Dear
I wish to request that vaccination campaigns are not carried out in secondary schools. As a parent of an unvaccinated/ vaccine damaged child I am concerned that s/he may be coerced into accepting vaccinations under gillick competency laws.
Schools currently conduct lessons that teach the importance of vaccination. In science exams you cannot even pass the paper unless you agree that vaccinations are good, despite the fact that there is an equal amount of research showing vaccinations can cause harm.
For instance, a study in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology found that if you delayed giving the first vaccinations by just two months you reduce the asthma rate in children from 13.8% to 5.9%. This is particularly important because there were 1,131 deaths from asthma in the UK in 2009 and one person every eight hours dies from asthma.
A child is admitted to hospital every 17 minutes because of asthma and the NHS spend 1 billion pounds a year of tax payers’ money just treating people with asthma.
A study in Epidemiology published in 1997 followed children from their birth in 1977 to the age of 16 (1993). Children who had not received DPT had no asthma and no consultations for asthma before the age of 10 years, so delaying vaccines or refusing them can reduce chronic disease burden, save lives and save the NHS money. This is just one of the chronic diseases that can arise after vaccination.
Mortality from pertussis, on the other hand, was already declining rapidly prior to the introduction of DPT, according to papers in ‘Current Problems in Pediatrics’ and the ‘Lancet’.
However, children are unlikely to be taught these facts in school during classes about vaccination.
Parents also have no say in what their children are taught during these lessons. How do we know that they won’t be shown a DVD of a woman dying of cervical cancer before being offered the HPV vaccine? If this is done, it is coercion geared towards making impressionable young minds submit to vaccination, maybe even against parental wishes.
Girls likely will not be told that HPV vaccine is for human papilloma virus and not cervical cancer itself and that having HPV does not mean you have cancer. They also may not be told that there are 30 types of HPV and the vaccine only covers two of them, that the vaccine has only been followed for 4.5 years so no one knows if antibodies last after that and the vaccine has a black triangle on it which means it is still being studied and is in effect, an experimental drug. With this one sided approach, how can children be expected to give fully informed consent?
Furthermore, vaccination is a medical procedure with risks including collapse and death and so should be carried out in a medical facility, not an educational facility. Children are supposed to be monitored for signs of shock after a vaccine is given, but this is not done in school. With gillick competency allowing children under 16 to obtain vaccines without parental knowledge, they may suffer vaccine side-effects without their parents being aware, which in more severe cases, could delay emergency treatment.
All children being asked to partake in a vaccine programme should be sent detailed information on the pros and cons and be offered vaccination in a medical setting if they choose to have it. This way the parent is more likely to be aware that vaccination is being offered and can give guidance and the child will not be the subject of peer pressure and there will be proper medical facilities available in case of an emergency.
Classes about vaccination should also contain information about side-effects of vaccines, their ingredients and other ethical issues in order to give children a full understanding of this complex subject. If this isn’t done, parents should have the right to exempt their children from such classes. We should be able to choose to send our children to state schools without the fear that they may be vaccinated by force or coercion or subject to psychological or physical harm while in the care of the school.
Sincerely,
Medical References:
* Asthma UK (asthma statistics), http://www.asthma.org.uk/news_media/media_resources/for_journalists_key.html, accessed 28/11/11.
* Delay in diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus vaccination is associated with a reduced risk of childhood asthma, The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, Volume 121, Issue 3 , Pages 626-631, March 2008. http://www.jacionline.org/article/S0091-6749%2807%2902379-2/abstract
* The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, Volume 115, Issue 4 , Pages 737-744, April 2005. http://www.jacionline.org/article/S0091-6749%2805%2900026-6/abstract (less asthma and allergy in unvaccinated children).
