AAP Comes Out Against Non-Medical Vaccine Exemptions
NOTE: Just as cardiologists became the sales arm for cholesterol meds, pediatricians are coming out of the medicine cabinet as the final sales arm of the vaccination industry. How else could you explain a physicians' organization (really their union, see this post by Mark Blaxill from several years ago) choosing to remove choice for a medical product as a blanket rule for the vast majority of their patients? Vaccination carries risk, whether you believe that risk is infinitesimal or inevitable. The result of this stance - to remove all non-medical vaccination exemptions - will create a punitive environment for thinking pediatricians who choose to work with and listen to their parent base. The child whose sister is wracked with seizures and who has not had her first seizure will not be able to delay or turn down a vaccine that has seizure risk as a side effect because she won't qualify for a medical exemption. Like violent crime, proactive police prevention is not possible, you can only call the police - or in the case of vaccine injury the ER - after the injury. Removing non-medical vaccine exemptions is the moral equivalent of denying a woman a restraining order against a man who threatens violence. He might not have harmed her yet, but the risk is real. Why would the AAP take this stance except to protect the pharmaceutical industry? Feel free to share your thoughts. Kim
By Anne Dachel
As “VaxXed” tours the country and parents who would never have questioned vaccine mandates are getting educated, the corporate powers that control medicine and lawmakers are fighting back. SB277 in California ending parental choice was just the beginning.
Two things are happening right now regarding vaccinations and Google News has everyone reporting on it.
First of all, the AAP is now calling for the elimination of all non-medical exemptions to vaccination. This announcement coincides with a survey showing that the vast majority of pediatricians have parents who refuse to vaccinate. The report goes on to say that those parents who don’t want to vaccinate do so because they think vaccines are unnecessary—not because of fears over side effects. (Evidently they have to be forced to do what's good for their children.)
AAP News: Eliminate nonmedical immunization exemptions for school entry, says AAP
An AAP policy is calling for all states to use their public health authority to eliminate nonmedical exemptions from immunization requirements for school entry.
While the Academy has opposed nonmedical or “personal belief” exemptions in the past, this is the first policy statement on the issue. …
“I personally — as well as colleagues around the country — have received calls from parents whose children were immunocompromised … who were really concerned,” said Dr. Maldonado, vice chair of the AAP Committee on Infectious Diseases.
Still, some vaccine-refusing parents aggressively fight to loosen vaccine mandates, asserting religious or personal beliefs. Dr. Maldonado said in some schools in her home state of California, as many as 20% of children were not vaccinated.
It was a long road, but California eventually passed a law in 2015, which took effect in July, allowing only medical exemptions. “It’s the right thing to do,” she said. “We have to protect children if we have the means to do so.” …
Yet some vaccine opponents maintain that parents should be the ultimate decider of what vaccines, if any, their children receive. In response, the AAP policy suggests parents are expected to consider the best interest of their child in medical decision-making rather than their own social or emotional interests.
Meanwhile, every major news organization is reporting on parents who don’t recognize how important vaccines are.
89.3KPCC (Pasadena, CA): Pediatricians' group: End religious, philosophical vaccine exemptions
This year, California became just the third state to say that parents can not opt out of vaccinating their school-aged children for personal or religious reasons. Now the American Academy of Pediatrics is recommending that the rest of the country follow suit.
CBS News: More parents believe vaccines are unnecessary
Pediatricians are encountering more parents who refuse to have their children vaccinated, mainly because they don’t see the point of vaccines, a U.S. survey found.
In the survey, conducted in 2013, about 87 percent of pediatricians said they had encountered vaccine refusals, an increase from the 75 percent who reported refusals during the last survey from 2006.
The most common reason, provided by three out of every four parents: Vaccines are unnecessary because the diseases they prevent have been wiped out in the United States….
In 2006, about three of every four parents who refused vaccines said they were worried that vaccines could cause autism -- a theory that’s been debunked -- or produce serious side effects.
Fewer parents gave those as reasons in 2013, although many still cite concerns about safety. Concerns over a baby being too small to receive vaccines, or discomfort at having too many shots at once, have also diminished, the survey found.
Instead, most parents are refusing childhood vaccinations because they see vaccines as unnecessary, and that number increased by 10 percent between the two surveys.
Forbes: As More Parents Refuse Vaccines, More Doctors Dismiss Them -- With AAP's Blessing
The tides are shifting for parents who delay or refuse vaccines and the doctors who treat them: More pediatricians are seeing more vaccine refusals, and more pediatricians are pushing back. But now, those doctors pushing back have a bit more support from the American Academy of Pediatrics.
Los Angeles Times: Pediatricians urge states to get tough on parents who don’t want to vaccinate their kids
The nation’s pediatricians are pushing back against parents who resist having their children vaccinated against a broad range of dangerous diseases by calling on states to stop offering waivers to those with non-medical objections to the practice.
In a policy statement issued Monday, the American Academy of Pediatrics also said that if parents continue to refuse vaccinations despite exhaustive efforts to change their minds, it would be “acceptable” for doctors to exclude these families from their practices.
…many pediatricians have reached the end of their patience with parents who are unconvinced of vaccines’ life-saving benefits. In 2013, 12% of pediatricians routinely asked parents to find another physician if they weren’t willing to vaccinate their children. In 2006, only 6% routinely showed such parents the door, according to surveys by the academy.
