Mandatory Vaccination.
Issue:
Are vaccines safe? The United States government acknowledges their dangers while some jurisdictions mandate their use. Meanwhile, the public debate is distorted by fear, anger and righteousness as people advocate both for and against a government mandate that all children be vaccinated against a variety of diseases.
Deception:
Vaccinations are described by most in the medical, scientific and media communities as essential to preventing widespread illness. Yet they are described by vaccine opponents as often causing illness. Where is the truth?
Truth lies with both arguments, and this is why it is essential that we not inhibit free and open debate on the issue. Unfortunately, a generalized hysteria has gripped the nation due to the measles outbreak that originated just before the 2014 winter holidays at Disneyland in California, an outbreak that is believed to have subsequently (as of late March, 2015) spread to about 180 people nationwide over the following three months and which has resulted in no deaths.
Note: There are questions as to whether vaccines are effective. It is not the intent of this essay to address their efficacy, which for the sake of this discussion is presumed. The intent here is to foster further discussion of vaccine safety.
Reality:
The United States government knows that vaccines can be dangerous. This is why Congress, encouraged by the pharmaceutical companies, established a separate program for legal challenges to vaccines. The result? Citizens no longer have access to our judicial system if they believe vaccines harmed their child’s health. They must instead apply to a government program for possible payment of damages.
Named the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program but known colloquially as the “vaccine court” and referred to here as the NVICP, this program prohibits complaints regarding vaccines from being heard in a court of law by a jury. Denied the right to sue, citizens can only apply for payment of damages from the United States government (Health and Human Services Department) under this program, damages which the American taxpayer pays through a tax on every vaccine dose.
Interestingly, this government program has paid out numerous settlements (close to two billion dollars), a government admission that vaccines have caused pain, suffering and illness.
The existence of this program affirms the fears of those who believe (or know) that vaccines can be dangerous, life threatening and perhaps even fatal. This is but one reason we cannot afford to dismiss the concerns of parents who choose not to have their children vaccinated.
The jury is still out, literally, on the safety of vaccines. This is due in part to the proceedings of the government program described above because it denies aggrieved persons the right to a jury trial. The danger here is that the vaccine debate remains unlit by the bright light juries can shine on critical issues of civil liberties, personal responsibilities, product safety and law.
The NVICP (vaccine court): Why the need?
Established in 1986 by a Congress responding to the pharmaceutical industry's eager desire for protection from product-liability lawsuits, the NVICP was designed to insulate drug companies from payment of damages when their product harmed someone. The rationale? Large jury settlements were affecting the bottom line of drug company profits, causing them to pull back on the development of some vaccines. Should the development of vaccines be left to the profit considerations of large corporations, given their presumably critical benefit to society? That is an argument for another day.
Regardless, this relatively secret program, the proceedings of which are not transparent, handles all complaints regarding possible or known harm from vaccines. This denies the U.S. public access to information critical to a broader and more accurate understanding of vaccine safety.
It is vitally important that citizens be aware of, and understand the structure and workings of the NVICP if we are to fully comprehend the complexity of the vaccination issue. It is likewise vital that we question the true efficacy and safety of vaccines if the government feels obliged to insulate their makers from lawsuits. While the argument is rightly made that a majority of scientists and doctors see no connection between vaccines and illnesses sometimes ascribed to them, particularly autism, the argument is also rightly made that many children have suffered debilitating illness following the administering of vaccinations. The medical and scientific communities have not provided concrete answers to address this phenomenon, except to say that they do not know what else might be causing such illness.
Science is often wrong, and the medical community often backtracks on their own long-established recommendations regarding healthcare - particularly in regard to the use, efficacy and dangers of drugs. This is why ongoing debate is essential if we are to gain a clearer understanding of the safety of vaccines. We are not served well by a debate that shuts down the opinions of those who oppose mandatory vaccination.
Consider the current effort by amazon.com patrons to knock the anti-vaccine children’s book "Melanie's Marvelous Measles" off the retailer’s shelves by bombing its site standing into oblivion. This is the herd mentality in play. The herd assumption is that it’s not only wrong to express opposition to vaccines, it is maybe even criminal and undeserving of a place in public debate. Therefore, it is permissible to practice censorship against those whose opinions buck the majority trend.
