|
Vaccines are big business. Revenues from vaccines
total more than $1 billion in the United States,
$3 billion worldwide, going to $7 billion in the
next few years. Vaccine manufacturers conduct their
own research, and unfortunately, much of it is akin
to the tobacco research funded by the tobacco companies.
A study can "prove" cigarettes don't cause
cancer or they can "prove" cigarettes
do cause cancer, it all depends on how the research
is designed. It's the same with vaccine research.
It is essential that independent researchers (independent
of government grants, medical and drug company ties
and political influence and pressure) do this research.
One of the most powerful revelations regarding
conflict of interest has come out of Chairman Dan
Burton's opening statement at the Committee on Government
Reform's conference Thursday, June 15, 2000 1:00
PM 2154 Rayburn House Office Building Washington,
DC 20515:
How confident in the safety and need for specific
vaccines would doctors and parents be if they learned
the following:
1. That members, including the Chair, of the
FDA and CDC advisory committees who make these
decisions own stock in drug companies that make
vaccines.
2. That individuals on both advisory committees
own patents for vaccines under consideration or
affected by the decisions of the committee.
3. That three out of five of the members of the
FDA's advisory committee who voted for the rotavirus
vaccine had conflicts of interest that were waived.
4. That seven individuals of the 15 member FDA
advisory committee were not present at the meeting,
two others were excluded from the vote, and the
remaining five were joined by five temporary voting
members who all voted to license the product.
5. That the CDC grants conflict-of-interest waivers
to every member of their advisory committee a
year at a time, and allows full participation
in the discussions leading up to a vote by every
member, whether they have a financial stake in
the decision or not.
6. That the CDC's advisory committee has no public
members - no parents have a vote in whether or
not a vaccine belongs on the childhood immunization
schedule. The FDA's committee only has one public
member.
These are just a few of the problems we found.
"FACA: Conflicts of Interest and Vaccine Development:
Preserving the Integrity of the Process"
http://www.house.gov/reform/hearings/healthcare/00.06.15/index.htm
Jane Orient, M.D., executive director of the Association
of American Physicians & Surgeons, has criticized
the "incestuous ties" between the pharmaceutical
companies and the regulatory agencies that make
vaccine policy in the following address to the Subcommittee
on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources
of the Committee on Government Reform US House of
Representatives (June 14, 1999):
It is apparent that critical medical decisions
for an entire generation of American children
are being made by small committees whose members
have incestuous ties with agencies that stand
to gain power, or manufacturers that stand to
gain enormous profits, from the policy that is
made. Even if such members recuse themselves from
specific votes, they are permitted to participate
in discussions and thus influence the decision.
Moreover, there is the potential for deal-making….
The relationship of patient and physician
is dramatically altered: in administering the
vaccine, the physician is serving as the agent
of the state. To the extent that the physician
simply complies without making an independent
evaluation of the appropriateness of the vaccine
for each patient, he is abdicating his responsibility
under the Oath of Hippocrates to "prescribe
regimen for the good of my patients according
to my ability and my judgment and never do harm
to anyone." … Traditionally, public
health authorities restricted the liberties of
individuals only in case of a clear and present
danger to public health. For example, individuals
infected with a transmissible disease were quarantined.
Today, a child may be prevented from attending
school or associating with others simply because
of being unimmunized. If there is not an outbreak
of disease and if the child is uninfected, his
or her unimmunized state is not a threat to anyone.
An abridgement of civil rights in such cases cannot
be justified.
All coercive means for increasing the immunization
rate should be immediately discontinued. Fully
informed consent should be sought before vaccine
is administered. This requires full and honest
disclosure of the risks and uncertainties of the
vaccine, in comparison with the risks of the disease.
Information given to parents about [the Hepatitis
B] vaccine often does not meet the requirement
for full disclosure. For example, it may state
that "getting the disease is far more likely
to cause serious illness than getting the vaccine."
This may be literally true, but it is seriously
misleading if the risk of getting the disease
is nearly zero (as is true for most American newborns).
It may also be legalistically true that "no
serious reactions have been known to occur due
to the hepatitis B recombinant vaccine."
However, relevant studies have not been done to
investigate whether the temporal association of
vaccine with serious side effects is purely coincidental
or not.
An independent review of the VAERS (Vaccine
Adverse Event Reporting System Data); publications
by governmental, pro-vaccine, and anti-vaccine
groups; and a sample of the medical literature
leads to the following conclusion:
For most children, the risk of a serious vaccine
reaction may be 100 times greater than the risk
of hepatitis B.
Asthma and insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus,
causes of lifelong morbidity and frequent premature
death, have nearly doubled in incidence since
the introduction of many new, mandatory vaccines….
Even more alarming is the huge increase in
reports of autism and attention deficit/hyperactivity
disorder, with devastating, life-long impacts.
Much of this could be due to overdiagnosis (now
rewarded by numerous government subsidies). The
change in behavior that many parents observe related
to vaccines could be coincidental, or it might
reflect a desperate need to explain a disastrous
occurrence. Nonetheless, the implications are
so grave that immediate investigation is needed.
Measles, mumps, rubella, hepatitis B, and the
whole panoply of childhood diseases are a far
less serious threat than having a large fraction
(say 10%) of a generation afflicted with learning
disability and/or uncontrollable aggressive behavior
because of an impassioned crusade for universal
vaccination. Public policy regarding vaccines
is fundamentally flawed. It is permeated by conflicts
of interest. It is based on poor scientific methodology
(including studies that are too small, too short,
and too limited in populations represented), which
is, moreover, insulated from independent criticism.
The evidence is far too poor to warrant overriding
the independent judgments of patients, parents,
and attending physicians, even if this were ethically
or legally acceptable.
AAPS opposes federal mandates for vaccines,
on principle, on the grounds that they are: 1.
An unconstitutional expansion of the power of
the federal government. 2. An unconstitutional
delegation of power to a public-private partnership.
3. An unconstitutional and destructive intrusion
into the patient-physician and parent-child relationships.
4. A violation of the Nuremberg Code in that they
force individuals to have medical treatment against
their will, or to participate in the functional
equivalent of a vast experiment without fully
informed consent. 5. A violation of rights to
free speech and to the practice of one's religion
(which may require one to keep oaths).
|
