AAP's Nurse Wishner: Sympathy on Vaccine Choice Real or Wishful Thinking?
IS NURSE WISHNER SYMPATHETIC TOWARDS CONCERNED PARENTS?
By Louise Kuo Habakus
I received a great deal of feedback on and offline to my recent 9/27/10 post (HERE) about the Vaccine Mandates conference sponsored by the Center for Bioethics. In particular, there were strong comments in response to the desire of PA-AAP’s Amy Wishner to correct the record. She believes I misrepresented her comment regarding the selfishness of lack of civic responsibility in parents. In response, I decided to transcribe Wishner’s portion of the proceedings. The relevant portion is in the fifth paragraph. I also highlighted other areas of her remarks offer context for my representation of her remarks (in bold). Now you can read and decide for yourself. (I’m grateful to Susan Kreider for providing me with an audio recording of the event.)
IN MY ORIGINAL POST:
Amy Wishner, MSN, RN, represents the Pennsylvania Immunization Education Program HERE She said the only reason she can think of why people do not vaccinate is, frankly, “increased selfishness” and “no sense of civic responsibility.” She said that parents should not expect their doctors to certify their unvaccinated children for camp and other activities.
MS. WISHNER RESPONDED AS A COMMENT TO THE POST:
Dear Friends - You misrepresented my comment above re: selfishness and lack of civic responsibility as reasons SOME may choose not to vaccinate their children. I am quite sure I said something along the lines of that an ADDITIONAL reason NOT MENTIONED EARLIER (I did not speak until 2 PM) were the reasons above; many other reasons had previously been mentioned at the conference. My thinking was that I have seen first hand how little corporate loyalty there is to maintaining employment, that people are treated as easy-to-replace, and so I find is a change in our society from a more cooperative social environment to one where people feel forced to kind of fend for themselves as some of the previous trust and mutual loyalty between employers and employees has been damaged with this economy, outsourcing, etc. So, my point was that is is very understandable how parents can feel that no one is going to be as careful with their child as the parents and to be skeptical about recommendations. In the particular case of vaccines, I disagree with many on this website in that I do feel that pediatricians and family medicine physicians recommend immunization because clear, reproducible science supports that this is in the individual child's best interest and in the larger community interest. But I am by no means unsympathetic toward people who believe otherwise.
Posted by: Amy Wishner MSN, RN | HERE
THE TRANSCRIPT OF MS. WISHNER’S CONFERENCE REMARKS:
Good afternoon, my name is Amy Wishner, I am the director of the Pennsylvania Immunization Education Program, which is a program of the Pennsylvania chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics. I’m not here representing sort of official PA-AAP or American Academy of Pediatrics as organizations but rather in my work, working with pediatric and family medicine practices across the state and talking with people who run similar programs in other states.
Most immunizations are given in the private sector. In Pennsylvania, 85% of childhood immunizations are given in the private sector, so that means pediatric and family medicine practice offices. And some would be because of the VFC program as has been discussed earlier but also because of people who have private insurance. So, who are the people who consent for children? It’s parents. And yet it’s not sort of continuous, it’s not the same thing, consent for an infant as it is consent for an adolescent. So again there’s sort of an increasing autonomy as children get older. And once children are 18 who fit into some other category, such as married, legally emancipated, or some other categories like that. But for the most part, up until the age 18, parents are the deciders about medical care for their children.
In terms of refusal, the AAP Committee on Bioethics says parents are free to make choices regarding medical care unless these choices place their child at substantial risk of serious harm. So those two phrases… “substantial risk” and “serious harm”… are kind of what we’re talking about here. And there’s one case that I’ve heard used by ethicists that is kind of at one end of the spectrum which is… a child in an emergency room for a puncture wound, his tetanus vaccine is out of date. And in that circumstance, people think they would go to the extreme of really going to compulsory vaccination, actually going and getting a court order, immunizing that child against the parents’ wishes, if,… if going to that extreme. Another instance of that, in Philadelphia, there was a measles outbreak in 1991, when five children died in one week from measles in a community of children who were unvaccinated. The same thing. The Commissioner at that time, Dr. Robert Ross got a court order to immunize those children against their parents’ wishes. The parents were not neglectful, otherwise, of those children. They were well-fed, well-clothed, went to school, etc. And yet, in that case, the ethical dilemma came up because those children who were unvaccinated had already been exposed to measles, so in that case, what was the correct thing to do? But that “substantial risk of serious harm” those factors can change as we have seen in pertussis in California, where pertussis two years ago, you might have said, ok, is the risk that serious? The disease is still the same now but now in California, the pertussis outbreak, the risk has certainly risen to a level of substantial risk. And in California they have in fact changed some of the immunization requirements, recommendations where they are now recommending certain vaccines be given off label to include other age groups and have put into effect school exclusion criteria. So… “substantial risk of serious harm” can affect… when ethically you might feel that parent choices might be affected.
In addition to the reasons for parent refusal that have been talked about earlier, I want to also just add a couple… which is a general skepticism about science or even the germ theory and certainly mistrusting epidemiology, a different understanding of what probability is. And some of the ways that probability is explained may not be that clear and in some cases I have seen some nice graphic representations of probability that I think can be more effective.
And also, I don’t really know what sort of a nicer way of saying it, just an increase in selfishness essentially where you know parents may have this idea that I am going to do what is only right for my individual child (which vaccines are, I would argue) but just not even having a sense of civic responsibility and I think there are a variety of reasons for that, I think certainly you know there’s a sense of people as more disposable by organizations, that idea that I’m the government and here to help you is certainly one that people are skeptical of.
On the other hand, the people who are for the science and for vaccines have a different sense which is, in this case and this instance, I do trust that the government as represented by the CDC and FDA are in this case making a good decision and having confidence in the safety testing for children and for vaccines.