Are we served in any beneficial way by this kind of censorship? Never, yet few people object, and the media rides herd on the issue with its constant drumbeat on behalf of vaccination.
Public Health Safety: What about the herd?
Virtually all debate on the vaccine issue revolves around the presumed need for “herd” immunity to protect public health. This resonates with the vast majority of the population because it seems so sensible on its face. Why would we not each want to do our part to suppress and eradicate disease?
It sounds good, yes. The catch is that the necessity and benefit of “herd” immunity cannot be so easily affirmed as its supporters claim. "Herd immunity" is achieved by vaccinating most people but does not require universal vaccination but this understanding has been lost in the debate, overshadowed by the ongoing doubts and questions regarding vaccine safety. It is erroneously taken as fact by vaccine supporters that herd immunity requires universal vaccination of children.
If we want to force people to vaccinate their children or themselves against their will, it is essential and right that the safety of vaccines be without question, that concrete answers regarding possible vaccine-induced illness be available, that access to jury trial be available to address grievances - and that public debate not be inhibited by ridicule and fear.
Still, the question remains: when do perceived needs for public health protection supersede the rights of individuals to control their own bodies, and those of their children?
Our society has traditionally held that people retain sovereign rights over their minds and bodies, their person. My right to choose my healthcare, or to refuse it, is considered sacrosanct; we are even moving toward greater acceptance of a right to use cannabis as medicine, as well as a right to die on our own terms. Government mandates regarding forced, or mandated administering of treatments or quarantine have been so rare in our history that most citizens have no experience with them - aside from childhood vaccinations.
What is so critical about vaccinations? The pharmaceutical and medical communities have been very successful in fostering the belief that it is not good enough to vaccinate your children to protect them from disease, you must expect that everyone else will do the same. This is the herd mentality that supports the idea of herd immunity. Yet who is truly at risk if not all of us are vaccinated?
The only potential risk is to those who cannot be vaccinated due to their age (children under 1 year of age, typically) or due to illness (such as cancer), or who choose to decline vaccinations. Yet there are other ways to protect these people that don’t require a government mandate for us all. In light of ongoing questions regarding vaccine safety, it is essential that we maintain a balanced perspective between the risk to those who cannot be vaccinated and the risk to those who are.
It is also hypocritical. We do not mandate that sick people stay home to prevent contagion, nor do we mandate that employers provide paid sick time so people can stay home. We do not sufficiently regulate the incessant introduction into our environment of highly toxic substances by industry. We do not mandate the quarantine of sick individuals without an overriding reason to protect public health, and that is rare. We do not provide sufficient protection to our citizens from dangerous goods and services. We expose our service members to toxins and lethal weapons in the field yet fail to provide them the related healthcare they must have to live good lives, or even live at all.
A prime example: the U.S. Center for Disease Control (CDC) stands by while the clostridium difficile (c. diff) virus runs rampant in the offices of doctors and dentists and in hospitals, resulting in thousands upon thousands of unnecessary deaths for years nationwide. Why do we see a religious zeal for the universal administering of vaccinations, but none for so many other dangers besetting our society?
As with Ebola, the vaccination fear has become a virtual hysteria in the United States based on an outbreak at Disneyland that in two months has led to less than 200 measles cases nationwide and has resulted in no deaths as of this writing three months out. Ebola has posed no significant threat to citizens in the U.S. yet it has blanketed our newscasts for months. At the same time, the Clostridium difficile colitis bacteria, most often contracted in hospitals, doctor and dentist offices, is killing thousands of people a year.
Vaccine Safety: Lesson from the climate.
The climate of our planet is changing. This is clear. We can argue the causes forever but the changes are with us now and are indisputable. Yet we have unquestionably established the direct correlation between various human activities and our changing climate, such as human-induced carbon dioxide levels not seen in millions of years and for which there is no other explanation than industrial pollution. There exists a vast body of empirical evidence that we are fundamentally altering our climate, for better or worse.
