Thoughts on the "Parents, You've Been Lied To" Articles.

My thoughts on the back-and-forth

A pro-vaccine article has been circulating lately; you may have seen it, entitled "Dear Parents, You Are Being Lied To."  Hosted on the Illustrious "I F-ing Love Science" page, authored by "Anonymous," you can tell it's a real winner... a friend asked for my thoughts on it, so here are a few thoughts as well as some links you can check out to do your own research.  [An excellent, well-supported (full of links!!) rebuttal can be found here:  "Dear Parents, you are being lied to."]

- The article title begs the question-- who, exactly, is doing the lying?  The article never says... because makes no sense. There is no organized "they" who is financially or otherwise served by sending out lies... People who are cautious about vaccines or doubtful that they are worth their inherent risk (all drugs have risk & side effects) have either seen negative effects of vaccines first-hand or they've been researchers who changed their minds as they read for themselves. People who don't view vaccines as the modern savior are generally challenged at every turn & very much in the minority. On the flipside, there is a very strong bias-pressure to love vaccines, with our own CDC almost completely composed of men & women employed by vaccine manufacturing companies. There is a definite group of people who stand to gain by encouraging vaccines. Parents who choose not to face many obstacles, and health professionals who speak out face even more.  Here is a great article comparing the vaccine-SIDS question to the x-ray-cancer question a generation ago.

- The "measles outbreak" that caused such a hubbub was at the time of the outbreak, 8 kids... none of whom died. The totals for measles the entire year for the entire US last year was under 200... hardly the panic-worthy epidemic the media implies. Measles IS very mild in healthy kids; comparing it to measles in malnourished kids is totally unfair. It's documented that a Vitamin A deficiency (a fat-soluble vitamin, so one lacking in any starvation, carb-heavy, diet) makes measles far more serious. In normal kids it's usually about as "serious" as a cold...

"Several recent investigations have indicated that vitamin A treatment of children with measles in developing countries has been associated with reductions in morbidity and mortality. The World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund (UNICEF) issued a joint statement recommending that vitamin A be administered to all children diagnosed with measles in communities where vitamin A deficiency is a recognized problem and where mortality related to measles is ≥1%. [...] Vitamin A is a necessary substrate for preserving epithelial cell integrity and in addition plays a role in immune modulation." (Study: "Vitamin A Treatment of Measles")

"Vitamin A deficiency is a recognized risk factor for severe measles infections." (Study: "Vitamin A for Treating Measles in Children") 

- As far as safety tests go, there are NO-- literally zero-- vaccine studies where there is a vaccine-free control group. All required shots are tested against another shot, never against a placebo (with the exception of the flu shot). So these tests can only say that a shot is more or less safe or effective than another shot... a true double-blind study with a control group is the "gold standard" of science. Also, vaccines have never been tested in conjunction with one another; they are tested one at a time, though they are administered 5 at a time (or more), and in quick succession (within a few short months of each other-- we'd expect someone who had a cold and then got the flu and then got strep to react to each differently than a person who just got strep). There is no safety data at all on the type of administration that is the recommended norm here in the US.  Two recent studies have found correlations in infant death and vaccine numbers:

"The US childhood immunization schedule requires 26 vaccine doses for infants aged less than 1 year, the most in the world, yet 33 nations have better infant mortality rates (IMRs). Using linear regression, the immunization schedules of these 34 nations were examined and a correlation coefficient of 0.70 (p < 0.0001) was found between IMRs and the number of vaccine doses routinely given to infants. [...] These findings demonstrate a counter-intuitive relationship: nations that require more vaccine doses tend to have higher infant mortality rates." (Source-- this study examined infant deaths relative to number of total vaccines recommended) 

"Our findings show a positive correlation between the number of vaccine doses administered and the percentage of hospitalizations and deaths reported to VAERS. In addition, younger infants were significantly more likely than older infants to be hospitalized or die after receiving vaccines. Since vaccines are administered to millions of infants every year, it is imperative that health authorities have scientific data from synergistic toxicity studies on all combinations of vaccines that infants are likely to receive; universal vaccine recommendations must be supported by such studies."  (Source-- this study examined infant hospitalizations & death relative to number of simultaneous vaccines received)