I just want to mention a couple of the consequences of refusal to immunize. Of course, the child is susceptible. School exclusion as I mentioned. And also, a parent can refuse an immunization but by the same token, a physician or nurse practitioner or a practice is not obligated to certify that child for something like a camp form or participation in some other activity. So yes, the parent can refuse but then that does not obligate on the other hand the provider to say, “Well, ok, your child can do anything else they want.”
Also, we haven’t said very much about childcare. Certainly people who work in childcare, we have to be concerned about their immunization status. But a lot of childcare centers are private entities, and they have a different ability to say that they can set policies where they may say that participation in immunization is a condition of going to a particular childcare.
One of the things that providers are asked to do a lot these days is to delay vaccines or follow alternative schedules. And that requires them to make kind of impossible decisions about which diseases are less serious or which vaccines are most effective. And that kind of slippery slope if you decide to not follow certain scientific recommendations, where does that leave you in terms of other things? And a physician I work with – Dr. Michael Harkness (sp?) - has come up with this analogy which I like of car seats. If a parent came to him and said, I don’t feel comfortable putting my child in a car seat, they’re you know restrained back there. I really want to hold my child, can you show me how to hold my child safely? And the physician obviously you know can’t. There is no way to do it, to do that.
In terms of the religious and philosophical exemptions, I was going to make a similar point as to the one Dr. Schwarz made where he has seen a map of various with high exemptions in Washington state, you know Pennsylvania it has hovered around 1% with private schools recently going up to 3.75% of exemptors, but Washington state has a 6% rate of exemptors, with counties ranging from 1.2% to 26.9% so there is a county where a quarter of the people are not immunized. I think those kinds of maps are very useful in terms of, you know, public health intervention.
In the practice setting, I think we all might agree that it would be ideal to have to have time to fully discuss all immunizations with every parent about every vaccine every time it’s given. This runs smack into the real world where that just isn’t possible and I think that there are practices of providers being asked to spend large amounts of time with a lot of people on a daily basis, just is very difficult and you know impossible essentially. So some of the things, and yet, you know, that you would say, every parent deserves that, every child deserves that, so what do we do with that ethically? I think that some of the things that we can do that are helpful are that one, some practices have written policies that are very strong statements. All Star Pediatrics in Pennsylvania has put out a policy that has become a national model. The medical code [unclear] encouraging them, the home is obviously the best place to for these kinds of discussions to take place and for trust to be built. And the idea of mapping data and those data from the Immunization Registry are being used to really inform public health activity and focus public health activity. And also that the pediatric and family medicine practices where at the moment this burden largely falls, really can’t do it by themselves. So that prenatal care, OB/GYN, breastfeeding classes, all these areas have to really do more.
And the other thing I just wanted to say briefly is, this is a true story… coughing mom with a coughing kid and three unimmunized siblings came into a pediatric practice. New patients. When the people at the front desk realized what was going on, that she was coughing, they ushered her out which was very alarming to other people in the waiting room, some of whom had infants. After a long time, eventually convinced this mom to allow immunization on the siblings, and including a physician who came out on his day off and spent several hours talking with her. And then because the mom worked in a day care center, public health got involved in working with the daycare center, other parents with kids there, the people who worked there. And all of this happened, all these people’s time, energy, worry of the other people in the waiting room, this is all preventable by on-time routine vaccination. So I think what we say is, ideally we want people to have this freedom, this ability, all this time spent discussing and talking, of course this is what we want but there are real life implications involving time, money and exposure to disease by people’s exercise of those risks.
Louise Kuo Habakus, MA is a is a board-certified health practitioner and a staunch advocate for vaccination choice. She is a co-founder and Director of the Center for Personal Rights, Inc. and is a Steering Committee member of the Coalition for Vaccine Safety. To advance her cause, Habakus has passionately delivered lectures, organized and participated in rallies, and appeared in numerous media outlets, including Fox & Friends, ABC World News Tonight, and the New York Times. Habakus received a B.A. in International Relations and French Studies and an M.A in International Policy Studies, both from Stanford University. She also holds a certification in Integrative Nutrition from the Institute for Integrative Nutrition and Columbia University. Habakus operates Life Health Choices. She was formerly a managing director for Putnam Investments, a corporate vice president for Prudential Investments, and worked at the management consultancy Bain & Company.
Hey. Interesting article. I agree with Adam.
Re: On the other hand, people who advocate science and vaccines have a different meaning, which, in this case and in this case, I really believe that the government represented by the CDC and the FDA in this case is a good solution and security confidence tests for children and vaccines.
I think that in the modern world there is no science in vaccines. Agree that every day we only see that someone suffers because of a poor-quality vaccine. The pharmaceutical industry has long been turned into a dirty wage of money. Look at how many people have suffered from this over the past 10 years. And if we turn to statistics, then we will see that nothing has changed. It is sad. Although there is a saying: "Even the air is now harmful" What is happening around makes us to be extremely attentive to everything. Sometimes even scared to let a child go for a walk. Did you know that, a quote from Wikipedia: "Vaccine production techniques are evolving. Cultured mammalian cells are expected to become increasingly important, compared to conventional options such as chicken eggs, due to greater productivity and low incidence of problems with contamination. Recombination technology that produces genetically detoxified vaccine is expected to grow in popularity for the production of bacterial vaccines that use toxoids. Combination vaccines are expected to reduce the quantities of antigens they contain, and thereby decrease undesirable interactions, by using pathogen-associated molecular patterns", source -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine#Economics_of_development. Good Luck!
Posted by: generic drug | January 21, 2019 at 08:58 AM
Poor naive Nurse Wisner- Secretly pleased that some parents will get what they deserve when their child cant attend summer camp.
