Dangerous Waters

Let me state right from the get-go: I AM NOT FOR MANDATORY GOVERNMENTAL CONTROL OF VACCINES. I absolutely believe the decision of whether to vaccinate or not, should be left to the parent. The parent is the one who knows their child best, their issues and their family needs. If we start governmental control over one parental issue, we risk being forced on all. I am adamantly opposed to mandatory vaccines.

That said, I maintain we are in very dangerous waters because we have allowed misinformation to be disseminated over and over and over without checking the content or source for validity.

RULINGS OF THE SUPREME COURT    

There is a meme (shown) that is now going around on Facebook. The meme is not accurate in any way. This is a classic example of the distortions being spread by the anti-vaccine movement. It is completely inaccurate in that it is misrepresenting the links that are presented in the meme.

The meme shows two government links, neither of which are active or "hot" which would be needed to enable us to go to the government site named. Therein lies the first deception. Instead, when we click on the meme we are taken to a page with a number of links that were most likely gathered by a private citizen. I will get to that in a minute. But first let me explain how this meme, on it's face, is inaccurate.

It first states, "Vaccines are safe and effective" and then the government website is listed as the source for that statement. "https://www.vaccines.gov/basics/safety/index.html". This is indeed a government website citing the safety of vaccines...overall. But we all know, as with every drug or medical procedure, there will be variance. Of course there sometimes will be allergic reactions! That is the nature of every. single. medicine. Or there could possibly be a reaction because the child was sick when the vaccine was given. This is up to the parent to monitor. We as parents cannot demand control of our child's health in one area, and then turn around and blame the doctor because our child was sick, or we didn't inform the doctor of an allergy when our child is given a vaccine. We must be a parent in every aspect of our child's health. This link is a good resource to have many questions answered about the nature of vaccines and their development. It does not claim that there will never be a problem with a vaccine, as this meme eludes.

Next the meme states: "All Vaccines are Unavoidably Unsafe." It lists another government website as the source - showing this link:  "https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-152.pdf"

The intent of the meme is to make it look like the government is contradicting itself. On one hand, the government is saying vaccines are safe and the next saying they are not. The intent of the message is clear - leaving us to believe the government contradicts itself and therefore is not trustworthy. However, this is an inaccurate correlation and upon complete context, the point is simply not valid.

This second link is a government document, but it is actually a link to the PDF showing the Supreme Court decision in 2012 to not hold vaccine manufactures accountable for problems that may, or may not, have occurred with a "design defect" of a vaccine. The decision was upheld by 6 Justices, with two dissenting (Sotomayor and Ginsburg) and one abstaining (Kagan). Justice Antonia Scalia, one of our most trusted Constitutionalist Justices, gave the opinion for the 6 confirming. Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg gave dissenting opinions.*

 

The statement "all vaccines are unavoidably unsafe" is not included in that Supreme Court Ruling, as claimed in the meme. I searched the document thoroughly with the "find tool" before reading the PDF in it's entirety. What is at issue is the relevancy of The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986. Discussed is what is known as "Comment K" which is in regard to "unavoidably unsafe products". That would include any product, not just vaccines. Comment K states:

"Unavoidably unsafe products. There are some products which, in the present state of human knowledge, are quite incapable of being made safe for their intended and ordinary use. These are especially common in the field of drugs. An outstanding example is the vaccine for the Pasteur treatment of rabies, which not uncommonly leads to very serious and damaging consequences when it is injected. Since the disease itself invariably leads to a dreadful death, both the marketing and use of the vaccine are fully justified, notwithstanding the unavoidable high degree of risk which they involve. Such a product, properly prepared, and accompanied by proper directions and warning, is not defective, nor is it unreasonably dangerous. The same is true of many other drugs, vaccines, and the like, many of which for this very reason cannot legally be sold except to physicians, or under the prescription of a physician. It is also true in particular of many new or experimental drugs as to which, because of lack of time and opportunity for sufficient medical experience, there can be no assurance of safety, or perhaps even of purity of ingredients, but such experience as there is justifies the marketing and use of the drug notwithstanding a medically recognizable risk. The seller of such products, again with the qualification that they are properly prepared and marketed, and proper warning is given, where the situation calls for it, is not to be held to strict liability for unfortunate consequences attending their use, merely because he has undertaken to supply the public with an apparently useful and desirable product, attended with a known but apparently reasonable risk."

