Respect parents' opinions on vaccinations

At best, your Feb. 8 editorial, "Vaccine a question of health, not morality," was a grossly misinformed example of how not to make an informed health decision. At worst, it was a full assault on the rights and means of parents to protect their children against what are for many potentially serious health consequences.

Your editorial painted parents concerned about having their say in their children's health choices as narrow-minded troublemakers, and had absolutely no regard for their right and obligation to question. It was completely devoid of medical references or statistics to support any of its arguments. Instead, it makes reference to the HPV issue being obscured by "flimsy arguments about parents' rights." Then it goes on to compare the introduction of a new school-mandated vaccine to the need for an athlete's need for a sports physical! That's just absurd.

Each year, thousands of children suffer injuries related to reactions to vaccines, and there is a National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program in place in this country as a recourse. To my knowledge, there is no such compensation available to those hugely unfortunate enough to be injured during a routine sports physical.

Your editorial justifies its support for the herd vaccine policy by stating, "Many other vaccines, such as those for mumps and rubella, are required for students, but you never hear an uproar over those." Perhaps yours is the only newspaper in the country that has not addressed the controversy over the MMR vaccine that has existed over the past decade. In 1983, the Centers for Disease Control's list of vaccinations recommended for children from birth to age 6 totaled 10.

The CDC's recently released list contains 36 vaccinations. Several of those - such as the MMR - are given in combination, and vaccinations are not tested in combination by the CDC for potential long-term adverse effects. There are many parents out there who believe that the MMR produced an adverse reaction with their infant children. There also are thousands of parents who believe the mercury-based preservative used in some childhood vaccinations - and in flu shots - called thimerosal, is contributing to the growing number of children diagnosed with autism spectrum disorders. There, now you're up to speed.

Here's something else you apparently don't know: the TV commercial for the new HPV vaccine Gardisil clearly states, verbally, "does not immunize against all forms of HPV." So any disillusionment about HPV being eradicated by this new injection should be checked at the doctor's office door.

You anchor your argument with a rather flippant observation, stating, "we doubt many young women will even think much about what they're being injected with." Sadly, I have to agree. But that's kids for you, and their kid mind-set doesn't make vaccinations and their contents any less deserving of the closest scrutiny.

By the way, among the ingredients listed in the manufacturers' insert for the MMR are aluminum, formaldehyde and human diploid cells. Sound healthy?

You might take some comfort in knowing that your newspaper isn't alone in trying to limit the input of parents into their children's health. The State Department of Health and Senior Services currently is considering an amendment to its Immunization of Pupils in School rules that could add up to four new vaccinations to its list of those mandated for students in September 2007 without so much as a vote or a discussion by state legislators.

The practice of vaccination has important, compelling arguments from the education, medical and moral viewpoints, and despite what your editorial suggested, the rights of informed parents to be included in the ultimate conclusion must be respected.

William J. Sullivan

Dayton section of South Brunswick