- As to WHY there are no studies comparing vaccinated & unvaccinated kids,vaccines are considered so essential to safety that to withhold them -- even on tests intended to ascertain whether they are indeed essential to safety-- is seen as "unethical." Talk about the cart before the horse! However, many parental groups have offered up their members as volunteers, because they already intend to not vaccinate.  Populations who refuse to vaccinate for religious reasons, such as the Amish, would be valid control groups, or for a new vaccine, even children otherwise vaccinated but receiving a placebo for that new shot (which is clearly not proven to be effective or safe!) would be acceptable. Or, start with a retrospective survey of matched groups of children, controlled for other variables, with the variable being full vaccination or no vaccination... so long as the study participation was in no way tied to the government (due to fear of punitive action over differing medical opinion being viewed as "parental neglect"-- Justina Pelletier, anyone?), most parents who have foregone vaccines would jump at the chance to participate!!  If I can imagine three scenarios for true placebo-controlled studies, why can't professional researchers who make scientific investigation their full-time jobs come up with even one?

-  Funding for studies coming from a vaccine manufacturer tends to bias results.  As an example, a recent Cochrane review of all the data on flu shots found that studies sponsored by vaccine companies tended to be more favorable than those done by independent parties. Third-party-researchers do exist-- or teams made up of both "special interest" (vaccine-cautionary) and pharmaceutical (pro-vaccine) representatives could do it. There are a hundred feasible ways that fair testing could be done.  While all researchers SHOULD be trying to disprove their hypothesis, in reality most are likely to attempt to affirm their own beliefs. However anything that comes up with a vaccine-cautionary bent will face much more scrutiny than anything done in "support" of the majority opinion.

"This review includes trials funded by industry. An earlier systematic review of 274 influenza vaccine studies published up to 2007 found industry-funded studies were published in more prestigious journals and cited more than other studies independently from methodological quality and size. Studies funded from public sources were significantly less likely to report conclusions favourable to the vaccines. The review showed that reliable evidence on influenza vaccines is thin but there is evidence of widespread manipulation of conclusions and spurious notoriety of the studies. The content and conclusions of this review should be interpreted in the light of this finding." (Source-- Cochrane Review on Vaccines for Preventing the Flu in Healthy Children")

- Speaking of funding... does it not strike you as odd that drug companies only agreed to make vaccines (drugs) if they were financially shielded from any safety-related lawsuits?  If an automobile maker would only sell a type of car under the condition that they didn't have to pay any damages if it malfunctioned, we'd probably assume there was something wrong with the car!  This piece makes the excellent case that, in the words of pharmaceutical companies themselves, vaccines are "unavoidably unsafe."

- A final word regarding specifically the investigation of a link between autism and vaccines.  It is lunacy to say there is "no found link."  Just read a few of the studies amassed here (a fairly exhaustive list of research done on vaccines & their long-term effects, specifically ASD).  There is research on many aspects of this issue, and none show "no link."

Halloween, All Hallow's Eve (All Saints Day), and Reformation Day

Liam is always so observant!

Happy Halloween, All Hallow's Eve, and Reformation Day!! We're still not sure what exactly our family take on this cultural, church & historical holiday will be, but it will be a lot of fun... and will probably be a combo of all three.  Whatever we decide, we want to celebrate the day on purpose-- in a way that is distinctly Christ-honoring and distinctly Szrama! :)  We want to enjoy a fun American tradition as well as use it as a chance to reach out to our neighbors and bless them.  We definitely want to be DIFFERENT than "the world" but that comes out most of all in our attitudes, character, and treatment of others.  "By this all men will know that you are My disciples, that your houses remain dark on Halloween..." oh wait, I mean, "by your love for one another."  Christians definitely have a whole spectrum of takes on this particular holiday, and as long as each practices their conviction in love and not fear, they can do so in a way that honors the Lord.

Some articles I've been reading and thinking through...

-- from the intentional avoidance perspective, by Dr. Albert Mohler (president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary)
-- from the exuberant celebration of Reformation Day/selective Halloween perspective, by Douglas Wilson (pastor & author, and one of our favorite religious/political/social commentary bloggers)
-- from the redeeming Halloween as a cultural and church holiday, by Jason Gray (Christian singer-songwriter & Rabbit Room member)
-- from the observation of the church holiday All Saints Day (All Hallow's Eve =Halloween) perspective, from the American Vision group

I really appreciate how that last article ties together the three simultaneous events:  Reformation Day, All Saints Day and Halloween in this way:

"Thus, the defeat of evil and of demonic powers is associated with Halloween. For this reason, Martin Luther posted his 95 challenges to the wicked practices of the Church to the bulletin board on the door of the Wittenberg chapel on Halloween. He picked his day with care, and ever since Halloween has also been Reformation Day."