Fox News: More parents are refusing vaccinations, but their reasons are changing
Pediatricians perceived that parents' reasons for delaying vaccines were different from reasons that parents refused vaccinations altogether. For example, in the new survey, parents seemed to most commonly delay vaccination because they were concerned about their children's discomfort, and out of the mistaken belief that vaccines may burden children's immune systems. In contrast, parents who refused to vaccinate their kids more commonly did so because they considered vaccines unnecessary, the researchers found.
This incredibly one-sided reporting is a foretaste of coming events. It sets the stage for a national law that eliminates any parental rights when it comes to vaccinations. (Who really wants to see hordes of parents descending on state capitols protesting laws removing personal/religious exemptions like they did on California with SB277? It would be so much easier if Washington takes over.)
News outlets everywhere are putting out the same story warning of negligence parents putting all our children at risk. Serious side effects are not talked about, neither is the protection against damage suits that all these pediatricians enjoy.
With the AAP now actively calling for the end of vaccine choice, Washington can respond by saying we should made it into a federal law. And this will only be the beginning. Once the exemptions are gone, full vaccine compliance can be made a prerequisite for welfare, Social Security, veterans’ benefits, unemployment — just about anything we sign up for.
I asked San Francisco physician, Dr. Ken Stoller, a former member of the AAP about this latest news. Here was his response:
“I tell people to stay as far away from pediatricians as possible. They are bought off vaccine pushers. They’ve never studied what is in vaccines or exactly what they do, nor do they receive training about vaccines, including how to recognize a vaccine reaction. They couldn't provide informed consent even if they wanted to, and are the soldiers of the medical cartel that brought us the epidemic of neuro-developmental disorders we have today.
“I revisit my resignation letter from the American Academy of Pediatrics, almost a decade ago now, in my new book, Incurable Me, which will be out in September.”
Anne Dachel is Media Editor for Age of Autism.
I did do a research paper once into the mandating of vaccines, and there is an old case (back in 1905) that went to the supreme court back when the small pox vaccine was mandatory or you were fined. A man and his child had a terrible reaction to a vaccine, so when a smallpox vaccine mandate came about in MA he refused and was fined - He took the matter to the supreme court, which ruled that every state makes their own laws regarding vaccine mandates-so I am not sure if it can go to the federal level. What is also interesting is this case was used to justify sterilization of people in mental institutes-pretty much the constitution does not protect you when it comes to mandatory vaccines if there is an epidemic, but if there is no epidemic then mandating them should be unconstitutional. Very slippery slope. Here is the case in it's entirety if anyone is interested. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1449224/
Posted by: jessica | September 20, 2016 at 03:52 PM
Very interesting to see that the responses to Offit's HPV vaccine defence are largely negative at Medscape. And this seems to be from the scientific community itself! He is burying himself.
Posted by: @Linda1 | September 01, 2016 at 12:07 PM
"When you know better, you can do better..."
I can't say what's best, but I think so many pediatricians (ob/gyns) could learn a lot and do a lot better just taking to heart the 48 minutes above.
Posted by: Jeannette Bishop | September 01, 2016 at 12:33 AM
"FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE: The authors have indicated they do not have a financial relationship relevant to this article to disclose.
FUNDING: No external funding.
POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST: The authors have indicated they have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose."
I guess they don't consider their relationship with Pharma to be a financial one, since they ARE now Pharma. They don't even know who they are. They're possessed. That's why Pharma funding isn't "external". The AAP needs an exorcism.
Under "Ethical Considerations":
"Parents and the government both have a responsibility in maintaining the health of children. There is a societal interest in protecting the health of the individual child and society as a whole. Although society generally believes that parents or guardians are best situated to understand their child's unique needs, including health care needs, and should participate in caring and thoughtful medical decision-making, this parental responsibility is not an absolute right....
Parents are expected to consider the best interest of their child in medical decision-making, focusing on their child's medical, emotional, and social needs, rather than their own social or emotional interests. In general, the state is empowered to overrule parental medical decision-making only when such decision-making or refusal of care places a child at significant risk of serious harm. Vaccination is unique within the realm of medical interventions because it not only provides a benefit to the patient who is vaccinated but also confers a significant public health benefit in terms of community immunity. Similarly, refusal of vaccination not only puts the individual child at risk but also increases societal risk by decreasing community immunity and adding to a population of unimmunized individuals within which vaccine-preventable disease may spread. Declining community immunity may be a significant risk for children and adults with medical contraindications to vaccination, who rely on community immunity for protection from vaccine-preventable diseases. Thus, nonmedical exemptions effectively disenfranchise people with medically indicated contraindications to vaccines from receiving equal protection under public health policy.
"Neither is there an undue burden of health risk to the individual in that immunization safety is scientifically well established."
Ghost authored by Dorit and Paul?
Posted by: Linda1 | August 31, 2016 at 12:00 PM
So we have a "scientific" authority that oversees the healthcare practices of our youth, the ever lauded, not so majority populated, ladies and gentlemen I give you the AAP! All hail Ceasar! Aaaannddd, from what I understand, we have a "scientific" authority that oversees everyone over the age of eighteen. To the same ladies and gentlemen may I present the AMA. Where exactly is the AMA on adult mandates?!! If "immunity" were the priority, why are we offering up just our youth? Shouldn't the AMA also be simultaneously demanding that all adults are fully "up to date" on their vaccines before they can get their health insurance, their social security, their tax returns? If my nine-year old daughter does not have access to an education next year, then Amy Goodman, Rachel Maddow, Sean Hannity, and so on, and so on should not be able to completely file their taxes without proof of "up to date" vaccination.
