Vaccinations---Pros and Cons

Safe and Effective and should they be government mandated?

Published on March 16, 2008 By lulapilgrim In Current Events

Vaccinations--Pros and Cons

Safe and Effective and should they be government mandated?

The number of available vaccines are increasing and so are the questions of parents and concerned individuals who want to be enlightened about the pros and cons.

On another forum, KFC noted that some parents in Belgium are being jailed for refusing to have their children vaccinated against polio. According to a Lifesite news report, 2 sets of parents have been sentenced to five months in prison as well as a hefty fine for their crime. It’s a crime because the polio vaccine is legally mandated in Belgium and France. The article didn’t reveal why the parents have refused to vaccinate their children. However, vaccination has long been a subject of health and ethical concern, especially since the discovery that numerous vaccines, including several versions of the polio vaccine, are made using tissue from aborted fetuses. It’s unclear whether or not Belgium's polio vaccine has been tainted with fetal tissue.

While no vaccine is 100% safe, medical experts and health officials have long insisted the risk of diseases far outweigh the risks associated with vaccines. And that’s where the rub lies. It’s a small percentage, but what if it happens to you? Various anti-vaccination groups argue that long-term health concerns for children who have received vaccinations have not been adequately addressed, with some claiming that vaccination shots can lead to medical problems such as cancer, autism and even SIDS, "sudden infant death syndrome".

In 1986, due to pressure from parents who children had suffered devastating problems after being vaccinated, the government created the National Vaccine Compensation Program and since then has paid out more than 1.2 billion dollars in settlements to compensate families or individuals in which vaccines killed, caused brain-damage or otherwise seriously hurt children.

Right now, we have pretty much employed a "one size fits all" vaccination policy and as specified on the Universal Childhood Immunization Schedule our children as early as only a few days old are required to get certain vaccines. Besides that, there is a concern about the practice of giving a child as many as 6 separate shots or one super shot containing as many as 9 vaccines (some containing mercury) in one visit. It seems that 75% of the settlements cited above concerned the DPT vaccine given to babies at about 2 months old. Turns out they are linking many multiple learning disabilities as a result of a negative reaction to DPT.

In an effort to make this world a better place, and with a billion dollar budget, the drug industry and the medical community are racing forward developing all kinds of vaccines. Case in point is the new HPV vaccine which is supposed to protect against certain strains of human papillomavirus (STD) which lead to cervical cancer. Problem is only a fraction of that budget goes to fund independent studies of side effects and that finally has come to the attention to some in Congress.

Who decides what drugs are forced on children? One parent group based in Ohio supports allowing parents to opt their children out of vaccines and as a result, a dozen or so states have granted a limited medical exemption, a religious exemption, and a philosophical (conscientiously held belief) exemption. Unfortunately, great pressure is put on parents who choose to exempt their children. That happened to me in the case of the small pox vaccine a couple of years ago. The school insisted....and threatened to oust my child...the pressure was on.....and, as for me, I was aware of the medical, religious and philosophical exemptions.

Comments (Page 2)

lulapilgrim

on Mar 23, 2011

It seems that the real problem is that the public is not ready for a cancer vaccine that requires multiple injections, claiming to prevent cervical cancer which is caused most commonly by sexual activity.

Ah, I disagree that the real problem is merely that the vaccine requires multiple injections. Rather I think the related stories are more indicative of the real problem with Gardasil.

lulapilgrim

on Jul 07, 2011

CRAZY California does it again. Here's a news item from July 5.

California bill gives minors access to STD immunization without parental consent

by Christine Dhanagom

Tue Jul 05 5:37 PM EST

SACRAMENTO, July 5, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A proposed law in California that would allow minors to obtain vaccines for sexually transmitted diseases without parental consent is being strenuously opposed by the state’s Catholic bishops.

California law currently permits children age 12 and older to consent for themselves to diagnosis and treatment for sexually transmitted diseases. The proposed law, AB 499, would extend that right to include preventative care, such as immunizations.

The bill has been approved by the State Assembly and was passed by the Senate Judiciary Committee on June 14th.

