AMA Takes Tough Stance in favor of (near) 100 percent Vaccinations

Rejecting parts of its own internal advisory committees’ recommendations, delegates to the American Medical Association’s annual House of Delegates (HOD) meeting in Chicago, IL today vowed to try to get states to reject allowing parents’ philosophical or religious beliefs as grounds for not having their children vaccinated.
In a resolution passed today, the delegates endorsed launching an AMA campaign to get states to “eliminate philosophical and religious exemptions from state immunization requirements,” and to require that medical reasons are the only grounds for refusal.


13 responses to “AMA Takes Tough Stance in favor of (near) 100 percent Vaccinations

  1. They are following the Australian example. There has been an increase in the cases of whooping cough over here. There are very few who object on religious grounds, and we have one group who want to pretend they are a church to try and take advantage of the regulations.

    The government has gotten tough by refusing these people some of their benefits leading to a rise in requests for vaccinations.

    The argument that measles vaccination causes autism has been discredited. With regard to the measles vaccine I am of two minds about it because I had measles when I was about 6 years old (I was in the very first grade at school called Preparatory Class or Preps.) I was one of the lucky ones because I did not get any of the complications…. except of course I have a mild case of RA!!

    I believe that every child should receive those vaccinations because they reduce the risk of some very serioius complications, especially polio. and whooping cough.

    However, with regard to the flu vaccination, I am open minded and think that it should remain non-compulsory. Last year and this year I have had the flu vaccinination because I am in a class where I am vulnerable for immune deficiency. Like a few other people I have had some minor symptoms this year since getting the vaccine… it is like getting a stomach flu for me. Others have complained about other side effects.

    The arguments used by the anti-vaccine crowd seem to be erroneous at best.

  2. Hey Aussie! You say, “I believe that every child should receive those vaccinations because they reduce the risk of some very serioius complications, especially polio. and whooping cough.”

    I understand that is what you believe — and you may very well be correct. On the other hand, there are those who disagree with you and feel that the dangers outweigh the benefits. Still, there is a very important difference between their opinion and yours, and that difference is the matter of coercion. The anti-vaxxers (at least as far as I have every heard) are more than willing to allow you the unimpeded right to receive vaccinations. Correct me if I am wrong, but you want to use force and mandate that they follow your opinion. I understand that you think it would ultimately benefit them, but coercion is a dangerous and very often unethical path. Maybe it starts with removal of governmental services — but even in that case, you are requiring that people pay taxes to support services that they are then denied the benefit of. And what then? Fines for non-compliance? And if they do not obey? Arrest for non-compliance? Jail for non-compliance? Removal of their children for non-compliance? Remember that the use of the force of law is NOT sweet persuasion — it is force, and history shows that the law will be backed by any measure (including murder) deemed needed to enforce even something as simple as traffic violations.

    I would kindly ask that you reconsider the uncertainties that still exist, and consider even the possibility that you may be mistaken or that the drug safety researchers have skewed their results. (Yes, it happens.) Are the dangers so low and the benefits so universal that we can justify forcing people to act against their own judgement and their own conscience? Are you sure?

    Persuasion is one thing, but the force of law is something very different.

    • Great comment, Jason. You are 100% correct and the AMA, as usual, is 100% wrong. That is one reason why they have become a marginal organization with only a small percentage of doctors signing up. Maybe the press will someday get it that the AMA doesn’t speak for the medical profession, but I won’t hold my breath waiting for that. Personally I favor most childhood vaccinations but am 100% against coercion. I would add that the issue is often misrepresented as a public health matter. It should be strictly a private health decision. If vaccinations are as effective as the advocates of coercion seem to imply then my kid who is vaccinated has nothing to fear from those who are not.

      • luisadownunder

        That’s really silly ernest.
        Immunizations are delivered in phases. If a child is within a phase, and not completely finished the delivery of all vaccine, they are in danger of contracting the disease they are being immunized for, from someone not immunized.

        It is a public health matter. Pure and simple.

        Why bother immunizing at all if you think there is nothing to fear?

        • ernestncurtis

          Actually it is not silly at all. I take violations of individual freedom very seriously. What is silly is asking a question like “Why bother immunizing at all if you think there is nothing to fear?” My statement was that my vaccinated kid would be protected from contagion by the unvaccinated if the vaccination was as effective as its advocates claim. As you point out, there are timing issues as well as other factors that insure the process will never confer complete protection. There is definitely room for debate about the relative benefits vs. risks—particularly for those vaccines for common childhood diseases with extremely low rates of morbidity and mortality. What gives you or some government bureaucrat the right to coerce a parent who is dead set against it?

          • luisadownunder

            It’s not as if an un-immunized child has a stamp on their forehead hence allowing you the choice to avoid them or otherwise.

            However, the proof (as you seem to so want), is in the fact that children no longer die because of all the usual childhood diseases that afflicted all children prior to the onset of immunizations.

            The rest of your argument is semantics and tautology.

            • ernestncurtis

              No question in my mind that immuniztion has been a positive advance. But most children no longer die from common childhood illnesses for the same reasons that a large percentage of women no longer die in childbirth—antibiotics and other improvements in sanitation and medical care. What you don’t seem to understand is that the argument is not about the efficacy of immunization; it is about the legitimacy of using coercion to override the rights of individuals to make their own decisions and choices.

    • luisadownunder

      No, no jail ( or goal, as it’s spelt in the Colonies), but certain benefits, such as Child Care Rebates and dependent benefits, are withdrawn or reduced.

      There are no uncertainties and the drug safety researchers have not skewed their results.

      I don’t know how old your are but I am old enough to remember children in calipers because of polio.

      I also distinctly remember being told that this or that child would not be returning to school because they had become extremely ill. I would say their long absence indicated they were either severely incapacitated for life or worse, dead.

      These aren’t stories.

      My youngest contracted whooping cough during his immunization stage and the bout was extremely severe. The fact that I know who he most probably contracted it from, makes my blood boil to this day. I could have lost him, all because someone thinks like you.

      • Hey luisadownunder! You say, “There are no uncertainties and the drug safety researchers have not skewed their results.”

        Amazing… The science is settled, huh? Where have I heard that before?

        Yes, I remember polio — and measles, and mumps and chicken pox. I did not, however, become convinced that Doctors and medical researchers had become so God-like that even uncertainty and human failings had been eliminated from their field.

  3. “The fact that I know who he most probably contracted it from….”

    “Probably” is not fact, luisa. “Witch hunt” sounds more appropriate to what you are talking about. Forced vaccinations are just another step towards totalitarian rule. And your “stories” are just that: they are not even remotely any “proof” that vaccinations are responsible for the drop in childhood illnesses. Just as many attribute this to the extreme advances made in sanitation and better childhood nutrition that ALSO occurred during this same time frame.

    We (myself and my wife) chose after some basic research to not have any of our three children vaccinated for anything at all. This decision was made a lot easier by also having them all birthed at home. Zero “adverse consequences” from these decisions of ours that we made out of our concerns about the adverse effects of vaccinations (and expensive hospitalization for the natural act of childbirth which is NOT a disease which is what hospitals are for). But I’d never dream of forcing these choices on others as that’s NONE OF MY BUSINESS!

    • luisadownunder

      I know EXACTLY who he contracted it from.
      There. Now I’ve said it.
      I had been trying not to say that for years as my blood still boils.

  4. Coach Springer

    Collective health is quite the slippery slope, isn’t it? Very much like environmental issues. As Aussie started to pointed out, even some of the “vaccines” are about as effective as controlling “premature” death and global temperature through particulate matter and CO2. Given the rise of junkscience and its marriage to totalitarian government, I’d tend to err on the side of freedom when there is any question about the need to protect me from you.

  5. If the government issued (and enforced!!!) a law or regulation that no immigrants could enter the US unless they proved they had all the mandated vaccinations, then I would believe that the government controllers:
    (a) actually believed this is a true danger and
    (b) that our government truly desires to protect its citizens from dangerous diseases.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s