When Poseidon's kingdom is threatened he first sends out the grunts, let's bring the generals to the line. A sea change is afoot.
Posted by: annie | August 31, 2016 at 01:09 AM
A more accurate name for the AAP is the American Academy for the Police State.
Below is what I wrote to my email group about AAP's new stance regarding kicking out parents who are smart enough to refuse to vaccinate their children:
First, ask yourself WHY you are even taking your child to a pediatrician. If it's for a "well baby" visit, please know that for many of us, that was the last time our child was ever well again...they were poisoned/harmed/disabled/killed by one who took an oath to "First, do no harm."
Second, if you are dead set on taking your child to a pediatrician, versus to a holistic healer / wellness coach who does not rely on pharmaceutical drugs which cause harm in and of themselves and are made by companies whose driving force is profit, including their wealth over your child's health, then please call to inquire whether or not the pediatrician is a member of the AAP. If they are, ask yourself if you are willing to financially support and help keep in business someone who is a member of a group which espouses forced medicine, who financially supports this group via membership dues, and who might very well be a willing participant in and of FORCED MEDICINE...and forced experimental, known-to be-dangerous, potentially-fatal medicine at that..and who is willing to violate parental rights, Constitutional rights, religious freedom, medical choice freedom, the right to self-autonomy and bodily integrity, the Nuremberg Code, the more-recent UNESCO agreement, and their Hippocratic oath to "First, do no harm."
If you choose to give your business to such doctors, then please do not be shocked or surprised when you no longer have any say over your child's healthcare, or your own.
Pharma's gestapo is growing. Please do not give one red cent to support it.
Posted by: Laura Hayes | August 30, 2016 at 11:51 PM
They've been busy:
Letters to the Editor
Paul Offit Responds to News About HPV Vaccine 'Syndrome'
August 26, 2016
Posted by: Linda1 | August 30, 2016 at 09:56 PM
Here, the scientific consensus is clear: the risk - social and personal - of non-vaccination is higher.
Real science isn't done by consensus.
Posted by: Barry | August 30, 2016 at 09:34 PM
Upton Sinclair (author of "The Jungle") would have understood today's pediatricians and family nurse practitioners perfectly:
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it." (dangerous Chicago meat slaughterhouses)
"It is difficult to get an ambitious nurse practitioner to understand something when her salary depends on her not understanding it." (dangerous vaccines and autism consequences)
Always remember - most children in the U.S. are vaccinated by women. Female pediatricians (the majority), female nurse practitioners, and vast majority RNs, LPNs, and Medical Assistants.
They take orders well and shut out anything that might provoke cognitive dissonance. Mention the word "LAWYER" to them a lot.
Only thing nowadays that'll get their attention.
Posted by: Joe | August 30, 2016 at 09:14 PM
People think medical exemptions will be fair and easy to get. If your child has a reaction, of course you'd think that would qualify for exemption. Nothing could be further from the truth! Even after a bad reaction, you likely STILL won't qualify.
Our daughter was vaccine-injured in the 90's, so we no longer vaccinate. She is almost fully recovered and in college. She was required to go to a travel clinic for "vaccine advice" prior to her last study abroad trip. I went with her. There were several recommended vaccines they were really pushing on her. But when we weighed the risk vs benefits, it made no sense to get them. So she opted to skip them. We explained her history of adverse reactions to the nurse. The nurse said kids like my daughter "are the very reason why the rest of us must vaccinate. We need to protect them."
However, she then explained that while she sympathized with our situation, she could not write an official exemption for my daughter to take with her on her trip, because my daughter's previous reaction, while significant, "was not on the list of approved reactions to write an exemption for." It was absolutely insane.
If they remove all exemptions except medical, that's a crime against humanity. No one will be able to get one, and people will suffer tragic consequences while corrupt politicians and Big Pharma line their pockets. We are all expendable.
Posted by: AnneJ | August 30, 2016 at 08:40 PM
A pediatrician appointment should not feel like shopping for a used car -- with parents made uncomfortable by high pressure sales tactics to pay for questionable quality products not backed by any meaningful warranty.
The growing CDC push to vaccinate already healthy adult populations amounts to superfluous marketing. One upside is adverse reactions in adults are harder to explain away. Spouses, family and friends will be less easily duped by AMA/AAP prevarications than new parents ("he'll grow out of it"). And when large numbers of primary wage earners are suddenly transformed into recipients of tax-funded government benefits, the resultant economic shift will be more quantifiable -- and a source of outrage for vocal taxpayer watchdog groups.
We all must educate our relatives and friends about how medical trade unions operate. Most folks mentally defer to a folksy image of altruistic docs just sittin' around thinking up ways to improve our families' health. The reality: Their union dues fund attorneys who strong-arm our nation's legislative process via manipulated study data and fearmongering about diseases -- diseases whose impact pales in comparison to the societal havoc wreaked by myriad CDC vaccine failures.
Posted by: nhokkanen | August 30, 2016 at 05:31 PM
What a bunch of liars the media are. The primary reason for parents' unwillingness to accept vaccination is because of safety/toxicity, and not because of "their lack of necessity". There is good reason why parents would be hesitant to allow a pediatrician to increase their infants' body burden of aluminum by a factor of 100 during their first volley of immunizations. [fig 1]¹ One logical reason for this hesitancy is that infants, when injected with aluminum, tend to score lower on the Mental Development Index than infants not injected with aluminum.² Similar neurological disability can be observed following the IV administration of aluminum during hemodialysis³, and also in rodent studies.⁴
Posted by: Narad | August 30, 2016 at 05:27 PM
Vaccines are dispensed now like candy. "Do no harm." Ha! These people officially disgust me.
Posted by: Reader | August 30, 2016 at 05:22 PM
If they stopped vaccines today the damage is done the DNA has been corrupted.Saying that limit the damage to human pool, spread the word and don't vaccinate.
Strap a pair on APP..
Posted by: Angus Files | August 30, 2016 at 03:33 PM
Tom Clancy, Jr.,
" "Ronald Kostoff" trots out the lame, tired old metaphor-horse of the "Precautionary Principle". What's most grimly humorous about Mr. Kostoff is his unholy allegiance to the Demi-Gods of Medicine, and PhRMA, whose toxic poison pills KILL 10's of 1,000's of Americans per year. Then, has the hubristic ballsack to conflate a principle of precaution with the GLOBAL ECONOMY! See how he did that - if we're "anti-vaxxers", we must want to tank the global economy! No wonder America is so screwed up. Ya'll folks cain't think straight worth a toot! Gimme some o' dat GLYPHOSATE, I need to clear-cut my gut flora.... "
Your post is absolute nonsense. Whoever is paying you to post should ask for their money back!
Posted by: Ronald Kostoff | August 30, 2016 at 03:29 PM
I believe parents should drop most pediatricians as genocidal criminals. Starve them, as most are completely useless and ignorant. We should study how Amish people care for their children. They see a chosen doctor only when the child is sick and never when he is healthy. Their children go through several childhood diseases and survive, their mortality is much lower than average child mortality in the US.
Posted by: no-vac | August 30, 2016 at 03:20 PM
"Everything in life carries risks. The intelligent decision is one that balances opposing risks. Here, the scientific consensus is clear: the risk - social and personal - of non-vaccination is higher"
I agree with the concept that we have to weigh opposing risks. I don't know about 'balancing'. I would want the probable benefits to far outweigh the probable costs.
Unfortunately, to perform a credible cost-benefit analysis of vaccines, one has to know the costs and benefits. Most of the studies I have seen relating to 'benefits' of vaccination reflect suppression of symptoms of childhood diseases. The studies relating to 'costs' don't fully reflect even short-term adverse effects, and long-term effects are rarely tracked. Hell, even the vaccine Inserts state they don't test for carcinogenicity, genotoxicity, mutagenicity, and a whole host of other problems, depending on the vaccine. Would you drink a beer that stated on the label it was not tested for carcinogenicity et al? Why would you want to mandate a substance whose potential adverse effects are essentially unknown?
Posted by: Ronald Kostoff | August 30, 2016 at 03:11 PM
You ask about pediatricians' income from giving child vaccinations. JB Handley (and/or others) has cited statistics about pediatrician's incomes, and over 50% of their income is from child vaccination fees either paid by the parents or their health insurance. I've added up the child vax schedule and it comes to over $2,400 charged by the typical pediatrician. How much of that is "profit" to the ped I don't know.
When my generation went through childhood, there was not such a doctor called a "pediatrician" -- and any child health issues were addressed by the typical family doctor. Of course there were child specialists other than the family doc, but very rarely ever needed, if at all, by the typical family.
And, the only* vaccine any child got was the DPT (diphtheria, pertussis, tetanus) but given after several years, not during the first couple months of life. *with the exception of the smallpox shot for young children (NOT to babies) that was never needed and got dropped when its toxicities could not be ignored.
It seems to me "pediatricians" were basically created by the tsunami of vaccinations that began in the mid-1980's. Now, today in 2016, they are destroying our country and its families (with exceptions like the late, great Dr. Mayer Eisenstein and others cited here over the years; but these exceptions are a teeny percentage as being currently demonstrated.
Posted by: david m burd | August 30, 2016 at 02:47 PM
Please watch this short video interview with the parents of a vaccine-injured autistic child: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pi9PNKW7w3Q -- it is an excellent summary of where we are today with regard to the "science" of vaccination.
Posted by: Tim Lundeen | August 30, 2016 at 01:19 PM
@Maureen McDonnell,RN -- well said. Please add EMFs to your list.
Have you looked at reducing EMFs? There are some resources at Peter Sullivan's site, http://www.clearlightventures.com/#/autismemf/ -- they have a relatively easy protocol to reduce EMFs during sleep, if that helps then you can work on full remediation.
There is an excellent talk by Dr Pall at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yydZZanRJ50 You can follow along with the slides from https://www.dropbox.com/s/5e617kju8v9pkh1/MartinPall.pdf?dl=0
Quite compelling -- it's very clear from Pall's research that both EMFs and chemical toxins are major contributors to the autism epidemic.