I wonder if anyone else here at AOA saw the documentary which I saw on tv, in which two devastated parents talked about how hard it was to see their child suffer. Their small 8 or 10 year old daughter had gone off to summer camp and a few days later they received a call telling them to come and pick her up. She had become severely schizophrenic. Hmm, that wouldnt have anything to do with the mercury in the vaccines would it?
Please, Nurse Wisner, The parents of the autistic children, just want one simple thing- Its known as the Truth. The scientific truth will solve your problems,and the truth will help the autistic kids . Actually, we ought to be on the same side.
Posted by: Cherry Sperlin Misra | October 03, 2010 at 01:37 PM
Everyone should use car seats. Occasionally, car seats will cause brain damage in some of the users. We have no intention of finding out who is particularly susceptible to developing brain damage, even though in some cases it is so severe that the children will be non verbal and never function as adults outside an institution.We have even compensated over a thousand children for brain injuries caused by using car seats.
However, even if someone reacts badly to the use of a car seat,and spikes fevers and has seizures, following the first time they use a car seat,we will continue to suggest that no parent should ever question car seat use, and that those who do are selfish.
We will also avoid reading the manufacturers inserts which clearly detail some of the people who should not use car seats.
While being aware that car seats are not tested as safe for pregnant women, we will advise that all pregnant women should always use car seats...
Yep, really getting that car seat analogy.
Posted by: hera | October 03, 2010 at 11:04 AM
In other words she is saying "Shut up and don't ask questions and give you child the poison I want him to have" "It is your civic duty to comply"...(sarcasm)
Posted by: Hannah | October 03, 2010 at 12:46 AM
I wonder how much time could doctors and nurses save if they accepted their patients' parents' decisions about whether to vaccinate and if so which vaccines to get when? Is the problem that the doctors and nurses feel they need to keep talking until the parents are convinced to totally accept the CDC schedule?
Certainly decisions on vaccines should be discussed, like any medical decision, not simply railroaded through with no consideration of risks and benefits. This is a given, accepted, in other areas of medicine, but somehow we are to believe that vaccines are an exception to the requirement of "informed consent".
Definitions of "Patient autonomy" and "Informed consent" from emedicine health:
Patient autonomy: The right of patients to make decisions about their medical care without their health care provider trying to influence the decision. Patient autonomy does allow for health care providers to educate the patient but does not allow the health care provider to make the decision for the patient.
What Is Informed Consent?
Doctors will give you information about a particular treatment or test in order for you to decide whether or not you wish to undergo such treatment or test. This process of understanding the risks and benefits of treatment is known as informed consent. It is based on the moral and legal premise of patient autonomy: You as the patient have the right to make decisions about your own health and medical conditions.
•You must give your voluntary, informed consent for treatment and for most medical tests and procedures. The legal term for failing to obtain informed consent before performing a test or procedure on a patient is called battery (a form of assault).
◦For many types of interactions (for example, a physical exam with your doctor), implied consent is assumed.
◦For more invasive tests or for those tests or treatments with significant risks or alternatives, you will be asked to give explicit (written) consent.
•Under certain circumstances, there are exceptions to the informed consent rule. The most common exceptions are these:
◦An emergency in which medical care is needed immediately to prevent serious or irreversible harm
◦Incompetence in which someone is unable to give permission (or to refuse permission) for testing or treatment
Of course, for babies and children it is the parents who give informed consent or refusal.
Some seem to want vaccines to be treated as if they are risk free, but in fact they are invasive and do have risks.
Posted by: Twyla | October 02, 2010 at 11:13 PM
“It's the new "civic responsibility" to gracefully accept your poison and then lay down and die.” – Bravo Nicole M! Well stated!
Social Darwinism has replaced “survival of the fittest”. Pharma is simply culling-the-herd of “useless feeders” employing the biggest portal of diseases in the world today, the vaccine schedules. It’s a false-flag campaign against the people. It’s not paranoia, if they really are out to get you!
“Vaccine Deaths And Injuries Skyrocket As Cover-Up Implodes” by Paul Joseph Watson on August 30, 2010.
“Global revolt against deadly vaccines spreads as cases of debilitating illnesses, soft-kill side-effects and even instant deaths become widespread.”
Is there any risk today of an accidental release of a lab virus into a population whose natural immune systems are already “primed” to implode by the vaccine schedules? Hmmmm.
Posted by: patrons99 | October 02, 2010 at 10:00 AM
More of the same and all I hear is BLAH, BLAH, BLAH. Wishner, Offit, Peet.....same day different puppet.
Fact remains no matter what face you put on it vaccines, particularly given on the current schedule are dangerous. So sick of having this party line spouted at me when I know better. It's maddening!
Posted by: recoveringchloe | October 02, 2010 at 09:35 AM
Nurse Wishner's full commentary and backpedaling simply dig the rhetorical hole deeper. Especially her statement about not having enough time to fully discuss vaccine issues with patients.
Strange that there seems to be plenty of office time to discuss Viagra's side effects, and protect against potential lawsuits. But that's a medical procedure that doesn't have blanket immunity from litigation.
Vaccines are a hit-and-run consumer nightmare. Until "health care professionals" start exhibiting some ethical aftercare, they can count on increasing rejection by increasingly savvy patients.
Posted by: nhokkanen | October 02, 2010 at 12:44 AM
Oh My God this photo illustration is GREAT!!! Nurse Kratchet from "One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest" is the perfect poster child for the vaccine industry supporters. (Yes it is an industry they are supporting, not medical science because the factual science demonstrates a myriad of vaccine risks, health damages, and even death.)
As far as Nurse Kratchet's sense of "Civic Responsibility", after the last 3 years of continually researching vaccines, I find it my own civic responsibility to warn others of the dangers of this massive vaccine schedule with these massive amounts of aluminum, mercury, and a myriad of other toxins which WILL affect thier children's health and WILL affect their immune response in a negative way. And my own personal civic responsibility to my grandson is to prevent him from EVER recieving any more vaccines PERIOD.