If passed, the bill would give minors access to controversial vaccines intended to prevent Human Papillomavirus (HPV), an STD which can cause cervical cancer in women.

“This bill appears to be an ‘end run’ following the failure in 2007 to mandate HPV vaccination for all girls entering public junior high school — a measure strongly opposed by parents’ rights groups and vetoed by the Governor,” said an action alert from the state’s bishops.

Gardasil, approved by the CDC for use on females age 9 – 26 in 2006 and on males age 9 – 26 in 2009, and Cervarix, approved for females age 10 – 25 in 2009, are the two HPV vaccines currently on the market. Gardasil can be given to males as protection against genital warts.

The CDC maintains their safety and effectiveness, and recommends full immunization against HPV, which requires three doses of the vaccine.

The bishop’s action alert, however, noted that 21,171 adverse reactions and 91 deaths associated with Gardasil had been reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System as of January 15, 2011.

According to the CDC website, there have been 39 reports of adverse events associated with Cervarix as of June 2011. The drug’s safety has also been called into question in England, where 12-year-old Ashleigh Cave collapsed shortly after receiving the vaccine at school and was left paralyzed from the waist down.

The bishop’s action alert questions whether minors should be considered to have mature enough judgment to make their own decision about drugs of such questionable history.

“Most parents are involved in the lives of their minor children and need to know if they are seeking medical care — regardless of whether the care is curative or preventative,” said the statement.

According to a National Catholic Register report, William May, chairman of the California-based lay apostolate, Catholics for the Common Good, pointed out in his testimony against the bill at a Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing, that without parental involvement, adverse reactions to the vaccine may go unnoticed and untreated.

“Children can be easily intimidated or influenced by the authority of adults,” said May “There is money to be made by administering these vaccines and other drugs by the drug companies and service providers, like Planned Parenthood. What protects children from coercion driven by the profit motive?”

lulapilgrim

on Jul 07, 2011

lulapilgrim

reply 17

I'm glad the bishops under Archbishop Gomez, are getting involved urging rejection of this bill. Can you imagine permitting children as young as 12 years old obtaining the HPV vaccination without parental notification or consent?

Daiwa

on Jul 08, 2011

Short answer - No.

But I can imagine anything happening in Kalifornia.

They used to say that California was the leading edge of all trends, that everything 'good' started there and spread to the rest of the country. That's a very frightening notion now.

EDIT: This is a forerunner of what will happen with full implementation of Obamacare - the alleged potential 'cost to society' will be used as justification for usurpation of all parental authority and personal autonomy. Kalifornia's next step will be making them mandatory, not just permissible without parental consent.

myfist0

on Jul 08, 2011

Daiwa

on Jul 08, 2011

The alleged benefits of expanded taxpayer-funded health insurance are going to be harder to justify, let alone prove, if the information in this timely piece is any indication.

lulapilgrim

on Jul 08, 2011

Kalifornia's next step will be making them mandatory, not just permissible without parental consent.

But I can imagine anything happening in Kalifornia.

Just when I think it can't get any worse, it does. Turns out California has been on track to mandate these STD vaccines at least as far back as 2007. But it's not only California.

Check out this story from 2007. http://townhall.com/columnists/lindachavez/2007/02/23/parents_dilemma

And note who's mentioned in the 3rd paragraph...

Gardasil, an anti-HPV vaccine produced by Merck & Co., was recently approved by the Food and Drug Administration, and the company is aggressively marketing it through television ads and lobbying state legislatures to mandate vaccinations of all young girls. Gov. Rick Perry of Texas, who signed an executive order requiring sixth-grade girls to receive the shots, is under fire because his former chief of staff is now a lobbyist for Merck.

Mandating STD vaccines amounts to a war against children and for me, this shoots Rick Perry out of the running.

lulapilgrim

on Jul 08, 2011

Myfist0,

Thank you for the video #20. Good job finding one that goes directly to the question, should vaccines be government mandated?