Posted by: Tim Lundeen | August 30, 2016 at 01:16 PM
Check THIS out David Sandler:
Posted by: Linda1 | August 30, 2016 at 12:34 PM
Cia Parker; yes, those pro gravity conspiracy nuts who consistently use "anecdotes" about dropping books, and don't understand that scientific consensus and the anti gravity consortiums have already proved that gravity doesn't exist...lol
Tom Clancy Jr; I don't think you understood Ronald Kostoff's post at all. He is saying that for example vaccines may cause cancer, and that until we know for sure, we should not have to use them. The "precautionary principle" or "make sure it is safe first before using" I am assuming in your case your criticism of him was based on an innocent misunderstanding.
But on a broader level, I think I am starting to notice a pattern of people who don't post here much coming here and trying to criticize Ronald.
Ronald Kostoff; please keep posting; I enjoy your thoughts and opinions.
Posted by: Hera | August 30, 2016 at 11:30 AM
The AAP statement says:
"Stronger laws = parental incentives, less disease"
How's that for idiotic? You're not being forced. No. These laws will provide "incentive" for you to fall in line with the "herd".
May I suggest that we do as Polly Tommey and Dr. Stoller suggest and boycott these murderous idiots. At the very least, if one must use the services of a pediatrician, make sure that he or she is not an AAP member. I would make that a firm prerequisite and let them know that they must inform you if they join in the future so that you can fire them.
Maybe we should all call our local pediatricians and ask if they are AAP members and let them know that if they are, we will not accept their services. We need to boycott the AAP and anyone affiliated with them.
Posted by: Linda1 | August 30, 2016 at 11:23 AM
Frankly, the "correlation does not equal causation" credo has simply become an excuse to deny the damage being done.
If people die after shooting heroin, is that a coincidence? Is that a statistical artifact?
No. Heroin caused it.
Then we all want the heroin dealers locked up, don't we? Because they are responsible for distributing the drug.
Countless numbers of children suffer seizures within minutes of a vaccination, losing skills and regressing. Their lives forever changed.
The AAP is the distributor of these drugs. When more Americans figure this out, there will be severe consequences.
Posted by: Louis Conte | August 30, 2016 at 11:20 AM
I think its time that the people with Wikileaks and Anonymous are asked to help in this fight. Pharma and the political system clearly smell blood in the water. As SB277 has shown, once a law is enacted it is near impossible to overturn it. We need a Snowden moment to even have a chance of turning the tide before more laws are in place.
Posted by: Mouth | August 30, 2016 at 11:08 AM
We're in a post-Christian society now- no one has to answer for their actions. It's all just a power grab at tbis point. Protect yourself or you'll lose your health.
Posted by: Joe | August 30, 2016 at 11:08 AM
"We need to organize a separate health care system that denounces these criminals, the CDC and the FDA. We need our own hospitals. We need new scientific journals that are not infected with Pharma and government influence. We need to unify and declare independence from this corrupt, self-serving, murderous system. "
Yes, ma'am! Better yet, demolish completely this arcane, barbaric system and start anew, having learned the lessons from the past. This current system truly is a corrupted, self-serving murderous system.
Posted by: Bayareamom | August 30, 2016 at 10:56 AM
There have been thousands of impeccable scientific studies demonstrating how and why vaccines often cause severe damage or death. If you look at the "works cited" section at the end of any of Neil Z. Miller's books, you will find hundreds of them described in the text of the books. Also Dr. Mayer Eisenstein, Dr. Aviva Jill Romm, and Dr. Randall Neustaedter (and innumerable more) describe and provide citations to hundreds of scientific studies on the dangers of vaccines. And, of course, hundreds of thousands of parents have seen our children react to vaccines within a short time of receipt with symptoms of neurological, autoimmune, and/or gastrointestinal disease. And when such a large number observe the same thing in a similar time frame that it's hard to chalk that up to coincidence. Especially when it doesn't happen UNLESS a vaccine has been given. What would constitute rock-solid proof in your book? If you drop a book and it falls to the floor, most of us would consider that prima facie evidence of gravity. If there were a profitable market in denying gravity, an amazing number of people would be glad to deny it.
Posted by: ciaparker | August 30, 2016 at 10:51 AM
My hope is that SB277 will encourage parents to use doctors not affiliated with big insurance companies. Parents will have to pay out of pocket but it is so much cheaper than ruining your child's health in the first year of life. Unvaccinated children don't have as many doctor visits, and so that is probably why these pediatricians are so tyrannical. I think it's disgusting that young mothers are bullied by these pediatricians. Still, I know of more independent pediatricians who trust the wisdom of the mother, who in fact honor the mother, and who know as Dr. Wakefield says that before there were any doctors there were mothers. Humanity exists as a species because mothers have strong instincts for the survival of their babies. I detest these doctors that take away a mother's confidence. If a mother gets bullied she should just walk out the door and never go back. When a baby gets sick there is always urgent care.
Posted by: kapoore | August 30, 2016 at 10:43 AM
PS: To clarify my prior comment, it's 23,000 dead American babies by age one, every year. This is after 30 doses of vaccines by age 7 months (this includes being exposed in their mother's womb when she gets the triple DTaP shot and flu shot while pregnant, both shots strongly pushed by CDC & AAP.