As Nicole M. posted: "It's the new "civic responsibility" to gracefully accept your poison and then lay down and die." Amen sister to this statement and every word you wrote here in your post.
This so called analogy by Nurse Kratchet absolutely does NOT apply to the real facts regarding vaccines: "If a parent came to him and said, I don’t feel comfortable putting my child in a car seat, they’re you know restrained back there." In reality, NOT vaccinating is equivalent to keeping your child safe in a car seat in order to prevent injury and death to the child. And this fact is being recognized by more and more health experts, researchers, scientists, and yes even doctors. The vast majority of people refusing vaccines today are not parents with vaccine injured children, but intelligent people who have educated themselves and made the decision to refuse vaccines.
83% of Europe refused the swine flu vaccine last year and that is why we have swine flu vaccines included with regular flu vaccines this year and all this advertising to "Get your flu shot" everywhere. Billions of doses of swine flu vaccines are on the verge of expiration so why not just foist it off on Americans who are being led like sheep to the slaughter because Big Pharma has more powerful financial influence over our government, our medical system, and our news media than anywhere else in the world.
Thanks to this pathetic situation America leads the world in autism and other learning disorders (1 in 6 isn't enough to get people's attention??!!), childhood asthma, allergies, diabetes and cancer. And we are now 42nd in infant mortality, but the sheep still just don't get it.
Posted by: Autism Grandma | October 01, 2010 at 10:40 PM
the coughing mom and siblings were probably already fully immunized for pertusis - if you look at the chances based on recent data ;-)
Posted by: Cathy R | October 01, 2010 at 10:02 PM
Maybe we should buy into some of their (car seat) logic, you know, meet them halfway and propose a study of children vaccinated in car seats vs unvaccinated in car seats. Then when the car seats develop a neurological disorder, or immune system damage they can blame it on the genetics of the children.
They are willfully ignorant.
Posted by: michael framson | October 01, 2010 at 09:30 PM
What is truly sad about this is that Nurse Wishner and her cohorts do not understand that it is not the "anti-vaxers" nor parents who vaccinated and saw the damage to their children, nor the former Playboy bunnies amongst us who write books about autism, nor the "websites" such as AOA they have to worry about.
They need to worry about my neighbors, and your neighbors, who have no such "anti-vax" thoughts, who do not care about autism very much as autism does not affect them or their families.
These neighbors have no clue what the "AOA" acronym stands for, nor do they frequent this site. The establishment needs focus their thoughts on my neighbors and your neighbors, because they often state when asked, "I have never taken a flu shot, and I don't care what is recommended. I am not getting one. I don't need one, and I don't want one. In fact, I will never take a flu shot. No one is ever going to force me to take one, either." There are many millions more of "them" than there are of "us."
Those would be the same millions of people who refused to take an H1N1 vaccine last fall in spite of the promotion and hype for these shots. It is not us "selfish" parents of horrifically vaccine injured children they need to fear. Wish Wishner, et al, would get that straight, too. Not everybody really wants their "damn vaccine," to use a partial quote from Dr. Nancy Snyderman.
Posted by: Not an MD | October 01, 2010 at 08:29 PM
I can never get my head around the complete arrogance that these medical "professionals"display. My civic responsibility runs a far and distant second to the responsibility I feel towards my children. MY children are all unvaccinated. It breaks my heart that so many other children had to be killed and damaged by vaccines for my children to be saved. My children (despite being unvaccinated) were covered in eczema, and when I took them to the doctor he said "oh we don't know what causes eczema, try some cream but hey your kids aren't vaccinated?? (you terrible, terrible mother!!)." So I left in disgust and found my own way to a gluten free, casein free, organic diet that completely cured the eczema. I often get goosebumps when I realise how fortunate I am, because the eczema was a sign of how compromised their systems were, no doubt if they were vaccinated they would have sustained serious damage. So a big thank you to all who continue to get the message out there about vaccines. You are being heard. And just for the record,Ms Amy Wishner, my children are very healthy. Unlike their vaccinated counterparts that we see with constant illness!
Posted by: owntruth | October 01, 2010 at 07:13 PM
Nicole, my second son was vaccinated the day he was born--AGAINST MY CLEAR WRITTEN AND VERBAL INSTRUCTIONS. They vaxed him in the nursery while I was taking a shower.
So it's just possible that he is less un-vaccinated than you think.
And I agree that you should look into Lyme disease, as well as vitamin D deficiency, B12 deficiency, celiac/gluten intolerance, etc. But if you are on AoA, you have probably already done all that...
Posted by: Taximom | October 01, 2010 at 06:44 PM
Ginger Taylor said, "I am just floored by this one-sided social contract that we seem to have been drafted into."
Yes absolutely. And more than floored, outraged and infuriated and ready for The Revolution.
But the 'social contract' regarding vaccination -- and more, regarding lots of so-called medical care -- is just the tip of the iceberg. It's a big tip and it's a REALLY big iceberg.
This 'social contract' is part of the huge, giant, enormous number of instances where PROFITS are PRIVATIZED, but BAD CONSEQUENCES (and huge costs) are shifted onto the public at large.
There is no reason, and no excuse, for medical care to be for-profit.
Not-for-profit entities can pay big salaries to their workers and stay in business. Adding 'investors' to the requirement for profits . . . well, obviously that just gouges the ordinary person, the consumer (in this case, the 'patient) even more.
There is no excuse for the millions of dollars paid to CEOs of Big Pharma.
And also Big Ag, which has a huge burden of guilt to share -- and which keeps trying to shift it away. (HFCS is now 'corn sugar'? My foot. And GM corn is just fine for the environment? My foot. And so on, a LONG list.)
