As parents have become involved in the subject of childhood vaccination they have realised that many families have and continue to suffer the consequences of vaccine reactions, not only in the UK population but in many other countries such as the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan and mainland Europe. This has been a hard lesson for many parents with regard to the value of their children's health and wellbeing when set against the total commitment to promoting vaccination by international governments working hand in hand with pharmaceutical organisations. Parents take their children for vaccinations because they are told by medical authorities that the diseases, for which vaccines are now available, could have serious consequences or even cause the death of their child. In some countries childhood vaccines are mandatory and must be given before the child enters the education system. In the UK the Government's childhood vaccination programme is based on a voluntary scheme and parents are actively encouraged to follow the ever-increasing schedule of baby vaccines. The UK Department of Health (DoH) emphasises the seriousness of the diseases and promotes the benefits of vaccination for the child and to the wider community through herd immunity. The potential for serious side effects is played down and parents' concerns and accounts of vaccine damage are often dismissed as myths or anecdotes. The DoH applies direct and indirect pressure on parents using emotive arguments. The government ensures doctors fall into line by financially penalising GP practices who do not attain a high percentage of vaccinations in their community. The experience of many parents is that if they are undecided or choose not to vaccinate they are made to feel guilty and uncaring and will be held responsible for causing future epidemics. A recent UK survey in 2007 from the Nuffield Council on Bioethics referred to such families as "free-riders who take more than their fair share of the benefits". To use such a damning statement against parents who may have made an informed decision in the best interests of their child is a form of emotional manipulation to promote compliance, playing on the sentiment of the parent who usually wants to do what is right for the community but not at any cost to their own child. It is particularly objectionable when children damaged by vaccines are publicly denied by the very same critics who are in the business of promoting vaccines. Every parent who has a vaccine damaged child will be aware that no one in any government department or medical agency is accountable or takes responsibility for the harm caused. When a child suffers a severe reaction the parent is thrown into a nightmare world. There is the initial trauma of knowing your child has changed and the slow, dreadful realisation that this change could be permanent. Parents work with medical professionals to try to establish the cause and the best course of action regarding treatment. There is the inevitable culture shock for the parents who find themselves in this situation - they are captured by a medical system geared to denying any health changes in their child which might be related to vaccines. The system acts as an emotional sponge, soaking up and dismissing all association with vaccines without proffering any other explanation. There seems to be a standard approach that the cause does not matter - let's just treat the symptoms. For the parents of a vaccine damaged child the cause does matter as this may well affect the treatment and may well determine if further vaccines are suitable. There could be implications for siblings and future babies which may have a major impact on the benefit/risk on all or some of the standard childhood vaccines being offered. Determining that the child has been damaged by a vaccine is not an easy option because with it comes guilt (for parent or doctor). Parents will often look for answers outside the immediate medical system; vaccine damage support groups, alternative therapies, legal, medical and political support, some or all will be approached for help with their children's situation. They have already learned to expect little help or support from the medical profession as the denial mantra is repeated time and again at each consultation. "It's a coincidence.", "I don't know what caused the condition but it wasn't the vaccine.", "The vaccine triggered/revealed the condition but didn't cause it" are phrases often used. The irony is that most of the serious reactions that parents report are usually the same as those noted and accepted by the vaccine manufacturer. However, it is down to the parent to 'prove' on the balance of probabilities that the vaccine actually caused the child's problems. To obtain 'proof' a parent needs the support of a doctor. The doctor says the problem is not known or is unlikely to be linked because serious side effects from the vaccine are rarely reported. Doctors are well aware that the passive surveillance system ("yellow card") only picks up about 10 to 20 per cent of adverse events; as the doctor hasn't found it already linked he doesn't report the new incident. And so the cycle goes on. If an infant dies from a vaccine reaction in the UK the parent cannot pursue a legal case to hold either the Government or vaccine manufacturer to account because legal aid is awarded to the child and if the infant has died then the cost/benefit clause applies; the child doesn't have any dependants and does not need a long-term care package so legal aid will not be granted. Likewise, the parent cannot apply to the UK Vaccine Damage Payment Unit for investigation and compensation as there is a clause stating that an award can only be applied for following the infant's second birthday. The UK Government has worked tirelessly to promote and persuade parents to inject their children with more and more vaccines and have trumpeted the message that these vaccines have been used in millions of doses in the US and throughout the rest of the world without any problems. These same promotion exercises have never mentioned Government backed Vaccine Damage Payment Schemes and the rising number of support groups for vaccine damaged children in the very same countries. We want to show how some governments around the world accept that vaccine damage happens (payments are made to vaccine damaged children) but publicly deny these children when promoting and enforcing vaccination campaigns. They continue to mandate ever-increasing numbers of vaccines without proper pre-licence trials, rely on wholly inadequate surveillance systems and sidestep their responsibility and accountability when children are damaged by jabs that are supposed to protect. It is JABS' intention through Parallel Lines - Parallel Lives to bring into sharp focus the politics of vaccination in other countries for the benefit of everyone who has an interest in the subject.
|
|