And please, you can take my flu shot and enjoy the benefit of 25 micrograms of ethylmercury that is still in over 80% of flu shots for anybody over 3 years old and even still in some younger child flu-shot doses taken from multi-dose vials. Also some babies receive flu shots having a "trace" of ethylmercury (Thimerosal), but this trace (.3 micrograms) comprises 900 quadrillion mercury atoms, millions of mercury atoms for every cell in their infant body.
Linda1 documented how the U.S. has the highest - by far - child mortality rate of industrialized nations along with a much greater child immunization schedule. But, that's just counting merciful deaths, and not counting the 2 million U.S. babies every year (of 4 million births) developing permanent disabilities and chronic illness in lock-step with their Well-Baby shots. Just a coincidence? Yep.
Posted by: david m burd | August 30, 2016 at 10:28 AM
Linda 1: Additionally, science does not operate by consensus; consensus is antithetical to the scientific process, which, in its essence, is the evaluation of evidence. Good journalism at its best follows a somewhat similar process, as Dan has shown us with the polio series. Consensus functions, for better or worse, in politics, in families. Our medical system is a disaster, driven not by consensus, nor by any concern with public health, but by the almighty dollar and job security, and the ACA has only made it worse.
Posted by: Gary Ogden | August 30, 2016 at 10:20 AM
In case you are not familiar with it, here is one of the codes requirements.
The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision.
The principles established by this code for medical practice now have been extended into general codes of medical ethics.
A right to make their own medical decisions without coercion. Or mandates.
Personally, I'd like to see a header read something like:
AAP wants to violate Nuremburg Code. American Doctors are fine with this.
As a sideline, we know it is not about the health of the populace. If it was, then the AAP would be providing medical care and monitoring for these kids, if they were so worried about the fact that they could have caught an illness. Instead, they have also encouraged doctors to refuse to provide medical care to these children. A shameful day for all of us.
Posted by: Hera | August 30, 2016 at 10:18 AM
When I hear narrow minded, short sighted, shallow determinations fraught with self-righteousness like what this group has decided, or maybe that lady that who was talking to Dr. Wakefield after the VAXXED movie who was just so sure of herself, it really helps to think that people like this have been around forever, and if I cannot express what the problem is, maybe someone else already has.
Here are some ancient words that I think really hit the spot straight on about why vaccines are just not for everyone. To me, it even envelopes the horrible competition between which is worse, having a loved one die from cancer or having a loved one living with severe autism:
" Death is something I hate, but there is something I hate more than death. Hence, there are calamities I do not avoid. If it were the case that someone desired nothing more than life, than what means that could obtain life would that person not use? If it were the case that someone hated nothing more than death, then what would that person not do that would avoid calamity? From this we can see that there are means of obtaining life that one will not employ. From this we can also see that there are things that would avoid calamity that one will not do. Therefore, there are things one desires more than life and there are also things one hates more than death. It is not the case that only the worthy person has this heart. All humans have it. The worthy person simply never loses it."
"Human nature can become good, and it can become not good . . .The heart of compassion is benevolence. The heart of disdain is righteousness. The heart of respect is propriety. The heart of approval and disapproval is wisdom. Benevolence, righteousness, propriety, and wisdom are not welded to us externally. We inherently have them. It is simply that we do not reflect upon them. Hence, it is said, "Seek it and you will get it. Abandon it and you will lose it . . . (the unworthy) They are like this because of that by which their hearts are sunk and drowned."
fear and money?
Posted by: Jenny | August 30, 2016 at 10:17 AM
Here's a thought. Parents should actively seek out philosophical & religious exemption which is their right to do so. Parents should also ask for the assistance of Amnesty International to help them secure and maintain their human rights. Forced vaccination is a human right violation and according to the Nuremberg Code of Conduct. From lifeguru:
Prof. Holland: She reminding the audience, and the nations of the world, that
“In the aftermath of Nazi medical atrocities, the world affirmed the Nuremberg Code which stated that the ‘voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.’ The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights further enshrined this prohibition against involuntary experimentation in its 1966 text, stating “no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation.” Such a prohibition is now so universally recognized that some courts and scholars have pronounced the right to informed consent in experiments as a matter of customary international law. In other words, it applies everywhere, whether or not a country has specific laws on its books, as customary norms now prohibit slavery, genocide, torture and piracy.
But what about informed consent in the area of medical treatment, including preventive medical treatment? What about informed consent to vaccination? This is a controversial issue today in many countries, including the United States.
In 2005, the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, UNESCO, addressed this issue, adopting the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights on the consensus of 193 countries. The participating countries hoped this Declaration, like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights before it, would become a set of guiding principles. On the issue of consent, the Declaration states that any preventive…medical intervention is only to be carried out with the prior, free and informed consent of the person concerned, based on adequate information.
It further notes that the “sole interest of science or society” does not prevail.
