturbs me a lot, and yet, I’ve seen it happen so very often.

I’ve so often heard the phrase “we’re not anti-vaccine, we just want them made safer”. What I don’t understand is how anyone can have any faith at all in their Doctor, after seeing the attitude that those in our medical and public health institutions and in our media have. The attitude is one of such incredible hubris. “How dare you should even think to question Us?”, the attitude says.

I broke down again and went to see my doctor of osteopathy again one day last week. I’ve been inside this family practice, for myself or my children, a total of maybe five or six times in the last few years. Each and every time I’ve been in there I’ve seen them---the pharmaceutical representatives, coming and going. Lately I’ve noticed they seem always to be dressed in black. And more and more often I notice they’re bringing food. From the Olive Garden the time before last (I asked the receptionist about the food.) And this time, as I was walking through the parking lot, I happened to be entering the building at the same time as the woman from the catering service. She had what looked like a furniture dolly piled high with foil trays. There was enough food there for a small wedding! My doctor says that these pharma reps and those who profit alongside them are people, perhaps implying that I am rude in my stating my beliefs. I told him that to me they are nameless and faceless. I didn’t refer to them as cockroaches to his face, but it’s how I think of them.

My DO claims he doesn’t eat the food. My DO claims that there are people who need the free samples. My DO’s nurse claims that they are able to learn a lot from these pharma reps during their lunch hours without leaving the office or taking time from patients. I don’t buy most any of it, and I told them so, and that I probably wouldn’t be back. I will try to find a doctor who works in a practice where they’re willing to sign a no free lunch pledge. But what are the odds I’ll be able to do so and still have my insurance cover services?

My DO said “I don’t understand why you feel the way you do.” And I told Him that He didn’t have the time for me to explain it, and he nodded in agreement.

How can you trust those who’ve gained Their status thru fear-mongering, thru buying the mainstream media, thru bullying and censorship of those who disagree with Them?

I’ve linked to a site that gives an alternative vaccination schedule when I distribute vaccine/autism information, now. But personally, you can call me anti-vaccine. In fact, not just anti-vaccine, but anti-traditional-medicine.

These people scare the daylights out of me.


Thanks for your two cents, Dr. Bob. I agree and wouldn't ever expect our country to discontinue it's vaccination program, but something has to change the mindset of the medical community. No problems in life can be fixed or avoided until they admit there is a problem. The same goes for vaccine safety. So until that mindset starts to shift and more doctors start to truly advocate for their patients, it is left up to us 'wacky' parents to open the eyes of those around us. I'm always glad to have your book to refer people to since it is not anti-vaccine. I just recommended it to one more mother 10 weeks pregnant with her first child last week along with the comment to at least space out the vaccines some. And after she reads, she'll past it along to at least one other person. And we'll just have to keep doing things that way until there's enough research to finally sway more of the mainstream medical community.

Maybe I should just wear a shirt with "This wacky nutjob parent recommends READING about vaccines before you give them." :-)

Thanks for sticking your neck out for our kids.


Hi Dr. Sears,

Thank you for this article. Thank you for your open mind and willingness to work with parents. Thank you for truthfully informing parents and wanting parents to have the education and information to make these very important vaccine decisions.

As I heard David Kirby say. You have one chance to vaccinate your child the right way.

I've seen many people on both sides bash your opinions. Anti-vaccine for even suggesting vaccines are safe at all, and pro-vaccine for suggesting alternative ways to vaccinate.

We have to find some middle ground. There must be flexibility. We can't continue as we have been going.

You and Dr. Healy have been comforting voices of reason from the medical world on this issue.

We can't passively accept chronic diseases and life long neurological illnesses in our pursuit to eradicate diseases.

I do have a personal question about an issue that came up when my son was being vaccinated in the mid to late 90's. I would like to ask your opinion.

I'm going to try and e-mail you at your website. I hope you will respond.

Thank you again for what you have been attempting to do- finding a middle ground. It is definitely a step in the right direction.


Dr. Bob:

You don’t have to apologize to this crowd for writing the truth; I think we have a better grip on reality than most folks.

I continually wonder why the health establishment and the general public require an official statement from a Federal government agency before they question the safety of vaccines. The government is not a dispensing mechanism for the truth, and never has been. It’s like watching the weather channel to see if it’s raining outside, people want to be told what to do - that way they don’t have to think or take responsibility for their actions.