The only good news in this is: they'll be getting their comeuppance. They'll be out of jobs, and reviled and despised to boot. (More than they already area.)
And at least that will be a good day.
Posted by: Nonnymouse | October 01, 2010 at 06:02 PM
I appreciate the comment about car seats in the front of the car. I happened to see that incident on the news where the mom was videotaped while realizing her baby had been killed in the car seat and that was the beginning of the new mandate to put them in the back seat. Her horror was such that I believe the video was not shown much. I felt horror as it dawned on me that my baby was autistic (as I thought then--now I believe he is vaccine damaged.)
Posted by: Amanda Blinn | October 01, 2010 at 05:36 PM
Dear Nurse Wishner: I live in the neighborhood of an Amish community that has been said to be growing so fast that they will soon be larger than the Pennyslvania Amish.
As a former journalist, I had the opportunity to do many stories with these Amish folks, as late as only a year ago. And you know what? I started asking Amish parents whether they vaccinated their children or not, and whether they or anyone they knew in their community had autism.
What I found was that most of the Amish I talked to whose children do not attend public schools also do not vaccinate. But unfortunately, a growing number of Amish children are attending public schools these days, meaning more and more are getting vaccinations if they choose not to be harassed by school officials demanding it.
The interesting thing that I've found in my non-scientific, random polls is that the only families with autistic children are the ones who have vaccinated them. OH NO!! You don't want to hear that, do you?
Well, here's another goody for you: Amish children are known for their rosy cheeks and clear eyes. But more and more, I'm seeing some with sunken eyes with dark circles under them and pale faces despite being out in the sun. And guess what! -- when I ask the parents, it turns out that these dark-circled, pale-looking little ones also are the ones who have had their vaccinations.
Again, there's nothing scientific about this, nor random, double-blind, placebo-controls. But really, all you have to do is look at these children to see that there's something going on. The ones who are vaccinated look sick. The others have those beautiful rosy cheeks and clear eyes. Explain your way out of that, please. The sad thing is I'm seeing more and more Amish babies without rosy cheeks.
Posted by: Cindy Bevington | October 01, 2010 at 05:32 PM
"I think those kinds of maps are very useful in terms of, you know, public health intervention."
I wonder what Nurse Amy wants to do with a map of where children are not fully vaccinated, ie. what kind of "intervention" she is advocating.
Nurse Amy's statement that it is "impossible" to discuss vaccines with every parent prior to immunization indicates that she is in full agreement with Dr. Nancy Snyderman - she wants us to shut up and "get the damn vaccine".
Posted by: Carolyn M | October 01, 2010 at 04:37 PM
I think she is confusing "civic responsibility" with corporate profits. I feel no civic responsiblity to make Merek enormously profitable. And Merek certainly feels no civic responsibility to make their products safe. She and the other vaccine (profit) worshippers are projecting their lack of understanding and responsibility on people that disagree with them.
Posted by: L Land | October 01, 2010 at 03:52 PM
....In the practice setting, I think we all might agree that it would be "ideal" to have to have time to fully discuss all immunizations with every parent about every vaccine every time it’s given.....
The PARENTS have already spent a LOT of TIME considering what is injected into their children.
They have found the CDC, AAP, and the vaccine industry to be full of endless crap.
Posted by: cmo | October 01, 2010 at 02:37 PM
"I think the true message here is that if you and/or your children cannot handle the toxic overload of modern society then you and yours ought to become extinct. It's survival of the fittest. And if agra business and big pharma and all of the other corporate powers that be cannot harvest your family for revenue, then, as far as they are concerned, you have no business surviving and perpetuating. It's the new "civic responsibility" to gracefully accept your poison and then lay down and die."
Nicole M., SPOT on! You are absolutely right! That is exactly what is expected of folks who can't tolerate the chemicals/ingredients found in food, medicines, etc. and thus can't be a source of revenue for the big corporations. And it seems that so many (but not all, of course) doctors, teachers, and parents of neurotypical kids feel exactly the same way... if you and/or your child can't be healed, taught, controlled, etc. then you and/or your child have no business being around. How many kids and parents have been met with bewilderment, disapproving looks and comments, and outright rejection because their needs are not mainstream? Too many! Unfortunately, as neurological and other impairments rise in the community due to environmental toxicity, so will this kind of cruel intolerance.
Posted by: Concerned Mom | October 01, 2010 at 01:57 PM
I always find it fascinating that the people calling those that choose to keep their kids unvaccinated are those with healthy children who have never experienced adverse reactions of any kind to vaccines OR they have no children at all. Every time one of these people calls me selfish and parasitic and that I'm not doing my civic duty, I want to tell them "You first. You give up your child. Let's lay them on the altar of medicine to save society. You first. Your child first."
Posted by: Laura | October 01, 2010 at 01:16 PM
Thank you Louise. This is about the same as forcing circumcision for boys. You can NEVER force a medical procedure. Ever.
And what about efficacy? Oh yeah I forget-- this is about the money...
Posted by: Casey | October 01, 2010 at 01:10 PM
Nicole M., if you haven't already, I suggest you look into Lyme disease as a possible factor in your son's autism.
Posted by: Kristina | October 01, 2010 at 12:52 PM
I am making an excellent contribution to society with my never vaccinated children, who have no health problems, learning disabilities, behavior or emotional problems.
I certainly don't want to sound insensitive to people whose children have been injured by vaccines. It is only because of you that I was warned before my children were born. THANK YOU. You are doing your civic duty by warning people. I am doing my civic duty by heeding that warning, and passing on the warning to others.
Posted by: Kristina | October 01, 2010 at 12:29 PM
"real life implications involving time, money"
Right. Because (according to our family doctor, who doesn't take insurance) the average amount of time that a pediatrician spends during a visit (including pleasantries) is 7 minutes. Seven. That's because of money: 7 minutes per kid = more kids per day = more money in insurance reimbursements. So should doctors really abrogate parents' rights to have a full discussion about every medical procedure in order to cram in another patient? (Should your hygienist just not bother to clean half your teeth so that the dentist's office can see another patient more quickly?)
It's pretty clear what Nurse Amy thinks.
The funny thing about money is that a great deal of it (from insurance plans, from Medicare/Medicaid, from ARRA, and from charities) is spent on vaccination. Many recent studies (including the Cochrane study discussed in last year's Atlantic Monthly) show the flu vaccine, for example, to be of zero usefulness in preventing mortality. Now who's wasting money?
Posted by: Theresa O | October 01, 2010 at 11:49 AM
A few years ago there were reports of some infants being seriously injured (or even killed) when their car seats were placed in the front seat of a car and the air bag was deployed. What if the response had been simply, "But car seats save lives. Statistical studies show that infants are safer in a car seat." No, the response was that infants and children should be in the back seat, not in the front seat where there is an air bag.
Likewise, vaccine injury needs to be better understood, not just countered with platitudes, meaningless biased statistical studies, and statements that diseases are dangerous.
We don't understand germs? Nurse Wishner, you are the one who is ignorant. Your comments show complete ignorance of what parents of vaccine injured children are saying, ignorance of the science on vaccine injury, and ignorance about the inadequacy of vaccine safety research. Please read the comments here, such as those of Claudine Liss and Marine Meleck, and try to learn from them.
Please read David Kirby's book Evidence of Harm. Please stop being so ignorant about vaccine problems. Your condescension is blinding you.
Posted by: T | October 01, 2010 at 11:36 AM
Every time someone quotes a "study" as scientific proof, they ought to be required divulge who PAID for the study.
Might make some wake up a bit...
We all have to cite our sources--why does Pharma get a free ride...AGAIN?
Posted by: Sunny | October 01, 2010 at 11:09 AM
In the beginning, I was screamed at by several HMO pediatricians for not vaccinating my child from birth. Then, we switched to a PPO where the doctors were only quietly disapproving. My unvaccinated child turned out to have autism, and not just mild autism but non-verbal autism. Did I run back to the doctor for the full complement of 37 doses of vaccines? HELL NO! Imagine if I had injected my son with that toxic soup. He probably would have died.
Do you think I'm going to blindly "trust the FDA" or the CDC? HELL NO! If vaccines didn't cause my son's autism and the autism in 1 in 58 other boys, then what the heck did? Do you think I'm going to believe that it's just genetic? No, I'm sorry, I still have enough undamaged brain cells left in my poor toxic-world brain to see that the genetic argument is a crock. There are tens of thousands of untested chemicals/compounds/pesticides that are considered "safe" for consumption--you know, like mercury amalgam fillings that have to be shipped to/from dentists offices as toxic waste. Oh wait, mercury is one that HAS been tested. My bad.
I think the true message here is that if you and/or your children cannot handle the toxic overload of modern society then you and yours ought to become extinct. It's survival of the fittest. And if agra business and big pharma and all of the other corporate powers that be cannot harvest your family for revenue, then, as far as they are concerned, you have no business surviving and perpetuating. It's the new "civic responsibility" to gracefully accept your poison and then lay down and die.
Posted by: Nicole M. | October 01, 2010 at 11:04 AM
Ah yes, the old false equivalency argument about car seats.
Posted by: KDM | October 01, 2010 at 10:51 AM
For over a decade now I've been trying to understand why, if I refuse to further vaccinate my son who I believe was severely damaged by his earlier vaccines, and he catches the flu, those individulas who have submitted to the entire battery of on-time routine vaccines mandated by Pharma are so threatened. Are they in fear of catching his flu? Isn't the whole point of all these vaccines to protect you if you are exposed? I can only conclude that the real fear is that the vaccines don't work.
One more thing, as far as civic responsibility goes, we had our son vaccinated in a civic responsibly manner and we watched him regress in a very uncivil manner while his pediatricians stood by clueless and the government, in the form of nurse Wishner and her peers, ignores and denies the damage they've done. That behavior is selfish and uncivilized.
Posted by: Harry H. | October 01, 2010 at 10:45 AM
Are you sure the zip isn't 66666?
Posted by: Stagmom | October 01, 2010 at 10:35 AM
AAP's new address:
C/O Vaccine Industrial Compound
GSK Sanofi Merck Boulevard
Novartis WY 42020
Note: WY is the short name for Wyeth state.
Posted by: R Prasad | October 01, 2010 at 10:30 AM
I think Nurse Wishner was correct that her reasons for not vaccinating were not stated in full context and were underrepresented.
However, I also think that overall she came off better with the short summary you provided than with the full text of her speech.
The ignorant attitude with which she approaches medical intervention risk assessment is telling of extreme faith in authority. Comparing the risk analysis of using a child seat and vaccinating for pertussis is asinine.
The cavalier dismissal of concept of informed consent for convenience is arrogant in the extreme.
Posted by: Schwartz | October 01, 2010 at 09:42 AM
Thank you for holding Nurse Wishner accountable. It looks to me like she’s struggling with her beliefs. “The Force” is this way!
I take it from Nurse Wishner’s comments that she believes vaccines are doing more good than harm and that the benefits are outweighing the risks. What is so beautiful about living in America is free speech. Nurse Wisher – I disagree.
