This article is by Dorit Rubinstein Reiss, Professor of Law at the University of California Hastings College of the Law (San Francisco, CA), is a frequent contributor to this and many other blogs, providing in-depth, and intellectually stimulating, articles about vaccines, medical issues, social policy and the law. Professor Reiss writes extensively in law journals about the social and legal policies of vaccination. Additionally, Reiss is also member of the Parent Advisory Board of Voices for Vaccines, a parent-led organization that supports and advocates for on-time vaccination and the reduction of vaccine-preventable disease.
There were 18 people slotted for the October 2019 ACIP public comments. Because more people signed up for comments than could fit in the hour allotted for it, they used a lottery to determine who will comment (note that in addition, the committee offered unlimited opportunity to comment in writing).
However, six of these people did not attend the meeting, so there were 12 commenters in all. Three of them were pro-vaccine, two members of the Immunization Action Coalition – LJ Tan and Julie Murphy – and one, a pediatrician from Oklahoma, Dr. Eve Switzer.
Unfortunately, I could not stay both days, because I had to get back to teach on Thursday. But that one day was instructive. Like last time, this meeting was data-heavy and intensive, and the process was thorough.
While a number of anti-vaccine activists attended, there was no real indication that they followed the committee’s deliberations, tried to understand what was discussed, or learned from the information presented.
Their comments during and after the meeting did not contribute substantively to the discussion or offered anything that could lead to meaningful policy changes.
Because of the length of this review, it will be divided into two parts:
Professor Reiss writes extensively in law journals about the social and legal policies of vaccination. Additionally, Reiss is also a member of the Parent Advisory Board of Voices for Vaccines, a parent-led organization that supports and advocates for on-time vaccination and the reduction of vaccine-preventable disease.
On September 24, 2019, Israel’s Association of Public Health Physicians criticized Dr. Yehuda Shoenfeld’s “severe lapse of judgment” in publishing a book review of an anti-vaccine pamphlet by two non-experts and called for his resignation as editor-in-chief of the prestigious Israeli (Hebrew) medical journal Harefuah. Justified as the criticism was, the Association did not go far enough. For years, Dr. Yehuda Shoenfeld has used his considerable influence to support the anti-vaccine cause. His publications on vaccines and his behavior show his commitment to spreading and promoting anti-vaccine claims. He should not be teaching students on vaccine issues, nor should he be given additional positions of scientific authority, like the Israeli Academy of Sciences and Humanities. Continue reading “Israeli medical association calls out Yehuda Shoenfeld on vaccines”
On March 1, 2019, Evee Gayle Clobes, a six-month-old baby, died in her mother’s bed. Because Evee had received her vaccines 36 hours before her death, and with the urging, courting and support of anti-vaccine activists eager to use her and her story, her mother blamed vaccines.
However, this tragedy is even less appropriately blamed on vaccines than most, because there is a clear other cause for Evee’s death: According to the evidence detailed in a letter from the medical examiner, Evee Gayle Clobes, sadly, tragically, suffocated to death because of unsafe sleep conditions.
On 20 June 2019, after a long day of testimony on California SB276 from both sides of the mandatory vaccine issue, the assembly health committee voted 9 in favor, 2 against, and 2 abstaining to move forward with the bill which can prevent fake medical exemptions.
In this article, we are going to take a look at how shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) relates to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP) claims. In 1986, the United States Congress passed the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, which among other things created the NVICP, sometimes called the Vaccine Court. The act’s main goal was to protect vaccine manufacturers from vaccine injury claims and liability–but not for the reasons you might think.
Congress was rightly concerned that the costs for these legal actions were going to drive most, if not all, manufacturers from the USA market. That would have been a horrific problem for the country, with no ability to protect children from deadly and dangerous diseases.
The NVICP provides a no-fault program to resolve vaccine injury claims – “quickly, easily, with certainty and generosity.” The program was (and continues to be) funded by a tax on all vaccines sold in the country. Moreover, using a system of expert administrative “judges” (called Special Masters), a petitioner seeking to establish causation-in-fact must show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that but for the vaccination, they would not have been injured, and that the vaccination was a substantial factor in bringing about their injury.
On July 26, 2019 a second lawsuit was filed against the law claiming it violates the IDEA act by keeping children with disabilities out of school, led by attorney Kim Mack Rosenberg who was involved in arguing against California’s law (though anti-vaccine activist’s Robert F. Kennedy’s jr. organization, Children’s Health Defense, took credit for it as well). Attorney Rosenberg is clearly highly competent, though unfortunately, also very anti-vaccine, and made the best case possible for her claims.
A recent recurrent claim in the anti-vaccine group is that the MMR vaccine puts babies at higher risk than they were before vaccines when measles outbreaks were large and frequent. The claim is that because vaccinated mothers transfer less immunity than mothers who had wild measles to their babies, babies are less well protected, and hence more at risk. This matters, because rates of complications are higher in babies than others.
The anti-vaccine claim is incorrect and deeply morally problematic. It’s incorrect because the difference in immunity between vaccinated mothers and mothers who had measles is real, but not huge; and because even if babies of vaccinated mothers are more likely to get measles if exposed, babies were much more likely to be exposed before vaccines.