Having problems with message search?
American Academy of Pediatrics Abuses Informed Consent Ethics and Threatens Parents
In March the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) was requested by six organizations (Autism One, Generation Rescue, National Autism Association, SafeMinds, Schafer Autism Report and Unlocking Autism) to uphold their statements of 1999 and 2000 for the removal of mercury from vaccines inclusive of influenza vaccine and to support the Vaccine Safety and Public Confidence Assurance Act of 2007, the Comprehensive Comparative Study of Vaccinated and Unvaccinated Populations Act of 2007 and toxicity testing of ethylmercury (from vaccines) according to modern standards. Click here to read the letter: http://www.safeminds.org/pressroom/aap-principle-request.pdf
This scenario is the backdrop for the AAP's latest insult to parents' right to discuss with their pediatricians any concern, or modification to vaccines administered to their child(ren). Julie Deardorff of the Chicago Tribune recently criticized the AAP for their abusive tactics to coerce parents into a one-size-fits-all immunization schedule under the threat of being kicked out of their doctor's practice. The AAP's response to Ms. Deardorff (below) and to the autism community's request (hyperlink response to us) that vaccines are safer today than ever before, and stating that the study of the vaccinated vs. unvaccinated populations for total health outcomes as unethical, is at odds with purporting to protect our children.
The CDC's Director, Dr. Gerberding, has clearly stated that a study of this type should and could be done. Generation Rescue was able to quickly identify through their survey an unvaccinated population with only $200,000 and a few months, while CDC has an immense database of over 5 million individual medical records and a budget of $8 billion. This begs a few obvious questions, why hasn't the CDC commissioned a study that would cost so little in both time and money and does the AAP view the CDC's statements on conducting such a study as unethical?
As parent Lin Wessels posted on the Chicago Tribune's website, founding father Thomas Jefferson would cringe at these actions. Jefferson's stated "Reason and free enquiry are the only effectual agents against error. Was the government to prescribe to us our medicine and diet, our bodies would be in such keeping as our souls are now." It is as true today as it was in 1784 and was certainly echoed recently by Dr. Bernadine Healy, former NIH Director, who has stated that the autism-vaccine link science should be pursued without fear of where it will lead. These actions call into question bioethics, informed consent and the right to refuse treatment in light of confirmed compensated vaccine induced autism cases and an untested vaccine schedule.
The pursuit of defeating infectious disease is desirable; however, it cannot be at the cost of sound science and the mandate to prove safety and minimal adverse long-term health outcomes. Vaccines, like any drug, contain additives, are potent and have long lasting effects and should be used judiciously against major diseases. With the expansion of the vaccine schedule to include chicken pox vaccine for children and Hep B for babies, it is clear that the schedule is no longer about major disease or reason. The reality is that no government agency, or organization can truthfully state that the immunization schedule is safe to administer, because the science has not been conducted.
It is very reasonable to question its safety and allow parents to pursue and decide their best course of action based on the information that is available. The AAP's tyrannical stance violates "do no harm" and informed consent ethics and serves only to increase public distrust, while promoting a widening of the existing and acknowledged gap in vaccine safety research.
==================
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0709vplettersbriefs0jul09,0,7261089.story
New vaccines are preventing more diseases
The American Academy of Pediatrics is disappointed that a premier newspaper like the Chicago Tribune would publish such a one-sided, fear-mongering report as columnist Julie Deardorff's June 27 blog post, "The AAP gets tough on vaccine dissenters."
Deardorff parrots the misleading pseudoscience of the most strident anti-vaccine Web sites and the scare tactics of celebrity-funded ad campaigns. In quoting the number of vaccines children receive today compared to 1982, Deardorff takes the extra step to write the numbers in boldfaced type, suggesting she believes these numbers alone should give parents pause about immunizing their children.
The fact is, today's vaccines are safer than any in history. Current vaccines are more refined than older versions, so children receive fewer immune-challenging antigens overall even though they get a larger number of immunizations.
It's true that doctors recommend more vaccines for children today than they did two decades ago. The number of vaccines has increased because new vaccines have been developed to prevent more diseases. That is a good thing. That means children will not have to suffer devastating diseases such as Hib meningitis, which once killed 600 children a year and left thousands more with deafness, seizures and mental retardation. The vaccine available today has wiped out 98 percent of these cases.
Deardorff is less than fair in her depiction of how the American Academy of Pediatrics is responding to parents with questions about vaccines. Pediatricians spend many hours in their day counseling parents about the safety and importance of immunization and answering their specific questions. Pediatricians want to provide parents with accurate information; our job is made all the harder by misleading reports like this one.
—Renee R. Jenkins, MD
President, American Academy of Pediatrics
Offline 
Send Email