Quote:

Something like this perhaps?

Quote:

For the hepatitis B, HPV and chicken pox vaccines, that's probably reasonable. In most cases, children are either very unlikely to contract those disease or unlikely to be harmed, and most of us here survived without having those vaccines.

For diseases such as flu, measles and polio (in other words: diseases that can kill or disable a fairly large percentage of the people who are infected) people ought to figure out a compromise.

Example: under normal circumstances, parents with qualms about the vaccines shouldn't have to give them. But, if cases of one of these diseases actually crop up in a community, the public health authorities should have the authority to make unvaccinated children (and vaccinated children who haven't actually developed antibodies against the diseases) stay out of regular classes while the diseases are circulating around the community.

Under normal circumstances, the risks of the vaccines probably do outweigh the benefits.

But, if a disease such as measles already is causing infections in a community, then you figure the benefits of being vaccinated would probably increase quite a lot.

Example: Even if parents are willing to accept the risk that their children will develop measles without suffering from serious after effects, the problem is that having a large number of unvaccinated children gathering in schools could let epidemics take root and increase risks for all children who lack good immunity to measles, not just the children whose parents choose not to vaccinate.

One of the obstacles to letting public health authorities keep children out of school during epidemics is that single working parents and two-income working parents without relatives living nearby.

A solution to that would be to set up special epidemic schools during epidemics. Those schools could have small classes, to reduce the odds that children will infect one another, and extra nurses circulating around looking for kids who are sick and need to go home.

From what I've read, the state health commissioner Fred Jacobs holds an appointed position - and he is a LAWYER by trade, not a physician. Good to know our kid's lives are in the hands of an attorney. JM

........................................................................................
Council Approves Vaccine Plan...(From NJ.com)

Children as young as six months will be required to get annual flu shots to attend preschool or day care following a vote today by the Public Health Council. The council also mandated three other vaccines, including two for sixth-graders.

The vote makes New Jersey the first state to require annual flu shots for children attending preschool or day care. State health officials say the new vaccine mandates -- which take effect in the 2008-09 school year -- will reduce disease, hospitalizations and the need for parents to stay home with sick children.

The council approved the measure 5-2, with one abstention, despite protests from parents concerned about vaccine dangers. The new regulations will not be finalized until state health commissioner Fred Jacobs signs the measure. However, Jacobs has been supportive of the new rules and is expected to sign them soon.

Opponents of the measure say there is inadequate proof the vaccines are both safe and effective. Opponents include the New Jersey Alliance for Informed Choice in Vaccination.

The new rules say:

--Children aged 6 months to 59 months (four years and nine months) must get the flu shot each year to attend preschool or day care.
--Children two months to 59 months old also must get the pneumonia, or pneumococcal, vaccine.
--A Diptheria-Pertussis-Tetanus (DPT shot) booster is now required for sixth-graders to attend school.
--A meningitis shot also is now required for sixth-graders.

Read more in Tuesday's Star-Ledger.

My mom will vote for Ron then!

I know there is an entire section for the 2008 elections, but I thought it important to point out on this thread that Ron Paul is against government required vaccinations. This is the opinion of a man who was a doctor for many years and delivered over 4,000 babies...I think he knows what he is talking about.

To quote from his site:
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/health-freedom/

"The government should never have the power to require immunizations or vaccinations."

- FAB: The vaccine makers try to predict which three strains will be a big problem, then include protection against those in the vaccine. It's possible that the vaccine makers could guess wrong, and it's also possible that, even the vaccine makers guess wrong, the vaccine could protect you well enough against the actual straight to keep you from getting pneumonia (or to keep you alive, even if you get pneumonia).

One problem with flu vaccines is that, using current technology, it takes a long time to make them, because you normally need huge supplies of chicken eggs, and you have to start making the vaccines during a season when a lot of eggs are available.There's also a newer, faster technology involving tissue cultures, but I think developing the cultures takes time. So, if you wait till it seems pretty likely that a serious epidemic is on the way to vaccinate everyone, it probably will be too late.

