Thank you for publishing an article that discusses the crazy v-word (“Right to choose,” May 30). Vaccine—a word that has become a stigma to discuss, only whispered behind closed doors, muffled behind coffee cup conversations, and texted in code. And don’t even think about sharing the fact that your child has a medical exemption to your neighbor. I mean, what would they think? Would child protective services show up at your door? I am serious when I say this.
My child was vaccinated as we were told. He got seizures as a result—but we should take more for the team, right? What if, when my friends and family heard of my son’s reaction, they actually thought twice before blindly accepting their next shot at the trusted doctor’s office? They haven’t, which should really make more of us frown and wonder why. Not that they have to stop vaccinating; that is their choice. But why are we afraid to ask questions about and do our own research on the true risks of medical procedures (insert v-word here) so that we may make informed decisions?
Thank you New Times for not being afraid. For doing your job and for allowing more information to be published that will spark conversation and allow folks to make their own choices so that freedom of choice will stay alive and well. A freedom that my Marine grandfather fought for, my Marine cousins are fighting for, my Coast Guard husband is working for, and friends have died for.
Jami
SLO
This article appears in Food & Drink.
If the point of this letter was to reinforce the stereotype of the hysterical, illogical, anti-vax mom, you nailed it.
Ian,
Since when was asking for open discussion about a controversial topic hysterical? How is defending a medical need for choice rather than mandates (that a physician says could further damage a child) illogical? If you read the article you would know that she started out vaccinating her child, that would make her and ex-vaxer rather than an anti-Vaxer. If the point of your comment was to reinforce the stereotype that pharma has worked so hard to create, you nailed it!
Sara, if there are facts to talk about, they need to be stated. Without any factual info, how could someone who is not intimately involved with the situation ever form a reasoned opinion? This letter does nothing to promote an “open” discussion. Your comment actually does much better job. When she hints at keeping the fact the the child is not vaccinated a secret, that’s the opposite of “open” (not to mention dangerous).
Just to be clear, I am all for medical exemptions (when they are issued by a doctor who has actually examined the patient). My point is that if you want to promote awareness of an issue, you gotta actually tell people about the issue, not just emotions.
Also, I admit that my first comment was pretty harsh. I did not intend to insult, I meant to point out that that the letter did not convey the intended message. Sorry.
Ian
I find it interesting that you said its dangerous to keep vaccination status private. Do you feel the same way about HIV, Hep B status for children in a classroom? These kids are allowed to be in school with anonymity. Perhaps that needs to change to protect the other children who may get infected? … BTW I really appreciate your other comments. Thanks!
Ian
I find it interesting that you said its dangerous to keep vaccination status private. Do you feel the same way about HIV, Hep B status for children in a classroom? These kids are allowed to be in school with anonymity. Perhaps that needs to change to protect the other children who may get infected? … BTW I really appreciate your other comments. Thanks!
Ian,
Thank you for elaborating on your original comment. I am more than willing to provide you with factual info to aid in forming a reasoned opinion.
You stated that you were all for medical exemptions when they are issued by a doctor that has actually examined the patient. Those are the exact exemptions we are currently fighting to protect. We are working hard to keep the government out of the doctor-patient relationship. Senator Pan is pushing a bill through that will remove a doctors (that has actually examined a child) ability to issue a medical exemption. SB276 charges the CA Dep of Public Health to be the sole issuer of Medical exemptions. You might be interested to know that they will not be examining the child nor are they doctors.
Another relevant fact for your consideration is that under current law a doctor may write a medical exemption that is based on the adverse reactions that are listed by the FDA on the vaccine product inserts. Under SB276 the CA Public Health department will not recognize the FDAs adverse reactions as reasonable cause to warrant an exemption. They will only be issuing exemptions inline with the CDC. The CDC does not recognize the FDAs adverse reactions as just cause for an exemption. So if you kid gets paralyzed by a vaccine (a listed FDA reaction) and their doctor says that it would put their health at further risk to continue vaccinating and writes them an exemption, the Public Health Dep will be required to over ride the doctor and void the exemption. Currently only .7% of students in CA have medical exemptions. The current vaccine mandates were designed to protect those that should not be vaccinated. SB276 is no longer interested in protecting those medical fragile children rather it is sacrificing them to gain access to possible fraudulent doctors. Doesnt seem logical does it?
People are leaving the country because of the insane vaccination requirements.