I find this quote at the end of the video ....1:20:45

"And in fact, the responsible for health of children is this. Society rests primarily on children's parents and parents should have the right to opt out of vaccination.

The right to informed consent of vaccinations can be defined as a human right becasue vaccination is a medical intervention that carries a risk of injury or death and if you cannot make a choice about whether or not you are going to put yourself or child at risk, for a vaccine that could kill or injure you then how can we say we are free in America?"

Daiwa

on Jul 09, 2011

While there is a counter-argument, I believe it is legitimate, permissible and responsible for government to require certain vaccinations in certain circumstances, as a condition of admission to public school, for instance. Or as a condition of travel to locales with known high risk for certain preventable diseases, or employment in certain high-exposure jobs or professions. A person still has a choice in those cases to decline, go elsewhere or do something else. But mandating that every child be forced to receive them is wrong. As much as I'm in favor of vaccines, including Gardasil (at an appropriate age), as on balance efficacious and safe, no human with the right of self-determination should be forced against their will to be immunized against anything. Vaccination has a track record of safety and astounding effectiveness unmatched by almost anything modern medicine has achieved and should be voluntarily embraced.

I want my granddaughters to be as safe as possible from the risks of passively-acquired, preventable communicable diseases when they attend public school and have no issue with requiring children who attend public school to be vaccinated. And I'll want them to be vaccinated against meningococcal meningitis if/when they live in a dorm at college, public or private. If asked, I will encourage them to be immunized with Gardisil if/when their parents decide the time is right or once they reach the age of consent.*

However, STD vaccinations uniquely relate to active individual behavioral risk, as opposed to passive risk; IMO, parental consent for administration to minors should be absolutely mandatory and the state has no business requiring them as a condition of school attendance. No child is going to run the risk of acquiring HPV simply by virtue of their presence at school (there is zero risk absent intercourse), unlike the other communicable diseases preventable by vaccination. I'm quite surprised, and disappointed, that Perry signed off on that.

*Although it's a different issue, I am somewhat concerned about anything that subliminally enables risk-taking by hormonally-infused teens & young adults by providing a false sense of safety, which Gardisil arguably does (not that withholding Gardisil would favorably influence risk-taking, mind you). Genital herpes is a far greater risk than HPV, and there's no vaccine or curative treatment for that, though condom use is highly effective in prevention, as is abstinence.

lulapilgrim

on Jul 09, 2011

Daiwa

reply 24

While there is a counter-argument, I believe it is legitimate, permissible and responsible for government to require certain vaccinations in certain circumstances, as a condition of admission to public school, for instance.

No, this is a great mistake giving government way too much power. This is effectively government mandated vaccines...forced medical intervention on healthy children that is known to carry risks of injury or death.

Daiwa

reply 24

Vaccination has a track record of safety and astounding effectiveness unmatched by almost anything modern medicine has achieved and should be voluntarily embraced.

Adults are free to assume vaccination risks for reasons of their choice. But risk is not something that government, in a free society, should ordinarily force people to accept. And that is exactly what is happening in the case of federal vaccine recommendations that are transformed into mandates by state health departments that schools require as a condition of attendance.

Over the years serious questions have been raised about vaccine safety. While there is alot of good, there is a lot of hanky panky behind vaccines. Today, most children are required to get up to 33 immunizations before they can be admitted to public school. Yet, parents are questioning the necessity of so many vaccines. From the video we learn that they are starting to ask which is the greater risk...getting and being injured by the disease, or being injured sometimes permanently, by the vaccine that purports to protect against it?

Parents must be included in the decision making process. Rather than requiring vaccinations as a condition of admission to public schools, States must allow, without prejudice, medical exemptions, religious exemptions and conscientious exemptions.

lulapilgrim

on Jul 09, 2011

Daiwa

reply 24

If asked, I will encourage them to be immunized with Gardisil if/when their parents decide the time is right or once they reach the age of consent.*
.

Did you watch the video?

................................................

In 2006, when Gardisil received its fast track approval from the FDA, I lived in Maine where I spent a great amount of time fighting against the State's implementation of contraceptive sex ed instruction to K through 12th grade students.