I believe that humans are inherently lazy, doctors included, and they do not have the motivation to spend hundreds of hours researching this topic. My 9 year old son still rams his head into the walls and windows, so I’ve got plenty of motivation. Something happened to his brain, and I know for certain that injecting mercury into his body didn’t raise his IQ. I don’t think that the mercury is the only problem with the vaccines; I think there is something else going on that has been completely missed and what that is I don’t know. But, how many dollars have been spent by the establishment to tell us that mercury is safe, and how many dollars have been spent by the same group to see if it’s a problem? How many dollars have been spent to study vaccinated vs. unvaccinated kids?

Here is a general guideline that I used for truth detection: If someone or some group claims to have all the answers to a complex topic, raise a red flag and conduct your own due diligence.



I appreciate your perspective. What have you seen and what is your opinion on seeing the decline of disease in this country prior to many vaccines being introduced?

Some of the statistics I have seen are in the "Vital Statistics for the United States".

Also, what is your opinion on the works of Weston Price, Francis Pottenger, etc?




Sounds reasonable to me, but then again the same points were gone over prior to my son's vaccines at 12 months. But at the time I was so ignorant, I thought DTaP was one vaccine, ProQuad, one vaccine instead of four. I was told that there was nothing to worry about when my son began his reactions to the vaccines.

The one thing that will benefit the next kid getting a vaccine would be information, correct information so that parents can make informed decisions. Had I had known my son was receiving a total of 8 vaccines in one sitting I would have asked to spread them out. Would it have made a difference? In Ben? Who knows. But it would have made a difference in how we as parents, my wife and I, see ourselves. As parents our chief responsibility is to protect our children from harm. It's primal. Knowing more about vaccines PRIOR to injecting them into a child is protection, looking at three needles and THINKING/ASSUMING it's three vaccines instead of eight is not protection. It's negligence.

But I rationalize my negligence/laziness/stupidity/gullibility because the media, the doctors, the missing, non-existent posters, billboards. newspaper ads, tv commercials with warnings and concerns about vaccines are no where to be found, they didn't either know the truth or feel it was necessary to expose the truth, in that only 33,000 children will suffer a lifelong injury out of the 5 million kids vaccinated. (unless your child is one of the 33,000 its a drop in the bucket right?)

But I do kick myself, I should have been informed, even if it wouldn't have made a spot of difference in the cause of my son's injury.

If a vaccine autism link is proven, will vaccine policy change? You bet it will. There will be more information, NASCAR's Autism Speaks car race and other visible opportunities to reach millions of people will or could actually give people INFORMATION that would help them protect their children. And the more information out there, no matter what, more children will escape being injured.

I have asked my wife this question, "If a witch came to us and said, 'You son will be healed if someone else's son dies' would you want Ben healed, no scars, no memory of any of the past couple of years, would you be willing to sacrifice Ben's neuro-typical development so that one kid doesn't die from some vaccine preventable disease? Or would you turn your back on the other kid?"

She said, "Isn't that what is going on now, except it is our son that they are sacrificing?"

Nothing can replace what was taken from Ben on April 18, 2007, not even the lives of 3 million, 30 million, 300 million other children. I can't make that sacrifice, and won't PARTICULARLY when I am making that choice with 20/20 hindsight. I guess that's why my son's name is Ben instead of Jesus Christ, I ain't God, I'm human and I'm selfish. There is no way I can ever justify sacrificing my son for anyone or anything and that's what is being asked of all of us, we are forced, tricked into entering a lottery, except it's a lottery of opposites, even if 99% win, I still don't want to play, not with my son's life.

So yes, if there is a link proven, it will change the world because I seriously doubt I'm the only one out here that feels this way, our children come first. That's why there will never be an accepted link, because people will die, many people.

"You're son has a greater chance of getting stuck by lightening than developing autism from a vaccine." Yeah well maybe so, but I'm not going to stick him in the middle of a kiddie pool holding a 10 foot long metal pole either. He's coming inside, with me, I'm not taking any chances.


Take your children to the pediatrician and get one or two shots as opposed to whatever the current "norm," is six? Then watch and wait for any reaction? This is the way to take care of our children? Play roulette with the vaccines and watch and see which ones they react to negatively? NO THANKS! Unless and until all vaccines are safe for all children than NONE should be given to any. There are far, far too many children that are now neurologically damaged and suffering from a host of other illnesses thanks to the vaccine program. Disease is a fact of life. It will never be completely eradicated. Some children will die every year due to diseases. There are other measures one can take to protect their children from childhood diseases that don't require injecting them with toxic filled shots. It's called homeopathic remedies. Mainstream medicine is not the only way to take care of children.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)