Science
More parents are delaying their kids’ vaccines, and it’s alarming pediatricians
As measles cases pop up across the country this winter — including several in California — one group of children is stirring deep concerns among pediatricians: the babies and toddlers of vaccine-hesitant parents who are delaying their child’s measles-mumps-rubella shots.
Pediatricians across the state say they have seen a sharp increase recently in the number of parents with concerns about routine childhood vaccinations who are demanding their own inoculation schedules for their babies, creating a worrisome pool of very young children who may be at risk of contracting measles, a potentially deadly yet preventable disease.
“Especially early on, when a parent is already feeling really vulnerable and doesn’t want to give something to their beautiful baby who was just born if they don’t need it, it makes them think, ‘Maybe I’ll just delay it and wait and see.’” said Dr. Whitney Casares, a pediatrician and author who has written on vaccination for the American Academy of Pediatrics. “What they don’t realize is if they don’t vaccinate according to the recommended schedule, that can really set their child up for a whole lot of risks.”
It is difficult to know how widespread such delays have become. California keeps careful track of the rate of kindergartners who have been vaccinated against measles, but does not have comprehensive data for children at younger ages.
Dr. Eric Ball has seen the shift firsthand. At his Orange County pediatric practice, Ball said, he has noticed an increase in parents asking about delays since the COVID-19 pandemic, as politicization of and misinformation about that vaccine has seeped into discussions about routine childhood vaccinations, including measles-mumps-rubella, known as MMR.
Dr. Eric Ball examines 9-month-old Noah at Southern Orange County Pediatric Associates in Ladera Ranch on Feb. 28.
(Christina House / Los Angeles Times)
Rather than an outright refusal, however, these vaccine-hesitant parents express a softer kind of reluctance, asking if it’s possible to use an “alternative schedule” of vaccines, rather than sticking to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s recommendations. Sometimes they seek to delay the shots by a few months, and sometimes by several years.
“I have patients who have three kids, and they vaccinated the first two kids on schedule. And then since COVID, with their third kid, they are like, ‘I don’t know if this is safe. I want to wait until the kids are older’, or ‘instead of doing two shots today, I want to do one shot,’” said Ball. “It just prolongs the time where you have a child who’s unprotected and potentially can get sick from these diseases.”
He tries his best to explain to parents the importance and safety of vaccines, including MMR. He even brings out his own children’s vaccine records to prove his point, and he is often successful. But not always.
At Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, attending pediatrician Dr. Colleen Kraft said about half of parents are questioning the CDC’s recommended vaccine schedule — a significant increase since the pandemic.
“Even my most reasonable parents ask questions. So it’s definitely in the mainstream,” she said. She also worries about her patients who are behind on vaccines because they missed so many appointments during the pandemic and are only now returning to her office.
Karla Benzl holds her son, 15-month-old Marcus, before he gets vaccinated at Southern Orange County Pediatric Associates in Ladera Ranch on Feb. 28.
(Christina House / Los Angeles Times)
In Marin County, parents’ requests to delay vaccinations have become so frequent that Dr. Nelson Branco said last month his practice decided to tighten vaccine requirements as cases of both measles and pertussis have spread. Babies seen by doctors in the practice will need to have their first set of vaccines completed by 4 months of age. The primary series of vaccines against the most serious and common diseases, including measles, must be completed by 24 months.
If parents don’t agree, they must leave the practice.
“Kids are doing a lot of things that are high risk before they’re 5 and are required to be vaccinated to attend kindergarten, said Branco. “They’re getting on international flights, they’re going to Disneyland where there are lots of kids,” leaving young children vulnerable to measles when they could be protected.
The CDC recommends that the first dose of MMR be given when a baby is 12 to 15 months old. Usually this happens at a child’s 12-month well visit. A second dose is then given at 4 to 6 years of age.
At least 95% of people in a community must be vaccinated to achieve a level of “herd immunity” that protects everyone in a community, including those who cannot get the vaccine because they are too young or are immunocompromised, according to the World Health Organization.
Low vaccination rates have led to measles outbreaks in several states over the last decade, most recently in Florida.
Nationally, the rate of kindergartners fully immunized against the measles dropped from 95% in the 2019-20 school year to 93% in 2022-23, according to the CDC.
