Two Decades of CDC Vaccine Recommendations and a Frog’s Tale

The information on this post is from the US where the schedule is very slightly different to what we use in Australia – but only VERY slightly! We have gone from 18 shots in 1990 to over 50 shots today and there are many more on the horizon including vaccines against HIV, cocaine and tobacco. This schedule is seemingly being rolled out without the benefit of true scientific studies employing real control groups or any long-term investigations into the safety and effectiveness of using so many vaccines either individually or in combination. It is time to put on the brakes and start seeing whether or not more vaccines really does mean more health. Are more ‘frogs’ simply being boiled in increasingly hot water due to vaccination? Don’t let our kids be those frogs. Demand true independent testing of ALL currently licensed vaccines and ask the government for a study comparing the overall health of the fully vaccinated as compared with the fully unvaccinated. Let’s make scientific decisions based on the best available science – not based on an assumption that vaccines are either safe or effective.

In 1990, the recommended immunization schedule for children consisted of:

  • 5 doses of DPT
  • 3 doses of OPV
  • 4 injections of HiB
  • 2 shots of MMR
  • 1 shot of dT
  • A total of  15 vaccinations from birth to age 18

The 2012 CDC recommended childhood immunization consists of the following:

  • 5 doses of Dtap
  • 4 doses of polio
  • 2 doses of MMR
  • 2 doses of Hep B
  • 3 doses of Hib
  • 2 doses of Varicella
  • 4 doses of PCV 13

  • 20 doses of flu vaccine
  • 1 dose of Tdap
  • 2 doses of MCV
  • 2 doses of Hep A
  • 2 doses of Rotavirus
  • 3 doses of HPV vaccine
  • Total of 53 doses – birth to 18

Two Decades of CDC Vaccine Recommendations and a Frog’s Tale.

About these ads

4 thoughts on “Two Decades of CDC Vaccine Recommendations and a Frog’s Tale

  1. Well, since this is the Australian Vaccination Network, and the identical information specific to this country is very easy to find, why don’t you use it? It would be more meaningful to the Australian audience.

    • Well, since it is clearly explained that this IS American data and since I (as opposed to you) believe that most people reading this blog are intelligent enough understand that information, I don’t really think there is a problem. Also, since this is an article I haven’t written but have simply linked to and commented on because I think it is worthwhile, I did not consider it to be an issue Sian. If you are unhappy with information posted here, there is nobody forcing you to either read it nor to comment upon it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s