"Beware of Vaccine Bullies"--Malkin column
 

Beware of vaccine bullies

Michelle Malkin

February 4, 2004

Why on earth should we vaccinate our newborn baby against Hepatitis B --
a virus that is contracted mostly through intravenous drug use and
sexual contact? That is the question my husband and I had for the
doctors and nurses at the hospital where our son was born two and a half
months ago.

We didn't get very good answers. It was "convenient," "recommended" and
"routine," the medical staff assured us. We wanted more information. A
nurse gave us a brochure, which explained that babies whose mothers had
the Hep B virus were at high risk of developing acute Hep B infections.
Well, I tested negative for Hep B. The Centers for Disease Control named
unprotected sex, IV drug use and being stuck with a needle on the job as
the likeliest routes of Hep B transmission. Well, my husband and I both
work primarily from home, our two children stay at home, and neither we
nor our 3-year-old daughter nor our baby (for heaven's sake!) live the
Kid Rock-and-Pamela Anderson Lee lifestyle.

When we told the hospital staff that we simply wanted more time to think
about giving the Hep B shot to our son -- doesn't "informed consent"
mean we should be truly informed? -- we were badgered aggressively. Some
lectured us about the need to "get on the proper vaccination schedule."
Others warned that Maryland, like more than 40 other states, requires
all schoolchildren to be vaccinated for Hep B. Teachers, however, are
not subject to the mandate, which is driven not just by altruistic
concern for children's health. Ohio legislator Dale Van Vyven snuck the
Hep B mandate into a 1998 hazardous-waste bill at the behest of
profit-maximizing vaccine manufacturers' lobbyists.

The "everybody does it" and "for the greater good" arguments worked when
we were overcautious, over-trusting, first-time parents who submitted
our daughter to every single vaccine without question. This time, we
resolved not to be rushed or bullied. We declined to give our son the
politically correct Hep B shot, decided to do more research, and then
took up the issue with our pediatrician.

Boy, were we in for a rude awakening. Our doctor parroted the American
Academy of Pediatrics line and mindlessly emphasized the efficacy of
vaccines in eradicating childhood diseases. Well, we weren't questioning
their collective efficacy. We questioned what the individual health
benefits and health risks to our newborn were. Physicians have blindly
plied vaccines before that have done more harm than good. A childhood
rotavirus vaccine, for example, was approved for widespread use in 1998
and withdrawn from the market less than a year later after causing an
increase in the incidence of painful bowel obstruction among infants.

Our doctor, however, pooh-poohed our inquiries about potential side
effects. He seemed to have no idea what those risks were and no interest
in finding out. He was also incredibly condescending: "95 percent of
what you read on the Internet" is unreliable, he sermonized, as if we
were too dumb to separate scientific fact from fraud.

In the end, we concluded that some of the vaccines were more worth the
risks than others. At my son's two-month checkup, the pediatrician
expected him to receive a triple-combination shot called "Pediarix"
(consisting of Hep B, inactivated polio, and DTaP, which covers
diphtheria, tetanus and acellular pertussis), as well as HiB (for
certain bacterial infections) and Prevnar (for meningitis and blood
infections). I reiterated my refusal of Hep B, accepted DTaP and HiB,
and asked to put off polio and Prevnar. In response, I received a
threat: Get all the vaccines or get out of our practice.

"Informed consent"? Ha. This was uninformed coercion.

We're leaving for another practice, a little bitter but wiser. The
strong-arm tactics of the medical establishment mustn't intimidate
parents from challenging the universal vaccine orthodoxy. When it comes
to protecting our children's health, skepticism is the best medicine.

"Beware of Vaccine Bullies"--Malkin column
 

"JG" wrote in message
...
Beware of vaccine bullies

Michelle Malkin

February 4, 2004

The column is available at
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/m...20040204.shtml.

"Beware of Vaccine Bullies"--Malkin column
 

"JG" wrote in message ...
Beware of vaccine bullies

Michelle Malkin

February 4, 2004

Why on earth should we vaccinate our newborn baby against Hepatitis B --
a virus that is contracted mostly through intravenous drug use and
sexual contact? That is the question my husband and I had for the
doctors and nurses at the hospital where our son was born two and a half
months ago.

Because among those who *somehow* contract Hep B in childhood, in
about 30-40% of the cases, a vector is never found. Mom is Hep B
negative, there's no blood or sexual contact...there are other,
as-yet-unidentified vectors.


snip

We declined to give our son the
politically correct Hep B shot, decided to do more research, and then
took up the issue with our pediatrician.

