Search This Blog

Tuesday, December 2, 2008

Members Address Health Commissioner Heather Howard

"Dear Ms. Howard,

As you are aware, Jan. 1 is the mandatory flu shot deadline. It is URGENT that the NJ Health Department change its stance, and support Assembly Bill A260/S1071.

Being in the medical field, I often witness adverse reactions. Many people are indeed experiencing Guillian-Barre Syndrome from the flu vaccine, as well as other adverse reactions that are listed on the package insert. Most citizens are not educated enough on what an adverse reaction is and further, many doctors do not report them if they acknowledge them. As you may know, reporting reactions is voluntary; clearly quality assurance in the national VAERS tracking system is lacking.

As Health Commissioner, you have a DUTY. It is the DUTY of elected officials, appointed officials and doctors to support informed consent. US Citizens have a fundamental right to health. Please institute and support public health policies through the NJ Health Department that allow the people of NJ to make an informed decision for themselves and their children rather than employing the strong-arm tactic of mandatory mass vaccinations.

Attached is just one of the flu vaccine package inserts; you might want to verify for yourself the list of reactions. After you have seen the amount of damage caused by flu vaccines, as I have, you might also question the unflinching statement that the benefits of flu vaccines far outweigh the risks. I urge you to let people decide for themselves, and do it immediately by supporting vaccination choice in NJ. I look forward to hearing your response.

Institute for Vaccine Safety - Package Inserts_

Jane T."

"Dear Ms. Howard,

It appears that you are where the buck stops, and so I will address my concerns directly to you.

I write to express my own strong opposition to the flu shot mandate, and to inform you that I know many others that feel the same. In the state of New Jersey we do not have vaccination choice, and we need it- fast. The very fact that no comprehensive program has been put in place to ensure that EVERY pediatric dose given for this flu shot mandate - does indeed have the lowest possible levels of thimerosol/mercury is difficult to understand. Indeed, as public health policy, a flu shot mandate for young children has many problems as I see it. The sketchy availability throughout NJ of safe flu shots is just one.

By now, you must be aware of the many NJ parents who have stated their intention to stop vaccinating altogether until they feel they can get clear answers about the safety and effectiveness of these shots. I would ask that you forward to me the studies that PROVE the safety and effectiveness of the flu shot for young children, especially those under the age of 2. All I can find are vague references (no complete citations, mind you) from the CDC saying that it is just a good idea, and everybody should do this because we say so. I am an engineer, I happen to like data, and the studies my research has uncovered say that flu shot safety is not proven, that they are not tested in any long-term way at all, and further that flu shots just don't have any effect on the youngest children.

Ms. Howard, why does the state of NJ require that healthy, growing, developing infant 6 month olds, be injected with known neurotoxins and allergens?
Or, what about requiring that parents use a product on their children that only works 40% of the time? According to the CDC, that is exactly how often last year's flu shot was effective. To have the NJ Department of Health and Senior Services push flu shots through such "one size fits all" mandates is dangerous besides offensive in my opinion.

I've read your department's position statement on the proposed legislation A260/S1071 Conscientious Exemption from Mandatory Vaccination.
I have also read Dr. Paul King's response to your assertions.
I look forward to hearing your response to Dr. King; that is, the next part of this dialog. Will you include me?

I look forward to hearing back from you on this matter.

Amy G.
Caldwell, NJ"

Dear Commissioner Howard,

I wanted to let you know that I strongly support Conscientious Exemption to Mandatory Immunization as exemplified by Assembly Bill A260 and Senate Bill S1071.

In a democratic society, parents should be allowed to decide which invasive medical procedures to choose for their children. Each child is immunologically and genetically different. Children all have different sensitivities. My son, for example, has numerous allergies, asthma, and eczema. My daughter does not. We should not be imposing one-size-fits-all health mandates on all children. Parents are the ones that have to live with the consequences of a bad vaccine reaction, not legislators and not states - even though governments are finding themselves legally and financially liable. I know two families who lost previously healthy children to encephalitis after the Hepatitis B shot. One of those - my friend Manny - is a microbiologist at UMDNJ. He and his wife now have a lawsuit pending against the federal government.

Please do what is right and support a parent's right to choose. Healthcare decisions must never be made out of fear and parents should never be coerced by the state into making the wrong decisions for their families.

Emily F."

No comments: