A paeditrician’s plea to the anti-vaccinationists

The global public health success of vaccination is astounding. According to the World Health Organization, vaccinations save the lives of 2-3 million people worldwide each year and prevent millions of others from suffering and disability. Marvelous achievements from the use of vaccinations continue; just this month India was declared Polio-free .

Past and ongoing studies on the vaccinations currently approved and in use demonstrate excellent effectiveness and safety.  As a consequence, leading medical authorities worldwide have declared, without hesitation, that the benefits of vaccination far outweigh any of the associated risks.

Yet, there is a growing global movement of vaccine doubters and deniers, the anti-vaccinationists, who spread dangerous misinformation about vaccines resulting in an increasing number of people refusing routine recommended vaccinations.  Unfortunately as a result, communities are now struggling with outbreaks of vaccine-preventable infections and their health impacts.  For example, in just the past few months there have been measles outbreaks in Texas, New York , The Netherlands and Alberta .

Anti-vaccinationists often derive their opinions from patient narratives that are emotionally compelling, but scientifically unfounded. They tend to overlook the public health benefits of high immunization rates choosing, instead, to focus on the (trivial or extremely rare) health risks of vaccination as applied directly to themselves or their children.  Typical rationalizations include “I don’t want to vaccinate my baby because he is too small,” “because I don’t want him to have a vaccine injury,” or “because I’m afraid he’ll get autism”.  They are often comfortable with the risks of not vaccinating because they feel protected by the cocoon of others around them who are vaccinated, or they are not fearful of the illness itself.  In my pediatrics practice, I frequently hear “I had chicken pox and everyone I know has had chicken pox.  They handled it fine! What are we all so scared of?”

What’s missing from these arguments is the notion that we vaccinate, not only to protect ourselves and our children, but also to preserve the health and well-being of our families, friends, neighbors and extended communities.  Protecting ourselves enables the protection of those more fragile around us, or those unable to get vaccinations for themselves. I am concerned about this lack of understanding around the responsibility we collectively have (or should have) to keep our communities safe from life and health-threatening disease. Most children may handle a chickenpox infection relatively handily, but there are others in our communities (an example of which you will read about below) whose health and lives depend on us maintaining our own immunity to vaccine-preventable illnesses.

I am both heartened and heartbroken by the following story (written by my friend Stephanie Weiner) – heartened by the reality that this tragedy would likely not occur in 2014, but heartbroken that tragedies like this may recur in the not-so-distant future if we don’t address the devastating risk posed by anti-vaccinationists.

As you read Stephanie’s – emotionally compelling and scientifically credible- words below, and whether you are a vaccine doubter/denier or not, please think seriously about our collective responsibility to vaccinate ourselves and our children to protect those more fragile and susceptible among us.

My brother Chucky died from the Chicken Pox. It was 1978. Back then, there was no vaccine available for this common childhood illness. For most kids, it’s an unpleasant, achy, itchy week of calamine lotion and Tylenol. But for others it can be lethal.

Chucky was in remission from Acute Lymphocytic Leukemia, the most common, curable form of Childhood Leukemia. He was finally done with countless rounds of chemo, radiation, blood pokes, spinal taps, and boom, he unluckily came into contact with this airborne virus. The problem was, his immune system was compromised. In a child who is otherwise well, the body kicks into overdrive to fight the illness.  In kids who have a weak immune system for a variety of reasons, including remission from cancer, there’s nothing there to fight with.

I’m writing this because I’m now a 42 year-old mother of 2 young children and quite simply it enrages me when I hear of other parents choosing to not vaccinate their children from this disease and many others. Chicken pox and measles can be virtually eradicated from the planet.

We live in a global village. The impact of our individual choices goes far beyond our personal cocoons.  Stories like Stephanie’s emphasize that we must think above and beyond our individual selves, and consider too, the local, regional and global health implications of our decisions.

When it comes to making health choices around vaccination, keep in mind what Dr. David L. Katz concludes in his recent essay entitled The Anti Anti-Vaccine Argument “the anti-vaccine argument, full as it is of sound and passion and fury, is fueled by emotion and an absence of evidence, and is unsound. The anti anti-vaccine argument is rooted deeply in the evidence of absent diseases, and is strong.”

The comments section is closed.

  • Linds says:

    We need to research levels of toxins/yeast in our baby’s body prior to administering vaccinations. The issue is not the vaccines itself but the body’s ability to naturally detox the toxins out of the body. If the body is already overwhelmed with toxins and yeast…when you administer the vaccine the toxins stay in the body and eventually makes it way to the brain which causes a lot of development delays. A lot of kids tend to regress or lose language/social skills soon after the big MMR shot. My daughter is fully vaccinated and has no issues…my son went thru the same vaccination schedule and is waiting to be screened for autism. Please I beg the medical community to research toxins/yeast in the body and its effect on development. I think we will find our answers on why we have SO many kids being diagnosed with autism.

  • Leonard Sugarman says:

    I have recently engaged a type 1 anti-vaxxer and the doggedness in not accepting his errors regards smallpox and polio successes is a wonder to behold . Every type of obfuscation and avoidance are used. Always argued, these diseases were decreasing anyway due to improved nutrition, hygiene and sanitation and the whole science of immunity and vaccination is junk. These people are bomb-proof and it will have to be a continuous more nuanced approach if their arguments are to have less sway with the public.

    Len Sugarman

  • Peggy Phillips says:

    as a retired emergency room nurse I have seen death from tetanus in a man from Mexico who was never vaccinated.I also remember vivadly fighting to save the life of a 6 moth old baby in respiratory distress from pertussis.Numerous other people came in with chicken pox or measles placing our other patients at risk.People who are not vaccinated think its a personal choice but are not aware of the broader consequences for other vulnerable people.

  • Joe Bafoot says:

    Perhaps parents are wary because they know of the SV40 virus that contaminated the polio vaccine from 1955-1963..and they are aware that while the vaccine makers knew it was bad in 1961.. They still gave it out to millions of kids for two more years.. And my brother and I were among those kids.. My brother died two years ago from brain cancer. Active SV40 was found in his tumor.. My blood test also tested positive for the virus. And my daughter was born with kidney disease which has been shown to happen to the children of those infected.
    Or perhaps parents are aware of the two 2010 federal lawsuits pending against Merck for allegedly falsifying the efficacy of the mumps vaccine starting in 1999. How can parents trust that any part of the MMR is safe and effective now. I mean, after all this is the same company already convicted in court of falsifying test results for Vioxx and Fossamax.
     Or perhaps because they have not been provided proof that each and every vaccine has been tested to show it has no potential to be carcinogenic in children. 

    I can see why they might question the safety of vaccines and the trustworthiness of the companies that make them. 

  • Mike says:

    Great article. As you mention in the comments below, the hard core anti-vaxxers will never change their minds, no matter how much evidence they are shown. They dismiss it out of hand and then reference conspiracy theory and anti-vaccine blogs. It’s unfortunate that so much bad information (re:vaccines) gets put out there on the web. Hopefully the more articles and blogs like this one that get posted and shared around on social media will help alleviate the concerns of some parents who are on the fence about vaccination.

    • Dan Flanders says:

      Hey Mike,

      I think that conventional health care practitioners and public health advocates are late to join the social media arena. Only in the past few years have we been establishing our voice online. Fringe pseudoscience promoters and conspiracy theorists have a decades lead on us when it comes to harnessing the power of social media and online message propagation.

      • Amber says:

        Respectfully Dr. Dan, I am 100% in favour of vaccines.

        We know we have a new generation on our hands, people who are very, very concerned about what goes into their bodies. As a health care practitioner, you are teaching parents to get their kids to exercise, to eat healthfully–an extension of that is a questioning of ingredients, in food products and also medicines.

        Really, why can’t companies produce vaccine choices that make it more likely for people to vaccine?

        You do have a responsibility to provide health care that people are comfortable with.

        We should be making it easy for people to vaccine, not challenging.

        There are about 100 choices of ice cream on the market, and yet, if you want to pay more for an ethical vaccine, there are none available. Don’t you think that’s weird?

      • Dan Flanders says:

        What you are recommending is quite interesting: customized vaccines. It may not be realistic in 2014, but one never knows what the future has in store.

        Keep in mind that not so long ago there was really only three ice cream flavors: chocolate, vanilla, and strawberry. Not sure what an ice cream vendor would have said in the seventies if a customer ordered a scoop of fat-free soy-based chocolate chip cookie dough ice cream ;)

      • Amber says:

        Well, I think all in all this has been a true “healthy debate.”

        I would respectfully ask, Dr. Flanders, that you do write letters to government asking for vaccine options for all groups in society.

        Sometimes the so-called “antivaxers” are simply frustrated patients who feel that have no options.

        Happy weekend to all and blessings.

  • Karen Born says:

    Hello. I moderate comments for Healthy Debate. You may notice that some of your comments have been edited or deleted.

    Healthy Debate is committed to being a platform for informed and respectful debate. When it comes to vaccines, inaccurate, or misleading information can be harmful.

    We have sole discretion to edit or delete any comments. This is outlined in our Terms and Conditions, available here: http://healthydebate.ca/terms-conditions

    Thank you,

  • Amber says:

    Chris, these are pharmaceuticals, vaccines are in a different category and free of lawsuit.

    Basically, from what I understand from Dr. Offit’s book, the vax companies went to the governments about 20 years ago and said, “Vax production is so risky, there are too many lawsuits, we’re going to quit.”

    So, the gov’ts said, “Don’t quit, we’ll take away the threat of lawsuit.”

    I’ll be happy to be corrected; but I noticed such a large cluster of ill children (allergy & diabetes; all same age cohort, same vax clinic) in my neighbourhood that I phoned a law firm; the lawyer said, “Typically this would be an easy case to win except you can’t sue the government over vax.”


    • Chris says:

      If I may suggest, it seems you are not understanding the basis of the article you linked to.

      The article is saying that it is currently impossible to successfully sue governments because the tort system requires the claimant to prove fault. And there is no fault in the fact that vaccines do indeed harm some people. It is arguing that those who are injured, despite a lack of fault be compensated. And that such a system is currently in place in various countries (There are 13 jurisdictions in the world with no-fault vaccine compensation programs, including Japan, New Zealand, South Korea, Denmark, France, Germany, Switzerland and the U.S.). Therefore it is stating that in the US, it is already possible to receive compensation for vaccine injuries – despite the fault. So litigation against vaccines companies is possible in the US. So they are not exempt form litigation.

      So if the anecdote you mentioned from Dr Offit’s book is true, and they went to governments and asked for this, then the aforementioned governments did not exempt them from litigation.

      If we can rewind a little bit, just above you claimed that vaccine companies were free from being sued. Vaccines companies are pharmaceutical companies and the two examples I shared were the chosen because they were the both from the vaccines companies that your article referenced. So vaccines companies are indeed being sued. Successfully. Unlike what you said.

      And to go back to your original point – I think the potential side effects of vaccines are widely acknowledged. What is needed, from a public health perspective, is for risks and benefits to be considered. It’s not a close call with vaccinations for influenza, as the cost of not vaccinating includes death.

      I decided to look up Dr Offit to see what he has to say about the influenza vaccine – he seems quite clear in his advice to me: http://www.chop.edu/video/vaccine-flu/influenza.html?item=1

  • Amber says:

    Large profit margins for vax companies:



    You can have wonderfully large profit margins when you’re free of lawsuit.

  • AusMum says:

    The anti-vax movement is not large relatively speaking, but it is vocal. They completely ignore facts because they only ‘hear’ things that support their flawed argument. Not sure how you get through to them – for example poor misguided Amber below will not accept that there aren’t aborted tissues in vaccines, and will go on being a threat to the general public because she’s convinced the risks of vaccinating are far greater than the diseases they protect against and will tell anyone she thinks ‘needs’ to know these lies. Keep fighting the good fight though!

    • Dan Flanders says:

      My experience has taught me that there are two general types of VAX doubt/deniers. The first: those who have fixed, false, extreme beliefs. There really is no reasoning with these folks. I think that they are the loudest, but in the minority. The second: victims of the first. These folks are terrified by the emotionally compelling but scientifically invalid rhetoric. It is very hard to un-scare those who have been scared. You say ‘keep fighting the good fight!’ Not worth the time or trouble with group number 1. But for the second group, it is absolutely worth spending the time to educate, reassure, un-scare and re-empower them.

      • Amber says:

        But Dr. Flanders, I know how kind and caring you are, there is no doubt about it. But parents ARE scared. We really are.

        We sit there in the vaccine clinic holding our breath wondering if our child is going to be lucky, or have one of the illnesses we see on the playground: autism, anaphylaxis, diabetes.

        I’m telling you the truth, parents ARE talking, they ARE questioning.

        A more open dialogue on this reassures parents; informed consent reassures parents.

        Being labeled a “nut” for asking questions feels horrible.

        The fear is out there; I’m about as average as it gets, I want to vaccinate. I believe in it.

        But we can’t just say “oh, it’s safe” and move on. I think we need informed consent.

      • Dan Flanders says:

        The picture you paint is heartbreaking. And I can’t deny that the healthcare system is partly to blame. We can and should care for our patients with patience, empathy, professionalism, and a willingness to meet each person where they’re at. In that regard we can do better. We can listen more. We can spend more time. We can show more compassion. We can collaborate with patients rather than barking orders. We can do better.

        Having said that, it is not our bedside manner that is striking fear into the hearts of mothers and fathers about the (unfounded) risks of vaccines. There are folks out there with very dangerous agendas who are seriously threatening to undermine what, to date, has been medical science’s greatest accomplishment.

  • Amber says:

    Likewise, participation in a social contract for the greater good means we need a no-fault compensation plan for the vaccine injured in Canada.

    Currently, no one can sue over the use of vaccine in this country.

    So, a batch is improperly stored, or whatever, leaves you or your child injured with 0% legal recourse.

    We need at least to acknowledge that like any pharmaceutical, there are side effects.

    And if you take a hit for the team, do you not at least deserve some level of compensation?

    • Dan Flanders says:

      Hi Amber,

      There are a few points I’d like to comment on.

      1. You are correct that like any pharmaceutical product, vaccines are not risk-free. But, like any public health intervention, a solid recommendation is based on a thorough cost-benefit analysis. In the case of currently approved vaccines, the analysis is overwhelmingly in favor of ‘benefit’

      2. As far as I know, the vast majority of Jewish and Muslim leaders do not object to vaccination, although I imagine they would advocate for the availability of vaccines that are not derived from pork products.

      3. It is not clear to me what you mean by no-fault compensation.

      • Rita says:

        Quebec has a no-fault compensation plan:

        The rest of Canada does not, as Amber has pointed out above. If you, your spouse or your child take a hit for the herd you are on your own:

        CMAJ No-fault compensation program overdue, experts say

      • Dan Flanders says:

        What is meant by fault?

      • Amber says:

        Great articles Rita.

      • Amber says:

        Again respectfully Dr. Flanders, when I bring my beautiful baby to the public health nurse, at no point does she say, “There are risks to vaccines.”

        If I get a prescription from the pharmacist, I get a very long print-out of side effects.

        We are simply talking about informed consent; no different than the waiver I signed before my c-section.

        Any sensible parents wants to vaccinate; but parents are better educated than ever before; a questioning population only results in better health care for all of us.

      • Dan Flanders says:

        I agree with you: a parent/patient should be informed to his/her satisfaction before treatment is delivered (whether with vaccine or otherwise).

        Regarding your last point: I agree again. Questioning is the engine the propells science.

  • Chris says:


    Hi, thanks for your feedback. I don’t doubt that it costs lots of money to vaccinate a population. But what’s your point – are you implying it’s not worth it? What’s your opinion about the thousands of deaths and hospitalisations. It’s difficult to put a cost on life. But it’s possible to calculate hospital costs (around $1,500 per day based on my own stay in Toronto General). If you wanted to take a very cold hearted financial analysis of this, I think you’d still find it more cost effective to vaccinate.

    To the other comments – indeed the vaccines do contain chemicals (as all drugs are essentially chemicals). Health Canada (from immunizebc.ca) have approved vaccines that contain thimerosal (that contains trace elements of mercury) in very tiny quantities. Can you tell me where you’re getting this figure of 49% from – I’d challenge that.

    The other claims that you make about it being untested – well, I’m reading the insert from Novartis’ Agriflu seasonal flu vaccine and I can’t find what you’re talking about. Rather than imply – can you tell me exactly where you’re getting this from? I think as Dr Flanders suggests above, this debate should be fact driven. I’d be happy to see some sources for these claims.


  • Rita says:

    Chris, flu shots are not free. They are paid for by the taxpayers, and they cost millions of dollars. And any leftovers would have to be treated as toxic waste due to the thimerosal 49.6% mercury content. And self-centered for not taking a vaccine that contains a highly toxic heavy metal? That has not been tested for it’s carcinogenic or mutagenic potential (that’s right, check the package insert).

    • Dan Flanders says:

      Hi Rita,

      If you are not comfortable with thimerisol, there are thimerisol-free options readily available for patients.

      • Rita says:

        That is true. Are pregnant women and parents of young children advised of this? Or elderly with Alzheimer’s disease?

        For there to be fully informed consent (which is required by law) to the flu vaccination, people receiving the vaccine should be informed of thimerosal being in the vaccine, and given the option of receiving a mercury free version. Better yet, the government should mandate that the pharmaceutical companies manufacturing these vaccines provide them in single dose vials eliminating the need for any preservative. How much more would that cost per dose? Has anyone bothered to find out?

      • Dan Flanders says:

        Re: cost of eliminating multi-vial formulations and using single-dose only – I personally do not know the answer to that question. Try contacting Health Canada. They may be able to help you with that.

      • Rita says:

        Thanks Dr. Flanders.

        My experience has been that Health Canada does not respond to postal mail or e-mail (another possible reason for the increase in “anti-vaccine” people perhaps?).

        I searched online and found this Medscape report, regarding US influenza vaccine in prefilled or multi-dose vials: (registration required):

        “The cost of administering 1000 immunizations in 2009 using MDVs were US $8596 versus US $8920.21 using PFSs … PFSs would save 3.12 million h in healthcare worker time, worth US$111.1 million. The higher acquisition costs of PFS vaccines compared with MDVs are offset by lower administrative costs and increased safety.”

        So prefilled syringes save healthcare worker’s time and HAVE INCREASED SAFETY. And cost only slightly more per dose. Seems like a no-brainer to me.

        What if all of the pro-vaccine people lobbied Health Canada for safer vaccines, as shown by the article above, and ask that thimerosal (49.6% mercury) be immediately eliminated from all Canadian vaccines?

      • Dan Flanders says:

        This flu season my clinic was supplied with many more pre-filled flu shots than in past years. Perhaps this reflects a Canadian public health trend towards favoring PFS’s over MDV’s. The cost savings and safety arguments made in the article you shared are compelling. Using PFS’s preferentially (or even exclusively) makes sense to me.

    • Chris says:

      Did my previous reply appears? I’m not sure. I did what you asked and read the insert for the Novartis – I couldn’t find anything about it being untested for carcinogenic or mutagentic potential. All drugs are tested before they are approved – so please help me out and tell me exactly where you are getting this from.

      Also, regarding the millions of dollars spent on vaccination – no doubt massive public health interventions costs money. There’s no surprise to me there. But what about the people who the flu kills. And those who are hospitalised. If we want to take a (very cold hearted) purely financial analysis approach to this, you’d want to compare the costs of vaccinating against the cost of not vaccinating. That would favour vaccinating.

      And the vaccines contain chemicals – also very unsurprising. Although I’d like to clarify what is 49% mercury – not the vaccines, but he thimerosal, right? So 49% of that is mercury, but only a tiny percentage of the vaccines contains that, right? So we’re talking less than what anyone would get from a tin of tuna, right? Are we all agreed?

      • Rita says:

        If anyone has proof that ANY vaccine is tested for carcinogenic potential then please provide it. I have been researching vaccines for almost 20 years since my youngest child developed a life threatening immune malfunction called anaphylaxis after his infant vaccines.

        If you look at this product monograph, on page 8,
        you will read:
        Carcinogenesis, Mutagenesis, Impairment of Fertility
        AGRIFLU has not been evaluated for carcinogenic or mutagenic potential, or for impairment of male fertility.

        If you would like me to post links to other vaccines that show the same (including infant vaccines), please let me know and I will provide links to the inserts.

        And yes, to clarify, the thimerosal preservative is 49.6% mercury, not the whole vaccine. How can you possibly compare what is eaten in a can of tuna to mercury injected right into the body, which bypasses much of the body’s ability to detoxify that heavy metal.

        Also, I would like to thank you for your kind consideration, as I have seen anyone who questions vaccines are immediately labelled as tin foil hat wearing nutters. You have to remember that most of the “anti-vaccine” people were once parents who fully vaccinated their children.

      • Dan Flanders says:


        My thoughts:

        If you think about it, testing for carcinogenesis, mutagenesis, and impairment of fertility requires decades and decades testing on massive numbers of people. This cannot be done prior to approval of a medication. The key is ongoing testing, observation, and surveillance once approved. The evaluations for safety and efficacy are ongoing. It is via this mechanism that we discovered how flu vaccine received by pregnant mothers improved birth outcomes for their babies. And, it would be through this mechanism that long-term risk would be evaluated (mutagenesis being one such example), not only for vaccines, but for any medication.

        One other point. Mercury is mercury, whether ingested or injected. If you eat a tin of tuna, the mercury ends up in your blood. Your body doesn’t fully ‘detoxify’ the mercury from ingested Tuna. When talking toxicology, it is not about the presence or absence of a chemical that defines the risk, it is the degree of exposure. As Paracelcius said: “The dose makes the poison”

        Thanks for your engagement…

      • Rita says:

        Drugs seem to tested for their carcinogenic/mutagenic potential. Vaccines are not. The flu shot has been in use for decades, I don’t understand why this testing cannot be done on flu shots, and eventually all vaccines. Just doing that one thing would eliminate so many concerns that people have.

        Re: pregnancy and flu shots, the jury is still out – the vaccines given in Canada have not been tested in pregnant women according to this article:

        “The safety of the vaccines have ‘not been established in pregnant women.’”

        The study you may be speaking of re: improved outcomes for babies may be the one recently published in the CMAJ. Look at the conflict of interest here (not visible on the abstract):
        “….has conducted clinical trials for manufacturers of influenza vaccines (Sanofi, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis) and has received research funding from Sanofi and GlaxoSmithKline.”

        Surely we can find researchers who are independent to do these studies!

        I guess we will have to agree to disagree about the mercury. I would love to know your thoughts on this article by F. Edward Yazbak MD FAAP:
        Ethyl Mercury in vaccines: Was Hilleman right?

        Thank you very much for your engagement as well. I appreciate your time.

      • Dan Flanders says:

        Hi again, Rita:

        Re: testing in pregnant women. Testing is ongoing. Since many pregnant women have receive flu-shots over the past decade or so, our ongoing surveillance of those many cases is the manner in which testing is happening. So to say that safety in pregnant women has not been established – I would argue that it has, or at the very least it is in the process of being established.

        Re: testing for carcinogenic/mutagenic potential – maybe you can be more specific about the specific tests. You imply that vaccines are held to a different standard in terms of the need to establish safety and efficacy prior to being approved compared with other medications. As far as I am aware this is not true. Whether vaccines or other medications, the same criteria must be met in order to be approved for use.

        I read the article you referred to. I don’t have much to say other than to be truly compelling, he would need to provide some evidence of actual harm having been done. If there is something more specific that you would like me to comment on, do let me know.


      • Amy King says:

        Dan Flanders “The key is ongoing testing, observation, and surveillance once approved.” Cancer is the leading disease killer of our children – how is that for an observation??

  • Chris says:

    I find the whole thing highly frustrating – I know quite a few friends who haven’t bothered to get a flu vaccine, despite it being free. Two of them are currently sick. “I’ll be OK” they said. And yet between 4,000 and 8,000 Canadians die from it every year. And it’s just about them being OK, it’s about everyone around them being OK. Some people need to be a little less self-centred.

  • Dan Flanders says:

    Some important insights from a a colleague and an old friend of mine:

    I agree of course. Problem is, it does little to sway the opinions of anti-vaccinators. And for every sound article you publish there are 10 articles and horror stories written on the other side. That plus there is a whole population of parents who are pro vaccines but just don’t believe in the current vaccine schedule. And “reputable” doctors like Dr. Sears publish an alternative schedule that gives fewer vaccines at a time and spaces them out more. Some of today’s parents are not concerned with population health and just think they are protecting their kids. With the internet and information overload, it’s very hard for parents to navigate through all the misinformation out there. That plus there is a real (and sometimes justified) skepticism about whether the government and public agencies are motivated by public safety vs. corporate and pharmaceutical agency interests. We hear lots of stories about how the FDA messed up in protecting the public in the interest of food companies so how can we trust they are not doing the same when it comes to pushing vaccines?


Dan Flanders


Dr. Dan Flanders is a Toronto pediatrician and the owner and director of Kindercare Pediatrics, a multidisciplinary outpatient pediatrics center in midtown Toronto, which maintains an active blog on pediatric issues. He is also on staff at the North York General Hospital and faculty at the University of Toronto’s department of pediatrics, faculty of medicine.

Republish this article

Republish this article on your website under the creative commons licence.

Learn more