Advice for Moms
Half of Babies Are on a Slower Vaccination Schedule – Should Yours Be?
Are you delaying vaccinations for your baby? If so, you're part of a growing trend. Vaccination delay (not following the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommended schedule), or undervaccination, is something parents are doing more and more lately. It seems like we want more say in our kids' vaccination schedules, and we want those schedules to slow the hell down.
A recent study took a look at the undervaccination trend and confirmed that it's building momentum. Nearly half of the 300,000 children in the study were undervaccinated by at least one day by the time they reached their second birthday. What's especially interesting is that the study looked at children who were undervaccinated because the parents chose that, and children who were undervaccinated for any reason.
So there's the major finding that undervaccination is a growing trend, the study also looked at what kinds of visits these babies had while they were undervaccinated.
 Undervaccinated children do fewer outpatient visits than onschedule kids. (This means visits to clinics, doctors' offices, and short hospital appointments.)
 Undervaccinated children have more inpatient visits than onschedule kids. (This means hospital stays.)
 Children who are undervaccinated because of parental choice do fewer outpatient visits and have fewer emergency encounters.
In other words, undervaccinated kids go longer between doctors' visits. But here's the worrying part  underimmunized babies also check into the hospital more often. Other studies show that children who don't get vaccinations at all are nine times more likely to get chicken pox and 23 times more likely to get whopping cough than immunized kids.
So there you go  some information to mull over while you decide whether you want to follow the ACIP schedule or an alternative schedule  or none at all. Every parent who made a decision about this has their unique story to tell. My son followed the ACIP schedule (more or less) and has never needed a hospital stay. But that's just my story. We're all a special case and you can't generalize from one person's experience. All I know is, I'm glad I never had to check my baby into the hospital.
And if I had to do it all over again, I might delay the schedule for my child just a little bit more, but I'd still do all those immunizations pretty much on schedule. Except that chicken pox! Damn you, chicken pox vaccine. I had the chicken pox when I was five and I was just fine. Oops  there I go, generalizing from my unique experience.
Have you chosen to delay vaccinations? Why or why not?
Replies