But there is overall good news in California. Since the state’s 2015 ban on parents’ personal beliefs as a reason to skip vaccinating children before school, the measles vaccination rate for kindergartners has grown from 92% in the 2013-2014 school year to 96.5% in 2022-2023.
Are you a SoCal mom?
The L.A. Times early childhood team wants to connect with you! Find us in The Mamahood’s mom group on Facebook.
Share your perspective and ask us questions.
But those postponing vaccinations have created a potential vulnerability gap in a child’s first four years.
One in 5 unvaccinated people who get measles in the U.S. will be hospitalized. Since there is no good treatment for measles, doctors can often do little more than offer supportive care. One in 1,000 children with measles will develop brain swelling that can leave a child deaf or with an intellectual disability; 1 to 3 children in 1,000 will die, according to the CDC.
Measles is so contagious that 90% of people close to an infected person will catch it if they are not immune, according to the CDC. The virus can remain contagious in a room or on a surface for up to two hours after the infected person has left.
In the Children’s Hospital Orange County primary care network, which has more than 130 pediatricians, the share of 15-month-olds with an MMR vaccine has been dropping consistently over the past last few years, from 98% in 2019, down to 93.5% in 2023.
For years in the early 2000s, anti-vaccine sentiment was at an all-time high after the publication of a now-debunked and retracted study that falsely tied the MMR vaccine to autism. In December 2014, an unvaccinated 11-year-old was hospitalized with measles following a visit to Disneyland. Over the next few months, measles spread to 125 people across seven states.
The outbreak helped galvanize support for vaccination nationwide. A year after the Disneyland outbreak, California passed its ban on personal exemption.
“The pendulum swung back the other way, and we had a few years where vaccination rates were really high,” said Ball. But the rumors and rhetoric surrounding the COVID vaccines have caused the pendulum to swing in the other direction. “We’re back to dealing with conspiracy theories, things that people heard on the internet, or something that their cousin’s neighbor’s roommate said. It’s really hard.”
Noah, who is 9 months old, gets his measurements taken by medical assistant Shellee Rayl at Southern Orange County Pediatric Associates in Ladera Ranch on Feb. 28.
(Christina House / Los Angeles Times)
A Pew Research poll conducted in March 2023 found that 88% of Americans are confident that the benefits of an MMR vaccine outweigh the risks, a percentage that has remained fairly consistent since before the pandemic.
But support for all school-based vaccine mandates has fallen; 28% now say that parents should be able to decide not to vaccinate their children, even if it causes health risks for others, up from 16% in October 2019. Among Republicans, the share has more than doubled, from 20% in 2019 to 42% in 2023.
Support for the MMR vaccine was lower among parents with young children, the poll found. About 65% of parents with children under age 5 reported that the preventative health benefits of MMR were high — compared to 88% of all adults — and 39% said the risk of side effects was either medium or high; half said they worried about whether all childhood vaccines are necessary.
Tara Larson, a former ER nurse who lives in Santa Monica, said she became concerned about childhood vaccination when she was pregnant last year. She started watching anti-vaccine documentaries, reading vaccine safety inserts, and following several social media accounts “to make us an informed vaxxer. We’re not anti-vax,” she said.
Larson decided that she wanted to delay vaccinating her son until he was 3 months old, to limit him to just three vaccines in his first year that she felt were essential, and to spread them out so that he would only get one shot per month. “By the time he starts playing on the playground and goes to school, he’ll need to start his course of Hep B, but why overload his course of vaccines right now?” she said.
The first pediatrician she saw refused to follow her requested schedule. But, Larson said, “in my gut, I just felt like this is the right thing to be doing for our baby, and I left.” After weeks of searching, she found a holistic provider who charges a $250 monthly fee and agreed with her approach.
She said she hasn’t yet decided whether to give her son, who is now 8 months old, the MMR vaccine when he becomes eligible. “I think some doctors will say to wait until they’re 3, but that was when there wasn’t a resurgence of measles,” she said. “That’s my next thing to dive into.”
Karla Benzl of Mission Viejo comforts her 15-month-old son, Marcus, after he received his vaccinations.
(Christina House / Los Angeles Times)
But there’s no scientific basis and no known benefits to delaying vaccines except in very rare medical circumstances, said Casares, whose pediatric practice is in Oregon.
Casares said the problem is that parents have an “exposure bias.” They often consume an onslaught of information on social media about the risks, but very little about the benefits of vaccines or the enormous risks of the diseases themselves. She said in a country such as the United States, where vaccination rates are fairly high, most people don’t see the ravages that the diseases can cause if rates fall.
This article is part of The Times’ early childhood education initiative, focusing on the learning and development of California children from birth to age 5. For more information about the initiative and its philanthropic funders, go to latimes.com/earlyed.
Science
What’s in a Name? For These Snails, Legal Protection
The sun had barely risen over the Pacific Ocean when a small motorboat carrying a team of Indigenous artisans and Mexican biologists dropped anchor in a rocky cove near Bahías de Huatulco.
Mauro Habacuc Avendaño Luis, one of the craftsmen, was the first to wade to shore. With an agility belying his age, he struck out over the boulders exposed by low tide. Crouching on a slippery ledge pounded by surf, he reached inside a crevice between two rocks. There, lodged among the urchins, was a snail with a knobby gray shell the size of a walnut. The sight might not dazzle tourists who travel here to see humpback whales, but for Mr. Avendaño, 85, these drab little mollusks represent a way of life.
Marine snails in the genus Plicopurpura are sacred to the Mixtec people of Pinotepa de Don Luis, a small town in southwestern Oaxaca. Men like Mr. Avendaño have been sustainably “milking” them for radiant purple dye for at least 1,500 years. The color suffuses Mixtec textiles and spiritual beliefs. Called tixinda, it symbolizes fertility and death, as well as mythic ties between lunar cycles, women and the sea.
The future of these traditions — and the fate of the snails — are uncertain. The mollusks are subject to intense poaching pressure despite federal protections intended to protect them. Fishermen break them (and the other mollusks they eat) open and sell the meat to local restaurants. Tourists who comb the beaches pluck snails off the rocks and toss them aside.
A severe earthquake in 2020 thrust formerly submerged parts of their habitat above sea level, fatally tossing other mollusks in the snail’s food web to the air, and making once inaccessible places more available to poachers.
Decades ago, dense clusters of snails the size of doorknobs were easy to find, according to Mr. Avendaño. “Full of snails,” he said, sweeping a calloused, violet-stained hand across the coves. Now, most of the snails he finds are small, just over an inch, and yield only a few milliliters of dye.
Science
Video: This Parrot Has No Beak, But Is at the Top of the Pecking Order
new video loaded: This Parrot Has No Beak, But Is at the Top of the Pecking Order
By Meg Felling and Carl Zimmer
April 20, 2026
Science
Contributor: Focus on the real causes of the shortage in hormone treatments
For months now, menopausal women across the U.S. have been unable to fill prescriptions for the estradiol patch, a long-established and safe hormone treatment. The news media has whipped up a frenzy over this scarcity, warning of a long-lasting nationwide shortage. The problem is real — but the explanations in the media coverage miss the mark. Real solutions depend on an accurate understanding of the causes.
Reporters, pharmaceutical companies and even some doctors have blamed women for causing the shortage, saying they were inspired by a “menopause moment” that has driven unprecedented demand. Such framing does a dangerous disservice to essential health advocacy.
In this narrative, there has been unprecedented demand, and it is explained in part by the Food and Drug Administration’s recent removal of the “black-box warning” from estradiol patches’ packaging. That inaccurate (and, quite frankly, terrifying) label had been required since a 2002 announcement overstated the link between certain menopause hormone treatments and breast cancer. Right-sizing and rewording the warning was long overdue. But the trouble with this narrative is that even after the black-box warning was removed, there has not been unprecedented demand.
Around 40% of menopausal women were prescribed hormone treatments in some form before the 2002 announcement. Use plummeted in its aftermath, dipping to less than 5% in 2020 and just 1.8% in 2024. According to the most recent data, the number has now settled back at the 5% mark. Unprecedented? Hardly. Modest at best.
Nor is estradiol a new or complex drug; the patch formulation has existed for decades, and generic versions are widely manufactured. There is no exotic ingredient, no rare supply chain dependency, no fluke that explains why women are suddenly being told their pharmacy is out of stock month after month.
The story is far more an indictment of the broken insurance industry: market concentration, perverse incentives and the consequences of allowing insurance companies to own the pharmacy benefit managers that effectively control drug access for the majority of users. Three companies — CVS Caremark, Express Scripts and OptumRx — manage 79% of all prescription drug claims in the United States. Those companies are wholly owned subsidiaries of three insurance behemoths: CVS Health, Cigna and UnitedHealth Group, respectively. This means that the same corporation that sells you your insurance plan also decides which drugs get covered, at what price, and whether your pharmacy can stock them. This is called vertical integration. In another era, we might have called it a cartel. The resulting problems are not unique to hormone treatments; they have affected widely used medications including blood thinners, inhalers and antibiotics. When a low-cost generic such as estradiol — a medication with no blockbuster profit margins and no patent protection — runs into friction in this system, the friction is not random. It is structural. Every decision in that chain is filtered through the same corporate profit motive. And when the drug in question is an off-patent estradiol patch that has negligible profit margins because of generic competition but requires logistical investment to keep consistently in stock? The math on “how much does this company care about ensuring access” is not complicated.
Unfortunately, there is little financial incentive to ensure smooth, consistent access. There is, however, significant financial incentive to steer patients toward branded alternatives, or simply to let supply tighten — because the companies aren’t losing much profit if sales of that product dwindle. This is not a conspiracy theory: The Federal Trade Commission noted this dynamic in a report that documented how pharmacy benefit managers’ practices inflate costs, reduce competition and harm patient access, particularly for independent pharmacies and for generic drugs.
Any claim that the estradiol patch shortage is meaningfully caused by more women now demanding hormone treatments is a distraction. It is also misogyny, pure and simple, to imply that the solution to the shortage is for women’s health advocates to dial it down and for women to temper their expectations. The scarcity of estradiol patches is the outcome of a broken system refusing to provide adequate supply.
Meanwhile, there are a few strategies to cope.
- Ask your prescriber about alternatives. Estradiol is available in multiple formulations, including gel, spray, cream, oral tablet, vaginal ring and weekly transdermal patch, which is a different product from the twice-weekly patch and may be more consistently available depending on manufacturer and region.
- Consider an online pharmacy. Many are doing a good job locating and filling these prescriptions from outside the pharmacy benefit manager system.
- Call ahead. Patch shortages are inconsistent across regions and distributors. A call to pharmacies in your area, or a broader geographic radius if you’re able, can locate stock that your regular pharmacy doesn’t have.
- Consider a compounding pharmacy. These sources can sometimes meet needs when commercially manufactured products are inaccessible. The hormones used are the same FDA-regulated bulk ingredients.
Beyond those Band-Aid solutions, more Americans need to fight for systemic change. The FTC report exists because Congress asked for it and committed to legislation that will address at least some of the problems. The FDA took action to change the labeling on estrogen in the face of citizen and medical experts’ pressure; it should do more now to demand transparency from patch manufacturers.
Most importantly, it is on all of us to call out the cracks in the current system. Instead of repeating “there’s a patch shortage” or a “surge in demand,” say that a shockingly small minority of menopausal women still even get hormonal treatments prescribed at all, and three drug companies control the vast majority of claims in this country. Those are the real problems that need real solutions.
Jennifer Weiss-Wolf, the executive director of the Birnbaum Women’s Leadership Center at New York University School of Law, is the author of the forthcoming book “When in Menopause: A User’s Manual & Citizen’s Guide.” Suzanne Gilberg, an obstetrician and gynecologist in Los Angeles, is the author of “Menopause Bootcamp.”
-
California6 minutes agoCalifornia sees lowest number of firearm-related deaths since 1968, new data shows
-
Colorado12 minutes agoSouthern Colorado farmers’ market season is here
-
Connecticut18 minutes agoAmtrak won’t close shoreline rail bridges during World Cup, reversing earlier proposal
-
Delaware24 minutes agoLucky Duck a new destination on the Delaware River waterfront
-
Georgia36 minutes ago2026 NFL Draft Scouting Report — Christen Miller, DT, Georgia
-
Hawaii42 minutes ago
Iran War Puts a Pause on Hawaii’s Housing Market Recovery
-
Idaho48 minutes agoIdaho Fish and Game reminds humans not to touch wild baby animals
-
Illinois54 minutes ago‘Millionaires tax’ would hike rate 61% on 22K Illinois small businesses