Posted by: Danchi | August 30, 2016 at 10:15 AM
"Why would the AAP take this stance except to protect the pharmaceutical industry? Feel free to share your thoughts. Kim...."....<-from the article above/ There's another big reason, here, Kim: GUILD INTERESTS. The AAP is getting publicity for itself, and positioning itself as an "authority", for it's own, and it's members' interests. Vax is simply the vehicle-du-jour. What nobody is willing to discuss, is the issue of VACCINE-RESISTANT PATHOGENS. We've done a bang-up job creating multiple anti-biotic resistant bacterium, and even some anti-viral resistant viruses. Today, DEATH by hospital-acquired infection kills perhaps 100,000+ Americans per year! But the Vax/Anti-Vax controversy is so much more *sexy* to the main-stream, lame-stream media!.... 2 other commenters above give good examples of muddled thinking, faulty logic, and rational irrationality: "David Sandler" confuses abstract statistics with objective reality - the 2 are NOT identical! And 2nd, "Ronald Kostoff" trots out the lame, tired old metaphor-horse of the "Precautionary Principle". What's most grimly humorous about Mr. Kostoff is his unholy allegiance to the Demi-Gods of Medicine, and PhRMA, whose toxic poison pills KILL 10's of 1,000's of Americans per year. Then, has the hubristic ballsack to conflate a principle of precaution with the GLOBAL ECONOMY! See how he did that - if we're "anti-vaxxers", we must want to tank the global economy! No wonder America is so screwed up. Ya'll folks cain't think straight worth a toot! Gimme some o' dat GLYPHOSATE, I need to clear-cut my gut flora.... What a bunch of idiots we are....
Posted by: Tom Clancy, Jr., | August 30, 2016 at 10:01 AM
Your comment "There's also the statistical issue of causality vs correlation. Many items appear to be correlated ."
You might take some effort to educate yourself by looking up the "toxicity" of all the excipients (substances other than the particles of the targeted pathogen, such as attenuated fragments of measles, etc.) in every vaccine dose. Most of these excipients are very toxic if only inhaled, ingested, or only skin exposure. Yet vaccines are INJECTED into babies -- yeah, to you it's only correlation when millions of infants in their first year have seizures, die (per the CDC 23,000 babies die in the U.S. before by their first year), become autistic, and their parents see the bright sparkle in eyes of their beloved babies permanently fade away right after their "Well Baby" vaccine injections.
Do us all a favor: YOU take all the babies' shots (adjusted about 20 times more volume for your adult weight), and report back. Of course you may be paralyzed or dead --- but that's just coincidental, Right?
Posted by: david m burd | August 30, 2016 at 09:59 AM
the "intelligent decision" requires just that ; the right to make decisions. Regardless of what you think about the risks of vaccines, we have just had a prominent group of doctors advocate to take away the medical right to choose from patients.
There is no informed consent if you mandate a product.
Enforced medical procedures; what does the Nuremburg code say about that ?
But while we are talking about vaccines, you are familiar with the CDC's list of table injuries from vaccines? Not correlations, but acknowledged injuries?
I know the AAP was having financial problems. One wonders why this correlates with their sudden decision to disregard the basics of informed consent.
Posted by: Hera | August 30, 2016 at 09:54 AM
Could we get a hard number on the percent of pediatricians' annual income that comes from child wellness visits that include vaccinations? In this number you will find the reason for AAP's opposition to vaccination exemptions.
Posted by: Barry Stern | August 30, 2016 at 09:53 AM
54% of our kids suffer from one or more chronic illness, asthma rates have tripled in the past 30 years, obesity affects 17% of our kids, autism rates have skyrocketed, 1 in 7 school age children receive psychoactive drugs, & the cancer rate for kids under 13 has drastically increased. With all this & more to consider - what the hell is the AAP THINKING? As a pediatric RN for almost 40 years I have never been more disgusted by a profession that supposedly is the guardian of our children's health. We must connect the dots between pesticides, GMOs, glyphosate, the overuse of antibiotics, processed formula, food void of any nutrient value & add to that the barbaric act of injecting our newborns with formaldehyde, aluminum, polysorbate 80, aborted feral tissue etc - in order to get the full picture of why our kids are so sick. If we don't wake up & mobilize against this current act of medical tyrany ~ as a society we will be hard pressed to find any child unencumbered by these illnesses!
Posted by: Maureen McDonnell,RN | August 30, 2016 at 09:29 AM
First, the United States vaccine schedule does not follow scientific consensus in that this schedule is two and three times the size of that of other industrialized countries. No other country has a vaccine schedule as aggressive and no other industrialized country has an infant mortality rate as high.
Second, our cemeteries are full of people who followed scientific consensus.
Posted by: Linda1 | August 30, 2016 at 09:11 AM
It's not like we didn't see this coming. This is their response to a whistleblower who claims that their science is fraudulent and to irrefutable damning data produced by tens of thousands of parents, doctors and scientists. Push the drugs harder. These people are death camp guards - Nazis carrying out their mission. No, that is not hyperbole. Any person who pushes vaccines without mentioning the risks or who says there are none - any person who proceeds as though there are no injured, no dead, from this barbaric practice - are Holocaust deniers. Capital H. There is nothing here less horrific than the German Holocaust. NOTHING. What we have here is an army of psychopathic Mengeles closing in on our children, telling us that we shouldn't be afraid, denying that there are any dead bodies, claiming that there are no ovens, no gas chambers, demanding that we make appointments for our childrens' showers right now. No children will be excused unless they excuse them for reasons that are none of our business. It is our civic duty to comply.
Thank you to AOA, Dr. Wakefield, Del Bigtree, Polly Tommey and the whole Vaxxed team and all the many people across this country who are fighting these criminals and spreading the truth. We need to support these warriors and each other in any way we can.
