Update August 10, 2011

Is Immunisation Child Protection?

"Similarly, anti vaccine campaigners have achieved prominence and influence in the media and political debate.4 Although mainstream trends promoting public consultation and professional accountability give some legitimacy to such individuals and groups, such public debate can become distorted and harmful to the interests of children."

"The second parallel relates to the role of parents in protection of their children’s health and welfare. In general, society rightly entrusts the welfare of children— the future society—to parents, who have to bear the burden of care for bringing up children. ...But as vulnerable and dependent individuals, children’s rights have to be protected ultimately by the state in its parens patriae role. In some situations, the best interests of the child diverge from the views and actions of the parents, unless an extreme version of ethical relativism is accepted. In the case of a violent or neglectful parent, well defined mechanisms are in place to protect the child. But should the same principle pertain to parents who refuse immunisation and thereby fail to take the necessary action to protect their children from preventable and potentially serious infection? Does the failure to immunise a child against a serious infection with a safe vaccine constitute child abuse? Should the state intervene to ensure children are protected from serious infectious diseases?"

My comment:

A scary article from a scary new feature on the 'decade of vaccinations' in the latest Lancet (freely available on registration). Entitled, Is Immunisation Child Protection? It attempts to justify taking this decision away from parents 'for the child's protection'. What else can we extend this same strategy to? Education as the government wants? Religious instruction or lack of thereof? Nutrition according to some multinational corporation's food pyramid with sugar, fat and excess salt at the top and fresh fruits and vegetables nonexistent? One has to wonder where this will end and what will cause the population to finally revolt against this erosion of our rights to choose. If not now, then when?

Antidepressant Use Up Among Undiagnosed Americans

Antidepressants are increasingly prescribed for people who have not been diagnosed with an actual psychiatric disorder, according to a new study that raises questions about whether or not the drugs are being prescribed inappropriately or too often.

According to the new study, published Thursday in the journal Health Affairs, nearly three-quarters of prescriptions written for antidepressants in 2007 came from non-psychiatrists, up from 60 percent a decade earlier.

Notably, the percentage of patients prescribed antidepressants without having been formally diagnosed with a mental health condition more than doubled during that period -- up from 2.5 to more than 6 percent of visits to non-psychiatrist providers. According to the Centers for Disease Control, antidepressants are now among the top three classes of medications prescribed in the U.S.

My comment:

This situation is paralleled within Australia. Aside from the fact that antidepressants seem to be handed out as though they were lollies, our own government's advisors on mental health are now being cited for their close financial ties to the companies that produce these drugs. Perhaps this is one of the reasons why these prescriptions are so popular? When those who the government trusts to write its prescribing policy are being paid by the companies whose drugs they are meant to evaluate, it is no wonder that so many Australians are also being prescribed antidepressants off-label.

Marie McCormick’s IOM Remarks Leave A Bitter Taste

Why does Marie McCormick – former chair of the panel that produced the botched IOM report claiming vaccines do not cause autism – currently serve as co-chair of the “Vaccine Safety Working Group” of the National Vaccine Advisory Council? Her past remarks should disqualify her from serving on any committees concerned with vaccine regulation as illustrated by the following examples retrieved from the leaked transcripts of the January 12, 2001 closed session of the Immunization Safety Review Committee of the National Academy of Sciences’ Institute of Medicine at the National Academies Building in Washington DC.

Here is a comment she made in 2001, justifying a preconceived conclusion about autism and vaccines:

“What I am trying to get at is, do we want to simply, on our gut, say looking at the significance of the wild disease that you are protecting, and the seriousness and potential association with the vaccine -- because we are not ever going to come down that it [autism] is a true side effect -- is that going to be sufficient for you to judge public health impact?” (p. 97)

My comment:

Well, there you have it. The person who has already said that they will NEVER look at or find a link between vaccination and autism is now the co-chair of a group that is supposed to make sure that vaccines are safe and free of side effects. If any of you out there have a hen house, I think I can find a fox to guard it for you...