Like the Lone Ranger appearing just in the nick of time. Mark Crislip shows up on the horizon of knowledge, and writes The Infection Schedule versus the Vaccination Schedule over at Science Blogs (one of the best sites in the blogosphere).
There, Dr. Crislip explains just why the anti-vaccinators are passing flatulence when they claim "Too Many, Too Soon" and why Paul Offit, M.D. was right on the money when he made the claim that a child can handle 10,000 vaccines. And, of course, he explains why getting the dieases is far worse that getting vaccinated, even assuming that "Too Many, Too Soon" has some degree of medical validity:
From the data I can find, compared to the vaccines, the diseases lead to far more exposure to both antigens and organisms. If the alleged ill effects of the vaccine are due to too many antigens, or too much antigens, or too frequent antigens, the diseases should be far worse than the vaccine in causing autism and autoimmune diseases. Unless, of course, the effects of the vaccines follow the principals of homeopathy: the less the exposure, the greater the effects.For the reading comprehenion impaired lemmings from AoA, that means that getting dieases exposes the body to farm more antigens than the vaccines do. He makes this most excellent, and fully supported by his article, analogy:
No matter how you slice it, the vaccine schedule represents a miniscule exposure to antigens and organims compared to what people encounter as part of life. Worrying about the exposure from the vaccine schedule is like worrying about a thimble of water getting you wet when you are swimming in an ocean.Now, when anyone bleats and brays "Too Many, Too Soon" it is fair to tell them to jump in the ocean.