Secret Vaccination of Children with No Parental Consent

http://www.thehealthyhomeeconomist.com/2011/09/secret-vaccination-of-children-with-no-parental-consent/


How do pharmaceutical giants like Merck respond to increasing resistance by parents to vaccinate their children due to dangerous vaccine ingredients, an ever growing immunization schedule, skyrocketing cases of autoimmune disease, and questionable efficacy?

The Pharmacrats react by quietly and stealthily pushing a bill through the California State Legislature that would strip informed consent from parents and allow secret vaccination of children as young as 12 with vaccines such as Gardasil and Hepatitis B as well as all future vaccines for sexually transmitted diseases.

Such a bill would cost California millions to implement with the majority of these funds lining the pockets of the Pharmacrat corporations.

What’s more, if passed, Assembly Bill 499 will require that parents still be legally and financially responsible for their child even if severe damage from the secret shots occurs which the parents never consented to in the first place.

-snip of text and video-
---------------------------

our pharma Barons will stop at nothing to get their way

then they should act out in the open and not in secret.

giving kids shots in secret is all wrong.

... should allow them to protect their lives by getting vaccinated.

...once you read the headline and think "now why would any sane government even think of doing that?" - and realize its because there are some people in this country who aren't fit to raise hamsters.

Simple measures to prevent needless deadly or disfiguring diseases in kids are ok with me, and in accord with the "special rights, special protections" that civilized societies extend toward children.

I do believe that everyone should be vaccinated, but it should be free for everyone. People who are not vaccinated are a danger to themselves and others especially the old and the very young who can not be vaccinated yet. We are just asking for an epidemic of a disease that we can easily stop.

The odds of being hurt by the vaccines are miniscule compared to chances of life long chronic problems from
PREVENTABLE childhood diseases.

Rheumatic fever is a life long party.

against latest myth of swine 'killer-flu' by big farma to sell their vaccines and health officials corrupted by big farma have caused many cases of child narcolepsy.

Put up or shut up, as they say.

admitted by health at least in Finland.

You just repeated your single reference to your claim. If you actually understand science, you would know that the study has not been replicated in other countries, and that most of the cases appeared to be in people with genetic predispositions for narcolepsy.

That's how science works. Your claim of a vaccine causing narcolepsy is weak and probably does not have much validity.

The truth is that you are using the health care system's attempts to make sure that all possible side-effects are fully explored in order to foment anti-vaccine sentiment.

The anti-vaccine movement in a nutshell.

The Australian Immunisation Procedures Handbook (5th edition: 1994), published by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), says:

Immunisation has saved tens of thousands of children in Australia from death and handicap. Since the introduction of routine childhood vaccination,
poliomyelitis, tetanus and diphtheria have been virtually eliminated and measles is now uncommon. The threat of pertussis has been much reduced,
and we can look forward to the virtual elimination of Haemophilus Influenzae type b (Hib) disease, mumps and congenital rubella syndrome... Despite
the extraordinary success and remarkable safety record of childhood immunisation, the practice is still the subject of controversy in some quarters.


http://vaccinationdilemma.com/the-benefit

agains or for all vaccinations. I was referring to the swine-flu hysteria. At least where I live, Finland, the health official very vocally fearmongering the swine flu vaccinations, had received millions in research funding from the big pharma manufacturing the vaccine. And the same health official has been forced to admit that the vaccine caused many cases of childhood narcolepsy.

No one has admitted anything caused anything. Further study appears to show that most of those who developed narcolepsy had a genetic propensity for it. Quit the fear mongering.

Terveyden ja hyvinvoinnin laitos ilmoitti 1. syyskuuta 2011 loppuraportissaan, että Pandemrix-rokotteen ja lisääntyneen narkolepsiataipumuksen välillä on vahva korrelaatio ja syy-yhteys.
http://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narkolepsia#H1N1-pandemia_ja_Pandemrix-rokote

Translation: The department of health and well-being announced in their final report 1.9.2011 that there is a strong correlation and causal relationship between Pandemrix-vaccine and increased tendency towards narcolepsy.

Those who looked at the study later, saw even more of a genetic concern in those who developed narcolepsy. And the findings were not replicated. How many times does that need to be pointed out? Further studies are ongoing. Unless those begin to show an actual concern, there is no point in pushing the claims you pushed today.

Cut the crap. Stop the fear mongering.

AFAIK, genetic tendency + certain vaccine can lead to narcolepsy, and the principle of caution takes such findings serious concern and stops the vaccine program in question - as happened in this case. Replicating the "scientific test" with human subjects would not be ethical.

On the other hand there was huge fear mongering campaign about the swine flue, which in the end came to be as nothing as mongered. You have not touched the issue of corruption, that there are good grounds to suspect that the fear mongering campaing of swine flue was not based on scientific criteria but monetary corruption.

Your shut up -attitude that criticism about the swine flue campaign and vaccinations should not be discussed in are not scientific nor ethical.

That post is pure fear mongering, ignoring the reality of the situation, and making a claim that goes way, way, way beyond what the evidence shows. Thus, you are fear mongering. Further, you are choosing to believe that you can predict what will or won't happen with a particular type of flu, and pretending that public health authorities should know that, as well. BTW, I have not displayed any "shut up" attitude. I have chosen to deal with the reality of the science, not the propaganda of the anti-vaccine crowd.

Try again.

clear that you have allready framed the situation into the "good crowd" of pro-vaccine people and "bad crowd" of anti-vaccine people, with no possibility of middle or other ground. As long as you continue believing in your either-or frame, I see no point in discussing this subject with you any further. Have a good day.

It's funny that you think that I should ignore the reality that you came here pushing a clear, typical, blind anti-vaccine agenda. Further, you stuck with it, rather than acknowledge the reality of the science. Thus, it's quite odd for you to try to paint me as the one who has an either/or point of view.

was response to emotive fear-mongering in the post 4 and consequently I clarified what I meant to Botany. Then you jumped in with your agenda of us-against-them and flammatory attitude.

OK, I'll share my background in this issue. When we had our kids with my wife, based on all scientific information available to us, we decided that our children should take only the basic and most important vaccines and not anything extra, because of the possibility of affecting natural immune systeme and increasing the risk of allergies. BTW neither
of our kids have any allergies, They have also shared home with cats whole their lives, and there was a time when it was "scientific truth" that sharing home with cats or other animals causes allergies, but that has also changed with better understanding of immunological system.

Then we divorced with joint custody. I was following the discussion about swine flue and necessity of vaccinations, my then ex was unaware of the criticism and fell for the propaganda of Finnish health officials, got scared and decided to vaccinate our two sons - without telling me. I accidentally found out and talked her out of vaccinating our yonger son, unaware that our older son was going to be vaccinated by school the very next day, which she did not tell me. Our unvaccinated younger son never got the swine flue, like most of the population, and our vaccinated older son got so sick from the vaccination that he - and half his classroom - had to stay home sick from 1 day to whole week. Gladly he did not get narcolepsy and I feel sorry for all the families that have been stricken with that tragedy. The same scientific authority that first fear mongered in Finland about swine flu (and received funding from the farmaceutical company whose vaccine they used) has now admitted causal relationship with the vaccine they used and narcolepsy. That is what I know and I haven't been following the events in other countries re swine flue vaccinations.

You appear to be continuing to push fear, as you have not grasped the reality of the science if the matter. Further, you don't seem interested in actually trying to understand the reality of risk/benefits, much less understand the actual level of the possible risks.

Trying to blame others for your clear need to push fear is lame, btw, especially since that post was in response to an OP that is completely based on baseless fear.

There is no widespread contagion of cervical cancer. The only reason kids must get OTHER vaccinations is because if they don't, there would be a widespread "contagion" of those highly contagious childhood diseases. Therefore, the public policy to protect the public in general overrides the right to privacy.

I don't see any public policy right here.

I am pro-choice, unless there's a risk of that cancer being a widespread contagious disease.

The vaccination didn't come out until the 1950s when I was around 6 years old. I remember they came into class with the vaccine. Do you know what the first thing they asked was? How many of you have HAD measles? Quite a few of us kids in class had already had measles. Do you know they passed all of us by with their sugar cubes? "You don't NEED this."

In my youth, I have been around children with measles. Never got it again. BTW, the same thing happened with chicken pox. I had that too and when both my kids got it, I didn't get it again.

One you have had these diseases yourself you develop natural immunities against them. You will never need a booster either, like you do with vaccinations.

I did get the polio vaccination in school years later. DPT was the only one I had as a baby. We survived.

Sorry, but vaccination is a good thing.

About a million and a half children die every year of preventable diseases in developing countries. Many died or were seriously disabled from now-preventable diseases in the past.

It is not necessarily true that people who've had a disease will never need a booster. Most people who have had one of the diseases in childhood will not get it again, and the same is true of those who had their childhood vaccinations; but some will.

Have ALL said, if I had the disease, I do not need vaccinations, or boosters. The disease ITSELF gives more immunities than vaccinations or boosters. Ask a doctor, if you don't believe that.

Incidentially, I also had Rubella as a kid. Never had to get a vac for that either, even before I had children. I must be a MIRACLE for these diseases I had, and SURVIVED to old age.

However, if you think it's better to let everyone catch these diseases, then you're ignoring a whole slew of epidemiology that shows that vaccines save lives and help keep kids healthy.

I think. Not to prevent that one child from getting something. The vaccines, I believe, are all for highly contagious diseases that are spread easily among children. So the public has an interest in preventing those outbreaks, which overrides the parent's right to choose. It protects the OTHER kids from getting YOUR kid's measles or whatever.

Also, all the diseases are those which children get fairly early on. It can't wait until they're 16.

So, we have the forced vaccines for measles, polio (do they still do that one?), and others. Which I agree with.

But the vaccine for the cervical cancer doesn't need to be given until someone is about to become sexually active. Second, there is no outbreak of cervical cancer, so there is no big public policy to force everyone to get a vaccine to protect others. Third, although it is contagious through exchange of bodily fluids or something like that, it is not easily spread among the population. There is no reason for the govt to seek to protect other children from one child who might get cervical cancer. They're just can't "catch" it from her by sitting next to her in school.

BEFORE there even were vacs for them, I had before they age of 6. Yes, very young. My own kids got chicken pox much older than I did. The vac was available when they were kids, but I, AND their doctor, decided it was better for them to get chicken pox. In fact when my older daughter got it, the doctor said LET her younger sister get it at the same time, together, and get it over with.

Ok that was about 20 years ago. Doubt ANY doctor would say that today. They give meds out like candy today. I can see the difference in just 20 years ago, let alone when I was growing up.

BTW, I used to WORK for a major pharmaceutical corporation which makes all these vacs and meds. I know what they do.

So, are you saying you don't think vaccines are worthwhile?

Oh, and please prove that "they give meds out like candy today." Further, what does that statement have to do with vaccines?

BTW, there are some very good reasons why MDs would not recommend against the varicella vaccine:

Chickenpox Vaccine Drastically Cuts Hospitalizations
http://children.webmd.com/vaccines/news/20110102/vaccine_drastically-cuts-hospitalization-from-chicken-pox

Decline in Mortality Due to Varicella after Implementation of Varicella Vaccination in the United States
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa042271

Reduction in pediatric hospitalizations for varicella-related invasive group a streptococcal infections in the varicella vaccine era
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022347603007170

20 years ago doctors didn't recommend vacs for chicken pox. I work with kids. My daughter works with kids. Both of us had kids in class who got chicken pox in the last 10 years. Neither of us got it. No vacs. The disease itself gives you even better immunity.

I showed you that the vaccine saves lives, and you choose to ignore that.

Since you won't answer the question, it appears that you don't think vaccines should be given. If that's not the case, then say so. If it is the case, then your case has been shot down repeatedly. As for whether or not you have life-long immunity against X because you had X, that's irrelevant. People die from X, and vaccines save lives.

Don't know about mumps.

Should we stop giving vaccines, and just let the kids get sick?

came out with a vaccine for that, but I forget when. I just remember as a kid taking it? I think that's what it was. Sugar cube. The whole town got it.

I never got whooping cough, though. Highly contagious, and sometimes fatal.

This law allows kids to get the vaccine, even if they're stuck with parents who don't want them to get the vaccine.

BTW, the vaccine is safe and effective:

http://drjengunter.wordpress.com/2011/06/17/how-safe-is-the-hpv-vaccine-new-data-available/

Your point was to complain about something you imagined.

So far as I know, it's not mandatory anywhere.

I would oppose making it mandatory, but it should be available.

that was my point. Some people were posting that they thought they should be required. My point was that there is no good reason, as far as I know, for the government to require that. The govt requires vaccines, overriding individual choice, usu. only when there is a danger to other kids or society in general...something highly contagious. Kids go to school together, play together, share cookies, etc. Whooping cough, measles, and so forth are highly contagious and spread quickly among children. That's not the case with cervical cancer. So I think it should remain a personal choice.

and ONE of the many is the availability of vaccinations.

Why should children now be deprived of vaccinations just because they weren't available to their grandparents?

Except with death instead of voting.

and she is glad she had those choices. She never said vaccines shouldn't be required or allowed. She merely pointed out that some people...maybe many people...have come to rely on pharmaceuticals too much.

I agree. I see this with my friends and family. They run to the doctor to get antibiotics every time they have sinus trouble or a mild fever or a bad cold. Not only does that increase the cost of insurance for us all, it weakens their immune system, so that they are not as able, naturally, to fight bacteria. It's not that medicine isn't good for a body sometimes, but overdoing it causes other problems.

And there are always side effects. No exceptions. The reason you take a medicine to begin with...that result is a side effect in and of itself. And there is always more than one side effect. They may not be big side effects. But they exist. I think people have the idea that if they take a pill for, say, a headache, that's the only way that pill affects their body. But that's not true. That's only ONE way that pill affects the body.

And I agree that some people take antibiotics a bit too readily for every cold, etc.

What rubbed me the wrong way was what I perceived as sarcasm in "I must be a MIRACLE to have survived". It's hard to measure tone on the internet, and if I got it wrong, I apologize to the poster. However, there *have* been posters in the past who have argued that because they and their families survived getting infectious diseases, everybody should, and that anyone who gets vaccinations is a wimp or failing to take personal responsibility for their health; and that may make me touchy on the subject.

Alao, the OP comes from a site that opposes *all* vaccinations, and I admit that this got my back up.

However, the sickest I have ever been in my life was with measles (sick enough the pediatrician made daily house calls the only reason I wasn't sent to the hospital was because he knew my mother well enough to know I would receive constant care and monitoring) fortunately, I suffered no lasting damage.

I also had Rubella, not a very big deal in a 12 year old. In fact, my mother & her sisters made sure all the girls in the family were exposed to one of my younger cousins when he came down with the disease. We didn't understand why at the time but, of course, later found out it was to protect us from the possiblility of getting it when we were pregnant. As I grew older I knew two families who had children who were deaf because the moms had had rubella during their pregnancies.

There's a lot to be said for getting the shots (and boosters when necessary) and not risking developing immunity the old fashioned way by getting the disease.

If you're 60 you must have been about 4 when the Salk vaccine came out & I'll bet your parents got you that shot as soon as they could rather than risk that you could be one of the lucky ones who got a mild case & made a full recovery. And I'll bet they thought it was worth it even though the Salk vaccine required booster shots.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/disabled.html

"Some scientists and physicians opposed the involuntary aspect of the law"

INVOLUNTARY ASPECT OF THE LAW.

specific forms of medical and dental treatments. What this does is also allow a 12- to 18-year-old to consent to "medical care related to prevention of a sexually transmitted disease."

Unrec for "secret" crap.

ETA: I'm fine with a 17-year-old going to PP for birth control without a parent's note. If, while she's there, she gets information on the HPV shot, I'm fine with her getting that without a parent's note.

"The Marvelous Health Of Un-vaccinated Children"



No, this is not an anti-vax website that is totally misrepresenting what the Bill actually does. No, not at all. ( DO I really NEED the sarcasm tag here?)


Come on, Ensho, the "nuke event" posts are one thing, but anti-vax too!!!

I'm not into secrets

Here it is again, I posted it down thread. Please show me where ANYTHING secret is involved...

BILL NUMBER: AB 499 ENROLLED
BILL TEXT

PASSED THE SENATE AUGUST 31, 2011
PASSED THE ASSEMBLY MAY 12, 2011

INTRODUCED BY Assembly Member Atkins
(Principal coauthor: Assembly Member Ma)

FEBRUARY 15, 2011

An act to amend Section 6926 of the Family Code, relating to
minors.



LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST


AB 499, Atkins. Minors: medical care: consent.
Existing law allows minors to consent to specified forms of
medical or dental treatment.
This bill would, in addition, allow a minor who is 12 years of age
or older to consent to medical care related to the prevention of a
sexually transmitted disease.


THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Section 6926 of the Family Code is amended to read:
6926. (a) A minor who is 12 years of age or older and who may
have come into contact with an infectious, contagious, or
communicable disease may consent to medical care related to the
diagnosis or treatment of the disease, if the disease or condition is
one that is required by law or regulation adopted pursuant to law to
be reported to the local health officer, or is a related sexually
transmitted disease, as may be determined by the State Public Health
Officer.
(b) A minor who is 12 years of age or older may consent to medical
care related to the prevention of a sexually transmitted disease.
(c) The minor's parents or guardian are not liable for payment for
medical care provided pursuant to this section.

Sid

In fact, its all about GIVING minors age 12 and up, the ABILITY to consent to medical treatment without parental consent and not making the parents liable.

Perhaps you should start doing some research before going all hysterical over something you read on an anti-vax website.

Here is the bill...

BILL NUMBER: AB 499 ENROLLED
BILL TEXT

PASSED THE SENATE AUGUST 31, 2011
PASSED THE ASSEMBLY MAY 12, 2011

INTRODUCED BY Assembly Member Atkins
(Principal coauthor: Assembly Member Ma)

FEBRUARY 15, 2011

An act to amend Section 6926 of the Family Code, relating to
minors.



LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST


AB 499, Atkins. Minors: medical care: consent.
Existing law allows minors to consent to specified forms of
medical or dental treatment.
This bill would, in addition, allow a minor who is 12 years of age
or older to consent to medical care related to the prevention of a
sexually transmitted disease.


THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Section 6926 of the Family Code is amended to read:
6926. (a) A minor who is 12 years of age or older and who may
have come into contact with an infectious, contagious, or
communicable disease may consent to medical care related to the
diagnosis or treatment of the disease, if the disease or condition is
one that is required by law or regulation adopted pursuant to law to
be reported to the local health officer, or is a related sexually
transmitted disease, as may be determined by the State Public Health
Officer.
(b) A minor who is 12 years of age or older may consent to medical
care related to the prevention of a sexually transmitted disease.
(c) The minor's parents or guardian are not liable for payment for
medical care provided pursuant to this section.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/asm/ab_0451-0500/ab_499_bill_20110902_enrolled.html

"Abortion doctors trying to pad their bottom line by bypassing parent's decisions."

That is a bullshit argument, as is this latest push by the anti-vaccine crowd.

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/08/vaccine_exemptions_in_california_threate.php

Whooping Cough Epidemic Exposes Holes in California's Immunization System
http://science.kqed.org/quest/2010/07/28/whooping-cough-epidemic-exposes-holes-in-californias-immunization-system/

California leads U.S. in measles cases
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-measles-20110922,0,6705186.story

This has to do with one vaccine, which is designed to protect against a specific STD. The reason the children can consent to this vaccination is the same reason they can control other aspects of their own reproductive lives. Your source is seriously biased and unreliable. It also doesn't bother to provide the actual text of the bill.

Edit to add: Looking at the other articles by the same author, it's clear that she is an amateur alternative health advocate. Her post on "virgin coconut oil correcting Alzheimers" is a perfect example. She grabbed this information off some site and rewrote it. Utter unsubstantiated nonsense, based on one individual's own report. Sources are important. When you rely on amateur reporting on medical issues, you get nonsense. Unless you do further research on sources like this, it's too easy to post bullshit as fact. Fortunately, DU has many people who can smell bullshit from a distance and who will go do the work that should have been done before posting.

Here's a tried and true rule: Stuff you find on random blogs is often incorrect or biased. This is especially true when dealing with scientific and medical matters. Before posting, it's always a good idea to do further research. If you can't find reliable corroboration, posting is risky. There is an incredible amount of bullshit on the Internet. Why spread it around?

Too much chicken little for me.

:sarcasm:

Looking up 'healthyhomeeconomics' it seems to be an organization that opposes ALL vaccinations: "Six reasons to say NO to vaccinations".

If it's true that children are being given vaccinations, or any treatment, without their parents being informed, that is indeed against medical ethics. But it doesn't discredit vaccinations; just a particular procedure for administering them.

supposed increasing resistance. ;) CDC compliance rates are at an all time high.

I have no comment on the bill in question.

:rofl: