Zerowedgie: Association Of American Physicians & Surgeons [1943] "Strongly Opposes" Mandatory Vaccines

Zenaan Harkness zen at
Fri Mar 8 23:38:41 PST 2019

A high-level org suggesting individual liberty, autonomy, and
parental choice about child-rearing. Very well written, fact backed
'public' letter by the way... in My Extremely High Opinion of course

The Association Of American Physicians & Surgeons (AAPS)
"Strongly Opposes" Mandatory Vaccines

  To:  Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee, House Energy and
  Commerce Committee

  Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions

  Re: Statement federal vaccine mandates

  Feb. 26, 2019

  The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS)
  strongly opposes federal interference in medical decisions,
  including mandated vaccines. After being fully informed of the
  risks and benefits of a medical procedure, patients have the
  right to reject or accept that procedure. The regulation of
  medical practice is a state function, not a federal one.
  Governmental preemption of patients’ or parents’ decisions about
  accepting drugs or other medical interventions is a serious
  intrusion into individual liberty, autonomy, and parental
  decisions about child-rearing.

  A public health threat is the rationale for the policy on
  mandatory vaccines. But how much of a threat is required to
  justify forcing people to accept government-imposed risks?
  Regulators may intervene to protect the public against a
  one-in-one million risk of a threat such as cancer from an
  involuntary exposure to a toxin, or-one-in 100,000 risk from a
  voluntary (e.g. occupational) exposure.  What is the risk of
  death, cancer, or crippling complication from a vaccine? There
  are no rigorous safety studies of sufficient power to rule out a
  much lower risk of complications, even one in 10,000, for
  vaccines. Such studies would require an adequate number of
  subjects, a long duration (years, not days), an unvaccinated
  control group (“placebo” must be truly inactive such as saline,
  not the adjuvant or everything-but-the-intended-antigen), and
  consideration of all adverse health events (including
  neurodevelopment disorders).

  Vaccines are necessarily risky, as recognized by the U.S. Supreme
  Court and by Congress. The Vaccine Injury Compensation Program
  has paid some $4 billion in damages, and high hurdles must be
  surmounted to collect compensation. The damage may be so
  devastating that most people would prefer restored function to a
  multimillion-dollar damage award.

  The smallpox vaccine is so dangerous that you can’t get it now,
  despite the weaponization of smallpox. Rabies vaccine is given
  only after a suspected exposure or to high-risk persons such as
  veterinarians. The whole-cell pertussis vaccine was withdrawn
  from the U.S. market, a decade later than from the Japanese
  market, because of reports of severe permanent brain damage. The
  acellular vaccine that replaced it is evidently safer, though
  somewhat less effective.

  The risk: benefit ratio varies with the frequency and severity of
  disease, vaccine safety, and individual patient factors. These
  must be evaluated by patient and physician, not imposed by a
  government agency.

  Measles is the much-publicized threat used to push for mandates,
  and is probably the worst threat among the vaccine-preventable
  illnesses because it is so highly contagious. There are
  occasional outbreaks, generally starting with an infected
  individual coming from somewhere outside the U.S. The majority,
  but by no means all the people who catch the measles have not
  been vaccinated. Almost all make a full recovery, with robust,
  life-long immunity. The last measles death in the U.S. occurred
  in 2015, according to the Centers for Disease Control and
  Prevention(CDC). Are potential measles complications including
  death in persons who cannot be vaccinated due to immune
  deficiency a  justification for revoking the rights of all
  Americans and establishing a precedent for still greater
  restrictions on our right to give—or withhold—consent to medical
  interventions?  Clearly not.

  Many serious complications have followed MMR vaccination, and are
  listed in the manufacturers’ package insert, though a causal
  relationship may not have been proved. According to a 2012 report
  by the Cochrane Collaboration, “The design and reporting of
  safety outcomes in MMR vaccine studies, both pre- and
  post-marketing, are largely inadequate” (cited by the National
  Vaccine Information Center).

  Mandate advocates often assert a need for a 95% immunization rate
  to achieve herd immunity. However, Mary Holland and Chase Zachary
  of NYU School of Law argue, in the Oregon Law Review, that
  because complete herd immunity and measles eradication are
  unachievable, the better goal is for herd effect and disease
  control. The best outcome would result, they argue, from informed
  consent, more open communication, and market-based approaches.

  Even disregarding adverse vaccine effects, the results of
  near-universal vaccination have not been completely positive.
  Measles, when it does occur, is four to five times worse than in
  pre-vaccination times, according to Lancet Infectious Diseases,
  because of the changed age distribution: more adults, whose
  vaccine-based immunity waned, and more infants, who no longer
  receive passive immunity from their naturally immune mother to
  protect them during their most vulnerable period.

  Measles is a vexing problem, and more complete, forced
  vaccination will likely not solve it. Better public health
  measures—earlier detection, contact tracing, and isolation; a
  more effective, safer vaccine; or an effective treatment are all
  needed.  Meanwhile, those who choose not to vaccinate now might
  do so in an outbreak, or they can be isolated. Immunosuppressed
  patients might choose isolation in any event because vaccinated
  people can also possibly transmit measles even if not sick

  Issues that Congress must consider:

   ∙ Manufacturers are virtually immune from product liability, so
     the incentive to develop safer products is much diminished.
     Manufacturers may even refuse to make available a product
     believed to be safer, such as monovalent measles vaccine in
     preference to MMR (measles-mumps-rubella). Consumer refusal
     is the only incentive to do better.

   ∙ There are enormous conflicts of interest involving lucrative
     relationships with vaccine purveyors.

   ∙ Research into possible vaccine adverse effects is being
     quashed, as is dissent by professionals.

   ∙ There are many theoretical mechanisms for adverse effects
     from vaccines, especially in children with developing brains
     and immune systems. Note the devastating effects of Zika or
     rubella virus on developing humans, even though adults may
     have mild or asymptomatic infections. Many vaccines contain
     live viruses intended to cause a mild infection. Children’s
     brains are developing rapidly—any interference with the
     complex developmental symphony could be ruinous.

   ∙ Vaccines are neither 100% safe nor 100% effective. Nor are
     they the only available means to control the spread of

  AAPS believes that liberty rights are unalienable. Patients and
  parents have the right to refuse vaccination, although
  potentially contagious persons can be restricted in their
  movements (e.g. as with Ebola), as needed to protect others
  against a clear and present danger. Unvaccinated persons with no
  exposure to a disease and no evidence of a disease are not a
  clear or present danger.

  AAPS represents thousands of physicians in all specialties
  nationwide. It was founded in 1943 to protect private medicine
  and the patient-physician relationship.

  Respectfully yours,
  Jane M. Orient, M.D., Executive Director
  Association of American Physicians and Surgeons

More information about the cypherpunks mailing list