In my opinion, getting vaccinated or not, for Covid, should remain a personal choice and not a mandate.
I feel that this is especially true pertaining to parents and their children.
Read on to see why I feel that way…
For the record, my wife and I have both received the Pfizer Covid vaccine. We did so because, after a period of research, we felt that our potential risk for Covid, and any long-term effects, were greater than our risk of experiencing adverse effects from being “jabbed.”
Time will tell if our decision was the “right” one as, with any new medication or procedure, adverse sequela can take some time (perhaps even years after implementation and usage) to develop and be identified.
Having a decent understanding of immunology, I feel that this is especially a consideration since we do not clearly know the effect that the antibodies we produce against genetically catalyzed “spike” proteins will have on other body tissues. This concept, felt by many to be an underlying cause of autoimmune mediated diseases is called “molecular mimicry.” If you are interested, you can look that up for yourself.
But if you want a quick reference, you can view this article titled, “Do COVID-19 RNA-based vaccines put at risk of immune-mediated diseases?” by copying and pasting the link below.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7833091/
Despite both my wife and I recently getting vaccinated, I also want you to know that we chose NOT to fully complete the recommended (some say mandated) childhood immunizations for our children (now fully grown 4 young men)
Our decision was prompted by one of them developing a very severe case of encephalitis (brain inflammation) almost immediately after their “shot.” This resulted in a sustained fever of over 105 degrees, the loss of scalp hair, the development of extensive scalp petechiae (basically blood blisters) a dramatically elevated white blood cell count (leading the pediatrician to consider childhood leukemia) and severely enlarged tonsils. The episode lasted for more than a week (being years ago, exact recollection fades a bit) in which our son cried (screamed is more accurate) incessantly, both day and night.
As you can imagine, we were frightened.
Thankfully, this “illness” cleared up after returning numerous times to our pediatrician for evaluations and blood work to monitor his progress.
On our final follow-up with the pediatrician, we were advised of the rarity of such an occurrence and told not to worry. He then suggested, that “just to be safe,” the second dose given would be reduced to one-half of the first.
Wanting to be reasonable, responsible parents, and trusting the recommendation of our pediatrician, we complied.
Almost immediately after this second “shot”, it happened again. Same severity, same duration, same fever, same incessant crying, same ultra-high white blood cell count, same loss of hair and blood blisters throughout our son’s scalp.
“Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.”
Not to imply that we were being intentionally misled but, because of this, we decided that we would not take the “same” fully trusting and passively compliant approach, towards the long-term health of our sons, again.
We adopted a mindset that it would be up to us to do our own research and make our own decisions about the applicability and relevance of any future medical recommendations made for our family.
Again, I want to emphasize that I am neither against immunizations nor do I feel that they are inherently harmful to all that receive them.
My current opinion that the decision to immunize, or not, should be a personal choice is based upon two main factors.
First, is a main disagreement that I have with the statement declaring that “we are all in this together” and have responsibility to each other (or society as a whole) to undergo a recommended medical intervention. (in this case, the covid vaccine)
The fact is that we are NOT all in this together, especially pertaining to any adverse events that may occur from receiving a vaccine.
Society was NOT there to care for our severely ill child. Society was NOT there to stay awake at nights with worry as he was suffering. Society was NOT there to provide financial assistance for the time missed from work. Society was NOT there, and has never been, to offer support for the lasting effects on our son that, to this day, to a certain extent, remain.
I could go on and on about this, but I won’t.
My point here is that, regardless of how rare an unanticipated bad reaction is, it is the recipient of the procedure, and often their loved ones, who bear the responsibility and hardship of dealing with it. Not the CDC, not Anderson Cooper, not Sanjay Gupta, and not others who espouse a forced mandate, because they will NOT be the ones to step in and pick up the pieces of a broken existence.
My second reason for being against a forced vaccination mandate is that “science” can lead us astray in many ways. Science is neither absolute nor without its conflicts of interests and hidden agendas which can affect the recommendations we receive.
Recognizing that I am much more familiar with this occurring in the spine care science, compared to other branches of medicine, I will offer a few examples.
As far back as 1994, the Government Accounting Office (GAO) produced a study that raised concern about the significant use of imaging by physicians owning a share in an imaging facility as compared to the imaging ordered by those who didn’t. One focus of this study regarded Florida physicians which showed that those owning an interest in an imaging facility ordered almost twice as many CT scans and MRI scans when compared to those who didn’t. (GAOI/HEHS-95-2 Medicare: Physician Referrals)
Other studies have yielded similar results and additionally shown that not only imaging, but also epidural steroid injections, and even complex spinal surgeries are performed at a significantly higher rate when clinicians have a vested financial interest in the facilities performing those procedures. (Health Affairs 29(12):2252-29) and (Center for Health Care Research and Transformation, July 2013)
Here is another example from the spine-care world. Although written in 2009, the conclusions are just as valid today, if not more so, than they were back then. The following are a few excerpts that appeared in the Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine as written by Dr. Richard Deyo, a prominent low back pain researcher.
“Chronic back pain is among the most common patient complaints. Its prevalence and impact have spawned a rapidly expanding range of tests and treatments. Some of these have become widely used for indications that are not well validated, leading to uncertainty about efficacy and safety, increasing complication rates, and marketing abuses. The limited studies available suggest that these increases have not been accompanied by population-level improvements in patient outcomes or disability rates.”
In his book “Stabbed in the Back”, Dr. Norton Hadler states, “Entrepreneurial relationships that might compromise one’s choice of what’s best for one’s patients walk a very fine line between the sanctioned and the illegal.” He more specifically references a 40 million dollar lawsuit against a prominent spinal implant device manufacturer who paid illegal kickbacks and royalties to doctors who used their product for non-approved treatments.
This same company was found to understate (if state at all) the risks of a bone fusion product that had complications like cancer, sterility, and impaired ejaculation. In fact, independent research (that performed without a conflict of interest) showed that the adverse events caused by this fusion product were 10-50 times higher than originally reported in industry sponsored research. (Spine Journal, Vol 11, Issue 6 2011)
Here is a final example from the spine-care world (and I could give many more) of how conflicts of interest can interfere with true science. These researchers found that: “Compelling evidence suggests that our current publishing models have proven inadequate to the task. In particular, biomedical literature confirms that funding sources and conflicts of interest have real and sometimes dramatic effects on the reported outcomes of clinical studies that cannot be explained by research design. The odds of favorable outcomes reported in studies funded by pharmaceutical companies or device manufacturers are two to eight times greater compared with studies having funding from other (impartial) sources.” (The Spine Journal 11 (2011) 695–697)
In summary, the research pertaining to the spine-care world has clearly shown that studies sponsored by entities or people with a commercial or financial interest in the product commonly show more favorable results than does independent, non-conflicted studies, and furthermore, that scientific journals, in general, tend to have a bias toward studies showing good results as compared to bad ones. (J of Bone and Joint Surg of Am, 2007;89(5)
Moving beyond the spine-related world, you may recall the medication Vioxx in which scientists from the pharmaceutical giant Merck skewed the results of clinical trials in favor of this drug and hid the evidence about the increased risk of heart attack and stroke resulting from its use.
Independent researchers found that Merck’s manipulation of its data—and the FDA’s resulting approval of Vioxx in 1999—led to thousands of avoidable premature deaths and over 100,000 heart attacks and/or strokes culminating in at least 55,000 premature deaths.
You can read more about that here: (https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/merck-manipulated-science-about-drug-vioxx)
For a more recent example, consider the statements below made in an article about evidence-based medicine appearing in the October 2020 issue of the British Medical Journal:
“Financial considerations, personal conviction and concerns about academic careers may influence how research is designed, conducted and reported.”
“This has recently been highlighted in the case of harms from transvaginal mesh devices and cases of research misconduct where pressure to ensure funding and academic prestige have compromised science.”
“Other examples are the overinterpretation of study findings or downplaying of harms. Such practices may be caused by conflicts of interest which can be defined as circumstances that create a risk that professional judgement or actions regarding a primary interest will be unduly influenced by a secondary interest.”
The last medical example that I will give involves the drug Aduhelm, developed by Biogen, to treat early dementia in those diagnosed with Alzheimer’s Disease.
This drug was recently approved by the FDA, under an accelerated approval process similar, although not exact, to that of the Covid vaccine.
According to the FDA, accelerated approval pathways are typically reserved for new drugs that treat serious or life-threatening illness and are felt to provide a meaningful therapeutic advantage over existing treatments. In other words, such drugs are “fast-tracked” in comparison to drugs not meeting the accelerated approval criteria and are not subjected to customary rigid FDA standards.
Important to note is that Aduhelm was approved despite numerous concerns that led to several members of the FDA’s advisory panel to resign in protest , and current medical centers like the Cleveland Clinic and medical societies such as the American Neurological Society failing to endorse it.
Here are a just few of those concerns:
The favorable studies showed that the drug resulted in just a .39 improvement on an 18-point cognitive rating scale. (miniscule, if any, noticeable benefit)
Two nearly identical late-stage clinical trials of aducanumab (Aduhelm) were shut down in 2019 because an independent monitoring committee concluded that the drug was ineffective and that a significant percentage of those given the drug developed brain swelling.
Aduhelm costs 52,000 per year for treatment with the total cost to Medicare estimated to be greater than what is currently spent on all other Medicare-reimbursed drugs combined.
Biogen and the FDA enjoyed a close working relationship during the drug trials. This included meeting several times per week to jointly assess data (no impartiality.) In fact, one Biogen employee actually stated that “I was shocked by was just how close the interaction was between the teams.”
The drug was approved despite 10 of 11 advisory committee members voting against its approval. (the other vote was noncommittal)
One investigator summarized the whole process by stating that, “A string of controversies surrounding the approval of Biogen's Alzheimer disease drug aducanumab (Aduhelm) has not only called into question the independent nature of the FDA, but puts both providers and patients in a challenging position when it comes to deciding whether or not to prescribe or take the treatment.”
If interested, you can view the link below and read just one article about the numerous controversies surrounding this drug and how its approval has cast doubt on the impartiality of the FDA.
As I had mentioned earlier, science is far from exact, is often in the eye of the beholder, and sometimes compromised by those whose hands are joined together in the cookie jar.
In summary, for the reasons listed above, I feel that vaccines should be a choice and not a mandate and that each of us have a personal responsibility towards ourselves and our families that far outweighs any responsibility we ostensibly have to the entirety of society.
rdf-10
Comments are welcome. Consider signing up for my blog as well as following me on Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram.