To the Editor:
With regard to the paper’s recent editorial on “Immunization Sanity” and advising the legislature to educate us on the real advantages of immunizations to protect us, I have this to say.
Right now under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, nearly $3 billion has been awarded to children and adults for whom the risks of vaccine injury were 100 percent. If there are no problems associated with vaccines, then why did Congress pass this Injury Act, which created a national Vaccine Injury Compensation Program? Vaccines are pharmaceutical products that carry risks, which can be greater for some than others.
The compensation program, with total liability protection for injuries and deaths caused by government-mandated vaccines, was upheld by the Supreme Court in a 2011 case in which vaccines were acknowledged to be “unavoidably unsafe.” Really? I need to be educated by the state to accept this as good for me?
An example of the damage vaccines can do is my great grandson, and he was not compensated. He was vaccinated in Bar Harbor as an infant when he was born there healthy, with no issues at all. Immediately upon vaccination, he began to show signs of physical problems. He was then airlifted on “life support” to EMMC and stayed on life support for two weeks. Eventually, he was removed and survived with physical and mental issues. He is autistic, and his hands and face are somewhat deformed. He is not deaf but goes to a school for the deaf so that he can communicate because he has never been able to speak clearly. He will need oversight all of his life.
How protected are our children when it was revealed in 2010 by two Merck virologists regarding the MMR vaccine, who claim in their unsealed complaint, that they “witnessed firsthand the improper testing and data falsification in which Merck engaged to artificially inflate the vaccine’s efficacy findings. They claimed Merck’s scheme caused the United States to pay “hundreds of millions of dollars for a vaccine that does not provide adequate immunization.” No advantage in my opinion.
If the makers and marketers of vaccines can influence the quality and quantity of the scientific evidence published in the medical literature proving that vaccines are safe and effective – evidence that is used by states to mandate vaccines, then Congress was wrong in 1986 to protect the makers and marketers of vaccines from liability for injuries and deaths caused by those vaccines. Not much protection in my opinion.
Perhaps a better cause for the Maine legislature would be to reveal to us the harm, manipulation of the studies and falsified data and then allow us to decide if we really want to take a chance on vaccines offered under these circumstances.