www.greenmedinfo.com
....tar här upp diskussionerna som pågår i Staterna där man faktiskt funderar över att göra föräldrarna ansvariga om deras ovaccinerade barn smittar de vaccinerade.
Inte konstigt eftersom det är ett stort antal barn over there som fått en sjukdom vilken de vaccinerats emot. Handlar det om att skydda barnen eller handlar det om att skydda intäkterna för vaccinindustrin?
Något att fundera över...........
Bioethicist Art Caplan, Ph.D. of New York University has argued that parents
of unvaccinated children should be held liable for illness or death allegedly
caused by their unvaccinated children.[1] This article rebuts Caplan's position,
and explains why liability should fall, if with anyone on this issue, on him,
for the deliberate or negligent use of his academic status and authority,
supported by false information, to promote a flawed vaccine policy resulting in
avoidable vaccine injury and death.
Dr. Caplan's primary premises, for
purposes of the parental liability question, are essentially that: 1)
Unvaccinated children put others at risk, 2) Unvaccinated children, as such,
cause actual harm to others, and 3) Non-vaccinating parents know these first two
premises, and should, therefore, be held liable for the harm caused by their
failure to get their children vaccinated.
I. The Real Ethical IssueDr. Caplan's concern puts
the cart before the horse. He has missed the target, a far more fundamental
ethical question underlying his position, by mistakenly assuming that parents
who refuse vaccines for their children are necessarily negligent for doing so.
But the matter is not nearly so simple. Given the medically and legally
established fact that vaccines cause permanent disability and death,[2] no
parent can be reasonably categorized as "negligent" for choosing not to
vaccinate their child. The real ethical question, then, is not whether or not
parents should be held liable for their choice not to vaccinate, but instead,
whether or not parents should be required to place their children at risk of
vaccine injury or death in the first place. This seriousness of this question is
underscored by the fact that the risk for any individual child is
indeterminable, and the presumed benefit to the vaccinated child or others is
only hypothetical--by definition, because vaccines are a treatment given to a
healthy person to protect against a future hypothetical exposure to disease; and
additionally because exposure to a disease doesn't necessarily mean that the
exposed child will become ill or spread a disease. Put more generally, the more
pertinent ethical question here is:
Who, if anyone, should
risk their life for the sake of a hypothetical future benefit to others; and
when and for whom, if ever, should doing so be
mandatory?Assuming that vaccines work (a flawed
assumption, since 90-95% of infectious disease decline preceded vaccines, some
vaccines temporarily reversed preexisting declines, and outbreaks routinely
occur in highly vaccinated populations[3]), this more fundamental ethical
question concerning vaccine injury and death is, at best with regard to Dr. C's
parent liability issue, one on which reasonable people could disagree. On that
basis alone, Dr. Caplan's parent liability issue crumbles to dust. But we've
only scratched the surface. Since 90% or more of vaccine adverse events are
never even reported, according to the CDC, FDA and AAPS--more than 99% according
to former FDA Commissioner David Kessler[4], we have no idea what the true scope
of vaccine injury and death really is. Clearly, then, there's no objective basis
for mandating vaccines at all (let alone holding anyone liable for not
vaccinating), because no one can tell you if they provide a net benefit to
society, let alone if they are safe for *your* child in particular. So again,
for this reason, we don't even reach Dr. Caplan's parental liability
concern.
Add to this the documented corruption in the pharmaceutical
industry and government health agencies, and Dr. Caplan's issue just fades
further into oblivion. For example, in 2011, the non-profit corporation
Coalition for Mercury-Free Drugs obtained information through the Freedom of
Information Act revealing that the CDC deliberately withheld data showing that
autism rates in Danish children dropped when mercury was removed from vaccines,
and then fraudulently promoted a study falsely claiming that vaccines do not
cause autism.[5] Also in 2011, Dr. Poul Thorsen, a researcher hired by the CDC
to organize studies refuting the vaccine-autism connection, was indicted on 13
counts of fraud with the CDC and 9 counts of money-laundering, bringing into
question all of his work with the CDC (and Dr. Thorson was one of the authors on
the fraudulent vaccine-autism study). In 2008, Dr. Marcia Angell of Harvard
Medical School, after serving as editor of the New England Journal of Medicine
for two decades, announced: "It is simply no longer possible to believe much of
the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted
physicians or authoritative medical guidelines."[6] Finally, In 2012 and 2009,
Glaxo and Pfiser got $billion *criminal* fines respectively; criminal and civil
fines in the $100's of millions are common in the pharmaceutical industry. So,
the vaccine controversy cannot be reduced to the simplistic parental liability
issue Dr. Caplan asserts. Life and quality of life should never be bargained
away via this utilitarian formula: "Risk your life now so that someone else
*may* benefit in the future," but that's exactly what we are doing with vaccine
mandates--and to innocent newborns and other children. In the real world, where
fake facts are invented and real facts suppressed to serve private and political
agendas, and where this is documented in both industry and government, our
governments should never be permitted to impose a life-threatening therapy on
anyone. (I do not mean to suggest that everyone in industry and government is
corrupt; quite the contrary, I believe very few people are, they just happen to
be concentrated in key decision-making positions of industry and
government.)