Honestly, even though I didn't know much about Gardisil, I immediately didn't like it because Planned Parenthood was aiding and abetting the pharmaceutical push promoting it. Gardisil's manufacturer, Merck, had done a good job advocating these shots for girls as young as 9 years old. Imagine that, as young as 9!!! HPV is sexually transmitted and how many 9 year old girls are sexually active?

Anyway, parents were scared and they went for it. Less than a year later, Judicial Watch released FDA docs showing that 1, 637 reports of adverse reactions, including 3 deaths, one was 12 the other was 19 relating to heart problems and or blood clots. By 2009, an analysis of data from VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System) found 235 cases of permanent disability, and 47 deaths.

Here we are in 2011 and Gardisil is big business and the dangers of mandating it cannot be overemphasized.

lulapilgrim

on Jul 09, 2011

Daiwa

reply 24

Here is the story on Rick Perry....from 2007...it just goes to show what money can buy!

Texas Gov. Issues Executive Order Approving Mandatory HPV Vaccines for Girls 9-11

by LifeSiteNews.com

Mon Feb 05 12:15 PM EST

By Gudrun Schultz

AUSTEN, Texas, February 5, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Girls as young as nine years old will be required to undergo vaccination for the sexually-transmitted Human Papilloma Virus, after Texas Governor Rick Perry issued an executive order last Friday mandating immunization for school girls.

Perry bypassed the State Legislature to issue the order, directing the Health and Human Services Commission to adopt rules for the administration of the vaccine.

Multiple states are considering legislation to enforce HPV vaccination, after a nation-wide campaign promoted the “necessity” of protecting girls from the cancer-causing virus—HPV is linked to the majority of cases of cervical cancer.

The campaign received significant funding from the drug conglomerate Merck and Co. that produces the vaccine known as Gardasil, revealed by a report from the Life Issues Institute last week.

The company has funneled money through the advocacy organization Women in Government, made up of female legislative representatives. Most of the state bills to mandate HPV vaccination were introduced by members of the organization. As well, an official with Merck’s Vaccine Division is a Board member of Women in Government, according to the Associated Press.

The AP also reported last week that Merck contributed $6,000 to Gov. Perry’s re-election campaign. As well, one of the drug company’s three lobbyists in Texas is Mike Toomey, who was Perry’s former chief of staff. His current chief of staff is married to the daughter of Texas Rep. Dianne White Delisi, state director for Women in Government.

Merck has refused to say how much money is being spent on the lobbying efforts, but reports say their budget in Texas alone has doubled to between $150,000 to $250,000.

Opponents of the vaccine say parental rights to make medical decisions for their children would be overrun by state-enforced vaccination for a highly-preventable disease that is linked to sexual promiscuity.

“Even though most states propose opt-out provisions for parents who have moral objections, the requirement intrudes on families’ privacy and it begins to chip away at parents’ authority to make moral and medical decisions for their children,” said Bradley Mattes, executive director of the Life Issues Institute. “Further, it sends a conflicting message to children whose parents advocate abstinence until marriage.

Mandating immunization sends the message to young girls that they are expected to engage in sexual activity, Mattes said.

“It appears nearly everyone discussing the issue seems to have abdicated the concept of abstinence until marriage - the best and most simple answer.”

As well, Mattes said the vaccine would undo years of effort to reduce the pregnancy and abortion rate of teenage girls by providing a “false sense of security among many girls, resulting in more teenage sex, other STDs, pregnancy and abortion.”

Other organizations opposing state-controlled use of the vaccine include the Catholic Medical Association, the American College of Pediatricians (ACP), Focus on the Family, the National Catholic Bioethics Center and the Pro Family Law Center, according to a report by the pro-life advocacy group Children of God for Life.

