Letters: A slippery slope

It pays to remember our rights to freedom of speech, and to control what's injected into our bodies. Phoot / Natalie Slade

To those who demonise citizens with vaccination concerns ('selfish', letters May 23, 2017), and linking also to reports about disruptive behaviour at the Vaxxed movie in Kaitaia recently, it pays to remember our rights to freedom of speech, and to control what's injected into our bodies.

Children's right to health is also paramount. However, the question becomes should the state have a stronger right to decide than that of a responsible parent?

These rights are especially relevant where citizens have legitimate cause for concern (governments seen as untrustworthy only makes matters worse).

To advocate that some people should be prohibited from expressing their opinion just because it's different from mainstream, or that we should always agree on what's an acceptable level of risk when it comes to our bodies (despite our differences), is a very slippery slope.

People concerned about vaccinations aren't necessarily 'anti' the idea of vaccinations as such, or 'anti' all vaccinations either. Actually, many recognise that some vaccinations are more effective or pose less risk than others, and some people would really like to trust vaccinations, except that there are various well-founded reasons not to.

For example, a 2017 published study confirms a "significant" association between vaccinations and neuro-developmental disorders (NDD) such as learning disabilities, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and/or autism spectrum disorder. The upshot was to call into question the "safety of current vaccination programs for pre-term infants".

This seems consistent with 2004 research showing the leading cause of death in the US as illness due to medical treatment (outstripping even cancer and cardiovascular disease), and with skyrocketing incidences of NDD generally around the world.

In New Zealand, many see our health professionals as echo-chambers of US health 'authorities'. But demonstrably untrustworthy pharmaceutical corporations' monetisation of medicines, combined with a high mistrust in US health authorities (for example, the US Center for Disease Control and Prevention's unscrupulous suppression of data that didn't fit their agenda), is a major turn-off.

I mean, how do you reconcile (1) US pharmaceutical companies having legal immunity from being sued for vaccine injuries and deaths, while simultaneously (2) a US Vaccine Injury Compensation Program has awarded over $3.6 billion in substantiated claims?

While one individual in the Vaxxed movie has taken hits regarding his data, certain science advocating vaccines has also been discovered to be corrupt and/or biased. Like the alarming trend of money in politics, money also is increasingly debasing the integrity of science (in other words, it pays to be circumspect these days).

Moreover, the film raises serious non-scientific issues, like (1) the CDC issue (above), and (2) there's still no compelling explanation offered for the tragic post-vaccination experiences of children documented in the movie or the dozens of vaccine 'injuries' that occur daily in the US.

Instead of attacking each other, maybe we could all better understand the politics of vaccination issues, because by dismissing people's concerns, decision-makers could be missing the bigger picture -- the need to restore public trust in those who make and regulate vaccines.

CATHERINE MURUPAENGA-IKENN
Ahipara