|
by
Phyllis Schlafly
A recent issue
of JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association, 12-27-00)
reports on a Centers for Disease Control (CDC) study that
supports the widespread policy of forcing all children to
be vaccinated in order to enter daycare or school. It makes
the unsurprising claim that unvaccinated children are more
likely to get measles and pertussis than those who are vaccinated.
The study used
Colorado data because that is one of 15 states that allow
parents a so-called philosophical exemption in addition to
the religious and medical exemptions that other states allow.
Only 1.4
percent claimed
this exemption and more than 98
percent of Colorado children were vaccinated
in the year cited by the study.
The CDC has declared
that the United States has been free from indigenous measles
since 1998 and the only cases come in with immigrants. Vaccination
is not effective in about 5
percent of children, so when there is a
measles outbreak, most of the cases are among vaccinated children.
The researchers
had to go back more than ten years to find sufficient cases
for the Colorado study and include a measles epidemic. If
the researchers wanted to discuss current risks accurately,
they should have focused on immigrants and ineffective vaccinations
rather than on children whom they disdainfully call "exemptors."
It appears that
the "experts" and the "authorities" won't
be happy until there is 100 percent compliance with vaccine
mandates. The real purpose of the report in JAMA seems to
be to shame or scare the 1 to 2 percent of parents into not
using a philosophical exemption and to induce states to repeal
this exemption.
The same issue
of JAMA includes an editorial commenting on the study. It,
too, is based on the premise that vaccine mandates are good,
and it deplores criticisms of vaccines by parents, implying
that their objections must be based on ignorance or misinformation.
But buried in the
JAMA editorial are some startling comments and revelations.
Vaccine
mandates go into effect in America in a procedure that evades
accountability.
The Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) first licenses the vaccine as safe; then
the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP)
recommends that the vaccine be given to all children; then
state legislatures specify which vaccines and how many doses
are required (or authorize a state health agency to do this).
JAMA absolves ACIP,
CDC and FDA from any accountability for the mandating of vaccines.
The editorial says, "It is not the responsibility of
these advisory bodies to determine which vaccines are mandated;
that decision resides with the state."
In
other words, state legislators take note. You should not mandate
a vaccine just because FDA licenses it or ACIP recommends
it; you are responsible to make your own decisions and you
cannot pass the buck to FDA, ACIP or CDC.
So why do ACIP
and FDA so gratuitously recommend so many vaccines for all
children?
JAMA's editorial
reveals the answer:
These
recommendations are monetary decisions masquerading as medical
decisions.
Here are JAMA's
words: "Since federal funding for vaccines is determined
by the ACIP through the Vaccines for Children (VFC) program,
whenever possible the ACIP should endorse funding for vaccines
that physicians and parents wish to administer."
In other words,
the real purpose of ACIP and FDA
recommendations is to release federal funds to buy the vaccines
from the manufacturers.
Rep. Dan Burton's
(R-IN) investigation last year revealed many conflicts of
interest among those who sit on federal panels where they
can vote the recommendations that trigger the federal funds.
Many
panelists receive financial benefits from the vaccine manufacturers.
JAMA issues a stern
caveat to the states: "All vaccines that are licensed
and recommended for use in children should not necessarily
be legally mandated for day care or school entry. Each state
needs to assess each vaccine individually."
JAMA's warning
continues: "States should determine whether the disease
to be prevented by the vaccines is highly contagious, results
in significant morbidity and mortality, and poses a major
health problem to both the individual and the community."
It's obvious that these are not the criteria used by the ACIP
and FDA in their pronouncements about vaccines.
Many states are
now amending their compulsory vaccination laws to add hepatitis
B and chicken pox. An independent assessment of these vaccines
by a state is unlikely to conclude that they meet the criteria
set forth by JAMA.
Rep. Dan Burton
should have more hearings to expose the government's vaccine
licensing/recommendation/mandate process. Meanwhile, since
the government's decision-making procedure is not only defective
but suspect, we need a philosophical exemption in every
state so that decisions can be made by parents whose motive
is the health of their children, not promoting government
purchases of vaccines.
Independent judgments
by states and consumers might have helped to avoid past blunders
like the rotavirus vaccine embarrassment last year that caused
injuries and death to so many babies. At a minimum, a philosophical
exemption in every state would create a market demand for
improvement of vaccines
Eagle
Forum Jan.
24, 2001 and JAMA December 27, 2000
| 