Pediatrician slams vaccine book
This article was originally on a blog post platform and may be missing photos, graphics or links. See About archive blog posts.
A report published Monday in the journal Pediatrics charges the author of a popular book for parents on childhood vaccines with stoking fears about vaccine safety and misrepresenting the science behind the nation’s immunization policy. ‘The Vaccine Book: Making the Right Decision for Your Child’ was published last year by Dr. Robert Sears, son of the well-known Capistrano Beach pediatrician and author William Sears.
In a scathing critique not often seen in a pediatric journal, vaccine expert Paul A. Offit and coauthor Charlotte A. Moser say the book misrepresents science; supports delaying, withholding or spacing out vaccines; endorses the concept of natural immunity through such methods as chickenpox parties; does not distinguish between solid science and poorly conducted studies; and commits several errors of fact. ‘In an effort to protect children from harm, Sears’ book will likely put more in harm’s way,’ Offit and Moser write.
‘He [Sears] believes that parents’ fears should be indulged by offering alternative schedules, not countered by scientific studies, and he fails to explain that good science is the only way to determine whether a vaccine causes a particular adverse event. Instead, Sears alludes to evidence on both sides of any issue, failing to distinguish studies on the basis of their quality, internal consistency, or reproducibility and failing to distinguish those that are accepted by the scientific community from those that are not.’
Sears issued a response in which he expresses surprise at the vitriol and says his position on childhood vaccination does not differ significantly from the American Academy of Pediatrics. Sears says he erred in the book by not distinguishing between good vaccine studies and poor ones but calls the Pediatrics paper ‘riddled with selective, misleading, and inaccurate quotes.’
The biggest point of contention between the two papers, which can be found on their respective websites, Pediatrics and TheVaccineBook, is whether it’s reasonable for parents who are worried about their individual child’s safety to postpone or skip some vaccines. Offit and Moser call this strategy an invitation to more community outbreaks of measles, pertussis and mumps. But Sears defends the idea.
‘Where my alternative schedule comes into play is for those parents who are still unsure about vaccines but they do want to fully vaccinate. I offer them an optional schedule that gets their child full vaccinated, but at a slower pace. It doesn’t delay any of the most important shots.’
Some of the arguments between the two papers are trivial, but the fundamental disagreement is not. The nation’s public health policy depends on widespread support for childhood vaccination. However, a growing number of parents are apparently uncomfortable with having their children receive so many vaccines in a short amount of time. Their reticence to adhere to the recommended schedule may launch a return to the days when children were left immobile from polio or brain-damaged or dead from meningitis. Hopefully, the value of the nation’s childhood vaccine program will come into full focus for everyone before then.
-- Shari Roan