Is There Hanky-Panky Behind Mandatory Vaccines? by: Phyllis Schlafly
August 25, 1999
After parents whose children had been severely damaged from
vaccines attended a couple of congressional hearings, we might have
thought Bill Clinton's response would have been, "I feel your pain."
Not on your life. The Clinton Administration instead floated plans to
gut the federal trust fund that compensates the families of children
who are injured or killed by reactions to vaccines.
Surgeon General David Satcher told a House committee this month
that Health and Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala might
recommend that a large portion of the National Vaccine Injury
Compensation Program's $1.4 billion trust be turned over to vaccine
research. That would be a cruel betrayal of the parents who financed
this trust fund by a 75 cents per dose assessment on vaccines and
were promised compensation from it in exchange for virtually
eliminating the pharmaceutical companies' financial liability for
injuries caused by their products.
The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) received
11,000 complaints last year from doctors or parents. In presenting
their claims of vaccine damages, parents must face a battery of 17
full-time, veteran Justice Department lawyers assigned to argue
These lawyers have been successful in denying compensation to all
but 1,300 of 5,300- plus families. The Clinton Administration has
tightened the screws to make it become more and more difficult for
parents to get any compensation.
Since most children today get up to 33 immunizations before they
can be admitted to public school, parents are starting to ask a
fundamental question. Which is the greater risk: getting and being
injured by the disease, or being injured from the vaccine that purports
to protect us from it?
For example, serious adverse events after receiving the hepatitis B
vaccine, including 48 deaths, are reported three times as frequently
as cases of hepatitis B in children under the age of 14. And, the only
polio cases in the United States since 1991 have been those caused
by the oral polio vaccine, whose use was discouraged only a few
Adults are free to assume risk for reasons of their choice: health,
safety, protection of family or property, entertainment, or even
excitement. But risk is not something that government, in a free
society, should ordinarily force people to accept.
The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) has
just written Secretary Shalala a letter charging that "federal vaccine
policy results in the violation of informed consent, and is based on
incomplete studies of efficacy and potential adverse effects of the
vaccines." The AAPS letter points out that federal vaccine
"recommendations" are transformed into "mandates by state health
departments," and that schools often require many vaccines "as a
condition of attendance."
These adverse events include not only immediate reactions to the
vaccines, such as seizures and even death, but also possible
long-term effects from damage to a child's immune system. We
urgently need an independent study to discover if there is a
relationship between vaccines, especially when so many are given to
infants in multiple doses, and the dramatic recent increases in
autism and asthma.
The peremptory demand that all infants be immunized, regardless of
whether they are at risk, is now being imitated by the U.S. Armed
Forces. In May 1998, the Department of Defense mandated anthrax
vaccination -- requiring six shots in the first 18 months followed by
annual booster shots -- for all 2.4 million service personnel.
Serious questions have been raised about the vaccine's safety. The
vaccine was approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
back in 1970 after being tested on only 26 human recipients, and the
long-term effects are unknown.
Israel does not force its military to take this vaccine. Neither does
France. Neither does England. No country in Europe or Asia forces
this vaccine on its soldiers.
There is so much opposition to the anthrax vaccination among the
military that morale and combat readiness are suffering. This vaccine
policy has caused an ominous exodus of some of our most
experienced pilots from the reserves and the Air National Guard.
There is something drastically amiss when hundreds of servicemen
with exemplary records are accepting court martial, dishonorable
discharge, pay reduction, and time in the brig rather than obey an
order to be vaccinated.
So who is profiting from this gigantic vaccine mandate? The
Pentagon contracted with a single supplier, BioPort Corp., and
recently agreed to pay $10.64 per dose even though the contractual
obligation was only $4.36 per dose.
ABC News reported that Admiral William J. Crowe Jr. owns 22.5
percent of Intervac, which gives him a 13 percent share of BioPort,
even though he hasn't "invested a penny" in the venture. Crowe was
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under President Bush, but made
big news in 1992 when he gave Clinton cover for his draft dodging.
Clinton rewarded Crowe with the prize plum of appointment as
Ambassador to England.
The Pentagon badly needs Congressional supervision, and Rep.
Benjamin Gilman (R- NY) and Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC) have
introduced separate bills to halt the mandatory anthrax vaccinations.
Phyllis Schlafly column 8-25-99
This column may also be found at:
Eagle Forum http://www.eagleforum.org
PO Box 618 firstname.lastname@example.org
Alton, IL 62002 Phone: 618-462-5415
--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------
ATTN ONELIST USERS: stay current on the latest activities,
programs, & features at ONElist by joining our member newsletter at
<a href=" http://www.onelist.com/subscribe/onelist_announce ">Click</a>