To be clear, I have always espoused vaccines in indicated settings.
Back in the day, we were only routinely vaccinating against 7 things in the mid '80's. Now that number has risen to 14.
Administration of multiple vaccines to infants and young children can lead to febrile seizures in some patients.
While there hasn't been a specific study that has been released that says we have a major problem yet, it is always a matter of degrees (the CDC is merely evaluating for an acceptable tolerance level of cases)...the more vaccines at once, the greater the risk....and some vaccine combinations can be a problem as well.
In a large number population, there will definitely be cases of this - it is unavoidable. The number of vaccines will also continue to grow.

The problem nowadays is that politics has invaded medicine completely since COVID - especially when it comes to vaccines.
People do google searches and get "Fact Check"s as their top hit.

This is why I gave my answer below in the last (now locked) thread.
I do not think that 6 separate vaccines is wise - they work and it is safe that way, but the risk of noncompliance goes way up.
I do think that it is a simple thing to alter pediatric visits so that the overall vaccine burden can be distributed more evenly to decrease the febrile seizure risk - particularly since there will be more routine vaccinations yet being added down the road.
The windows foe effective vaccine administration do allow for this, and it would not mean any more visits than otherwise to patients so that compliance would not be affected.
Thus my middle ground perspective.

I suppose that I will now again be accused of killing people and being "a horrible doctor" by the crazies.
I'd appreciate at least a response for this effort, thanks.


Link: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/jay-bhattacharya-vaccines-rfk-jr/

Amazing Dr and an even better man.

With knowing their political sides.
As you know I live in PS and love the town, Desert and what comes with it.
I am no right wing looney, you wouldn’t survive here if you were.
I could bore you with the friends I have here but you knowing their town you can imagine.
Again, very nice of you.

derailing C19 to save lives (especially the elderly and vulnerable) doesn’t put him in a good light. The better man would have cared for others rather than push a political agenda. I’m not buying your assessment.

A simple search will show all of my posts and the date that they were made for context as to what we knew.
Each post explains my point. I was never "an advocate" of ivermectin nor HCQ over standard, studied treatment options. I was merely not against them when there were no other options yet available since there was some medical logic as to why they might work. I said several times that back in 2020 before treatment options were available that such meds should have been handled as "off label treatment options" as any other drug with a potential for being helpful should have been since they were well know, relatively safe, and there were no other better options available. This was not done while Fauci and Walensky were reigning over us all. At no time was I recommending them over paxlovid, etc when they became available. But when subsequent studies suggested that there was a niche for HCQ, esp when no other meds were yet available....and at the same time Fauci et al had blocked access to prescribers (again, this was before we had anything else), I criticized that...then and now.

This is well beyond your ability to understand. I say that not as an insult, but because this explanation has repeatedly washed over you without effect.

them here daily. Trump lies and you escalate them.

But I would allow him to treat my kids.

Do more like this.

Hopefully the CDC will just ignore it all and hope it goes away, replaced by his next obsession du jour.

Because this one will end up with kids dying.