- Vaccine requirements: It seems as if the HPV vaccine requirement is very expensive and very questionable, and I also have mixed feelings about the varicella (chicken pox) vaccine. It sounds to me as if maybe it's better for small children to get real chicken pox than to get the vaccine, and use the vaccine for children with extra health risks and big who somehow never got the chicken pox.

The flu vaccine requirement is more complicated because kids apparently do spread flu to their parents and older people, and a terrible, extremely deadly flu epidemic hit in 1918. (That epidemic was especially hard on working-age people, and I think that something like half of the pregnant women who got sick enough with that flu to enter the hospital died.)

- Causes of autism: The author of the book, Excitotoxins: The Taste That Kills ((click here for a Wikipedia entry summarizing the book) says there's a whole collection of taste-enhancing substances, such as MSG, aspartame, soy lecithin, and processed yeast, that clearly hurt brain cells in petri dishes and might hurt them in people, too.

If vaccines cause, say, 1 case of autism for every 10 lives that they save and every 20 cases of autism or other kinds of crippling disability that they prevent, maybe that would be a reasonable tradeoff. (Or, maybe not, but I'd be open to hearing both sides.)

If processed yeast makes my kid's "organic" tofu chicken fingers taste great but saves no lives and might occasionally cause autism or Alzheimer's disease, then I wish that topic were getting more attention.

Don't get me wrong. I don't have a blind foolish trust of all doctors. It also makes me really uncomfortable to constantly see more pharmaceutical reps waiting to see the doctor than patients. But if I don't like a doctor, I discard him/her quickly and move on until I find one that I can trust. ANd I do trust my pediatrician. He has never given my kids an antibiotic or drug for anything and my oldest daughter is six years old. I know there are some quacks out there, but I don't think the medical establishment is as nefarious as you seem to think. If they only wanted to make money they would go into something more profitable like local politics.

ANd regarding the debate on autism and vaccines, all things considered equal, I tend to side with the ones who have the degrees and know how to look at medical research. I don't trust research that is published in books and internet websites that is not subject to peer review.

Quote:


May you never be disillusioned in your trust. But based on my own and my family's experience with doctors, I put them them one level above lawyers in my list of "scumbags who put their own interests above their clients/patients." (Let's just say there were unnecessary medications and operations with one relative, a near-death with another, and a dead fetus with another.)

They may have more medical knowledge, but don't confuse that with more concern for your health. For example, did you know that the way drug companies sell their drugs is via doctors? As a "consultant" for the drug, the doctor gets a kickback for the prescriptions they make. The next time your doctor tries to push a drug on you, ask if they're a consultant for the drug.

Okay, I've digressed from the original discussion of vaccines a bit. But my point is that the medical profession has other interests, like making more money, elevating their status and profession, that may be detrimental to our health. The more vaccinations you have to get, the more easy-money they make.

Okay, it's not so black-and-white, but in general, their approach with vaccinations these days is "safe until proven unsafe." With patients, it's "load them up, cut them up, until it's too dangerous."

The medical profession is currently in an uproar over walk-in clinics. Does that mean walk-in clinics are bad for our health-- as they claim? No, it only threatens to take away their patients.

Yeah, I'm going to have to greatly disagree with you on this one. This is a very biased organization that constantly "flip flops" on issues depending on which way the wind blows.

I would amend your statement to say that they are the ones that chose certain holders of those degrees on their board to set the policy and don't necessarily hold the best interests of parents at heart.


Quote:

The Federally funded compensation program is a highly flawed one. It is very difficult for families to receive any money.

I completely understand the need for a liability shield. It makes a world of sense. But all of these various components shoved together in such a way only breeds mistrust and anger. This system is heavily flawed. Parents don't know if they are doing their children more harm than good. They don't know if the advice they are receiving from doctors is honest or to protect from malpractice.

