1. Omitting OPV from routine schedule at 6, 10 and 14 weeks. This is likely to create confusion among public, when one group is advised to take OPV and other group for not using OPV in routine schedule, purely on the basis of economic background. This is also likely to increase the demand of IPV, for which public sector may not be prepared yet. Wouldn’t it have been wise to prepare such recommendation; while enforcing similar changes in National schedule too, when Government is prepared with enough stocks of IPV. So that confusion in public, at this vital stage of polio eradication could have been avoided.

2. When one decides to use IPV and not OPV in routine schedule, we are not convinced about using IPV-OPV schedule. When IPV is proved to be highly efficacious and able to provide equal mucosal immunity, why not go for only IPV schedule [2,3]? What is the justification for advising OPV later at 6 months and 9 months, knowing the difficulty in getting people at 6 months?

3. Regarding rotavirus vaccine, in absence of any efficacy trial on this issue from India, poor immunogenicity shown in developing countries, and prevalent strains not covered by presently available vaccines [4]; how justified are we in recommending this for routine use?

4. Regarding boosters of MMR and varicella, we would like to know the justification for recommending it at five years. Before recommending such boosters, we should know the status of persistence of protective antibody titres against these diseases at later ages after primary vaccination in our children. When natural infections are still likely to play a significant role in boosting immunity in our children, even if we need boosters, probably MMR and varicella boosters at 10 years would provide more robust immune response in our children rather than then giving at 5 years [5].