Mortality Rate 50% Higher with More Vaccine Doses
The deaths of children from multiple vaccine doses can only be called carnage. This study demonstrates that giving 58 doses instead of 14 doses at a time has resulted in an extra 51,750 to 103,500 child deaths in the last 20 years.
by Heidi Stevenson
A new study using data from the US government’s Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) shows that the more vaccines given, the more likely children will die or be hospitalized. The increased rates are highly significant, with a 50% greater chance of death with doubling the number of vaccines and more than 100% increase in hospitalizations—that’s double the number of hospital visits!
VAERS is recognized to contain only a small percentage of all adverse vaccination events. As GS Goldman and NZ Miller point out,
[A] confidential study conducted by Connaught Laboratories, a vaccine manufacturer, indicated that ‘‘a fiftyfold underreporting of adverse events’’ is likely. According to
David Kessler, former commissioner of the FDA, ‘‘only about one percent of serious events [adverse drug reactions] are reported.Thus, the increased mortality and hospitalization suffered by children as a direct result of the aggressive vaccination schedule, with as many as 9 vaccines given in one day, is a huge number of children. If, according to the study’s report above, only 1 to 2 out of 100 adverse events is reported, then the numbers reported by VAERS need to be multiplied by 50 to 100!
Nonetheless, as this study has demonstrated, significant information about the hazards of vaccines can still be ascertained by running statistical analyses of the data given.
The graph on the right, produced by the study, displays the hospitalization rate charted against the number of vaccines. The solid diagonal line plots the linear regression calculated for the data. You can see that it’s a close match for the specific number of hospitalizations for each year.
The outlier references the hospitalizations for a single vaccine dose. This is likely explained by a combination of factors. One is that the earliest vaccines are generally given singly in the hospital shortly after birth. Newborns are at greater risk. Also, many parents will refuse to continue vaccinations, or will refuse multiple vaccines, after an early severe reaction.
R^{2} refers to the likelihood that the regression line is a good fit for the data. R^{2} of 0.91 is quite good. Perfect would be 1.00. Thus, it’s likely that the graph is showing the reality: When the number of vaccine doses increases, the number of hospitalizations increases dramatically, from 10% of VAERS reports with 2 doses to more than 20% with 8 doses.
Below is the table for the death rate by number of doses:
Interestingly, the number of child deaths due to number of vaccine doses increases dramatically with 5. The reasons for this are unknown, but it may have to do with the particular vaccines given or simply be related to additive effects of toxins in the vaccines. That wasn’t analyzed in this report.
I’ve circled the salient data in red. They show the actual numbers of reported deaths, the numbers of reports of adverse events, and the rates of mortality for 14 vaccines added together and all adverse event reports of 58 vaccines added together.
Note: In reviewing the figures, I noted a possible small error. In my calculation, the circled 3.6% mortality rate should be recorded as 3.5%. It’s probably nothing more than a difference in method of rounding. I’ve written to the authors to ask about this and will report back on their response.
Update: Dr. Gary S. Goldman, Ph.D. responded quickly and frankly within a few hours:
Dear Heidi,
Yes, your calculation looks correct. The paper went through several revisions and what I think happened is that initially we showed the percentages accurate to the nearest hundredths, so 3.546… was shown rounded to 3.55, then at some point we decided to round only to the nearest tenths. Unfortunately, we likely rounded the 3.55 to 3.6 when we should have gone back to the original data. Sorry about that! Thank you for your find!
In looking at the table, it’s quite clear that something is going on with increasing doses of vaccines given at the same time. You can see that there’s a huge jump in mortality with the fourth vaccine, jumping by a factor of 3.88, from 42 to 163 deaths. The statistical method of reporting doesn’t clarify this fact, nor does it show that the increase is almost as great with the fifth vaccine dose, from 163 to 523, 3.21 times more children dying.
The second four vaccine doses, 58, are resulting in 50% more deaths than the first four doses, 14. When we also consider the likelihood that there are 50100 times more adverse reactions than reported, what this study reveals is frightening:
1,458 deaths at 58 doses – 423 deaths at 14 doses = 1,035 extra deaths for doubling the number of doses.
Multiply that by 50 and you have 51,750 extra deaths simply for giving 58 vaccine doses, instead of 14 doses, at one time.
If the true underreporting is double that (only 1% adverse reactions reported), then the real number of excess child deaths would be 103,500.
That’s only considering the deaths caused by the fifth through eighth doses. It eliminates the deaths caused by the first four doses. Those would add up to 21,150 if VAERS includes 2% of actual adverse effects, and 42,300 if it includes 1%. Adding those numbers together gives us a total of 145,800 children who’ve died as a direct result of vaccines from 1990 to 2010.
This is carnage that can be laid directly at the doorstep of our aggressive vaccination program.
If you do want to have your children vaccinated, at least insist on only single doses separated by enough time to assure that there’s no cumulative effect. It’s clear from the evidence here that multiple vaccine doses, which have become standard, are responsible for a huge number of deaths in children.
Source:
 Relative trends in hospitalizations and mortality among infants by the number of vaccine doses and age, based on the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), 1990–2010, Human and Experimental Toxicology, GS Goldman and NZ Miller, DOI: 10.1177/0960327112440111

I will and would continue with the scheduled list for Vaxalso gave the chicken pox plus my oldest had HPV, my middle child is in the process of this one and my youngest will get it also. We have had with our middle child one reaction to a vax the MMR for the first dosehe went on to get the second dose since no one could verify if it was the vax or notsecond dose no reaction.

I wish I could go back and stagger my 2yo's. She has Sensory Processing Disorder... which is often associated with Autism. No official Autism dx though. I know the research is mixed on whether or not vax contribute but when your child has something that may or may not have been prevented by a choice you made will weigh on your conscience.