Saying Goodbye

Swinging one last time at the Bs'.

Playing in the church balcony with Hannah (2 1/2), a frequent fellow-balcony Sunday-school dropout. :)

Playing at Chick-Fil-A with library buddy, Lina (3)

Enjoying Pottery Barn Kids Story Time with Grace (Valentine's Day)- the girls are 2 weeks apart

This is pretty typical of their friendship:  Eowyn very affectionate (giving a back massage here), Grace a bit reticent.  But they talk about each other all the time.  We sure will miss Grace & her family!

At the Comfy Cow (best ice cream EVER) with Daddy

Last trip to the Lousiville Zoo on a glorious day included a ride in the Jeep

Dinner at the North End Cafe (a favorite eatery) with our friends the Schreiners-- Lydia is 1 year old.

E's favorite part of our Tuesday Mall Morning:  washing her hands at the "yittle sink" in the Von Maur family bathroom

Cheesing it up with Olivia (2)- we liked to go over to their house on Tuesday evenings when our Daddies were out

With Olivia's sis Kerith (3 1/2)

Saying 'bye to Mrs. Beth, Mommy's midwife-- she always let Eowyn hear the "heart-beep" a few extra times (and delivered Eowyn!)

With 2 of our favorite librarian friends (we went every Wed for story time at the Main Campus)- these folks always did a great job reading, singing & playing with Eowyn, and would pull our request books when they saw us coming!  Sometimes we didn't even need our cards, they knew us so well! :)

With our nurse friends at Kids R Great Pediatrics (the one on the left pierced Eowyn's ears for us at 4 weeks- E is extremely grateful, seeing as how she adores her earrings)

With our other nurse friend at the Doc's.  She was too traumatized to watch Eowyn's ear piercing, hah! 

Waiting in the Well Room one last time (we love the decorations at Dr Corba's!)

Picking up all E's medical records

Saying goodbye to Dr. Corba, Eowyn's first doctor-- he was a great one!

Modesty and Breast-feeding

As a Christian woman, I'm really concerned about being a godly woman-- a big part of that is modesty. If you're like me, you've probably read several books on the topic, heard many sermons, seen "are you dressed modestly?" checklists, and had lots of discussions about it. There's no question that in our society we do NOT value modesty or the chastity it protects and proclaims. I firmly believe that how we treat and display our bodies reflects our view of our Creator, in Whose Image we are made.

As a Christian mom, the topic of modesty & correct use of the body has gained a new facet: breast-feeding. I've been disturbed to hear some mothers come to the conclusion that a nursing mother should always isolate herself while nursing her baby for the sake of modesty, even from her other children and other women. Others -- not only Christians in this case, but Westerners in general- I've known were unable to breast-feed because they "felt uncomfortable doing it." On the other end of the spectrum, some women hold "nurse-ins" where they join together to nurse their babies in public with no covering at all.  Which of these approaches is most appropriate?  How does nursing fit in with Christian modesty?  I think we have to step back a little further to even start to get an answer, and ask: how does nursing fit into our understanding of our bodies as women?

It seems to me that a primary function of the whole female body really is nurturing-- I'd even go so far as to say that it's crucial and central to our view of femininity. We are built to nurture, it's part of our image of God. (Isa. 49:14-15, 66:12-13, Hosea 11:1-4)  It starts in Genesis with the naming (defining, in many ways) of the First Woman, and it carries on through every list of womanly virtue in the New Testament.

"The man called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all living." (Gen. 3:20)

"No widow may be put on the list of widows unless she is over sixty, has been faithful to her husband, and is well known for her good deeds, such as bringing up children, showing hospitality, washing the feet of the Lord’s people, helping those in trouble and devoting herself to all kinds of good deeds." (1 Tim 5:9-10)

"Likewise, teach the older women to be reverent in the way they live, not to be slanderers or addicted to much wine, but to teach what is good. Then they can urge the younger women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God."  (Titus 2:3-5)