I believe that we are a society so heavily influenced by malpractice insurance policies that I chose to have my children at home rather than risk a one size fits all remedy that would put my life and my child's life at risk just so someone could show the insurance company that they took the right steps as dictated by malpractice insurance policy.

The whole system is so tangled and so confusing that I simply opted out.

So I don't think the solution to this problem is to keep legislating mandatory vaccines one after the other, but to have a more transparent dialogue to regain public trust and really understand the needs for each vaccine.

I don't always think that there is profit motive involved with these vaccines... I believe that many doctors feel that if parents are going to take their children to the doctor than they will do so in the first year of life.

I don't really care about assigning blame, but I do care about a thoughtful discussion without heavily biased lobbyists from any side having the most say. I don't want these rules or policies dictating my own personal choice to over rule how I decided to parent. I don't want the all or nothing policy shoved down my throat or they will punish me by excluding my children from public (and private) services I am entitled to and pay for through my property taxes.

I understand that life is tough and these issues way too complicated a discussion for a discussion board. However, this particular issue is egregious and unfair.

Emphasis added:

Quote:

Quote:

I tend to agree with you here. In my opinion, the best source for "medical advice", other than my kids' pediatrician, is the American Academy of Pediatrics. They have a lot of information about shots, particularly regarding autism. Their website is www.aap.org.

I know some would disagree with me on this one. But I tend to trust the medical establishment. They're the ones holding the medical diplomas.

The reason vaccine makers (unique among all medical products) have a liability shield is that without it, it is very likely no company would make vaccines. Vaccines are not an unprofitable business, but they are not a terribly profitable business either. And the economics of vaccines (to the manufacturers) are pretty sensitive to uncertainty (like the risk of a huge lawsuit). There are only a handful of companies that make vaccines for the US market anymore, and generally only one or two makes each kind of vaccine. So Congress passed the liability shield to make sure more companies didn't exit the market, and instead has an alternative, federally funded compensation program.

Just to add a note here, if something goes wrong with an immunization, the doctor and maker of the vaccine can not be sued. If a doctor does not bully a parent into vaccinating and that child does become ill for a disease covered by a vaccine, then the doctor is open to being sued.

This just tells you a little bit about our system.

I do not believe that parents have a fair choice or have an open and honest dialogue with our government, who is bullying and threatening us into accepting an all or nothing policy.

One example of this is Hepatitis B. Contracted like HIV, I can honestly claim that my newborn is not having unprotected sex and is not an intravenous drug user... you might claim I don't always know what is going on in his crib or I might be in denial, but I am 100% sure on this one. I don't really know why this shot cannot wait until he is older. This is a very important shot for him to have and 10 years down the line they might improve the shot or have more information on its effectiveness, but I can't understand why my newborn must be subjected to three of these shots within his first year.

I'm sorry, but this boggles the mind. However, the State policy is very clear. This is an all or nothing deal. I must either get my child ALL of these shots regardless of the research or NOTHING, none, not well studied vaccinations without the ones where we don't know the results...

This is a sucky situation, but my children are not lab rats. So I must educate my children outside the school system to ensure they are protected from the right things at the right time and not play Russian roulette with the rest.

Okay Scott, then take a look at the FDA's VAERS online database where Gardasil adverse reports are available to the public.

There's also an interesting piece about a growing concern between Guillain Barre Syndrome and Menactra, a meningococcal vaccine. In fact, one of the deaths reported from Menactra was in a young girl who had also been immunized with Gardasil during the same doctor's visit.

www.vaers.hhs.gov

According to my search, responsible physicians reported that after a vaccine with Gardasil, patients had reactions of the following severity:

Death - 5
Life Threatening - 43
Permanent Disability - 60
Hospitalized - 128
Hospitalized, Prolonged - 34
Emergency Room - 1,906

If five children died from a toy that was on the market, the general public would be demanding action. Perhaps that's not a responsible apples-to-apples comparison, but we're talking largely about teenage girls who are getting this vaccine - in addition to other vaccines simultaneously - without proper long-term studies.

