strictly speaking, these two issues shouldn't be linked. vaccine has much fewer scientific controversy than antibiotics.

about most vacciness WHO and CDC/NIH recommend, just follow it, no Q asked. almsot all anti-vaccine voices are scientifcally baseless, and people behind those are most likely quacks or ignorant.

on the contrary to those anti voices who question vaccines' side effects, maybe some vaacine could be too "mild". Discover magazine recently said the whooping cough one just be that case: the currently used one seems too weak and some scholars would like to use the old, more pwoerful one. but they all admitted it would be a non starter, the old one had much stronger side effects (only compared with the new and ineffective one, but even the old one was actually safe enough, most side effects were minor irratations) and consider nowadays storng anti-vaccine atmosphere...

but what i really want to talk here is a recent book:

"missing microbes" by a well recognized and respected scientist Dr. Blaser. His CV is impeccable, and unlike those anti-vaccine quacks who promote pseudo science, his professionism is too, all his views are backed by credible researches published in peer review journals and convincing arguments.

still, there's a similarity i saw there, no matter how different the two really are, that is personal strong belief or ego gets in the way of introducing popular science.

many of us already know well about abusing use of antibiotics nowadays. but Dr. Blaser went far way more than that. in fact, he questioned so many common established med theories and routine med practices.

a few examples here:

the usually viewd villians in stomach h. pylori is a double agent. before one follows doc's Rx of antibiotics to get rid of them, think twice. the bad guy does get involved in ulcers and gastric cancer, but it might aslo prevent esophagus preoblems, sucha s heart burn(GERD) or evne cancer there.

giving babies and young kids antibiotics might be bad. between potnetial deadly infections (young guys have weak immune systems)and later life modern diseases (obesity, diabetis, allergy...), choose your poison.

newborns have an ugly coat covering all the body, but we most people don't know it, hospitals remove it super quick, but it might offer some benefits or protections, should we leave it a bit longer on babies?

and more an dmore...

if not for his undisputbale credentials, one might challenge him to be a heretic, outsider, or worse. Dr. blaser himself admitted that, despite his numerous publications and a few allies, most colleagues are not on his side.

true antibiotis abuse is widely acknowledged, WHO/CDC/NIH all included. and some have wide consensus:

farm using too much antibiotics, not for fighting infectious disease but promoting body grwoth (ironically this finding helped dr blaser linking it to young obesity problem)

prescribing antibiotis for viral respiratory illness. but as the author acknowledged, for safety of child (some tiems hard to differentiate between bacterial and viral causes, and when it known, could be too late) and potential lawsuits, docs still prefer prescribingit. the long term of antibiotic resistence and other bad effects are secondary.

too many caesar section births. as long as safety is not the issue, natural way is better.

overall this is a great book, you should read it, even if you know little about biomed, aslong as you care about your and your children's health.

i am jsut saying probably dr blaser's ahcievements and egos gettign alittle bit into the wya of his writing, perhaps he could be a bit more cautious, reminding people should still follow doc's advice.

until new possible consensus reached, such as those controversies aorund prostate PSA and mammogram.

but one thign is certain, more relevent studies are urgently needed. whether dr balser goes too far agianst antibiotics, only solid experiments and trials can tell