Related Essay: Changing Climate
The safety of vaccines is not empirical. It is still theoretical. Empirical evidence is observable proof that knowledge was gained by data, rather than hypothesis or conjecture. The efficacy of vaccines has empirical evidence to back it up (though it should always be open to questioning, as with any issue), but the safety of vaccines remains theoretical. The medical and scientific communities repeatedly claim that vaccines are not only effective but safe. Yet if they are truly safe, why the need for the NVICP? Many products in our society are presumably more dangerous than vaccines, but we have not created special government programs to protect their manufacturers from lawsuits.
This point cannot be stressed enough: vaccine safety is not a given. It remains anecdotal, hypothetical and even discredited - repeatedly - by no less an “authority” that the NVICP itself, which has authorized close to two billion dollars in settlements to plaintiffs for damage caused by vaccines.
The NVICP is generally no friend to those who believe their children’s illnesses were caused by vaccines. Yet it has determined many times that vaccines are responsible for those very illnesses, and this must cause any thinking person to question the safety of vaccines.
Personal Responsibility: Are you a criminal?
Perhaps the most emotional component of the vaccine issue is the anger on both sides regarding their rights - whether their right to mandate actions by others in the interest of their own health concerns, or their right to control their own bodies and those of their children. It is not an overstatement to say that the many in the current debate around vaccines push for civil or criminal penalties for those who choose to forego vaccinations for themselves and/or their children, as a perceived way to protect the population.
Are vaccines safe? The United States government acknowledges their dangers while some jurisdictions mandate their use. Meanwhile, the public debate is distorted by fear, anger and righteousness as people advocate both for and against a government mandate that all children be vaccinated against a variety of diseases.
Deception:
Vaccinations are described by most in the medical, scientific and media communities as essential to preventing widespread illness. Yet they are described by vaccine opponents as often causing illness. Where is the truth?
Truth lies with both arguments, and this is why it is essential that we not inhibit free and open debate on the issue. Unfortunately, a generalized hysteria has gripped the nation due to the measles outbreak that originated just before the 2014 winter holidays at Disneyland in California, an outbreak that is believed to have subsequently (as of late March, 2015) spread to about 180 people nationwide over the following three months and which has resulted in no deaths.
Note: There are questions as to whether vaccines are effective. It is not the intent of this essay to address their efficacy, which for the sake of this discussion is presumed. The intent here is to foster further discussion of vaccine safety.
Reality:
The United States government knows that vaccines can be dangerous. This is why Congress, encouraged by the pharmaceutical companies, established a separate program for legal challenges to vaccines. The result? Citizens no longer have access to our judicial system if they believe vaccines harmed their child’s health. They must instead apply to a government program for possible payment of damages.
Named the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program but known colloquially as the “vaccine court” and referred to here as the NVICP, this program prohibits complaints regarding vaccines from being heard in a court of law by a jury. Denied the right to sue, citizens can only apply for payment of damages from the United States government (Health and Human Services Department) under this program, damages which the American taxpayer pays through a tax on every vaccine dose.
Interestingly, this government program has paid out numerous settlements (close to two billion dollars), a government admission that vaccines have caused pain, suffering and illness.
The existence of this program affirms the fears of those who believe (or know) that vaccines can be dangerous, life threatening and perhaps even fatal. This is but one reason we cannot afford to dismiss the concerns of parents who choose not to have their children vaccinated.
The jury is still out, literally, on the safety of vaccines. This is due in part to the proceedings of the government program described above because it denies aggrieved persons the right to a jury trial. The danger here is that the vaccine debate remains unlit by the bright light juries can shine on critical issues of civil liberties, personal responsibilities, product safety and law.
The NVICP (vaccine court): Why the need?
Established in 1986 by a Congress responding to the pharmaceutical industry's eager desire for protection from product-liability lawsuits, the NVICP was designed to insulate drug companies from payment of damages when their product harmed someone. The rationale? Large jury settlements were affecting the bottom line of drug company profits, causing them to pull back on the development of some vaccines. Should the development of vaccines be left to the profit considerations of large corporations, given their presumably critical benefit to society? That is an argument for another day.
Regardless, this relatively secret program, the proceedings of which are not transparent, handles all complaints regarding possible or known harm from vaccines. This denies the U.S. public access to information critical to a broader and more accurate understanding of vaccine safety.
It is vitally important that citizens be aware of, and understand the structure and workings of the NVICP if we are to fully comprehend the complexity of the vaccination issue. It is likewise vital that we question the true efficacy and safety of vaccines if the government feels obliged to insulate their makers from lawsuits. While the argument is rightly made that a majority of scientists and doctors see no connection between vaccines and illnesses sometimes ascribed to them, particularly autism, the argument is also rightly made that many children have suffered debilitating illness following the administering of vaccinations. The medical and scientific communities have not provided concrete answers to address this phenomenon, except to say that they do not know what else might be causing such illness.
Science is often wrong, and the medical community often backtracks on their own long-established recommendations regarding healthcare - particularly in regard to the use, efficacy and dangers of drugs. This is why ongoing debate is essential if we are to gain a clearer understanding of the safety of vaccines. We are not served well by a debate that shuts down the opinions of those who oppose mandatory vaccination.
Consider the current effort by amazon.com patrons to knock the anti-vaccine children’s book "Melanie's Marvelous Measles" off the retailer’s shelves by bombing its site standing into oblivion. This is the herd mentality in play. The herd assumption is that it’s not only wrong to express opposition to vaccines, it is maybe even criminal and undeserving of a place in public debate. Therefore, it is permissible to practice censorship against those whose opinions buck the majority trend.
Are we served in any beneficial way by this kind of censorship? Never, yet few people object, and the media rides herd on the issue with its constant drumbeat on behalf of vaccination.
Public Health Safety: What about the herd?
Virtually all debate on the vaccine issue revolves around the presumed need for “herd” immunity to protect public health. This resonates with the vast majority of the population because it seems so sensible on its face. Why would we not each want to do our part to suppress and eradicate disease?
It sounds good, yes. The catch is that the necessity and benefit of “herd” immunity cannot be so easily affirmed as its supporters claim. "Herd immunity" is achieved by vaccinating most people but does not require universal vaccination but this understanding has been lost in the debate, overshadowed by the ongoing doubts and questions regarding vaccine safety. It is erroneously taken as fact by vaccine supporters that herd immunity requires universal vaccination of children.
If we want to force people to vaccinate their children or themselves against their will, it is essential and right that the safety of vaccines be without question, that concrete answers regarding possible vaccine-induced illness be available, that access to jury trial be available to address grievances - and that public debate not be inhibited by ridicule and fear.
Still, the question remains: when do perceived needs for public health protection supersede the rights of individuals to control their own bodies, and those of their children?
Our society has traditionally held that people retain sovereign rights over their minds and bodies, their person. My right to choose my healthcare, or to refuse it, is considered sacrosanct; we are even moving toward greater acceptance of a right to use cannabis as medicine, as well as a right to die on our own terms. Government mandates regarding forced, or mandated administering of treatments or quarantine have been so rare in our history that most citizens have no experience with them - aside from childhood vaccinations.
What is so critical about vaccinations? The pharmaceutical and medical communities have been very successful in fostering the belief that it is not good enough to vaccinate your children to protect them from disease, you must expect that everyone else will do the same. This is the herd mentality that supports the idea of herd immunity. Yet who is truly at risk if not all of us are vaccinated?
The only potential risk is to those who cannot be vaccinated due to their age (children under 1 year of age, typically) or due to illness (such as cancer), or who choose to decline vaccinations. Yet there are other ways to protect these people that don’t require a government mandate for us all. In light of ongoing questions regarding vaccine safety, it is essential that we maintain a balanced perspective between the risk to those who cannot be vaccinated and the risk to those who are.
It is also hypocritical. We do not mandate that sick people stay home to prevent contagion, nor do we mandate that employers provide paid sick time so people can stay home. We do not sufficiently regulate the incessant introduction into our environment of highly toxic substances by industry. We do not mandate the quarantine of sick individuals without an overriding reason to protect public health, and that is rare. We do not provide sufficient protection to our citizens from dangerous goods and services. We expose our service members to toxins and lethal weapons in the field yet fail to provide them the related healthcare they must have to live good lives, or even live at all.
A prime example: the U.S. Center for Disease Control (CDC) stands by while the clostridium difficile (c. diff) virus runs rampant in the offices of doctors and dentists and in hospitals, resulting in thousands upon thousands of unnecessary deaths for years nationwide. Why do we see a religious zeal for the universal administering of vaccinations, but none for so many other dangers besetting our society?
As with Ebola, the vaccination fear has become a virtual hysteria in the United States based on an outbreak at Disneyland that in two months has led to less than 200 measles cases nationwide and has resulted in no deaths as of this writing three months out. Ebola has posed no significant threat to citizens in the U.S. yet it has blanketed our newscasts for months. At the same time, the Clostridium difficile colitis bacteria, most often contracted in hospitals, doctor and dentist offices, is killing thousands of people a year.
Vaccine Safety: Lesson from the climate.
The climate of our planet is changing. This is clear. We can argue the causes forever but the changes are with us now and are indisputable. Yet we have unquestionably established the direct correlation between various human activities and our changing climate, such as human-induced carbon dioxide levels not seen in millions of years and for which there is no other explanation than industrial pollution. There exists a vast body of empirical evidence that we are fundamentally altering our climate, for better or worse.
Related Essay: Changing Climate
The safety of vaccines is not empirical. It is still theoretical. Empirical evidence is observable proof that knowledge was gained by data, rather than hypothesis or conjecture. The efficacy of vaccines has empirical evidence to back it up (though it should always be open to questioning, as with any issue), but the safety of vaccines remains theoretical. The medical and scientific communities repeatedly claim that vaccines are not only effective but safe. Yet if they are truly safe, why the need for the NVICP? Many products in our society are presumably more dangerous than vaccines, but we have not created special government programs to protect their manufacturers from lawsuits.
This point cannot be stressed enough: vaccine safety is not a given. It remains anecdotal, hypothetical and even discredited - repeatedly - by no less an “authority” that the NVICP itself, which has authorized close to two billion dollars in settlements to plaintiffs for damage caused by vaccines.
The NVICP is generally no friend to those who believe their children’s illnesses were caused by vaccines. Yet it has determined many times that vaccines are responsible for those very illnesses, and this must cause any thinking person to question the safety of vaccines.
Personal Responsibility: Are you a criminal?
Perhaps the most emotional component of the vaccine issue is the anger on both sides regarding their rights - whether their right to mandate actions by others in the interest of their own health concerns, or their right to control their own bodies and those of their children. It is not an overstatement to say that the many in the current debate around vaccines push for civil or criminal penalties for those who choose to forego vaccinations for themselves and/or their children, as a perceived way to protect the population.
If people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny. - Thomas Jefferson
What is this really about? Measles, a disease that used to be extremely common - and most often harmless - in childhood has been all but eradicated in the United States. The recent outbreak at Disneyland has given rise to public concern, even hysteria, over the threat of this disease.
The reality? Measles does not ensure permanent disability or death in those it afflicts. It can cause problems in some, but then so can vaccinations, as admitted by the NVICP.
Solution:
The recent measles outbreak should not allow us to be frightened into mandating the administering of drugs to all children or adults, drugs whose safety is still widely open to question and doubt. We must continue the debate, balance the good and the bad in each, and keep as our highest goal the protection of our personal rights against the tyranny of fear. We have failed to do a good job of this when it comes to the perceived threat of terrorism versus our civil liberties. We must do a better job regarding the issue of public health versus our right to control our selves.
Mandating vaccination for all children sets a dangerous precedent of government power over individual sovereignty and government control of our bodies. Any mandate that affects our lives in this way must be proven necessary beyond a shadow of a doubt. The NVICP (vaccine court) is proof that the shadows of doubt regarding vaccine safety still linger and even loom large.
The reality? Measles does not ensure permanent disability or death in those it afflicts. It can cause problems in some, but then so can vaccinations, as admitted by the NVICP.
Solution:
The recent measles outbreak should not allow us to be frightened into mandating the administering of drugs to all children or adults, drugs whose safety is still widely open to question and doubt. We must continue the debate, balance the good and the bad in each, and keep as our highest goal the protection of our personal rights against the tyranny of fear. We have failed to do a good job of this when it comes to the perceived threat of terrorism versus our civil liberties. We must do a better job regarding the issue of public health versus our right to control our selves.
Mandating vaccination for all children sets a dangerous precedent of government power over individual sovereignty and government control of our bodies. Any mandate that affects our lives in this way must be proven necessary beyond a shadow of a doubt. The NVICP (vaccine court) is proof that the shadows of doubt regarding vaccine safety still linger and even loom large.
End Bar
The California Debacle:
Fear often overtakes reason in even our more progressive communities, as evidenced by California’s recent passage of legislation that mandates vaccination of children whether or not their parents or guardians consent. Authored and co-sponsored by State Senate and State Assembly (California's legislative branch) members who are generally reliable supporters of sensible legislation, this draconian law was fought by many who recognize that too many questions remain regarding vaccine safety to force vaccination on the population.
Fear won out over reason, however, and set the stage for future mandates by state government to take control of our lives. Ironically, these same legislators also sponsored or supported California’s "Right To Die" legislation, which was more recently been passed into law.
This leaves us with a confusing message from the state: you have a right to make choices regarding your death but not the right to make certain choices regarding your life. Sound simplistic? Vaccinations are known to cause harm in some cases, yet California has chosen to disregard this harsh reality in favor of putting health at risk for the sake of calming the fear and hysteria emanating, out of all places, Disneyland, the (self-proclaimed) “Happiest Place on Earth”.
The Enlightened California of 1921:
In light of this reactionary approach to a public health issue it behooves us to consider the state's approach to vaccinations in the past. In 1921 the State of California enacted legislation that forbade the forced administering of smallpox vaccinations to school children. The legislation instead allowed for the temporary exclusion (not quarantine) of students carrying the disease, and provided for temporary school closure if multiple students were afflicted. The legislation aimed to negate the need to mandate vaccinations against the wishes of the public and the associated costs to society. It reads, in part:
The California Debacle:
Fear often overtakes reason in even our more progressive communities, as evidenced by California’s recent passage of legislation that mandates vaccination of children whether or not their parents or guardians consent. Authored and co-sponsored by State Senate and State Assembly (California's legislative branch) members who are generally reliable supporters of sensible legislation, this draconian law was fought by many who recognize that too many questions remain regarding vaccine safety to force vaccination on the population.
Fear won out over reason, however, and set the stage for future mandates by state government to take control of our lives. Ironically, these same legislators also sponsored or supported California’s "Right To Die" legislation, which was more recently been passed into law.
This leaves us with a confusing message from the state: you have a right to make choices regarding your death but not the right to make certain choices regarding your life. Sound simplistic? Vaccinations are known to cause harm in some cases, yet California has chosen to disregard this harsh reality in favor of putting health at risk for the sake of calming the fear and hysteria emanating, out of all places, Disneyland, the (self-proclaimed) “Happiest Place on Earth”.
The Enlightened California of 1921:
In light of this reactionary approach to a public health issue it behooves us to consider the state's approach to vaccinations in the past. In 1921 the State of California enacted legislation that forbade the forced administering of smallpox vaccinations to school children. The legislation instead allowed for the temporary exclusion (not quarantine) of students carrying the disease, and provided for temporary school closure if multiple students were afflicted. The legislation aimed to negate the need to mandate vaccinations against the wishes of the public and the associated costs to society. It reads, in part:
The control of smallpox shall be under the direction of the State Board of Health, and no rule or regulation on the subject of vaccination shall be adopted by school or local health authorities.
Today we live in a world that too often operates from a place of hysteria and fear, a world that demands immediate solutions that do not inhibit our day-to-day conduct of life. What is lost by removing students temporarily from their classrooms compared to the costs associated with the mass administering of multiple vaccines to all children, and the damages paid out by U.S. taxpayers through the vaccine court to those who suffer harm from vaccines? Very little, except the added profits achieved by pharmaceutical companies in the manufacture and sale of vaccines.