|
Jan. 24, 2001
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.
Phyllis Schlafly column
1-24-01
|
