Jump to content
RemedySpot.com

Vaccine Editorial - OT

Rate this topic


Guest guest

Recommended Posts

UCLA EPIDEMIOLOGIST: " VACCINES SHOULD BE VOLUNTARY "

Contributed by Traub, ND

This editorial is reprinted from the International Herald Tribune. It is by

Hurwitz, assistant professor at the School of Public Health, Department

of Epidemiology, at the University of California, Los Angeles certainly a

" main stream " school and probably not what the medical politicians want you

to hear and read.

According to recent medical findings, many parents believe that childhood

vaccines are unsafe and seek exemptions from school mandates. Because

unvaccinated children put themselves and others at greater risk of highly

contagious diseases that can be prevented by vaccines, it is worth exploring

the possible origins of these beliefs and whether they are scientifically

justified.

If vaccines cause harm to some children, and if we cannot accurately predict

which kids will, programs, by necessity, protect the public's health at their

expense. Should the risks and benefits to the child and the public of

receiving or not receiving each vaccine be disclosed by a physician in a way

that the parent understands the inherent uncertainty of risk and voluntarily

makes a decision to accept or refuse the vaccinations?

In the United States, vaccine safety has historically taken a back seat to

development and rapid deployment. Remarkably, even today, we lack procedures

for the systematic collection of valid long-term safety data. Documented

cases of abuse of power, unethical studies and vaccine-induced injury and

death may contribute to parents' conceptions.

Evidence of conflicts of interest involving U.S. Food and Drug Administration

advisory panel members, the withdrawal of the recently approved vaccine for

rotavirus (responsible for severe diarrhea), changes in the hepatitis B

vaccine schedule because of possible harm from a mercury-containing

preservative and reports from the Institute of Medicine are also likely

reasons for concern. The institute concluded that (a) the measles-mumps

rubella and hepatitis B vaccines may cause anaphylaxis, a life-threatening

allergic reaction, and (B) the causes of many other adverse outcomes could

not be determined because of insufficient data. Moreover, a recent study

suggests that the most widely used current vaccines for whooping cough may be

linked with anaphylaxis, while surveillance of the chickenpox vaccine

revealed anaphylaxis, encephalopathy (a disorder affecting the brain) and

other reactions. Links of the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine and other

immunizations with autism have been neither proved nor disproved because of

inadequate data.

Similarly, little is known about the potential long-term consequences of

multiple and combination vaccines typically administered to U.S. children.

Findings from both animal and human studies suggest that vaccinations are one

of many genetic and environmental factors that contribute to the increase in

allergic disease.

Thus, because of how vaccines are tested and marketed, without large,

long-term safety studies before widespread public school use, lack of

confidence in vaccine safety may not be a misconception, but a scientifically

justifiable concern. In fact, written informed consent may be warranted

because there are insufficient data to accurately estimate the risks; current

investigatory systems are not designed to assess the risks of rare events or

adverse outcomes with long latent periods; and post-marketing surveillance is

arguably still research. Because mandatory immunization policies preclude

voluntary informed consent, there is in many cases a lack of trust and shared

decision-making between parents and their child's physician. Any potential

unintended consequences of current and future vaccinations need to be

acknowledged and adequately addressed through the sharing of data, resources

and expertise by government agencies, vaccine manufacturers and researchers.

Until we can predict which children are at risk from current and future

vaccines, voluntary, written informed consent rather than coercion may help

to restore parents' trust and maintain the public's health.

The writer is an assistant professor at the School of Public Health,

Department of Epidemiology, at the University of California, Los Angeles. He

contributed this comment to the Los Angeles Times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

UCLA EPIDEMIOLOGIST: " VACCINES SHOULD BE VOLUNTARY "

Contributed by Traub, ND

This editorial is reprinted from the International Herald Tribune. It

is by

Hurwitz, assistant professor at the School of Public Health,

Department

of Epidemiology, at the University of California, Los Angeles

certainly a

" main stream " school and probably not what the medical politicians

want you

to hear and read.

According to recent medical findings, many parents believe that

childhood

vaccines are unsafe and seek exemptions from school mandates. Because

unvaccinated children put themselves and others at greater risk of

highly

contagious diseases that can be prevented by vaccines, it is worth

exploring

the possible origins of these beliefs and whether they are

scientifically

justified.

If vaccines cause harm to some children, and if we cannot accurately

predict

which kids will, programs, by necessity, protect the public's health

at their

expense. Should the risks and benefits to the child and the public of

receiving or not receiving each vaccine be disclosed by a physician

in a way

that the parent understands the inherent uncertainty of risk and

voluntarily

makes a decision to accept or refuse the vaccinations?

In the United States, vaccine safety has historically taken a back

seat to

development and rapid deployment. Remarkably, even today, we lack

procedures

for the systematic collection of valid long-term safety data.

Documented

cases of abuse of power, unethical studies and vaccine-induced injury

and

death may contribute to parents' conceptions.

Evidence of conflicts of interest involving U.S. Food and Drug

Administration

advisory panel members, the withdrawal of the recently approved

vaccine for

rotavirus (responsible for severe diarrhea), changes in the hepatitis

B

vaccine schedule because of possible harm from a mercury-containing

preservative and reports from the Institute of Medicine are also

likely

reasons for concern. The institute concluded that (a) the measles-

mumps

rubella and hepatitis B vaccines may cause anaphylaxis, a life-

threatening

allergic reaction, and (B) the causes of many other adverse outcomes

could

not be determined because of insufficient data. Moreover, a recent

study

suggests that the most widely used current vaccines for whooping

cough may be

linked with anaphylaxis, while surveillance of the chickenpox vaccine

revealed anaphylaxis, encephalopathy (a disorder affecting the brain)

and

other reactions. Links of the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine and other

immunizations with autism have been neither proved nor disproved

because of

inadequate data.

Similarly, little is known about the potential long-term consequences

of

multiple and combination vaccines typically administered to U.S.

children.

Findings from both animal and human studies suggest that vaccinations

are one

of many genetic and environmental factors that contribute to the

increase in

allergic disease.

Thus, because of how vaccines are tested and marketed, without large,

long-term safety studies before widespread public school use, lack of

confidence in vaccine safety may not be a misconception, but a

scientifically

justifiable concern. In fact, written informed consent may be

warranted

because there are insufficient data to accurately estimate the risks;

current

investigatory systems are not designed to assess the risks of rare

events or

adverse outcomes with long latent periods; and post-marketing

surveillance is

arguably still research. Because mandatory immunization policies

preclude

voluntary informed consent, there is in many cases a lack of trust

and shared

decision-making between parents and their child's physician. Any

potential

unintended consequences of current and future vaccinations need to be

acknowledged and adequately addressed through the sharing of data,

resources

and expertise by government agencies, vaccine manufacturers and

researchers.

Until we can predict which children are at risk from current and

future

vaccines, voluntary, written informed consent rather than coercion

may help

to restore parents' trust and maintain the public's health.

The writer is an assistant professor at the School of Public Health,

Department of Epidemiology, at the University of California, Los

Angeles. He

contributed this comment to the Los Angeles Times.

--- End forwarded message ---

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...