I feel that you are looking at reported disease rates and saying to yourself….”The rates have dropped therefore vaccination is good.” What I believe you are not looking at is the off the charts increase in childhood illness in the United States of America which is right in alignment with the increase in the US vaccine protocol. My vaccination choice activist work has brought me in contact with many many unvaccinated children AND THEY ARE HEALTHY, REALLY REALLY HEALTHY (and NO they are all not fed strict organic diets) etc……I know as a fact. Many of their parents still have mouths full of mercury fillings, some have drug histories, they have never thought to detox themselves etc…The parents of the unvaccinated children I know have prior to procreating led very unhealthy “American” lives. Some are older parents, some are younger parents. None received any shots during pregnancy, flu or otherwise. Hence, spare me it’s the air, water, food etc…..argument, its part of the problem, but not the main problem in my book. (AND I WILL NEVER TRUST A VACCINATED/UNVACCINATED STUDY UNLESS IT’S DONE INDEPENDENTLY---so spare me some BS study.)
Nurse Wishner – You might find comfort in the reported decrease in chicken pox, measles, etc…..however, I find no comfort in; the 6000% increase in autism and the off the charts increase in ADD, ADHD, allergies, food allergies, learning disabilities, asthma, childhood diabetes, failure to thrive etc….oh, and the off the charts tax monies and insurance monies and personal funds going to treat and sometimes cure this list of horrific childhood illnesses, the funds being spent in schools to teach the learning disabled, the funds for the different therapies, funds for the medicines…..ETC…. OMG, and the money that is going to be needed to take care of all of the autistic children who are not able to care for themselves (there are thousands of them). I take care of a brain damaged adult. I will share with the world in time what it is like.
Nurse Wishner – There’s a lot of science out there which supports the proposition that the existing protocol is dangerous, and can cause one or more of the illnesses listed above. Sorry, but the “greater good” argument is flawed in my book. In my book we’ve exchanged one set of problems for another set, and in my book…this set is worse.
As for doctors not having enough time to talk to parents, .go check out the Japanese model.
Nurse Wishner – You speak of “civic responsibility.” I would like to start talking more about “moral responsibility and personal responsibility.” For another day….
Louise, Thank you for going to the conference and informing the public. Great job, as always.
Posted by: Claudine Liss | October 01, 2010 at 09:36 AM
I am just floored by this one sided social contract that we seem to have been drafted into.
"Yes vaccines cause brain damage that can turn into autism, and yes vaccines cause all sorts of other immune damage, and no we don't even check to see how often this happens, or how likely your child is to have a vaccine injury, or even what the predisposing factors are to a vaccine injury... but vaccinate your child anyway because you have to protect the herd.
But if you child is harmed by a vaccine, the herd will go ahead and disavow any responsibility for you. You after all are a valuable member of society... oh wait... I forgot... you claim to have a vaccine injured child... no... you are now a desperate, scientifically illiterate, genetically defective 'Justamom', who is a selfish danger to society because you won't keep your mouth shut and continue to vaccinate your children. Stop trying to sponge off the government and just accept your head banging, poo eating, running naked into traffic child for who he is.
We have no responsibility for your child and his crappy genes."
SIGN ME UP FOR THAT!!!
Posted by: Ginger Taylor | October 01, 2010 at 09:29 AM
Benedetta, I lost my coffee on your comment:0
Thanks for that;)
Posted by: kathleen | October 01, 2010 at 09:28 AM
Where I live you are not accepted at a pediatric office without vaccinating. There are very few acceptions. We were not asked to leave our family doc due to the fact that my kids were majority vaccinated by the time my son reacted and therefore I am in the gray area and was not asked to leave. But if your stand is that you will not vaccinate from birth...your kid(s) is/are on their own. No private medical care for you. So do offices consider the choice of not taking care of a diabetic status the same way? No. If a diabetic is careless and uses their insulin to allow themselves to eat cake, and more than they should, they adjust their insulin to get away with it...but this is not good for you...no one is going to come to that patient and say that they are going to intervene for the patient's protection. Or if you have high cholesterol and heart disease, but love fried food...you are not going to be asked to leave that practice, even though you are not helping yourself. If the gov't decides that vaccines are mandatory, then I would want to reserve the right to homeschool and avoid crowded places...NOT that I think that is right, but rather because I should be able to at least offer that when refusing to comply with our ridiculous gov't mandates. I simply cannot believe that I live in a world where vaccines nearly destroyed my child and yet I wait with baited breath everyday while watching the news to come to the day that I am asked to bring my child in for more damage against my wishes. And if my child were old enough to understand, it would be against his wishes, too. Personally, I didn't take my infants out much. I work at a hospital and daily see parents taking their newborns into the hospital while they visit a patient and pass that baby around to other visitors in the room, and yes, even the sick patient. THAT is wreckless. THAT is something that could be addressed. My children did not get passed around as infants. Even when friends came to my home, I made them wash hands and cover clothes with a clean cloth to hold my baby...and not much of that.....Why is MRSA not a consderation for combat? The CDC should be beating their drum LOUDLY over preventing the spread of that disease...BUT, there is no money in that for Big Pharma....so...who cares. C-diff could easily kill a child, but yet from teh CDC on THAT protection...crickets.
Glass is empty, our world is screwed up, and I am so sick and tired of worrying about who wants to force more damage on my child/.
Posted by: kathleen | October 01, 2010 at 09:26 AM
Vaccination is a medical procedure. To force people to undergo a medical procedure, especially one that is of a "preventative" nature, is barbaric.
I would like Nurse Wishner et al to explain how countries such as Canada do not need to require that parents vaccinate their children in order to enroll them in camps, school, etc. ( I understand that a few provinces request certain vaccines for school enrollment but all three exemptions are available.) Where are the great pockets of disease in Canada because there are no vaccine mandates and parents are left to make decisions for their children's healthcare?
My dear American cousins, if you don't have autonomy over your own healthcare is it still fair to claim to be the freest country in the world?
Posted by: samaxtics | October 01, 2010 at 09:18 AM
well, at the very least, someone should alert the nurse that a suspected case of tetanus does not require a vaccine, but the tetanus immunoglobulin. How does one so ignorant of a vaccine's action in the body, and its limitations, become a spokesperson for vaccines?
