|The Military Tribunal judges hearing the Doctors Trial in Nuremberg Germany after WWII. From left to right are Harold L. Sebring, Walter B. Beals, Johnson T. Crawford, and Victor C. Swearingen. Twenty of the 23 defendants were medical doctors, and were accused of having been involved in Nazi human experimentation and mass murder, violating basic human rights of informed medical consent. Of the 23 defendants, seven were acquitted and seven received death sentences; the remainder received prison sentences ranging from 10 years to life imprisonment. Image source.|
Vaccines: The Battle for Informed Consent
SB277 in California proposes to virtually eliminate a parent’s right to opt out of vaccinations for their children if they want their children to attend public or private schools. It seems the authors of this bill have ignored the fact that medicine is not a one-size-fits-all proposition. Every medical intervention poses risks for some individuals. Vaccines are no exception.
Parents want to know:
- Who is responsible for maintaining children’s health – their parents, or the government?
- Does the government have a right to legislate the use of products for which the manufacturers have been granted immunity from prosecution for safety defects?
- Does the government have a right to bypass requirements for informed consent prior to the administration of a medical intervention?
- Does the government have a right to demand parents put their children at risk of experiencing serious adverse reactions, possibly death, to obtain access to a publicly funded education?
- Does the government have a right to legislate medical care for individuals in the absence of a bona fide public health emergency?
- Does the government have a right to legislate what some consider to be a violation of their bodily integrity?
- Does the government have a right to legislate measures that violate some people’s religious beliefs?
What will SB 277 accomplish if passed?
- SB 277 is ineffective and unnecessary. If this bill would actually eliminate school-born diseases, then it would be useful. Yet, the science is clear that it won’t. Virtually all cases of measles occurred outside the school environment;
- SB 277 wouldn’t have altered the course of the measles outbreak had it been in place at the time. The outbreak began at Disneyland – a destination visited by travelers from around the world. SB 277 would have no impact on the vaccination status of these visitors.
- SB 277 will do very little to eliminate school-born illnesses. The two most common vaccine-preventable diseases that are in schools are whooping cough and the flu. Yet, neither vaccine works well enough or long enough to provide the protection necessary to eliminate these diseases from schools: The CDC clearly states on their whooping cough FAQs that unvaccinated children are NOT the cause of the outbreaks; rather, it is the waning immunity of the vaccine that allows the disease to spread, even in fully-vaccinated children. (Source:http://www.cdc.gov/pertussis/about/faqs.html– questions 5 and 6) The CDC officially estimated this year’s flu vaccine to be only 19% effective. This would leave 81% of vaccinated individuals still vulnerable to contracting and/or transmitting the flu. Even if every school-child is vaccinated, these diseases will spread widely through schools every year. (Source: http://www.cdc.gov/flu/news/updated-vaccine-effectiveness-2014-15.htm – second to last paragraph)
SB 277 denies the right to a free and equal education to hundreds of thousands of children.This bill was created because of an outbreak that didn’t even occur in schools. While we know 24 of the measles cases were in school age kids, there is no documentation that any actually caught it in the school environment. No immunocompromised children caught measles. The outbreak is long over and we may not see another small outbreak for years to come.
- SB 277 would deny school for 225,000 children who signed a personal belief exemption last year. Are the rights of such a large group to be denied over such a minuscule disease? Even if SB 277 were already in effect last year, it wouldn’t have prevented the outbreak.
- SB 277 is unnecessary, ineffective, and unfair. Many who support vaccination also support parental rights to make medical decisions; everyone’s right to a free and equal education; and peaceful coexistence as united Californians.
Informed Consent versus Government Control
Knowledge is Power
- This is the letter from Initiative Citoyenne to California legislators in response to SB277
- Vaccine Benefit/Risk Ratio: Time for Patients to Choose Between Beliefs and Knowledge
- Risks Associated with Vaccines
- Vaccination: Why the ’one size fits all’ vaccination argument does not fit all
- Forced Vaccinations: For the Greater Good?
- How trustworthy are vaccine manufacturers?
- Is Vaccine Safety Evidence Rock Solid?
- Herd Immunity: Can Infectious Diseases be Prevented by High Vaccination Coverage?
- What are the consequences of pushing poorly tested vaccines?
Free Shipping Available!
Dr. Andrew Moulden: Every Vaccine Produces Harm
Source: Health Impact News