A very basic part of this nurturing is the bearing, feeding & care of children.  We, as opposed to our male fellow Image-bearers, have the body parts to carry children, to give them birth, to nurse them, and tend them.  We've got the hips to carry them around, the multi-tasking brain to attend to a household, and the type of sleep that enables us to wake at a child's cry (read a fascinating article on this from the NY Times).  Child-safety expert Gavin de Becker says that women are more likely to stay with a lost child until the parents are found, while a man is more likely to merely direct the child to help.  My point?  Whether we physically care for children or not, nurturing is still a part of our feminine make-up.  Women who never bear children should still see their bodies as instruments of nurture. We are nurturing when we pick up our kids (or a neighbor's) and hug them, put an arm around a hurting friend, make a meal for a lonely person, care for a sick patient, tend a garden... we are nurturing, we are women, we are being God-like.

This PERFECTLY captures what I'm trying to say!

Our culture's attack on modesty has led to a hyper-sexualization of breasts, it seems.  They are used to sell everything; is it any wonder that some moms can't bring themselves to breast-feed because all their lives they'd grown up thinking of breasts as exclusively sexual?  Some wean their babies very early, as soon as the child showed any signs of being able to ask for milk, because they're disturbed that their child can now "ask for it." Poor babies! There's a breast-feeding doll that's come out and if you read the comments, you'll see that many people are appalled, saying it as "sexual" and "inappropriate." I'd say that's the furthest thing from sexual there is-- the feeding of an innocent child!   Surely even adoptive children can grow up with a proper understanding of nursing children, of knowing that's one very big reason why God gave Mommies the anatomy He did.  [I wouldn't spend $90 on such a doll, though... Eowyn "nurses" pretty much any ol' stuffed animal happily.]


That said, we are not animals, and there is a difference between a human mother feeding her baby and a cow feeding hers.  People wear clothes.  Animals don't.  There sure are other functions animals take NO efforts to hide that we humans treat (appropriately) as very private-- we have the glorious burden of being made in God's image, we have the shame of a sinful nature.  In an effort to show respect for my body, to keep any others from stumbling (into lust), and to be considerate of those whom it might make truly uncomfortable, I practice & encourage discretion in public or around guys (covering up is not really a big deal).  BUT, there are just no guarantees. I've had to nurse all over the world in all sorts of settings and I'm sure someone somewhere has seen some skin, lol, not by choice, but that's just life. The nursing of a child is a totally natural happening and it's something good. (Kind of like kissing your husband, I think-- we're not going to flaunt it and make out in public, but if someone catches us smooching we have nothing to be ashamed of!!)  [As a culture check, in our church care group we had a single guy who grew up as an MK in Papua New Guinea, where women nurse children on one side & suckling pigs on the other, with no covering at ALL... everywhere!!! As you can imagine, he was absolutely comfortable around breastfeeding women, especially if they were covered up (and lacking in suckling pigs).]  I do hope that my own children grow up in a world where it's not even an issue, because everyone knows that's just how babies are fed naturally!

As far as it being potentially inappropriate for children to see maternal breasts, from Scripture it would be almost impossible to say.  However, kids were weaned around age 3 in Biblical times, kids were plentiful and in many families there were multiple moms in a household.  It is a stretch to think that kids would grow up watching their parents & other women nurse?  

What are your thoughts on this topic of modesty/feminine Image of God intersecting with breast-feeding?  Do you think of nursing as an aspect of feminine nurturing, as a mere biological process, or what?

**Please note:  this article is not trying to assess whether or not Christian women who are able SHOULD breast-feed or not (nor in what manner they choose to do that), but rather examining the question of how nursing fits in with our view of Christian feminine modesty.**

Wow.

I just finished one of the most sobering, saddening, soul-stirring books she has ever read-- one that breaks my heart for Taiwan and reminds me of the desperate depravity that is our inheritance as Adam's children, save for Eve's Son Jesus the Christ.

The book wasn't particularly well-written, artistic or inspiring. It was facts simply stated; a story spun with plain threads. The stories on their own are enough. The book is called Dead Women Walking (written by Jennifer Su), a book describing the idol-worship, demonic torment, abuse, addictions and absolutely mind-boggling darkness & despair faced by three women in Taiwan's working class.  Recently.

As in; this kind of stuff happens every day.

Right now. To lots of women and children.