Boy, were we in for a rude awakening. Our doctor parroted the American
Academy of Pediatrics line and mindlessly emphasized the efficacy of
vaccines in eradicating childhood diseases. Well, we weren't questioning
their collective efficacy. We questioned what the individual health
benefits and health risks to our newborn were. Physicians have blindly
plied vaccines before that have done more harm than good. A childhood
rotavirus vaccine, for example, was approved for widespread use in 1998
and withdrawn from the market less than a year later after causing an
increase in the incidence of painful bowel obstruction among infants.

Wrong. The incidence of bowel obstruction was NOT higher in the
vaccinated population. This author is doing some parroting of her
own.


Our doctor, however, pooh-poohed our inquiries about potential side
effects. He seemed to have no idea what those risks were and no interest
in finding out. He was also incredibly condescending: "95 percent of
what you read on the Internet" is unreliable, he sermonized, as if we
were too dumb to separate scientific fact from fraud.

And this "informed" research led her to decline Prevnar? Well
informed indeed.


In the end, we concluded that some of the vaccines were more worth the
risks than others. At my son's two-month checkup, the pediatrician
expected him to receive a triple-combination shot called "Pediarix"
(consisting of Hep B, inactivated polio, and DTaP, which covers
diphtheria, tetanus and acellular pertussis), as well as HiB (for
certain bacterial infections) and Prevnar (for meningitis and blood
infections). I reiterated my refusal of Hep B, accepted DTaP and HiB,
and asked to put off polio and Prevnar. In response, I received a
threat: Get all the vaccines or get out of our practice.

Why should the doctor be compelled to keep a patient whose parents
don't follow his recommendations? I can tell you *I'm* in no hurry to
take care of a kid with Hib meningitis, nor invasive pneumococcal
disease nor pertussis.

This author is free to find a doctor who will allow her daffy
decisions to usurp his training and better sense. No one is holding a
gun to her head to *make* her get her child vaccinated; why does she
have her panties in a twist because this particular doctor won't play
her game?

It's called choice: She chose not to have her child fully
immunized...the doctor chose not to have her child as a patient.
Pretty straighforward, I say.

Mark, MD

"Beware of Vaccine Bullies"--Malkin column
 

"Mark" wrote
Why on earth should we vaccinate our newborn baby against Hepatitis B --
a virus that is contracted mostly through intravenous drug use and
sexual contact? That is the question my husband and I had for the
doctors and nurses at the hospital where our son was born two and a half
months ago.
Because among those who *somehow* contract Hep B in childhood, in
about 30-40% of the cases, a vector is never found.

That is because of family members who do not admit to the risky sex
and drug use.

rotavirus vaccine, for example, was approved for widespread use in 1998
and withdrawn from the market less than a year later after causing an
increase in the incidence of painful bowel obstruction among infants.
Wrong. The incidence of bowel obstruction was NOT higher in the
vaccinated population.

That is why the vaccine was withdrawn. If you have some other
explanation, please post it.

Why should the doctor be compelled to keep a patient whose parents
don't follow his recommendations?

She made a completely rational choice. She is much better off with
a ped who understands that recommendations are just that --
recommendations.

"Beware of Vaccine Bullies"--Malkin column
 

"Mark" wrote in message
om...
"JG" wrote in message
...

Beware of vaccine bullies

Michelle Malkin

February 4, 2004

Why on earth should we vaccinate our newborn baby against Hepatitis
B --a virus that is contracted mostly through intravenous drug use
and
sexual contact? That is the question my husband and I had for the
doctors and nurses at the hospital where our son was born two and a
half
months ago.

Because among those who *somehow* contract Hep B in childhood, in
about 30-40% of the cases, a vector is never found. Mom is Hep B
negative, there's no blood or sexual contact...there are other,
as-yet-unidentified vectors.

Scaremonger. The likelihood of an infant/child who has diligent parents
and is not subjected to to "high risk" persons--e.g., the Malkins'
son--contracting hep B is no doubt so ridiculously small as to be
laughable.

snip

We declined to give our son the
politically correct Hep B shot, decided to do more research, and
then
took up the issue with our pediatrician.

Boy, were we in for a rude awakening. Our doctor parroted the
American
Academy of Pediatrics line and mindlessly emphasized the efficacy of
vaccines in eradicating childhood diseases. Well, we weren't
questioning
their collective efficacy. We questioned what the individual health
benefits and health risks to our newborn were. Physicians have
blindly
plied vaccines before that have done more harm than good. A
childhood
rotavirus vaccine, for example, was approved for widespread use in
1998
and withdrawn from the market less than a year later after causing
an
increase in the incidence of painful bowel obstruction among
infants.

Wrong. The incidence of bowel obstruction was NOT higher in the
vaccinated population. This author is doing some parroting of her
own.

Our doctor, however, pooh-poohed our inquiries about potential side
effects. He seemed to have no idea what those risks were and no
interest
in finding out. He was also incredibly condescending: "95 percent of
what you read on the Internet" is unreliable, he sermonized, as if
we
were too dumb to separate scientific fact from fraud.

And this "informed" research led her to decline Prevnar? Well
informed indeed.

In the end, we concluded that some of the vaccines were more worth
the
risks than others. At my son's two-month checkup, the pediatrician
expected him to receive a triple-combination shot called "Pediarix"
(consisting of Hep B, inactivated polio, and DTaP, which covers
diphtheria, tetanus and acellular pertussis), as well as HiB (for
certain bacterial infections) and Prevnar (for meningitis and blood
infections). I reiterated my refusal of Hep B, accepted DTaP and
HiB,
and asked to put off polio and Prevnar. In response, I received a
threat: Get all the vaccines or get out of our practice.

Why should the doctor be compelled to keep a patient whose parents
don't follow his recommendations?

Who said, or even suggested, he should?

I can tell you *I'm* in no hurry to
take care of a kid with Hib meningitis, nor invasive pneumococcal
disease nor pertussis.

This author is free to find a doctor who will allow her daffy
decisions to usurp his training and better sense. No one is holding a
gun to her head to *make* her get her child vaccinated; why does she
have her panties in a twist because this particular doctor won't play
her game?

It doesn't sound to me like she has "her panties in a twist" at all.
What did she write that gave you the impression she was bothered by
having to engage a pediatrician more amenable to her views? Sure, she's
"bitter" and obviously ticked off by the doctor's condescending attitude
(good for her!), but I would think she's more than happy to find another
pediatrician

It's called choice: She chose not to have her child fully
immunized...the doctor chose not to have her child as a patient.
Pretty straighforward, I say.

Yes. So? Looks like both parties will get what they want.

"Beware of Vaccine Bullies"--Malkin column
 

"JG" wrote
Scaremonger. The likelihood of an infant/child who has diligent parents
and is not subjected to to "high risk" persons--e.g., the Malkins'
son--contracting hep B is no doubt so ridiculously small as to be
laughable.

It is possible that the ped falsely assumed that Malkin is an Asian
immigrant, hence at risk for HBV. Yes, much of the HBV in the
USA comes from Asia, and Malkin looks like a Filipino. But Malkin
was born in Philadelphia. (Her parents were Filipino immigrants.)

"Beware of Vaccine Bullies"--Malkin column
 

"JG" wrote in message
...
Beware of vaccine bullies

Michelle Malkin

February 4, 2004

Why on earth should we vaccinate our newborn baby against Hepatitis B --
a virus that is contracted mostly through intravenous drug use and
sexual contact?

(...)

Mostly. Not entirely. Do you know if you child is going to be in a car crash
and require a blood transfusion next week?

Jeff

(...)

"Beware of Vaccine Bullies"--Malkin column
 

"Roger Schlafly" wrote in message
et...
"Mark" wrote
Why on earth should we vaccinate our newborn baby against Hepatitis
B --
a virus that is contracted mostly through intravenous drug use and
sexual contact? That is the question my husband and I had for the
doctors and nurses at the hospital where our son was born two and a
half
months ago.
Because among those who *somehow* contract Hep B in childhood, in
about 30-40% of the cases, a vector is never found.

That is because of family members who do not admit to the risky sex
and drug use.

Really? Can cite evidence that this is the case for most of the kids who get
hep B? How do you know that the family members don't admit to something? Are
reading their minds?

rotavirus vaccine, for example, was approved for widespread use in
1998
and withdrawn from the market less than a year later after causing an
increase in the incidence of painful bowel obstruction among infants.
Wrong. The incidence of bowel obstruction was NOT higher in the
vaccinated population.

That is why the vaccine was withdrawn. If you have some other
explanation, please post it.

Incorrect. It was temporarily withdrawn because VAERS found a *potential*
increase in the rate of intussecption in kids who got the vaccine. However,
the data showed that there was no statistically significant increase in
intussecption. However, the company kept the vaccine off the market for fear
of losing lots of money to lawsuits.


(...)

Jeff

"Beware of Vaccine Bullies"--Malkin column
 

"JG" wrote in message ...
"Mark" wrote in message
om...
"JG" wrote in message
...

Beware of vaccine bullies

Michelle Malkin

February 4, 2004

Why on earth should we vaccinate our newborn baby against Hepatitis
B --a virus that is contracted mostly through intravenous drug use
and
sexual contact? That is the question my husband and I had for the
doctors and nurses at the hospital where our son was born two and a
half
months ago.

Because among those who *somehow* contract Hep B in childhood, in
about 30-40% of the cases, a vector is never found. Mom is Hep B
negative, there's no blood or sexual contact...there are other,
as-yet-unidentified vectors.

Scaremonger. The likelihood of an infant/child who has diligent parents
and is not subjected to to "high risk" persons--e.g., the Malkins'
son--contracting hep B is no doubt so ridiculously small as to be
laughable.

*I'm* the scaremonger? That's a laugh. The other vectors *aren't
identified*. How you know that you're being diligent in protecting
your child against these vectors if you don't even know what they are?


snip

We declined to give our son the
politically correct Hep B shot, decided to do more research, and
then
took up the issue with our pediatrician.

Boy, were we in for a rude awakening. Our doctor parroted the
American
Academy of Pediatrics line and mindlessly emphasized the efficacy of
vaccines in eradicating childhood diseases. Well, we weren't
questioning
their collective efficacy. We questioned what the individual health
benefits and health risks to our newborn were. Physicians have
blindly
plied vaccines before that have done more harm than good. A
childhood
rotavirus vaccine, for example, was approved for widespread use in
1998
and withdrawn from the market less than a year later after causing
an
increase in the incidence of painful bowel obstruction among
infants.

Wrong. The incidence of bowel obstruction was NOT higher in the
vaccinated population. This author is doing some parroting of her
own.

Our doctor, however, pooh-poohed our inquiries about potential side
effects. He seemed to have no idea what those risks were and no
interest
in finding out. He was also incredibly condescending: "95 percent of
what you read on the Internet" is unreliable, he sermonized, as if
we
were too dumb to separate scientific fact from fraud.

And this "informed" research led her to decline Prevnar? Well
informed indeed.

In the end, we concluded that some of the vaccines were more worth
the
risks than others. At my son's two-month checkup, the pediatrician
expected him to receive a triple-combination shot called "Pediarix"
(consisting of Hep B, inactivated polio, and DTaP, which covers
diphtheria, tetanus and acellular pertussis), as well as HiB (for
certain bacterial infections) and Prevnar (for meningitis and blood
infections). I reiterated my refusal of Hep B, accepted DTaP and
HiB,
and asked to put off polio and Prevnar. In response, I received a
threat: Get all the vaccines or get out of our practice.

Why should the doctor be compelled to keep a patient whose parents
don't follow his recommendations?

Who said, or even suggested, he should?

The author's entire thesis appears to be about the unfairness of the
doctor kicking her kid out of his practice. She referred to it as a
"threat".


I can tell you *I'm* in no hurry to
take care of a kid with Hib meningitis, nor invasive pneumococcal
disease nor pertussis.

This author is free to find a doctor who will allow her daffy
decisions to usurp his training and better sense. No one is holding a
gun to her head to *make* her get her child vaccinated; why does she
have her panties in a twist because this particular doctor won't play
her game?

It doesn't sound to me like she has "her panties in a twist" at all.
What did she write that gave you the impression she was bothered by
having to engage a pediatrician more amenable to her views? Sure, she's
"bitter" and obviously ticked off by the doctor's condescending attitude
(good for her!), but I would think she's more than happy to find another
pediatrician

What did she write? Let's see...the "coercion", her "bitterness",
calling the Hep B "politically correct", being "threatened"...the fact
that she even bothered to write an entire article in the first place
leads me to believe she has a bee in her bonnet over this issue.


It's called choice: She chose not to have her child fully
immunized...the doctor chose not to have her child as a patient.
Pretty straighforward, I say.

Yes. So? Looks like both parties will get what they want.

Exactly.

"Beware of Vaccine Bullies"--Malkin column
 

"Mark" wrote
The author's entire thesis appears to be about the unfairness of the
doctor kicking her kid out of his practice. She referred to it as a
"threat".

Nowhere does she say that was unfair. Her complaint was that the
ped was trying to pressure her into getting vaccines that she didn't
want.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/m...20040204.shtml