* Is Infant Immunization a Risk Factor for Childhood Asthma or Allergy? Epidemiology, November 1997, Volume 8, Issue 6. http://journals.lww.com/epidem/Abstract/1997/11000/Is_Infant_Immunization_a_Risk_Factor_for_Childhood.15.aspx
* Vaccination against whooping-cough. Efficacy versus risks, Lancet. 1977 Jan 29;1(8005):234-7. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/64761
* The epidemiology of pertussis and pertussis immunization in the United Kingdom and the United States: a comparative study. Curr Probl Pediatr. 1984 Feb;14(2):1-78
* EMC Medicines, Gardasil. http://www.medicines.org.uk/EMC/medicine/19016/SPC/GARDASIL/#PHARMACODYNAMIC_PROPS
Dear
I wish to request that vaccination campaigns are not carried out in secondary schools. As a parent of an unvaccinated/ vaccine damaged child I am concerned that s/he may be coerced into accepting vaccinations under gillick competency laws.
Schools currently conduct lessons that teach the importance of vaccination. In science exams you cannot even pass the paper unless you agree that vaccinations are good, despite the fact that there is an equal amount of research showing vaccinations can cause harm.
A child aged 11 or over may be deemed competent to make medical decisions for themselves, including that of vaccination. While this may seem like promoting the child’s own rights, it is open to abuse. In a school setting, there is no parental figure to monitor whether any pressure is being put on the child to conform. Parents themselves are sometimes told by teaching staff and doctors that vaccines are a legal requirement and they are given shockingly little information about vaccination side-effects. For instance, the NHS website, NHS Choices, does not list the ingredients of vaccines or the fact that death may occur after a vaccine. If parents themselves are misled and don’t have the full information to make an informed consent, an 11 year old child is not going to.
During school campaigns for HPV vaccine, children likely will not be told that HPV vaccine is for human papilloma virus and not cervical cancer itself and that having HPV does not mean you have cancer. They also may not be told that there are 30 types of HPV and the vaccine only covers two of them, that the vaccine has only been followed for 4.5 years so no one knows if antibodies last after that and the vaccine has a black triangle on it which means it is still being studied and is in effect, an experimental drug.
Even the antibodies that have been shown to occur have not been proven to prevent cervical cancer.
Data that cervical cancer is the second most common female cancer in the world is actually taken from third world countries. In western countries, the disease is rare with mortality rates lower than the rates of serious adverse reactions to the vaccine, including deaths.
Side-effects so far include convulsions, paraesthesia, paralysis, Guillain–Barré syndrome (GBS), transverse myelitis, acial palsy,chronic atigue syndrome, anaphylaxis, autoimmune disorders, deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolisms and death. Cases of cervical cancer have occurred after the vaccine.
However, children are unlikely to be taught these facts in school during classes about vaccination.
Parents also have no say in what their children are taught during these lessons. How do we know that they won’t be shown a DVD of a woman dying of cervical cancer before being offered the HPV vaccine? If this is done, it is coercion geared towards making impressionable young minds submit to vaccination, maybe even against parental wishes.
Cases of coercion are happening regularly all over the globe. For instance, the mother of 13 year old Camille had decided not to allow her daughter to receive the Gardasil vaccine so she put down in writing that she refused consent. She had also telephoned the school to ensure her daughter would not be vaccinated. Two school nurses then spent 25 minutes bullying Camille, threatening, cajoling and intimidating her until she relented and let them give her the injection. They told her not to tell her mother she had been injected or show the vaccination record. Less than two hours later, she was admitted to hospital suffering from fever, rash, fainting, fatigue, weakness, headaches, stomach pains, urinary infection, and abscesses in her mouth, vision impairment and oral candida.
Since the gardasil shot she has had a permanent headache that will not go away, she has no appetite, has lost weight and now has to wear glasses despite having perfect health and perfect vision before the shot. The Canadian Health Agency deny her symptoms are anything to do with the shot despite the fact that started directly afterwards and landed her in hospital.
How many other children are asked not to show their vaccination record to parents? If a parent is unaware their child has been vaccinated and serious side-effects occur, this could delay the seeking of emergency treatment which could be life threatening to the child.
All children being asked to partake in a vaccine programme should be sent detailed information on the pros and cons and be offered vaccination in a medical setting if they choose to have it. This way the parent is more likely to be aware that vaccination is being offered and can give guidance and the child will not be the subject of peer pressure and there will be proper medical facilities available in case of an emergency.