Look - there's no 100% safe option. Life is, by definition,
unpredictable. Both vaccines and infectious diseases can injure and kill. But in
the absence of adequate data to enable a credible comparison, Dr. Caplan lacks a
legitimate basis for raising the question about parental liability altogether.
But even if vaccines were proven to provide a net benefit, the ethical question
about whether or not any given parent should be required to risk sacrificing
their child for the benefit of the community remains valid. Many of us would,
given the opportunity and complete information, would opt to take reasonable
steps to protect others, and those steps could include vaccinating. That's fine,
if it's an informed choice. But just as clearly, others would refuse. Both are
ethically defensible positions.
The only civilized response to the
broader vaccination question, given the reality of vaccine injury and death, and
the absence of data on that as well, is to allow all parents to make informed
choices based on what they believe is best for their child. If government is to
be involved at all outside of emergencies, it should conduct independent
research to bring further clarity to the issue. For example, a current bill
pending before Congress now would require a study comparing autism rates in
vaccinated and non-vaccinated populations.[7] The only reason such research
hasn't occurred to date is, of course, is the risk it poses to the $ billions in
pharmaceutical profits from vaccines (predicted to increase by 12% annually for
the next several years [8]), and the further and additional erosion of
pharmaceutical profits that would come from the precipitous drop in childhood
chronic diseases as vaccination rates plummeted once the findings in such
studies were publicly released. But even if such data ultimately favored
vaccines, it would still not justify mandating that every child risk his or her
life for a presumed benefit to others, especially when the individual risk is
indeterminable and the benefits hypothetical. Finally, Dr. Caplan's suggestion
of parental liability looks absurd when you consider the documented alternatives
to immunization that are more effective, a fraction of the cost of vaccines, and
that don't pose a risk of disability or death. [9] Why should anyone ever be
penalized for doing something that is better than vaccines, in place of
vaccines? The answer is that the alternatives are not profitable for the
pharmaceutical industry, and therefore, awareness of them is actively
suppressed; and that currently, these are not legal alternatives to mandatory
vaccines.
II. Legal ContradictionsNext, there
are fundamental legal problems with Dr. Caplan's position. First, the extent to
which non-vaccinating parents are exercising legal exemptions (which likely
comprises the vast majority of non-vaccinating parents), Dr. Caplan isn't
qualified to address the matter authoritatively, as this is a legal concern. But
it doesn't take an attorney to see that holding someone liable for exercising a
legal right makes no sense. By implication, then, Dr. Caplan is suggesting that
we repeal all non-medical vaccine exemptions. But what does it mean, legally,
that 48 states and all U.S. territories and federal jurisdictions have opted to
provide philosophical and/or religious exemptions? Legislatures are presumed to
have considered whether or not the exercise of an exemption would pose a
significant health risk. Indeed, they are ethically obligated to engage in such
investigations, and given the competing pharmaceutical interests, you can be
sure that they did. If, in so doing, our legislatures had determined that the
exercise of an exemption would cause any significant health risk, they would not
have enacted the exemptions in the first place, since the only Constitutionally
required exemptions are medical exemptions.[10] Accordingly, the enactment of a
statute providing a vaccine exemption carries with it a legal presumption that
the exercise of the exemption does not pose a significant health risk, as a
matter of law. Dr. Caplan not only misses the obvious - that one can't be held
liable for complying with the law in the exercise of a vaccine exemption - he
stands apart from and opposed 48 state legislatures whose non-medical exemptions
do not pose a significant health risk to anyone, as a matter of law - law that
is based on these legislatures' own scientific investigations. Given that all
U.S. legislatures share Dr. Caplan's pro-vaccine stance (all have enacted
vaccine mandates), this puts Dr. Caplan at odds with an overwhelming percentage
of his pro-vaccine allies.
III. False (or Fraudulent?)
SupportFinally, Dr. Caplan bases his position on false and
misleading information. In particular, Dr. Caplan recently asserted
that:
1) "Vaccines are 92 - 95% effective."
The CDC says that vaccines are 85 - 95% effective, and that the majority of
disease outbreaks occur in vaccinated children.[11] The flu vaccine, which Dr.
Caplan also discussed but did not distinguish from other vaccines with regard to
efficacy, is only 60% effective according to a recent Lancet study, and even
that figure has been refuted by medical experts and peer-reviewed medical
studies.[12] Even the CDC admitted, last year, that vaccine exemptions were not
responsible for recent pertussis outbreaks.[13]
2) "Newborns have no immunity."
This is misleading. Historically, mothers passed protective antibodies to
their infants through breast milk that these mothers acquired from their own
childhood illnesses. In more modern times, mothers lack natural antibodies to
pass on to their infants due to their having been vaccinated as children (since
vaccine
immunity, unlike natural immunity, is only temporary). So, if
newborns are vulnerable, we have vaccines to thank for that. But today's infants
lack of immunity doesn't mean that these divine little beings should be required
to risk injury or death from a vaccine. There are other more effective, safer,
and less costly ways of dealing with infectious disease concerns.
3) "We
must have a 90% vaccination rate to protect the community (presumably per the
widely accepted 'herd immunity' theory)."
Based on the CDC's assertions about vaccine efficacy, you could have 100%
vaccination coverage, something Dr. Caplan admits is not realistic, and still
not achieve the immunity level required for herd immunity with at least some
vaccines (it is clearly impossible to achieve herd immunity with the flu
vaccine). But if you examine the medical literature over time, you see that the
immunization level required to achieve
herd
immunity has been a moving target. The number has continually gone
up over recent decades as outbreaks have occurred in increasingly more
vaccinated populations. The only thing driving a possible consensus on
vaccination rates needed for herd immunity, then, is industry profits; the
higher the immunization rate needed for herd immunity, the more pressure there
is to vaccinate more people. However, the truth is, no one knows what
immunization rate, if any, will ever impart true "herd" immunity, as the entire
theory has been repeatedly called into question if not outright disproven. There
have been ongoing documented outbreaks in highly vaccinated groups. The CDC even
documented a measles outbreak in a 100% vaccinated population. A meta study
looking at multiple studies documenting outbreaks in highly vaccinated
populations concluded that the higher the immunization rate for measles, the
more measles becomes a disease of vaccinated populations.[14] Herd immunity is a
flawed theory perpetuated for the sole purpose of supporting a highly profitable
vaccine industry. Mainstream medicine clings to the failed theory because it
provides the one explanation as to why, with vaccines, you don't get to decide
what goes into your body - that *you* have to get vaccinated to protect
*others*--and *they* to protect *you* too, of course. Herd immunity may be a
real phenomenon with natural infectious disease, but it is completely unreliable
with vaccines.
IV. Summary and ConclusionWhile
my profound disagreement with Dr. Caplan is clear, I do not genuinely mean to
suggest that he should be liable for it - he is entitled to his opinion just
like anyone else. But in law, we have a principle, "knew or should have known,"
that sometimes holds people accountable for what they reasonably should have
known, even if they didn't actually know it. Ignorance is not always an
acceptable excuse. I don't know if Dr. Caplan actually believes parents should
be liable or not. I do believe, however, that anyone claiming to be an authority
on a matter has an ethical responsibility to be adequately informed about their
topic when speaking publicly about it. It is unethical to use one's power and
authority who to promote a private or personal agenda under the guise of
protecting the public. For an ethicist, of all people, to raise an ethical
question about parental liability for non-vaccinating parents without bothering
to mention that vaccines carry a risk of injury and death is at best
professionally negligent. As to non-vaccinating parents, they should never be
sanctioned for making an informed choice to protect their children from a risk
of vaccine injury and death, especially when the political system from which
vaccine mandates arise is rife with corruption, where vaccine policy is designed
first and foremost to serve and support a fast-growing multi-billion dollar
vaccine industry. Given this reality, there should never have been imposed on
anyone a vaccine mandate at all.
[1]
See
http://blogs.law.harvard.edu , and
http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2013/05/28/liable-unvaccinated-child[2]
The federal Vaccine Injury Compensation Program has paid approximately $100
million annually to vaccine victims and their families for about the past 25 or
so years. See the NVICP website,
http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/index.html --the Data
and Statistics link.
[3] See, e.g.: a) on disease declines, "Immunization
Graphs Prepared by: Raymond Obomsawin M.Sc., Ph.D., December 2009;
http://www.theoneclickgroup.co.ukb) on
polio increase following introduction of the vaccine, "Dispelling Vaccination
Myths," Vaccination Myth #6 Alan Phillips,
http://articles.mercola.com , and "The polio
vaccine: a critical assessment of its arcane history, efficacy, and long-term
health-related consequences," Neil Miller,
www.thinktwice.com/Polio.pdf , and
c) on outbreaks in
highly vaccinated populations, see footnote 13 below.
[4] Percentage of
vaccine adverse events reports: Less than 1%, according to Barbara Fisher,
citing former FDA Commissioner David Kessler, 1993, JAMA, in the Statement of
the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), Hearing of the House
Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources, "Compensating
Vaccine Injuries: Are Reforms Needed?", September 28, 1999; Less than 10%
according to KM Severyn, R. Ph., Ph.D. in the Dayton Daily News, May 23, 1993;
Only 10% according to the CDC as reported by the Association of American
Physicians and Surgeons, Fact Sheet on Mandatory Vaccines,
http://www.aapsonline.org/testimony/mandvac.htm[5]
"Scandal Exposed in Major Study of Autism and Mercury,"
http://mercury-freedrugs.org[6] See,
e.g., "Big Pharma, Bad Medicine, How corporate dollars corrupt research and
education," by Marcia Angell, M.D.,
http://bostonreview.net/angell-big-pharma-bad-medicine[7]
Perhaps this will finally happen? See "Congressman introduces bill requiring
study of autism rate in vaccinated vs. unvaccinated,"
http://therefusers.com . Not all politicians are
pharmaceutical industry cronies.
[8] Global Market Forecast to 2017,
Research and Markets, May 2013,
http://www.researchandmarkets.com[9]
See., e.g., "Successful Use of Homeopathy In Over 2.5 Million People Reported
From Cuba," discussing scientifically verified use of homeoprophylaxis to
prevent disease far more effectively than conventional immunization, and at 1/15
of the cost - with no disability or death from the treatment,
http://homeopathyresource.wordpress.com[10] See, e.g.,
Workman v. Mingo, No. 09-2352, U.S. Court of Appeals or the Fourth Circuit
(holding that the Constitution does not require states to offer a religious
exemption).
[11] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Vaccines and
Immunizations, Misconception #2. The majority of people who get disease have
been vaccinated,
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/6mishome.htm#Themajorityofpeople[12]
See, e.g., a) "Flu Shots, Fosamax and Pharmaceutical Fakery: The Common Use of
Misleading Statistics in the Medical Literature," Gary G. Kohls, M.D., Dec. 3,
2011,
http://www.thepeoplesvoice.orgb)
"Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy adults," a Cochrane Collaboration
Review that issued a "WARNING" stating that "reliable evidence on influenza
vaccines is thin but there is evidence of widespread manipulation of
conclusions,"
http://summaries.cochrane.org , and
c)
"What, in Fact, Is the Evidence That Vaccinating Healthcare Workers against
Seasonal Influenza Protects Their Patients? A Critical Review," Int J Family
Med. 2012; 2012: 205464,
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3502850/ , which
concluded: "The arguments for uniform healthcare worker influenza vaccination
are not supported by existing literature."
[13] CDC, Press Briefing
Transcript, Pertussis Epidemic in Washington State - 2012 Telebriefing, July 19,
2012,
http://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2012/t0719_pertussis_epidemic.html[14]
See., e.g.: a) "The Deadly Impossibility of Herd Immunity," Russell Blaylock,
M.D., Neurosurgeon, International Medical Council on Vaccination, Feb. 18, 2012,
http://www.vaccinationcouncil.orgb) 17
Examples of Admitted Vaccine Failure,
http://vactruth.com/2013/02/23/17-examples-of-vaccine-failure/
, and
c)"Dispelling Vaccination Myths," Vaccine Myth #2, Alan Phillips,
at
http://articles.mercola.com , citing medical
studies disproving herd immunity.
==========
[1] See
https://blogs.law.harvard.edu/billofhealth/category/contributors/arthur-caplan/,
and http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2013/05/28/liable-unvaccinated-child
[2] The federal Vaccine Injury Compensation Program has paid approximately
$100 million annually to vaccine victims and their families for about the past
25 or so years. See the NVICP website,
http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/index.html, the Data and Statistics
link.
[3] See, e.g.: a) on disease declines, "Immunization Graphs Prepared by:
Raymond Obomsawin M.Sc., Ph.D., December 2009;
b) on polio increase following
introduction of the vaccine, "Dispelling Vaccination Myths," Vaccination Myth #6
Alan Phillips,
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2001/08/18/vaccine-myths.aspx,
and "The polio vaccine: a critical assessment of its arcane history, efficacy,
and long-term health-related consequences," Neil Miller,
thinktwice.com/Polio.pdf,
http://www.theoneclickgroup.co.uk/documents/vaccines/Immunization%20Graphs%20PPT%20-%20RO%202009.pdf;
and
c) on outbreaks in highly vaccinated populations, footnote 13 below.
[4] Percentage of vaccine adverse events reports: Less than 1%, according to
Barbara Fisher, citing former FDA Commissioner David Kessler, 1993, JAMA, in the
Statement of the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), Hearing of the
House Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources,
"Compensating Vaccine Injuries: Are Reforms Needed?", September 28, 1999; Less
than 10% according to KM Severyn, R. Ph., Ph.D. in the Dayton Daily News, May
23, 1993; Only 10% according to the CDC as reported by the Association of
American Physicians and Surgeons, Fact Sheet on Mandatory Vaccines,
http://www.aapsonline.org/testimony/mandvac.htm.
[5] "Scandal Exposed in Major Study of Autism and Mercury,"
http://mercury-freedrugs.org/docs/111025_PR10_ScandalExposedInMajorStudyOfAutismMercuryb.pdf
[6] See, e.g., "Big Pharma, Bad Medicine, How corporate dollars corrupt
research and education," by Marcia Angell, M.D.,
http://bostonreview.net/BR35.3/angell.php
[7] Perhaps this will finally happen? See "Congressman introduces bill
requiring study of autism rate in vaccinated vs. unvaccinated,"
http://therefusers.com/refusers-newsroom/congressman-introduces-bill-requiring-study-of-autism-rate-in-vaccinated-vs-unvaccinated/#.Uapynz5IGBa.
Not all politicians are pharmaceutical industry cronies.
[8] Global Market Forecast to 2017, Research and Markets, May 2013,
http://www.researchandmarkets.com/reports/2547624/global_vaccine_market_forecast_to_2017.
[9] See., e.g., "Successful Use of Homeopathy In Over 2.5 Million People
Reported From Cuba," discussing scientifically verified use of homeoprophylaxis
to prevent disease far more effectively than conventional immunization, and at
1/15 of the cost—with no disability or death from the treatment,
http://homeopathyresource.wordpress.com/2009/01/01/successful-use-of-homeopathy-in-over-5-million-people-reported-from-cuba/
[10] See, e.g.,
Workman v. Mingo, No. 09-2352, U.S. Court of Appeals
or the Fourth Circuit (holding that the Constitution does not require states to
offer a religious exemption).
[11] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Vaccines and Immunizations,
Misconception #2. The majority of people who get disease have been vaccinated,
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/6mishome.htm
[12] See, e.g., "Flu Shots, Fosamax and Pharmaceutical Fakery: The Common Use
of Misleading Statistics in the Medical Literature," Gary G. Kohls, M.D., Dec.
3, 2011,
http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/Voices.php/
2011/12/03/flu-shots-fosamax-and-pharmaceutical-fak?tempskin=basic;
"Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy adults," a Cochrane Collaboration
Review that issued a "WARNING" stating that "reliable evidence on influenza
vaccines is thin but there is evidence of widespread manipulation of
conclusions," http://www2.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab001269.html; and "What, in
Fact, Is the Evidence That Vaccinating Healthcare Workers against Seasonal
Influenza Protects Their Patients? A Critical Review," Int J Family Med. 2012;
2012: 205464, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3502850/, which
concluded: "The arguments for uniform healthcare worker influenza vaccination
are not supported by existing literature."
[13] See., e.g.: a) Is herd immunity real? Russell Blaylock, M.D.,
Neurosurgeon, The Epoch Times, January 28, 2010,
http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/health/forced-vaccinations-government-and-the-public-interest-27045.html;
b)
17 Examples of Admitted Vaccine Failure,
http://vactruth.com/2013/02/23/17-examples-of-vaccine-failure/,
and
c)"Dispelling Vaccination Myth," Vaccine Myth #2, Alan Phillips, at
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2001/08/18/vaccine-myths.aspx,
citing medical studies disproving herd immunity.