See previous LifeSiteNews coverage:

Drug Conglomerate funds campaign to impose Mandatory HPV Vaccine on Young Girls
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/feb/07020204.html

lulapilgrim

on Jul 14, 2011

Destroying Parental Rights Over Kids’ Healthcare in California

Thursday, June 23, 2011, 4:45 PM

Wesley J. Smith

The once sacrosanct parental right to determine their children’s health care (in all but extreme circumstances) seems to be under constant assault as the lawmakers and bureaucrats apparently believe that school-based and special interest advocates are better able to decide what is best for kids than parents. Take California’s AB 499, as one example. It would allow children over the age of 12 to obtain medical treatment without parental consent for treatment of reportable contagious or venereal diseases. From the legislation:

SECTION 1. Section 6926 of the Family Code is amended to read: 6926. (a) A minor who is 12 years of age or older and who may have come into contact with an infectious, contagious, or communicable disease may consent to medical care related to the diagnosis or treatment of the disease, if the disease or condition is one that is required by law or regulation adopted pursuant to law to be reported to the local health officer, or is a related sexually transmitted disease, as may be determined by the State Director of Health Services Public Health Officer.

( A minor who is 12 years of age or older may consent to medical care related to the prevention of a sexually transmitted disease.

This is awful. Children can contract serious reportable diseases–such as anthrax, diphtheria, toxic shock syndrome, and SARS–and if this legislation passes, parents could be kept in the dark.

But let’s be honest: We all know that such conditions are not what this legislation is all about. Rather, supporters desire to allow children to be treated for sexually transmittable diseases such as syphilis and HIV without parental knowledge or consent. Moreover, the “prevent” STDs is about giving 12-year-olds the HPV vaccine without parental knowledge. Thus, to put it bluntly, the law seeks to make it easier for underage children to be sexually active without worry that their parents will find out. And it substitutes parental authority for those who would smile benignly on such activities.

AB 499 is a cultural attack against parents who hold traditional mores and values, plain as day. Parents in California aren’t entitled to know if their minor daughters have abortions or obtain birth control. Now, they are on the verge of being excluded from other important and intimate aspects of their children’s lives. In short, the legislation is an example of moral and cultural imperialism.

Daiwa

on Jul 14, 2011

Just another of the many reasons not to live there.

lulapilgrim

on Jul 16, 2011

Daiwa

reply 29

Just another of the many reasons not to live there.

I agree.

Here's something else that confirms California does not respect parental rights and another reason people are leaving in droves.

Archbishop Gomez urges rejection of vaccination, gay-textbook bills

July 07, 2011

Archbishop José Gomez of Los Angeles has called upon California lawmakers to reject two bills that “represent a dangerous government intrusion into parents’ rights.”

The first would permit children 12 or over to obtain the HPV vaccination and treatment related to sexually transmitted diseases without parental consent. “By passing this bill, in effect, government would be encouraging young people to engage in activities that are contrary to their parents’ moral values--and then to lie about it or keep it secret from their parents,” said Archbishop Gomez.

The second bill, which has passed the legislature and awaits the governor’s signature, requires schools to use textbooks that “accurately portray” the “contributions” of “lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans.”

In addition, schools would be forbidden to use instructional materials that “contain any matter reflecting adversely upon persons on the basis of … sexual orientation” and materials that contain “any sectarian or denominational doctrine or propaganda contrary to law.”

“This amounts to the government rewriting history books based on pressure-group politics,” said Archbishop Gomez. “It is also another example of the government interfering with parents’ rights to be their children’s primary educators.”

The prelate also praised Justice Clarence Thomas’s dissenting opinion in a Supreme Court decision involving the sale of violent video games to minors.

“Let us work to become a people who no longer resort to abortion, birth control, in vitro fertilization and divorce,” the archbishop added. “Let us build a future for our nation in which children grow up in families based on God’s law and the natural law.”

Source(s): these links will take you to other sites, in a new window.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!

Related Stories

Gardasil Researcher Admits Vaccine May Be More Dangerous than the Disease

Gardasil Vaccination Results in Three Outbreaks of Genital Warts in Fiji School Children

Gardasil - 18 Dead, Thousands Suffer Complications

Archbishop Gomez urges rejection of vaccination, gay-textbook bills

July 07, 2011