We need to organize a separate health care system that denounces these criminals, the CDC and the FDA. We need our own hospitals. We need new scientific journals that are not infected with Pharma and government influence. We need to unify and declare independence from this corrupt, self-serving, murderous system.
Posted by: Linda1 | August 30, 2016 at 08:49 AM
Dear Ms. Dachel- thank you for your reporting in this.
I share your concern, but I suggest that this could present an opportunity. To respond with facts.
Journal Pediatrics has delved into the subject of vaccine hesitant parents before- here is 2011- not so long ago. In the conclusions, we read: "Overall, 77% of eligible respondents (AAP docs) reported that parents sometimes or frequently requested ACISs, and 61% were comfortable using an ACIS if requested by a parent."
The AAP will have to battle that 61% of it's own membership.
The New York Times 2015 reports: "When people hear about vaccine deniers — anti-vaxxers, to some — they most often think about parents who are refusing to vaccinate their children. But there’s another type of vaccine refusal, and it’s important that we not ignore that. Doctors sometimes promote the use of some vaccines with less enthusiasm than others. Sometimes, they don’t talk about them at all. This occurs most often with the human papillomavirus, or HPV, vaccine."
This media barrage reporting on the AAP's demand for a larger captive market coincides with the not reported news that the Number One documentary on Amazon.com is Vaxxed
and it was up to Number 2 in DVDs and Number 4 in All Movies and DVDs.
The CDC and AAP are running scared. Don't back down. The media enablers will soon be coming around. When the first media outlet breeches, there will be a mad scurry to cover the "breaking" story. The more horseshit you read in msm about the need for mandatory vaccines- be assured we are that much closer the the final breech in the wall.
AAP membership is less than a majority of pediatricians- I believe only about 15% of peds are AAP members. The AAP is pushing to create a larger captive market for a very profitable product which they happen to sell- and one for which they can not be sued.
Posted by: Ottoschnaut | August 30, 2016 at 07:35 AM
"Vaccination carries risk, whether you believe that risk is infinitesimal or inevitable. " Yes. Everything in life carries risks. The intelligent decision is one that balances opposing risks. Here, the scientific consensus is clear: the risk - social and personal - of non-vaccination is higher. There's also the statistical issue of causality vs correlation. Many items appear to be correlated - but these are like coin tosses - there is no true association until a causal link is established. A reason to investigate further. Again yes. But not to take action.
Posted by: David Sandler | August 30, 2016 at 07:07 AM
"With the AAP now actively calling for the end of vaccine choice, Washington can respond by saying we should made it into a federal law. And this will only be the beginning. Once the exemptions are gone, full vaccine compliance can be made a prerequisite for welfare, Social Security, veterans’ benefits, unemployment — just about anything we sign up for.
This should surprise no one that has taken the time and made the effort to read the stated goals of the CDC's National Adult Immunization Plan for the year 2020 .. which are as follows:
#1 to strengthen the adult immunization infrastructure
#2 improve access to adult vaccines
#3 increase community demand for adult immunizations
#4 foster innovation in adult vaccine development and vaccination related technologies.
This action by the AAP is just the beginning effort to remove all exemptions to Affordable Care Act recommended and approved vaccinations for ADULTS by the year 2020. Obviously .. once they succeed in denying PARENTS their right to "informed consent" regarding their child's vaccines .. they can then argue "why shouldn't ADULTS be required to receive vaccines as their CHILDREN are?" Especially now that the AFA can DENY health coverage to anyone seeking medical help for a "vaccine preventable disease" .. such as ... HEP A, HEP C, HEP B, Flu ... on and on .. the number of recommended vaccines for ADULTS between 21 and 75 is somewhere around 78 or so.
Trust me on this ... if they succeed in denying parents THEIR right to "informed consent" .. the next step down the road of medical tyranny will be denying ADULTS their right to "informed consent". I can almost hear our medical tyrants soothing words: "After all .. it would only be FAIR to the CHILDREN if ADULTS were also required to be vaccinated".
Remember their stated goal for ADULT VACCINATIONS IS THE YEAR 2020 ... only 3 years away.
Make no mistake .. FIRST they have come for our CHILDREN .. knowing full well that is just their FIRST step .. their SECOND step will be when THEY come for US.
Posted by: Bob Moffit | August 30, 2016 at 06:55 AM
The Abstract of the article includes the statement: "The AAP also supports medically indicated exemptions to specific immunizations as determined for each individual child."
Now, what is 'medically indicated'? Undoubtedly, the vaccine proponents would take the narrowest definition to include short-term adverse effects that have been demonstrated, especially among the immune-compromised. However, if one wants to protect their child against carcinogenicity, or other similar diseases for which the vaccine has not been tested (as stated on the vaccine Insert), or wants to protect their child against myriad other chronic diseases for which the requisite long-term testing has not been performed, then wouldn't 'medical indication' require having this data before accepting the vaccine? In other words, 'medical indication' shouldn't be limited to what has already been demonstrated, but should include what is reasonably possible, and has not yet been demonstrated.
That's another way of stating the Precautionary Principle. Of course, if we applied it across the board, no more vaccines and most drugs for decades (until long-term testing has been completed and safety demonstrated), no more wireless radiation for decades, no more glyphosate for decades, etc. The global economy would tank completely!
Posted by: Ronald Kostoff | August 30, 2016 at 06:11 AM