The Los Angeles Times was kind enough to highlight the issue of child vaccination and use my practice in the article.

Read the "Doctor Contrarian" Article

The writer did an excellent job of handling a large and complicated topic in a relatively small space but, as usual, the real reasons my professional life works as well as it does were omitted.  My incredibly smart, efficient and innovative office support staff have been with me for an average of fifteen years.  These ten people take care of me and the most wonderful families and children in the world with skill and love.

Linda Nussbaum, MD, FAAP has been my office partner and consultant for twenty years and, in spite of some differences of opinion about vaccines, doesn’t judge me and takes great care presenting a balanced approach to the shots.

My gorgeous, brilliant wife of 28 years supports me and fills my life with love.  And reality.  And my beautiful, also brilliant, teenage daughter has taught me more about parenting and helped me advise and take care of the children I see.

This gives me an opportunity to clarify my thoughts about vaccines. 

As Hilary MacGregor mentioned in her article, I have two children in the practice with confirmed cases of pertussis and at least another 5 or 6 with illnesses that look a lot like whooping cough.  None of these children are endangered or hospitalized but they are all very sick, coughing all night and creating anxiety and disruption in the family.  Additionally, some of them may have spread pertussis to their classmates or friends.

As the article says, in supporting and recommending a vaccine schedule different than the usual one, I accept responsibility for these possibilities and ask that parents do, too.  For me, the problem is very complex but can be summarized in one sentence:

The way we vaccinate right now creates risks greater than the benefits of the shots. 

We give many newborns a hepatitis B vaccine within two hours of birth and then give these babies four or five more shots at two months of age followed by booster doses at four and six months of age.  These shots have as many 13 separate components (antigens) and the motivation for giving vaccines this way is grounded more in economics and expediency than it is in science. 

We should vaccinate later and slower.

The article somewhat misstated my point of view about the DTaP vaccine and implied that I was enthusiastic about giving it during the first twelve months of life.  I would prefer to wait a little longer and I’m still not sure whether immunizing a healthy child in the first year of life holds enough benefits to warrant the risks involved.

Please remember, the overwhelming majority of doctors and vaccine experts recommend adhering to the current schedule and their opinions are well worth considering.

I prefer to talk to each family about their children’s needs.  We talk about the risks of each vaccine and the practical benefits.  A discussion of public health has to be part of any consultation but that is rarely the focus of the conversation.

Addressing a few specific points in the “Times” article: 

•  The writer combined two diseases by accident and wrote “whooping cough-diphtheria” when I think she meant to say “whooping cough/pertussis.” 

•  There have been no cases of “wild” polio in the United States for over 25 years, not a decade.

•   Ms. MacGregor mentions, as she quotes each vaccine researcher, that they have consulted for vaccine manufacturers or have done studies for them.  I would have preferred a more emphatic statement about the financial connection between these researchers and the pharmaceutical industry.  Among the experts cited tens of millions of dollars have flowed into their research over the years.  Their research is almost always funded by vaccine manufacturers and almost all researcher/experts travel and speak for the companies and are paid for this.  I do not mean to imply that this is an aberration in the medical field, just that these same people who are constantly quoted and who vote on committees approving and recommending shots should be much cleared about their financial conflict of interest.

•  Dr. Cherry in particular makes a strong statement in the article but has also been a paid witness in vaccine injury cases and has accepted millions of dollars in funding.  Paradoxically, if I had a child with a difficult infectious disease I would want someone of his experience and expertise on the case.  I just wish he were more candid about his research funding and his consulting, witness and speaking fees.

•  Doctors who refuse to discuss vaccination with their patients and instead ask them to leave their practices are being intellectually dishonest:  They imply that there’s nothing to talk about and this could not be further from the truth.

•  The experts are correct in saying that if everyone stopped vaccinating we could have outbreaks of disease.  In particular, pertussis would return as a much more dangerous public health issue without widespread vaccination.  Polio, however, has been eliminated from the Western Hemisphere and public health experts have actually discussed stopping polio vaccination in America.

•  Autism statistics (1/166 children are now diagnosed with autism) have not changed because doctors are better at making the diagnosis.  I am not 600% smarter than I was 10-15 years ago.  Ask my wife.

•  In California and quite a few other states, schools allow a “personal” exemption for school children.  Sometimes they forget to tell parents about this possibility.

•  The new “acellular” DPT is much better than the old vaccine but the article states that it is has no side effects and this is not completely correct.  There are far fewer side effects but some children still get a fever, many get a little lump on the leg at the site of the injection and very, very rarely I have seen minor neurological side effects.  It is a much safer and much more effective vaccine and the only vaccine I give with any enthusiasm.

•  The quotation mentioned in the article about “Drugs all are poisons with beneficial side effects” is from the great Dr. Jack Newman.

•Unfortunately, we can no longer see new patients but are still happily accepting expectant couples into our practice.

•  Dr. Joel Ward persists in hyperbole as he disagrees with me.  Even though Dr. Ward’s research and speaking engagements are often funded by vaccine manufacturers, Dr. Ward’s expertise is unquestionable.  My twenty-five years in private practice and my clinical experience have given me some expertise, too.

•  Dr. Menkes, the grand old man of pediatric neurology, knows more about this topic than all of the rest of the experts put together.

Soon, I will schedule a vaccine seminar/discussion as a public forum.

Jay Gordon, MD, FAAP, IBCLC, FABM