When you're layering vaccine upon vaccine with children (and when the vaccines contain mercury and other heavy metals) that's when I get concerned.

I wouldn't put a lot of stock in what Judicial Watch says about the HPV vaccine. They are a pretty far right wing group which pushes its own agenda and isn't exactly unbiased, not a source for medical advice.

I have always thought there was a link with autism or asthma and the unnecessary flu shot for some - when I was a kid, my mom went to war with the school and won.

I'm with you jerseymom - unless a kid is at risk, they (government / pharmaceutical co.'s) can shove that needle up their ass. I wish they would spend the BIG $'s on educational programs instead and subsidize those that actually need the shots!

How do you vaccinate against all strains of flu anyway?

Please don't insult my intelligence or the concern I hold for my children.

A flu shot for a preschooler that is not in a "high risk" category is unwarranted. There have been no long-term studies documenting that flu shots for a widespread pediatric population (when combined with the full roster of shots our youngsters already receive) are effective or safe.

I am not anti-innoculation - I don't like Gov Corzine regulating what goes into my child's body without a way for me to opt out if I feel that is what's best for my child.

Check out the side effects of the "safe" HPV vaccine that is being forced upon teenage girls:

http://www.judicialwatch.org/6428.shtml

Yes, preventing epidemics is intrusive government.

I think I'll go back to Congo now.

While I am for sensible immunizations in children, I am completely against this new proposal that FORCES me to pump my preschooler with a flu immunization - in addition to three more immunizations before he's eleven. This is almost as bad as the forced immunization of young girls with the HPV vaccine. It's intrusive government ala Corzine!

Article:

By Linda A. Johnson - Associated Press

TRENTON - Parents concerned about possible vaccine dangers and government intrusion are trying to block New Jersey from becoming the first state to require annual flu shots for children in licensed preschool or day-care centers.
The Public Health Council is set to consider on Monday whether the state should mandate flu shots as well as three other vaccines. State health officials also want to require a pneumococcal vaccine for preschoolers, a booster shot to fight whooping cough for sixth graders, and meningitis shots for schoolchildren as young as 11.

According to the deputy health commissioner, Dr. Eddy Bresnitz, the requirements have been approved by the state health department and Gov. Corzine. They are expected to be approved by the council on Monday.

Bresnitz said that the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention supports the requirements and that public health officials in other states are likely to follow suit.

He said he is convinced that the vaccines will reduce the incidence of the diseases, preventable hospitalizations, and parents' staying home with sick children.

"It's a great day for public health in New Jersey," he said.

But some parents say there is inadequate proof that the vaccines are safe and effective.

At a Statehouse news conference yesterday, about a dozen parents protested the new measures and urged people to call the governor's office to ask him to stop the vote on Monday.

"This will be the first jurisdiction anywhere in the world to make the flu shot mandatory" for school attendance, said Jon Gilmore, a board member of Advocates for Children's Health Affected by Mercury Poisoning. He blames his 7-year-old son's autism on vaccines.

Bresnitz said he did not know whether foreign jurisdictions require flu shots for schoolchildren.

The parents yesterday also urged support for a bill that would give parents the right to "philosophical objection" to vaccine mandates. The bill has sat in a committee for four years.

"It is not right for the government and unelected councils to dictate what we put into our children," said Sue Collins, cofounder of the New Jersey Alliance for Informed Choice in Vaccination.

When asked about the mandates yesterday, Corzine said he didn't want to "speak to the specifics."

Several parents noted that unlike other common vaccines, most of the influenza vaccine available contains mercury, a toxic heavy metal that some have called a cause of autism despite the lack of any evidence.

A few speakers also said there is no research showing that it is safe to give children the more than 30 vaccines required in New Jersey today.

"They're really being treated as guinea pigs, and not all children can handle all vaccines," said Assemblywoman Charlotte Vandervalk (R., Bergen), sponsor of the philosophical-objection bill.

The new vaccines that New Jersey backs are recommended by the CDC, the American Academy of Pediatrics and other medical groups.