To try to keep my article concise without losing my point, I won't go into the detailed arguments of the court. I have included the link, so that you are able to read the opinion for yourself, in its entirety. At question was whether this Act allows for compensation for "design defects" of a vaccine in the event of an injury or death to a child. It was ruled, as mentioned above, that the Act does not allow for that situation. But it in no way claims vaccines are unsafe, nor on the flipside, does it state that they are totally safe. A careful reading of the PDF will show that the Supreme Court commends the use of vaccines due to the success achieved through them. From the opinion:

"For the last 66 years, vaccines have been subject to the same federal premarket approval process as prescription drugs, and compensation for vaccine-related injuries has been left largely to the States.2  Under that regime, the elimination of communicable diseases through vaccination became “one of the greatest achievements” of public health in the 20th century.3 But in the 1970’s and 1980’s vaccines became, one might say, victims of their own success. They had been so effective in preventing infectious diseases that the public became much less alarmed at the threat of those diseases,4 and much more concerned with the risk of injury from the vaccines themselves.5"

Further, explanation is needed that the Supreme Court opinion explains:

This conclusion is supported by the fact that, although products-liability law establishes three grounds for liability—defective manufacture, inadequate directions or warnings, and defective design—the Act mentions only manufacture and warnings.  It thus seems that the Act’s failure to mention design-defect liability is “by deliberate choice, not inadvertence.” **

The opinion explains further, along with explanation of grammatical issues. The fact that "defective design" was not included in the NCVIA was an important factor in the court order. It is important to remember this is the Supreme Court deciding according to the rule of law something that could not be decided at the state level. It had nothing to do with deliberately trying to claim vaccines are all safe, nor that they are all unsafe as the meme suggests.

To put it simply, the quote "All Vaccines are Unavoidably Unsafe" is absolutely not in the document, not the findings of the court; nor was it even the purpose of the opinion. Nor was it anything ever stated by any government entity! But it is in fact a misrepresentation of that court decision. So why was it included in this meme? The meme is deceiving, because it makes no clarification of the Supreme Court Opinion which it claims is the source of that statement.

You can see where the link mentioned in the meme would take you and read the full context of the Supreme Court decision HERE.

* "SCALIA, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and KENNEDY, THOMAS, BREYER, and ALITO, JJ., joined.  BREYER, J., filed a concurring opinion. SOTOMAYOR, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which GINSBURG, J., joined.  KAGAN, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case."

DANGEROUS MISINFORMATION

Now, let me get to the second part of the deception promoted in this meme. The PDF document regarding the Supreme Court decision isn't even about the discussion of the safety of vaccines. It is about not holding the manufacturers accountable to lawsuits! Anti-vaxxers use this decision all the time in their literature, stating how horrific that ruling is; and they try to make the point that "you can't sue the drug manufacturers". But even in that, they are not using the facts of that decision correctly. It is simply an oft-repeated tagline or talking point that they use over and over and over. In truth, there are some allowances for compensation from the manufacturers of vaccines! Each dose of vaccine is taxed which intentionally allows funds for compensations in the event of injury. One can read about the 1986 law that made this provision at this link.

Getting back to the misleading meme. When one clicks on the meme, one is taken to a page filled with supposed factual sources to defend the opinion of the meme. You can go to that personal page HERE.

The first comment on this page states:

"This is all of the research I have collected on vaccinations. ALL OF THESE STUDIES ARE PUBLISHED, LEGITIMATE STUDIES ON PUBMED which is a government database."  

The first problem is, the page doesn't even reveal who gathered and listed the information. We don't know who "I" might be. How are we to know it is from anyone legitimate? Further, it is misleading, because it leads people to believe the research collected, is from a reputable source. By the nature of the meme, some will believe it is from the government because official sites are listed; but in reality, we do not even know who collected these links and "facts" when you are taken to this page.
 

Secondly, it misinforms us that they are all "LEGITIMATE STUDIES" - they are not. We know this because, it then lists a number of links that are outdated and have already been refuted - all easily researched if one has the time. Someone has obviously been collecting these links for some time, but apparently not following updated facts - merely holding on to what this person wants to believe and holding on to everything that could be gathered.

 

The page initially focuses on the Vaccine/Autism connection, listing a number of links but ignoring all studies that have proven that Autism is not linked to vaccines. I have written about the autism link HERE with some cited sources. The articles on this unclaimed page are old/outdated and refuted. But shown as fact by erroneously using the PUBMED database.

PUBMED is simply a free search engine that mysteriously appeared some years ago. It links to articles written about a topic whether it is proven factual or not. By using it here to link to these "findings", the author of this page makes the links presented look official. They are not.

From Wikipedia - (Neither is this official, but it gives a general definition.)

"PubMed focuses on clinical and biomedical literature. Web of Science is interdisciplinary and includes the "best" journals of each subject area. ... Google Scholar offers an author, date or journal name search, but its accuracy varies greatly. Results can be sorted by date, but not necessarily reliably. Sep 25, 2018"                                                                 

"PubMed is a free search engine accessing primarily the MEDLINE database of references and abstracts on life sciences and biomedical topics. The United States National Library of Medicine (NLM) at the National Institutes of Health maintains the database as part of the Entrez system of information retrieval."