Classes about vaccination should also contain information about side-effects of vaccines, their ingredients and other ethical issues in order to give children a full understanding of this complex subject. If this isn’t done, parents should have the right to exempt their children from such classes. We should be able to choose to send our children to state schools without the fear that they may be vaccinated by force or coercion or subject to psychological or physical harm while in the care of the school.
Sincerely,
References:
EMC Medicines, Gardasil. http://www.medicines.org.uk/EMC/medicine/19016/SPC/GARDASIL/#PHARMACODYNAMIC_PROPS
Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine policy and evidence-based medicine: Are they at odds? Annals of Medicine, Ann Med. 2011 Dec 22. [Epub ahead of print]. Full Text: http://www.scribd.com/doc/76789590/Human-virus-HPV-Vaccine-Policy-and-Evidence-based-Medicine-at-Odds
Post-Gardasil Syndrome in Quebec Followed Vaccination Sans Consent, Sanevax, Web. 3 May 2012. http://sanevax.org/?s=camille+post-gardasil+syndrome
Does Pediatric Pressure Promote Post-Gardasil Syndrome?, Sanevax. Web. 3 May 2012. http://sanevax.org/?s=does+pediatric+pressure+promote+PGS%2FPCS
Image:
I wish to request that vaccination campaigns are not carried out in secondary schools. As a parent of an unvaccinated/ vaccine damaged child I am concerned that s/he may be coerced into accepting vaccinations under gillick competency laws.
A child aged 11 or over may be deemed competent to make medical decisions for themselves, including that of vaccination. While this may seem like promoting the child’s own rights, it is open to abuse. In a school setting, there is no parental figure to monitor whether any pressure is being put on the child to conform. Parents themselves are sometimes told by teaching staff and doctors that vaccines are a legal requirement and they are given shockingly little information about vaccination side-effects. For instance, the NHS website, NHS Choices, does not list the ingredients of vaccines or the fact that death may occur after a vaccine. If parents themselves are misled and don’t have the full information to make an informed consent, an 11 year old child is not going to.
Recently, it has been announced that the JCVI will be recommending annual flu vaccination in schools to all children aged 5-17, starting in 2014.
I do wonder if the members of JCVI were in fact asleep when they made this recommendation because scientific evidence shows that influenza vaccinations are ineffective in preventing hospitalizations in children. The American Thoracic Society presented research at their 105th conference on 19th May 2009 that children who have had the flu vaccine had a three times higher risk of hospitalization compared with children who did not receive the vaccine. They wrote in their press release:
‘The researchers conducted a cohort study of 263 children who were evaluated at the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota from six months to 18 years of age, each of whom had had laboratory-confirmed influenza between 1996 to 2006…They found that children who had received the flu vaccine had three times the risk of hospitalization, as compared to children who had not received the vaccine. In asthmatic children, there was a significantly higher risk of hospitalization in subjects who received the TIV, as compared to those who did not (p= 0.006). But no other measured factors—such as insurance plans or severity of asthma—appeared to affect risk of hospitalization.’
The Cochrane Review has admitted that live flu vaccines only have an 82% efficacy rate at preventing confirmed influenza and a 33% effectiveness rate at preventing ‘influenza-like illness’ – this means that even if 100% of children were vaccinated, 18% (18 out of every 100 children) would still get flu and be capable of spreading it around and a further 67% would still get influenza type illnesses, essentially meaning that 85% of vaccinated children can still get flu and flu like illnesses.
If the purpose of vaccinating school children is to prevent circulation in the community and protect the elderly (for whom influenza vaccines don’t work – another Cochrane review found that ‘The available evidence is of poor quality and provides no guidance regarding the safety, efficacy or effectiveness of influenza vaccines for people aged 65 years or older’) then with results like these, it certainly would not prevent transmission to the vulnerable.