Posted by: sarah | October 01, 2010 at 09:11 AM
There is no excuse for uninformed consent. They know what vaxes they are going to subject that child to before the next appt. They should inform the parents of what vaxes will be given at the next appt and give them the sheet on it so they can make their own informed choices and then run!! Run like hell!!
Posted by: Michelle | October 01, 2010 at 09:09 AM
And where are the studies that prove 'herd immunity' actually exists?
Posted by: Libby | October 01, 2010 at 09:09 AM
This woman makes me sick sick sick. This is not a committee of bioethics. This is a committee designed to operate outside of ethics and try to manufacture ways to do it at all levels while appearing to operate within ethical guidelines. They are trying to justify their involvement in forcing people to submit to medical treatment against their will and to take parental rights away from parents. All this after medical research projects, approved pharmaceuticals, and medical treatment facilities and the doctors and nurses working in them have time and time again caused illness and death in the very patients they are supposed to heal. Any person walking into any medical treatment situation would be crazy not to have any informed and skeptical approach to the potential end results based on medicine's very own history, which seems to be conveniently ignored in this meeting. Adults who question the safety and necessity of vaccines, I would posit, are not the selfish people this woman would have the ethicists believe, but rather the ultra responsible parents who realize the true risks and due to their true love for their children do not want to do anything that might cause permanent injury or chronic illness in their children. These are the parents and adults who have taken the time to research the best options for their families, because in the end no one else has to handle the potential ramifications. For these parents, unnecessary medical treatment is akin to stabbing their own child, or throwing them in front of traffic and hoping for the best. THAT is unethical. In a criminal court system a wife or husband is not even made to testify against a spouse, because ethically it is an impossible situation. Re: these "ethical" gods and goddesses sitting on this committee passing judgement on those below, it is terrifying that they don't recognize that forcing a parent to vaccinate a child against their own medical beliefs is infinently worse in all regards.
Posted by: Jenny | October 01, 2010 at 08:44 AM
I'll decide what my child gets injected with not the AAP or Nurse Wishner.
As a parent, I feel it is my civic responsibility to protect my child from harm and that trumps anyone elses agenda including whether or not to vaccinate. If that sounds selfish to Nurse Wishner, so be it.
I am not convinced vaccines are safe for my child. I would like the AAP to provide scientific proof the CDC vaccine schedule is safe, show me toxicological studies on the effect of the full vaccine load on a young child's mitochondria and be willing to provide full disclosure on the vaccines side effects to parents (informed consent).
I would also like the AAP to address, instead of ignoring, the autism crisis and provide a course of action on medical help for our children otherwise whatever the AAP says will fall on deaf ears such as they have been doing to autism parents.
Vaccination is, always has been and must continue to be a personal choice. Forced vaccination is unconstitional and treads on my civil liberties. Citing parental selfishness is an emotional reponse not one based on science.
Posted by: Sarah | October 01, 2010 at 08:21 AM
What is so amazing is that so many of us who read AOA and respond--DID vaccinate our children-they were the collateral damage so what is she talking about?
Two things that make me crazy one is the "we don't believe in science theory," which is such crap. They haven't even read our science. The other thing is the car accident and car seat comparison. Please someone tell them to use another analogy . This one is as used as a 1972 Ford and about as relevant to today's tragic autism numbers of 1 in 58 boys as the "twist" is today on the dance floor.
Posted by: Maurine Meleck | October 01, 2010 at 08:15 AM
I guess it is the argument from authority.
Posted by: John Stone | October 01, 2010 at 08:10 AM
And, of course, what's the point of discussing it with the crummy parents when they don't have a choice and are a slave population anyway? Waste of time, they should all lick my ....!
Posted by: Nurse ..... | October 01, 2010 at 08:07 AM
"If a parent came to him and said, I don’t feel comfortable putting my child in a car seat, they’re you know restrained back there. I really want to hold my child, can you show me how to hold my child safely? And the physician obviously you know can’t. There is no way to do it, to do that."
Science and common sense agree .. there is no such thing as a "one size fits all vaccine" .. there is no debate about that.
I suspect science and common sense would also agree there is no such thing as a "one size fits all car seat" .. each child being of different size .. each car interior of different design requiring a car seat that better fits in that particular make of auto.
So .. the analogy comparing mandatory car seats to mandatory vaccines is flawed .. because .. unlike vaccines .. PARENTS HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY, DUTY AND RESPONSIBILITY .. TO CHOOSE THE VERY BEST FITTING CAR SEAT FOR THEIR CHILDREN.
Posted by: Bob Moffitt | October 01, 2010 at 07:20 AM
Re: On the other hand, the people who are for the science and for vaccines have a different sense which is, in this case and this instance, I do trust that the government as represented by the CDC and FDA are in this case making a good decision and having confidence in the safety testing for children and for vaccines.
So you're only for the science if you're for vaccines?
That you "TRUST THE GOVERNMENT as represented by the CDC and FDA" reveals your flawed paradigm. What if their wrong? What if they've made a MASSIVE mistake resulting in millions of destroyed lives? What if they've ignored the real source of good health? Answer: Excellent nutrition, avoiding processed food, having good sanitation and hygene. (please read Nutrition and Physical Degeneration by Dr. Weston A. Price and Pottenger's Cat's by Dr. Francis M. Pottenger Jr.
Posted by: Adam M | October 01, 2010 at 06:30 AM
oh dear, i am to stupid
we'uns don't even understands that there's bein even such a thang as tiny little thangs that eat on us'en that we can't even sees 'em cause they are so little.
thank goodness we have really smart people look'in out for us'ens.
Posted by: Benedetta | October 01, 2010 at 06:19 AM