It made me sick; it shocked me, opened my eyes to see just how dark places of the world are (and I know America has hearts equally dark & depraved, though on the whole we do have legal and social protections that do actually protect the innocent.) Read it (or something like it), and let your heart break for what breaks our God's!  This book also reminded me of where True Hope really lies-- in the God who made Heaven and earth, who knows and cares for every hopeless, tormented soul, and who has the power to bind demons and change people after a lifetime of horrors.

It's leaving me asking questions of the Lord, questions like "What must I do to help?  How can I 'go' to this ripe harvest even from here?"

Lord, pour out your Spirit on Taiwan!

Gianna Jennsen and Haitian Orphans?

One of the most persuasive people I've ever heard speak on the topic of abortions is Gianna Jennsen. She doesn't get loud and in your face, or get graphic and guilt-tripping. She does bring up the Gospel, standing up for what is right, and expecting to face difficulty. Her whole life has been difficult-- she's got to live with several extensive disabilities due to the fact that her birthmother tried to abort her. I find her incredibly encouraging. I just found out that she is going to be speaking TONIGHT at U of L! Any of you in the area who want to come, get information here.



I will be posting a report on the actual talk, providing my own precious baby lets me go and hear something! It will be interesting to me to hear/see how the recent loss of life and devastation in Haiti affects our nation's attitude towards the loss of life in our own land. It's impossible to deny that the people hurt by the earthquake are people, no matter their age, rank or serial number (to borrow the phrase). Pictures plastered all over the news push their suffering undeniably in our face. And so many of us want to help. I pray that those people ARE helped, and that by their suffering we comfortable Americans will be reminded that there are those who are defenseless and helpless here, too. Not in the face of an earthquake, but in the face of neglect, doubt and inconvenience. Maybe the suffering we see in others will remind us just how precious life is. As Horton said "a person's a person, no matter how small"-- whether they live in Louisville's West Side, Haiti, or a woman's uterus.

If you want to do something, either about the suffering and loss of life in Haiti, or the suffering and loss of life due to unplanned pregnancies & abortion here in America, my father is running the Boston Marathon in order to raise money for Bethany Christian Services, an organization that provides an incredible range of services for women, children, and families in dire straights. Infertility care, domestic & international adoption, orphan care, foster care, crisis pregnancy counseling, family counseling, pregnancy and pre-natal care, special-needs adoptions, abortion alternative awareness... they do it all, and they do it lovingly and thoroughly. They already had a ministry presence in Haiti, and now are using that to channel help and hope-- both physical and spiritual-- to those in Haiti, especially the most helpless. If you want to donate, please do one of the following: you can donate under my dad's name (go to www.bethany.org/marathon and click on "Sponsor a Runner" and click 'Bart Thompson'), or through their Haiti Relief & Recovery Initiative. You could even do both at once!

Well, my own little one is calling me now... she definitely is her own little person!!
--Christina

P.S. Great Info

p.s. I just found a better link to that Dr. Miller article "A User- Friendly Approach to Vaccinations" on the Generation Rescue website. Actually, as I look at this website I really like a lot of what they have posted! These are parents, not doctors, but they're not stupid with a bone to pick, either. I really like their 3 suggestions for vaccine schedules, for instance. I plan on printing out their "Vaccine Safety" page for my pediatrician (along with the Miller article and several others I've gotten). They say everything I'd want to say better than I could say it! :)

p.p.s. my friend Jacqui has raised the question of the HiB & Pc vaccines, which both are supposed to protect against meningitis. I'll be looking into adding these to our schedule, because meningitis is so deadly to little ones, and comes on fast, looking like the flu. More on this soon...

**Please note that I am NOT a doctor, and even if I were, each parent must decide what is best for their child(ren). My goal is to make your job easier by doing some research & explanation leg-work for you. If, after reading & researching on your own, you disagree with any/all of what I say, that's totally fine!!! I will still be your friend. ;)**

Two more thoughts on Vaccines Today...

1. One thing that I initially thought when starting to look into the whole vaccination question is that "well, I was vaccinated as a kid, and so was my husband and pretty much everyone we know, and are we worse off for it?" Before you even consider that maybe some of my generation's chronic health problems today could be due to vaccines, there's the plain fact that we WEREN'T vaccinated as kids, not like this. Here's a chart comparing vaccination schedules in 1983, and now. So I received about 10 vaccines, got the flu several times, and got chicken pox once. If I went along with the CDC vaccine schedule, my children would get about 30 vaccines, plus a yearly flu shot. Woah! That's a big difference! ...when I realized that I realized that we are dealing in uncharted waters. No generation has ever been this vaccinated! The CDC would have me believe that that's a good thing, but it's sort of too early too tell, isn't it? And I just wonder if I want my babies to be part of the experimental group, you know?