The vaccine that JCVI intend to introduce is the live nasal spray vaccine which is capable of shedding. The Merck Manual says:
‘Immunocompromised patients should not receive live-virus vaccines, which could provoke severe or fatal infections. In patients receiving short-term (ie, < 14 days) immunosuppressive therapy (eg, corticosteroids, antimetabolites, alkylating compounds, radiation), live-virus vaccines should be withheld until after treatment….Rarely, TIV has adverse effects, such as Guillain-Barré syndrome, anaphylactic reactions, soreness at the injection site, and fever. Adverse effects of LAIV are unusual; they include possible triggering of asthma and transmission of the virus to unimmunized contacts….The duration of FluMist vaccine virus replication and shedding have not been established.’
So because the vaccine is live, they can transmit flu virus to individuals who choose not to be vaccinated and to other children who may be immune-compromised. Freshly vaccinated 5 year olds could go home and infect their newborn sibling.
What about children with eczema who are using corticosteroids? According to Merck, live vaccines in patients using these medications may be fatal.
According to the manufacturer’s data sheet for flu mist, the vaccine should not be given to anybody with severe asthma or wheezing because it can cause wheezing and hasn’t been evaluated in clinical trials. There are a fair number of asthmatic children in school – what if they are vaccinated in error or they aren’t informed they are contraindicated?
Children who are taking aspirin are also contraindicated from having the vaccine, but a full medical history is unlikely to be taken in a school setting, which puts children at greater risk of adverse reaction.
It has also never been studied to see if it is carcinogenic, mutates or if it impairs fertility, something that should have been studied before the product was released to the public.
However, children of gillick competency age are unlikely to be told of this prior to being given the vaccine.
Devastating illnesses like Narcolepsy and GBS have been reported after administration of flu vaccines. Who will be liable if a child falls ill after a school administered vaccine? The school nurse? The headteacher? The school authority?
Vaccines should only be carried out in medical facilities where a full medical history and examination can be taken and the child’s parent can have full input over whether or not their child is vaccinated.
Sources:
Vaccines for preventing influenza in healthy children. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008 Apr 16;(2):CD004879. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18425905
Vaccines for preventing influenza in the elderly. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010 Feb 17;(2):CD004876. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20166072
Flu shot not effective in preventing flu-related hospitalizations in asthmatic children. American Thoracic Society Press Release. 19th May 2009. http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-05/ats-fsn051209.php
FluMist® Influenza Virus Vaccine Live, Intranasal Spray. Medimmune Vaccines. http://www.whale.to/vaccine/flumist_pi.pdf
Routine Vaccinations. The Merck Manual. http://www.merckmanuals.com/professional/infectious_diseases/immunization/routine_vaccinations.html
Children Could Soon Be Given Annual Flu Vaccinations at School, Daily Mail, 29th May 2012. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2151678/Children-soon-given-annual-flu-vaccinations-school-prevent-spread-illness-age-groups.html
The Big Bend Immunization Coalition is proud to announce the three winners of its first vaccination poster contest for tetanus, diphtheria and pertussis vaccinations. Anna Gill, Raa Middle School, won first prize, a $100 gift card. Her poster will be displayed in Tallahassee - in doctors' offices and Leon County Health Department clinics, libraries and schools (PDF of winning poster is attached). Morgan Zettle, Montford Middle School, won second place and will receive a $50 gift card. Molly Creel, Montford Middle School, won third place and will receive a $25 gift card.
"With our safe and time-tested vaccinations, we can protect most people from these three horrible diseases," said Fred Williams, coalition chair. "Our coalition," Williams said, "asked 6th and 7th graders to tap into peer power to spread the message to students and their parents that teens need these vaccinations. Teens can really hit their mark as great communicators," Williams added.
Williams will present the gift cards to the winners during their respective award assemblies. The two Montford students will receive their prizes at Montford Middle School on May 24, at 3 p.m. The first place winner will receive her prize at Raa Middle School's assembly on May 31, at 9:30 a.m.
http://www.wctv.tv/news/headlines/Kids_Shoot_Straight_with_TDap_Immunization_Posters_for_Peers_156428185.html?ref=185
Other pages:
This is the text-only version of this page. Click here to see this page with graphics.
Edit this page |
Manage website
Make Your Own Website: 2-Minute-Website.com