A further explanation From National Center for Biotechnology Information - NCBI:

"Since its mysterious appearance in Google search results, PubMed Health has been a notable topic among medical librarians and the blogging community. In August 2010, the MidContinental Region News [1] announced the new PubMed Health resource from the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI), which was quickly followed by a post from The Krafty Librarian [2]; however, no official announcement was made about this new resource. Then, PubMed Health appeared as the number one Google search result for medications starting in August 2010 and made a bigger appearance in February 2011 [3], creating several questions among the blogging community. With still no official announcement, the blogging community was left to fill in the gaps [4]. The sudden arrival of this new resource created a flurry of questions, followed by uncertainty until finally NCBI tweeted [5] about the new PubMed Health on March 2, 2011, with a link to the newly released home page."*

Again, these links on the page of the creator of the meme, all appear to be attempts the author made in order to look "official" without really being official. It is similar to what can also happen through the VAERS website - an official government site. I explained how that can happen when I wrote about the oft quoted VAERS. You can read that HERE.
 

Finally, the page that is linked from the meme, lists doctor after doctor that supposedly is factually accurate in their opinions. But the truth is, they simply are not any more correct then any doctor offering differing opinions on any number of medical issues. They don't call it "practicing medicine" for nothing! There are many things that are not definitive and not agreed upon in the medical community and by any number of physicians. Medicine is ever-changing and continually perfecting.

 

I have written before about some of those doctors and why they cannot simply be considered as accurate. You can read my findings HERE.

 

I didn't go to every link the unknown author listed. There are so many, I simply do not have the time. But from a quick peruse, I recognized many of them as the traditional talking points from the anti-vaccine movement. Many of them are from opinion blogs; assumed stories from a heartbroken parent desperate for answers, or previously refuted articles. Maybe some are legitimate stories due to a tainted vaccine or some unforeseen event such as a sick child when given the vaccine, and that is indeed heart-breaking. But we cannot throw the baby out with the bath-water and continue to present stories as fact when nothing has been definitively proven. Sadly, people are going to read this page like every single article presented there is proven fact. That simply is not so and it is a dangerous assumption. But even more than that, it just isn't right! It is time to stand for accuracy in all of our information.

 

Now, I do not want to seem like I am saying there are no valid points that the anti-vaxxers make. Of course there are some. I have always maintained that Gardasil is not a necessary vaccine. Hepatitis B for babies just isn't necessary. Myself, I wouldn't allow either of those vaccines for my child. We absolutely MUST use COMMON SENSE! But neither can we allow this harmful, and I will even say sometimes radical, misinformation to be propagated. It is dangerous to do that. Because that is exactly how we will eventually lose our freedoms. One never wins the challenge by saying things that are untrue.

There is one additional point I would like to cover before winding things up on this. It is something I continue to read from those who chose not to vaccinate. There is so much fear that comes with this inaccurate assertion, that I feel it is important to mention.
 

The anti-vaxxers continually report how there are 200 vaccines in the system waiting to be forced upon our children. I am afraid this simply isn't so! Rather, these are only vaccines being studied and researched. There are multiple medicines constantly being developed and researched to see if they will be effective in aiding the medical field. That doesn't mean they are planned to be definitively used. They are simply being researched to see if they are worthy of development! This is likewise the case with the vaccines being studied. Yet they use this fact to make it look like these are all vaccines that will be inflicted upon our children. That simply is NOT the case. It is actually a good thing products are being studied like this. The more study the better! As that will ensure safety. But it doesn't mean they will be used. Some being studied are even for the same malady - simply to see what will work best. It is merely research to find the best solution for the problem. That the 200 vaccines are going to be "added to the schedule" is fear-mongering and those doing it know the truth full-well. One can tell that fact, by their careful wording of how they present this inaccurate information in their literature. They are attempting to make you believe it as already proven without stating it outright as an authoritative fact. This, to avoid law suits, or being called out for their misinformation! We must think critically about what we are fed, and not be so willing to believe everything we are told.

 

**Emphasis in bold mine.

MY PURPOSE

There is talk now of forcing vaccines upon parents. Washington State is one, among others, considering legislation at this time to make vaccines mandatory.

 

Facebook and other media are rightfully concerned about the inaccurate information being spread throughout social media, but their solution is going to be dangerous. They want to limit all dissemination of information regarding vaccines. This is a violation of free speech. I have said this over and over. If we do not seek accurate facts and are lazy about our research, just believing everything we read, we are going to lose our freedom to decide for ourselves. And that is because the government is going to win out with their more factually superior, intellectual and scientific facts and as a more trusted source. This will lead us into being forced into mandatory vaccines. It will come with the support of the majority of citizens behind it...simply due to factual science and truth. Most people still want proven facts, not firmly held beliefs or opinions.
 

And again, linked here is the Supreme Court PDF. Please read truth and do not let anyone trick you, whether it be purposefully, or out of ignorance. I cannot even begin to guess what is behind this person's meme and subsequent page. And I do not want to guess. Perhaps it is sincere ignorance, perhaps it is trickery. It just simply is not in me, to let untruths stand unchallenged. I am only trying to throw out a small life preserver as we traverse these dangerous and deepening waters.