Now, my mom's story of how we each got the chicken pox for a week, one right after the other, does make me think that it would be more convenient for me to avoid that with a vaccine, lol... but then again I guess I don't really know the full risks involved in the chicken-pox vaccine.

2. The other question I've had to work through in even second-guessing vaccines is "why would so many pediatricians in America tell us to do something that might hurt our kids?" I don't know about you, but most of the pediatricians I've met are really nice people-- usually they love kids, have caring hearts, and have great senses of humor! I love my pediatricians from my childhood; they still make me laugh! My daughter's pediatrician is really cool, too, and is so good with her. It doesn't make sense that they're sitting in dark rooms behind closed doors, nefariously plotting to harm our precious babies. They really think it's the best thing to do. Now granted, many doctors get offended whenever anyone questions their superior med-school wisdom (my sister's allergist, for instance), so those guys probably are just telling us to do whatever they learned in med school, regardless of any new research or information. Others tend to hand out too much medicine (vaccines would fall under that category), but that's often because parents expect that. And the fact is that most doctors stop reading up on new stuff once they start practicing, which is understandable seeing as how they have families and want to occasionally see them when they're not on call! Still, they're telling us what they honestly think is best. Even the people at the CDC are doctors who took the Hippocratic Oath and probably meant it. So then we have to ask "is there a chance that so many doctors are wrong about the CDC vaccination schedule being 'the best thing'? If so, why do they think it's good?"

One answer is probably in the pharmaceutical industry. We all want to be healthy, and that translates into big money. This is a consumer-driven culture, after all! According to Dr. Miller, many of the committee members on the panel which puts together vaccine schedules have vested interests in vaccine-making companies. Not so good. Similarly, one article which supposedly puts to rest any tie between vaccines & autism, published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2002 used figures from Denmark to conclude that there is "strong evidence against the hypothesis that the MMR causes autism." Well, 3 of the article's authors are employed by a Denmark's SSI, which makes vaccines, 4 other authors have financial ties to the company, and the remaining author is employed by our CDC. Not exactly un-biased. Of course, this is just one example, but I think it shows that the info our doctors are getting & giving us may be far from balanced and unbiased. (Interestingly, when other researchers re-examined the data in that article, they found that there IS an association between autism and the MMR. Read the Journal of American Physicians & Surgeons article here...it's pretty technical but the graphs help) Just think of all the money vaccine companies would lose if children were vaccinated less... we're talking billions & billions of dollars. That's a powerful motivator to fund "research" that supports an aggressive vaccination schedule, and then give those studies to pediatricians nation-wide!

Another thing to keep in mind is that the CDC is looking at controlling disease in the whole population. They are out for the greater good... which means that it won't be the best good for some individuals. A one-size-fits-all policy will probably catch most diseases for most people, but will undoubtedly harm or miss some people in the process. The CDC isn't a parent responsible for one or several children. We are. That's why we have to evaluate every group program and see if it really is the best for our particular child. Even if vaccines turn out to be linked to autism, ADD, asthma, etc., why doesn't everyone get them? Because every person is different; some people have genes which make them more susceptible, some people have genes that make them less susceptible. Before vaccines this meant that some people got diseases, and some didn't. Those whose children have weakened or over-active immune systems (shown in food sensitivites, eczema, allergies, asthma) or who have these chronic conditions (including MS, Type 1 diabetes & others) in their families should especially be careful, as vaccines are more likely to adversely affect them. If we know that our child is at-risk for contracting Hepatitis b/c of where we live or our lifestyle, then we should get that vaccine! If we know that he isn't, then why should we inject him at birth? I think you get my drift.

Just thought I'd throw up these two follow-up thoughts... hope they're helpful!
**Please note that I am NOT a doctor, and even if I were, each parent must decide what is best for their child(ren). My goal is to make your job easier by doing some research & explanation leg-work for you. If, after reading & researching on your own, you disagree with any/all of what I say, that's totally fine!!! I will still be your friend. ;)**

Tiger Woods

While looking up the latest on Tiger Woods after seeing something a friend posted on Facebook, I stumbled upon this blog post on the topic by CJ Maheney. As usual, it is good stuff from him.